We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
If we vote for Brexit what happens
Comments
-
so a falling pound is proof that we should stay
a rising pound is proof we should stay
a constant pound is proof we should stay
makes debate a little pointless
No a falling and rising pound is a sign of instability. There could be lots of reasons for it but uncertainties of in/out and the childish way that our politicians are conducting the debate does not help. I was quite content with the notion that we would have a referendum if the there was a change in the treaty.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
It is clear that all three main parties have been de facto pro EU and pro immigration for the last 20 years; the tories rhetoric is different of course, but their actions are pro immigration as evidenced by the high non-eu immigration.
I believe we should cut immigration to low 10,000s but I would agree that this is unlikely with the current generation of politicians.
in the future : who knows, when the next severe downturn comes sentiment may change and control of our own destiny will be useful to steer a different course.
The National Farmers Union would find that unacceptable. Those CAP grants and a lot of cheap labour would be a blow of they lost it.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
No a falling and rising pound is a sign of instability. There could be lots of reasons for it but uncertainties of in/out and the childish way that our politicians are conducting the debate does not help. I was quite content with the notion that we would have a referendum if the there was a change in the treaty.
maybe you should look at a chart of the pound against the euro over the last 10 years or so.
you will see it fluctuates a lot: obviously you will be shocked and conclude that this instability is due to the UK being part of the EU and will hence vote brexit.
well of course, you won't, as you are making a faux argument
the rest of us know that fluctuating exchange rates are quite normal.0 -
Instead of looking at Norway's deal, we should look to the Canada deal recently negotiated. 92% of agricultural and 99% of non-agricultural tariffs will be removed.
But Canada won't be signing up to any EU rules and the deal doesn't rely on free movement of labour.
From your earlier link on Norway (Very interesting BTW) one pertinent quote stood out for me:
I believe we have more bargaining power than the remain camp cares to admit.
The problem with the Canada deal is the position on services which is where the UK makes a huge amount of money.
Yes, the UK would have more weight than Norway. However there is also a very real risk that EU members would seek to punish the UK for quitting. That point is always glossed over but the risk is there and is completely unaddressed.0 -
The problem with the Canada deal is the position on services which is where the UK makes a huge amount of money.
Yes, the UK would have more weight than Norway. However there is also a very real risk that EU members would seek to punish the UK for quitting. That point is always glossed over but the risk is there and is completely unaddressed.
The only way that the EU could 'punish' the UK is by damaging themselves.
It is of course possible they would do this but why would anyone want to be a member of such an organisation?
Have the EU leaders not discovered Richardo ?
As I understand it, 2/3 of the UK trade with the EU is goods and only 1/3 services and falling0 -
The only way that the EU could 'punish' the UK is by damaging themselves.
It is of course possible they would do this but why would anyone want to be a member of such an organisation?
Has the EU leaders not discovered Richardo ?
As I understand it, 2/3 of the UK trade with the EU is goods and only 1/3 services and falling
Very few politicians seem to have read Ricardo and pretty much none of the electorate. There simply aren't votes in free trade, quite the reverse in fact.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf
The UK exports a bit under £150bn in goods to the EU and exports a bit under £100bn so the split looks to me to be about 60/40. However, goods exports will be exaggerated by the 'Rotterdam Effect' (goods being exported to the Netherlands in order to be shipped onwards to a third place) whereas services will not for fairly obvious reasons: someone in Holland isn't going to buy some banking services or some advertising to ship on somewhere else!
According to the paper, it seems likely that somewhere between £7.5bn and £15bn is the Rotterdam Effect in action.
Also, services are likely to add much more value than goods. An advert or legal advice or asset management add much more value than pressed steel or a car. You can see that in the wages that asset managers earn compared to car workers!0 -
Very few politicians seem to have read Ricardo and pretty much none of the electorate. There simply aren't votes in free trade, quite the reverse in fact.
http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06091.pdf
The UK exports a bit under £150bn in goods to the EU and exports a bit under £100bn so the split looks to me to be about 60/40. However, goods exports will be exaggerated by the 'Rotterdam Effect' (goods being exported to the Netherlands in order to be shipped onwards to a third place) whereas services will not for fairly obvious reasons: someone in Holland isn't going to buy some banking services or some advertising to ship on somewhere else!
According to the paper, it seems likely that somewhere between £7.5bn and £15bn is the Rotterdam Effect in action.
Also, services are likely to add much more value than goods. An advert or legal advice or asset management add much more value than pressed steel or a car. You can see that in the wages that asset managers earn compared to car workers!
we seem to be in broad agreement : figures vary from year to year
but the important point is why would the EU damage their own people?0 -
we seem to be in broad agreement : figures vary from year to year
but the important point is why would the EU damage their own people?
To protect 'the project'.
If the UK leaves then there has to be a very real risk that Greece would follow pretty much straight after. Would you then bet against Spain and Italy going before the end of the decade?
I reckon the UK leaving is an existential risk to the EU and as such the EU will put self-preservation well ahead of the well-being of EU citizens. We've seen that the EU is prepared to put in place some pretty brutal rules in Greece. Preventing free trade with the UK would be chicken feed by comparison. Add to that the fact that the French and Germans have been desperate for years to smash The City and you have a potentially toxic mix.
Neither of us can say what will happen but there is a very real risk of this happening which I don't think can be blithely dismissed.0 -
To protect 'the project'.
If the UK leaves then there has to be a very real risk that Greece would follow pretty much straight after. Would you then bet against Spain and Italy going before the end of the decade?
I reckon the UK leaving is an existential risk to the EU and as such the EU will put self-preservation well ahead of the well-being of EU citizens. We've seen that the EU is prepared to put in place some pretty brutal rules in Greece. Preventing free trade with the UK would be chicken feed by comparison. Add to that the fact that the French and Germans have been desperate for years to smash The City and you have a potentially toxic mix.
Neither of us can say what will happen but there is a very real risk of this happening which I don't think can be blithely dismissed.
The problem with recognising 'risk' is that sometimes one can take sensible precautions and sometimes one can't.
One can't be diverted by evil people : so it leaves the question why would one want to be a member of such a club?0 -
The problem with recognising 'risk' is that sometimes one can take sensible precautions and sometimes one can't.
One can't be diverted by evil people : so it leaves the question why would one want to be a member of such a club?
It's probably my work background but when I look at change I look at the balance of risk. For me the greater risk is leaving the EU.
TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if the EU's days are numbered anyway. The arguments that you hear on this thread are exactly the same that people say in bars and caf!s in France and probably across the rest of Europe with the possible exception of the small, poor countries that are recipients of the largesse of the German taxpayer via Bruxelles. The Project has moved ahead without taking the Europeans along with it and quite honestly I think the UK will be better off being around to shape what comes out of the rubble as if they are they can probably get pretty much the Europe most people want: a single market without all the crap from Brussels and Strasbourg.
You're not going to get the end of the freedom of movement of people but that's a factor of the modern world. Borders simply don't apply in the way that they did. Aus gets many more immigrants than the UK proportionally and the attempts to reduce it have either been ruinously expensive or a humanitarian disgrace or both.
News is out today about moving migrants to Cambodia in order to have them 'processed' over there. The cost of the project? $55mn. Total number of people started being processed? 5. Total number processed so far? 0.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards