Brexit

As I have said repeatedly already, I do not deny that stress tests took place. I also do not deny that my skepticism of them is not based on much of anything other then a desire to not 'jump the gun' as it were.

With that said we already both agreed that a stress test is not a live test and that distinction was important.



A fact cannot be a fact for the purposes of this discussion unless we can both see and confirm it. And I am still unable to find anything on this specific exchange anywhere online.



And as I have mentioned previously, of the few that I had remembered seeing there was information that looked to be missing from them. Luckily your mention of Carney allowed me to find the report in question that would have taken me much longer had I not known that Carney was linked to it.

Ironically, (or maybe not ), while looking for Carny statements, I came across one in 2019 that said something to the effect of 'worst case scenario for Brexit was not as bad as it was in 2016', so apparently things are improving, and the government is apparently taking stock of that.



Yes, you gave ONE example of a SINGLE company regarding 3 of it's predictions. Considering the amount of companies running hundreds of opinion polls every year, forgive my slight incredulity at the attempt to use 3 data points to say something about an entire industry.



Of course it was never mentioned. Most papers have either an agenda or a lack of understanding on the subjects they report on. Looking at the source documents however, will always give a clearer picture.

I'm literally looking at the HM Treasury reports here and here and they both make quite clear that it assumes that the passing of Article 50 will be followed immediately, or as close as is reasonable, to the vote. Both reports make several references to a transitional period being the starting point for their analysis timeline that will last for 2 years. And where have we heard of a transitional period lasting for 2 years again? Or even better, we have this lovely gem. "This document looks at the immediate effect from the point of a decision to two years later, as this is the period in which to negotiate a withdrawal agreement to leave the EU as set out in the Treaties."

Based on these documents, and NOT the spin that many news outlets put on them, the numbers you 'quoted' of hundreds of thousands of jobs lost, of a run on the pound, of recession ALL hinged on several key assumptions:

1. was that Article 50 would be invoked as quickly as feasibly possible.

2. the transition period that actually took close to 4 years only took 2.

3. That at the end of this two year transition period, the state of the relationship between the UK and the EU would be known.

The numbers you quote are the projected numbers at the end of ALL OF THIS. You can tell because the shock and large shock scenarios that it presents where these numbers come from predict what might happen in the case of a 'bilateral agreement' or 'WTO Trade Agreement' respectively given the above assumptions.

Of course, we will never really know if such calculations were truly accurate until the entire scenario plays out, and even then there's room for error given that we have already strayed from it's assumptions. For instance, the analysis assumed that government monetary policy would be fixed for this entire period, but the bank started pumping liquidity into the economy to try and avert some of the damage that it predicted.

See the thing about being a government 'doomsday predictor' is that you usually then end up advising the government on ways to avoid the very scenario you predicted. So either you're 'wrong' because the actions you took helped to avert the problem you predicted, or your 'incompetent' because you couldn't avoid the outcome you predicted. You could not pay me enough...



See above.



What it was commissioned for is inconsequential. If you dispute it's data then prove it. We all have biases in this world that are impossible to separate from. The only way to prove dirty dealing with data is to prove dirty dealing WITH DATA.



As a hint, giving a vague number like 'hundreds of thousands' and saying that the number comes from 'Her Majesties Government' and 'HM Treasury' is not particularly helpful.

You notice what I did? I found a source and linked it so that we could BOTH see it. And it wasn't a news source either, it was THE ACTUAL REPORT.



I honestly can't remember if you mentioned anything about it before this point, but the earliest instance I can recall is here . Notice that in this post you mention several things about unemployment and currency projected to look grim. Instead of linking to stats that back up that assertion, however, you:

A. List off a bit of stats that I hadn't confirmed for myself at the time with no indication of where they came from. (A government unemployment chart? A yearly report? Some special report with a name and specific purpose? Some talking head? Which department?). Her Majesty's government, and even HM Treasury could fall within any one of those categories and forgive me but, you're not worth the amount of time it would take to search all of them. However, to finally put this to rest I went and looked. It took me 4 hours and jumping through many, MANY rabbit holes, but I finally found it.

B. Don't actually show any backing statistics like current unemployment trends or currency trends. You just state these to be true.



Quoting HM Treasury and sourcing HM Treasury are two different things. For instance, you were never even aware that there were restrictions on HM Treasury's predicted numbers. I don't know who you were reading for your information, but clearly they left out a few things.

