Brexit - Post Match Reaction

[Lord Duckhunter]

She was elected by Tory MPs , just like Magge & Johnny Major were .

[buctootim]

Timmy, you never disappoint in your responses. As usual, your MO is to sneer at the source of the article rather than to argue the toss over what it says. So you are dismissive of a letter by an individual, but Verbal thinks that his one is worthy of consideration. Will you dismiss it because it is the opinion of an individual? Likewise of course, your posts are just that too, your opinion. With you, it isn't what is said that is important, it is who says it. Therefore John Redwood's opinions can be dismissed with a shrug, all of them. You don't debate them, just rubbish them out of hand.

 

There were several articles discussing the adverse affect on our Steel Industry because the EU Investment Bank had made cheap interest loans to the Chinese Steel industry and indeed many others itemising cases where the European Investment Bank had made loans to companies in other countries, both inside and outside the EU, the outcome being that British companies closed or suffered badly from the consequences. The Ford Transit manufacturing in Southampton was of course something affecting jobs in Southampton directly and the York newspaper article was merely a random example of another City where several local industries or companies were closed because of the EU. It doesn't take much digging to find dozens of other anecdotal examples like those. But of course you must accept yourself that some industries and companies have been adversely affected by EU policy, otherwise that would mean that you are blinkered and lacking objectivity.

 

I realise that the EU Common Fisheries Policy is an area where you have some expertise because of your job, whatever that was. However, that does not mean that your opinions (for that is what they surely are) cannot be challenged. There are two sides to every argument, I presume the pertinent ones on the anti side being these:-

 

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/focus/arguments-for-and-against-the-common-fisheries-policy/#.V_YaUezdDiw

 

Of course, I don't know enough about the ins and outs of it to be sure of my facts, but just looking at the points you make, I see no logical reason whatsoever why the catch from outside the 12 mile limit should not have been better than that from the inshore waters. It seems sensible to assume that despite the increased number of fishing boats which will be in the waters further offshore, the quantity of fish would be greatly increased in open waters, wouldn't it? The proportion of EU catch landed by Britain's fleet has been increasing for the past 15 years? No doubt you can back that up, but how do the figures stack up over a period of forty years or so, when the CFP was begun? And why is it that just three companies have control of 61% of the England and Wales fishing quota, nearly a quarter of which belongs to that most British sounding of companies, Cornelis Vroljk?

 

What I sneer at Wes is you claiming something that is demonstrably untrue as fact. When challenged you put forward opinions of other uninformed people as 'evidence'. Wanting something to be true does not make it so. There are plenty of facts out there which can be selectively presented to argue a case if thats your thing, as many on this thread do. That at least gives rise to debate. The EU decimating British industries is quite a big thing no? Would have made the news once or twice. Economists would have written about it. Where is the evidence?

 

Ford's transit plant is often cited and it was a big loss to Southampton. Lets not forget they also took British Government money to stay in Southampton just months before and gave assurances to the European Investment Bank that their loan would lead to additional, new capacity. Either they lied or their plans changed.

 

The Debating Europe link you gave is great. Of course its legitimate to have opposing interpretations of the same facts. As it happens its out of date, from 2012. The Common Fisheries Policy has already been reformed and is much improved - and it was badly flawed. It basically used public tax money to subsidise fishing activity - leading to too many boats taking too many fish out of the water - and stocks crashed. It didnt discriminate against Britain, we actually did better out of it than many countries. Stocks had been declining for decades and catches peaked over 30 years ago, despite ever better fish finding technology and more powerful, bigger boats.

 

I think the most likely reason for the inshore / offshore discrepancy is basically cheating. Fishermen cheat and exceed their quotas, its in their financial interests to do. Inshore boats are more numerous and smaller, frequently operating from harbours where there is no official to check what they land. They have a hunter mentality instead of a farming one - "I might as well take it now otherwise somebody else will". Offshore boats are bigger and operate from ports which have fishery officials, markets and chillers, its harder to cheat and land what is known as black fish or IUU fish - Illegal, Unreported and Undocumented.

 

"And why is it that just three companies have control of 61% of the England and Wales fishing quota, nearly a quarter of which belongs to that most British sounding of companies, Cornelis Vroljk? " For the same reason that the British car industry is foreign owned, globalisation. Fishing has gradually become more industrialised and the preserve of big businesses rather than family owned boats. Frequently British fishing licence holders sell their quotas to large companies. Is this the fault of the EU? Actually its the reverse - the EU want smaller fishermen to run the industry. Its the British government, who are responsible for allocating and regulating the licences in British waters who are at fault. These short reports are worth reading - the source of the stats you quoted earlier. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/05/15/investigation-big-fish-quota-barons-squeeze-out-small-scale-fishermen/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/05/15/investigation-why-this-tiny-boat-has-more-fishing-rights-than-many-trawlers/

 

If you have 10 minutes and an interest its worth time on this site. It tracks all fishing boats over 12m in the world and shows you their name registry and where they have been in the previous two weeks. you have to register but its free. http://globalfishingwatch.org/

Edited 6 October, 2016 by buctootim

[ecuk268]

She was elected by Tory MPs , just like Magge & Johnny Major were .

 

You said in a previous post that she was elected by her party and MPs. The rules state that when the candidates were reduced to 2, the ballot would go to the party members but this never happened so the party members never got the chance to vote.

 

David Cameron was elected by the members in postal ballot where he defeated David Davis.

