Brexit.

[muppet]

Britain seeking a transition deal will be seen by Brexiteers as weakness and by Brussels as exactly the same thing.

Even though a transition deal would be far better than a hard Brexit for both sides. It would certainly be far better for Ireland.

[seafoid]

https://www.ft.com/content/5922b3ba-afce-11e6-a37c-f4a01f1b0fa1

"many great ideas developed in the UK were commercialised elsewhere, she added, while entrepreneurs frequently struggled to secure long-term capital investment and overall investment remained too low. Productivity remained an endemic problem."

This is not Government's fault. Pension funds do not care about anything other than the short term. CEOS do not care either.
The UK pension industry is worth hundreds of billions but they don't invest the money coherently.

[seafoid]

A very important contribution to the Brexit debate by the Pussycat Dolls

Be careful what you wish for cos you just might get it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0K46C82v9o

[No wides]

This has to be the most useless thread in the history of the GAABOARD.  Maybe we should all join the party!

Last year one 1 million condoms were sold in UK.
This year 5 million condoms were sold.  Brexit must be f**king everyone!

[seafoid]

Betrayal

Check out the comments

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3955772/We-ll-cut-business-tax-lowest-rate-G20-says-PM-Theresa-vows-commitment-free-market-pledges-bring-corporation-rates-time-low.html

[seafoid]

Ambassador Farage, the logical consequence of British Policy

The interim Ukip leader has Trump's ear, writes Gideon Rachman
Nigel Farage as ambassador to Washington — why not?

Donald Trump's suggestion that Mr Farage should be appointed as the next British ambassador to Washington is an unorthodox and outrageous intervention in British foreign policy. But it is also not such a bad idea.
What is the first job of a UK ambassador to Washington? It is to get close to the White House. Mr Farage would have an unprecedented closeness to the US president, the kind of access that other British ambassadors could only dream of. He campaigned alongside the president-elect and, after the election, had a personal meeting with Mr Trump — well before Theresa May (the British prime minister) was given a perfunctory 10 minutes on the phone.
The hard-drinking, outgoing Mr Farage would also stage good parties and receptions, which is also an important part of the diplomatic role. Given Mr Farage's closeness to the president, an invitation to a party at the British embassy would suddenly become one of the hottest tickets in Washington.
Ambassador Farage could also play an important role in securing one of Britain's most important foreign-policy goals: a free-trade deal with the US. Unlike Mr Farage, I believe that Britain's decision to leave the EU is a disastrous mistake which will inflict long-term economic damage on Britain. But we are where we are. Given Britain has got itself into this absurd situation, we need to look for escape routes. Mr Farage is probably one of the few people with a chance of persuading the Trump administration to make a US-UK trade deal a top priority.
Some of the reasons for rejecting a Farage ambassadorship amount to little more than wounded pride. Yes, Mr Trump's suggestion is a humiliating breach of protocol. But, frankly, it is just a foretaste of the indignities that Mr Trump is likely to inflict on Britain over the next four years. (Anyone looking forward to that state visit to London?)
Beyond the immediate media firestorm, the question of a Farage ambassadorship to Washington raises a genuine and crucial question for the May government. How close should Britain get to Mr Trump?
If, like me, you believe that he is a liar and a demagogue who may ultimately pose a threat to liberal democracy in the US, then the answer is clear. It would be a huge mistake for Britain to get into bed with the Trump administration and one that might well eventually go down as a shameful period in British history. Given that, I personally would not appoint Mr Farage as ambassador to Washington since I think Britain should keep its distance from Mr Trump.
But my views on Mr Trump do not seem to be shared by the British government. Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has suggested that the Trump presidency represents an "opportunity". If the May government believes that, it should make the most of this "opportunity" and appoint Mr Farage as British ambassador to Washington.

[No wides]

Toblerone has it gaps made wider in UK.  EU's plan to punish UK may backfire as it may stop obesity with your average fatty eating less chocolate!!!!  Nigel Farage called to be the Willy Wonka ambassador for UK to get back the chocolate!

[seafoid]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/22/brexit-europe-ryanair-michael-oleary-eu

[seafoid]

This  is really interesting

Peter Hitchens on Brexit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUjLmw4bgq0

[Applesisapples]

So there you have it from the British Chancellor, Brexit is setting them back £57 billion. Guess who's paying for it? the great unwashed and uneducated English working class who voted for it in droves.

[seafoid]

Hitchens says that the thing will not work. The only way to get the UK out of the EU is with a parliamentary majority and a party who have defined plans for what they want to do with the independence they get. . They went for a shortcut with the vote and they are in a complete mess now.

The economic situation is chaotic. They cannot say by when the deficit will be reduced to zero.

[seafoid]

Tony Blair wants to return to save the UK

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D2qcbu26gs

[Rossfan]

The always impressive Nicola Sturgeon well received as she addressed the Seanad today.

