Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Wes Tender]

Now you have clarified that there was no economic argument for leaving the EU(apart from £350 m for the NHS), let’s take your stated reasons for leaving and see where we are:

a. Immigration – no change and unlikely to change if we want to retain access to the single market – likely final outcome Brexit Failure.

b. Control of our Borders - we have this we just don’t do it very well due to lack of Government funding. When linked to point a, above likely final outcome Brexit Failure.

c. Regaining Sovereignty – this is a much misused and abused term, what you Brexiters seem to aspire to is Westphalian Sovereignty. Whilst leaving the EU will remove one external body from direct dominion over some aspects of UK Legislation and Regulation there are many more international bodies the membership of which has not been questioned by Brexiters and yet they have direct dominion over areas of our Legislation and Regulation – likely final outcome Brexit Failure.

d. Legal System – The recent u-turn on a UK Bill of Rights has amply demonstrated that this is not easy. If we wish to remain a major economy and nation with global influence we have to accept a whole range of external jurisdictions that are completely separate to the EU - – likely final outcome Brexit Failure.

So what is it that Brexit will actually achieve, apart from uncertainty, economic turmoil, distraction for getting on with the things that really matter.

 

Give yourself a pat on the back as a massage to your ego in believing that you have confirmed something in your own mind, that I have somehow clarified that there was no economic argument for leaving the EU, (apart from the £350 million gross weekly contribution.) Others think that there are additional financial benefits that could be gained:-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/why-leaving-the-eu-could-actually-be-to-our-economic-advantage/

 

Whereas I accept that the article is based on a lot of supposition, that is also your forte as I note that you qualify each and every one of them as "likely final outcome". This is hardly anything akin to concrete evidence that your position is likely to occur, rather a whistle in the wind.

 

My advice to you lot, is to wait and see what transpires instead of bleating on about things that might not happen. For the great majority of the British public, there has been no noticeable difference to their everyday lives in the past 6 weeks.

[Whitey Grandad]

You don't absorb much from reading posts, do you, and you are wide of the mark when it comes to second guessing what I and other Brexiteers want, now that we have voted to leave the EU. Of course, it is debatable as to whether a renegotiated trade deal with the EU will be inferior to the current one. That deal ties us into totally uncontrolled free mass immigration from any other member state. The EU will attempt to insist that if we wish to remain inside the single market, free movement of peoples must continue. We will insist that it cannot. So the negotiations will centre on finding a solution whereby if we cannot remain inside the single market, we will still have access to the single market, as do many other Countries who trade with the EU. It is completely over the top hyperbole to conclude that fixing such a deal and at the same time negotiating several other bilateral deals with the fastest developing economies of the World constitutes economic lunacy, so I have to question your judgement for even thinking that.

 

The benefits of leaving have been explained and debated ad nauseum, but if you are going to dismiss them as empty rhetoric, then I really can't be arsed to restate them. I have certainly given my reasons many times in the referendum debate, so why don't you read back a bit?

 

Regarding your additional question on whether the Brexit campaign was all about money or not, that is not a conclusion that you can reach by just citing in isolation something written on the side of the campaign bus, whilst simultaneously ignoring the main thrust of the campaign which you glibly choose to dismiss without any concrete reasons for why they won't happen. Basing your arguments on this shaky premise seems a bit weak, so why don't you tell us why none of those things mentioned will not happen?

 

Of course I read the posts but I can also get to the essence, if any, of the meanings. Once again you refuse or are unable to give us the benefits of leaving. I heard everything that Brexiters proclaimed but I was not so gullible as to believe a word of any of it. There was no substance there and there is still no substance now. You won't give us any and neither will the main protagonists because now that they've finally caught the bus they don't know what to do with it nor what to do next. Please, pretty please, give us some substance to what you would like to get out of this. What trading situation you would like us to have with the EU or what laws you would like to see repealed.

 

Do you really believe that we can have an EU trade deal as good as what we have now without the associated conditions on movement of labour and contributory payments? I don't know of any other country that does. Do you believe that we have the resources to negotiate this and at the same time negotiate deals with the rest of the world given the extremely limited resources that are available to us? The lunacy stems from believing that this can be done promptly and effectively without incurring the losses and damages that face us for years to come. Even if you believe that we will be better off in the long term we will never make up for the shortfall in the medium term.

 

I, also, have given my reasons in previous posts as to why the Benefits claimed by the Brexiters will never materialise.

 

Immigration has never been controlled before despite government efforts, there is no will to do so inside the Home Office. Otherwise why has immigration from the rest of the world been so high? Even if we could get EU immigration down to zero there would still be the hundreds of thousands coming annually from elsewhere.

 

Sovereignty? This is a very fine and emotive word but actually means very little in today's world. We are signed up to many international commitments that restrict our freedom of operation and these won't change.

 

Control of our borders? We can do that now - including arrivals from the EU despite what is claimed - but for some reason we don't actually bother.

 

Hmm, what else?

