Some folks look for Benefits, some folks just look for standards.
A bit of stuff, from the DT today, which might be interesting.
Especially the bit about our subscriptions to the EU pot!
"According to David Davis, former Brexit secretary,: “There has been a comms problem. I did actually drop Rishi a note saying, ‘Why did we not pick up on the fact that we had the third- biggest tech investment in the world in December or pick up on the fact that in a survey of 4000 international businesses on the best place to do business, we came third – equal to Germany?’
“These are big things.
“First and foremost, this was about democracy – we keep forgetting that. My favourite quote about Brexit is: ‘I’d rather be a poor master than a rich slave.’ But I don’t think we will be poorer for it. We were told by the likes of Nissan that everything would shut down and people voted for Brexit anyway. Now, Nissan has expanded its business in the UK. Where are all these economic disasters?”
Unsurprisingly, Brexit poster boy Jacob Rees-Moggs, the former Brexit opportunities minister, is equally upbeat: “The advantage of Brexit is that we can now legislate for ourselves. We showed that during the pandemic when we got the vaccine going faster.
“There’s also the fact that we are no longer in the EU. Do you know that that’s saved us £191 billion by not being part of the Euro’s €2 trillion post-Covid bailout?. That would have been our share, but that money would not necessarily have been spent in the UK.”
Moi Aussi, wendeey!
We can all selectively pick out the rubbish from this article:
The plans by this government, from the article, amount to:
“The advantage of Brexit is that we can now legislate for ourselves. “
This, as you can plainly see, is not a plan. However, removing controls on the financial sector might be called a plan being put into action. It’s a great pity that this plan will almost certainly lead to another financial sector crisis. De-regulating finance always does, which is why it is regulated.
“Financial services, the biggest part of our economy, is being made more competitive by not being subject to EU rules.”
“plan to reform Solvency II – an EU-derived rule for British insurers that limits how much they can invest.”
Another set of plans look risky too.
“The Gene Editing Bill will improve farmers’ crop yields”
Genetically modified food anyone? This bill will place profits into the hands of the large argi-chem businesses – none are UK companies.
“this isn’t just about scrapping GDPR”
But it is also about scrapping GDPR and other consumer protection rules. Again, more de-regulation which was not what was voted for. No-one in 2016 said they voted Brexit to remove consumer protection.
Some posts have been removed - let’s get back on topic please (there are plenty of other threads to discuss the other areas of Brexit). Thanks!
1 Like
When you leave a gang, you have to lie low for a bit, till the dynamic rebalances, Britain is still in the rebalancing process. 
How odd that we weren’t told that there would be a disastrous (potentially catastropic) rebalancing process. I seem to recall being told it would be roses and puppies from day one. Now I think we’re looking at a 50 year rebalancing process. No wonder the young despise us.
1 Like
I never sapped up any of the rhetortic so expected a prolonged period of unpicking 40+ years of dogma
We are all going to hell, in a shopping trolley. 
You do realise that this article is simply an attempt to distract tory-graph readers away from the recent IMF growth forecasts? You would benefit from being more critical in your reading. If the EU is a ‘basketcase’, how come its going to see their economies grow this year while the UK will not. Or is this lack of growth in fact another well disguised Brexit benefit?
2 Likes
lol this reply is hysterical.
You do realise that their forecast was made when Liz Truss was PM do you?
And please can you point me to when they last published a forecast that came true?
No, didn’t think so, coz they’re notorious for getting their forecasts wrong, even Sky News admitted to that after they reported their forecast.
1 Like
Your response is equally hysterical. If this forecast is wrong I guess logically yours can be too.
I guess I’ll point you to the original question posed in this thread which is Brexit Benefits - where are they?
I’m looking specifically for positive, undeniable, unambiguous benefits. Despite this thread running for several weeks I think the closest we’ve got is the return of the blue passports. Maybe responding in the positive rather than dissing everyone else might earn you a “respect girl” badge.
I’ll wait.
