Brexit Britain unable to afford basic public services

Rich_cb wrote:

I'm not denying that disruption is occurring.

Short term disruption was always going to occur. I believe that the long term benefits will far outweigh these short term disruptions.

Oh come on. The benefits of Brexit, as promised by Leavers were immediate and tangible: £350m a week for the NHS, control of our borders (not that we ever lost that but even you must have noticed that net inward migration has hit a high since leaving) shiny new trade deals etc etc. If you want to see a REAL delta between what was promised and what had actually happened, this article by that moron Dan Hannan is worth a read, just for the laughs.
https://reaction.life/britain-looks-like-brexit/

Rich's naivety in thinking that this Indian trade deal will somehow make the Brexit disaster justifiable is ridiculous.

Per capita GDP in India is <$3k pa. Germany's is $53k. Factor in the gross wealth inequalities and the modal figure for India is much less. The simple fact is that the vast majority of Indians haven't got a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of. What are they going to be able to afford to buy from us?

The whole thing is just more performative bollocks from a dying government in a feeble attempt to distract from the obvious truth that Brexit has failed. And failed big time.

What was the per capita GDP of Eastern Europe when Poland et al. were admitted to the EU?

Increasing trade with rapidly growing economies benefits all parties involved.

Rich_cb wrote:

What was the per capita GDP of Eastern Europe when Poland et al. were admitted to the EU?

Increasing trade with rapidly growing economies benefits all parties involved.

You really don't understand any of this, do you?

I was there in the 1990s, working in manufacturing, when eastern Europe was really starting to open up. Soviet Russia was a repressive regime (although far more benign that the current dictator, Putin) but eastern Europe had a highly educated population, stable political institutions and decent infrastructure. India has none of this.

Yet India is expected to be the world's biggest economy by the end of this century. Who'd want a trade deal with them...

India is the world's most populous country and is in prime position to capitalise on the demographic issues that will soon hit large swathes of the planet.

Soviet Russia murdered 10's of millions of its own people btw.

Rich_cb wrote:

Yet India is expected to be the world's biggest economy by the end of this century. Who'd want a trade deal with them...

India is the world's most populous country and is in prime position to capitalise on the demographic issues that will soon hit large swathes of the planet.

Soviet Russia murdered 10's of millions of its own people btw.

Oh I see, so now instead of waiting 10-50 years for those Brexit "benefits", it's now the thick end of a century?

If, by some miracle, India somehow DID become an attractive target for a trade deal, USA, China etc would be well ahead of us in being a more attractive trading partner.
That's what you Brexiters seem unable to grasp. Agreements are time-limited. We simply DON'T hold all the cards. Ask British cheese exporters if you don't believe me.

Getting good terms depends on economic muscle. We're a third-rate power with a flat-lining economy, an endemic productivity problem and a failed political system, trying to trade on past glory.

Yet we are still the 6th largest economy in the world. We have plenty to offer trading partners.

India are currently the 5th largest economy so a trade deal would bring benefits immediately. The fact that their economy is projected to increase in size rapidly over this century (contrast with EU) just adds an extra imperative.

Standard practice in trade deals is to include clauses so that if a future trade deal secures better terms yours will be upgraded too.

Rich_cb wrote:

Yet India is expected to be the world's biggest economy by the end of this century.

Yes all you doubters, wait 76 years and we might have a deal with the world's biggest economy, there's your Brexit benefit! That'll be well worth jettisoning the deal we already had, right here, right now with the trading block that is economically second in the world to the USA, bigger than China and nearly three times as rich as India.

Unfortunately I won't be around then to see the 120-year-old Rich explaining "I didn't say it was going to happen, I only said 'expected...', if you quote directly what I said before you're lying..."

You are a liar Rendel and no amount of obfuscation will change that.

'confidently assure' has a pretty tight definition and not a single thing that I wrote on the previous thread meets it. You knew that. You wrote it anyway. You're a liar.

To clarify your latest attempt at deceit, I didn't say the benefits would only arrive when India was the world's largest economy. You made that up, as you make up so much else Mr Photographic Memory*...

* it's just for text location blah blah blah

Your words are there for all to see. I quoted them in a screenshot, no chance of changing your words. Just because your words were deeply foolish and have since been proved to be badly wrong, that doesn't make someone quoting them a liar. Own your mistakes, dear.

Define 'confidently assure' Rendel.

Those were your own words so please tell us what they mean.