[Wes Tender]

 

Ford's transit plant is often cited and it was a big loss to Southampton. Lets not forget they also took British Government money to stay in Southampton just months before and gave assurances to the European Investment Bank that their loan would lead to additional, new capacity. Either they lied or their plans changed.

 

The Debating Europe link you gave is great. Of course its legitimate to have opposing interpretations of the same facts. As it happens its out of date, from 2012. The Common Fisheries Policy has already been reformed and is much improved - and it was badly flawed. It basically used public tax money to subsidise fishing activity - leading to too many boats taking too many fish out of the water - and stocks crashed. It didnt discriminate against Britain, we actually did better out of it than many countries. Stocks had been declining for decades and catches peaked over 30 years ago, despite ever better fish finding technology and more powerful, bigger boats.

 

I think the most likely reason for the inshore / offshore discrepancy is basically cheating. Fishermen cheat and exceed their quotas, its in their financial interests to do. Inshore boats are more numerous and smaller, frequently operating from harbours where there is no official to check what they land. They have a hunter mentality instead of a farming one - "I might as well take it now otherwise somebody else will". Offshore boats are bigger and operate from ports which have fishery officials, markets and chillers, its harder to cheat and land what is known as black fish or IUU fish - Illegal, Unreported and Undocumented.

 

"And why is it that just three companies have control of 61% of the England and Wales fishing quota, nearly a quarter of which belongs to that most British sounding of companies, Cornelis Vroljk? " For the same reason that the British car industry is foreign owned, globalisation. Fishing has gradually become more industrialised and the preserve of big businesses rather than family owned boats. Frequently British fishing licence holders sell their quotas to large companies. Is this the fault of the EU? Actually its the reverse - the EU want smaller fishermen to run the industry. Its the British government, who are responsible for allocating and regulating the licences in British waters who are at fault. These short reports are worth reading - the source of the stats you quoted earlier. http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/05/15/investigation-big-fish-quota-barons-squeeze-out-small-scale-fishermen/ http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/05/15/investigation-why-this-tiny-boat-has-more-fishing-rights-than-many-trawlers/

 

If you have 10 minutes and an interest its worth time on this site. It tracks all fishing boats over 12m in the world and shows you their name registry and where they have been in the previous two weeks. you have to register but its free. http://globalfishingwatch.org/

 

When Ford took British Governmental money to stay in Southampton months before they pulled their Transit operation out of the UK, didn't the Government demand that the money be returned? Weren't there legally binding conditions attached to the funding? It seems odd that they could get away with it.

 

Regarding the Fishing industry, I did actually find that link to the Greenpeace article this morning when I did a little further research into the big players in the UK fishing industry and found it fascinating. The way that they operate is scandalous, especially leasing out some of their quota to the smaller players and hoarding stocks to inflate the price. As the fishing industry has had a considerably raised profile because of the Referendum debate, it ought to be subjected to closer review and hopefully the industry should be reformed to limit the power of the big players in order to help the smaller operators to survive. Many coastal communities rely on fishing as their main source of income, often not having much in the way of alternatives to fall back on. Is it too revolutionary a concept to require that all fish caught as part of British quotas should have to be landed at a British Port?

[buctootim]

When Ford took British Governmental money to stay in Southampton months before they pulled their Transit operation out of the UK, didn't the Government demand that the money be returned? Weren't there legally binding conditions attached to the funding? It seems odd that they could get away with it.

 

Regarding the Fishing industry, I did actually find that link to the Greenpeace article this morning when I did a little further research into the big players in the UK fishing industry and found it fascinating. The way that they operate is scandalous, especially leasing out some of their quota to the smaller players and hoarding stocks to inflate the price. As the fishing industry has had a considerably raised profile because of the Referendum debate, it ought to be subjected to closer review and hopefully the industry should be reformed to limit the power of the big players in order to help the smaller operators to survive. Many coastal communities rely on fishing as their main source of income, often not having much in the way of alternatives to fall back on. Is it too revolutionary a concept to require that all fish caught as part of British quotas should have to be landed at a British Port?

 

Actually I remembered incorrectly, the money was for Dagenham - although it was just a month before the Transit announcement and does beg the question why similar money wasn't available for Southampton. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-29692784

 

Generally the smaller boats are more labour intensive, environmentally less damaging and land / process locally so its an all round good thing. The larger industrial offshore boats may be fishing in the waters of several countries for the quota reasons already discussed and will want to land in either the nearest port or where they will get the best price (every country has its own favourite fish they are prepared to pay more for). The issue would be who has the most political lobbying power - the organised big companies or the loosely affiliated one and two man bands. I think we know the answer to that.

[Whitey Grandad]

How much is it?

 

Our gross contribution figure is relevant anyway, as we can spend it where we want. Which was a very easy point to understand for anyone apart from the very simple on here.

 

Anyway, you've filled up this thread with lies, so it's a little rich you're (wrongly) accusing others.

Please don't accuse me of lying. That is a very serious allegation to which I strongly object.

 

Just consider the reduction in taxes on a 1% lower GDP than it would have been and you will get some idea of the figures involved.

£350m is a figure plucked out of thin air. It bears no relation to our gross contribution and has no relevance to the cost of our membership.

[Whitey Grandad]

Currency wasn't tanking the other week and you didn't mention much about it then. It won't be tanking in a few weeks time

It has tanked. It is still tanked.

[Sour Mash]

Please don't accuse me of lying. That is a very serious allegation to which I strongly object.

 

Just consider the reduction in taxes on a 1% lower GDP than it would have been and you will get some idea of the figures involved.

