Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
So just to sum up the week......
The week Brexit Britain showed it means business
STEPHEN POLLARD
29 OCTOBER 2016 • 5:03PM

(disclaimer- oh and use of the word remoaners is not mine as we agreed not to use that word- pete)

When Chairman Mao was asked in the 1950s what lessons could be drawn from the French Revolution, he is famously said to have replied that it was still too soon to tell.

Barely four months after the referendum vote to leave the EU, the seismic waves have still barely begun to be felt.

Politically, the government has been turned upside down with who knows what further changes to come.

Economically, no one knows for sure where we will be in a year, let alone the day after we actually leave.

The weeks since the vote have seen a string of positive figures – employment up, consumer confidence up, the FTSE up, GDP up, to take just the most obvious.

But all have been dismissed by the Remoaners as mere overhangs of the pre-referendum economy. Once the full impact of the vote was absorbed, we’ve been told repeatedly, the dire consequences would soon be felt.

Except the good news still keeps coming.

And this week, the first key economic tests of post-referendum Britain were passed with flying colours. The economy is growing. Nissan, the car maker, has committed not just to staying but to expanding its presence. And, after years and years of dithering, the government finally gave the go ahead for the vital airport expansion that we need to remain a global trading nation.

It was the week Brexit Britain showed that it means business – and the week that the Remoaners were put to the sword.

Remember Project Fear? Vote to leave, we were told, and the sky would fall in. Not at some distant time in the future, but now. GDP growth would not just stop; GDP would start falling. And investors into Britain would grab the first opportunity to flee, taking their jobs with them.

As George Osborne (remember him?) put it in May: “A vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock…that shock would push our economy into a recession.”

David Cameron said the same thing in June: “You [will] put a bomb under our economy. And the worst thing is we’d have lit the fuse.”

Some bomb. Last week’s figures showed that in the three months to the end of September, the economy grew by 0.5 per cent.

Not that it was just the politicians who got it so totally wrong. Mark Carney, who we are supposedly so lucky to have as governor of the Bank of England, informed us in March that a Leave vote “would be likely to have a negative impact in the short term. I certainly think that would increase the risk of recession.”

Even after the vote, he refused to accept that the world might not have ended, saying on 30th June that “Britain is suffering from a form of ‘economic post-traumatic stress disorder’”.

The good news still keeps coming

The Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility both forecast negative growth – contraction, in other words - of between 0.1 per cent and 1 per cent for the third quarter. The Bank of England forecast in August that there would be zero third quarter growth.

The actual figure, let us remind ourselves, was growth of 0.5 per cent, which equates to a very respectable 2.3 per cent annual growth rate.

As Joe Grice, the chief economist at the Office of National Statistics, concluded: “There is little evidence of a pronounced effect in the immediate aftermath of the vote.”

Not that it was just the home grown Remainers who got it so badly wrong. Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, was damning in her assessment of the consequences of a Leave vote: “It’s going to be pretty bad to very, very bad.” The secretary general of the OECD, Angel Gurria, said in April that “Brexit would be a major negative shock to the UK economy”.

One group, however, predicted last week’s figures with complete accuracy: Economists for Brexit, a group led by Patrick Minford, a professor at Cardiff University – and roundly dismissed by the Remain establishment.

The week’s good news wasn’t just dry statistics. Nissan’s confirmation that it will stay in Sunderland was a huge boost to Britain and would have been a coup even had we voted to Remain.

During the referendum we were – rightly – told that if Nissan decided to leave, it would be a disaster. The UK automotive sector supports 800,000 jobs and Nissan’s Sunderland plant is responsible for nearly a third of the UK’s entire car production. So its presence here is hugely important.

But right as it was to stress the significance of Nissan’s presence, in the referendum the context – the wholly misleading and wrong context, we now know – was of dire warnings that Nissan would up sticks and leave the UK if we voted out.

A round robin letter, for example, signed by 1,280 business executives and published by the Remain campaign told us that “Britain leaving the EU would mean uncertainty for our firms, less trade with Europe and fewer jobs.”

Try telling that to Nissan’s workforce in Sunderland – where 61 per cent voted to Leave. Post-referendum, Nissan is increasing its investment in Britain. Production will increase to 600,000 cars a year when the plant starts making the new Qashqai and X-Trail SUV models.

On Thursday’s Question Time, Sir Keir Starmer, Labour’s Shadow Brexit minister, said it was important to welcome Nissan’s decision and not play politics with it – which he then proceeded to do. The insinuation is that Greg Clark, the Business Secretary, must have offered a sweetheart deal to keep Nissan here.

