So .... should BBB4B?

[Saracen999]

Spreadie put it pretty well I thought

My point was that on the 31st, nothing will practically change. Everything continues as before, and we have many months of negotiation to go before anything will actually change - so it's not done, not in the slightest. Otherwise i'd probably be winging a lot more and be a lot more worried about it If they are *really* going to ring the bongs for Brexit then it should be when the deal is done and dusted and ready to go imo, not right at the start of a long negotiating period.

The huge wound caused by this in society won't be healed either, if anything it will just get worse or stay the same. I would welcome a rejoin campaign if Labour were to spearhead it - i'd love to see them lose the next election too

edit: Regards survival shelters, I can help you out - started a sideline in prepping goodies a few months ago , need a customer to take on a shelter building project ;D As long as you have the land to fit a shipping container you're good....

On the leaving thing, I think my point was that we will have left the EU, and be out of the institutions, etc.

However .... the transition agreement ensures that, day to day, nit much changes until that ends.

The problem is that the transition agreement isn't yet nailed down. It's currently working it's way through the Lords, so far without fanfare or much obstacle but it's now at exactly the point (3rd reading and report stages) where any spanners the Lords try to throw in the works will get thrown. Now, I'm no expert on parliamentary procedure but as I understand it, if it gets returned unamended, it goes straight fir Royal Assent, and .... job done. But if the Lords do amend it, then it goes back to the Commons who can, of course, unamend it and return it, and a potentially lengthy ping-pong starts, or we start down the Parliament Act route, which also takes time. Time that isn't there.

Given that the 31st Jan deadline is set by EU-UK agreement under art.50, it isn't affected by UK parliamentary antics. It's a defined, hard deadline. And if we haven't passed the Withdrawal Bill (the current '19-'20 one), AND the EU ratified it, we still leave on 31st, but .... no withdrawal bill, no transition period.

It's hard to see the date of us leaving legally changing, at this late stage.

Assuming we leave with a transition period, it still only lasts 11 months, unless both UK and EU agree a further delay, and we change UK law, and the PM accepts what wil. undoubtedly be huge political damage by going back on his oh-so-often repeated promise not to change it.

So by far the most likely timetable seems to be legally out in a few days, 'transition' ending with end of this year, whatever state an FTA is in, and us being right out by Jan 1st, next year.

Yes, it could change, but to me it looks unlikely, especially given some categoric statements that a choice between friction and alignment, the government have clearly and publicly nailed themselves in the direction of friction not alignment, or at least, not be locked into alignment.

All of which suggests completely out by Jan 1st, 2021. Not all that long. Not long at all.

[Corky34]

*opens door*

Did someone say something about bongs....

*slams door in a huff*

[Ttaskmaster]

The public want it, the public (presumably) voted for it and the public will pay for it.
If this or indeed anything else nonetheless leads to the country being utterly stuffed then who are we, the public, to argue with what the public want, eh?

Let them have their fun.

[Spud1]

Assuming we leave with a transition period, it still only lasts 11 months, unless both UK and EU agree a further delay, and we change UK law, and the PM accepts what wil. undoubtedly be huge political damage by going back on his oh-so-often repeated promise not to change it.

It will be interesting to see what happens here - Boris is no stranger to stating that one thing is absolutely going to happen, no ifs no buts, and then...it doesn't happen. He has changed his mind, lied with a straight face, and downright betrayed the country & his party so many times in his career (not just as PM of course), that doing it once more wouldn't worry him in the slightest (as long as he had something to gain from it). So I don't accept for a moment that the law they rushed through the other month would actually force us to leave in ~12 months time - the EU would happily agree to an extension if it made sense to do so and I am certain our government would do the same and simply change the law back...unless of course we have a deal agreed by June, which seems incredibly unlikely but does remain a possibility of course.

whilst yes, the legal brexit is almost certainly inevitable, the longer and more protracted the negotiations the better the chance of a softer brexit, which is the best we can hope for in these dark times sadly.