£350m is a figure plucked out of thin air. It bears no relation to our gross contribution and has no relevance to the cost of our membership.

 

You shouldn't have lied if you don't like being accused of it. Not difficult.

[Johnny Bognor]

£350m is a figure plucked out of thin air. It bears no relation to our gross contribution and has no relevance to the cost of our membership.

 

 

£18 billion (our membership fee) ÷52 = £346 million... so not quite plucked out of the air. It is the fee, but not what we pay.

 

We don't pay that as we get an instant £5 billion rebate, bringing the net cost down to £250 million.

 

We do receive funding, which some argue reduces the net amount further. But we have no control over that funding in terms of where or how it is spent. We often have to match it or it comes with strings attached.

 

At the end of the day, wealthier countries like the UK and Germany are subsidising the poorer countries, which some might argue is right.

 

But why should a UK tax payer work until 65 (which will probably rise to 67) to subsidise a Greek worker who can retire at 58 and sit on his arse for 7-10 years???

 

London and the south subsidise the north. Would it be right for northerners to retire 7 years earlier than the rest?

Edited 6 October, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

£18 billion (our membership fee) ÷52 = £346 million... so not quite plucked out of the air. It is the fee, but not what we pay.

 

We don't pay that as we get an instant £5 billion rebate, bringing the net cost down to £250 million.

 

We do receive funding, which some argue reduces the net amount further. But we have no control over that funding in terms of where or how it is spent. We often have to match it or it comes with strings attached.

 

At the end of the day, wealthier countries like the UK and Germany are subsidising the poorer countries, which some might argue is right.

 

But why should a UK tax payer work until 65 (which will probably rise to 67) to subsidise a Greek worker who can retire at 58 and sit on his arse for 7-10 years???

 

London and the south subsidise the north. Would it be right for northerners to retire 7 years earlier than the rest?

 

Thats out of date Johnny, pre bailout. Its now 65 with rise to 67 by 2020

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/greek-debt-crisis-greece-takes-axe-bloated-pension-system-retirement-age-hike-1510281

[Johnny Bognor]

Thats out of date Johnny, pre bailout. Its now 65 with rise to 67 by 2020

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/greek-debt-crisis-greece-takes-axe-bloated-pension-system-retirement-age-hike-1510281

 

Good, I'm glad about that. It doesn't take away the fact we have been subsidising bone idleness and laziness ...

 

They can raise the pension age, but with no jobs, they'll still be sitting on their arses all day long.

Edited 7 October, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[buctootim]

It doesn't take away the fact we have been subsidising bone idleness and laziness ...

 

I wanted you to get an education Johnny so np. Three years wasn't enough though apparently.

[Johnny Bognor]

I wanted you to get an education Johnny so np. Three years wasn't enough though apparently.

 

Perhaps such an education would help me to understand what on earth you are going on about ;-)

[Winnersaint]

But why should a UK tax payer work until 65 (which will probably rise to 67) to subsidise a Greek worker who can retire at 58 and sit on his arse for 7-10 years???

Nothing wrong with being 58 and retired. FWIW worth I've spent my morning trying to get my 58 year old head and hands around FIFA 17 on the PS4. BTW Saints will lose 2-1 at home to Burnley courtesy of a Sam Vokes goal and an own goal by Ryan Bertrand.Steven Davis will get a consolation.

[moonraker]

So the pound continues to tank! Batman will be happy. However the rising cost of imports is wiping out the benefits of our cheaper exports, petrol likely to rise 3 - 4p litre very quickly. It may just be a transitional blip, but I fear we have years of uncertainty and instability, I wonder how many leavers will be so jingoistic in 5 years time?

[Wes Tender]

So the pound continues to tank! Batman will be happy. However the rising cost of imports is wiping out the benefits of our cheaper exports, petrol likely to rise 3 - 4p litre very quickly. It may just be a transitional blip, but I fear we have years of uncertainty and instability, I wonder how many leavers will be so jingoistic in 5 years time?

 

It wasn't that long ago that petrol was £1.40 a gallon, if that's you main worry. These years of uncertainty and instability you speak of; presumably that doesn't apply to several of the EU member states currently? Everything is rosy in Greece's, Spain's, Italy's and others' EU gardens?

[hutch]

Must be at least 30 years

[moonraker]

It wasn't that long ago that petrol was £1.40 a gallon, if that's you main worry. These years of uncertainty and instability you speak of; presumably that doesn't apply to several of the EU member states currently? Everything is rosy in Greece's, Spain's, Italy's and others' EU gardens?

In other news Germany Sweden Finland Denmark........ The price of oil set by OPEC caused that nothing to do with our decision you are very good at laying all ills at the EU s door, why not try thinking a bit broader.

[buctootim]

It wasn't that long ago that petrol was £1.40 a gallon, if that's you main worry. These years of uncertainty and instability you speak of; presumably that doesn't apply to several of the EU member states currently? Everything is rosy in Greece's, Spain's, Italy's and others' EU gardens?

 

Wishful thinking

 

 

 

"The UK's economic performance relative to
the other big EU-15 economies – France, Germany, Italy and Spain – does not stand out
as impressive, at least once we adjust for the different prices of goods and services across these countries. UK economic growth between 2000 and 2015 lagged behind Spain and Germany but also France, a country that has become synonymous in Britain with economic weakness.

