CHAPEL END CHARLIE

I wonder if you know which current EU nation state was leading the way in stalling a potential EU - INDIA trade deal because it didn't much like the terms on offer from New Delhi? I'll give you a clue Wes - it's capital is known as London and its Head of State is a elderly lady called Elizabeth. Tearing up our current trading arrangements and attempting to replace them with something else will I believe be a exceptionally long and difficult process, the sheer complexity of which you clearly haven't grasped. The so-called 'Hard-Brexit' option, an extremist idea that British industry abhors but is nevertheless gaining favour now among hard-line eurosceptics, amounts to us deliberately choosing to damage what are still UNDENIABLY our primary trading relationships with continental Europe. Yet you persist in telling anyone on here who will listen to you that we can somehow escape any adverse long/medium term consequences of that move by forming new trading arrangements with more distant nations elsewhere in the world. Such a policy runs counter to common sense - it is in the nature of things that nations nearly always trade most heavily with neighbouring states - and constitutes I think a dangerous gamble with the welfare of both the British economy and the many millions of people it supports. When nations build any type of wall between themselves and their neighbours - be it a simple physical structure or a trade barrier - then history shows us we end up impoverishing people on BOTH sides of that divide we have constructed. The distant future is not ours to see of course, but in the long term we are all dead and there is very little doubt that our departure from the vast EU Single Market area will for years (or even decades) to come make millions of your fellow citizens poorer then they would otherwise have been. Your eurosceptic triumph is in reality a kind of tragedy in the making. Now you of course are at liberty to deny that truth and peddle recycled Bretix propaganda instead from now to 'Kingdom Come' if you will. You can trot-out your customary 'shrill', 'arrogant' and 'pompous'' retorts as often as you care to. You can even spend your retirement resorting to the tactic of criticising spelling mistakes if all else fails - that is if you really think that kind of behaviour impresses people on here. But none of that stuff is going to change anything.

The notion that Trump should 'work with Putin' is about as trite a statement as is imaginable - the small matter of the Russian leader's enthusiasm for dismantling other sovereign nations and manifest war crimes in Syria can't be overlooked quite that easily can they? It is of course desirable that some form of working relationship be formed between the USA and Russia. However, Putin is the world type leader who needs to be watched and not encouraged. As for Hilary Clinton being charged, I understand that the FBI has concluded that no criminality occurred re this tedious E-mail matter. That would seem conclusive enough but even were that not the case then one suspects that President Obama would follow precedent and grant her immunity from prosecution before he leaves office in the new year. Let's face it as scandals go this is hardly a new Watergate is it?

A Street Cat Named Bob. Salvation may come in many forms I suppose, for some it may be the discovery of religious faith, for others perhaps the love of a good women. It turns out that for one young lad reduced to busking for a living on the mean streets of London hope arrives in the form of a ginger tom called 'Bob'. The (Human) hero of our story James (the excellent Luke Treadaway) is certainly a troubled and vulnerable young man. Homeless and estranged from his family, like so many other young people who find themselves in that situation he is also in the grip of drug addiction. So his future looks pretty bleak. However, one dedicated social worker sees something worthwhile in him and fights, against the all the odds, to get James off the streets and into a grotty council flat. No sooner has he moved in when the aforementioned street cat turns up and adopts him - like cats sometimes do with people. What ensues is certainly not all 'plain sailing' by any means, but caring for Bob, and it turn profiting from him, turn this almost broken Human life around. Based of a true story apparently - and featuring the real Bob too I understand - this is one of those films any experienced film goer can easily 'read' almost before it has started. It might also have been a even better film had it sought to explore why so many British people display a level of affection for animals that far exceeds any love they might show for their fellow Human Beings. Nevertheless, what this movie may lack in surprise and ambition it more than makes up for in warmth and charm. Indeed, methinks this is one of those very rare films that almost anyone should be able enjoy. Recommended.

