Will Brexit really be good for Britain?

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Give it a rest.

It's completely irrational to pull out of a trading union which offers impeccable value for money and supports more than half of British exports.

we shall continue to trade with the EU.

It's also completely irrational to repeatedly say that those outside the EU want to buy our goods more than ever before and leaving the said union will be fine, despite the balance of payments being significantly worse, inflation being double what it was last year and what's looking like years of wage stagnation.

how does our economic performance compare with the rest of Europe : or are you simply continuing your narrative of UK bad, EU good however the facts rebel.
Wages have been stagnant since 2007 (10 years) all of this time was spent inside the EU.

Yes, France should be looking after children on its territory, however the welcoming nation of the UK that (according to you at least) is open to the world should be doing more to assist the problems that the mainland is facing, if not taking refugees as a country then providing assistance to those that are. These are our neighbours whether we're in the EU or not and it's irrational to do anything else.

remember France benefits from its immigrants : the French government receives a wall of extra tax from the immigrants.
To somehow absolve France from protecting children on its own sovereign soil shows you totally incapacity to think in a fair minded way.

Just because I don't agree with your views doesn't make mine irrational, however based on the facts of trade and political relations, the Tories and UKIP's views are.

Your views are totally consistent: everything is rubbish about the people of the UK : everything is excusable about the EU27.

CKhalvashi

CLAPTON wrote: »

we shall continue to trade with the EU.

But probably not on the same preferential terms we have now.

how does our economic performance compare with the rest of Europe : or are you simply continuing your narrative of UK bad, EU good however the facts rebel.
Wages have been stagnant since 2007 (10 years) all of this time was spent inside the EU.

I have never said that the UK is bad and the EU is good. If you look through some of the last 8000 posts, I've said that the EU needs to change. I've also said we're better off doing that from the inside, and to top it off, I've even said that UKIP would be put to excellent use here, even if I don't think they're right for national Parliament.

The UK is at the bottom of the table for wage growth, alongside Greece. Before you tell me that Greece is in the failure of the Eurozone, the only failure I can see is that of the Greek citizens to declare their income and the Greek government to collect taxes adequately. This is a fault within Greece itself, and is no way connected to either the EU or the Eurozone.

Wages have grown in much of the rest of the EU though in real terms over the last 10 years, so why have they fallen 10% in the UK? I'm putting much of the blame on a Selfservative government for 6 years of that, as nowhere near enough has been done to help either businesses grow (therefore having the money to pay the wages) or to support investment to create jobs in the first place.

We have one of the most inefficient economies in the EU paired with one of the highest hourly wages. This is never going to end well and it's not a time to wreak havoc with the economy.

remember France benefits from its immigrants : the French government receives a wall of extra tax from the immigrants.
To somehow absolve France from protecting children on its own sovereign soil shows you totally incapacity to think in a fair minded way.

No, I think in a fair minded compassionate way, you don't.

Britain would benefit from these immigrants too by the same logic, so how is assisting the French a bad thing?

Your views are totally consistent: everything is rubbish about the people of the UK : everything is excusable about the EU27.

Not really. The idea of a full FTA without paying anything in is completely ridiculous. How about I go out for the new year, abandon those I'm with, yet demand they buy my drinks all night? Do you consider that in any way reasonable or fair on them?

I don't.

CLAPTON

CKhalvashi wrote: »

But probably not on the same preferential terms we have now.



I have never said that the UK is bad and the EU is good. If you look through some of the last 8000 posts, I've said that the EU needs to change. I've also said we're better off doing that from the inside, and to top it off, I've even said that UKIP would be put to excellent use here, even if I don't think they're right for national Parliament.

The UK is at the bottom of the table for wage growth, alongside Greece. Before you tell me that Greece is in the failure of the Eurozone, the only failure I can see is that of the Greek citizens to declare their income and the Greek government to collect taxes adequately. This is a fault within Greece itself, and is no way connected to either the EU or the Eurozone.

Wages have grown in much of the rest of the EU though in real terms over the last 10 years, so why have they fallen 10% in the UK? I'm putting much of the blame on a Selfservative government for 6 years of that, as nowhere near enough has been done to help either businesses grow (therefore having the money to pay the wages) or to support investment to create jobs in the first place.

We have one of the most inefficient economies in the EU paired with one of the highest hourly wages. This is never going to end well and it's not a time to wreak havoc with the economy.

No, I think in a fair minded compassionate way, you don't.