Mr Clark could not have been clearer since the announcement that no deal was done and no money offered. It could just be that Nissan has decided that Brexit Britain might actually be worth sticking with.

But it’s not just Nissan saying that.

In an interview last week, Roberto Azevedo, the director general of the World Trade Organisation said that the Brexit vote was not "anti-trade" and that we will not face a trade "vacuum or a disruption", however the EU behaves. "The UK is a member of the WTO today, it will continue to be a member tomorrow. There will be no discontinuity.”

This is the same Roberto Azevedo who spent the first six months of the year doing his bit for Project Fear, warning about the terrible consequences we would face if we left the EU and questioning our ability to trade, given the many renegotiated trade agreements we would need.

In which vein, Thursday’s news that the on-off EU/Canada trade deal was back on again is an important boost to our own possible deal with the EU. While the deal was off, we were told by the Remoaners that it showed how impossible were the chances of a smooth Brexit. They have since gone very quiet on the supposed lessons of the EI/Canada deal.

And last, but very much not least, Tuesday’s announcement that the Cabinet had plumped for a third runway at Heathrow means that, whatever one’s view of the choice, a decision has at last been made.

Yes, there will be still more delays for so-called consultation. But even with the delays, the good news is that we might, on some not too far off day, have sufficient airport capacity to be able to take advantage of the global opportunities presented by Brexit. And this week’s succession of good news stories showed that the open, trading, outward looking model of a 21st-century economy might actually be on its way.
 
A good reply Friend, thank you. My difference to this though is my desire for the UK to be in control of it's affairs and not dictated to by an external body. Unlike you I believe the UK can survive and prosper out side the EU, so all the points you mention can also be achieved by that route.

A point I raised in an earlier post frightens me, there is talk high up in Brussels of harmonising business tax rates across the EU member states so thus eliminating competition and of course will mean the likes of Eire could suffer. Okay just talk at the moment is perhaps indicative of the forward thinking that is taking place. If such legislation came into being it could also mean that Brussels would be in a position to control the expenditure of member states. A step towards USE which I most definitely did not want.

I think the business tax rate issue will be harmonised within the Eu, as will other taxation rates. They will have to do this at some point, and once the UK is out of the way it will be implemented. Eire will suffer without a doubt and Brussels, Paris and Berlin won't give a damn........
 
This is what Merkel said about the Superstate back in 2012.......

German Chancellor Angela Merkel outlined her vision of Europe in a speech to the European Parliament November 7. But it was when she stepped away from her prepared notes to respond to a statement by parliamentary leaders that she revealed most about the future she sees for the European Union.

The EU will transform into single nation—a superstate—“otherwise it will not work in the long term,” she said. Here is Merkel’s full statement:

"I’m sure the Commission will become a government one day. I’m sure that the Council will become a second chamber one day. And I’m sure the European Parliament will take European responsibilities otherwise it won’t work in the long term. But today we must save the euro and create the basis properly. And we must give people a little bit of time so that they can come with us."

Step by step.....
 
Controlled movement of EU citizens is of course not permitted across the EU, being in breach of Treaty agreements and secondary legislation.

My stance (pro European and pro Single Market) is driven by what I believe to be in the best interests of the UK economically. There are additional benefits of course, security and increased human and worker right protections, as well as softer more cultural and societal benefits such as integration. However the economy is the most important thing because not only does that drive citizen's financial well-being, but equally importantly allows the Government to provide the health, education and social services desperately needed by large elements of society. Without a successful economy these services suffer, and as always the most needy are the most effected. So without any equivocation I say we must do what is best for our economy, and I have no doubt that means being an integral part of the EU and the single market.

In terms of my own circumstances I'm fortunately better off with a weaker pound, but that's not the driving force - I can look after myself, but there are millions of people out there who don't have that luxury - and we should act in their interests first and foremost.
It's an interesting question.

In a single market, the freedom of movement for workers is an essential part of the economic equation that creates a single market. Without the freedom of movement of workers a single market cannot truly exist. In pure economic theory it allows the movement of people from high areas of unemployment to low areas (an essential aspect of trade in equalising economic conditions across the single market), and thus is both welfare enhancing and broadly wealth distributive.

Furthermore, in a single market with a single currency, movement of labour is one of the few adjustment methods given that currency movement is obviously not an option.

