So It's Confirmed We Are Ready For No Deal, Even The Cbi Think We Are Not....

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49142762
on the basis that the CBI thinks the opposite of reality is there no better indicator that we are ready?

[jim360]

It is a fact that most economists, most scientists, and most business leaders have all warned of the dangers of No Deal, to their respective sectors. There is no personal opinion on my part in saying so. It's also a fact* that the last three years since the Brexit have seen the UK economy at least stifled by Brexit, even though we haven't yet threatened to enter a recession. It's a fact that "No Deal" was certainly not in the minds of the prominent Brexit campaigners in 2016. That it has been allowed to become the only ideologically pure form of Brexit, and anything less is tantamount to treachery, is a travesty.

* https://cepr.org/active/publications/discussion_papers/dp.php?dpno=12454 : rough costs of Brexit to UK economy since 2016 have amounted to about £300million/week

[naomi24]

Jim, you’re sounding more and more like Vicky Pollard with each post. No but ... yeah but ...

Stop trying to make fools of people. It’s not working.

[pixie374]

Jim, ABers are really not as stupid as you seem to think.

[jim360]

I never try to make fools of anyone. For once in your life could you actually join in a debate rather than just heckle.

[pixie374]

Jim, it is you who is trying to tell the majority what they really think... making stuff up, doesn't convince or impress anybody. No matter how much you might disagree with it, we have a clear answer. Do you really not think it should be honoured?

[jim360]

How stupid do you think I think you are?

Doesn't matter what answer you give, by the way, you're wrong. All I want is to engage in a constructive debate with you lot.

We don't agree, I get that. But it's hard not to feel angry when all anything I say gets in reply is some utter BS about "stop trying to make fools of us".

[jim360]

And I'm not making anything up, either. The polls since 2016 are evidence worth considering, whatever you may think of them. Ditto economic studies.

[pixie374]

Tbf, Jim. Everyone has seen the result. We can all see that because you personally don't agree with it, you are twisting, slipping, sliding etc. to try to prove that people are too stupid to realise what they voted for. I don't think that is the case and you need more evidence than suggesting all voters are a bit dim.

[pixie374]

Irrelevant, Jim. We have asked and got an answer already.

[10ClarionSt]

My perception of peoples' reaction to the Referendum result was, that they thought we would just leave; sort of, just walk away. There was never any mention of a deal prior to the vote, as I recall. It appears that might be what happens. Will it?

[jim360]

You're still misrepresenting me. I have no interest in proving that people are "too stupid", as you put it. But they are divided, they were divided, and they are still divided. There is plenty of evidence to say that. There are plenty of people, if it comes to that, who have come out since 2016 and said that they've changed their minds and want to stay now*. I have not suggested that voters are a bit dim.

If you can't do me the credit of treating my posts as honest, can you at least disagree with what I actually say, rather than with what you only *think* I'm saying.

*and a few who've gone the other way.

[pixie374]

Of course they were divided, Jim. It was a very close vote. But we still got a majority answer which should be honoured. It isn't about compromise... it was literally a stay or leave vote.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Look back at the 2016 campaign. The government leaflet; the once in a lifetime your decision stuff we will implement etc. You won't foind the word "deal" in that.

The remain campaign was quite sure what leaving meant: you sacrifice the ability to deal on free trade terms with our "most important" trading partner. You didn't once hear the word "deal".

Just as bad losers spent the night of Trump's victory invented a strategy to subvert a democratic vote by its creating the Russian collusion conspiracy theory, so the clever people who despise the thickos set about creating its narrative. We'll try "only advisory" via Gina Miller, but that's a bit blatant, isn't it? Ah, there's all the lies - NHS slogans on buses etc. But maybe lies, hyperbole etc in a political campaign, perhaps not urge that one too much.

Eureka! Got it. What kind of Brexit were the thickos voting for? A lemming like dash to the cliff edge? Or an "orderly", negotiated blah, blah, blah?

