BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

DeVlaeminck

finchy wrote:

Everyone's talking about economy and immigration on this thread, but they aren't the only issues. As the world faces some massive challenges over the next few decades - climate change, nuclear arms, terrorism, international migration, antibiotics resistance, soil degradation, stretched water supplies - do we want the world's most highly developed continent to be one which cooperates closely to meet these challenges head on, or one in which all members are pulling in different directions?

It's for this reason more than any other that I'm voting in.

I think that's probably as strong an argument as anything and the in side would be better served making it than engaging in the negative campaign they have run so far.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I really can not find any benefits other that a mention of high def photographic mapping and that was on the NASA website.

Now the cost in today's money is £100bn so over 10 years is £10bn per annum. Now there are 27 million uk households so let's take that to 25 million to exclude the very poor (and help my maths) that means that you are chipping in £400 a year for the next decade. Would you really write a cheque for £4,000 on behalf of your household to put Brit on the moon?

Think of it as the space programme as a whole, not just putting someone on the moon.

Just off the top of my head, Satellite TV, GPS navigation systems (Satnav), Satellite communications as benefits? This has created whole new industries, many that would never have been predicted by financial institutions evaluating the cost of the space programme. I'm sure there are many more developments and industries to be found with a short time on a search engine.

But this whole thing would have been a non-starter if decided purely on economics.

But I am not arguing against space travel. I am saying the moon landings were a vanity project.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

sungod wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Oh my god.

How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.

From today's report which was reported on the BBC here - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36561720

Its most adverse Brexit scenario predicts 2019 growth 5.6% below what it would otherwise have been, and also a drop in GDP in 2017 of 0.8%, which an IMF official described as a "recession".

Sounds like they are predicting a recession to me. So are you discrediting their report or proving that you have no idea what you are talking about?


Cannot wait for you to explain this

you seem to not understand what he said...

How many times do I need to explain that predicting recessions is literally impossible and paradoxical.

If you were able to predict it, they would occur anyway.

it's in english

have another go

To be honest Risk has said enough by discrediting these so called experts. He has confirmed that we should note vote based on the remains economic case as predicting recessions is impossible

I believe what Rick is saying is that if you predict something awful then you would amend your behaviour and then it would not happen.

You could forecast that you will go bankrupt next year. If this was based upon your intention to double your mortgage then surely you would change your mind. You would not go bankrupt and the forecast would be wrong.

If you forecast a recession you amend your monetary and fiscal policy to avoid it, or don't vote Brexit.

Times when they fail to forecast a recession can be put down to black swan theory - things that should not exist that do.

Bo Duke

Very poetic.

The EU needs to reform, be more transparent and demonstrate they're addressing the many areas of concern.
They need to listen to the electorate across the Union and act.
They must stop being so condescendingly arrogant in imposing their unseen and undebated master plan on us all.
And finally they must reverse the sovereignty smash and grab of the Lisbon accord.

It's not a case of agreeing to everything that Brussels dictates (note use of word), we must have the right to challenge and make changes. This is not a communism society where we are told what to do by Brussels or we'll get punished, we live in a democracy that millions of people have fought and lost their lives for over the years.

Our country has had the courage to be different for hundreds of years that made us great, now we're apologetic, conformist.... dear oh dear where are the leaders of the future?

Lookyhere

finchy wrote:

Everyone's talking about economy and immigration on this thread, but they aren't the only issues. As the world faces some massive challenges over the next few decades - climate change, nuclear arms, terrorism, international migration, antibiotics resistance, soil degradation, stretched water supplies - do we want the world's most highly developed continent to be one which cooperates closely to meet these challenges head on, or one in which all members are pulling in different directions?

It's for this reason more than any other that I'm voting in.

Could nt agree more.

My mum, an ardent OUT and voted against EEC in 75, is now going to vote IN - her change of heart is based on above and that Britain has never turned its back on europe.

mr_goo

This will be my last post on this topic until we all meet on the other side after the vote.

Ignore all the rhetoric and debate from both sides over economy, education, immigration etc etc.
The question we should all ask ourselves that should determine how we vote is:

How do you want the UK to be governed?


I'll leave you all to debate and squabble amongst yourselves now. I'll watch from the touchline.
Enjoy the week.

Note to Surrey Comm.
Totally agree about the tidal power research. Hopefully the scheme in Cardiff Bay goes ahead and spurs on new technologies.

bendertherobot

Well, that's an interesting one. Now, I've read today that if we vote in, Dave will kiss and make up with Gove and Johnson. If we vote out then we lose Dave and get Gove and Johnson.