3 Likes
I haven’t made any forecasts so how can they be wrong.
As to Brexit benefits if you look all across this thread I’ve said ask me that question in 10 years time.
2 Likes
It is a pity that you feel able to comment whilst ignoring key facts. This time the key fact is that the IMF issued an update to their October forecast just 4 days ago. This update was able to take account of the impact of the Truss / Kwarteng calamitous mini-budget (yet more Tory fiscal responsibility?) as their original October forecast did not take the impact of that into account. And just after this update the telegraph “look over there” article appears.
Still hysterical?
Boris clearly now thinks there are benefits if he advising the Ukraine to join !
The key fact which you keeping ignoring is that the IMF never get their forecasts right:
- 2016
- Apr – 0.3% off
- Oct – 0.4% off
- 2017
- Apr – 0.4% off
- Oct – 0.7% off
- 2018
- Apr – 0.1% off
- Oct – 0.3% off
- 2019
- Apr – 0.4% off
- Oct – 0.4% off
- 2021
- Jan – 3% off
- Apr – 2.2% off
- Jul – 0.5% off
- Oct – 0.7% off
- 2022
- Apr – 0.4% off
- Jul – 0.9% off
- Oct – 0.5% off
Since 2016 the IMF has consistently underestimated UK GDP growth. Every single year. During an urgent question debate on the forecasts this afternoon, Michael Fabricant asked Treasury Minister James Cartlidge how many of the IMF’s recent predictions about the UK economy turned out to be inaccurate. Ask and you shall receive, Michael…
1 Like
Yawn. Of course such forecasts are never going to exactly accurate. Now that you’ve done your lovely research for the UK (or did tory party central office send you this as an extract from its Rees-Mogg briefing paper?) could you do the same for the other G7 countries please? It is most likely that the degree of accuracy will be about the same - however the key trend info of the forecast will be about right. And the key trend info for the most recent IMF forecast is that the UK will perform much less well than anywhere else. If you want to moan about that prediction being half a percent off then go ahead. It will still mean that the UK is performing badly - thanks to the tories, 12 years of austerity and Brexit. Ta.
I wouldn’t believe a forecast for whatever country it was being made for. As an economist said the other day, you can ask 100 economist to do a forecast and you’d come up with 100 different answers. And as Martin Lewis says forecasts are like looking into a crystal ball for the answer.
The article I posted is what’s going on now. Not what’s forecast. So don’t know why you’re so hung up on forecasts.
And if you want to discuss austerity:
1 Like
From the DT, Today,>>>
"
With Ukrainians’ courage and Zelensky’s Churchillian leadership, Ukraine was saved from defeat by Day Six of the war by two men and one country. It was good fortune that Ben Wallace was himself a former combat-decorated Scots Guards captain with a hard-charging reputation. If they were to have a fighting chance, the Defence Secretary did not require advisers to tell him what the Ukrainians needed.
Double fortune for Ukraine was that Wallace’s PM was the most charismatic, if mercurial, politician of his generation and also a man with a deep and exotic hinterland outside politics. Wallace explained to Boris Johnson that what the Ukrainians required in the first instance were immediate supplies of man-portable “fire and forget” anti-tank weapons. Johnson gave his minister full backing to ride over the reservations of the securocrats who, left to their own devices and in the face of German opposition, with Macron’s grand-standing solo diplomacy at its back, would not have made the transfers at scale, at pace or at all.
As I explain in my new paper for the Centre for Brexit Policy, the UK exercised decisive sovereign will in this initial emergency sustainment. It simply could not have done so had it still been hamstrung by the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy. During those critical days when Biden was vacillating, Germany was actively obstructive and France was freelancing, the EU institutions were passive verging on catatonic. Therefore, the UK’s leadership of the increasingly robust response to Putin stands as one of the biggest gains of Brexit. The UK resumed its place on the world stage. By November, the UK had spent more on military assistance to Kyiv than all the EU institutions combined."
2 Likes