View Full Version : UK Trade...the facts
Rather than exchange nonsense when it comes to the emotive subject of the Referendum, I thought it may add perspective to provide a link to some official figures and see if we can open a friendly debate on the trade issue by itself. See what you make of this, and in particular the data for the rolling 12 months export lists for each UK member country.
Far from showing us as a weak isolationist nation hell bent on self destruction if we leave the EU it actually paints a rather different picture of a very healthy economy exporting a majority of commodities outside the EU and there's no reason to suspect that will change post referendum albeit we will have to re-negotiate at a WTO level. Far from other countries not wanting to do business with us, we're still a buoyant net exporting nation who's commodities are in demand world wide:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/527559/RTS_Q1_2016.pdf
For those who haven't had the time to sit and listen through this video, I'd encourage you to do so as David Owen makes some very valid points here. You do need a fair amount of time to wade through this but I found it a very interesting and worthwhile listen. Whilst I may not agree with the former politics of Lord Owen, I cannot fault his logic nor what he has to say here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaPSjI4fOHo
BTH K10A
17-06-2016, 17:23
Sounds more like fiction to me
Sounds more like fiction to me
Not at all. It's all a matter of opinion, and where opinion differs, it seems that the in or out crowds wont ever meet in the middle because there isn't one. Had there been a "middle way" then opinion might be further divided. We don't have influence in the EU parliament due to being in such a minority that on our own, we can influence nothing. That is just one reason that democracy for the UK population has been lost. The UK official trade figures speak for themselves or are they just "fiction" as well? ;)
BTH K10A
17-06-2016, 18:56
I'm all for opinion, discussions, differences and accord but the title of your thread is "UK Trade...the facts" not UK Trade an opinion.
The trade figures are those of a UK that is a member of the EU which may or may not benefit from global EU agreements. What is uncertain is whether those figures could be maintained or bettered if we were not part of the EU or whether trade would actually suffer. There seems to be an emerging trend that the major global financial and economic institutions think the latter.
We lack influence in Europe because we don't get into the ring. You have to get into the melee, throwing punches and forging alliances. We sit on the sidelines whinging about stuff like the banning of Bombay Duck rather than get stuck in to real issues. I'd wager that most people don't have a clue who their MEP is.
Personally I doubt it will affect me which ever way it goes but I'd certainly not take a leap in faith based on the opinions of David Owen & Co if it did.
I'm all for opinion, discussions, differences and accord but the title of your thread is "UK Trade...the facts" not UK Trade an opinion.
The trade figures are those of a UK that is a member of the EU which may or may not benefit from global EU agreements. What is uncertain is whether those figures could be maintained or bettered if we were not part of the EU or whether trade would actually suffer. There seems to be an emerging trend that the major global financial and economic institutions think the latter.
We lack influence in Europe because we don't get into the ring. You have to get into the melee, throwing punches and forging alliances. We sit on the sidelines whinging about stuff like the banning of Bombay Duck rather than get stuck in to real issues. I'd wager that most people don't have a clue who their MEP is.
Personally I doubt it will affect me which ever way it goes but I'd certainly not take a leap in faith based on the opinions of David Owen & Co if it did.
Whilst in theory, what you say has legs to it and I happen to agree with your sentiments, the issue here is that forging alliances I'm afraid is something that the UK hasn't fared too well with for many years. The trouble here is not just the lacklustre calibre of UK politicians, but the differing agendas of all the member states involved making many alliances difficult, especially where protectionism of mainland EU businesses are concerned.
What the financial markets know is actually very little. They don't have a crystal ball and global finance markets couldn't even predict or prevent the global recession with all its warning signs so anything that they have to say, frankly, is unreliable at best.
It is simply untrue, almost absurdly so, to suggest that the UK does not get "stuck in". We have just 70 odd MEPs in the EU Parliament, made up of over 770 EU MEPs so anything that we may have to say is pretty easily drowned out or ignored. Without alliances, our voice is mute. Even with the odd alliance, it is less than influential. It is now simply Utopian to suggest that we have, or could have any influence.
