Brexit, the economy and house prices (Part 3)

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I am reasonably vocal off the forum too, and will continue to be so. My job is to serve the needs of my clients, and one of those needs is access to the UK for music touring purposes. For any UK clients there is a need for the ability to tour Europe as efficiently as possible. My view is that the single market (at the moment via the EU) is the easiest way of ensuring that is possible all round.

As is often the case in politics these days. Self interest is more important than serving the interests of the wider public.

CKhalvashi

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As is often the case in politics these days. Self interest is more important than serving the interests of the wider public.

And I also believe that it is in the interests of the UK as a whole to remain.

Just look at it from a different view a minute (as I want to look at this from a much wider angle of international trade). I'm ignoring completely the views of those who voted purely for Parliamentary Sovereignty in this post (those Leave voters who are generally the ones against the Repeal Bill with its current wording, there are a number of them), even though as a more general area these are views I've taken into account.

If we end up spending £50bn to leave, even if it's £20bn, do you think that money would be better spent (and it could be spent in this way, subject to some approvals under EU law) promoting British products abroad, assisting with local marketing (how I market the same client in one country may be completely different to another) and assisting with establishing specialist support on a much greater scale? That as a set up cost could see a return from the businesses that are successful from the services (through say a 1% fee).

It would increase UK production, increase UK exports and enable more money to return to the UK. It would also increase taxable revenues, decrease reliance on welfare and with some products and services I've seen coming from the UK recently could be used to greatly benefit the lives of those in developing countries.

I've heard it argued that we are in a much better position to do that outside the EU, however my personal belief is that with pooled EU resources and completely free access to any company with specialist skills over a 32 country bloc (including the EEA and Switzerland) we are in a much better position to be able to get such output to the world stage than on our own.

I accept that it's possible that African farmers may lose out from this, however the majority of the world aren't African farmers. I also accept the EU isn't faultless, however my personal belief is that as a country we can make a bigger difference on the world stage working with our neighbours than in parallel.

You may disagree with me, you have the right to do that, but I do not accept on a much wider scale that we're doing the right thing here, as whatever the benefits of doing so may be there are far wider ranging disadvantages from all angles I've looked at.

I also note that I posted in detail what I'd like to see a future immigration policy as (while accepting that it was extremely lenient) and had some support for it, even from hard Leave voters, so there is at least some support for giving some preferences to EU nationals later on from across the board.

Arklight

Personally I am just sick of the Brexiters and their bullsh]t.

We're living under constant uncertainty, and will do for years. Meanwhile our currency has had a quarter wiped from it and it's just embarrassing meeting anyone from Europe now, or any other country.

They constantly collude to vote for useless right wing governments that don't have the interests of anyone who lives in the United Kingdom in mind, but we're told that what is effectively a regulatory body in Brussels that we have a large say over, is to blame for our political problems.

It speaks volumes that in the real world it's getting difficult to find anyone who will actually admit to having voted for this farrago.

At some point the ones that are left might get the message and jog on.

mrginge

Arklight wrote: »

It speaks volumes that in the real world it's getting difficult to find anyone who will actually admit to having voted for this farrago.

I voted for it and am absolutely loving it. In fact I find it hilarious.

Thrugelmir

CKhalvashi wrote: »

It would increase UK production, increase UK exports and enable more money to return to the UK. It would also increase taxable revenues, decrease reliance on welfare and with some products and services I've seen coming from the UK recently could be used to greatly benefit the lives of those in developing countries.

Far too simplistic. I'm afraid to say. Balancing the UK economy has been a topics of conversation for decades. Exports alone aren't the answer. As there isn't the base on which to ramp production up to bridge the trade gap. Many industries in the UK have been wiped out totally. Resulting in a complete dependence on imports. The focus should be on reducing imports and buying British. Then money would remain circulating in the UK economy.

Then there's the ownership issue of businessess. Another topic all together. Profit i.e. cash flows out of the country. This isn't even reflected in the trade figures.

fatbeetle

Arklight wrote: »

It speaks volumes that in the real world it's getting difficult to find anyone who will actually admit to having voted for this farrago.

I voted for it, just unhappy it's dragging out so long

Moby

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

Really?
That's certainly not true according to these:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/eu-referendum-brexit-young-people-upset-by-the-outcome-of-the-eu-referendum-why-didnt-you-vote-a7105396.html
*Disclaimer*
As I have pointed out before, there are only estimates.
Votes cast in UK elections are not normally counted in any other way than by candidate as chosen by the voter.

Read this too from The University Of Warwick; it is very recent and it kinda puts paid to both your and Moby's ideas of voting patterns.


And:

https://theboar.org/2017/09/young-dont-want-anti-brexit/

10 out of 10 for finding such an obscure source. Can just imagine you Jock trawling to page 150 on your Google search to find something. Can you find anything even more obscure?;)

gfplux

Infact who are anti Brexit alledge they have found 8 u turns in her Florence speech.
You may not agree but it makes an interesting read,
It is opinion from a biased source but frankly it is difficult to find un biased sources as Brexit has divided Britain more than any other issue other than wars in my lifetime.
https://infacts.org/8-u-turns-flip-flop-queen/
Theresa May made a string of climb-downs in her Florence speech. In the process she’s destroying case for Brexit. No wonder Nigel Farage and his acolytes are panicking.
InFacts has counted no fewer than eight new u-turns.

Here are the first four if you don't click the link.

(1) Brexit on ice for two more years

The prime minister used to say she could reach an ambitious new deal with the EU as well as complete our divorce in the two years allowed under Article 50 of the EU treaty. That was always pie in the sky. Now May has called for a transitional deal of “around two years”, taking us to March 2021, during which we’ll follow the EU’s rules and regulations.

The prime minister said the precise length of the transition should be determined by how long it will take to implement the new deal. It’s doubtful two years will be enough. Don’t be surprised if she flip-flops again and extends it to three.

(2) Money for transition

May used to say that “the days of Britain making vast contributions to the European Union every year will end.” Now she has promised the other EU countries won’t be out of pocket during the rest of the seven-year budget cycle. That will cost about £18 billion.

(3) Money for past commitments

The prime minister has also pledged to “honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership.” That could add another £36 billion to our divorce bill, if we go with what the EU is demanding. Even if we split the difference, it would be another £18 billion.

(4) Money for future access

May says she wants to take part in the EU’s science, education, culture and security programmes and would “make an ongoing contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved”. She refused to say whether she’d also pay for access to the EU’s vast single market.

mayonnaise

A_Medium_Size_Jock wrote: »

:rotfl:
You know that the report you quote was from before the speech, right?
And that he says "may not.."?
So before TM said: That is an exact quotation from her speech.

This Week, 21 September (that's after T's speech, Jock )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Kxt8E8kGs
(from around the 4.55 mark)

Tim_Martin wrote:

It's in doubt now Brexit will actually take place

You're struggling, Jock.

vivatifosi

I don't know if it is flip flopping gfplux so much as moving towards a more conciliatory Brexit position. May was a remainer to start with, not a hard-core brexiter. She always looked uncomfortable before, probably because she was saying things that she didn't believe.

Personally I liked the speech, but am probably the only person.

ETA.. just watched David Davis on Marr, he said the stuff about Boris getting involved and clarifying is untrue, and basically May laid out what their position had been for months.