I'd rather none of them. I'd rather be governed by a free thinking, socially progressive government which thinks about all of its citizens.

So, in the absence of that, I think I'd quite like a safety net.

surrey_commuter

Mr Goo wrote:

This will be my last post on this topic until we all meet on the other side after the vote.

Ignore all the rhetoric and debate from both sides over economy, education, immigration etc etc.
The question we should all ask ourselves that should determine how we vote is:

How do you want the UK to be governed?


I'll leave you all to debate and squabble amongst yourselves now. I'll watch from the touchline.
Enjoy the week.

Note to Surrey Comm.
Totally agree about the tidal power research. Hopefully the scheme in Cardiff Bay goes ahead and spurs on new technologies.

If only that had been your first post!!!!

We have of course been answering different questions.

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

So, to help your imagination, to the economist th Brexit is the mortgage backed security subprime crisis for Britain in 2016, only this time they can see the cause because it's a referendum, rather than an obscure type of finance, which they couldn't see.

So if in 2006 you were to tell an economist that there is a big problem in banking and you asked them what will happen if there is a credit crunch, they'd have said you'll get a recession. And they would be right.

In 2016, they're saying if you have Brexit, you'll get a recession.

They're not peering into a crystal ball. They have a lot of rigour.

Did you even read the article I linked to?

In April 2008 no economist had called a recession despite Northern Rock having been nationalised and Bear Stearns had collapsed. These were obvious huge problems in the banking system and yet not one of them could see it.

But these experts have much better foresight to be able to predict a recession upon Brexit despite not knowing what conditions will exist!

Are you not questioning your view as 'experts' are predicting a recession which is impossible to predict?

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I believe what Rick is saying is that if you predict something awful then you would amend your behaviour and then it would not happen.

You could forecast that you will go bankrupt next year. If this was based upon your intention to double your mortgage then surely you would change your mind. You would not go bankrupt and the forecast would be wrong.

If you forecast a recession you amend your monetary and fiscal policy to avoid it, or don't vote Brexit.

Times when they fail to forecast a recession can be put down to black swan theory - things that should not exist that do.

Rick is saying that this cannot be predicted. He made that clear with the word 'impossible'

But say we can predict something, then as you say we will be able to make amendments. We are not going to enter any 'expert' predicted recession on 24th June, there will be no requirement for this 'punishment' emergency budget and we will be able to make the required amendments.

I engage in debate because I want question my views. Do you not question your views when the strongest economic voice on the remain side puts forward that this country will be subjected to 'punishment' budget based on a democratic vote of the electorate? Do you not see what is wrong with this?

coopster_the_1st

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, that's an interesting one. Now, I've read today that if we vote in, Dave will kiss and make up with Gove and Johnson. If we vote out then we lose Dave and get Gove and Johnson.

I'd rather none of them. I'd rather be governed by a free thinking, socially progressive government which thinks about all of its citizens.

So, in the absence of that, I think I'd quite like a safety net.

You know that in 2020 and every 5 years after that the UK gets to decide on who if we have a socially progressive government. You are basing your voting decision on the next 4 years which was the mandate of the British people and want this mandate undermined for some sort of safety net?

Is this not accepting a democratic vote?

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I believe what Rick is saying is that if you predict something awful then you would amend your behaviour and then it would not happen.

You could forecast that you will go bankrupt next year. If this was based upon your intention to double your mortgage then surely you would change your mind. You would not go bankrupt and the forecast would be wrong.

If you forecast a recession you amend your monetary and fiscal policy to avoid it, or don't vote Brexit.

Times when they fail to forecast a recession can be put down to black swan theory - things that should not exist that do.

Rick is saying that this cannot be predicted. He made that clear with the word 'impossible'

But say we can predict something, then as you say we will be able to make amendments. We are not going to enter any 'expert' predicted recession on 24th June, there will be no requirement for this 'punishment' emergency budget and we will be able to make the required amendments.

I engage in debate because I want question my views. Do you not question your views when the strongest economic voice on the remain side puts forward that this country will be subjected to 'punishment' budget based on a democratic vote of the electorate? Do you not see what is wrong with this?

He is not the strongest economic voice, he is a politician and to suggest we will need an emergency budget on the 24th is a nonsense, imho. He is saying that the emergency budget will be an amendment to calm the markets. Again IMHO I would look at the OECD as the most author active voice.

