BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

1…4748505253…2110

Comments

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    Mr Goo wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:

    Stuf
    stuff

    other stuff

    I seem to have been defending someone else's words as my own. Apologies to Coopster and Rick

    I answered Goo in a very civilised manner but got a rant about fishing - would you mind answering

    I'm not sure I 'ranted' about fishing industry Mr Surrey Commuter.
    As you have an economics degree, which I am sure would have involved looking at contributors to a state's economy, I wanted an explanation and your views on why you think being an EU member is beneficial to the UK Fishing fleet.

    Most plebs like me know that the UK Fishing industry has been decimated by the EU. Yet it is something that the Remain campaign do not want to engage in dialogue. They merely send out a multi millionaire pop star come self proclaimed saviour of the 3rd world to slag off the fishermen.

    FYI. I work in construction industry. Basic rate tax payer. Secondary school education. Small house. Wife 2 children. 2 cats. Gold tench in a small pond. Therefore officially classified as Pleb in the eyes of the educated, self righteous and who love to talk down to those who dare to think about their communities and country rather than their portfolio.

    Could I clarify that i was accused by talking through my "city" hat so was explaining my background rather than bragging about my education. You still have no knowledge of my earnings or assets. I too have a wife, 2 kids and two (many) cats. I filled the pond in.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    mrfpb wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:

    Relatives have said to me "But we remember what it was like before 1975". Seems pointless pointing out we're not going to bring back the swinging sixties.

    https://next.ft.com/content/e66852f0-32 ... ee5ffe5b5b
    Economic history is clear. The UK’s growth of national income per head has been the fastest in the G7 since joining in 1973, having been the slowest between 1950 and 1973. EU membership has served Britain well and has not prevented domestic economic renewal.

    Economic history is clear - 3 years after joining the EEC the UK economy had hit the rocks and we had to apply for an IMF bailout (like Greece after they joined the Euro)

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabi ... crisis.htm

    So the message from that is Greece are going to be OK after a while then? Long as they stick with the EU.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    mrfpb wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    So are we all clear on the "facts" of economic history?

    I genuinely don't get what you mean by that post - could you explain

    Well, me and Rick posted completely different conclusions of the effects on the UK economy of joining the EEC. His implied continual growth, mine implied catastrophe. We simply chose different historical sources to back up our arguments.

    Sorry a bit slow today. You are of course both correct. You were just looking over different timeframes. I might get down Ladbrokes to bet on Osborne invoking an IMF bailout if we vote out.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    KingstonGraham wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    Rick Chasey wrote:
    KingstonGraham wrote:

    Relatives have said to me "But we remember what it was like before 1975". Seems pointless pointing out we're not going to bring back the swinging sixties.

    https://next.ft.com/content/e66852f0-32 ... ee5ffe5b5b
    Economic history is clear. The UK’s growth of national income per head has been the fastest in the G7 since joining in 1973, having been the slowest between 1950 and 1973. EU membership has served Britain well and has not prevented domestic economic renewal.

    Economic history is clear - 3 years after joining the EEC the UK economy had hit the rocks and we had to apply for an IMF bailout (like Greece after they joined the Euro)

    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabi ... crisis.htm

    So the message from that is Greece are going to be OK after a while then? Long as they stick with the EU.

    Absolutely yes, but on the other hand definitely not
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,867
    bendertherobot wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    bendertherobot wrote:
    History is great. It teaches us so many things. Like what happened when some stuff happened. And that's the case from all sides. So we come back to predictions. What will it be like. History teaches us stuff. Then the future broadly ignores it.

    Lots of stuff happened and pinning down what event caused what consequence is always open for debate.

    Eg the quarterly GDP figures that come out 3 weeks after the end of the quarter are a form of "prediction" of the final figure - which takes two years to establish. Hence Mark Carney talking about the UK suffering a "technical recession" - if there is a reported shrinkage of say.1% that could easily be revised to 0% or +.1% over the following two years.
    Been alright since in the intervening 30 years though.

    More likely down to the conditions imposed by the IMF and the radical reforms of the Thatcher years (in my opinion of course). Not a fan of Thatcher, but looking at the state of the economy before and after her stint is like night and day.