 

Looking at economic growth per capita further tarnishes the image of the UK as a strong performer. Germany emerges as by far the best performing big EU-15 economy, with the UK fourth, ahead of only Italy. The British are no richer relative to the EU-15 average than they were 15 years ago. Moreover, the average Briton has to work more hours than the average Frenchman or German to achieve that level of income.

 

Indeed, it is when we turn to productivity that the UK's status as a strong economic performer is most clearly exposed as wishful thinking. Britain's GDP per hour worked has fallen to just 90 per cent of the EU-15 average, 25 percent below French and German levels. Sustainable increases in living standards require economies to combine land, labour, capital and technology in ever more efficient ways; Britain has made a poor job of this, helping to explain why Britons' wages have risen by much less than their French and German counterparts over the last 15 years.

 

Not only is the UK's performance mediocre, it is highly skewed by London and its environs. Apart from London, just one British region – Southeast England – has a GDP per capita in excess of the EU-15 average. And far from catching up with the richer regions of the EU, most poor UK regions have been falling further behind."

http://www.freightweek.org/~freightw/index.php/viewpoints-2/2262-britain-already-the-poor-man-of-western-europe

[Whitey Grandad]

You shouldn't have lied if you don't like being accused of it. Not difficult.

Don't be so f***ing patronising. This is supposed to be a forum for adults. Give me one example of where I have lied and then when you can't find it I demand an apology.

[Whitey Grandad]

£18 billion (our membership fee) ÷52 = £346 million... so not quite plucked out of the air. It is the fee, but not what we pay.

 

We don't pay that as we get an instant £5 billion rebate, bringing the net cost down to £250 million.

 

We do receive funding, which some argue reduces the net amount further. But we have no control over that funding in terms of where or how it is spent. We often have to match it or it comes with strings attached.

 

At the end of the day, wealthier countries like the UK and Germany are subsidising the poorer countries, which some might argue is right.

 

But why should a UK tax payer work until 65 (which will probably rise to 67) to subsidise a Greek worker who can retire at 58 and sit on his arse for 7-10 years???

 

London and the south subsidise the north. Would it be right for northerners to retire 7 years earlier than the rest?

That is not our membership fee. We pay a discounted rate which is not £350m a week. We never have paid that and we never shall, unless we rejoin at some stage in the future. Why not make up some other figure like £10bn a day and then rebate that? It's exactly the same result.

[Johnny Bognor]

That is not our membership fee. We pay a discounted rate which is not £350m a week. We never have paid that and we never shall, unless we rejoin at some stage in the future. Why not make up some other figure like £10bn a day and then rebate that? It's exactly the same result.

 

The rate is 18 billion. That is what it is set at by the EU . Divide it by 52... there is your 350 mills.

 

But it is discounted to 250 million.

 

But why set a rate that no one is going to pay???

 

What a complete and utter waste of time.

 

But I guess they have form on over complicating things and wasting time, money and resources ....

Edited 7 October, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[solentstars]

looks like the stock market are giving the warning signs whats in store for us and we,ve not triggered article 50 yet so breexit is going great.. a weak pound and inflation in the pipeline to come and had a wage cuts in real terms for a fantasy world in a global economy .some day the penny will drop for the dreamers.

[Sour Mash]

No it's not, it makes no difference. As you say, it's out of control. If the rest of the world can come in now as easily as the EU then what difference will it make when the EU become another part of the rest of the world?

 

Don't be so f***ing patronising. This is supposed to be a forum for adults. Give me one example of where I have lied and then when you can't find it I demand an apology.

Example above. I await your apology for your foul, childish language.

[badgerx16]

London and the south patronise the north.

 

That's more accurate.

[Winnersaint]

http://www.itv.com/news/2016-10-07/governemnt-ban-on-foreign-academics-advising-on-brexit-baffling/

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/amber-rudd-immigration-speech-tory-conference-brexit-foreign-workers-british-jobs-a7345536.html

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-amber-rudds-speech-echoes-mein-kampf/

Now I know that the last one might be a little tenuous especially as delivered by a 'shock jock' you cannot ignore the move towards what appears to be state sponsored xenophobia!

[Wes Tender]

looks like the stock market are giving the warning signs whats in store for us and we,ve not triggered article 50 yet so breexit is going great.. a weak pound and inflation in the pipeline to come and had a wage cuts in real terms for a fantasy world in a global economy .some day the penny will drop for the dreamers.

 

The pound is dropping and as you say, someday it will be the turn of the penny to drop also. We've obviously neglected them, because it is received wisdom that if you look after them, the pounds will look after themselves.

[Johnny Bognor]

So the pound continues to tank! Batman will be happy. However the rising cost of imports is wiping out the benefits of our cheaper exports, petrol likely to rise 3 - 4p litre very quickly. It may just be a transitional blip, but I fear we have years of uncertainty and instability, I wonder how many leavers will be so jingoistic in 5 years time?

 

Acording to most analysts and the IMF the pound was up to 10% overvalued. This over valuation was damaging our economy. A lot of them believe that a readjustment was coming and that brexit was a catalyst as opposed to a cause. We were importing too much and spending too much, which is clearly unsustainable..

 

i enjoyed watching the economists on the BBC just now, debate how we would consume more home made goods. All agreed that this was on the cards. i was lambasted by a few on here for that opinion, but when I clearly have my finger on the pulse and economists have taken three months to come round to my way of thinking, you would be wise not to dismiss out of hand, anything i say. I will be serving british made humble pie for some of our remoaners. Do you want a slice???

[Whitey Grandad]

Example above. I await your apology for your foul, childish language.