The thing is that almost EVERYBODY considers themselves to be 'hard done by' to some extent - this is an ancient and near universal perception. The fact that many of these Britex/Trump supporters are (in relative terms anyway) among the most fortunate Human Beings to ever inhabit the surface of this planet means little in the face of such a erroneous, but nevertheless widely held, sense of grievance. So it seems that there is a huge and growing audience of malcontents out there utterly convinced that they have some God-given right to the 'pursuit of happiness', people who blame any and every disappointment they may have suffered in life not on themselves but on somebody else - very often that new Mexican/Polish family (delete as appropriate) who have moved in next door, or even on the nebulous concept of a all-powerful 'establishment' controlling everything in the world. Closer to the truth perhaps is that there is no sinister establishment Hell-bent of suppressing society but rather the forces of globalisation are changing the world in rapid and quite profound ways. Yes, sometimes this effect can be harmful and rapid change is always unsettling of course, but when you think about it technological change and globalisation has the potential to make the world a better place too. In any case, reacting to all this change by irrational - indeed potentially destructive - behaviour in the polling booths will slow the advance of globalisation about as effectively as King Canute delayed the tide. Interesting fact of the day: billionaire Donald Trump opted to name his youngest son 'Barron' - now there's a true man of the people if ever I saw one ...

The 2016 three-step plan for getting absolutely anyone or anything successfully elected: • Tell people that they are hard done by in some way. • Inform them that foreigners are fully or partly to blame for their situation. • Promise them that you will make everything better somehow.

When I started this thread the prospect of this walking Anal Fistula of a candidate actually getting himself elected seemed reassuringly remote. As the months have past however the horrible possibility has grown remorselessly until the sheer size of the turnout yesterday - which kind of echoed our Britex vote - pointed the way to what was about to happen. An acute observer of the US political scene once wrote that the day would come when the American people would see their most heartfelt desire fulfilled when a total idiot was elected into the White House. That day has dawned. All of a sudden the advantages of a benign dictatorship almost seem attractive because this democracy malarkey isn't working any more.

Every time some brave soul attempted to speak the truth to the people someone else would soon come on and smoother that with a blanket of lies disguised as argument. That whole referendum campaign was waged amid a veritable sea of disinformation - from both sides to be fair but more decisively from the Leave side. I think a unknown number of British voters entered the polling booth sincerely believing the (tall) stories they had been told that we could leave the EU but somehow but still retain unrestrained access to what are undeniably our most important export markets. Others probably voted to leave because they wanted to give the 'establishment' a bloody good kicking, they were anti-European by nature or perhaps are just your common-or-garden racist types who detest the sight of foreigners living in their neighbourhoods. I seem to remember that evidence emerged during the campaign showing that a surprising number of your fellow citizens were gullible enough to believe that the NHS really would get that promised £350m a week! I wonder how people that dim manage to get out of bed in the morning without the assistance of a instruction booklet ... They had a saying in the old German army that it is best to allow the horses do the heavy thinking - because they have bigger brains of course. Well the modern British equivalent of that is that we better let our MP's take the big decisions in future - because being professional purveyors of bullsh1t they are better at recognising it.

I can find stuff in this post that I can both agree, and disagree, with. Yes I concur that it was ALWAYS the case that in order to enjoy the many benefits of the EU Single Market nation states have to accept the Free Movement of People principle. That free market in working people, as well as in traded goods, services, and money, is not some insignificant 'add-on' to the Single Market idea but rather an intrinsic element of the entire concept. The obvious truth of that situation was however most certainly disputed at the time by many (but not all) 'leave' proponents who were adamant that a crude analysis of trade balances vis a vis some other EU states meant that the UK could easily force through the kind of preferential trade deal it wanted against any opposition in Europe. That argument - which I saw parroted on here and in the press time and time again - was then and is now entirely divorced from the political reality of the situation that we now find ourselves in. So while that may be agreed I cannot agree that the Leave Campaign collectively put forward anything like a coherent plan to the British people at the referendum as to how exactly we would achieve our departure from the EU - while at the same time inflicting the least possible damage to our economy. For that matter even today I don't think there is a single person in Europe who knows how this will all play-out in the end. Now you might call this great gamble 52% of the voting public decided to take as a brave 'leap of faith'- if you feel positive about the situation. Those less happy with the referendum result might see it more as a 'leap in the dark'. Either way we've taken the big jump now and God alone knows where we are going to land. I don't think that the British people really voted to leave the Single Market last summer - indeed, had that brutal reality been honestly explained to them at the time then it is quite possible that enough people might have changed their vote to have swung the referendum result into a narrow 'Remain' win. Be that as it may, in a representative democracy parliament must have it say on the crucial negotiations that lay ahead. Our law, our constitution, and the rights of the 48% of the British people who did not want to go down this road demand this.

During the Judicial Review process those 'unelected ' judges you dislike so are tasked not with deciding government policy, but rather ensuring that government decisions are compatible with the law. It is surely a good thing is it not that the government should act within the law our parliament has laid down? Indeed, not only do I see absolutely nothing wrong with that process, I regard it as a essential safeguard protecting the weak from the abuse of the powerful.

