Brexit, the economy and house prices part 5

System

gfplux wrote: »

This is part 5 of this Brexit thread. Having been in at the start to now read posters denying that
Discomfort with too many foreigners (very polite that)
and
They need us more than we need them
is.........lost for words, other than ridiculous.

Ha.

I give it a few months before one of them says "Brexit has nothing to do with sovereignty".

gfplux

Rough_Justice wrote: »

Such offended objection there - for what?

Amazing innit?

First remainers tell us that those voting leave did so because they were racist, unintelligent and xenophobic.

Now it seems they're trying to tell us it's because leavers were told that the EU needs us more than we need them!

Then, when a brave leaver points out their errors leavers are told that instead we are wrong!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Well just for you Arklight, here are just a few examples of where Team Remain got it very wrong.
No immediateemergency budget.
No immediate recession.
No millions of jobs lost.
No recession.

:j

Very few remainers will defend the remain campaign. The emphasis on immediate disaster was wrong as Britain did not immediately leave.
However almost all voters believed that Britain would leave the EU immediately and that is of most disappointment to Brexit voters.

The projections by experts (ha ha) that In due course Britain leaving the EU would have a negative economic effect on Britain are unchanged in many ways. The world is waiting to see who was right.

It is sad to see that expert opinion has been dismissed just as it was during the Tobacco debate and even now over Global Warming.

Experts do get things wrong but we ignore them completely at our peril.

gfplux

kabayiri wrote: »

It's the timing thing.

The vote itself changed the nature of our relationship, well before any A50 completion. So why do people like Gina Miller argue that we can use the legal system to reset things.

There is no reset. The best that the likes of Tony Blair or Gina Miller could hope for is a cancellation of Brexit, but it would result in a new norm.

So I have to ask. What would this new norm entail?

We aren't going to join the Euro, so any further integration plans based around the common currency would see us excluded anyway. Would the UK become an increasingly marginalised player, just there for the money input?

Many argue that sending article 50 started the clock ticking and immediately handed a negotiating advantage to the EU. It is argued that getting A50 extended could rebalance the negotiations.
The EU is driven by rules, that is the way you can manage 27/28 members.
Gina Miller and others, I think, that by using the British courts the EU could agree to extend A50.
At the end of March 2019 Britain leaves the EU. Once that happens its a done deal.
Having such a short time to negotiate and agree a trade deal while focusing minds does not allow individual industries to defend their position and the contingency plan becomes THE plan.

Sorry its all confusing. Its lose lose all round in my opinion.
I am very sad about it.

Yes there is no going back, in the mind of the EU27 Britain has already left and its all about damage limitation (to the EU27)

Arklight

Rough_Justice wrote: »

Such offended objection there - for what?

Amazing innit?

First remainers tell us that those voting leave did so because they were racist, unintelligent and xenophobic.

Now it seems they're trying to tell us it's because leavers were told that the EU needs us more than we need them!

Then, when a brave leaver points out their errors leavers are told that instead we are wrong!

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Well just for you Arklight, here are just a few examples of where Team Remain got it very wrong.
No immediateemergency budget.
No immediate recession.
No millions of jobs lost.
No recession.

:j

So just to summarise this without the animated emoticons.


Because 18 months on from the referendum millions of jobs haven't been lost and the streets haven't descended into a proto-apocalypse plagued with gangs of cannibals and giant mutant rodents (or Express readers as they are otherwise known), Brexit is a success.


I suppose as a Brexiter you really only have things being not quite as bad as you were told they would be, and worse than you were told they would be. So the former probably does feel like a victory for you.

Arklight

Herzlos wrote: »

Like who? China or Korea?

As far as I can tell, most of our prospective trade partners want something that'll be a hard sell to the public (Australia, usa, India) or are viewing Brexit as an opportunity to shake us down for a better deal (S. Korea).

Other a just aren't big markets for what we produce (China).