You silly little boy. That is not a lie.

[CB Fry]

You silly little boy. That is not a lie.

Well, it is not true. Therefore it's a... (presses "Would I Lie To You" button)...LIE.

[Sour Mash]

You silly little boy. That is not a lie.

 

I'm still awaiting that apology.

[Guided Missile]

Going back to the original post:

 

Britain will be offered a free trade deal before the rest of the European Union if the Republicans win the US presidential election, Donald Trump's trade adviser has said. Dan DiMicco said Britain was "a friend" of America and was leaving the EU for the right reasons.

Both presidential candidates say they are against present plans for a free trade deal between the US and Europe.

 

Full story here.

 

Mr DiMicco said with the present Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) proposals "on hold", Britain would be at the front of the queue for any future trade deal once the UK has left the EU.His comments contrast with those of outgoing President Barack Obama, who - speaking before the UK's EU referendum in June - said Britain would go to the "back of the queue" for trade deals with the US if it left the EU.

When asked if the US would do a deal with Britain ahead of the EU, Mr DiMicco told me: "Absolutely.

"First off they are our friends, they have always supported us, and we've worked together, and they are leaving the EU in our estimation for the right reasons.

"They have lost control of their economy, the job creation engine, so why shouldn't we be working with like-minded people before we do a deal with anybody else?"

Edited 8 October, 2016 by Guided Missile

[Wes Tender]

Wishful thinking

 

"The UK's economic performance relative to
the other big EU-15 economies – France, Germany, Italy and Spain – does not stand out
as impressive, at least once we adjust for the different prices of goods and services across these countries. UK economic growth between 2000 and 2015 lagged behind Spain and Germany but also France, a country that has become synonymous in Britain with economic weakness.

 

Looking at economic growth per capita further tarnishes the image of the UK as a strong performer. Germany emerges as by far the best performing big EU-15 economy, with the UK fourth, ahead of only Italy. The British are no richer relative to the EU-15 average than they were 15 years ago. Moreover, the average Briton has to work more hours than the average Frenchman or German to achieve that level of income.

 

Indeed, it is when we turn to productivity that the UK's status as a strong economic performer is most clearly exposed as wishful thinking. Britain's GDP per hour worked has fallen to just 90 per cent of the EU-15 average, 25 percent below French and German levels. Sustainable increases in living standards require economies to combine land, labour, capital and technology in ever more efficient ways; Britain has made a poor job of this, helping to explain why Britons' wages have risen by much less than their French and German counterparts over the last 15 years.

 

Not only is the UK's performance mediocre, it is highly skewed by London and its environs. Apart from London, just one British region – Southeast England – has a GDP per capita in excess of the EU-15 average. And far from catching up with the richer regions of the EU, most poor UK regions have been falling further behind."

http://www.freightweek.org/~freightw/index.php/viewpoints-2/2262-britain-already-the-poor-man-of-western-europe

 

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-the-uk-in-an-european-context/

 

These statistics from the ONS suggest that in terms of GDP per capita, adjusted to remove differences in price levels in each country, we were ahead of France, Italy and Spain. Granted that the figures cover a longer period span and are up to 2014, but then any differences since then are short term and could easily go the other way short term too.

 

If it is indeed the case that we are no richer than the EU-15 relatively than we were 15 years ago, the same can be said for the EU, which has gone backwards considerably in percentage terms of its position as a trading bloc in comparison with the rest of the World. These are good reasons for us to leave the EU which is fairly stagnant and to reap the rewards of casting our trade net far wider afield.

 

So the UK's performance is skewed by London and the South East. So what? In most other countries the same applies. In Italy, there is a massive North/South divide. In France and Spain, most of their wealth and industry is concentrated around their capital cities or with their coastal ports. Despite the poorer regions falling behind because traditional heavy industry has died in those areas and it takes time to find replacement employment opportunities, employment levels ought to be considered a yardstick of a countries success and prosperity, which your article does not think worthy of mention. When I referred to not everything in the gardens of Spain, Italy and Greece being fine, then their youth unemployment rates are horrendous.

[shurlock]

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-the-uk-in-an-european-context/

 

These statistics from the ONS suggest that in terms of GDP per capita, adjusted to remove differences in price levels in each country, we were ahead of France, Italy and Spain. Granted that the figures cover a longer period span and are up to 2014, but then any differences since then are short term and could easily go the other way short term too.

 

If it is indeed the case that we are no richer than the EU-15 relatively than we were 15 years ago, the same can be said for the EU, which has gone backwards considerably in percentage terms of its position as a trading bloc in comparison with the rest of the World. These are good reasons for us to leave the EU which is fairly stagnant and to reap the rewards of casting our trade net far wider afield.

 

So the UK's performance is skewed by London and the South East. So what? In most other countries the same applies. In Italy, there is a massive North/South divide. In France and Spain, most of their wealth and industry is concentrated around their capital cities or with their coastal ports. Despite the poorer regions falling behind because traditional heavy industry has died in those areas and it takes time to find replacement employment opportunities, employment levels ought to be considered a yardstick of a countries success and prosperity, which your article does not think worthy of mention. When I referred to not everything in the gardens of Spain, Italy and Greece being fine, then their youth unemployment rates are horrendous.

 

Les what about the UK's productivity performance versus peers? Perhaps the UK has to work longer hours just to produce the same level of output as others which doesn't sound like a very appealing combination to me, pal.