If the meaning of your words do not reflect the reality of what I said then you were dishonest and are therefore a liar.

Last word because I feel bad about feeding your bizarre attempts to claim you didn't say what you said, but we'll go to the dictionary: "confidently: in a way that expresses little doubt" and "assure: to promise of tell someone something confidently or firmly." As in "The India deal appears to be on the cusp of final sign off" - confident and with little doubt. Goodnight, feel free to call me a liar as many more times as you like, everyone can see your words.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Last word because I feel bad about feeding your bizarre attempts to claim you don't say what you said, but we'll go to the dictionary: "confidently: in a way that expresses little doubt" and "assure: to promise of tell someone something confidently or firmly." As in "The India deal appears to be on the cusp of final sign off" - confident and with little doubt. Goodnight, feel free to call me a liar as many more times as you like, everyone can see your words.

So, by your own definitions you are a liar.

I expressed doubt multiple times. I've included some of the screenshots demonstrating this below but I've also linked to the previous thread so anyone can check.

Even your best cherry picked example doesn't meet your own criteria. 'Appears to be' isn't exactly the most 'confident' of phrases is it and it's immediately followed by 'if it gets over the line'. About as far removed from confidently as you can get.

You took some screen shots out of context and attempted to deliberately mislead people as to the content of the previous thread.

You are a liar.

The most common definition of assure:
"To tell someone something positively to dispel any doubts" is even more damning for you.

Alternatively you could just accept that everyone's entitled to thier views while taking the opportunity wish all your fellow cyclists a very happy Christmas and a properous New Year. Easy really...

Nobody is entitled to lie about someone else regardless of the time of year.

Nobody lied about you sweetheart, I put screenshots of your posts up for all to see, I didn't claim you said anything in them that you didn't say. If you don't like what you said that's not my problem.

Again, for fuck's sake have a drink and some nuts and watch the telly or something. My guests will be here any minute so once again I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy new year and with that I'm out xxx

There's no way what I said about the India FTA could be construed as "confidently assuring". You know exactly what that phrase means and you know even your original cherry picked screenshots didn't come close to it. I even said directly in discussion with you that all the coverage was just speculation and made explicitly clear that nothing was guaranteed.

You dishonestly misrepresented what I said when you knew that was misleading. You're just a liar and you've been caught out.

It is the season of goodwill.

If you engage in good faith I'll happily respond.

David9694 wrote:

I presume I'll be compensated for this in 10, 15 or 20 years' time? 

You can leave the receipt to your great grandchildren and they can enjoy the recompense in 2100.

We seem to be going over old ground here.

Inflation has been a global issue post COVID/Ukraine. Europe has been the epicentre of this.

It should be obvious to anyone that if an issue is affecting countries that aren't even in continental Europe let alone the EU then it's unlikely to be caused by Brexit.

We had a long discussion about Brexit benefits before, your refusal to have that discussion in good faith resulted in the screenshot you posted earlier.

How's the old India trade deal coming on Rich? As I recall back in July and August you were confidently telling us that it was imminent and then we would really start seeing the good old Brexit benefits...

You recall wrong Rendel.

Strange for a man with an apparently photographic memory.

I previously said that it was reportedly close to being done, the press continue to report progress on several key areas within the deal so I remain hopeful that we'll see it finalised.

Rich_cb wrote:

You recall wrong Rendel. Strange for a man with an apparently photographic memory. I previously said that it was reportedly close to being done, the press continue to report progress on several key areas within the deal so I remain hopeful that we'll see it finalised.

As you know, dear Rich, I have never claimed to have a full photographic memory, however much you and your little bullygroup like to claim I did. What I said was that I have a photographic memory for where to find text, that's all, and I do: for example it enables me to remember exactly where you were confidently assuring us that the India deal was imminent, even when the press were widely (and correctly) reporting it was nowhere near:

"Appears to be" , "If it gets over the line" ≠ "confidently assuring us"

Perhaps you could tell us the date and title of that page so I can check that you're not deliberately misleading us although that appears to be the case even with the limited evidence you've made available.

The point I'm making David is that there are much bigger changes afoot than Brexit.

Rather than assuming any negative story is because of Brexit maybe you should ask yourself why a record tax take is still insufficient to cover public services? What could possibly be driving the increased cost of public service provision?

Demographics are going to be the major story across most of the world's advanced economies in the next few decades. The cuts you've highlighted are just the beginning of that story.