Britain would benefit from these immigrants too by the same logic, so how is assisting the French a bad thing?

Not really. The idea of a full FTA without paying anything in is completely ridiculous. How about I go out for the new year, abandon those I'm with, yet demand they buy my drinks all night? Do you consider that in any way reasonable or fair on them?

I don't.

another EU is good, the UK is bad post.
Once again, boasting about discriminating against the rest of the world and protectionism.
Given the issues in the world, are you really saying that the best use of UK money is to subsidise France?

Mortgagefreeman

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Look at the numbers, then stop with the racist propaganda. I believe the chances are something like 0.00012% of such an attack, and I feel that's a risk worth taking.

Just shows how much out of contact you are with the common man.

Why don't you start a poll on here, and ask 'if it's worth it'?

I can guarantee at least 90% will say no it's not!

HornetSaver

Anyone from either side of the referendum debate who answers anything other than "I can't be sure" is being dishonest and partisan.

The reason we still haven't triggered Article 50 is that the Government still haven't finalised what it is they want and how they intend to go about getting it. That doesn't necessarily mean they will fail to achieve a "good" outcome (however it is that "good" should be judged). But until the point at which it's clear what the British Government wants to achieve, there is only one answer. Who knows?

My gut feeling is that it will not, and given the lack of realistic scenarios presented to us under which I may be wrong, I voted Remain. I would be delighted if I were to be proven wrong, but it would seem that it'll be at least two years before we leave and at least four or five years before a fair assessment can be made.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

HornetSaver wrote: »

Anyone from either side of the referendum debate who answers anything other than "I can't be sure" is being dishonest and partisan.

The reason we still haven't triggered Article 50 is that the Government still haven't finalised what it is they want and how they intend to go about getting it. That doesn't necessarily mean they will fail to achieve a "good" outcome (however it is that "good" should be judged). But until the point at which it's clear what the British Government wants to achieve, there is only one answer. Who knows?

My gut feeling is that it will not, and given the lack of realistic scenarios presented to us under which I may be wrong, I voted Remain. I would be delighted if I were to be proven wrong, but it would seem that it'll be at least two years before we leave and at least four or five years before a fair assessment can be made.

I have previously and openly stated in these very forums that I do not expect everything post-Brexit to be a bed of proverbial rose petals; nor do I expect the process of leaving to be without problems.
As for your "four or five years before a fair assessment can be made" - well, IMHO that is optimistic.
Ten years plus at least is more plausible.

However, my opinion for the reason that "they" still have not trigerred article 50 differs to yours.

You see the delay is because the wording in the article is so vague as to be near-worthless and very clearly demonstrates that the EU never, ever intended any of it's members to wish to leave the EU once they had been accepted into it.

So it really isn't a case of "what we want" TBH, it is a case of damage limitation - for both ourselves AND for the EU.
In terms of trade on both sides obviously BUT also of (just for example) keeping the EU operational as an entity and dissuading other member countries from also wanting to leave.

The language used by senior EU officials since the referendum result are not, TBH, doing much in the way of convincing anyone that these people are anything other than dictatorial - and as thus are doing little to dissuade anti-EU factions across Europe.

Another example of course is migration - and with such concerns about this in so many of the remaining 27 countries this may not turn out to be such a great difficulty to overcome as some currently seem to think.

Here's an interesting report from the EUObserver.
Have a read.
And note what Juncker himself said in 2014:

"This will be the last‑chance commission," Juncker warned in 2014. "Either we will succeed in bringing our citizens closer to Europe, or we will fail."

https://euobserver.com/europe-in-review/136041

Now answer seriously; do you honestly believe (even discounting the UK) that EU citizens are now somehow "closer to Europe"?
Because I have to say that this is not what I am seeing.
Which leaves just one result possible, does it not?
Failure of the EU.

A_Medium_Size_Jock

The UK has secured more than £15 billion of extra foreign investment since the referendum, ministers announced last night

News today from Ministers in the UK Government clearly stating that there is " a real vote of confidence in Britain after our vote to leave the European Union." as said by Michael Gove.

Liam Fox, the International Trade Secretary, said his department, which was set up following the Brexit vote, has reached deals on more than £16.3 billion worth of foreign direct investment in sectors including property development, infrastructure and renewable energy. It is understood that billions of pounds worth of other foreign deals will be made in the coming months but cannot yet be publicly disclosed.

