If we vote for Brexit what happens

mrginge

gfplux wrote: »

We have to remember how wrong polls have been in the past
Also that politicians have recently paid heavy prices for NOT listening to "the people"

As I have said on a number of occasions. Many Europeans were shocked that Britain voted to leave the EU particularly as Britain was considered over the years to have negotiated a better deal than the other 27. There is no mood to grant an easy deal for leaving.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/29/germans-want-merkel-to-take-tough-line-with-uk-over-brexit-poll-finds

"Fifty-eight percent of the German public think Berlin should not be open to compromise with Britain over its EU departure and instead think Merkel should take a firm negotiating position, the Körber Foundation poll found."

Stating that polls have been wrong in the past and then following it up by quoting a poll makes you look a bit silly.

TrickyTree83

Look like Junker is having a meltdown.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/29/eu-president-orders-no-referendums-lack-love-brussels/

No more referendums?! No more democracy?! Acknowledgement that the EU is diverging more and more from what the people want, but lets not ask them what they want! He's such a muppet, I wonder if remain would have won if he wasn't in the driving seat?

Matt_L

Interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/28/trellis-1-undershaft-skyscraper-london-green-light-building

Sapphire

Matt_L wrote: »

Interesting...

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/28/trellis-1-undershaft-skyscraper-london-green-light-building

Another revolting, boring building to clutter up and mar our capital city and destroy its skyline. I suppose it will all be used for the promised 'affordable' housing. :rotfl:

vivatifosi

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

Look like Junker is having a meltdown.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/29/eu-president-orders-no-referendums-lack-love-brussels/

No more referendums?! No more democracy?! Acknowledgement that the EU is diverging more and more from what the people want, but lets not ask them what they want! He's such a muppet, I wonder if remain would have won if he wasn't in the driving seat?

I read the original transcript of that article as Breitbart has an agenda. It covers a lot of other stuff not discussed in Breitbart. The journalist certainly has him on the ropes at times. Well worth a read:

http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/26/global-conversation-exclusive-interview-with-european-commission-president-jean

I voted remain, but agree that he's a big part of the EU problem.

vivatifosi

Sapphire wrote: »

Another revolting, boring building to clutter up and mar our capital city and destroy its skyline. I suppose it will all be used for the promised 'affordable' housing. :rotfl:

I quite like it. It's nicer looking than the other new skyscraper proposal in Bishopsgate.

It won't be used for housing though... lots of office space with retail at ground level and a free viewing area up high.

TrickyTree83

vivatifosi wrote: »

I read the original transcript of that article as Breitbart has an agenda. It covers a lot of other stuff not discussed in Breitbart. The journalist certainly has him on the ropes at times. Well worth a read:

http://www.euronews.com/2016/11/26/global-conversation-exclusive-interview-with-european-commission-president-jean

I voted remain, but agree that he's a big part of the EU problem.

On the topic of media bias, I'd take an agenda over outright incompetence and omission.

In the past 2 weeks on stories I've been interested in I've seen the BBC omitting details that places like RT don't omit. And I've seen the Guardian publishing this crap without doing any checks, getting caught out.

What the Guardian published -

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/28/alt-right-online-poison-racist-bigot-sam-harris-milo-yiannopoulos-islamophobia

The person who wrote it -

http://theralphretort.com/godfrey-elfwick-brilliantly-trolls-guardian-with-alt-right-nearly-turned-me-racist-column-11029016/

What the BBC said about the French presidential debate -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-38102512

What RT and other outlets said -

https://www.rt.com/news/368131-fillon-wins-debate-juppe/

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/11/frances_republicans_must_decid.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3970726/The-second-French-revolution-Fillon-says-France-never-multicultural-warns-verge-revolt-vows-bring-radical-changes-society.html

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/11/25/fillon-channels-le-pen-france-not-multicultural-nation/

http://www.france24.com/en/20161124-france-conservative-primary-debate-juppe-fillon

The Guardian and BBC also have an agenda it would seem, instead of fact checking before writing a slanted piece, the Guardian just publishes any old crap. The BBC leaves out that which doesn't conform to the 'correct' ideology.

setmefree2

Mark Carney said this morning in the BOE's Financial Stability Report that the biggest global threat to the UK's financial stability was firstly Chinese debt and then financial instability in the EU.