Other either have problems with counterfeits or difficulties in interacting due to culture.

Now I agree we should be reaching East. But we don't need Brexit for that.

Brexiteers don't understand that the UK's "best friends" are predominantly in the EU. Europe didn't suffer especially obviously from British imperialism (apart from Ireland which got everyone else's share) and Britain got a colossal amount of goodwill from WW2.


There was genuine embarrassment over De Gaulle blocking accession to the UK for so long and consequently the British got a sweetheart deal when they did join.


For most everyone else the UK is acountry they have a difficult history with that desperately needs deals and has a very weak negotiating position.


The Aussies were so chippy about proving they could survive on their own they did. If the Brits think Commonwealth 2.0 is coming back there is going to be an industrial tonnage of humble pie to eat.


For countries like India, however well disposed their actual politicians may be to "England", signing a deal where the UK is anything other than an obvious vassal is an impossible sell to their voters. But Brexiters expectations of what Indians think about the UK appears to be largely informed by that time they rented "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel."

cogito

Arklight wrote: »

There was genuine embarrassment over De Gaulle blocking accession to the UK for so long and consequently the British got a sweetheart deal when they did join.

They were so embarrassed that they only grabbed our fishing grounds and Heath was so besotted with these friendly people that he let them get away with it.

For most everyone else the UK is acountry they have a difficult history with that desperately needs deals and has a very weak negotiating position.

We don't desperately need anything. We will still trade with other countries with or without deals.

The only desperation is coming from people like you.

Arklight

cogito wrote: »

They were so embarrassed that they only grabbed our fishing grounds and Heath was so besotted with these friendly people that he let them get away with it.




We don't desperately need anything. We will still trade with other countries with or without deals.

The only desperation is coming from people like you.

That's a great Brexit banging anti Europe trope, which like almost all the others isn't remotely true.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-pinching-our-fish/
https://www.ft.com/content/84f51c84-5fe2-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895

Arklight

ilovehouses wrote: »

Doesn't fishing represent about 0.1% of UK GDP? Fair play to fisherman (and farmers) - they certainly punch above their weight when it comes to lobbying but seem to think they're the tail that should be wagging the dog.

Losing the "Cod Wars" was devastating for English fishing fleets, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the EU.

In reality the real reason the quota system was disadvantageous for British fisherman was that Brits are so limited in the types of seafood they will eat. The UK itself backed the Total Allowable Catch otherwise there would be no cod left now.

Most of the fish caught outside the 4 mile local coastal zone is done so by giant super trawlers owned by the usual multinationals.

Within the 4 mile zone there is a lot of potential for growing local fishing, but it means people have to eat something other than cod.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

We don't desperately need anything. We will still trade with other countries with or without deals.

So are you saying that forming trade deals isn't a justification for Brexit?

Surely even you can admit that having a deal is better than wto?

Rough_Justice

Herzlos wrote: »

So are you saying that forming trade deals isn't a justification for Brexit?

Surely even you can admit that having a deal is better than wto?

Not according to some remainers it isn't; they insist that the UK will be forced to survive on a diet consisting purely of chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef.

But strangely not fish since that ( incorrectly according to some) only amounts to zero point one percent of UK GDP. (It is in fact around 0.5% - considerably decreased from the period prior to joining the EEC/EU. Not admittedly that there is much difference but why exaggerate? )

Also not if these countries where trade deals are wanted means that those countries will all have the upper hand as some remainers insist, or will include unfettered immigration as part of a deal.
Apparently.

When some of the remainers posting in this thread can actually decide what they so fearfully imagine life will be like post-Brexit and stick to it we will at least have a baseline for proper debate, because at the moment their disillusioned ramblings appear to change course with the prevailing wind.

Since UK fishing only produces a half of one percent of GDP and employs just 12,000 fishers, the Lords say that industry might be a low priority for the government but it "must not be marginalised in the wider Brexit negotiations".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-38345826