If we vote for Brexit what happens

A_Medium_Size_Jock

mwpt wrote: »

Well, as much as you'd like me to dance to your tune, you will note that I did kick off our little episode with an open question to Thrug.

As you have kindly noted, we can probably find evidence either way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIldvz0jygE

You will of course dismiss this video and most probably TED talks as a whole as just another liberal elite agenda because they don't conform to your particular biases while I as someone who is "into" technology, have a bias that technology and trade drives improvements in human lives and globalisation is the symptom of this.

I note with interest your continued use of terminology such as "they don't conform to your particular biases"and " as long as they agree with your particular bias".

That speaks much more of your own bias, does it not?
Since I have said (and will say again) that I attempt a balanced view.

Still, at least you admit that there will "probably" be evidence either way which is at least some improvement upon your previous stance.
If so, here's a link for you explaining how trade may be contributing to poverty in Africa by so-called "free trade"agreements (think EU for example) and other exploitation.
Though of course that may not fit in with your agenda, eh?
http://www.poverties.org/blog/poverty-in-africa

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

I note you have introduced a new word, now it is "corporate globalisation". Nevertheless, globalisation isn't really a thing to rally against. It is simply the emergent behaviour that comes with technological progress and as the world gets metaphorically smaller.

This has lifted more people out of poverty than any protectionist regime ever has or ever will.

Your statements describe the end goal of globalization.

My concern is that globalization involves significant change, and that change can often be disruptive.

If the voters in a major Western power choose a new leader who is basically a complete unknown, then how do we really know if this is progress or not? One of the common themes supporting Trump's election was a feeling of disenfranchisement from the globalization process.

Yes, prior to globalization, you had clear groups of rich and poor people. You could argue it was stable and sustainable.


Anyway, ultimately, things like 3D printing ; advanced materials ; and abundant flexible automated labour ; will remove the need for concentrated manufacturing locations like China. Read some of the robotics journals. They come to the same conclusion.

mwpt

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I note with interest your continued use of terminology such as "they don't conform to your particular biases"and " as long as they agree with your particular bias".

That speaks much more of your own bias, does it not?
Since I have said (and will say again) that I attempt a balanced view.

Still, at least you admit that there will "probably" be evidence either way which is at least some improvement upon your previous stance.
If so, here's a link for you explaining how trade may be contributing to poverty in Africa by so-called "free trade"agreements (think EU for example) and other exploitation.
Though of course that may not fit in with your agenda, eh?
http://www.poverties.org/blog/poverty-in-africa

So, we've both posted links. We both admit we have our biases. And we both still believe our position to be the right one.

Good chat.

mwpt

kabayiri wrote: »

Your statements describe the end goal of globalization.

You're misreading my statements. Globalisation is not a thing that that can have a goal. It is simply the manifestation of where we're headed which is driven entirely by technological advancements.

How would you define globalisation? If you define it and think about it you will probably realise it has been happening for centuries, it isn't a recent development.

My concern is that globalization involves significant change, and that change can often be disruptive.

Change is inevitable. Rallying against change is futile. Globalisation is a result of change, not the cause of it.

If the voters in a major Western power choose a new leader who is basically a complete unknown, then how do we really know if this is progress or not? One of the common themes supporting Trump's election was a feeling of disenfranchisement from the globalization process.

Would you be able to spell out for me what the strategy is these people envisage and how you see it unfolding that will make things better (I presume that was the intention of these votes)?

Yes, prior to globalization, you had clear groups of rich and poor people. You could argue it was stable and sustainable.

No, I wouldn't argue that at all. The opposite in fact. The world has always been very chaotic and changing.

Anyway, ultimately, things like 3D printing ; advanced materials ; and abundant flexible automated labour ; will remove the need for concentrated manufacturing locations like China. Read some of the robotics journals. They come to the same conclusion.

Sure, I agree. But how is this anti-globalisation?

kabayiri

mwpt wrote: »

...
Would you be able to spell out for me what the strategy is these people envisage and how you see it unfolding that will make things better (I presume that was the intention of these votes)?
...

I tend to agree that a protest vote doesn't offer a better solution.