EU faces financial drought if it cuts off UK overnight

“Banks located in the UK supply over half of debt and equity issuance by continental firms, and account for over three-quarters of foreign exchange and derivatives activity in the EU,” Mr Carney said.
“If these UK-based firms have to adjust their activities in a short time frame, there could be a greater risk of disruption to services provided to the European real economy, some of which could spill back to the UK economy through trade and financial linkages.”

That potential disruption comes from Britain’s status as the EU’s major global financial hub.
“The UK is effectively the investment banker for Europe,” Mr Carney said, noting that funds are raised by British-based banks from British-based investors, to fund economic activity.
“These activities are crucial for firms in the European real economy, and it is absolutely in the interests of the EU that there is an orderly transition and there is continual access to those services.”

Source: all News Channels

vivatifosi

TrickyTree83 wrote: »

On the topic of media bias, I'd take an agenda over outright incompetence and omission....

....The Guardian and BBC also have an agenda it would seem, instead of fact checking before writing a slanted piece, the Guardian just publishes any old crap. The BBC leaves out that which doesn't conform to the 'correct' ideology.

Yep, don't disagree with any of that. All the press has an agenda. So the piece I quoted was the original article. With anything it is best to get as close as possible to the original item, whether that's an interview, or data released by whatever organisation. Everything else will have someone's agenda or even just unconscious bias stamped on it.

And with regard to Brexit it's even harder. I'm quite pragmatic on the subject of Brexit. I voted to remain because I thought it was marginally the lesser of two evils and we should have one last shot to reform from within. I know that we are leaving the EU.

So I find myself in the position where I get totally p*ssed off by both sides of the agenda, as there doesn't seem to be a lot of middle ground with the press. Both the BBC and Guardian seem to be all over every little slither of hope that we stay in, whereas the likes of the Mail keeps shouting demands at the government as to what Brexit has to be and trying to set our red lines. Any context of press impartiality has gone totally out of the window. That's the case with all of the papers, including the FT and Economist.

Consequently it is good to try to read across a wide range of sources, from Euronews to RT. Even trying to read some of the European press to truly understand what other people think is a bit of a mare. Eg, try to find out what France really thinks of Le Pen, but much of the French press is in dissaray and sponsored by the French government as this report suggests:

http://niemanreports.org/articles/plus-c%CC%A7a-change/

There’s another French twist, too, that may help to explain some of the immobility: government subsidies. Yes, you read that correctly. The French state every year shells out about $540 million in direct funding to privately owned newspapers and magazines, and a further $1 billion or so in indirect aid, including a specially reduced sales tax for publications and income tax breaks for all 37,000 French journalists with an official press card. (That doesn’t include the $3.3 billion the government spends on public-sector broadcasting, part of which is recouped by a compulsory license fee.) The aim is to ensure a continuing pluralism of the press, and the money helps to keep afloat a number of publications that would otherwise have long since died, including the Communist party paper L’Humanit!. But almost every title distributed in France gets to feed at the trough, including the international edition of The New York Times.

It's a total mare to try to get at what people are really thinking.

Conrad

setmefree2 wrote: »

“The UK is effectively the investment banker for Europe,” Mr Carney said, noting that funds are raised by British-based banks from British-based investors, to fund economic activity.
“These activities are crucial for firms in the European real economy, and it is absolutely in the interests of the EU that there is an orderly transition and there is continual access to those services.”

This is a well rehearsed Brexit argument, access to our deep capital markets is essential for Europe, and the EU is in no position to try and take on this role itself, and furthermore global Banks are not looking forwards to the new Mifid 2 and Basal 4 regulations coming down the EU pipe, let alone the anti Bank bonus culture