The EU has more to lose from Brexit than the UK, the Governor of the Bank of England has said as he admitted that Britain’s economy will defy his own gloomy forecasts and grow at a faster rate than expected.

Mark Carney conceded that Brexit is no longer the biggest domestic risk to Britain’s economy after issuing a series of dire warnings about the consequences of a leave vote in the run up to the EU referendum.

The Bank of England is now “very likely” to improve its economic forecast next month, Mr Carney said as he said he was “surprised” that the economic slowdown that he forecast has not materialised.

Humble Pie 🙂

Also in the piece Oxford Uni’s recently appointed head of Brexit Strategy says our EU membership has depressed links with American ans Canadian academics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/eu-has-lose-hard-brexit-uk-mark-carney-says/

Gina Miller will be remembered by constitutional lawyers and law students. If there is a vote it will be passed easily. All a waste of time and her and our money really. I imagine she’ll write a book

So in all honesty why all the show of 2 trips to court and a massive waste of tax payers money. They could just have passed the bill easily – it’s the bit that really doesn’t make sense.
At this point there are lists of for and against, the logical conclusion is the numbers don’t all stack up and there will be a lot of buying off, suce as I’ll vote yes if we retain trade/movement and I’ll vote yes if we ditch trade/movement then down to the I want a new hospital.
Given that the majority of MP’s are Pro EU where do you think the desire to uphold the will of 35% of the population will come from?

Yes our ever diminishing currency is obviously a statement of our growing global importance 😉

Meanwhile The Brexit bugle cherry picking Carneys comments is hardly surprising

Hasn’t Carney done a great job.
It was our money that was blown, but he took the right measures, at the right time, while our politicians where busy destroying each other’s careers.
Hurrah for unelected foreigners.

They could just have passed the bill easily – it’s the bit that really doesn’t make sense.

Because it is not fear of losing a vote to trigger article 50 that motivates them, it is the fear of the party arguing in parliament about readyness, course of action etc… much easier to just keep spinning plates behind the scenes, than have them all dropping noisily in parliament, in front of the cameras.

He’s Canadian @kelvin, maybe we need a few more ?

@mike typical political stubborness I suppose

Wise words from Barack

President Obama's final speech: democracy and diversity

"If you're tired of arguing with strangers on the internet, try talking with one of them in real life."President Obama calls for people to step outside their "bubbles" to allow democracy in a diverse nation to work.

Posted by Channel 4 News on Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Very wise words from Barack, shame we won’t be getting many more from that office for a while.

@Kelvin, part of the problem really is that we can all agree there is absolutly no consensus even among the lead 4 people about what Brexit should look like, when it should happen, how it should happen and even why it should happen. Some people have some very strong views on it (Like Jambalya up there) but that is not a view shared by all the out voters or by all the people charged with delivering this.

Just remember all the films where the hero runs in with no plan and a timer running, the realistic ones end with some slow music and a bit of a montage not a cold beer.

Also in the piece Oxford Uni’s recently appointed head of Brexit Strategy says our EU membership has depressed links with American ans Canadian academics.

Was that all they said Jamba, or are you doing a devil quoting scripture routine?

(I already know the answer on this one)

Gina Miller will be remembered by constitutional lawyers and law students. If there is a vote it will be passed easily. All a waste of time and her and our money really.[/I]

C’mon Jamba even you must be able to see that if it was so easy they’d have just had a vote – it’s not her that’s wasting money, but the Govt. But since when have politicians ever cared about spending our money when it’s THEIR reputation on the line…

Watched the first 40mins of Carney – amusing to see the difference between what he said – including the nuances – and what was reported that he said!

