Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Dymak]

(i) because any reduction in income for low earners affects their living standards significantly greater than higher earners
(ii) lower economic activity, reduces corporate profitability, reduces employment opportunities and reduces overall wages, thereby reducing Government income. When Government income falls they reduce spending, usually in areas that support the poor and needy - social care, benefits, local authority service support, education
(iii)economic uncertainty materially effects the quality of life for poorer people causing health and social problems

We need only look at the impact of the recession of the early 80's and the early 90's to see the impact on the most needy.

Do you think this could lead to the government implementing something drastic like an austerity agenda?

The people you are talking about don't need to look as far back as the 80's or 90's because they experienced the 'deepest recession since the war' just a few years ago, and the government has been implementing an austerity agenda ever since. They already know what an era of austerity feels like as they have been living within one for the past eight years.

I don't believe that this doomsday scenario will materialise, and even if it does, then I can't see it being any worse than the hardship that is already being experienced by those who are not self-sufficient.

 

[The Esk]

I don't believe that this doomsday scenario will materialise, and even if it does, then I can't see it being any worse than the hardship that is already being experienced by those who are not self-sufficient.

Appreciate you don't believe in the worst case scenario but what I would say is that even prior to Brexit the government's cost cutting in welfare, benefits and social services was not fully implemented - there are further cuts to come even had Brexit not occurred. However faced with the certainty that tax revenues will fall, Philip Hammond is almost certain to cut further in these areas. Hammond is a hawk, Osborne was a lightweight in comparison.

 

[dandydan]

Nobody.

I had this discussion last night with some Friends.

99% of people voted leave solely for immigration reasons.

Never thought I'd be the 1%. When do I get my fabulous riches?

 

[ilikecheese]

Nobody.

I had this discussion last night with some Friends.

99% of people voted leave solely for immigration reasons.

Thought this was pretty interesting...wish I could just copy the poll...it's about halfway down the page.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-voters-would-vote-differently-today-and-why/

Poll of why the Leave voters chose to leave (obviously multiple answers allowed):

I believed the UK can still access EU free trade: 94%
I wanted the UK to regain power from the EU: 73%
The UK contributed too much to the EU: 65%
There was too much immigration: 62%
UK economy would be stronger outside the EU: 45%
NHS should get money we give to the EU: 40%

 

[Goat]

Never thought I'd be the 1%. When do I get my fabulous riches?

This would be the point I asked you your reasons for voting leave, but your posting history tells me you are very much part of the 99%.

Sorry Friend, its just how it is.

 

[Goat]

Thought this was pretty interesting...wish I could just copy the poll...it's about halfway down the page.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-voters-would-vote-differently-today-and-why/

Poll of why the Leave voters chose to leave (obviously multiple answers allowed):

I believed the UK can still access EU free trade: 94%
I wanted the UK to regain power from the EU: 73%
The UK contributed too much to the EU: 65%
There was too much immigration: 62%
UK economy would be stronger outside the EU: 45%
NHS should get money we give to the EU: 40%

Everybody lies.

 

[Anders_Limpar]

Seriously, do you REALLY think anybody thought that the all the money that presently goes to the EU would go into the NHS in full? Anybody with a modicum of sense knows that for starters we get a certain amount back, reducing the figure of 350 immediately. Do you really think 17.5 million people were suckered into that? On the other hand...

You can reckon all you like. You cannot prove.

Talk about having your cake and eating it.

So it's ok for you to suppose that people didn't believe the undeniable lies that were the foundation of the leave campaign, as people wouldn't be "suckered into that", but it's not ok to speculate on what may happen to future markets?

You do realise there is a difference between an outright lie and a prediction?

I think it's also important to note that it's not key (and I agree, unlikely) that 17.5 million were convinced by these lies but actually around 750,000, which was the swing vote. Obviously I can only speculate but I think it's very possible that more than 4% of the leave voters were, as you said 'suckered into it'... And this is why anyone who voted to remain is, and will continue to be, infuriated with the likes of Johnson and slightly incredulous over the result.

I saw that someone else pointed out that all this is irrelevant as the vote was all about immigration for most leavers, again I think many remain voters could have similar grievances over lies (this time from Fararges lot). How long did it take him to backtrack on numbers and the realities of freedom of movement, 4 hours?

Again because the vote was so tight, it's not about talking about 17.5 million people it's about that swing. It was so very tight...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Talk about having your cake and eating it.

So it's ok for you to suppose that people didn't believe the undeniable lies that were the foundation of the leave campaign, as people wouldn't be "suckered into that", but it's not ok to speculate on what may happen to future markets?