Though I am no fan of IDS, I do quite like this statement by him:

“This latest announcement is the turning point. You are now either in the camp that fundamentally believes that Britain can do anything, anytime and anywhere, or you are in the a doom and gloom camp that doesn't believe in Britain.
"These are the little England Remainers who cannot believe for one moment that Great Britain is not little England, they actually think that this great island of ours cannot do anything without going on bended knee to Brussels."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/30/britain-has-secured-15billion-extra-foreign-investment-since/


Now as I say earlier, I do not believe for even one mad moment that all will be a bed of roses.
But the signs of doom and gloom that we were repeatedly warned would result IMMEDIATELY from a vote to Brexit just are not happening, are they?
Not yet, certainly.

HornetSaver

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

I have previously and openly stated in these very forums that I do not expect everything post-Brexit to be a bed of proverbial rose petals; nor do I expect the process of leaving to be without problems.
As for your "four or five years before a fair assessment can be made" - well, IMHO that is optimistic.
Ten years plus at least is more plausible.

It depends how you choose to judge it.

If you choose to judge it economically, then yes, ten years plus is a more appropriate time frame. If on the other hand you choose to weigh up the advantages of leaving the EU against the disadvantages of the exit process, then I think five years should be enough.

Let's say there's no recession at all after Brexit, or that there is a short, shallow recession but the economy stablises and looks on a good track for the future in 2021/2022, I would have thought most on both sides of the referendum would see that as a vindication of the decision, even if they felt that the economy would have done better within the EU. If on the other hand by that time we're in tough economic straights and it's difficult to see the route to the light at the end of the tunnel, then I'm unsure what a few more years of the same would shed light on.

However, my opinion for the reason that "they" still have not trigerred article 50 differs to yours.

You see the delay is because the wording in the article is so vague as to be near-worthless and very clearly demonstrates that the EU never, ever intended any of it's members to wish to leave the EU once they had been accepted into it.

So it really isn't a case of "what we want" TBH, it is a case of damage limitation - for both ourselves AND for the EU.
In terms of trade on both sides obviously BUT also of (just for example) keeping the EU operational as an entity and dissuading other member countries from also wanting to leave.

The language used by senior EU officials since the referendum result are not, TBH, doing much in the way of convincing anyone that these people are anything other than dictatorial - and as thus are doing little to dissuade anti-EU factions across Europe.

Another example of course is migration - and with such concerns about this in so many of the remaining 27 countries this may not turn out to be such a great difficulty to overcome as some currently seem to think.

I should add that my view is that Brexit would have been (and could yet prove to be) a very good idea if we could be confident that the EU will cease to exist within a decade or so, as we would be going through the pain earlier and ending up in a far stronger positions than the core countries which stuck at it until the writing was on the walls. It's part of the reason why I felt 2016 was a particularly bad year to hold the referendum, as with the extra year and a half (while still meeting the Tories' election pledge) we would have been better placed to gauge the likelihood of it happening.

A delay could even have swung my vote, as implausible as those who have seen my postings on this matter might think. I'm not a Europhile, but a pragmatist. I believe very strongly that the EU is here to stay whether it's a moral thing or not, whether all the rules make sense or not, and whether it impinges upon our sovereignty or not. I therefore took, and still take, the view that the known downsides to leaving outweigh the known benefits, and that it would take an absolute blinder from the current Government to ensure that the opportunities outweighed the risks.

If however the writing is on the walls that the whole thing is about to break up, we'd be morons not to take the opportunity to leave before that actually happens. Another nine or ten months from now the longer term stability of the EU will be much clearer - due to the continental elections bound to be dominated by migration and the EU, that would still have been the case even if we had postponed the referendum until November 2017. Knowing what we now know, it probably would have produced a clearer result, as you can bet that Trump would have gotten involved in the Brexit debate and would have actively sought a trade deal with us had we left.

Here's an interesting report from the EUObserver.
Have a read.
And note what Juncker himself said in 2014:

https://euobserver.com/europe-in-review/136041

Now answer seriously; do you honestly believe (even discounting the UK) that EU citizens are now somehow "closer to Europe"?
Because I have to say that this is not what I am seeing.
Which leaves just one result possible, does it not?
Failure of the EU.

Oh, the EU is run by some absolute idiots who see democracy as an inconvenience to be overcome, a show to be put on, or a game to be played. The same description could be perfectly reasonably applied to British Governments of all colours in living memory, and indeed to UKIP, though I agree that the EU is probably worse than most.

