No Deal Brexit and Savings

ValiantSon

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Yes, that is true.

What the UK had joined, and what she supported, was then called the Common Market. Brexiteers (of whom I am not one) point out that the EU includes a good deal more than that.

She was firmly behind the development of the single market. It fitted perfectly with her ideological belief in the power of free markets.

Furthermore, your comment was actually that the EU would prevent someone like her getting into power, which was clearly nonsense, both on an objective and a historical basis. The EU doesn't prevent a member state from putting anyone into the positions of head of government or head of state. There are plenty of anti-democratic leaders who have come to power in EU states, such as Andrzej Duda, Beata Szydlo and Mateusz Morawiecki in Poland, and Viktor Orban and Janos Ader in Hungary. And Thatcher herself came to power well after the UK had joined the EEC (as I already pointed out, and you ignored). Here, again, is what you wrote in post #48:

Voyager2002 wrote: »

And yes: there are bigger issues at stake than money. Things like preventing war in Europe; things like maintaining a central system of governance so that never again can a European country fall into the hands of a maniac like Thatcher. Things like creating a global counter-weight to the USA.

So what you said was palpably wrong.

Furthermore, as demonstrated, the EU is not a bulwark against anti-democracy (the irony that anyone could think that it was!), or tyranny.

qwert_yuiop

jimjames wrote: »

Problem is that it's just not true. People may have carried on but it's definitely not the same expenses when the pound has dropped 20%

Anyone old enough to remember 1992 when the pound crashed will know how imported goods suddenly got a lot dearer. Even oil, although not imported, went up a lot as it's priced in dollars.

Take a tip from George soros, everyone - borrow pounds to buy dollars and wait for the inevitable.
There's my prediction - I got it from Mystic Mogg.

qwert_yuiop

IanManc wrote: »

No you didn't. Rees-Mogg didn't say that. You've fabricated it.

And your latest attempt to make fun of his surname is as pathetic as your last one.

Hello, Jacob.

ValiantSon

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

Hello, Jacob.

When you have no reasoned response and you resort to making cheap jibes, it is generally the case that you have lost the argument.

qwert_yuiop

That might well be true if there actually had been an argument. However, I was unaware there was one.

ValiantSon

qwert_yuiop wrote: »

That might well be true if there actually had been an argument. However, I was unaware there was one.

Really? You're obviously reading a different thread from the rest of us then!

schiff

Some fascinating reading in this. A shame that it's littered from time to time by little spats.

dividendhero

Going back to investments for a moment, would be interested if anyone thinks UK equities will benefit from Brexit?

I've often heard the stuff about abolishing EU regulations, but the majority of these are handed down from higher level bodies such as the UN and WTO - the so called "double coffin lid"

Chadsman

Does anyone think Trump will give UK a good trade deal when he is levying tariffs on goods from EU, Canada, Mexico, China, South Korea?

qwert_yuiop

dividendhero wrote: »

Going back to investments for a moment, would be interested if anyone thinks UK equities will benefit from Brexit?

I've often heard the stuff about abolishing EU regulations, but the majority of these are handed down from higher level bodies such as the UN and WTO - the so called "double coffin lid"

Those with major international exposure ought to do well. I'd suggest BP for instance, with refineries and wells abroad, will do well in Sterling terms - effectively a hedge against sterling depreciation.