You do realise there is a difference between an outright lie and a prediction?

I think it's also important to note that it's not key (and I agree, unlikely) that 17.5 million were convinced by these lies but actually around 750,000, which was the swing vote. Obviously I can only speculate but I think it's very possible that more than 4% of the leave voters were, as you said 'suckered into it'... And this is why anyone who voted to remain is, and will continue to be, infuriated with the likes of Johnson and slightly incredulous over the result.

I saw that someone else pointed out that all this is irrelevant as the vote was all about immigration for most leavers, again I think many remain voters could have similar grievances over lies (this time from Fararges lot). How long did it take him to backtrack on numbers and the realities of freedom of movement, 4 hours?

Again because the vote was so tight, it's not about talking about 17.5 million people it's about that swing. It was so very tight...

Plus, it's always worth remembering that it is always the duty of those wishing to change something to provide the evidence to support that change. Not only did that not really happen during the campaign, it doesn't seem to be happening since the leave vote won either. Given the bluster around this allowing us to take back control and enjoy a glorious future, there seems to be precious little idea as to just what control we'll be taking back or quite how the future will be anything other than 'as least bad as possible'. A poor show all round.

 

[hullefc]

Why untangling UK industry may be 'impossible'

An interesting read about German manufacturers in Bavaria.

"“If we were forced to make a choice between access to the British market and preserving the common market in Europe, we would go for the common market,” said Dollendorf".

Of course that could change during the negotiation on the Uk leaving the EU. German manufacturers may not want tariffs and this could be their Achilles heel, but the UK's is its financial sector.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Once again from Anders and Bruce Wayne, I see the same tired old arguments advanced in support of the 'Remain' faction.

OK, for you two and others who care to take note, as well as my normal day job for over 30 years, I have been involved in matters since 1980 where a lot of myths and suppositions have been propounded and asserted, and those myths have been claimed as being 'fact'. Over the decades, through diligent research, I have been able to prove them wrong (if you want to know what it is exactly, PM me and I will tell you - I will not broadcast it in open forum as I do not want it to be seen as 'blowing my own trumpet').

Anders: "You do realise there is a difference between an outright lie and a prediction?" Of course I know that. And what you have to accept is that outright lies were put forward by the 'Remain' campaign. A prediction is just that. A shot in the dark into the future with no foundation in fact. It can call upon prior historical data, but that is all it can do. It cannot claim to be the definitive statement of how things will DEFINITELY be in the future. A logical premise cannot be founded upon a future prediction.

Bruce: "it is always the duty of those wishing to change something to provide the evidence to support that change." Again, this is not a logical premise. Let me give you an historical example. There was no 'evidence' to support the overthrow of the French king in 1789. It was the uprising of the masses wanting change.
You may not like him, but this is worth a listen:
By stating this: "Given the bluster around this allowing us to take back control and enjoy a glorious future, there seems to be precious little idea as to just what control we'll be taking back", it appears to me that you have either forgotten, or conveniently ignored, the points made again and again in this thread. Taking back control means that the EU does not impose a law/ruling made in Brussels that runs contrary to the interests of the UK; taking back control means that court judgements legally made in the UK are not overturned by the EU. No mention of a 'glorious future', because, as I have said repeatedly, one cannot predict what the future holds, only plan to try to make it as good as possible for those who are the future. I do wish you would debate on reasonable grounds instead of indulging in invective that is groundless...
And finally, the poorest show all round has come from those who lament the Referendum result and seek to denigrate the views of those whose views were to leave at every turn.

 

[Old Blue 2]

I think I've posted this before, but here it is (again):
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436853/brexit-vote-restore-british-democracy-vote-leave

The core of it is as follows:
"...The European Commission, which has a virtual monopoly on proposing European legislation, never submits itself to elections. It is an appointed body of unknown bureaucrats and failed national politicians. Nor can British, French, or German parliaments reject or amend the Commission’s laws and regulations or the European court’s decisions. Nor can their voters repeal them. European law is superior to what are still quaintly called “national laws.” And if a national referendum (one of the few escape hatches in this panopticon) rejects a European decision, the voters are asked to vote again until they get it right. In short the EU’s defenses against democratic accountability are pretty watertight..."

"...Increasingly, the Commission’s laws are defended with frankly anti-democratic arguments rather than covert maneuvers in the wilderness of committees that is Brussels. There is no right, said European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker recently, to vote against Europe. Similar statements by EU leaders could be multiplied to infinity (in innumerable languages). So the EU’s democratic deficit, long admitted, has not been cured but deepened. No leading EU figure now promises to eliminate it. As John Fonte argues, the EU is probably best described as a post-democratic entity..."