 

Economic? Apart from any perceived saving in contributions everything else is negative. Even these savings will be more than offset by the shortfall in economic growth and increases in bureaucratic complexity that have been dumped upon us.

 

I ask again, please give us some specifics, some concrete examples of what you think we will be able to do in future. Don't keep harking back to what was said during the campaign because without specifics that was all 'empty rhetoric'.

[shurlock]

Interesting piece on the role of the Beeb in the referendum - how 'balance' paralysed and prevented it from exposing the nonsense of the leave camp.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/3236e982-5fb6-11e6-ae3f-77baadeb1c93

 

That said, it was probably in a no win situation - had it called out the bull****, Les and kippers would have been screaming bloody murder.

Edited 12 August, 2016 by shurlock

[Whitey Grandad]

Give yourself a pat on the back as a massage to your ego in believing that you have confirmed something in your own mind, that I have somehow clarified that there was no economic argument for leaving the EU, (apart from the £350 million gross weekly contribution.) Others think that there are additional financial benefits that could be gained:-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/why-leaving-the-eu-could-actually-be-to-our-economic-advantage/

 

Whereas I accept that the article is based on a lot of supposition, that is also your forte as I note that you qualify each and every one of them as "likely final outcome". This is hardly anything akin to concrete evidence that your position is likely to occur, rather a whistle in the wind.

 

My advice to you lot, is to wait and see what transpires instead of bleating on about things that might not happen. For the great majority of the British public, there has been no noticeable difference to their everyday lives in the past 6 weeks.

 

Are you still quoting £350 million? That really is unbelievable in every sense of the word.

 

The 'great majority of the British public' wouldn't have voted as they did if they knew what was in store for them. No difference apart from the drop in Sterling? It takes time for inflationary pressures to work through. Certainly any of the millions who went abroad over the past few weeks will have found their money doesn't go as far. I think this is the real crux of the vote. Many millions don't appreciate the benefits that we got through our membership of the EU and have been constantly misled by UKIP and the Daily Mail (other tabloids are available) and had voted over emotive non-quantifiable issues whereas a minority of us could see what the damage would be.

[Whitey Grandad]

Interesting piece on the role of the Beeb in the referendum - how 'balance' paralysed and prevented it from exposing the grossly inaccurate shibboleths held by brexiters.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/3236e982-5fb6-11e6-ae3f-77baadeb1c93

 

I'd like to read that but there is a paywall. I maintained earlier that there was no journalistic examination of the contentions and that the preoccupation with 'balance' distorted the true picture. It seemed that everybody had to be given equal weight and airtime as though this were a parliamentary election.

[Wes Tender]

Bigger letters = bigger lie.

 

As someone famous once said:

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

 

Or a mate of his:

 

"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily;"

 

Whilst we are on the subject of lies, let's debate the two main financial claims that featured in the campaigns, one from each side; the £350 million weekly cost of our EU membership, and the £4300 annual loss to each family's finances in the event that we left. The £350 million (or arguably even more) is the gross cost of our membership, excused as being similar to a person's gross pay before deductions. OK, a bit disingenuous to portray it in that way, but still justifiable as accurate. The £4300 figure though, and the basis of its calculation was all over the place. One part was based on GDP instead of average income, one part was based on current figures, whereas another was based on the position in 2030. It was worst case scenario. In short, it was a farcical figure dreamed up by Project Fear and having been shot down in flames by Andrew Neal and others, its credibility was dismissed.

 

Why each was used is down to marketing expertise, whereby to get a message across, the most effective tactic is to bring home a financial advantage or disadvantage that Joe Public can relate to or empathise with. Enough analysis has gone into what the remain camp would regard as their post mortem investigation into the failure to convince the electorate that we would be better off staying in the EU, but the essence of their mistake was that instead of highlighting the benefits of staying in, through Project Fear they negatively highlighted the financial penalties of leaving.

[Whitey Grandad]

Give yourself a pat on the back as a massage to your ego in believing that you have confirmed something in your own mind, that I have somehow clarified that there was no economic argument for leaving the EU, (apart from the £350 million gross weekly contribution.) Others think that there are additional financial benefits that could be gained:-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/25/why-leaving-the-eu-could-actually-be-to-our-economic-advantage/

 

Whereas I accept that the article is based on a lot of supposition, that is also your forte as I note that you qualify each and every one of them as "likely final outcome". This is hardly anything akin to concrete evidence that your position is likely to occur, rather a whistle in the wind.

 

My advice to you lot, is to wait and see what transpires instead of bleating on about things that might not happen. For the great majority of the British public, there has been no noticeable difference to their everyday lives in the past 6 weeks.

 

Some very wishy-washy thinking in that link. Basically, if all the balls fall in the right slots we might be slightly better off in 15 years from now. Yeah, right.

[shurlock]

I'd like to read that but there is a paywall. I maintained earlier that there was no journalistic examination of the contentions and that the preoccupation with 'balance' distorted the true picture. It seemed that everybody had to be given equal weight and airtime as though this were a parliamentary election.