Therefore it is clear why the EU will not permit single market entry without agreement to the freedom of movement, something that the British Government reconfirmed in Cameron's new settlement deal in February 2016 .

The UK cannot have carblanc freedom of EU movement i.e. people settling here without a job in the future there has to be some border control on a card based system to be control not just in the EU, but worldwide as it drives wages down - Tony Blair the culprit who took his eye of the subject and has the cheek to complain about the % of the referendrum vote I looked how he became leader in the vote to become leader of the Labour party guess what the % was far less than 52% of the vote.
trade with them yes politically being linked with them NO!
If it means us stepping outside the single market then so be it as The EU bureaucrats do not know what NO means!
 
Tory propaganda:

So just to sum up the week......
The week Brexit Britain showed it means business
STEPHEN POLLARD
29 OCTOBER 2016 • 5:03PM

(disclaimer- oh and use of the word remoaners is not mine as we agreed not to use that word- pete)

When Chairman Mao was asked in the 1950s what lessons could be drawn from the French Revolution, he is famously said to have replied that it was still too soon to tell.

Barely four months after the referendum vote to leave the EU, the seismic waves have still barely begun to be felt.

Politically, the government has been turned upside down with who knows what further changes to come.

Economically, no one knows for sure where we will be in a year, let alone the day after we actually leave.

The weeks since the vote have seen a string of positive figures – employment up, consumer confidence up, the FTSE up, GDP up, to take just the most obvious.

But all have been dismissed by the Remoaners as mere overhangs of the pre-referendum economy. Once the full impact of the vote was absorbed, we’ve been told repeatedly, the dire consequences would soon be felt.

Except the good news still keeps coming.

And this week, the first key economic tests of post-referendum Britain were passed with flying colours. The economy is growing. Nissan, the car maker, has committed not just to staying but to expanding its presence. And, after years and years of dithering, the government finally gave the go ahead for the vital airport expansion that we need to remain a global trading nation.

It was the week Brexit Britain showed that it means business – and the week that the Remoaners were put to the sword.

Remember Project Fear? Vote to leave, we were told, and the sky would fall in. Not at some distant time in the future, but now. GDP growth would not just stop; GDP would start falling. And investors into Britain would grab the first opportunity to flee, taking their jobs with them.

As George Osborne (remember him?) put it in May: “A vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock…that shock would push our economy into a recession.”

David Cameron said the same thing in June: “You [will] put a bomb under our economy. And the worst thing is we’d have lit the fuse.”

Some bomb. Last week’s figures showed that in the three months to the end of September, the economy grew by 0.5 per cent.

Not that it was just the politicians who got it so totally wrong. Mark Carney, who we are supposedly so lucky to have as governor of the Bank of England, informed us in March that a Leave vote “would be likely to have a negative impact in the short term. I certainly think that would increase the risk of recession.”

Even after the vote, he refused to accept that the world might not have ended, saying on 30th June that “Britain is suffering from a form of ‘economic post-traumatic stress disorder’”.

The good news still keeps coming

The Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility both forecast negative growth – contraction, in other words - of between 0.1 per cent and 1 per cent for the third quarter. The Bank of England forecast in August that there would be zero third quarter growth.

The actual figure, let us remind ourselves, was growth of 0.5 per cent, which equates to a very respectable 2.3 per cent annual growth rate.

As Joe Grice, the chief economist at the Office of National Statistics, concluded: “There is little evidence of a pronounced effect in the immediate aftermath of the vote.”

Not that it was just the home grown Remainers who got it so badly wrong. Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, was damning in her assessment of the consequences of a Leave vote: “It’s going to be pretty bad to very, very bad.” The secretary general of the OECD, Angel Gurria, said in April that “Brexit would be a major negative shock to the UK economy”.

One group, however, predicted last week’s figures with complete accuracy: Economists for Brexit, a group led by Patrick Minford, a professor at Cardiff University – and roundly dismissed by the Remain establishment.

The week’s good news wasn’t just dry statistics. Nissan’s confirmation that it will stay in Sunderland was a huge boost to Britain and would have been a coup even had we voted to Remain.

During the referendum we were – rightly – told that if Nissan decided to leave, it would be a disaster. The UK automotive sector supports 800,000 jobs and Nissan’s Sunderland plant is responsible for nearly a third of the UK’s entire car production. So its presence here is hugely important.

But right as it was to stress the significance of Nissan’s presence, in the referendum the context – the wholly misleading and wrong context, we now know – was of dire warnings that Nissan would up sticks and leave the UK if we voted out.