Mike – why do we need to carry on with the narrative that we don’t know what we want? The issues are really very simple:

1. We have voted to leave the EU and therefore we will be relinquishing membership of the single market – Brexshit means Brexshit
2. Given the importance of the EU to the UK economy (and vice versa) we wish to continue to have access to the single market
3. To date, there are four possible frameworks for this: EEA; CU; FTA; WTO. These extend across the trade-off spectrum that exists between liberalising trade and exercising sovereignty *
4. The government has expressed a desire to achieve a bespoke arrangment that shares characteristics from these various existing options – red, white and blue Brexshit
5. Unsurprisingly the government is seeking to choose the best bits of each and minimise/avoid the worst bits – having your cake and eating it.
6. This “May” be a laudable goal but it is logically inconsistent and unachievable in practice. Why? Because of the inherent trade off between liberalising trade and exercising sovereignty
7. So we need to enter a period of negotiation with the EU (the other EEA members, the RoW, the WTO etc) in order to achieve a workable compromise solution. You cannot keep straddling the chasm, even in a pair of supportive leather trousers
8. Once we have an agreement on this, the real hard work begins ie, filling in all the detail
9. There is no benefit to be gained from delaying this process.
10. Present the bill, pass the vote, exercise A50 on time and stop fannying around.

Err, that’s it. Simple.

* Brexshiteers will continue to play down/ignore the existence of this inherent trade off. This may be deliberate or simply due to their lack of understanding. Either way, they are wrong.

THM – I’m going to disagree with 9. If we can delay a little it puts the negotiation period into the general election period which may well play havoc with the Brexies’ intentions. Using democracy against referenda doncha know. 😉
That also play on your point 10.

Given the harm that uncertainty is creating already, I respectfully disagree.

@igm the BBC headline was very biased. “Oxford academic” quoted was from the old Polytechnic (ie Brookes) and NOT the world leading Oxford University, it was their Brexit officer who looked forward to the positives. Plenty of people here want to agressively put the Remain case so I’ll spend my time focusing on Brexit, ie the thing actually happening

THM – I can understand that point of view.

Jamba – you’re still giving a biased view of that story. I was well aware there was an Oxford Poly quote in the story, and even us non-Russell Group types can spot the difference. But the weight of the story behind your bias and your perception of BBC bias (the facts were all in the story as I recall) is that the academic community, in general, think Brexit is a very silly idea and probably harmful. Now I’m now saying academics aren’t biased – but they probably have their reasons.

TMH your comment on actual bersus reported is one I endorse wholeheartedly. Increasingly I try and find the source, internet is great for that. The MSM really has a big credibility problem.

even in a pair of supportive leather trousers

🙂

You really do need the factor in the reality that Europe is standing at the edge of an economic casum staring into the abyss. You saw Carney’s remarks that Brexit wasn’t our biggest risk and Hammond’s (?) remark that we do not want to see the EU collapse. For all their tough talk the Armageddon risks are all on their side, they already have high unemployment and its at a staggering level amongst the young. The EU bureaucrats are fighting for their very cushy lives, the European leaders have much more at stake for their populations.

Given the harm that uncertainty is creating already, I respectfully disagree.

This must be right, clarity can only start to emerge once the negotiations are in the public domain. With the other EU countries refusing to engage in public until Article 50 is triggered there is no other option.

On the matter of the legal case, it is perfectly common for the government to take cases to seek clarification of the law where their existing understanding is challenged. The result will inform their future conduct as it will make the circumstances of when prerogative powers be used clearer.

I actually found the questions pretty poor. This was (supposed to be) a TSC interview on financial stability that verged on panto-esque (at times) questioning. Its started poorly and I thought Carney did well to maintain dignity and composure when he must be thinking, “why is this bloke being a bit of a tit? why am I wasting important time here?”

It must be incredibly difficult ensuring that your comments are tight and that they cannot be misconstrued.

With the other EU countries refusing to engage in public until Article 50 is triggered there is no other option.

Indeed mefty, this is the crux for me.

You really do need the factor in the reality that Europe is standing at the edge of an economic casum staring into the abyss.

Perhaps, but the nature of our relationship has no/little bearing on this. Either way, we will be affected by the EU’s fortunes – and NO we do not have a financial obligation to the EZ. Ironically, Brexshit is harmful to the EU hence we have a self-fulfilling downward spiral – a classic lose:lose.