 

Here it is:

 

“Rather than challenging this statistical claim … the presenter on the Today programme simply stated, ‘Well, we will hear the opposition view on that from Labour and the Liberal Democrats later in the programme’.”

 

A report commissioned by the BBC Trust on the impartiality in statistics reporting was released this week. The 86-page study praises the work of the corporation’s journalists but cautions that there is “a lack of appropriate challenge in some output” and “a perceived reluctance sometimes to provide fuller interpretation”.

 

The findings will resonate with many who expressed frustration with media coverage of the Brexit referendum — and in particular how claims made by the different sides were often insufficiently challenged by the national broadcaster. As Professor John Van Reenen of the LSE wrote in the aftermath:

 

“It’s like saying ‘One side says that world is flat, but this is contested by Remain who say it is round. We’ll let you decide.’ The public broadcaster failed a basic duty of care to the British people.”

 

There is no shortage of others who believe the BBC would have been blamed whatever the outcome of the referendum, that it was biased against Leave, or even that it did a good job even though the media’s influence was in any case modest.

 

The BBC’s editorial guidelines on reporting the referendum specifically called for “impartial and independent reporting of the campaign”. Yet for many commentators, rigid balance overrode what should have been “fair coverage and rigorous scrutiny of the policies and campaigns of all relevant parties and campaign groups.”

 

In April, Timothy Garton-Ash warned of the risk of ‘fairness bias’: “You give equal airtime to unequal arguments, without daring to say that, on this or that point, one side has more evidence, or a significantly larger body of expert opinion, than the other.”

 

In the aftermath of the vote to leave the EU, this bias — dubbed “regulated equivocation” — has been reported by media academics in a new publication issued by the Political Studies Association. The academics found that while the overall weight of UK newspaper articles supported Leave, broadcasters — who operate under tight regulatory scrutiny — offered equal airtime but favoured daily campaigning and polemic over analysis and scrutiny of claims. Much as Michael Gove famously dismissed “experts”, coverage was largely “presidential” — focused on leading (and male) politicians — while academics, economists and other specialists were hardly seen. “Objectivity … was trumped by impartiality,” writes Stephen Cushion from Cardiff University.

 

Professor Ivor Gaber points out that the BBC gave equal weight to the 1,280 business leaders who signed a letter to The Times backing UK membership of the EU and the (already oft reported) Leave view of Sir James Dyson. It did the same with the warnings of 10 Nobel Prize-winning economists and (frequently already cited) pro-Brexit Patrick Minford, and often referred unchecked to the discredited figure of £350m UK savings from EU contributions. Gaber adds that much scepticism was bounced from news interviews to the BBC’s (excellent but much less viewed) Reality Check service.

 

Perhaps post-referendum reporting lessons should draw from the BBC Trust’s separate review of scientific impartiality, triggered by the contested portrayal of climate change and the MMR vaccine scare. It called for judgement and “due weight” in coverage, as well as better training.

 

Charles Grant has argued that journalists’ poor knowledge of the EU contributed to the Brexit vote. While the outcome of the June 23 referendum may seem to reduce the need for such “insider” expertise, in-depth understanding of the EU, it will remain just as important in reporting negotiations on the future of Britain outside the EU in the years ahead.

[Whitey Grandad]

Whilst we are on the subject of lies, let's debate the two main financial claims that featured in the campaigns, one from each side; the £350 million weekly cost of our EU membership, and the £4300 annual loss to each family's finances in the event that we left. The £350 million (or arguably even more) is the gross cost of our membership, excused as being similar to a person's gross pay before deductions. OK, a bit disingenuous to portray it in that way, but still justifiable as accurate. The £4300 figure though, and the basis of its calculation was all over the place. One part was based on GDP instead of average income, one part was based on current figures, whereas another was based on the position in 2030. It was worst case scenario. In short, it was a farcical figure dreamed up by Project Fear and having been shot down in flames by Andrew Neal and others, its credibility was dismissed.

 

Why each was used is down to marketing expertise, whereby to get a message across, the most effective tactic is to bring home a financial advantage or disadvantage that Joe Public can relate to or empathise with. Enough analysis has gone into what the remain camp would regard as their post mortem investigation into the failure to convince the electorate that we would be better off staying in the EU, but the essence of their mistake was that instead of highlighting the benefits of staying in, through Project Fear they negatively highlighted the financial penalties of leaving.

 

No no no, £350 million is never the gross cost. That amount is never handed over. We don't actually have a 'rebate', rather we pay a discounted figure.

Edited 12 August, 2016 by Whitey Grandad

[Verbal]

That's a pretty fatuous argument though that can be used to say that nothing should ever be done by government more complicated than making a cup of tea. There are numerous examples of civil servants failing miserably to negotiate and manage basic outsourcing or procurement contracts. Following your logic we should therefore scale government back to only the most basic and trivial tasks because you can find an example of something difficult being messed up.