When I source HM Treasury we can both see exactly where the information comes from, and in this case, exactly what the report actually says. When you quote some figure or statement through second hand information, you always run the risk that you missed something and make erroneous or fallacious conclusions because of it.

The various pros and cons re staying and leaving were heavily debated. As for the complexities. Well for most leave voters it wasnt that complex. They wanted the people who made laws, rules, regulations and policies that impact on their every day life to be accountable to them. They wanted to be able to hold these people to account. In short they wanted to live in a genuine democracy. So for them the issues werent complex. Maybe some of the administrative issues were potentially complex, but the philosophical issue wasnt. So infact the two options (which is always how UK referendums work) and the wording was entirely appropriate and fit for purpose. As I have said before, both sides (leave and remain) told people that IF you vote leave then the UK would be out of the customs union and out of the single market. Most people voted leave. Come the 2019 GE only one major party said that if you vote for us we shall take the UK out of the customs union and out of the single market. That party won a huge majority. And that was after a further 3 1/2 of debate and the reality of dealing with the EU. So again, for those who voted leave in 2016 the question was appropriately worded. This was self evident after the 2019 election results.

As for it being done "correctly and with thought and planning" well I think it was. More to the point those who voted leave seem believe that it was.


Firstly the people knew what BJ's WA was before the election. More importantly BJ promised them that he would take the UK out of the customs union and out of the single market. Something leave voters were told would happen back in 2016.


You're living in a fantasy world if you think the remainer Parliament would have allowed "No Deal" as an option.


You said you tell the other side what you might be prepared to give up before negotiations begin. TM did that and was bent over. I'm sure BJ wont be so naive. By the way there is a lot of bluff involved. You might for example tell the other side what you want and what you will and wont accept, but often this isnt the truth. Secretly you know that you are prepared to give some ground on some issues but you dont want the other side to know that unless it serves a purpose during negotiations. You may also tell the other side that you want more than you do so you can give up things that in reality werent that important to you in order to get things that are.



OMG, are you serious? No i dont believe that the process of negotiation should have taken 2 years, never mind longer than that. It took more than two years only because neither side (until BJ became PM) really wanted the UK to leave in the first place. The constant delays that I believe would come about under your hypothetical situation would be for the same reason they came about in real life. Again, that being that neither the UK Parliament nor the EU wanted the UK to leave.

Now isnt it funny how the EU were saying that the only deal open to BJ was the one offered to TM. Then they changed their mind (when faced with the possibility of a no deal scenario) and said a new deal could be hammered out but not in time to meet the October deadline. What then happened? A new WA was agreed upon within a matter of a couple of weeks.

Note - the EU (including DT) have been consistently saying that there is simply not enough time for a FTA to be agreed upon by the end of the year. However just a couple of days ago DT said that 11 months was plenty of time afterall! Fancy that eh.


Uhuh. The preferred option I articulated is for the UK to leave the customs union and single market with a FTA if possible, but without if necessary. And that option to you is literally impossible? Please explain.

Note: The people knew in 2016 what they wanted and they reaffirmed this loud and clear in 2019. If BJ doesnt give them what they want (and he has said he will) then he shall have to answer to the people.

Again, the only people I have ever heard say (retrospectively mind you) that the wording of the 2016 people's vote was problematic are those who didnt like the result. The fact is that BJ promised to deliver to the people what they were promised back in 2016. This resulted in him winning a resounding majority. This result would strongly suggest that the people clearly felt that the question on the 2016 ballot was fit for purpose.

These are not my restrictions. Under UK electoral law a referendum can only be on a single issue, and you make one choice between 2 options.

Well there are the definitions as per the dictionary, and then there is how the words are used by the so called "progressive left".

PL definitions
Fascist - Anyone who does not enthusiastically embrace the ideology of the PL

Xenophobic - One of the many labels given to attack anyone who holds views different to your own with the intention of silencing said person.


"Crash out" was almost exclusively used in the context of leaving without a WA and trading under WTO terms. I cant ever recall the term being used without an economic reference but if you have any examples to the contrary I would be happy to see them.


So you agree with me then. Using the term "crash out" in the context of the UK leaving the EU without a deal was an incorrect use of the term.


How exactly is it even shorthand when the term obviously doesnt fit with the situation being referenced, that being the UK leaving the EU without a WA?