The trade figures stand every chance of not only being maintained but seeing a period of growth, and also seeing the financial markets grow in strength as suggested by this report from the Wall Street Journal recently:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-financial-industry-better-off-without-eu-says-british-financier-1465929301
The trouble is that the scaremongering and anecdotal nonsense bandied about in terms of UK trade and finance seems more concerned with winning propaganda brownie points than willing to discuss the reality of how the EU works and the actual numbers and mechanisms of current trade.
BTH K10A
18-06-2016, 16:50
The trouble is that the scaremongering and anecdotal nonsense bandied about in terms of UK trade and finance seems more concerned with winning propaganda brownie points than willing to discuss the reality of how the EU works and the actual numbers and mechanisms of current trade.
I certainly agree, there is a lot of general scaremongering from both sides, however ,there is an overwhelming consensus among the worlds major financial and economic institutions that leaving the EU will be bad for the UK. The only uncertainty is just how bad it will be.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36561415
It's telling that the only exponents of a view that it would be good for the UK economy are: http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk who are certainly not impartial in this matter
Nobody and no organization can be said to be 'impartial'. People always have vested interests, especially wealthy people such as make up these bodies and organizations.
Nobody and no organization can be said to be 'impartial'. People always have vested interests, especially wealthy people such as make up these bodies and organizations.
I'm sticking with the wealthy people, meself.
I'm not talking wealthy as in own home and car and a few savings in the bank. If you don't have hundreds of thousands in corporate shareholdings and another few on the money markets then your not the sort of wealthy I'm talking about. Quite often what benefits them is the exact opposite of what benefits the ordinary man like us.
I'm not talking wealthy as in own home and car and a few savings in the bank. If you don't have hundreds of thousands in corporate shareholdings and another few on the money markets then your not the sort of wealthy I'm talking about. Quite often what benefits them is the exact opposite of what benefits the ordinary man like us.
Oh, alright, I'll stick with the povvy gets who use food banks then.
Interesting that the IMF came out yesterday against the UK government basically saying that they've been exaggerating the financial risks (no, really?) and that whilst a Brexit might lead to a slight downturn in short term growth, it won't be that bad as long as the markets have some certainty on the Brexit arrangements. This also implies that trade deals have to be entered into. Worst case is a downturn in growth but not a full on recession under WTO rules, so even worst case, it wont be the full on doom and gloom forecast that the Tories would have us believe.
http://news.sky.com/story/1713684/imf-brexit-may-not-mean-a-british-recession
Wish they'd make their minds up as only a few days previous, they were towing the big business line themselves! It just goes to show you can't trust any large organisation which may have wider agendas and a vote ought to be taken for more reasons than just the economic one.
It boils down to whether we trust that the current government has the talent and resources to effectively manage some favourable deals for us. They're finished if they can't as with a Brexit, their performance over the next year or two will have a major bearing on whether they remain electable. Not if Osborne is still in office, either way though.
Meantime, Farage continues to blot his copybook. I do wish the man would keep his mouth shut and stop pretending that he represents all of those who want to leave. He doesn't represent me, nor the views of most I speak to wanting to leave.
I don't know who advises Farage, but they are bloody hopeless, whoever they are.
As you say, Paul, markets and business don't like uncertainty. They will adapt whatever the outcome, but until the outcome is known things will be in flux.
Is it not one of the great ironies of capitalism that entrepreneurs and captains of industry self-righteously justify their rewards because of the risks they take but then they whinge about the first whisper of risk and uncertainty?
Is it not one of the great ironies of capitalism that entrepreneurs and captains of industry self-righteously justify their rewards because of the risks they take but then they whinge about the first whisper of risk and uncertainty?
Nah, it's just basic human nature. We are all ready to point out the mote in someone else's eye whilst ignoring the beam in our own.