Economic forecasts look at macro level events and as such they had forecasts for the UK economy growth rate. Since the turn of the year this forecast rate has been dropping due to uncertainty over the Brexit vote. In economic terms it is an almost certainty that we will be worse off over the next 4 years by voting out. This will mean higher taxes and more cuts. A lot of wise people like Boris/Farage/Gove/Goo think this is a price worth paying for greater sovereignty and that this greater level of self governance will mean an economic rebound. I would feel a lot happier if you knew that before voting out.

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Well, that's an interesting one. Now, I've read today that if we vote in, Dave will kiss and make up with Gove and Johnson. If we vote out then we lose Dave and get Gove and Johnson.

I'd rather none of them. I'd rather be governed by a free thinking, socially progressive government which thinks about all of its citizens.

So, in the absence of that, I think I'd quite like a safety net.

You know that in 2020 and every 5 years after that the UK gets to decide on who if we have a socially progressive government. You are basing your voting decision on the next 4 years which was the mandate of the British people and want this mandate undermined for some sort of safety net?

Is this not accepting a democratic vote?

You'll note I didn't say labour. Or lib dems. I said what I'd like to have.

MikeBrew

The punishment budget is a win win for the android in number 11. On the one hand it was mooted to scare up some compliance to number 10's views from flaky voters, and on the other hand it will be used as a pretext for implementing some of the austerity measures that the House of Lords and the public outcry have thwarted in the past, in the event that there is a pro brexit referendum result.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

He is not the strongest economic voice, he is a politician and to suggest we will need an emergency budget on the 24th is a nonsense, imho. He is saying that the emergency budget will be an amendment to calm the markets. Again IMHO I would look at the OECD as the most author active voice.

Economic forecasts look at macro level events and as such they had forecasts for the UK economy growth rate. Since the turn of the year this forecast rate has been dropping due to uncertainty over the Brexit vote. In economic terms it is an almost certainty that we will be worse off over the next 4 years by voting out. This will mean higher taxes and more cuts. A lot of wise people like Boris/Farage/Gove/Goo think this is a price worth paying for greater sovereignty and that this greater level of self governance will mean an economic rebound. I would feel a lot happier if you knew that before voting out.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the most influential economic voice to the average person in the UK. I would say the Chairman of the BoE has influence to those who take an interest in finances, everyone else has little influence to the UK electorate. Martin Lewis holds more financial influence to the average person than the OECD, IMF, etc.

So the economic forecasters could not forecast the UK holding a referendum (despite knowing one was going to be called) and have had to revise their forecasts but the main remain argument is based on these forecasts knowing how politicians will negotiate when they have proved they cannot predict this

This is why I do not believe the remain economic argument as I am seeing holes everywhere

coopster_the_1st

finchy wrote:

Everyone's talking about economy and immigration on this thread, but they aren't the only issues. As the world faces some massive challenges over the next few decades - climate change, nuclear arms, terrorism, international migration, antibiotics resistance, soil degradation, stretched water supplies - do we want the world's most highly developed continent to be one which cooperates closely to meet these challenges head on, or one in which all members are pulling in different directions?

It's for this reason more than any other that I'm voting in.

They are definitely admirable reasons.

While I see them cooperating there is much compromise among the 28 to reach that stage which I don't think represents the UK fairly. I can see the benefits though.

However I see our voice in the EU as 1 of 28 that is then taken as one large voice to the world stage. Outside of the EU we would be our own voice on the world stage but with many other countries backing our position which would likely include current EU countries anyway. Being that we members of so many of the other top table alliances means that we will still have an influential voice if we exit, if not more so.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

He is not the strongest economic voice, he is a politician and to suggest we will need an emergency budget on the 24th is a nonsense, imho. He is saying that the emergency budget will be an amendment to calm the markets. Again IMHO I would look at the OECD as the most author active voice.

Economic forecasts look at macro level events and as such they had forecasts for the UK economy growth rate. Since the turn of the year this forecast rate has been dropping due to uncertainty over the Brexit vote. In economic terms it is an almost certainty that we will be worse off over the next 4 years by voting out. This will mean higher taxes and more cuts. A lot of wise people like Boris/Farage/Gove/Goo think this is a price worth paying for greater sovereignty and that this greater level of self governance will mean an economic rebound. I would feel a lot happier if you knew that before voting out.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the most influential economic voice to the average person in the UK. I would say the Chairman of the BoE has influence to those who take an interest in finances, everyone else has little influence to the UK electorate. Martin Lewis holds more financial influence to the average person than the OECD, IMF, etc.