 

So by your bizarre logic, the evidence of ways in which civil servants fail to deliver on relatively small contractual matters like PFI, IT, British Bill of Rights, etc., is in no way relevant to the outcome of an absolutely huge contractual matter like Brexit. Good luck with that.

 

Leaving the EU is obviously going to be horrifically complicated. I don't think anyone thinks otherwise.

 

Completely and utterly wrong. The Leave message has 'ease' inbuilt: it's easy to leave, and we'll head for the 'sunny uplands' (© Gove) of post-Brexit bliss. Your great Brexit leaders continue even now to plush this big fat lie. Here's a section of a press release hastily withdrawn by Liam Fox's 'international trade' department.

 

https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/764099561451388928

 

Why was it withdrawn? Who knows. But one reason might be that it contains two rather huge whoppers: that we can simply revert to WTO rules (we can't; we're not single-country members); and that WTO will cover all our trading activity (it won't; it covers goods only, and 80% of the British economy is services, so no problem there...).

 

And don't forget the ineffable Leadsom, and her considered opinion post Brexit that some farms are for sheep and some are for butterflies. Really!

 

We're going to need new language for the mess that's about to be unleashed by people like the disgraced-ex-minister-but-now-minister again Fox: multishambles? Or (for Tender) schmuckathon?

[Jonnyboy]

No it wasn't. The main arguments for Brexit were immigration and control of our borders, regaining lost sovereignty and restoring the supremacy of our legal system. It was mainly your lot rabbiting on about the financial aspects.

 

So how come whenever I'd say to a kipper "you basically just don't like foreigners living here" they'd come back with "no the European Union takes all our money?"

[Whitey Grandad]

No we didn't . If we did EU nationals wouldn't get child benefit for children living abroad

 

To return to your reply for a moment (I have been off Internet for a few days).

The payment of benefits varies from one member to another and it is Britain's choice to pay child benefit to children living abroad. We could have chosen not to.

 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/288

 

'Benefit Rules across the EU

 

7 Most countries do not pay child benefit in respect of children living outside of their territory. According to the EU’s Mutual Information System on Social Protection, in order to claim child benefit in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden the child must be resident in the territory.[3] In Ireland the rules stipulate that the child must be normally living with and being supported by the recipient however in practice this is not the case.[4] Only in the UK, Czech Republic, Germany, Latvia, and the Netherlands can child benefit be claimed for children who live in another EU state.'

 

And a ruling where the ECJ has supported us:

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/14/uk-can-refuse-benefits-to-unemployed-eu-migrants-judges-rule

[aintforever]

To return to your reply for a moment (I have been off Internet for a few days).

The payment of benefits varies from one member to another and it is Britain's choice to pay child benefit to children living abroad. We could have chosen not to.

 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/288

 

'Benefit Rules across the EU

 

7 Most countries do not pay child benefit in respect of children living outside of their territory. According to the EU’s Mutual Information System on Social Protection, in order to claim child benefit in Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden the child must be resident in the territory.[3] In Ireland the rules stipulate that the child must be normally living with and being supported by the recipient however in practice this is not the case.[4] Only in the UK, Czech Republic, Germany, Latvia, and the Netherlands can child benefit be claimed for children who live in another EU state.'

 

And a ruling where the ECJ has supported us:

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/14/uk-can-refuse-benefits-to-unemployed-eu-migrants-judges-rule

 

So how come Cameron came back with such a ****ty deal prior to the refurendum?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35490877

[Wes Tender]

So how come whenever I'd say to a kipper "you basically just don't like foreigners living here" they'd come back with "no the European Union takes all our money?"

 

I don't know about your experiences of speaking to UKIPers in the circles you mingle with, and neither am I interested in your anecdotes about them. I'm a Conservative as I've explained many times.

[Whitey Grandad]

So how come Cameron came back with such a ****ty deal prior to the refurendum?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35490877

 

I can't tell you that. All I can say is that I cannot see why we couldn't just implement the same rules as those other countries that don't send the money abroad. The EU just says that every citizen should get the same deal but of course children living abroad only really applies to non-British recipients. The amount in proved is out of all proportion to the political significance, some £28m a year, and HMRC consider that it would cost more to prevent the payments than it would save.

 

Cameron did get an opt-out of ever closer union but that disappeared the morning after the vote.

[Batman]

Unemployment has fallen. Despite economists saying it was rise a fair bit of we voted BREXIT

[OldNick]

Unemployment has fallen. Despite economists saying it was rise a fair bit of we voted BREXIT

we havent pushed the btton yet. I suspect we will see more as people see what the deal ias likely to be.

Inflation will start to rise as the 10% devaluation of goods brought in start to bite. People and businesses will have less money and belts will be tightened. Your salary in the Navy will be squeezed although as you are under water a lot of the time and not shopping it may not effect you the same.

[aintforever]

we havent pushed the btton yet. I suspect we will see more as people see what the deal ias likely to be.

