Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

wunferall

gfplux wrote: »

What!!!!
You do know that Britain is leaving the EU.
The EU were given notice last year, article50, if you had forgotten.

The EU and Britain have opinionated leaders, that’s what we vote for, people with opinions.

There is no such thing as a trade cage. There is a trade deal that both Britain and the EU would like to have after Britain has left the EU.

The cake and eat it is just like any Club. You can’t resign and still play tennis at the club.

You don't even realise that the EU isn't a club, do you?
It isn't a marriage either, so therefore there will be no divorce.

The clue is in the name; European Union.
Look in a dictionary for the definition and you will find:

union:
1. the action of joining together or the fact of being joined together, especially in a political context.
2. a society or association formed by people with a common interest or purpose.

I quite like this one, from Oxford Dictionaries:

A state of harmony or agreement.

Ha ha, that alone rules out many current EU members then!
:rotfl:

As for your "cake and eat it" analogy which Europhiles seem so keen to persist upon using, surely it's the EU wanting this since in terms of value they supply more to the UK than the UK supplies to them as is often pointed out here and elsewhere. Read the posts above about cars for example, and more besides.

You seem to forget too that Article 50 very clearly places the onus upon the EU as follows: "the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State". Now I'm not entirely advocating the UK just walking away but according to that, if the EU don't try harder they are potentially leaving themselves open to legal action by the UK for not concluding an agreement as per the terms of their own constitution.
That could be fun.

BobQ

Herzlos wrote: »

I'll take 55/45. You know, anything with a statistical decision. 52/48 is statistically a draw.

Which means 51.5/48.5 is more than a draw? A win?:)

buglawton

A draw? A first past the post voting system very often results in unfair-seeming outcomes. Both Parliament and British seem to have rejected any change to this in the past. So we'll also have to accept the marginal Brexit result. Live by the sword...

Herzlos

BobQ wrote: »

Which means 51.5/48.5 is more than a draw? A win?:)

If you include an error margin, +/-2% isnt unreasonable, then it very much is a draw.

I agree that leave won the referendum by being first past the post. I (and stastics) don't agree that you can say anything meaningful about the will of the people from the result except that it was inconclusive.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

If you include an error margin, +/-2% isnt unreasonable, then it very much is a draw.

I agree that leave won the referendum by being first past the post. I (and stastics) don't agree that you can say anything meaningful about the will of the people from the result except that it was inconclusive.

Might not be unreasonable for a poll but a count of actual votes ?

buglawton

Herzlos wrote: »

If you include an error margin, +/-2% isnt unreasonable, then it very much is a draw.

I agree that leave won the referendum by being first past the post. I (and stastics) don't agree that you can say anything meaningful about the will of the people from the result except that it was inconclusive.

So we've been ruled by inconclusive parliaments for most of the last hundred years then? Figures.

Herzlos

First past the post has always been pretty bad at getting a parliament that matches the vote. They usually have a statically significant majority. This time they don't even with the DUP so are pretty innefective and at the mercy of fringe elements.

ukcarper wrote: »

Might not be unreasonable for a poll but a count of actual votes ?

They are essentially the same thing. Votes will have a lower margin of error to polls since the entries are a better policed and the sample size is bigger. It's still down to the mood of those that vote on that day.

If Cameron had a spine or any control of his party he'd have said "the result is pretty inconclusive, all we know at this point is that we need to explore in more detail, I'm establishing a comission to research the impact of leaving in detail before parliament decides."

Or if he could claim with a straight face it was a clear leave vote he could have triggered A50.
Since we had neither of them, he ran away screaming. I don't blame him; he'd lose hard either way.

gfplux

I have repeated often that Brexit is taking ALL of the Governments attention and they are not “getting on with the day job”

The crisis at Carillion as mentioned today in the Politico daily email shows that ministers were not keeping their eye on the ball.
Well else is not being attended to?
This is the quote.
——-
“ON THE BRINK: Crisis talks will continue this morning over the future of Britain’s second-largest construction and outsourcing firm, with billions of pounds’ worth of public contracts and more than 20,000 jobs at risk. Cabinet Office officials are due to reconvene emergency talks with Carillion and its lenders amid warnings the stricken firm could slip into administration as soon as this morning. Ministers are under pressure to mitigate the damage and also face mounting questions over why huge public contracts were still being given to the firm after its first profits warning last year. The Times and the FT both splash the story, and either a ministerial statement or an urgent question look certain in the Commons at 3.30 p.m. In the meantime Labour’s shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey, will be touring the airwaves looking to pile the pressure on the government.

Speaking last night: On BBC Radio 4’s Westminster Hour, Nicky Morgan, Treasury committee chairwoman, agreed ministers have “searching” questions to answer. But she echoed Lib Dem leader Vince Cable in warning a simple bail-out may not be the answer. “I think companies need to know the taxpayer is not always going to step in,” she said. “The difficulty is of course that this is a huge company with a lot of very important contracts … and of course a lot of people’s jobs and livelihoods.”

In the firing line: Yet again is Chris Grayling, who appears to be applying that magic touch at the department for transport that brought him such success at the ministry of justice. The FT points out Carillion “made its first profit warning just days before it was awarded a £1.4 billion contract on HS2 on July 17.” The Times goes for him with both barrels, publishing a leader headlined “Grayling’s Failings” and suggesting he should be fired. Placing the Carillion deals alongside recent rail contract failures, the Times says: “At best Mr. Grayling’s judgment has been found wanting in dealings with trade unions and the private sector, which are the core requirements of his job. A more hard-headed assessment is that he has been had, by Stagecoach, Virgin and now Carillion … Theresa May needs to consider whether it is time this transport secretary left the station.” Ouch.

Risk of contagion: The Telegraph’s business section leads with a stark warning that the collapse of Carillion would send hundreds of its suppliers out of business. “If it goes under it will be a disaster,” Tony Williams, analyst at Building Value, tells the paper. “They’ll take a great swathe of companies with them. Hundreds of businesses would be at risk.”
——-

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

First past the post has always been pretty bad at getting a parliament that matches the vote. They usually have a statically significant majority. This time they don't even with the DUP so are pretty innefective and at the mercy of fringe elements.


They are essentially the same thing. Votes will have a lower margin of error to polls since the entries are a better policed and the sample size is bigger. It's still down to the mood of those that vote on that day.

If Cameron had a spine or any control of his party he'd have said "the result is pretty inconclusive, all we know at this point is that we need to explore in more detail, I'm establishing a comission to research the impact of leaving in detail before parliament decides."

Or if he could claim with a straight face it was a clear leave vote he could have triggered A50.
Since we had neither of them, he ran away screaming. I don't blame him; he'd lose hard either way.

They are nowhere near the same thing and if you believe that I don’t see how anybody can take your judgements seriously.

Just to make it clear to you a poll is a small proportion of electorate is asked a question and that result is used as an indication of how the whole electorate will vote. The referendum was a count of the actual votes of electorate.

System

buglawton wrote: »

Another aspect is just how fast the UK adapts. A recent statistic is the 4% yoy increase in UK manufacturing caused mainly by the low £. We know that manufacturing takes a relatively small part of the UK economy right now, but the prospects for a rapid ramp-up are there, should the EU wish to play trade 'hardball'.

Manufacturing is 10% of GDP and agriculture 1%. The amount of time spent discussing these small parts of the economy is a testament to the skilled lobbying power of manufacturers and farmers.

Whoever the car manufacturers use to co-ordinate their lobbying should get a medal - it's been a UK obsession for decades.