CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Well if I may say so you do come across as being quite a angry person - the stream of 'play ground' style insults tend to give this impression. But I'm obviously overjoyed to learn that this is not the case

You seem quite angry today mate - even by your standards. Tell uncle Charlie what's the matter?

Well I do quite like you GM - mainly because you are so entertainingly 'over the top' all the time. However, I wouldn't go so far as to describe myself as your mate. As for the power of democracy somehow precluding possibility of collective madness - it would seem that the two concepts can coexist quite happily as recent US and UK votes demonstrate.

Characteristically you (over) simplify a complex issue. There are of course a number of reasons why Sterling has of late recovered some of its post referendum losses - the state of the wider world economy may well be one, but the money markets also seem to fear that France may soon be infected with the same madness that struck this country last year and leave the EU. Only time will tell on that one.

Or the pound has risen because the money markets suspect that interest rates will be going up soon.

I'm kind of flattered by the level of attention Les, but if only spending hours trawling the Internet for opinions that happen to coincide with your view was some kind of substitute for real learning then even you might one day find yourself travelling the road to wisdom. Alas that highway is not so easily navigated. I see you have repeated the (highly dubious) claim that the significant fall in the value of Sterling since the referendum is somehow "welcomed". This is another of those (suspiciously convenient) arguments that Brexit supporters, such as yourself, have chosen to adopt only AFTER the currency crisis occurred. If that is wrong then do show the forum where you, or for that matter any prominent 'Vote Leave' campaigner, were calling for the pound to be devalued by 20% BEFORE the vote happened. No, it seems to me that anyone brave enough to predict a Sterling crisis prior to the referendum would have soon had the likes of you accusing them of engaging in the ever sinister "Project Fear" again. But never mind, the obvious hypocrisy here is at least mildly entertaining to me on what is afterall a rather dull morning. The rise in inflation that will inevitably follow that fall in the value of the pound will certainly not be "welcomed" methinks by the many millions of your fellow citizens who have little choice but to exist on a low or fixed income. As you have been told before the economy is currently being supported almost solely by consumer spending and confidence. So when the modest rise in real (i.e. adjusted for inflation) incomes we have seen recently in the UK comes to a premature end - because increased inflation erodes real income growth of course - then how do you imagine that blow will effect this consumer dependent economy? To answer my own question 'negatively' is the correct response. As for your concluding remarks, I gather you are now attempting to sidestep yesterday's obvious 'double standard' by claiming that you were (for some reason) referring to last year's referendum result, rather than this week's absurd claim to be "won" the post-referendum economic argument. Taken in the context of your recent contributions on here this would appear to be yet another of your unconvincing attempts at evasion. The fundamental problem here I feel is that your limited sense of self-awareness tends to lead you into this type of error time and time again. Being the helpful type I would like to suggest a remedy for this serve handicap - but I fear that your condition is far beyond the power of medical science to cure.

So you are both denying that you have changed your previous cautious 'wait and see' stance and AT THE SAME TIME maintaining that your side has somehow "won" the argument already. All this two years before we have even left the EU! I really must thank you Les for this magnificent effort to amuse the forum. Surely few sights in life are funnier than seeing people disagree with themselves

You misunderstand the situation again my dear Les - the economists employed by the Bank of England are not your sneering Daily Mail Speak "so-called experts" they are in fact very much the real thing. You are equally wrong in stating that I have chosen to describe those who voted to leave as "senile or thick". It is in fact the RESEARCH - not me - that indicates 'Leave' voters were on average older, less diverse and more poorly educated than those who voted to 'Remain'. You have earned yourself a reputation on here as being infamously 'evidence averse' - but if you can provide a shred of meaningful evidence to show why this conclusion re Leave voters may be erroneous then I shall of course consider it in the fullness of time. While I await this latest bombshell I'm left with the distinct impression that the old English saying 'the truth hurts' best describes your reaction here. As for the better than expected economic performance of our economy in the months following the referendum, this short term effect is explained by a number of factors. Firstly, in a effort to stop the economy falling off that proverbial 'cliff' the BoE decided to allow Sterling to crash and actually CUT interest rates in the immediate aftermath of the vote - personal debt in the UK is now at record levels. Secondly, the Bank simultaneously pumped billions of pounds into the economy via a further round of QE (Quantitative Easing). All this has resulted in consumer spending remaining surprisingly strong in recent months and the UK is very much a consumer economy these days. Furthermore, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer has in effect kicked George Osborne's valiant efforts to reduce our huge and growing national debt into the 'long grass' as it were. The fall in the value of Sterling has also been of some assistance to our exporters - although only at the cost of rising inflation now and in the years ahead. So our economy is at the moment riding a wave of (debt fuelled) government and consumer spending and on the surface the situation doesn't look too bad. Look behind the headlines however and the long term picture is rather less rosy I think. Were you capable of putting your prejudices aside for a moment then instead of using the BoE as a 'whipping boy' you really should be thanking the bank for its efforts to steer the economy through this crisis. But naturally no one on here would expect that level of grace from of you given your record.