[heganboy]

I see prime Minister May and her team got put back in their box today:
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/11/29-tusk-letter-uk-mps/


Letter to the UK parliamentarians on the status of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens living and working in Europe

Share Facebook  Twitter

Dear Mr Tomlinson,
Dear UK Parliamentarians,

I read your letter with great interest. Your concern for the status of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens living and working in Europe bodes well for the future negotiations, especially since we have assumed that one of the main reasons for the vote for Brexit was the rejection of the free movement of people and all the rights it entails, as defined by the European treaties.

In your letter you state that the European Commission, and in particular Mr Barnier, are attempting to prevent negotiations, thereby creating 'anxiety and uncertainty for the UK and EU citizens living in one another's territories.' It is a very interesting argument, the only problem being that it has nothing to do with reality. Would you not agree that the only source of anxiety and uncertainty is rather the decision on Brexit? And that the only way to dispel the fears and doubts of all the citizens concerned is the quickest possible start of the negotiations based on Art. 50 of the Treaty?

Immediately after the referendum I declared, on behalf of the 27 EU Member States and the European institutions, that we were ready to launch the negotiation process as early as the following day. I still stand by that declaration.

In your letter you called on me 'to resolve this matter once and for all' at the European Council in December. This would in effect mean the start of the negotiations already in December. The EU stands ready to do so, but that can only happen on the condition that Art. 50 has been triggered. Let me reiterate, however, that the decision about triggering Art. 50 belongs only to the UK, which we fully respect.

Just like you, I would like to avoid a situation where citizens become 'bargaining chips' in the negotiation process. In order for this not to happen, we will need precise and comprehensive solutions, which, other than nice-sounding expressions, will provide citizens with genuine guarantees of security.

Finally, I want to reassure you that today, and for as long as the UK remains a member of the EU, the Treaties guarantee the rights of all EU citizens, including UK citizens, as regards their residence, work, social security and health. People are not only protected by the substantive EU law against discrimination, but also by the European Court of Justice if their rights are not respected. This obviously concerns not only those citizens who currently live in other Member States, but also those who decide to do so in the future.

[muppet]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/11/economics-and-populism?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/

Economics and populism
Schrödinger's Brexit

SOMETIMES an analogy strikes you on the head with the force of a plummeting cricket ball. On Radio 4 yesterday, Hamish Johnson, editor of physicsworld.com, had the brilliant insight to explain the British government's policy in terms of physics; Schrödinger's Brexit.

The poor cat is stuck in a box with a radioactive substance and a poison; when the substance decays, the poison is released. Since it is impossible to predict when the substance will decay, the cat may be deemed simultaneously alive and dead. The only way to know is to open the box.

Before Britain voted to leave the European Union in June, then prime minister David Cameron promised to trigger Article 50 (the exit mechanism) immediately. Five months on, Article 50 has yet to be triggered. The new prime minister, Theresa May, has promised to do so by the end of March. But in terms of what Britain wants, we have heard nothing but platitudes: "Brexit means Brexit", or "have our cake and eat it". Pushed for details, Ms May has said there will be "no running commentary" on negotiations. In fact, it is quite easy to do a running commentary. Since the other EU members won't talk until Article 50 has been triggered, there have been no negotiations.

Among the many important questions to be answered are whether Britain will stay in the single market, or the customs union, and whether there will be a transitional period after Britain leaves the EU during which it would retain existing access (in order to reduce the economic disruption). The rationale for this silence is that Britain does not want to "reveal its hand" before negotiating starts. This doesn't really make sense since it will have to reveal its hand when Article 50 is triggered and the negotiations will last two years; everyone in the EU will have plenty of time to react and counter Britain's offer.

Anyway, until such decisions are made, Britain is like the cat; simultaneously inside and outside the single market and customs union. This has the advantage for the government of allowing it to pretend that the "have cake and eat it" solution can occur; no trade-offs need to be made between sovereignty and economics. But were the government to open the box, to declare for one option over another, the full costs (political or economic) will be revealed. The longer the box can be kept closed, the better. Hence all the meaningless rhetoric.

The analogy can be used more broadly for Trumpian-style populists. Such politicians promote the idea that there are simple solutions to national problems that involve no trade-offs; if only existing leaders had been better negotiators, our country would have had a better deal. It is easy to spout this stuff from the sidelines; harder to achieve when actually in government. (Indeed, populist parties tend to lose appeal when they take office and are forced to make decisions.) Mr Trump can't actually cut taxes, maintain entitlement spending, and narrow the budget and trade deficits, for example. Abandoning the Iranian nuclear deal will make it more, not less, likely that Iran will get the bomb. But those cats won't be out of the bag (or box) until after the votes are counted.