    Yes. Debate is good. But it doesn't make for historical fact then, if that debate is debatable. And if it is then relying on it to predict the future is pointless.

    Can someone answer this though, and this is really the one thing I just cannot pin down. We're going to continue to trade. Fine. I agree with that. Will there be better agreements? Whatever.

    But, there seems to be this buzz that our trading will go nuclear. We're going to become a powerhouse. JCB and Dyson are shining examples of the industry that we have.

    Can someone tell me a) how many more Dyson's are we going to sell and b) what other products will we be a) inventing or b) selling more of? I'm genuinely interested in that discussion and soundbites aside what is the hope based on?

    This is based upon the assumption that our trade with the EU will be unaffected and that we will be able to forge new trading relationships with non-EU countries.
  • Lookyhere
    Lookyhere Posts: 987
    mrfpb wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    So are we all clear on the "facts" of economic history?

    I genuinely don't get what you mean by that post - could you explain

    Well, me and Rick posted completely different conclusions of the effects on the UK economy of joining the EEC. His implied continual growth, mine implied catastrophe. We simply chose different historical sources to back up our arguments.

    there was a dramatic hike in the price of oil

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rice-shock

    would we have been placed outside of EEC ? no one knows, but the cause wasnt the EEC
  • bendertherobot
    bendertherobot Posts: 11,684
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    bendertherobot wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    bendertherobot wrote:
    History is great. It teaches us so many things. Like what happened when some stuff happened. And that's the case from all sides. So we come back to predictions. What will it be like. History teaches us stuff. Then the future broadly ignores it.

    Lots of stuff happened and pinning down what event caused what consequence is always open for debate.

    Eg the quarterly GDP figures that come out 3 weeks after the end of the quarter are a form of "prediction" of the final figure - which takes two years to establish. Hence Mark Carney talking about the UK suffering a "technical recession" - if there is a reported shrinkage of say.1% that could easily be revised to 0% or +.1% over the following two years.
    Been alright since in the intervening 30 years though.

    More likely down to the conditions imposed by the IMF and the radical reforms of the Thatcher years (in my opinion of course). Not a fan of Thatcher, but looking at the state of the economy before and after her stint is like night and day.

    Yes. Debate is good. But it doesn't make for historical fact then, if that debate is debatable. And if it is then relying on it to predict the future is pointless.

    Can someone answer this though, and this is really the one thing I just cannot pin down. We're going to continue to trade. Fine. I agree with that. Will there be better agreements? Whatever.

    But, there seems to be this buzz that our trading will go nuclear. We're going to become a powerhouse. JCB and Dyson are shining examples of the industry that we have.

    Can someone tell me a) how many more Dyson's are we going to sell and b) what other products will we be a) inventing or b) selling more of? I'm genuinely interested in that discussion and soundbites aside what is the hope based on?

    This is based upon the assumption that our trade with the EU will be unaffected and that we will be able to forge new trading relationships with non-EU countries.

    New as in better? Or new as in start? I assume the former as I doubt there's much we're not selling now to the others?
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Lookyhere wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    Surrey Commuter wrote:
    mrfpb wrote:
    So are we all clear on the "facts" of economic history?

    I genuinely don't get what you mean by that post - could you explain

    Well, me and Rick posted completely different conclusions of the effects on the UK economy of joining the EEC. His implied continual growth, mine implied catastrophe. We simply chose different historical sources to back up our arguments.

    there was a dramatic hike in the price of oil

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... rice-shock

    would we have been placed outside of EEC ? no one knows, but the cause wasnt the EEC

    I think this discussion won't get us far as the oil price was yet another factor, and the point I tried to make was that we can present different factors to back up different arguments.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    Mrfpb, why are voting out? and why do you believe we ll be this eco powerhouse, forging our way across the world freed from our eu shackles.