No - I was comparing pre and post referendum forecasts. Although the main impact of leaving the EU will probably occur when and after that seismic event occurs, in the meantime the economy will be adversely effected by the high degree of economic uncertainty we face. Ask any investor or businessman what they most dislike and I suppose that 'uncertainty' will be pretty high on the list.

^ This from the man who told this forum it was best to wait and see what happens before forming conclusions not so very long ago Two years before we have even left the EU the note of triumph is grossly premature at best - entirely wrong at worst. For the record, the latest official forecast still shows this economy growing at a somewhat lower rate this year compared to that which was predicted before the referendum. The GDP growth forecast for 2018 by the way has hardly changed to this day - i.e. leaving the Single Market looks set to make us all poorer than we might otherwise have been. But the world is a imperfect place and as the future has yet to occur (in the conventional concept of 'linear time' anyway) any form of forecast can therefore be proved to be inaccurate - from tomorrow's weather to economic performance years in the future. But when the professionals tell me it is going to rain tomorrow then I find it wise to wear a coat. In a similar way when the Bank of England tells me that leaving the EU will imperil our economic welfare then I make no apology whatsoever of heeding that warning. What I wonder is the realistic alternative to taking professional advice ... listening only to your own prejudices I suppose. That approach may suit some on here, but for me this attitude has the unmistakable smack of arrogance about it. Here's some fun - the latest research confirms earlier data showing that the average 'Leave' voter in last years referendum was older, whiter, and less educated than those who voted to remain. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38762034

I expect those elected to make the law should act within it - or is that too much to ask?

I'm not in the least surprised that the EU is a largest trading partner - for the reasons already given. Even had this nation never joined the Common Market then it seems highly likely that continental Europe would still be the destination for much of our export trade. Europe is very much like the proverbial 'elephant in the room' for this nation - i.e. however unpopular it is with some it is rather hard to ignore!

Well thanks to that wonder of the modern age Wikipedia, here be a list of nations and their largest international trading partners: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_leading_trade_partners Yes there are some strange exceptions to the rule - Burkina Faso exporting to Switzerland for example - but by and large nations trade most heavily with their neighbours. It is surely no surprise that Canada imports and exports lot with the United States, or that Namibia and South Africa are linked so closely. With such a huge Single Market on our 'doorstep' the fact that our largest trading partners are the rest of the EU is easily understandable I think. Dig the data out and I'd be surprised if this UK/Europe trade situation did not date back to the end of the British Empire in the 1950's, if not before.

^^ As attempts at 'character assassination' go this is an especially poor effort.

Of course trade with mainland Europe will continue after we leave the EU in 2019 - I have never even attempted to deny that and this is indeed quite obvious. Should however that cross channel trade become subject to 3 or 4% tariff regime - as has been speculated - then this commerce will be damaged to some extent - this too is equally obvious. As trade with the EU Single Market represents almost half of our entire exports, then any substantive reduction here will be extremely difficult to compensate for via (say) a 10% increase in trade with the US. Geography counts when it comes to exporting and George Osborne was correct (for once) when he said that any new trade deals we strike should not come at the expense of our existing commerce. As for this much heralded trade deal with the US, we should remember that it is not in the 'gift' of Donald Trump to simply grant this to the UK via some Presidential Decree - Congress has to authorise it and hence the time scale to pass this deal remains unknown - five years or ten? Much the same could be said about the details of this prospective arrangement - before becoming too overenthusiastic about it I think I'll wait to see what terms the USA will offer us - the devil is always to be found in the detail is he not? What if the price of a deal is that we have to open up and privatise large parts of the NHS to please US heath care providers intent on making money out of the British people? That is a very real possibility by the way. For that matter did not Trump state loud and clear last week that his guiding principle is that everything he does is compliant with an uncompromising AMERICA FIRST philosophy? Therefore, it would seem that any deal we strike with the US is highly likely to be designed primarily with THEIR interests in mind. History shows us that it is naive in the extreme to believe that the US interest is always exactly the same thing as ours.

It is rather interesting that Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would both like to see the end of the EU. With enemies like that I can't help but think that the EU must be doing something right. As for our replacing the Single Market with a new trade deal with the US, I understand the fundamental problem with this idea is that even if we DOUBLED our trade with N America - which won't happen of course - this still would not equal the amount of trade we currently do with Europe. So who is 'f***ed then?

Much as I rate the power of positive thinking, I must inform you Sir that your claim to be entirely unconcerned about this nation's economic future is not news that I find especially reassuring.