It might make things more turbulent.

We could be in a position where 10% of the world population could sustain everyone.

In such a situation just how do you distribute the available work, and the benefits from being productive?

I do think some people talk about 'globalization' as being this cure all for the worlds' problems. I suspect this is a bit simplistic.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

For an alternative to Italy/ Austria/ Supreme Court .............

UK services PMI rises to 55.2 in November.

Businesses in Britain's services sector grew at their fastest pace since January last month

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-pmi-idUKKBN13U0XI?il=0


Also, new car sales are on course for record sales in 2016 - though private buying remains slow.Still, business must be good if fleet sales are so good.

British new car registrations rose by nearly 3 percent last month, an industry body said on Monday, putting the sector on course for record sales in 2016

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-autos-registrations-idUKKBN13U0WU

And just for balance, Euro Zone growth picks up at the fastest rate this year:

Euro zone business activity grew at its quickest pace this year in November and firms, which benefited from a weaker euro, raised prices faster than at any time in five years, a survey found on Monday.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-eurozone-economy-pmi-idUKKBN13U10F

A_Medium_Size_Jock

Don't pay too much attention to the headlines:

“I think that the beginning of European disintegration has started with Brexit,” Mr Gozi told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

As time will tell regarding that BUT look instead at comments from Daniel Caprera from Italy's Five Star:

“The Euro is a problem for Italy right now and we would like to get people’s voices on that because we never did,”.... “There were so many promises made by the old politics which people believed. I think the Euro is damaging the Italian economy.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/italian-referendum-renzi-resign-brexit-eu-disintegration-a7456131.html

IMHO this is exactly where Tusk, Junckers, Schauble etc. are going so seriously wrong and are in fact encouraging anti-EU factions by their denial of sentiment such as this within the Eurozone itself.
As Abe Lincoln said:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

Austria, 46.7% voted for the Freedom Party.
Holland - and supposedly Geert Wilders would win an election: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3986348/Dutch-far-right-party-led-Geert-Wilders-WIN-election-held-today-respected-poll-shows-latest-blow-EU.html
France - Marine Le Pen looks to get 34% of the vote in May compared to Fillion's 66% according to a poll posted here: https://www.rt.com/news/368792-france-fillon-win-beat/

Okay so possibly not enough yet to break the EU - but just how many bullets can they dodge?

Herzlos

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Also, new car sales are on course for record sales in 2016 - though private buying remains slow.Still, business must be good if fleet sales are so good.

Or businesses are trying to update their fleets before the price of cars and VED/BIK increase in the next year? I know if I had a sizeable fleet that was going no need replaced in the next 2-3 years I'd be considering just doing it now.

Your linked article puts it down to:

Low interest rates and cheap finance packages - accounting for around three quarters of sales - have spurred demand in Europe's second-biggest car market in recent years

So I'm not sure you can count the 2.9% increase in sales as a success for Brexit, just a "sky hasn't fallen yet".

Thrugelmir

mwpt wrote: »

It is simply the manifestation of where we're headed which is driven entirely by technological advancements.

Really. Nothing to do with cheaper labour at all. Since the early 90's when China first entered the global stage there has been a progressive change. With large corporations taking advantage of the available global workforce. Unskilled/semi skilled workers have no loyalty from employers. As the aim is profit. Not welfare.

gfplux

It's either documents or leave, but how long do you wait for the documents.
Lots of fun from Amber Rudd
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/home-secretary-amber-rudd-3-million-id-after-brexit-100m-a7458081.html
Did she actually say this or is it a journalists guess.

"Three million EU citizens living in Britain will be required to have some form of documentation following Brexit, under a plan that could hit Government finances for £100m."

Cheap at half the price.

But what about the +60 million un documented British citizens. That's just speculation
Please don't laugh.

"The Liberal Democrats claimed that as well as the large cost, the process may require another 3,000 Home Office staff, while academic experts suggest it would be a "formidable task" that could amount to the equivalent of 140 years of extra work."

Frankly don't you think that Government Ministers should stop making these statements (or journalist making them up) The Governments position was clear (as mud) "We will not be giving a running commentary"