Inflation will start to rise as the 10% devaluation of goods brought in start to bite. People and businesses will have less money and belts will be tightened. Your salary in the Navy will be squeezed although as you are under water a lot of the time and not shopping it may not effect you the same.

 

So when bad stuff happens after the vote it's because of Brexit, good stuff happens it's nothing to do with Brexit because the button has yet to be pressed.

[OldNick]

So when bad stuff happens after the vote it's because of Brexit, good stuff happens it's nothing to do with Brexit because the button has yet to be pressed.

im making the observation, that is all.

 

We are in a phoney war at present, a kind of suspended animation as we are still in and will be for 2 years. Once the button is pressed people outside the UK will then have to make their business decisions. That is when we will see how Brexit will effect us.

Shortterm as in the next few months the devaluation of the pound will of course start to show up in the food basket/fuel prices and any building materials we use.

 

The devaluation will of course have its upside as the Footsie 100 will go up and our exports will be cheaper and so we will sell more abroad, how that will help the person in the street Im not sure.

[Verbal]

Unemployment has fallen. Despite economists saying it was rise a fair bit of we voted BREXIT

 

That's as close to a fib as it's possible to get. The employment figures cover a period up to precisely five working days after the referendum vote.

[Wes Tender]

From the Guardian:-

The surprise fall in the number of people claiming unemployment benefits in July suggests the Brexit vote did not deal a major blow to employer confidence, in the immediate aftermath at least.

 

A total of 763,600 claimed jobless benefits last month, 8,600 fewer than in June.

 

It was the first monthly fall since February 2016.

[Johnny Bognor]

So when bad stuff happens after the vote it's because of Brexit, good stuff happens it's nothing to do with Brexit because the button has yet to be pressed.

Indeed.

 

Regarding inflation, people won't continue to spend as they did in the past. So more would/should buy British.

 

This will partly offset inflationary pressures.

 

The assumption that everyone will have the same spending patterns and take the price rises on the chin is naive

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[OldNick]

Indeed.

 

Regarding inflation, people won't continue to spend as they did in the past. So more would/should buy British.

 

This will partly offset inflationary pressures.

 

The assumption that everyone will have the same spending patterns and take the price rises on the chin is naive

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

Buy British Johnny? What would that be ? Insurance, some cars, houses, and beer. Commodities all come from abroad and they will be 10-15% dearer, the British companies will have to pass that rise on, or a major part of it

[CB Fry]

Indeed.

 

Regarding inflation, people won't continue to spend as they did in the past. So more would/should buy British.

 

This will partly offset inflationary pressures.

 

The assumption that everyone will have the same spending patterns and take the price rises on the chin is naive

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

"Buy British" what an effing joke. Sweet that some people actually believe this is how it will play out, especially once we're in hoc to the likes of the USA who will take us to the effing cleaners as part of our rebound trade "deal".

 

But, hey, sovereignty.

[Johnny Bognor]

Buy British Johnny? What would that be ? Insurance, some cars, houses, and beer. Commodities all come from abroad and they will be 10-15% dearer, the British companies will have to pass that rise on, or a major part of it

People could choose to holiday here ..

 

People could buy home grown food which will be more competitive now..

 

English cheddar over French or Italian cheese...

 

There are plenty of british things that can be bought... I just can't be arsed to list them

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Johnny Bognor]

"Buy British" what an effing joke. Sweet that some people actually believe this is how it will play out, especially once we're in hoc to the likes of the USA who will take us to the effing cleaners as part of our rebound trade "deal".

 

But, hey, sovereignty.

When the economy last went through steady economic growth (not including the labour credit fueled boom) was after the £ plummeted on leaving the ERM.

 

Devaluation is not all bad news..

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[CB Fry]

When the economy last went through steady economic growth (not including the labour credit fueled boom) was after the £ plummeted on leaving the ERM.

 

Devaluation is not all bad news..

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

What's that got to do with "buy British"?

[Whitey Grandad]

When the economy last went through steady economic growth (not including the labour credit fueled boom) was after the £ plummeted on leaving the ERM.

 

Devaluation is not all bad news..

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

After the crash in 2008 the £ plummeted but exports did not increase. Price is only one factor, there have to be customers willing to buy.

The exit from the ERM also coincided with the introduction of the Single Market which is generally credited with our outstanding growth since then.

Edited 17 August, 2016 by Whitey Grandad
Something added

[solentstars]

After the crash in 2008 the £ plummeted but exports did not increase. Price is only one factor, there have to be customers willing to buy.