Edited 8 October, 2016 by shurlock

[John B]

Acording to most analysts and the IMF the pound was up to 10% overvalued. This over valuation was damaging our economy. A lot of them believe that a readjustment was coming and that brexit was a catalyst as opposed to a cause. We were importing too much and spending too much, which is clearly unsustainable..

 

i enjoyed watching the economists on the BBC just now, debate how we would consume more home made goods. All agreed that this was on the cards. i was lambasted by a few on here for that opinion, but when I clearly have my finger on the pulse and economists have taken three months to come round to my way of thinking, you would be wise not to dismiss out of hand, anything i say. I will be serving british made humble pie for some of our remoaners. Do you want a slice???

 

The New York Times thinks things are going pear shaped now after Brexit

 

 

LONDON — For those blithely inclined toward the view that Britain would somehow find a way to sever its relationship with the European Union free of drama or financial consequences — like canceling a car rental reservation, with a tad more paperwork — Friday was a sobering day of reckoning.

 

As the British pound plunged some 6 percent against the American dollar in the span of two minutes in early trading in Asia, the markets offered a reminder that divorce tends to be messy, expensive and laced with uncertainties. It rarely ends happily.

 

The selling was so frenzied and swift that those who swap currencies for a living spoke of computerized transactions going haywire, rogue algorithms at work or a data entry error. The drop in the value of the pound appeared excessive, and it soon recovered some losses, though the British currency was down about 17 percent — around 25 cents — since June 23, the day Britain voted to abandon Europe.

 

More than anything, though, the precipitous drop seemed to attest to an increasingly unmistakable reality: Britain’s vote to exit the European Union — Brexit, in common parlance — has put its commercial relationships with the world on uncertain and potentially perilous ground. That poses risks for the British economy, making its money less attractive to hold.

 

 

 

“The world believes that the U.K. is going to be poorer in the future, and find it more expensive to trade,” said Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an independent research institution in London. “Essentially, the world is betting against the pound.” And against the British economy.

 

The immediate cause of the plunge appeared to be a speech by the French president, François Hollande, on Thursday evening in Paris, in which he endorsed the view that Britain must be forced to swallow unpalatable terms of departure to discourage other European Union members from eyeing the exits.

 

“The U.K. has decided to do a Brexit, I believe even a hard Brexit,” Mr. Hollande said. “Well, then, we must go all the way through the U.K.’s willingness to leave the E.U. We have to have this firmness.

 

“If not,” he continued, “we would jeopardize the fundamental principles of the E.U. Other countries would want to leave the E.U. to get the supposed advantages without the obligations.”

 

Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit, Brexit Over Easy. No one really knows what these terms mean (and the last one is made up). But, crudely, they divide potential outcomes into the ones in which Britain maintains effective inclusion within Europe’s single market — a realm sprawling from Ireland to Romania, holding some 500 million people — and the ones in which Britain winds up outside.

 

Mr. Hollande’s line echoed a speech given by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany earlier that day.

 

The week began with an admission from Britain’s new Conservative prime minister, Theresa May, that access to the European market is likely to be a casualty of Britain’s pursuit of a primary aspiration expressed in the Brexit vote: imposing limits on immigration.

 

European leaders have been resolute that free movement of people across the borders of member nations is a nonnegotiable cost of admission in the common market.

 

But Brexiteers had steadfastly maintained the illusion that Britain could have it both ways — that it could retain access to the European market while still controlling immigration. In destroying that idea, the prime minister’s admission badly rattled the markets.

 

The stakes are considerable. Britain ships nearly half its exports to other European Union members. The giants of global banking have turned London into a financial center rivaling New York, using hubs here to extend their reach across the rest of the European market.

 

Investment has poured into Britain from around the world, as major manufacturers have set up factories so they can sell their wares across Europe without incurring tariffs.

 

To one degree or another — and no one really knows how much — Brexit puts all of this in play.

 

Negotiations between Britain and Europe are expected to commence sometime early next year. Whatever settlement results must be ratified by the remaining members of the European Union, meaning that Britain’s economic prospects are now tethered to the vagaries of domestic politics in 27 other countries.

 

None of these risks were unforeseen. During a fractious campaign leading up to the referendum, great reams of paper were released sketching out the potential effects on the British economy should voters opt to leave. Reports varied on details and degree, but they nearly unanimously concluded that Brexit would entail economic pain.

 

The British Treasury surveyed the trading arrangements the government might strike with Europe after a Brexit vote and concluded it could lop some 6.2 percent off the gross domestic product by 2030. That would leave the average household worse off by about 4,300 pounds a year (at the current, depressed exchange rate, about $5,300).

 

But those campaigning to leave dismissed such talk as fearmongering. They described a swashbuckling and reinvigorated Britain that would break free from a stagnating Europe — the land of unemployed children moving in with their parents — to instead focus on improving trade with faster-growing countries like China, India and the United States.

 

Since the vote, those who urged leaving Europe have pointed to the facts that the sun still rises and the earth still spins to declare validation.

 

Even as the pound has fallen against the dollar, consumer spending has generally held up along with employment. Economic growth has yet to be hit. Boutiques and high-end restaurants in London remain packed.

 

Some have focused on the upsides of a declining pound, which makes British exports cheaper on world markets and renders Britain a more affordable tourist destination.

 

But this misses the fact that nearly one-third of the goods and services consumed in Britain are imported. In dollar terms, the price of those goods and services is spiking. Eventually, economists assume, this inflation will work its way through the economy, further depressing growth by crimping consumer spending and potentially sowing unemployment.