[Saracen999]

It will be interesting to see what happens here - Boris is no stranger to stating that one thing is absolutely going to happen, no ifs no buts, and then...it doesn't happen. He has changed his mind, lied with a straight face, and downright betrayed the country & his party so many times in his career (not just as PM of course), that doing it once more wouldn't worry him in the slightest (as long as he had something to gain from it). So I don't accept for a moment that the law they rushed through the other month would actually force us to leave in ~12 months time - the EU would happily agree to an extension if it made sense to do so and I am certain our government would do the same and simply change the law back...unless of course we have a deal agreed by June, which seems incredibly unlikely but does remain a possibility of course.

whilst yes, the legal brexit is almost certainly inevitable, the longer and more protracted the negotiations the better the chance of a softer brexit, which is the best we can hope for in these dark times sadly.

At least some of those "will happen" events were not changes by Boris, but a remain-inclined Parliament forcing them on him.

As for hoping for a "softer brexit" we're never going to agree on that. The only way the EU agrees to a softer brexit (which is really code-speak for BRINO) is so'called alignment, and probably dynamic alignment. The problem with that is that increased EU alignment destroys the versatility of increased scope in FTA's with the rest of the planet. Dynamic alignment probably kills most of them stone dead, because any country we try to do an FTA with won't know what standards it's agreeing go, because those will be set by a third party (the EU) and neither they nor us have any say at all in that. And that is no brexit at all. Instead, we become a vassal state, and offshore colony of the EU. You might hope for that, but the "we" certainly doesn't include me .... or somewhat more importantly, judgjng by statements being made, the government.

[adidan]

At least some of those "will happen" events were not changes by Boris, but a remain-inclined Parliament forcing them on him.

Yup, if anything bad happens because of Brexit it's because of Remainers...

Anyway, bong or no bong - that is the question.

[Galant]

i didn't realise getting Big Ben to ring out was even an option and wouldn't have expected. Having heard of the idea I'm not against it for two reasons. First, if it's crowd funded then there's no issue there. People can do what they want with their money. An additional tax-payer cost for this during the current Big Ben maintenance would have seemed excessive.

Second, despite opinions to the contrary Brexit really is a positive thing as regains Britain. Approaching it with a positive attitude, especially at this point and going forward, would be a good thing, I think. They might need to make that vision clear - if there's the thought that some might see it as Brexiteers ringing out victory over Remainers, but not celebrating something that is intended to be a positive and freeing thing would probably be overly cautious.

Whatever anyone's opinion in the referendum the reality is that neither side was totally bad or totally good. Both sides had their positives. It would be well, now, for all of us to identify and seek to develop every last drop of the positive side of Brexit, and work to avoid or minimise the negative (just as that would have been true were things the other way round).

If Big Ben doesn't ring out it's obviously no major loss, however, I do think we might want to consider well why we might be afraid of public celebrations of big events. They can be valuable and beneficial events.

[adidan]

I'm afraid I can't see positives until i'm provided with hard facts that, on balance, convince me. That hasn't happened i'm sorry to say, I really wish I could say differently.

But bong away, so long as it's not tax payer funded I really don't mind.

[Ttaskmaster]

Why is it costing half a million, anyway?
Surely the absolute most it'd take would be a few grand for a bloke to go up there and hit the bell(s) with a hammer?
Hell, pay Phil Collins tend grand to do it and it'll be with perfect timing too!!

[Galant]

Why is it costing half a million, anyway?
Surely the absolute most it'd take would be a few grand for a bloke to go up there and hit the bell(s) with a hammer?
Hell, pay Phil Collins tend grand to do it and it'll be with perfect timing too!!

Ah, but what tune would you have him play on Big Ben? (Or what rhythm would you rather have him bang out... I guess).

[Ttaskmaster]

Ah, but what tune would you have him play on Big Ben? (Or what rhythm would you rather have him bang out... I guess).

Whatever I like. I'm the taxpayer footing the bill for this, after all.
How about... Throwing It All Away, or maybe Land Of Confusion, I Don't Care Anymore, I Can't Believe It's True, We Wait And Wonder, Wakeup Call.... That's why I suggested Phil, as he has so many options.