"...On this central question Remain has only lies and obfuscation to offer. It denies the plain fact that EU membership means a loss of sovereignty. When that proves unpersuasive, it argues that “sovereignty” is an outdated theoretical concept unusable in the modern world; instead the British should choose effective “power” over it. Scholars will recognize this argument as the typical socialist confusion, exposed by Hayek among others, between freedom and power, applied to relations between states. It’s odd to hear this classic socialist trope from supposedly conservative politicians such as David Cameron. But things are worse than that. In exchange for its democratic sovereignty, the EU offers Britain not power but a one-twenty-eighth share of collective decision-making with countries whose interests are badly aligned with those of the Brits..."

I'm sure we will agree to disagree...

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce: "it is always the duty of those wishing to change something to provide the evidence to support that change." Again, this is not a logical premise. Let me give you an historical example. There was no 'evidence' to support the overthrow of the French king in 1789. It was the uprising of the masses wanting change.

That's a basic premise of the law. Those who say something is wrong must prove why it is so.

You may not like him, but this is worth a listen:
By stating this: "Given the bluster around this allowing us to take back control and enjoy a glorious future, there seems to be precious little idea as to just what control we'll be taking back", it appears to me that you have either forgotten, or conveniently ignored, the points made again and again in this thread.

I do quite like Daniel Hannan, and he's quite probably the 'leaver' that I respect most, but I have a couple of issues here. Firstly, and most importantly, he is 'only' an MEP and so has no say in how Brexit will occur. No one that does have a say in things has thus far done so in any meaningful way.

Secondly, presentations have their place but are hardly grounds for having a plan. It's like watching a pitch on Dragons Den and presuming from that that the entrepreneurs have any clue what they're doing. Now Hannan is a decent bloke so it's quite possible that he really has fleshed out his thoughts into something detailed, but I don't know where that kind of document is, do you?

Hannan himself has already appeared on Newsnight after the vote saying that restricting immigration is likely to be a pipe dream, so it does make me wonder just how thought out things were. For the record, I hold him in considerably higher esteem than chancers like Farage and Johnson. Given Johnson's pivotal role in both the Brexit campaign and our foreign affairs today, has he come out with the details behind his thinking that Brexit was such a good idea? And I don't mean a talk or a short newspaper article, I mean something detailed that outlines what he thinks we should try and do, how this might be achieved and why this will be good for us?

Taking back control means that the EU does not impose a law/ruling made in Brussels that runs contrary to the interests of the UK; taking back control means that court judgements legally made in the UK are not overturned by the EU. No mention of a 'glorious future', because, as I have said repeatedly, one cannot predict what the future holds, only plan to try to make it as good as possible for those who are the future. I do wish you would debate on reasonable grounds instead of indulging in invective that is groundless...

Just to reiterate here, folks on this thread saying what they would like Brexit to be is equally meaningless as you have even less power to influence things than Hannan does. By all means share your opinions, but lets not try and brand them as some kind of official Brexit policy, because they aren't.

 

[Anders_Limpar]

Once again from Anders and Bruce Wayne, I see the same tired old arguments advanced in support of the 'Remain' faction...

... And finally, the poorest show all round has come from those who lament the Referendum result and seek to denigrate the views of those whose views were to leave at every turn.
.

I think this comes to the crux of what I was trying to say really.

I have no doubt that you are a passionate advocate of the leave vote and have made an intelligent informed desision based on experience and knowledge. Who am I to argue with that? You have decided that the economic predictions by the remain camp (and the majority of economic experts) are incorrect or exaggerated and either way feel, that getting out of EU law is worth it.

That's fine you are free to decide that, my argument which yes my be "tired" is that (unlike yourself) huge numbers of leave voters voted on the basis of a number of lies - not exaggerations or grave predictions - just lies.

You think the "poorest show" has come from people like myself who have "denigrate the views of those whose views were to leave at every turn"... No the poorest show has come from politicians (whose views were to leave at every turn) who used lies and xenophobia to convince a lot of voters (not every one) to vote for their cause.

To be honest it's also pretty galling to be accused by yourself of being the "poorest show" when you yourself have dismissed the lies of the leave campaign as nobody would be "suckered into" it... Think about that - your language not mine - Some people were and the main point I was making before is that it's not about 17.5 million people. 750,000 or so would make the difference.

Like you I passionately believe in the way I voted - you may dismiss these points as being tired - but I've got to spend the rest of my adult life in this society, my young baby will grow up here... I'm not just going to stop talking about it or questioning the result as I think we've been done a huge disservice.