Really? Promising the people (and your party) that you will act in a certain way on the biggest issue of the day only to do the exact opposite isnt that serious? Wow. We have VERY different expectations of our pollies. More importantly the UK public didnt share your views re their actions. Hence why these rebel MPs werent re-elected.


Doesnt it?



Simple. Brexit will be a success if the government fulfill the promises they made to the people re Brexit in the lead up to last years election. So if the government dont sell out the UK's fisheries, if they don't accept any ECJ jurisdiction in the UK, if they take the country out of the customs union and out of the single market etc then it will be a success.


Which is what i have said all along! So if you acknowledge that then why did you use the phrase in the first place? It's hardly shorthand.


I have provided examples and references in the past. Only you either ignore them or try to re-interpret them (eg 2017 Tory manifesto).

Taking Emily Thornberry as just one example. At the Labour party's conference last year she gave a speech where she said she would campaign for the UK to remain in the EU. On BBCQT a short while later she said that Labour (if elected) would firstly negotiate their own deal (and she most likely would be one of the UK's chief negotiators) and then put that deal to the people vs remain. When asked she said she would campaign to remain. As in campaign against her own deal! On LBC she specifically said Labour would never allow another referendum where 'no deal' was an option and that she would campaign for remain.



Such as?


Simply interested in debate.


Nope. Our situation is nothing like that btw Jen and I. She is all about emotion and will not tolerate any dissenting views. If you dont agree with her its because you're a far right extremist, a fascist, sexist, racist etc etc etc. In my case it's mainly because I am a white, heterosexual male who apparently hates women and poms!

So there may be nothing that you and I will ever agree on and that's fine. I dont need you to agree with me on anything. All i expect is discussion that is based on more than simple feelings, and a discussion where the person's views are attacked rather than the person themselves. Again, watch Terry Christian on GMB and you will understand why it's pointless my trying to have a discussion with Jen.

You're fine as far as Jen is concerned as you pretty much always disagree with me and so she is happy to endorse your views. Were your views to be similar to mine then you would be subject to the same treatment.


At the time in question yes. But no deal at this stage was merely hypothetical. When it became a genuine possibility under BJ all bar the 21 rebels supported 'no deal' as an option...consistent with what they had promised the people.

No, but it does lend my opinions greater weight than those which are not based on fact but rather on feelings and/or misinformation.

You're welcome.


Early last year Carney finally changed his rhetoric re Brexit and the economy and said something to the effect that if the right decisions were made then the UK could actually be better off after Brexit. I quoted his exact comments at the time.

Now he might have changed his predictions as he was sick of looking silly every time he was proven wrong. I dont know. But he did go from being the poster boy for remain and project fear, someone who's expertise could not be questioned, to someone who was rarely mentioned after this point. But there were still plenty out there stoking project fear. Still are. And of course Carney did say "IF" the right decisions were made. That way he cant be wrong as he didnt specify what these decisions were. So if the economy does well post Brexit he can say he predicted it. If the economy doesnt do so well post Brexit he can say that the correct decisions werent taken. So either way he can claim he was right in his 'predictions'.


I was NEVER talking about an entire industry. I specifically stated that not all polls can be treated equally. I explained why and gave examples.

Still waiting by the way for you to back up your allegations of my being hypocritical.


I'll come back to this when i have more time.

Note: I also gave quotes from the BoE as well as the CoTE. Care to explain why their predictions were so far out?



Hardly. Motive was extremely important. It framed the very nature of the report.


I have. You just dont want to accept it. There key assumption for most of the report is that there will be significant delays caused by unready HGVs at the PoC. I have provided you with facts showing why this assumption is not credible. You dont wish to accept anything eminating from the PoCA or French officials and give them no more weight than the simple assumptions made by civil servants (not recognised risk assessors by the way). So be it.


You need to go further back. I did give more specific information earlier than this which i'm sure you read at the time. That's why i didnt re-post everything.

We do however agree on one thing, you cant be bothered going back though all the posts to find information that was publish up to a year (or even longer) ago, and neither can I.

Will be interesting to see how things play out from here. The UK and EU have certain conditions for a FTA and they could barely be further apart. So either one or both sides will need to make significant concessions or the UK will trade with the EU under WTO terms.

Speaking of the WTO it's nice to see the UK with a seat at said organisation. Something that countries like Germany and France dont have.

I know it's little belated, but Happy Brexit day Jen!