That does not, in and of itself demonstrate to me that the EU is going to collapse in a matter of years. Two or three significant leaders and/or governments wanting out might have changed my mind. Such leaders and governments could rise in 2017. So as I said above, to this day do not understand why we did not stick to the original Tory pledge of a referendum by the end of 2017 and hold it this coming November, given that it was made by a man whose instinct was that we should remain. Had he stuck to that timeframe, and things panned out as you predict and as I admit could happen, we would have been in a position to trigger Article 50 immediately, without the delay that impending French, German and Italian elections (two of which we knew were coming) were always going to have if we triggered Article 50 late this year or early in 2017.

CLAPTON

HornetSaver wrote: »

It depends how you choose to judge it.

If you choose to judge it economically, then yes, ten years plus is a more appropriate time frame. If on the other hand you choose to weigh up the advantages of leaving the EU against the disadvantages of the exit process, then I think five years should be enough.

Let's say there's no recession at all after Brexit, or that there is a short, shallow recession but the economy stablises and looks on a good track for the future in 2021/2022, I would have thought most on both sides of the referendum would see that as a vindication of the decision, even if they felt that the economy would have done better within the EU. If on the other hand by that time we're in tough economic straights and it's difficult to see the route to the light at the end of the tunnel, then I'm unsure what a few more years of the same would shed light on.

I should add that my view is that Brexit would have been (and could yet prove to be) a very good idea if we could be confident that the EU will cease to exist within a decade or so, as we would be going through the pain earlier and ending up in a far stronger positions than the core countries which stuck at it until the writing was on the walls. It's part of the reason why I felt 2016 was a particularly bad year to hold the referendum, as with the extra year and a half (while still meeting the Tories' election pledge) we would have been better placed to gauge the likelihood of it happening.

A delay could even have swung my vote, as implausible as those who have seen my postings on this matter might think. I'm not a Europhile, but a pragmatist. I believe very strongly that the EU is here to stay whether it's a moral thing or not, whether all the rules make sense or not, and whether it impinges upon our sovereignty or not. I therefore took, and still take, the view that the known downsides to leaving outweigh the known benefits, and that it would take an absolute blinder from the current Government to ensure that the opportunities outweighed the risks.

If however the writing is on the walls that the whole thing is about to break up, we'd be morons not to take the opportunity to leave before that actually happens. Another nine or ten months from now the longer term stability of the EU will be much clearer - due to the continental elections bound to be dominated by migration and the EU, that would still have been the case even if we had postponed the referendum until November 2017. Knowing what we now know, it probably would have produced a clearer result, as you can bet that Trump would have gotten involved in the Brexit debate and would have actively sought a trade deal with us had we left.

Oh, the EU is run by some absolute idiots who see democracy as an inconvenience to be overcome, a show to be put on, or a game to be played. The same description could be perfectly reasonably applied to British Governments of all colours in living memory, and indeed to UKIP, though I agree that the EU is probably worse than most.

That does not, in and of itself demonstrate to me that the EU is going to collapse in a matter of years. Two or three significant leaders and/or governments wanting out might have changed my mind. Such leaders and governments could rise in 2017. So as I said above, to this day do not understand why we did not stick to the original Tory pledge of a referendum by the end of 2017 and hold it this coming November, given that it was made by a man whose instinct was that we should remain. Had he stuck to that timeframe, and things panned out as you predict and as I admit could happen, we would have been in a position to trigger Article 50 immediately, without the delay that impending French, German and Italian elections (two of which we knew were coming) were always going to have if we triggered Article 50 late this year or early in 2017.

leaving the EU is a long term decision.
waiting a year won't change the fundamentals.
in any event in a year or so time, those that don't want to leave would see good reasons for delaying another year; then I'm pretty sure there would be a good reason to wait a further years etc.

HornetSaver

The fundamentals of the situation were that negotiations were never going to begin seriously until late 2017. All the current kerfuffle about court challenges to this procedure and parliamentary motions to debate that procedure would have been drowned out by what the government was actually doing, had we held the vote and then immediately started Article 50. An option which was never going to be on the table because Cameron was never going to do it.

Indeed the only reason he called the referendum was because he felt it was the only way to secure his position. Had we waited until the end of 2017, as was originally believed to be the timeframe, Cameron would long since have been replaced by someone competent enough to plan for the possibility of a Leave vote.