The exit from the ERM also coincided with the introduction of the Single Market which is generally credited with our outstanding growth since then.

agree with you has i remember those buy britsh adverts in the 1960s and 70s and did not work then ,those who voted for brexit remind me of those people who stick there fingers and ignore the reality of any evidence or experts and they live in there own brexit fantasy world despite all the facts available ,,lets face it we have damaged our economy for no good reason ..devalued our currency leading to higher prices in the shops and major investment has been stopped in its track and pension funds at risk at poor returns for the average person to come. lets face it the brexit lot admitted they did not have a plan and so much for idiots like boris saying we will get all these trade deals in months....and the gullible voted for it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

agree with you has i remember those buy britsh adverts in the 1960s and 70s and did not work then ,those who voted for brexit remind me of those people who stick there fingers and ignore the reality of any evidence or experts and they live in there own brexit fantasy world despite all the facts available ,,lets face it we have damaged our economy for no good reason ..devalued our currency leading to higher prices in the shops and major investment has been stopped in its track and pension funds at risk at poor returns for the average person to come. lets face it the brexit lot admitted they did not have a plan and so much for idiots like boris saying we will get all these trade deals in months....and the gullible voted for it.

 

Lol , still bitter at losing I see

[Whitey Grandad]

Lol , still bitter at losing I see

 

There are no winners or losers, only losers.

[OldNick]

People could choose to holiday here ..

 

People could buy home grown food which will be more competitive now..

 

English cheddar over French or Italian cheese...

 

There are plenty of british things that can be bought... I just can't be arsed to list them

 

 

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

i think you can see the folly of the buy British by your reply.

I fully agree with the Brexit regarding the politics in Brussels but the thing that effects all our lives is the economics, and we have shot ourselves in the foot.

[aintforever]

There are no winners or losers, only losers.

 

With that sort of negative attitude you will just be a loser anyway.

[Johnny Bognor]

i think you can see the folly of the buy British by your reply.

I fully agree with the Brexit regarding the politics in Brussels but the thing that effects all our lives is the economics, and we have shot ourselves in the foot.

There are loads of examples...

 

Take call centres or software development jobs which are often outsourced offshore. They are now 15% more expensive. The argument to onshore becomes stronger.

 

There are pluses and minuses and as we have a balance of trade deficit, overall we could be worse off. However a significant part of this will be offset by stronger exports and buying British.

 

People won't be necessarily making a "buy british" decision. Many consumers buy on price. British products will be more price competitive and people who buy on price will be more likely to buy British by default

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[solentstars]

There are no winners or losers, only losers.

totally agree there are no wimners in this silly move and only losers..i,ve just booked a holiday to mallorcia for 4 and its got me £300 more now ...lets face it anyone who voted out based on nothing has there was never a plan ,says a lot about them because it was not based on ecnomics. i,ve got my doubts article 50 will be triggered anytime soon.. has those in government know it will be a economic nightmare for the country.

[solentstars]

There are loads of examples...

 

Take call centres or software development jobs which are often outsourced offshore. They are now 15% more expensive. The argument to onshore becomes stronger.

 

There are pluses and minuses and as we have a balance of trade deficit, overall we could be worse off. However a significant part of this will be offset by stronger exports and buying British.

 

People won't be necessarily making a "buy british" decision. Many consumers buy on price. British products will be more price competitive and people who buy on price will be more likely to buy British by default

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

yes but it also depends of acess to the single market or we will be hit with tariffs of 5% and !0% which thosed based on the mainland will have advantages of ecnomics of scale in production due to the fact of having a bigger market, yes we can undercut them by reduceing red tape and have lower wages and protection but it will not help those stuck on lower wages in the country.

[Whitey Grandad]

With that sort of negative attitude you will just be a loser anyway.

 

I'm a realist not a pessimist. A realist is an optimist with the benefit of experience. Wishful thinking will get you nowhere. Those who say 'always look on the bright side of life' overlook the mass crucifixion that followed immediately afterwards.

 

This was a totally unnecessary decision involving a comprehensive dismantling of our economic and trade position in the world. We were actually doing rather well but we're not going to get very far just by eating our own cheeses.

[Guided Missile]

Today's Telegraph reports the latest forecast from Moody's here.

 

Britain’s economy will slow down but should not go anywhere close to a recession, according to economists at credit ratings agency Moody’s, while growth in the rest of the world is also “stabilising.” Although markets dived on the referendum result in June, stock prices have recovered and now economists also believe the impact of the vote will be relatively modest, compared with some early fears. The lower pound should support economic growth in the UK, Moody’s said, while the government is expected to loosen the purse strings to shore up GDP. Moody’s economists predict growth of 1.5pc this year and 1.2pc in 2017.

 

I wonder what the old women on here have to say about that.....

[Wes Tender]

I'm a realist not a pessimist. A realist is an optimist with the benefit of experience. Wishful thinking will get you nowhere. Those who say 'always look on the bright side of life' overlook the mass crucifixion that followed immediately afterwards.

 

This was a totally unnecessary decision involving a comprehensive dismantling of our economic and trade position in the world. We were actually doing rather well but we're not going to get very far just by eating our own cheeses.

 

I am also a realist of a similar age to you I would imagine, so I also have the benefit of experience. However, it appears that your memory of historical events has become blurred to the extent that you credit the change in our fortunes as a nation to our membership of what became the EU, instead of recognizing that much of it was due to the political changes brought about by our own government policies, particularly those under Thatcher and subsequently under Blair/Thatcher Lite.

 

It is debatable as to whether you are a pessimist or a realist, when you base your position as a realist on the premise that we have somehow dismantled our economic and trade position with the World, when we have now freed ourselves to arrange our own trade deals with the most successful growing trade countries of the World, rather than as just one cog among 27 other countries. Also, one has to admire your pessimism/realism when you are able to base your position without any realistic foundation for predicting what the outcome will be regarding both our future trading position with the EU and indeed the rest of the World. A pessimist would take your Corporal Fraser stance, whereas a realist would adopt a wait and see stance.

Edited 18 August, 2016 by Wes Tender

[Johnny Bognor]

I'm a realist not a pessimist. A realist is an optimist with the benefit of experience. Wishful thinking will get you nowhere. Those who say 'always look on the bright side of life' overlook the mass crucifixion that followed immediately afterwards.

 

This was a totally unnecessary decision involving a comprehensive dismantling of our economic and trade position in the world. We were actually doing rather well but we're not going to get very far just by eating our own cheeses.

So with the benefit of experience, explain how everything went to rat sh it the last time there was a significant devaluation after exiting the ERM...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[CB Saint]

I'm a realist not a pessimist. A realist is an optimist with the benefit of experience. Wishful thinking will get you nowhere. Those who say 'always look on the bright side of life' overlook the mass crucifixion that followed immediately afterwards.

 

This was a totally unnecessary decision involving a comprehensive dismantling of our economic and trade position in the world. We were actually doing rather well but we're not going to get very far just by eating our own cheeses.

 

I think life eating our own cheeses won't be all that bad.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/11573124/How-British-cheese-took-over-the-world-even-the-French-love-it.html

[aintforever]

totally agree there are no wimners in this silly move and only losers..i,ve just booked a holiday to mallorcia for 4 and its got me £300 more now ...lets face it anyone who voted out based on nothing has there was never a plan ,says a lot about them because it was not based on ecnomics. i,ve got my doubts article 50 will be triggered anytime soon.. has those in government know it will be a economic nightmare for the country.

 

Incorrect, foreign holiday becoming more expensive should boost the UK tourism industry.

 

Oh hold on, it already has... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37009735

[Whitey Grandad]

So with the benefit of experience, explain how everything went to rat sh it the last time there was a significant devaluation after exiting the ERM...

 

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

As I said earlier, it also coincided with the commencement of the Single Market.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/10/uk-membership-european-single-market-worth-4-more-gdp-eu-referendum-economy

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz4HgkPvzlY

 

The £ also plummeted in the 2008 but it did nothing for exports.

 

As a general briefing:

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/brexit01.pdf

[Whitey Grandad]

I am also a realist of a similar age to you I would imagine, so I also have the benefit of experience. However, it appears that your memory of historical events has become blurred to the extent that you credit the change in our fortunes as a nation to our membership of what became the EU, instead of recognizing that much of it was due to the political changes brought about by our own government policies, particularly those under Thatcher and subsequently under Blair/Thatcher Lite.

 

It is debatable as to whether you are a pessimist or a realist, when you base your position as a realist on the premise that we have somehow dismantled our economic and trade position with the World, when we have now freed ourselves to arrange our own trade deals with the most successful growing trade countries of the World, rather than as just one cog among 27 other countries. Also, one has to admire your pessimism/realism when you are able to base your position without any realistic foundation for predicting what the outcome will be regarding both our future trading position with the EU and indeed the rest of the World. A pessimist would take your Corporal Fraser stance, whereas a realist would adopt a wait and see stance.

 

This fact is unescapable. We have thrown away our current deal with the EU and it is not going to be continued without the free movement of labour that is so detested by the Leavers. The very first trade deal that we need to negotiate before any other, anywhere in the world, is that with the EU. They are our most important and biggest customers. It was an act of complete and utter economic lunacy to throw away our current trading arrangement without any inkling whatsoever as to what would replace it. If you are happy to put your faith in David (flunky A levesl) Davis then I seriously question your judgement. Britain just does not have the people with experience to handle all these new negotiations. That is the realism of the situation.

[Whitey Grandad]

Incorrect, foreign holiday becoming more expensive should boost the UK tourism industry.

 

Oh hold on, it already has... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37009735

 

Oh great! Now we can't afford to go abroad and we can't even go on holiday in the UK because it's full of bl**dy foreigners and the roads are crowded.

[Wes Tender]

This fact is unescapable. We have thrown away our current deal with the EU and it is not going to be continued without the free movement of labour that is so detested by the Leavers. The very first trade deal that we need to negotiate before any other, anywhere in the world, is that with the EU. They are our most important and biggest customers. It was an act of complete and utter economic lunacy to throw away our current trading arrangement without any inkling whatsoever as to what would replace it. If you are happy to put your faith in David (flunky A levesl) Davis then I seriously question your judgement. Britain just does not have the people with experience to handle all these new negotiations. That is the realism of the situation.