May you and yours flourish in a freer, safer and more prosperous Great, nay, Magnificent and Liberated Britain, that is once again able to make her own decisions in her own interests.

Peace and love from Australia

Have the Brits kicked the Hun out of their fishing waters yet?

Ps., hi dude. Loved the Dominic Frisby song. He has some great stuff.

MBGA!! ... naa, sounds like a bank

MUKGA ... nope, sounds like a disease

MEGA Yeah!! .. although maybe not quite accurate in a geopolitical sense, It'll look great on a hat!!

MEGA works for me. I'd even buy that cap and happily wear it.

Which still does not make them facts. Which means that my statement about your OPINIONS still holds true. They are still OPINIONS and not FACTS.

It's nice to wax poetic about the philosophical questions of the day, but the people put the lions share of the work on the shoulders of the government to turn their dreams into reality.

Honestly, I would have zero issues with the leaver position if any one of them acknowledged that what they're doing is a gamble and has a chance of not turning out the way they wish. The remainer doom and gloom is irritating, but the leavers selective optimism is downright ridiculous. From what I've seen here and elsewhere leavers don't even see leaving the EU as a risk either diplomatically or financially. They just assume everything will work out great. What's worse is that they don't even have the gall to own their own decisions. Leavers CHOSE to leave, so it's the responsibility of leavers to make something of that. It's not the remainers fault IF leaving goes pear-shaped. If you needed remainers to get on board in order to make Brexit a success, then maybe their concerns should have been addressed instead of ignored. You cannot force someone to co-operate with you in a democracy.



Believe all you wish.



A general election would not be my preferred method to finish debate on exit strategy, but it was one that I noted had a chance of resolving it. Hence, why I suggested it a while ago. Really BJ's plan did nothing but kick the can down the road, because as soon as NI decides they don't like the border arrangements, talks fall back right on the point that stalled them in the first place. Hence why the 'compromise' never actually solved anything.



See below.



Yeah, except not really. This isn't a poker game where every ones cards are hidden. You've said so yourself. BJ can't go back on fishing rights, on ECJ jursidiction, on freedom of movement, etc. These are known red lines because the public has voiced, very openly and heatedly, that they cannot backpedal on this. None of these are open to negotiation if BJ wants to keep his job in any capacity. The EU already know what he can't give on, and that makes any bluffing game he wants to play extremely difficult. It was the same with May's Red Lines.

I noted this bluffing game quite a while ago, and I believe the response I got was that 'it wasn't a bluff'.



Okay but how does that feed into your earlier point about there being constant delays and extensions?



Note that this is EXACTLY the situation I set up already, and your response was that 'the remainer government would never allow a no deal.' If this were indeed true, then asking me to produce a referendum that could result in no deal while simultaneously claiming that such a thing is impossible requires me to quite literally perform magic. I must produce a referendum that both does and does not provide for no deal at the same time. I must produce Schrodinger's referendum. Starting to see the problem here?

Thank you for finally doing something I had been asking for for almost 10 pages. it is very much appreciated.



For someone so incredibly optimistic about the UK's own prospects you have a deeply cynical view of the government that is supposed to be materializing those prospects.

The obvious thought is that the situation has changed due to the governments own preparedness, but sure we can jump straight to wondering if he only did it to not look 'stupid'.



Oh so what you were actually saying had no relevance to the discussion at large which was the accuracy of statistical computation. Alright then.



I thought you didn't want to play this stupid game of digging through months of posts?



I honestly don't remember ever seeing these. If you would like to discuss these can you tell me where these numbers came from, as in a report or something?



Which should show in the data. It's very easy to accuse someone of duplicity. It's another matter entirely to PROVE it.



I was unaware that the 'PoCA or French Officials' were recognized risk assessors.

Note that the only thing I've said regarding this is that ASSUMING THESE COUNTERMEASURES WILL WORK SUCCESSFULLY AND AS ADVERTISED IN A WORST CASE SCENARIO IS UNJUSTIFIABLE WITHOUT LIVE DATA.

I have never questioned the existence of said countermeasures, only their effectiveness. I have asked this question before already but, 'what percentage of the countermeasures should be assumed to succeed or fail in a worst case scenario? How effective should said countermeasures be assumed to be in a worst case scenario?'



Ah, so in one paragraph you say I need to look further back to support your side of the argument, and in the next you acknowledge that neither of us wish to do that. I believe a certain H word comes to mind. Just saying.