A round robin letter, for example, signed by 1,280 business executives and published by the Remain campaign told us that “Britain leaving the EU would mean uncertainty for our firms, less trade with Europe and fewer jobs.”

Try telling that to Nissan’s workforce in Sunderland – where 61 per cent voted to Leave. Post-referendum, Nissan is increasing its investment in Britain. Production will increase to 600,000 cars a year when the plant starts making the new Qashqai and X-Trail SUV models.

On Thursday’s Question Time, Sir Keir Starmer, Labour’s Shadow Brexit minister, said it was important to welcome Nissan’s decision and not play politics with it – which he then proceeded to do. The insinuation is that Greg Clark, the Business Secretary, must have offered a sweetheart deal to keep Nissan here.

Mr Clark could not have been clearer since the announcement that no deal was done and no money offered. It could just be that Nissan has decided that Brexit Britain might actually be worth sticking with.

But it’s not just Nissan saying that.

In an interview last week, Roberto Azevedo, the director general of the World Trade Organisation said that the Brexit vote was not "anti-trade" and that we will not face a trade "vacuum or a disruption", however the EU behaves. "The UK is a member of the WTO today, it will continue to be a member tomorrow. There will be no discontinuity.”

This is the same Roberto Azevedo who spent the first six months of the year doing his bit for Project Fear, warning about the terrible consequences we would face if we left the EU and questioning our ability to trade, given the many renegotiated trade agreements we would need.

In which vein, Thursday’s news that the on-off EU/Canada trade deal was back on again is an important boost to our own possible deal with the EU. While the deal was off, we were told by the Remoaners that it showed how impossible were the chances of a smooth Brexit. They have since gone very quiet on the supposed lessons of the EI/Canada deal.

And last, but very much not least, Tuesday’s announcement that the Cabinet had plumped for a third runway at Heathrow means that, whatever one’s view of the choice, a decision has at last been made.

Yes, there will be still more delays for so-called consultation. But even with the delays, the good news is that we might, on some not too far off day, have sufficient airport capacity to be able to take advantage of the global opportunities presented by Brexit. And this week’s succession of good news stories showed that the open, trading, outward looking model of a 21st-century economy might actually be on its way.

What's really happened:
Whilst Q3 GDP figures beat forecasts, it nust be remembered that growth fell from 0.7% to 0.5%.

The fact that we had any growth at all is down to three factors, (i) the immediate assistance provided by the independent BoE (ii) continued growth in the service sector, aided by a blockbuster performance from the film industry with their summer releases and (iii) the impact of a falling sterling on service acquisition overseas.

None of these factors are sustainable, one was an emergency response, one seasonal and the other a reflection of currency devalustion.

Worrying apart from services the three other sectors of the UK economy — industrial production, construction and agriculture — all contracted during Q3. The fall in industrial production is particularly worrying.

Re the Nissan deal is very good news in isolation, it is telling that there has been no comment on the type of encouragements the UK government has had to offer to strike the deal. The assumption is that the UK government has agreed to underwrite any tarrif costs on Nissan's exporting of cars from the Sunderland plant. Whilst I understand why such a deal has been struck, -it cannot be considered sustainable long term and across the wider economy for obvious reasons.
 
Since Maastricht, freedom of movement and residence for persons in the EU is the cornerstone of Union citizenship :)

Freedom of movement and trade for nice attractive, white, European people like us, but perish the thought of having equal freedom of movement or immigration for people of other skin colours and backgrounds from other parts of the world, or of encouraging trade with the rest of the world in a non exploitative way. We wouldn't want that spoiling or soiling our European, exploitative (to the rest of the world) superstate, would we...

(not accusing anyone here of being racist or anything, just making the point that treated positively Brexit could be a massive force for the good in us interacting outside our Safe European Home, rather than being Little Europeaners...)
 
Freedom of movement and trade for nice attractive, white, European people like us, but perish the thought of having equal freedom of movement or immigration for people of other skin colours and backgrounds from other parts of the world, or of encouraging trade with the rest of the world in a non exploitative way. We wouldn't want that spoiling or soiling our European, exploitative (to the rest of the world) superstate, would we...

(not accusing anyone here of being racist or anything, just making the point that treated positively Brexit could be a massive force for the good in us interacting outside our Safe European Home, rather than being Little Europeaners...)

Freedom of movement is the greatest tool in the redistribution of opportunity and wealth, hence those that have (relatively) pull up the drawbridge.
 