    Since casting my vote for IN, i ve tried very hard to look for any reason to have voted differently, so far i ve come up with zero, none!

    and believe me i am no big EU either but i can see solid reasons to stay and be an engaging partner for change in the EU, continuing our growth that has us as the worlds 5th largest economy ( though i m never quite sure where these figures come from), outside we are a no-body, the OUT leadership are very much like footie fans who think we will win the WC again and that we are the best at footie.
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,312
    mamba80 wrote:
    the OUT leadership are very much like footie fans who think we will win the WC again and that we are the best at footie.

    Good example of something that will never happen again, Brexit or not... :mrgreen:
    left the forum March 2023
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    the OUT leadership are very much like footie fans who think we will win the WC again and that we are the best at footie.

    Good example of something that will never happen again, Brexit or not... :mrgreen:

    Sometimes the truth hurts! :lol: thought you d like that one!
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,312
    mamba80 wrote:
    ugo.santalucia wrote:
    mamba80 wrote:
    the OUT leadership are very much like footie fans who think we will win the WC again and that we are the best at footie.

    Good example of something that will never happen again, Brexit or not... :mrgreen:

    Sometimes the truth hurts! :lol: thought you d like that one!

    Not a football fan... I'd actually like England to lift a trophy... it's very sad there is so much passion for these torunaments which inevitably always turn sour... I just don't see that happening... too much pressure, not enough confidence... before they even fly to the tournament, you look at them and they are already apologising... :cry:
    left the forum March 2023
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 28,152
    mamba80 wrote:
    Since casting my vote for IN, i ve tried very hard to look for any reason to have voted differently, so far i ve come up with zero, none!

    There is a much larger proportion of people in mainland Europe that would favour closer ties between EU member states, and that consider themselves personally "European". While the UK is a member of the EU, there will always be a tension between this and the British desire for looser ties. It may be that having the UK as a member holds back the natural development of the EU. At the least, it will be written in statute that there will be two classes of members, UK and everyone else.

    Now may be the time to bite the bullet and say "we have different aims, it's in all our best interests to amicably part".
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    mamba80 wrote:
    Mrfpb, why are voting out? and why do you believe we ll be this eco powerhouse, forging our way across the world freed from our eu shackles.

    We are talked down by the remain side and seen as not being able to make our way in the world on our on but this vote is big enough to influence the interest rate decision of America, the largest economy in the world. We get told one thing but real world situations demonstrate the UK does have world wide influence.

    mamba80 wrote:
    Since casting my vote for IN, i ve tried very hard to look for any reason to have voted differently, so far i ve come up with zero, none!

    I've been doing the same but starting from the other side (I'll be voting on 23rd June) but have seen nothing from the remain side to convince me to change. When looking at the remain side, I look at Osborne as the leading figure on the economy for the UK but cannot believe anything he now says since his £4300 worse off announcement.

    mamba80 wrote:
    and believe me i am no big EU either but i can see solid reasons to stay and be an engaging partner for change in the EU, continuing our growth that has us as the worlds 5th largest economy ( though i m never quite sure where these figures come from), outside we are a no-body, the OUT leadership are very much like footie fans who think we will win the WC again and that we are the best at footie.

    My view was influenced by us not getting the change that you and every remainer keeps declaring. With the threats from the EU if we leave, I cannot see how giving the EU a green light we are going to be listened to to get these changes.
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    mamba80 wrote:
    Mrfpb, why are voting out? and why do you believe we ll be this eco powerhouse, forging our way across the world freed from our eu shackles.

    I don't think we will become a ecoonmic powerhouse if that is what you meant to type, well not more than we are now as the worlds 5th largest economy. But there will not be a fall of western civilisation (Donald Tusk) or the gigantic black hole requiring a slash and tax budget (George Osborne) . I think the EU has many good points, I've never beeen a fervent outer, just an outer on balance. I think the EU is overbeuracratic and less accountable than it should be. It is need of reform, but the will or mechanism to reform is not there. We can negotiate trade better (more quickly/efficiently) on our own and we can continue to co-operate with Europe on important issues - climate change, refugee crises and any others as a good neighbour.