 

The bit you highlighted clearly states that we have dismantled our economic and trade position with the World and now you are backtracking to make it only the EU. You're quite right, we will not continue as a member of the single market if that means we have to accept the free movement of peoples as a condition. However, that does not mean that we cannot trade with the single market as most of the rest of the World do, without them having to accept the free movement of peoples. In the same way that you make the point that the EU are our biggest customers, likewise we are the biggest customers of the major players there too, so there is mutual interest in doing a deal that suits both parties.

 

Of course, there are several paths that we can go down and it is rather disingenuous of you to claim that the politicians supporting Brexit, or indeed those supporting Remain, have no inkling of the alternative options available to us. There was plenty of material out there during the Referendum debate discussing the various alternatives, yet you somehow believe that those who need to decide our future strategy either don't realise what they are, or can't decide what will be best for us. If you truly think that, then I question your judgement.

 

I am confident that when Article 50 is actioned, there will a clear path decided on our objectives and the right people in place to negotiate them.

[Whitey Grandad]

The bit you highlighted clearly states that we have dismantled our economic and trade position with the World and now you are backtracking to make it only the EU. You're quite right, we will not continue as a member of the single market if that means we have to accept the free movement of peoples as a condition. However, that does not mean that we cannot trade with the single market as most of the rest of the World do, without them having to accept the free movement of peoples. In the same way that you make the point that the EU are our biggest customers, likewise we are the biggest customers of the major players there too, so there is mutual interest in doing a deal that suits both parties.

 

Of course, there are several paths that we can go down and it is rather disingenuous of you to claim that the politicians supporting Brexit, or indeed those supporting Remain, have no inkling of the alternative options available to us. There was plenty of material out there during the Referendum debate discussing the various alternatives, yet you somehow believe that those who need to decide our future strategy either don't realise what they are, or can't decide what will be best for us. If you truly think that, then I question your judgement.

 

I am confident that when Article 50 is actioned, there will a clear path decided on our objectives and the right people in place to negotiate them.

 

We throw away all our existing trade arrangements with the rest of the world as well when we leave the EU. We can continue to trade afterwards but it will be a lot more expensive and time-consuming. It's not all about tariffs either:

 

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa016.pdf#page=3

 

As for our glorious Ministers for Brexit they literally don't have a clue as to how to proceed:

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-will-be-delayed-until-end-of-2019-6kxb7sgrr

 

“They don’t have the infrastructure for the people they need to hire. They say they don’t even know the right questions to ask when they finally begin bargaining with Europe.”

 

Maybe they're too busy empire-building:

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-bureaucracy-will-infuriate-out-voters-xcwcmrjwg

 

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa016.pdf#page=3

[Wes Tender]

We throw away all our existing trade arrangements with the rest of the world as well when we leave the EU. We can continue to trade afterwards but it will be a lot more expensive and time-consuming. It's not all about tariffs either:

 

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa016.pdf#page=3

 

As for our glorious Ministers for Brexit they literally don't have a clue as to how to proceed:

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-will-be-delayed-until-end-of-2019-6kxb7sgrr

 

“They don’t have the infrastructure for the people they need to hire. They say they don’t even know the right questions to ask when they finally begin bargaining with Europe.”

 

Maybe they're too busy empire-building:

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/brexit-bureaucracy-will-infuriate-out-voters-xcwcmrjwg

 

http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa016.pdf#page=3

 

*yawn*

 

So your arguments are partly on articles from the LSE one and half years ago, when there was an impetus to scare us out of leaving by citing doom and gloom scenarios. The article is full of could be, might be, worst case/best case what ifs, and in any event some of the factors considered in the article had already changed in 2015/16. I could equally produce articles for the positive benefits and you would dismiss them in the same way because of their sources. We have had this debate before and during the referendum, so we move on to the ongoing situation now that we have voted to leave. Although it has still only been just under two months since the referendum, there have been very encouraging reactions from numerous countries around the World expressing their desire to enter trade deals with us now that we are not part of the EU and can negotiate unhampered by them, and you still have zero evidence of what trade deals we will subsequently forge with the EU.

 

And then it seems that we have a lovely contradiction from the two Times articles you quoted. I don't have access to the full articles, but from what I can gather, on the one hand there is not the infrastructure of expertise in the new Government Departments and on the other hand, they are employing too many bureaucrats to deal with it. Which one to believe?

 

One article suggests that the electorate will be furious that we replace one load of bureaucrats with another, the author appearing incapable of differentiating between the two types of bureaucrat and that it was the unaccountable power that was wielded by the EU lot which was resented. They really don't have much of a clue when it comes to reading voters' minds when it comes down to issues like this, which will hardly register with most of them at all.

[OldNick]

http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2016/8/19/london-bankers-are-seeking-a-swiss-style-escape-from-the-brexit-mess

[OldNick]

http://www.hl.co.uk/news/2016/8/19/the-brexit-trigger-to-pull-or-not-to-pull