You saw Carney’s remarks that Brexit wasn’t our biggest risk and Hammond’s (?) remark that we do not want to see the EU collapse.

Yes, and I understood the nuance. Before the vote, Brexshit was considered the biggest risk to financial stability. Hence the BoE made contingency plans (liquidity support etc) which as Carney neatly responsed, “allowed them to make the weather.” The nuance now, is that Brexshit still has an on-going effect on four factors that are a risk to financial stability but that these are not exclusively driven by Brexshit itself. Obviously the fourth, rising inflation/inflationary expectations, is directly linked to the folly of Brexshit.

that verged on panto-esque (at times) questioning

well rees-mogg was on the panel, never misses an opportunity to showboat

no it was Tyrie

The result will inform their future conduct as it will make the circumstances of when prerogative powers be used clearer.

aaaand yet several prominent Torys jumped on teh Daily Mail bandwagon, frothing with outrage that Brexit was being questioned

They should listen very carefully to the introductory comments from the judge – he was v clear. The ruling is about the process, not the result. They just froth for frothing’s sake.

7. So we need to enter a period of negotiation with the EU (the other EEA members, the RoW, the WTO etc) in order to achieve a workable compromise solution. You cannot keep straddling the chasm, even in a pair of supportive leather trousers

All true, but, I repeat… WE DO NOT HAVE THE STAFF IN PLACE TO CARRY OUT THESE NEGOTIATIONS.

8. Once we have an agreement on this, the real hard work begins ie, filling in all the detail

So, you think we can have some broad brush deal, and fill in the details afterwards?

Other than agreeing to keep current arrangements (for longer than 2 years) this makes no sense.

9. There is no benefit to be gained from delaying this process.

Yes there is, we need to buy some time, for bleeding obvious reasons.

May made a political calculation, that she could get away with 9 months without looking to be delaying, but, behind the scenes, everyone knows that longer is needed really.

Yes, we will have a transition period. That is becoming obvious, although you could just about do EEA in two years.

We dont need to buy time. We need to engage.

We have the staff, but we lack the experience. Why? Because this hasnt been done before. It unchartered territory (Greenland aside). This is a cliched excuse. As mefty highlighted, we cant engage until we trigger A50. Until we engage, we cant determine the resources we need etc.

The ball has to be put in motion, unless one is a leaver that is desperate to ignore he result of course. Then you can play all kinds of silly games.

* Brexshiteers will continue to play down/ignore the existence of this inherent trade off. This may be deliberate or simply due to their lack of understanding. Either way, they are wrong.

It may be we end up with something that costs a fair proportion of existing EU membership but lacks any influence.

On reflection THM, Kelvin, I think we can wait. After all the Brexies (Jamba for example) keep explaining to us that things are getting better not worse since the debacle of the referendum – so uncertainty is clearly good.
Now I may not agree with them, but I’m certainly in no rush to jettison one of the things that has led to the lifestyle we enjoy. Even those in poverty (and I have sympathy with them and feel it is a pressing issue for the country) would look relatively better off than those in poverty in the pre-EU (and predecessor organisation) decades.
And remember one of the reasons we pay EU club subs in is because of our relative wealth. The problem is one of wealth distribution with the UK and leaving the EU won’t change that – well not for the better.

EEA?

Whatever we end up with, it will be worse than the deal we achieved last Feb. That’s the sad bit.

Once can knock Dave all you like, but the reality of that wont change.

We don’t have the staff in place to negotiate one trade deal in a 24month window, never mind 20+

Anyway, THM, looks like we agree about a transitional arrangement, realistically it is that or WTO and build up from scratch. That is the battle going on behind the scenes… which they don’t want to be happening in public, hence wanting to trigger A50 without that clear and obvious debate happening first in HoC & HoL. As soon as you choose one option, you lose support.

IMO WTO is even worse in terms of negotiations!