Well I for one am more than happy that we live in a country where the 'rule of law' actually means something. Perhaps those on here moaning about how very inconvenient they happen to find that might care to spend a moment and try to imagine what it would be like to live in a nation state where executive power was effectively unrestrained by the power of the law. I say that if some of the most senior and experienced judges in the land, sitting in the High Court, have reached a judgement indicating that the constitution requires that parliamentary approval is obtained by the executive in this situation then you can rest assured they have probably have good reason to conclude so. Furthermore, I would not be the least surprised to see the Supreme Court eventually come to share that opinion. Time - as always - will tell.

The increase in the competitiveness of UK exports that will no doubt follow the near crash the pound has suffered recently is certainly one positive outcome for our economy - as far as it goes. Unfortunately the corollary of that situation is that inflation too is now set to rise - indeed this process has already started. This effect will of course hit the living standards of millions of your fellow citizens - not all of whom have some relatively vast 'pension pot' in prospect to soften the blow. When/if inflation starts to exceed wage growth yet again then most of us will experience a fall in our real standard of living. This effect too has long term adverse consequences for the cohesion of society. Now if I was to believe everything that I read on here then I might well think (if I were sufficiently gullible that is) that this virtual 'crash' in the value of the post referendum Pound was a mere 'bagatelle' because the UKP had somehow become artificially 'overvalued' before the referendum and therefore the drastic fall in its value was a good thing! How convenient. Unfortunately that is a specious argument and the pound's former exchange rate was more a form of 'verdict' delivered by the foreign exchange markets on the - pre referendum - health and prospects of our economy. In reality any beneficial increase in our export trade may well be only a temporary effect and this will almost certainly not fully counteract the harm that increasing inflation will do to our economy. There was a reason why conquering the evil of excessive inflation (and for that matter attempting to reduce our huge national debt) were once seen as THE crucial objective of monetary policy. Okay, it is obviously true that currencies need to find a appropriate level that reflects the strength and weaknesses of the economies they represent, indeed the inability of the Euro to fully achieve that function is its undoing, but currency weakness is in the long run not a sign of a healthy economy. Anyone who attempts to tell you differently is just another 'Snake Oil' salesman I'm afraid.

Notwithstanding the widespread suspicion that there is rather more to the matter than first meets the eye, last week's news that Renault-Nissan is set to approve a further round of investment at their huge Sunderland operation is of course a (very) welcome medium term development, both in regard to the future of our motor industry specifically and for this trading nation in general. However, the credibility of those on here who seek to selectively employ this type of good news as hard evidence that UK manufacturing now faces some idyllic 'happy ever after' future in this post-EU Single Market 'Nirvana' of their imagination are overlooking the other potentially significant motor industry story of the month: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-vauxhall-general-motors-job-losses-pound-value-crash-cuts-a7379931.html - those on here who dislike the Independent for some reason can soon find any number of other links to the same story for themselves. So it would seem that regardless of what happens in Sunderland the many thousands of working people employed today by GM at Ellesmere Port and Luton (and not forgetting all those in the supply-chain) have good reason to worry about the future prospects of both themselves individually and for the families their incomes provide for - regardless of what the usual suspects on here might have them believe. The above illustrates nicely the danger of seizing upon every single development that happens to support one's own point of view, while choosing to ignore all those that do not. It seems to me that most of the stuff we see in the monthly economic news at this time represents far too unsubstantial a foundation to build any reliably firm set of conclusions upon as yet. Yes, thankfully fears that the economy might fall off the proverbial 'cliff' in the months immediately following the referendum outcome did not materialise - and God knows what a relief that should be to those on here who were (and still are) deeply concerned about this once great nation's future. But we are not exactly 'out of the woods' yet ... I don't think we have even started to enter that particular dark forest as yet, never mind view it only via a rear-view mirror. Ignoring the political upheaval for a moment the principle 'concrete' economic development thus far is that Pound's exchange rate has fallen significantly post (and clearly because of) the referendum outcome. There seems little reason to believe that is currency situation will be reversed within the foreseeable future. Economic history and theory strongly suggests that a falling exchange rate will in turn lead to a increase in both exports and inflation - indeed the record shows that inflation is already rising fast as the cost of the imports our economy requires upon inevitably rise. Furthermore, though I suspect a handful of people on here will doubtless seek to dispute it again, in truth there seems little real reason to doubt that the Bank of England's forecast that this increase in UK living costs is set to continue in the months and years ahead will prove to be a accurate one. The bank's mandated 2% inflation target is toast. As for everything else ... well we will just have to wait and see I suppose.