Actually, one of the distinguishing features of entrepreneurs is their ability to pick themselves up, dust themselves down and start all over again when things go wrong. They like risk, because risk brings rewards. Those of us who are more risk-averse would a) probably not take chances in the first place and b) if we did take a chance, would be floored by adversity.
Haselsh1
19-06-2016, 16:47
I work for a massive Chinese corporate giant so I know which way I shall be voting.
Oldpinkman
20-06-2016, 05:00
Interesting that the IMF came out yesterday against the UK government basically saying that they've been exaggerating the financial risks (no, really?) and that whilst a Brexit might lead to a slight downturn in short term growth, it won't be that bad as long as the markets have some certainty on the Brexit arrangements. This also implies that trade deals have to be entered into. Worst case is a downturn in growth but not a full on recession under WTO rules, so even worst case, it wont be the full on doom and gloom forecast that the Tories would have us believe.
http://news.sky.com/story/1713684/imf-brexit-may-not-mean-a-british-recession
Wish they'd make their minds up as only a few days previous, they were towing the big business line themselves! It just goes to show you can't trust any large organisation which may have wider agendas and a vote ought to be taken for more reasons than just the economic one.
It boils down to whether we trust that the current government has the talent and resources to effectively manage some favourable deals for us. They're finished if they can't as with a Brexit, their performance over the next year or two will have a major bearing on whether they remain electable. Not if Osborne is still in office, either way though.
Meantime, Farage continues to blot his copybook. I do wish the man would keep his mouth shut and stop pretending that he represents all of those who want to leave. He doesn't represent me, nor the views of most I speak to wanting to leave.
And little knowledge, or a lot of wishful thinking, is a dangerous thing. The imf ran 2 main scenarios. An adverse scenario based on leaving and not having any deals (most likely for reasons Michael dougan explains in his excellent 24 minute lecture from Liverpool University. ) the limited scenario you were referring to was on the basis of eea membership instead, like Norway, arranged quickly. Again I refer you to the Liverpool University video, but that means we enact all EU rules, allow free movement of people, join shengen, pay higher contribution to the EU, receive no return investment, lose our vote and influence, and only suffer a milder recession than the treasury forecast. Brilliant
You don't think we could negotiate on our own terms, given that, unlike Norway, the UK is a £300 billion export market for the EU countries?
I suspect that we could.
Oldpinkman
20-06-2016, 08:29
You don't think we could negotiate on our own terms, given that, unlike Norway, the UK is a £300 billion export market for the EU countries?
I suspect that we could.
You suspect we could. I suspect this guy knows more than either of us
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/16/watch-dishonesty-industrial-scale-eu-law-expert-analyses-referendum-debate/
We could negotiate - trade deals - eventually (10 years?). They won't be membership of the single market - so much more than a trade deal.
It's 24 minutes long, quite entertaining and well presented in my view, but if you want the short answer skip to 18 minutes in
You suspect we could. I suspect this guy knows more than either of us
https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/16/watch-dishonesty-industrial-scale-eu-law-expert-analyses-referendum-debate/
We could negotiate - trade deals - eventually (10 years?). They won't be membership of the single market - so much more than a trade deal.
It's 24 minutes long, quite entertaining and well presented in my view, but if you want the short answer skip to 18 minutes in
How about devoting your energies to sorting out France which is in a much bigger mess than the UK.
Will be in a worse state when we quit and stop subsidising them.
Just like in 'Under Siege': 'They've got a lot of trouble on that ship.'
Really cannot understand the mentality of some people to be honest. We're the British! Our ancestors invented everything and built the world. Now we are supposed to believe that we are doomed unless we kowtow to a couple of poxy countries in Europe? Cobblers.
We're the British! Our ancestors invented everything and built the world.
A masterpiece of understatement there. Actually, we gave the world Shakespeare and The Beatles, so they should automatically accept our superiority on the basis of those two alone.