So the economic forecasters could not forecast the UK holding a referendum (despite knowing one was going to be called) and have had to revise their forecasts but the main remain argument is based on these forecasts knowing how politicians will negotiate when they have proved they cannot predict this

This is why I do not believe the remain economic argument as I am seeing holes everywhere

You asked me if I would change my views based upon what OSborne said - not would the average man in the street.

They did not forecast that so many people would vote out... That is why the markets are in turmoil now and not when referendum was called.

How would you feel about a proper punishment budget? ie make those demographics who voted out pay the cost. So pay for the first £10bn with a hit on the low paid, pensioners and rural workers whilst sparing london and Scotland.

How would you vote if we tracked every voter and if you voted out and the economy went backwards you paid an extra £100 a week in tax?

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

finchy wrote:

Everyone's talking about economy and immigration on this thread, but they aren't the only issues. As the world faces some massive challenges over the next few decades - climate change, nuclear arms, terrorism, international migration, antibiotics resistance, soil degradation, stretched water supplies - do we want the world's most highly developed continent to be one which cooperates closely to meet these challenges head on, or one in which all members are pulling in different directions?

It's for this reason more than any other that I'm voting in.

They are definitely admirable reasons.

While I see them cooperating there is much compromise among the 28 to reach that stage which I don't think represents the UK fairly. I can see the benefits though.

However I see our voice in the EU as 1 of 28 that is then taken as one large voice to the world stage. Outside of the EU we would be our own voice on the world stage but with many other countries backing our position which would likely include current EU countries anyway. Being that we members of so many of the other top table alliances means that we will still have an influential voice if we exit, if not more so.

The only reason we have a seat at the top table is to vote with the yanks - nobody cares what we think. Let's hope we are not replaced by a collective EU place.

norvernrob

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Now the cost in today's money is £100bn so over 10 years is £10bn per annum. Now there are 27 million uk households so let's take that to 25 million to exclude the very poor (and help my maths) that means that you are chipping in £400 a year for the next decade. Would you really write a cheque for £4,000 on behalf of your household to put Brit on the moon?

Actually the number is now 29 million and rising quickly.

surrey_commuter

NorvernRob wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Now the cost in today's money is £100bn so over 10 years is £10bn per annum. Now there are 27 million uk households so let's take that to 25 million to exclude the very poor (and help my maths) that means that you are chipping in £400 a year for the next decade. Would you really write a cheque for £4,000 on behalf of your household to put Brit on the moon?

Actually the number is now 29 million and rising quickly.

I was using ONS stats from 2015 what is you source?

finchy

The Leave campaign had set up a stall in our local market this morning. They had some brilliantly persuasive artwork to back up their case - a Spitfire and a Lancaster.

So vote leave because WORLD WAR 2!
Vote leave because GERMANY!
Vote leave because NAZIS!
Vote leave because HIIIITLEEEERRRRRR!

bendertherobot

finchy wrote:

The Leave campaign had set up a stall in our local market this morning. They had some brilliantly persuasive artwork to back up their case - a Spitfire and a Lancaster.

So vote leave because WORLD WAR 2!
Vote leave because GERMANY!
Vote leave because NAZIS!
Vote leave because HIIIITLEEEERRRRRR!

Did they have an old Mini there as an example of when Britain was great?

BelgianBeerGeek

And a bulldog in a Union Flag jacket.

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You asked me if I would change my views based upon what OSborne said - not would the average man in the street.

They did not forecast that so many people would vote out... That is why the markets are in turmoil now and not when referendum was called.

How would you feel about a proper punishment budget? ie make those demographics who voted out pay the cost. So pay for the first £10bn with a hit on the low paid, pensioners and rural workers whilst sparing london and Scotland.

How would you vote if we tracked every voter and if you voted out and the economy went backwards you paid an extra £100 a week in tax?

So experts and 'davos lovies' are unable to forecast what the real person on the street is thinking because they do not interact with them or experience their issues. It is hardly surprising there has been a lot of commentary suggesting the elite are further out of touch than ever before
Have a read and think about what you are describing regarding punishment budgets and voter tracking and see if that fits in with a democratic election model that you want to be part of? :shock:

coopster_the_1st

finchy wrote:

The Leave campaign had set up a stall in our local market this morning. They had some brilliantly persuasive artwork to back up their case - a Spitfire and a Lancaster.