Selling England By The Pound was only an album title, I believe, though for twenty grand he'd possibly play the whole thing...

[Saracen999]

I'm afraid I can't see positives until i'm provided with hard facts that, on balance, convince me. That hasn't happened i'm sorry to say, I really wish I could say differently.

.....

There are no hard facts on the effects of either staying or leaving. The so-called facts of economic effects of leaving are, in fact, supposition and outcomes of economic models that, given the assumptions used, would produce the outcomes they did. Change the assumptions and the outcomes change. You can use those exact ssame models to produce neutral effect, or even positive. So the "facts" of disaster are actually mdrely assumptions, and often self-serving onez at that.

Example - months ago, the IMF produced both "predictions" on UK GDP and the effects of Brexit. Yesterday, the IMF produced updated GDP forecasts showing a much-improved UK GDP forecast (compared to it's previous one) despite a backdrop of continued near-stagnstion for both the EU and most of the industrialised world.

I would stress that this is not the first time the IMF has done this. Christine Lagarde even had to apologise for one grossly and unfairly forecast ... coincidentally, round about referendum time.

None of these forecasters are in any way prescient. They merely make there assumptions and report what the models say. Which means ...

a) how good (and impartial) are their forecasts?
b) how good are the models?

On point b), I've said before that models are decent at predicting the impact of changes in factors where we have a body of data relating to previous changes, say, employment figures, factory output data, house prices, whatever. But Brexit is utterly unprecedented and there is zero historical data to base modelling on.

At it's most basic, the Remain economic position is trade with the EU will be hit. Probably true though the extent depends on factors not yet decided.

The Brexit economic position is that trade with everybody but the EU is positively affected, but we don't know how much because, well, it's the same factors as with Remain and they just haven't been decided yet.

That's the see-saw of Brexit - the more we tie ourselves to the EU, the less the benefits elsewhare, and vice-versa.

And then there's the fime-lag in both. The downside will likely hit much quicker than the upside, no doubt heralding a chorus of "told you so" but economics doesn't work on news-cycle timeframes.

In relation to finance and economics, there are no facts. Merely predictions, and ones with a dubious track record.

[Galant]

Whatever I like. I'm the taxpayer footing the bill for this, after all.
How about... Throwing It All Away, or maybe Land Of Confusion, I Don't Care Anymore, I Can't Believe It's True, We Wait And Wonder, Wakeup Call.... That's why I suggested Phil, as he has so many options.

Selling England By The Pound was only an album title, I believe, though for twenty grand he'd possibly play the whole thing...

Nice!

Alternatively you could have Against All Odds, Hang in Long Enough, Take Me Home, Two Worlds or In Too Deep.

[adidan]

There are no hard facts on the effects of either staying or leaving.

There's the hard facts of what we currently have (edit: temporarily) against, what, guesswork and promises? It takes more to persuade me of a good idea but i'm not resistant to being persuaded.

Plus on a personal level there definitely are hard facts.

[Saracen999]

There's the hard facts of what we currently have against, what, guesswork?

Plus on a personal level there definitely are hard facts.

What we currently have, as you put it, is not a guarantee that we will still have it tomorrow or in 10 years.

I invite you to consider the UK at height of Empire, naval domination, or cracking down on those upstarts in Boston, USA with the presumption to take on the might of the British Empire. No way the Empire could come out second best? Oh, wait ....

The case far Brexit is about far more than trade, or even economics. My point was that even on just trade, those models predict what will happen if we stayed in, compared to a prediction of leaving. But they're both predictions, none the less. Staying in is no guarantee of status quo, even for trade.

No facts. Tomorrow hasn't happened yet.

[Ttaskmaster]

Nice!
Alternatively you could have Against All Odds, Hang in Long Enough, Take Me Home, Two Worlds or In Too Deep.

Depends on how you voted.
I think you'll find Swiss resident Phil is probably a Remainer....