Very true. All the Yanks could manage was Art Linkletter and the Monkees. And one of the Monkees was British.
Actually I'll give them a bonus point for Arthur Miller as he was quite good. Still miles behind even with him.
It seems largely impossible having any sort of debate with those hell bent on remaining in a doomed EU union because they refuse to listen to any viewpoint except their own :rolleyes:
Richard, I do not agree with you or your world view of things at all but empathise that you may feel more vulnerable than many as you live in France and understandably are concerned about how this will affect you if (hopefully) we do extract ourselves from the EU machine. I also do not like the way that you belittle people who hold a different POV than yourself.
Your arguments are far less convincing of those with first hand knowledge of the EU parliament, and here, I especially refer to Daniel Hannan, MEP, who has far more knowledge of how the EU works than you or I. He's about the only one speaking any sense in this whole referendum debate. We can stand on our own two feet and to suggest that we may never secure deals under the EFTA is simply ludicrous, bearing in mind what the German economy alone stands to lose unless we do! I very much doubt that the EU will still exist in ten years time in its present form, and I can't see how the Eurozone can possibly exist given the disaster that it has turned out to be and the way it's headed, but carry on with your head in the sand so the basis of your arguments are as much straw man arguments as you presume the alternatives to be.
Vote UK out and bring the whole nasty edifice down and we can all go back to being a trading block without the idiotic financial and political union, of which it is a fact that the majority of people in Europe do not want.
“A majority, held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left."
They are used to despotism on the Continent. That's why they have sleepwalked into the EU. Wasn't that long ago that Germany had Hitler, Italy had Mussolini and Spain had Franco. All within living memory. Could never happen here, we are too individualistic.
Oldpinkman
20-06-2016, 12:08
It seems largely impossible having any sort of debate with those hell bent on remaining in a doomed EU union because they refuse to listen to any viewpoint except their own :rolleyes:
Richard, I do not agree with you or your world view of things at all but empathise that you may feel more vulnerable than many as you live in France and understandably are concerned about how this will affect you if (hopefully) we do extract ourselves from the EU machine. I also do not like the way that you belittle people who hold a different POV than yourself.
Your arguments are far less convincing of those with first hand knowledge of the EU parliament, and here, I especially refer to Daniel Hannan, MEP, who has far more knowledge of how the EU works than you or I. He's about the only one speaking any sense in this whole referendum debate. We can stand on our own two feet and to suggest that we may never secure deals under the EFTA is simply ludicrous, bearing in mind what the German economy alone stands to lose unless we do! I very much doubt that the EU will still exist in ten years time in its present form, and I can't see how the Eurozone can possibly exist given the disaster that it has turned out to be and the way it's headed, but carry on with your head in the sand so the basis of your arguments are as much straw man arguments as you presume the alternatives to be.
I didn't make an argument. The only opinion I expressed was "Brilliant" - my view that a Norway deal is not a good one, for reasons stated.
I introduced Michael Dougan with some links - who knows what he is talking about.
I commented on your claim that the IMF were now offering a forecast which is "not too bad worst case" to point out that it said nothing of the sort. The reference to Norway, and their really not very good at all EEA arrangement, was a quote from the article you linked to. The adverse scenario was a recession of just 0.8% compared with forecast growth of over 2% if we remain in. That's nearly 3% less GDP. That's £18bn pounds worse off. I'm not saying they are right. Just doing the sums on what they are saying. That quote from your article is
"The Fund said that the UK economy would be comparatively weaker if it left the EU but under its "limited" scenario - in which Britain stayed in the European Economic Area, the group that includes Norway - growth would slip from 2.2% to 1.4% next year. The drop is significantly smaller than that forecast by the Treasury." is what the 2nd paragraph said.