 

During the campaign, those in favor of leaving offered assurance that, whatever resulted, Britain would ultimately secure a beneficial trade deal with Europe. Germany sells vast quantities of cars to British consumers, giving it every incentive to keep trade flowing unimpeded by tariffs. As the largest economy in the union, Germany would hold the cards.

 

But in her speech on Thursday, Ms. Merkel took direct aim at that argument, telling a gathering of industry leaders that any wavering on the principle of free movement of people would pose “a systemic challenge for the entire European Union.”

 

The sudden plummeting of the pound appeared to signal that investors were absorbing the intricacies of this dynamic, and seeing through the Brexiteers’ claims that Britain could impose limits on immigration while also negotiating a settlement with Europe that would maintain access to the common market.

 

Boris Johnson, the former London mayor who campaigned for leaving the European Union and is now foreign secretary, managed last week to maintain the government line while simultaneously making fun of the charade.

 

“Our policy is having our cake and eating it,” he told the British tabloid, The Sun.

 

But on Sunday, as Prime Minister May addressed a gathering of her governing Conservative Party in Birmingham, she essentially dumped the cake in the bin.

 

“We have voted to leave the European Union and become a fully independent, sovereign country,” Mrs. May declared. “We will do what independent, sovereign countries do. We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration.”

 

In short, a “hard Brexit” appeared to be in Britain’s future.

 

“Somehow, a whole combination of people were in denial up until now,” said Adam S. Posen, a former member of the rate-setting committee at the Bank of England, and now president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

 

“There were the people who thought Brexit would be reversed,” he continued. “There were the people who delusionally thought there would be a soft Brexit, and all the northern Europeans would be nice to them. And there were people who believed that this crew in charge of the British negotiations were somehow going to strike a good deal. All of the delusions have run out of material.”

[Goatboy]

Les what about the UK's productivity performance versus peers? Perhaps the UK has to work longer hours just to produce the same level of output as others which doesn't sound like a very appealing combination to me, pal.

 

It's not possible to work less hours than the French.

[Johnny Bognor]

Les what about the UK's productivity performance versus peers? Perhaps the UK has to work longer hours just to produce the same level of output as others which doesn't sound like a very appealing combination to me, pal.

 

Maybe if people spent less time ****ing about on the Internet during the working

day, our productivity would improve????

Edited 8 October, 2016 by Johnny Bognor

[Wes Tender]

Les what about the UK's productivity performance versus peers? Perhaps the UK has to work longer hours just to produce the same level of output as others which doesn't sound like a very appealing combination to me, pal.

 

Shorluck, me old mucker, I'm sure that you will be happy to furnish me with the source of these statistics and on what basis of comparison they were made. What exactly were they comparing? Are we talking comparisons of all sources of income which constitute GDP, just the manufacturing base, or including the service industry sector?

 

Regarding wage level comparisons, again what are we comparing in terms of occupations and are we talking gross salary or net?

 

Pardon my scepticism, but the source of the statistics that Tim posted is very much in bed with the Remain camp and the EU and it is often the case that statistical information can easily be skewed to suit a particular position. Also, it is a well known fact that 75.3% of statistics are just made up.

[badgerx16]

Also, it is a well known fact that 75.3% of statistics are just made up.

 

75.3% of statistics quoted by Brexiteers might be, it's only 69.7% of those used by Remainers.

[Wes Tender]

75.3% of statistics quoted by Brexiteers might be, it's only 69.7% of those used by Remainers.

 

I think that you've skewed those stats to suit your agenda

[Saint86]

Wishful thinking

 

 

 

"The UK's economic performance relative to
the other big EU-15 economies – France, Germany, Italy and Spain – does not stand out
as impressive, at least once we adjust for the different prices of goods and services across these countries. UK economic growth between 2000 and 2015 lagged behind Spain and Germany but also France, a country that has become synonymous in Britain with economic weakness.

 

Looking at economic growth per capita further tarnishes the image of the UK as a strong performer. Germany emerges as by far the best performing big EU-15 economy, with the UK fourth, ahead of only Italy. The British are no richer relative to the EU-15 average than they were 15 years ago. Moreover, the average Briton has to work more hours than the average Frenchman or German to achieve that level of income.

 

Indeed, it is when we turn to productivity that the UK's status as a strong economic performer is most clearly exposed as wishful thinking. Britain's GDP per hour worked has fallen to just 90 per cent of the EU-15 average, 25 percent below French and German levels. Sustainable increases in living standards require economies to combine land, labour, capital and technology in ever more efficient ways; Britain has made a poor job of this, helping to explain why Britons' wages have risen by much less than their French and German counterparts over the last 15 years.

 

Not only is the UK's performance mediocre, it is highly skewed by London and its environs. Apart from London, just one British region – Southeast England – has a GDP per capita in excess of the EU-15 average. And far from catching up with the richer regions of the EU, most poor UK regions have been falling further behind."

http://www.freightweek.org/~freightw/index.php/viewpoints-2/2262-britain-already-the-poor-man-of-western-europe

 

I think what you're saying here is that we were right to leave? We have been harmed massively by the EU between 2005 and 2015?!?! Because clearly being in wasn't working

[Goatboy]

75.3% of statistics quoted by Brexiteers might be, it's only 69.7% of those used by Remainers.

 

I tried to upvote this post but this site lacks.

[Wes Tender]

I think what you're saying here is that we were right to leave? We have been harmed massively by the EU between 2005 and 2015?!?! Because clearly being in wasn't working

 

They've not only been holding us back, they've been holding themselves back too.