The list of organisations that have been accused in the past of 'institutional racism' is certainly a long and distinguished one - and while this question would certainly provide us with a potent 'heated debate' it is not a subject I feel that offers much promise of actually getting us very far at the end of the day. So I'll leave that one alone. As for immigration - be it controlled or not - before the referendum I seem to recall we learnt that only about half of net immigration into the UK came from the EU. The rest (very obviously) arrived here from elsewhere in the world- if I'm incorrect about that then no doubt someone will soon inform me! Teresa May - back when she was Home Secretary - never seemed to be all that concerned about that non EU 'other half ' that she might have done something about frankly. But now, after her elevation to Number Ten, the overall immigration situation is suddenly a matter of such crucial importance to this nation that we must risk our economic prosperity upon it. I question not only that judgement but also her sincerity. I also observe that nobody of any significance on either side of the argument is claiming that immigration into the UK is about to come to a end somehow. So we have in effect exchanged our membership of the EU and its lucrative Single Market, for the possibility of some (unknown) reduction in the level of immigration post 2019. Some on here are undoubtedly satisfied with this outcome, others of course are very far from being satisfied. My take on the immigration issue is that many - but not all - of the concerns raised about this matter during the referendum campaign were not unreasonable - we do indeed live on a small and crowed island. Nevertheless, I think it would have been in our overall national interest to have stayed within the EU and argued our case that reform of the crucial 'free movement of people' principle was required, rather than end up where we are now on the outside. It might well have taken a long time to achieve an agreement in this regard, but I believe we could have achieved significant reform of the policy eventually because we have a reasonable case - i.e. the expansion of the EU into the relatively poorer nations in eastern Europe has changed the situation dramatically since the Single Market was devised. Others doubtless will argue that the EU is beyond any meaningful reform and we had no real option but to leave. What (alas) is not in any doubt is that we are collectively very unlikely to all agree about this great matter any time soon.

Well I'm both pleased to see, and of course accept without reservation, that you Johnny are not a xenophobic person and that fear of immigration did not motivate your decision to vote leave. However, I put it to you that that fear of immigration was for a great number of British people the driving factor behind their decision to vote us out of the EU. Indeed, there is good evidence to support this contention is there not?

Well if they are performing useful work in our economy, paying their taxes and managing to keep a roof over the heads in modern Britain - seldom a inexpensive business - then I can only wonder how much money your typical immigrant has left over after all of that to send back to their families in the old country. I'm not even quite sure why I'm supposed to see this activity as a bad thing anyway. It seems to me that if some Polish girl is sending a few quid back to her poor old mum in Warsaw every month then good for her. If on the other I supposed to believe that taking money out of the country is a bad thing per se, then why don't you have a pop at those wealthy British people who take three foreign holidays every year?

Well fears that Sterling would crash and inflation rise have certainly been confounded!

Well it hardly mattes now what the former Chancellor said because he is out of office and Remain lost the vote anyway. If you are trying to tell me that one sides lies somehow excuse the other's then I would say to you that this type of argument belongs in the playground.

If you believe this poll then a substantial majority of the British people want to see their nation in the EU Single Market AND have controls imposed on EU immigration too: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/16/uk-voters-want-single-market-access-and-immigration-controls-poll-finds The apparent fact that so many of our people believe that they can indeed 'have their cake and eat it' is testimony to just how badly some misunderstood the issue before them at the referendum and how effective the lies the Leave Campaign peddled during the referendum were.

UK exports of goods to the rest of the EU accounted for 47% of total UK goods exports in 2015. I understand that number reduced to 44% at the last available official estimate. According to NIESR (the National Institute of Economic and Social Research) data EU goods exports to the UK account for about 16% of its total exports of goods. So in reality we need them rather MORE than they need us.

Other opinions are available of course, but on the very day that inflation jumps yet again I think that low inflation, a stable currency, and tariff-free access to the Single Market are all pretty important to the continued success of our trading economy and hence the welfare of our people. Therefore, something along the lines of the 'Norway' model of semi-detached relationship with the EU was probably the least worst option open to us. Not to be it seems. The PM states that she wants to see a tariff-free trade deal negotiated with the EU - well all I can say in reply is that wanting something, and then getting it, are entirely different things. Unless they intend to drown their sorrows, methinks that very few in the worlds of British industry or finance will be joyfully "cracking open a bottle of champaign" tonight as their government sets about the grim business of building a tariff wall between this nation and what is indisputably its primary export market. This nation devised and joined the EU Single Market in order to increase its economic prosperity - which it did. So it follows then that our leaving it will most probably have the opposite effect. As the cherry on his particularly unappetising cake the latest rhetoric emerging from government indicates that we look set to exchange what was often (but obviously not always) a collaborative relationship with our nearest neighbours for a confrontational one - seldom a good idea given the history of this continent. But I suppose that faced with two impossible choices - i.e. trying to hold her party together or acting in the true national interest - a weak PM has made the decision to put party first. But it is quite possible that even this limited objective may be an exceptionally difficult one to achieve in practice given how split the Tory party is on this issue. Remember this government has but a small majority in the House of Commons - so methinks that it wouldn't take very much of a rebellion from Tory backbenchers to see that majority overturned and for the Government to be defeated when it becomes time to vote on the issue. Some will say that this is what (51.9%) of the electorate voted for. But that is not really sustainable, in my opinion, because had the British people known six months ago that this dismal outcome is where they were headed for then I don't believe for one moment that a 'Leave' majority would have been realised.