So vote leave because WORLD WAR 2!
Vote leave because GERMANY!
Vote leave because NAZIS!
Vote leave because HIIIITLEEEERRRRRR!

Is this what you think when you see either of these planes at an airshow?

What is wrong with displaying items that you can identify with Britishness or patriotism? Is displaying the Union Jack out of order? Are we going to be stopped from signing 'God Save the Queen'?

How often do leaders of political parties praise Britishness and imply patriotism during GE campaigns?

Patriotism is something to be proud of, not to be dismissed. Implying that patriotism is a negative in this debate is as wrong as implying all those who vote leave are racists.

mrfpb

finchy wrote:

The Leave campaign had set up a stall in our local market this morning. They had some brilliantly persuasive artwork to back up their case - a Spitfire and a Lancaster.

So vote leave because WORLD WAR 2!
Vote leave because GERMANY!
Vote leave because NAZIS!
Vote leave because HIIIITLEEEERRRRRR!

Was it the Polish squadron Spitfire that UKIP used in their campaign poster?

I just got into a spat on FB because a friend posted that picture saying the Lords has x unelected members, the EU has none. The spat was with one of her friends I don't know, so I offered to send her a friend request to continue the argument away from my friends page. she refused, but continued to try and goad me.

What's my point?

There are so many casual lies - factual and implied - £350million, EU commissioners are "just civil servants", Winston Churchill's on my side, we will control immigration. And what's worse is the energy spent defending those lies at every debate, and not answering the public's genuine concerns.

Argh!

Rant over.

Bo Duke

Y'know the remainers are getting all ranty however no one mentions reform. We've passed the point of kidding ourselves europe works in its current form, but no one comes out and insists on reform. The remainers seem to be digging the heads deepr and deeper into the sand. Maybe the problem will go away?

Bo Duke

Lookyhere wrote:

finchy wrote:

Everyone's talking about economy and immigration on this thread, but they aren't the only issues. As the world faces some massive challenges over the next few decades - climate change, nuclear arms, terrorism, international migration, antibiotics resistance, soil degradation, stretched water supplies - do we want the world's most highly developed continent to be one which cooperates closely to meet these challenges head on, or one in which all members are pulling in different directions?

It's for this reason more than any other that I'm voting in.

Could nt agree more.

My mum, an ardent OUT and voted against EEC in 75, is now going to vote IN - her change of heart is based on above and that Britain has never turned its back on europe.

Interesting comments, as you don't need to be in the EU to have a social conscience nor commitment to sustainability - seems odd to even suggest that the UK's membership of the EU would have any impact on soil conservation, if we're commited to that we would pass suitable legislation, we don't need the EU to 'direct us'.

Concerning your mother, good to see see still actively involved however just like any organisation, company etc... sometimes you have to take what's best for individual divisions into account to ensure they prosper. Being part of a bigger group doesn't ensure success nor survival particularly if the culture is different. No one is deserting europe, we want to be part of it, but run by it.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You asked me if I would change my views based upon what OSborne said - not would the average man in the street.

They did not forecast that so many people would vote out... That is why the markets are in turmoil now and not when referendum was called.

How would you feel about a proper punishment budget? ie make those demographics who voted out pay the cost. So pay for the first £10bn with a hit on the low paid, pensioners and rural workers whilst sparing london and Scotland.

How would you vote if we tracked every voter and if you voted out and the economy went backwards you paid an extra £100 a week in tax?

So experts and 'davos lovies' are unable to forecast what the real person on the street is thinking because they do not interact with them or experience their issues. It is hardly surprising there has been a lot of commentary suggesting the elite are further out of touch than ever before
Have a read and think about what you are describing regarding punishment budgets and voter tracking and see if that fits in with a democratic election model that you want to be part of? :shock:

For an economic model to work you have to assume rational behaviour.

Clearly what I suggest is impossible - just asking you hypothetically if you think people would be so blasé about voting for potential economic decline if there was a real life price tag attached to it. A kind of he who chooses the tune pays the piper model. I could imagine Sturgeon ruling this case.

Maybe we could buddy up and you pay my share... Then in 14 years time if we are better off I Could pay you back?

surrey_commuter

Bo Duke wrote:

Y'know the remainers are getting all ranty however no one mentions reform. We've passed the point of kidding ourselves europe works in its current form, but no one comes out and insists on reform. The remainers seem to be digging the heads deepr and deeper into the sand. Maybe the problem will go away?

And why do you know Europe does not work in its current form?

Maybe what problem will go away?