Again - let me repeat - I respect your view the option you have formed, I am in no way attempting to convince you to change. What I am furious about is the poor "suckers" that I believe were the deciding factor in this vote...

 

[Joey66]

I think this comes to the crux of what I was trying to say really.

I have no doubt that you are a passionate advocate of the leave vote and have made an intelligent informed desision based on experience and knowledge. Who am I to argue with that? You have decided that the economic predictions by the remain camp (and the majority of economic experts) are incorrect or exaggerated and either way feel, that getting out of EU law is worth it.

That's fine you are free to decide that, my argument which yes my be "tired" is that (unlike yourself) huge numbers of leave voters voted on the basis of a number of lies - not exaggerations or grave predictions - just lies.

You think the "poorest show" has come from people like myself who have "denigrate the views of those whose views were to leave at every turn"... No the poorest show has come from politicians (whose views were to leave at every turn) who used lies and xenophobia to convince a lot of voters (not every one) to vote for their cause.

To be honest it's also pretty galling to be accused by yourself of being the "poorest show" when you yourself have dismissed the lies of the leave campaign as nobody would be "suckered into" it... Think about that - your language not mine - Some people were and the main point I was making before is that it's not about 17.5 million people. 750,000 or so would make the difference.

Like you I passionately believe in the way I voted - you may dismiss these points as being tired - but I've got to spend the rest of my adult life in this society, my young baby will grow up here... I'm not just going to stop talking about it or questioning the result as I think we've been done a huge disservice.

Again - let me repeat - I respect your view the option you have formed, I am in no way attempting to convince you to change. What I am furious about is the poor "suckers" that I believe were the deciding factor in this vote...

You lost get to over it!
Accept the democratic decision in a massive turn out!

 

[Old Blue 2]

Anders,
I respect you views, and also appreciate the cogent way you have expressed them in your post #6327.

I wouldn't say I was a 'passionate advocate' of Leave, rather just someone who weighed up things as they stand, considered the original entry terms (I was in my twenties when the vote to join was taken in the 1970s), and arrived at a decision at to which way to vote.

As for economic predictions, I have yet to see an economic prediction by one of the big-wig talking heads of the economic institutions actually turning out to be correct. Here's a beaut of a quote from one of the leaflets that dropped through my door during the Referendum run-in: "If Britain were to leave Europe our economy would go into recession. That would inevitably put people's pensions at risk" - Ros Altmann, Pensions Expert. That's on the front cover of the leaflet. How many people read that and thought 'shee-it, I better vote remain? Here's another: "UK businesses can create more jobs in Europe than out on their own" - Karren Brady (17th Jan 2016). Really Karen? What is that based upon? You see, again, an assertion without any grounding in fact. I'm not a cynic, I'm a hard-nosed realist. It's what I had to be in my day job for over 30 years, and in the other main venture I have been involved in over a long period of time.

In all honesty, Anders, lies and xenophobia were used by BOTH SIDES in equal measure I would say. This from Cameron's leaflet to every house in Britain, at the cost of £9 million+: The UK has secured a special status in a reformed EU (the two bold words are in the pamphlet). That is a load of tosh. We are one of 28, with no special voting rights whatsoever. We no longer have any kind of veto. Cameron used that pamphlet to swing the vote the way he wanted it to go. Did he provide £9 million+ to the other side in order to be fair? No! He used his position to gain what can only be seen as an unfair advantage. And he STILL came second in a two-horse race!

I used the term 'not suckered into it' as I believe that most right-thinking people would make their own minds up. One might argue the opposite that a great many people were 'suckered' into voting to remain because of the scare-mongering tactics of the 'Remain' side. And taking your point regarding 750,000, one could therefore extrapolate that perhaps 750,000 more could have voted to leave had they not been swayed by the scares issued by economists, Osborn and the like. It cuts both ways; it is a two-way street. Suckers were on both sides, ultimately, but both you and I have no way of doing a 'head count'.

People my age, with the benefit of having lived through many decades, did not take the decision to vote the way they did lightly. I can say that only for those I have spoken to. The genuine belief is that the way forward is without being part of the EU, having seen how its control over our life extended by what might be term 'stealth' over the decades. It is FOR you and your children (and for that matter my two children in their thirties, and my two grandchildren) that I/we arrived at the decision on which way to vote for the future of the UK.

In the final analysis I think both you and I, and others, hope the future pans out well. It will not be perfect, but then things have never been perfect.

It is to the credit of the Mods that this thread has now run to 422 pages, and allowed the views from right across the spectrum to be aired.