Unless the opinions of 1970's Soul singer Roberta Flack have somehow become germane to the subject of the UK's retreat from the EU, methinks that the word you are looking for here must be 'Flak' rather than 'flack'. As I well know just how eager you are to see that the blight of poor spelling be eradicated from this thread I can only put this otherwise unaccountable error on your part down to you feeling a little 'bleary-eyed' yourself. Or have perhaps your own trousers too become detached during the cut and thrust of debate? In any case, in order to maintain the standard you have yourself set do try to make sure that this type of thing does not happen again.

I favour this old nation continuing into the future because I'm rather fond of it and value its long and remarkable history. You on the other hand you are some kind of odd patriot who cares little if his nation is destroyed as long as his distaste for internationalism is sated. I must tell you again that you are a very strange creature.

We import a large percentage of our food (I note you are still seeking to ignore animal feed here) primarily because we a relatively small county with a large population and therefore limited land available for agriculture. If you can explain why leaving the EU is somehow going to change those fundamentals then by all means please do so.

I really don't know what you are saying - you seem a bit 'all over the shop' as the expression has it. I wonder if you are you now thinking that, post 2019, the UK should abandon all support for British agriculture? If so, don't you think that might just have a negative impact on our (already hard pressed) rural economy?

So you have gone to the trouble of showing just how well our economy has performed in the Single Market - and then propose that we leave it! This too is rather interesting behaviour ....

To be fair I did not really expect you to take up my little offer - after all it is a problem having your gob and wallet located in different postcodes. As for your (evidence free) speculation that prices will somehow fall in the future when we leave what is the largest tariff-free trading bloc in the world this is certainly entertaining if nothing else.

He told me he didn't care ("not bothered") if the UK broke up as a result of Brexit and I believe him. I doubt very much he gives a damn about anyone who is set to suffer now - especially the young.

No food prices are set to INCREASE as a result of Brexit as more inflation in our economy inevitably results in price increases in the shops. Now if you really are insistent on attempting to deny this obvious truth then why don't you take this opportunity to forecast that the latest inflation number - due this week I understand - will show a stable or indeed falling inflation rate? I'm even happy to have a little charity bet on the subject it if you like ...

But the evidence shows that food costs have been reducing (as a proportion of household expenditure) for many years while we have maintained our EU (and Single Market) membership. You can easily check that for yourself if you care to. In the Single Market of course food imports from other EU states attract a zero import tariff rate, which common sense should tell you goes far to counteract the effect of EU farm subsidies. National farm subsidies by the way may still be required when we do eventually leave the EU in any case. My apologies if that too is inconvenient to your argument.

I find your claims to be concerned with the fate of the poor to be unconvincing. Among the very poorest in society are of course those who for one reason or another find themselves claiming benefits - how would the reduced growth rates we now seem set for allow their income to grow in real terms? Perhaps they might find gainful employment instead of life on the dole you may say - except that as a result of Brexit unemployment is now forecast to increase from 4.9% to 6% or more. For that matter how are our farmers to keep producing food at today's economic price when the supply of foreign labour so many of them require to gather in their crops every harvest time will be cut when we depart the Single Market? Again, increasing food and transports costs effect the poor disproportionately. It is a matter of fact (that you and your mate Wes can check for yourself) that the Bank of England has already conceded that we will fail to meet its current 2% inflation rate target in the years ahead. You may be callow enough not to comprehend what inflation does to a person when money is tight - I on the other hand know only too well what that really means.

If you are attempting to persuade this forum that a fall in the Pound's exchange rate of some 20% (against the USD) will not have a significant impact on UK inflation then you will have to work a hell of a lot harder than this to be frank. Again, any rise in inflation always hits the poorest the hardest - this fact of economic life does not seem to concern you very much for some reason. All of this, and more, was predicted before the referendum vote, but glibly dismissed as just 'Project Fear' at the time. Well it seems that in this regard at least Project Fear is rapidly morphing into Project Clear.

Interesting, but not terribly germane to the point regarding inflation.

The truth is that the UK has seldom, if ever, been self-sufficient in terms of its food supply - especially if you take the vital 'feed' element of the question into consideration. I take it you do understand that without sufficient feed UK farmers cannot produce all the live-stock we required to meet our needs? You will agree that even on your chosen number we still import a huge percentage of our food?