Freedom of movement is the greatest tool in the redistribution of opportunity and wealth, hence those that have (relatively) pull up the drawbridge.

The point I was making was it could be seen that the EU just looks after its own interests (in its own countries getting richer) without much of a regard for the rest of the world. While Brexiteers are often called Little Englanders, a more global view on trade and equality of immigration opportunities for all people of the world is (to me) less Little Englander and racist than what the EU Superstate offers.
 
The point I was making was it could be seen that the EU just looks after its own interests (in its own countries getting richer) without much of a regard for the rest of the world. While Brexiteers are often called Little Englanders, a more global view on trade and equality of immigration opportunities for all people of the world is (to me) less Little Englander and racist than what the EU Superstate offers.

Right, so we can expect over 300,000 migrants per year when we leave? Hmm. Incidentally, did anyone notice in those wonder growth figures that manufacturing actually shrunk by 1%, despite the low pound apparently doing wonders for their exporting capabilities?
 
This might be nice for you @Joey66 http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/euromyths-a-z-index

Found here - http://www.economist.com/blogs/grap...ebunking_years_of_tabloid_claims_about_europe (you can consider me hugely surprised that the Mail, Mirror and Telegraph are the biggest peddlers of lies - post truth world we live in innit)

THE Brexit campaign has been plagued by little white lies, half-truths and disinformation. Neither side has showered itself in glory in its attempts to persuade the British public of the benefits or drawbacks of EU membership. But Britain has a long and well-observed tradition of fabricating facts about Europe—so much so that the European Commission (EC) set up a website to debunk these lies in the early 1990s. Try our interactive quiz below and see if you can spot the myths.

Since then the EC has responded to over 400 myths published by the British media. These range from the absurd (fishing boats will be forced to carry condoms) to the ridiculous (zippers on trousers will be banned). Some are seemingly the result of wilful misunderstandings. A story published by the Sun, a tabloid, in 1999 claimed that the queen would suddenly have to make her own tea because of new EU rules. Not only is this inaccurate, as a patient EC official pointed out, but the laws that this referred to were enacted by Britain itself in 1993. Another article in the Daily Star in 2004 reckoned that the EU was going to limit the speed of children’s playground roundabouts. This voluntary guideline, it turned out, was not proposed by the EU at all, but rather by a different organisation with the word “Europe” in its name. Other myths do not originate from anything close to reality, such as the allegation that the EC would ban darts from pubs or outlaw unwrapped sweets.

20160625_woc754_2.png

Unsurprisingly, the Daily Mail spreads more EU-linked lies than anyone else. But it’s not just right-wing tabloids that are guilty. The Daily Telegraph also performs well on this measure, and even the BBC has had its wrist slapped on occasion. The issue that riles up all media outlets, it seems, is the suggestion that Brussels will meddle with good ol’ British food. From fry-ups to French mustard, the British dinner plate is sacred. Eurocrats trying to change that will incur the wrath of Britain’s press—and its readers.

Sadly, for all the commission’s hard work, it is unlikely to be heard. The average rebuttal is read about 1,000 times. The Daily Mail’s website, by contrast, garners 225m visitors each month.
 
Whilst Q3 GDP figures beat forecasts, it nust be remembered that growth fell from 0.7% to 0.5%.

The fact that we had any growth at all is down to three factors, (i) the immediate assistance provided by the independent BoE (ii) continued growth in the service sector, aided by a blockbuster performance from the film industry with their summer releases and (iii) the impact of a falling sterling on service acquisition overseas.

None of these factors are sustainable, one was an emergency response, one seasonal and the other a reflection of currency devalustion.

Worrying apart from services the three other sectors of the UK economy — industrial production, construction and agriculture — all contracted during Q3. The fall in industrial production is particularly worrying.

Re the Nissan deal is very good news in isolation, it is telling that there has been no comment on the type of encouragements the UK government has had to offer to strike the deal. The assumption is that the UK government has agreed to underwrite any tarrif costs on Nissan's exporting of cars from the Sunderland plant. Whilst I understand why such a deal has been struck, -it cannot be considered sustainable long term and across the wider economy for obvious reasons.
On the car market, the major manufacturers are planning on the total industry volume in the UK contracting by about 12% in 2017 to circa 2.3m units
 
Meanwhile, the kow towing creatures of the E U, Morrisons, have increased Marmite to £2.64. Sainsbury's, £2.50, Waitrose & Tesco, £2.35 and the noble British patriots at Asda, £2.00.

I think we can all learn a lesson from this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top