    I've said before that a vote to leave does not put UKIP in charge of the country - they will still only have one MP. We will still have a Conservative government with a slim majority that has to tread carefully to get it's law passed. The majority of Parliament do not want an ugly fight with Europe, and the members there don't want an ugly fight with us.
  • finchy
    finchy Posts: 6,686
    Aw crap, even the telephone polls now put us down as leaving the EU.

    So if we vote out, we'll stay in the EU for another 2 years. I wonder if in that time the government will offer us a second referendum... a chance to change our minds if it all goes as badly wrong as they're predicting. I can't see the EU refusing us re-entry if that did happen, but it would probably mean Cameron and Osborne hanging on to power.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,814
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    I've been doing the same but starting from the other side (I'll be voting on 23rd June) but have seen nothing from the remain side to convince me to change. When looking at the remain side, I look at Osborne as the leading figure on the economy for the UK but cannot believe anything he now says since his £4300 worse off announcement.
    How many leading economists or financial bodies say we'd be better off out and how many say we'd be better off in?
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • prhymeate
    prhymeate Posts: 795
    For the sake of looking at the other side of the argument, there is an interesting article that discusses the positive side of the EU Common Fisheries Policy with links to various sources here: https://www.opendemocracy.net/can-europ ... isheries-0

    Whilst I do think that highlighting the negatives of leaving is important and the economic impact will be significant in the short term at least, it is a shame that the remain camp hasn't done more to promote the positive impact of being in the EU. For example the environment, pollution targets (something UK ministers are unfortunately lobbying against), funding towards scientific research, investment into universities, improved security, etc etc. Of course that is all my opinion and is not to say that the EU is perfect, but I do think it's something worth being part of and attempting to improve from within. It's also important to look beyond the individual politicians on either side, as the implications of either result are far more long term than that.
    That said, I feel like everyone has made up their minds now and the 'debate' has largely descended into a shouting match. Part of me can't wait for the vote to be over, the other part is worried about the outcome.
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    I've been doing the same but starting from the other side (I'll be voting on 23rd June) but have seen nothing from the remain side to convince me to change. When looking at the remain side, I look at Osborne as the leading figure on the economy for the UK but cannot believe anything he now says since his £4300 worse off announcement.
    How many leading economists or financial bodies say we'd be better off out and how many say we'd be better off in?

    How many leading economists or financial bodies predicted the banking crisis? You know the crisis that nearly collapsed the world wide banking system.

    If leading economists and financial bodies cannot predict or see the biggest of economic crisis since the 1930's how can we trust their judgement on anything else?
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Markets like stability. Mark Carney said this morning that uncertainty about the outcome of the referendum is the biggest cause of global instability. The hung parliament of 2010 caused market jitters, and this is a bigger deal. Market jitters are not a reason to stop having democratic elections, and they are not a reason to keep putting off a decision that has been a cause of instability in UK politics since the downfall of Thatcher in 1990.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,814
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    How many leading economists or financial bodies predicted the banking crisis? You know the crisis that nearly collapsed the world wide banking system.

    If leading economists and financial bodies cannot predict or see the biggest of economic crisis since the 1930's how can we trust their judgement on anything else?
    Oh, ok. They got something wrong so they are always wrong and can't be trusted. If we vote out I really hope you are right and they are wrong, unfortunately I'm not convinced. As mrfpb says markets like stability, out will certainly cause instability so it can only cause a downturn in the short term at least, long term is harder to predict.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • Bobbinogs
    Bobbinogs Posts: 4,841
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    I've been doing the same but starting from the other side (I'll be voting on 23rd June) but have seen nothing from the remain side to convince me to change. When looking at the remain side, I look at Osborne as the leading figure on the economy for the UK but cannot believe anything he now says since his £4300 worse off announcement.
    How many leading economists or financial bodies say we'd be better off out and how many say we'd be better off in?

    How many leading economists or financial bodies predicted the banking crisis? You know the crisis that nearly collapsed the world wide banking system.

    If leading economists and financial bodies cannot predict or see the biggest of economic crisis since the 1930's how can we trust their judgement on anything else?

    Yepp, nails that argument methinks!
  • coopster_the_1st
    coopster_the_1st Posts: 5,158
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    How many leading economists or financial bodies predicted the banking crisis? You know the crisis that nearly collapsed the world wide banking system.