[jim360]

I have no interests in defending the Remain campaign leaflet, but since its aim was to persuade people to Leave it was bound to present as bleak and decisive a scenario as possible. The "no going back" narrative was clearly a part of that. Give Project Fear at least some credit -- I think it won out over the slightly less catchy Project "It might be OK if we do it well and draw the process out as necessary but to be honest we don't recommend it". In that sense I think it's more relevant to the question of whether No Deal was part of the conversation or not to consider what the advocates of Leave were saying.

The timing is also off about the "lies on a bus" thing, which wasn't left until after the result but was criticised instantly on its arrival in the campaign. Same for the last paragraph -- the idea that Brexit means different things to different people is hardly a recent invention.

The Russian collusion I will concede, with the caveat that Russian *interference* has been established beyond doubt. I was never sure I could take seriously the idea that Trump, or his campaign, were personally involved in deliberate and malicious attempts to rig the election. But in any case I rather suspect that making such a big issue of the possibility of collusion has backfired and now helped Trump a little.

[pixie374]

Do you really believe most people take notice of campaign leaflets? Seriously? Everyone knows politicians lie... and no doubt were not persuaded, but went with what they already wanted anyway.

[jim360]

Well I know I didn't pay much attention to them. But I'm not sure that undermines my point in any way. There may well have been a huge disconnect between the discussion on the street and on the various TV debates, interviews etc. But, in the first place, when you say "most" rather than "all", that presumably allows that at least some people might have been influenced by such debates, literature etc. How many? The best source I'm aware of, not least because it was published by someone who supported Brexit at the time -- so can hardly be dismissed as Remain bias -- is the Ashcroft poll immediately after the Referendum, which suggested that roughly a quarter of voters only decided which way they'd vote in the last week or so before the vote itself. Maybe they would have always made the same decision -- but at the same time, many Remain supporters cited as their chief reason for leaving concerns that the risks were too great, which certainly sounds like they were influenced by the campaign literature and debates.

The general point I'm making is that the question of "Remain or Leave" is lacking in detail and therefore open to interpretation about how to implement the result. "No Deal" is an extreme version of Brexit, and, although it clearly suits me to argue this, I don't think it at all unreasonable to ask its supporters to demonstrate that such an extraordinary and, yes, risky proposal have the unambiguous support
needed to go ahead with it, rather than the burden be on the opponents of No Deal to prove that it does not.

https://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

[cassa333]

All I can say is thanks for the warning of the dangers of no deal. We can now, thanks to all the warnings, mitigate those dangers as much as is possible through planning and legislation.

If parliament had stopped pissing up the wall planning would have been done and finished a long time ago. But they blocked no-deal and no-deal planning at every turn. So, with that bit of knowledge, who is at fault that all the requisite planning isn’t in place? OH that’s right, not leavers but REMAINERS in Parliament egged on by remainer voters still screeching into their cornflakes.

[Khandro]

jim; Reading through your posts it seems that you are only quoting from & listening to all the doom-mongering 'experts' 'polls' & media reports, there are plenty of the opposite & optimistic views.
I wish you would tell us what it is that is really bothering you & what you are so scared of.

[Old_Geezer]

Well AH, my interpretation of your post was that if it were clear we'd contemplate no deal (and it was clear to me, what wasn't clear were the continual attempts to avoid it, which played right into EU hands) then the public would have voted differently earlier, and there would have been no Brexit for remainers to make a pig's ear of.

[fiction-factory]

Whether no deal was or wasn't in people's minds in 2016 seems irrelevant now, jim, given that no-one has come up with a deal that will satisfy the H of C so unless something acceptable can be concocted in the next couple of months it looks like no deal is the only option.

Okay, I suppose we could just go back with and apologize and ask to stay but that won't happen with Boris. Or we could seek another year's extension and put ourselves through this for another 12 months, but we need to make a decision one way or the other as further uncertainty is the worst outcome I feel.
The only thing that would persuade me otherwise now would be (a) a General Election is which Remain parties win a clear majority or reliable polls showing a significant majority of the population now wants to Remain