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/

[OldNick]

Gawd when the fall of the pound starts to show at the petrol pump and in the shops people are going to start to feel Brexit

[John B]

Gawd when the fall of the pound starts to show at the petrol pump and in the shops people are going to start to feel Brexit

 

Delusional thinking helped tip Britain out of the European Union: the promise of those sunlit uplands of £350m weekly cashback and thousands of trading opportunities. Three months later – even after all the warnings from the European leaders soon to be suing us for alimony, the anxiety from business associations and the repeated broadsides from financial markets – delusional thinking remains rife.

[Johnny Bognor]

Gawd when the fall of the pound starts to show at the petrol pump and in the shops people are going to start to feel Brexit

 

Or maybe the pound was already overvalued (https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/5265-overvalued-british-pound) and the brexit vote was a catalyst for a market correction, rather than the cause. What ever you do, don't blame it on the sunshine, moonlight or the good times. Maybe blame it on the boogey???

[buctootim]

They've not only been holding us back, they've been holding themselves back too.

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/

 

Poor countries grow faster than rich countries. When they grow into rich countries their growth slows. Its not hard. Why cant you get your head around it?

 

This idea that somehow if Britain leaves the EU we are going to get the kind of growth that Vietnam or Bangladesh do are exactly the ignorant uninformed views that led utter utter simpletons like you to vote for Brexit.

[Wes Tender]

Gawd when the fall of the pound starts to show at the petrol pump and in the shops people are going to start to feel Brexit

 

Here is a helpful chart that shows you how the petrol prices fared during the past decade. During that time, the pound has also gone up and down in value, supply of petrol/diesel has also varied, as has the tax level depending on the Government of the time. But if you wish to make a connection to Brexit, these fluctuations occurred during our membership of the EU.

 

http://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time

 

The difference for an average household with a car doing 10,000 miles pa at an average 35 mpg, I estimate to have cost £1165 pa when petrol/diesel was at its cheapest in January 2009 and £1889 when it was at its dearest in April 2012. So taking the two extremes, a difference of around £700 pa. If the fall in the value of Stirling meant that prices rose to around £1.30 or so a litre, that would be what we paid from 2011 to 2014.

 

Mine are fairly pessimistic figures, as many do fewer miles per annum and have cars doing more mpg, and indeed where I have averaged the cost for petrol and diesel, petrol prices have generally been lower than diesel.

 

How on earth did families manage between 2011 to 2014?

[moonraker]

Here is a helpful chart that shows you how the petrol prices fared during the past decade. During that time, the pound has also gone up and down in value, supply of petrol/diesel has also varied, as has the tax level depending on the Government of the time. But if you wish to make a connection to Brexit, these fluctuations occurred during our membership of the EU.

 

http://www.racfoundation.org/data/uk-pump-prices-over-time

 

The difference for an average household with a car doing 10,000 miles pa at an average 35 mpg, I estimate to have cost £1165 pa when petrol/diesel was at its cheapest in January 2009 and £1889 when it was at its dearest in April 2012. So taking the two extremes, a difference of around £700 pa. If the fall in the value of Stirling meant that prices rose to around £1.30 or so a litre, that would be what we paid from 2011 to 2014.

 

Mine are fairly pessimistic figures, as many do fewer miles per annum and have cars doing more mpg, and indeed where I have averaged the cost for petrol and diesel, petrol prices have generally been lower than diesel.

 

How on earth did families manage between 2011 to 2014?

Its not just petrol tough is it, as is so often to pointed out we import more than we export, your Tory government has been in austerity mode for 7 years, wages have been suppressed, services cut, and now we have this self inflicted Brexit uncertainty furthe erroding peoples budgets. Leaving the EU may have had some advantages but these have been flushed away by the behaviour of the Government since the vote, their performance has been farcical, no plan, demeaning of a Parliamentary democracy and arrogant in the extreme.

I know you have no concern for the UK citizens living abroad, many of those rely on UK based pensions and their standard of living is dropping like a stone, they are facing uncertainty on future health care, and yet all we get from the arrogant Brexit leaders is that we have a strong hand to play, yet another falsehood amongst the many.

[Wes Tender]

Poor countries grow faster than rich countries. When they grow into rich countries their growth slows. Its not hard. Why cant you get your head around it?

 

This idea that somehow if Britain leaves the EU we are going to get the kind of growth that Vietnam or Bangladesh do are exactly the ignorant uninformed views that led utter utter simpletons like you to vote for Brexit.

 

Where did I say that we could expect the sort of growth rates that poorer countries like Vietnam or Bangladesh achieve? Where did I say that poorer countries don't grow faster than rich countries? That's right, I didn't.

 

Wind in your neck.

 

This is just typical of your straw man arguments. Typical in fact of the Remainian tactics too, whereby anybody's arguments that we might actually prosper trading with the rest of the World as an independent nation, that we ought to regain control of our borders, that we should take back control of our legal system, these are dismissed as being uninformed, ignorant, or xenophobic views.

 

If you read properly the Full Fact article I linked, you would see that they stated "Europe's smaller share of world output is because of economic growth elsewhere."

 

Perhaps you would care to debate the premise that it makes sense to grasp the opportunity that we now have to negotiate bilateral trade deals with the most progressive developing economies of the World as an independent nation, whilst accepting that although the EU is relatively stagnant, nevertheless we will continue most of our trade we already have with them, (although the terms under which we will trade with them in the future are the subject of negotiation).