    If leading economists and financial bodies cannot predict or see the biggest of economic crisis since the 1930's how can we trust their judgement on anything else?
    Oh, ok. They got something wrong so they are always wrong and can't be trusted. If we vote out I really hope you are right and they are wrong, unfortunately I'm not convinced. As mrfpb says markets like stability, out will certainly cause instability so it can only cause a downturn in the short term at least, long term is harder to predict.

    It wasn't just something though was it? Something would have been predicting the timing wrong of a recession. This 'something' as you refer to it nearly brought down the world wide financial system.

    And as mrfpb pointed out, we should not stop having democratic elections because they cause market jitters. Or is democracy a worthwhile sacrifice for market stability?
  • bendertherobot
    bendertherobot Posts: 11,684
    Has anyone checked whether the economists in favour of Brexit predicted the crash?
    My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
    https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
    Facebook? No. Just say no.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 75,661
    Couple things on this fallacy.

    Firstly - a financial crisis caused by esoteric and niche financial products is not in the remit of economics.

    Secondly, even if any economist could 'predict' a crisis - their prediction would only precipitate a crisis. Think about it.

    Thirdly, the pizza analogy.

    If you eat a whole pizza every hour for the rest of your life, your Dr won't be able to predict your weight in 5 years time.

    They will however, be able to tell you you'll be fat.
    _
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    With the crash it's more that the signs were there but the experts chose to believe the data that supported their models and practices. A lot of self deception , and an absent (or ineffective to the point of being complicit) regulator. Believing the data would have required massive changes to practice.

    Another view is that, like weathermen, they look at several risk models and disregard data at the extremes (outliers). That's why the met office didn't forecast the chances of a hurricane in 1987 - it appeared in some forecast models, but as an extreme. It's possible hurricanes appear in other forecast models but never happen

    You could argue that some people on both sides are choosing to present the extremes and ignoring the middle ground. But I don't have any proof for that. Andrew Neil on the Daily Politics often presents alternative data in counter argument to both sides, so there is stuff out there if you know what your looking for.
  • veronese68
    veronese68 Posts: 27,814
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    And as mrfpb pointed out, we should not stop having democratic elections because they cause market jitters. Or is democracy a worthwhile sacrifice for market stability?
    No we shouldn't stop having the elections, but we should consider the consequences. We're not sacrificing democracy.
    Kinesis Pro6
    Marin Nail Trail
    Cotic Solaris
  • mrfpb
    mrfpb Posts: 4,569
    Veronese68 wrote:
    Coopster the 1st wrote:
    And as mrfpb pointed out, we should not stop having democratic elections because they cause market jitters. Or is democracy a worthwhile sacrifice for market stability?
    No we shouldn't stop having the elections, but we should consider the consequences. We're not sacrificing democracy.

    In balance to my original argument, the market jitters promoted a speedy decision making process in the case of the 2010 election. Compare this to countries such as Iraq or Ireland where it has taken several months to form a government following an inconclusive election. The jitters are due to the size of our economy, and are another reason to believe that negotiations will be less protracted than some commentators believe.

    This isn't the Irish or Middle East peace process, there aren't centuries of hate to overcome. In the event of an Out vote it's in everyone's interest to be constructive in negotiating an exit.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 13,227
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-engla ... s-36543180
  • ugo.santalucia
    ugo.santalucia Posts: 28,312
    although democracy is a good thing, I question whether the "golden arches" stability doesn't trump a choice between Trump and Clinton. I hate corporations, but I have to admit that since they exist on a global scale, far fewer people have been killed on this planet... something even democracy has failed to achieve.

    Modern politicians (being British or Belgian or South African) are not worth losing sleep over a vote... they are mostly spineless puppets in the hands of lobbies and corporations... where is this "Ancient Greece type" democracy?

    Take the dreadful 9K tuition fees... in 2010 you could choose between a lot who wanted to put fees at 9K, another lot who wanted them at 9K and another lot who were keen to associate with either of the two, even if the fees went to 9K... where is democracy?
    left the forum March 2023

Categories