The battle is going in behind the scenes but it is a false battle since what we want is only 1/27 of the equation. We know what we want (cake and eat it) is out-of-rach so we need to start to negotiate to determine want is likely/achievable.. We recruit the staff in this phase 1 for phases 2-17659

The recruiting is going on (phase1 if you like) but it isn’t going well.
It doesn’t help that we have given our trading partners a very good reason to hold on to the best people.
It also doesn’t help that the government won’t tell key staff exactly what the aims are, so they are trying to recruit with a blank job description.

The recruiting is going on (phase1 if you like) but it isn’t going well.
It doesn’t help that we have given our trading partners a very good reason to hold on to the best people.
It also doesn’t help that the government won’t tell key staff exactly what the aims are, so they are trying to recruit with a blank job description.

Im guessing we can only recruit loyal brexiters with 3 generations of british ancestors too? (im kind of joking but knowing how bonkers some of the top brexies are….)

TMH my view is that the eurozone / EU was always the biggest risk to the UK economy and the sooner we can ween ourselves off it as a trading partner the better. We keep hearing about access to a market of 500m people but Germany and the UK are responsible for the vast majority of EU job creation and economic strength. IMO tariff free access to most of the rest is a total red herring. It is they who benefit the most and we pay them for the privilige.

From what I have heard the various Brexit teams in the civil service have been overwhelmed with volunteers / applicants of people who want to be involved in this historic once in a lifetime event.

IMO the vast majority of the trade “negotiations” are going to be very simple, ie just replicate with the UK what they have with the EU. We add far more to the EU than they add to us, with us leaving the economic vakue of the EU as a trading partner is much reduced.

The recruiting is going on (phase1 if you like) but it isn’t going well.[/I]

Probably a combination of fixed-term offers (only going to take 2 years 🙂 ), crap package for perms and the April 2017 rules of only paying Contractors net of tax/NI?

From what I have heard the various Brexit teams in the civil service have been overwhelmed with volunteers / applicants of people who want to be involved in this historic once in a lifetime event.

one can only imagine…….

Jamba, Jamba, Jamba…

The EU doesn’t stop us trading with the rest of the world. It doesn’t stop Germany.
Making trading with the EU harder for businesses doesn’t make it easier for us to trade with the rest of the world.
If by “weening off” you mean decrease our total exports so that the balance between EU and rest of world exports is moved away from EU, what does that gain us?
I’d rather we grew our exports with the rest of the world while maintaining current or slightly increasing trade with EU.
We can do that best inside the EU, or EEA, or similar.

As for recruitment, I’m talking about skilled experienced people in actual posts, as reported to me by someone in one those departments, not some hearsay about dreamers requesting posts beyond them.

IMO the vast majority of the trade “negotiations” are going to be very simple, ie just replicate with the UK what they have with the EU.

A good thing to aim for. Short and medium term, this can be achieved by a transitional deal. Anything else will be far from simple, and I suspect you are totally aware of that.

IMO the vast majority of the trade “negotiations” are going to be very simple, ie just replicate with the UK what they have with the EU.

Isn’t this impossible? How can we negotiate “existing” terms with Canada who have a trade deal with the EU for instance, when we are no longer in the EU and they won’t allow us to trade inside the single market?

We can’t – its a myth that you can copy and paste/that it is simple. It isnt.

Ditto membership of EEA would have to be agreed by other EEA members. Its not automatic.

IMO the vast majority of the trade “negotiations” are going to be very simple, ie just replicate with the UK what they have with the EU.

So how will you handle the quantitative tariffs?

The only simple thing appears to be you, if you think this is at all straightforward or ‘simple’. Its taken 40 years to get all the deals in place and hundreds of expert negotiators and we have 2 years and about 20.

IMO the vast majority of the trade “negotiations” are going to be very simple

And your expertise in international trade is what?

igm – Member

Jamba – you’re still giving a biased view of that story. I was well aware there was an Oxford Poly quote in the story, and even us non-Russell Group types can spot the difference.

Frankly talking down another university’s contribution because they’re in the 5 out of 6 non-Russell Group universities is ridiculous- there’s a tendency to roll out a Russell Group institution every time people want to hear from a university but it’s like only speaking to Eton when you ask about schools.