Norway's EEA deal is for access to the common market. The EU has made clear that is an "all or nothing" deal - and specifically includes unrestricted free movement of people. The IMF forecast for its limited scenario explicitly states the assumption that Britain stayed in the EEA "like Norway". That means, accepting all the rules, allowing free movement of people and paying a large contribution. What we give up is votes, influence, and the right to some of the financial contribution back. Those are facts, not opinions. It is my opinion that we won't accept those terms (EEA membership) because of the free movement of people issue, and therefore by default, we will be in the other IMF scenario - the adverse one.
As for my concerns in France, I am on the right side of the new Iron curtain. My concerns are for my children, living in the UK, and their potential loss as a result of them being in an England outside the EU. Note - I think it will be an England. Scotland will vote for Independence and EU membership, and the situation in Northern Ireland will be very interesting. The peace process success in large part depends on the effectively open border between the province and Eire, and there is about 80% support for EU membership in the Province. At the very least, the situation there will be challenging if the UK exits (an opinion)
It seems largely impossible having any sort of debate with those hell bent on remaining in a doomed EU union because they refuse to listen to any viewpoint except their own :rolleyes:
Richard, I do not agree with you or your world view of things at all but empathise that you may feel more vulnerable than many as you live in France and understandably are concerned about how this will affect you if (hopefully) we do extract ourselves from the EU machine. I also do not like the way that you belittle people who hold a different POV than yourself.
Your arguments are far less convincing of those with first hand knowledge of the EU parliament, and here, I especially refer to Daniel Hannan, MEP, who has far more knowledge of how the EU works than you or I. He's about the only one speaking any sense in this whole referendum debate. We can stand on our own two feet and to suggest that we may never secure deals under the EFTA is simply ludicrous, bearing in mind what the German economy alone stands to lose unless we do! I very much doubt that the EU will still exist in ten years time in its present form, and I can't see how the Eurozone can possibly exist given the disaster that it has turned out to be and the way it's headed, but carry on with your head in the sand so the basis of your arguments are as much straw man arguments as you presume the alternatives to be.
+1
The arguments I have heard coming from Brussels, its politicians and its Institutions rarely, if ever, relate to the actual (human) well-being of real people (i.e. citizens as opposed to consumers). it's all about Corporate, State and politicians interests & privileges and how to best preserve them. The media tactics used are the usual ones which consist to make people afraid of being independent.
Look at who is actually at the helm of the EU Institutions. A succession of un-elected professional politicians that have miserably failed over the last decade or so by neglecting the fact that countries cannot be run like large companies.
OK, have it your way Richard and go on ignoring what the IMF is on public record as saying...I quote:
"The Fund said that the UK economy would be comparatively weaker if it left the EU but under its "limited" scenario - in which Britain stayed in the European Economic Area, the group that includes Norway - growth would slip from 2.2% to 1.4% next year. The drop is significantly smaller than that forecast by the Treasury."
So there we have it. The treasury who are in the pockets of the bias of our Remain politicians are quoting one thing and the IMF are saying something completely different.
The EFTA deal may not be as favourable for the EU as it is now, plainly that is true BUT we will be left free to negotiate new deals with the rest of the world. The EU trade block deals with China and India are far from impressive. Going it alone we do have more chance of negotiating more favourable terms with these nations longer term and I'd rather be in a position to do that than whinge over higher rates for exports to an EU market which has shrunk over the past decade from circa 60% to 44% today and which will continue to shrink as the EU continues to asset strip the UK and where it's own growth continues to decline.
What is being held back post Brexit vote is the fact the European Council are planning to introduce mandatory changes to the way that all of our ports operate, essentially disadvantaging us even though ALL of our MEPs voted against the motion (democracy in action again?). That, and our vetos are up for grabs and we'll have to fight hard to keep them, this whole EU army threat (and I don't trust or believe a single politician who says we wont be forced into that). Further more, the future within the EU is just as uncertain as the future out. We are due over the next year or two to renegotiate our contribution which by all accounts will rise above 10 Billion net each year within the next few years. How much higher, we don't yet know.
The EU allowing cheap imports of inferior steel have also decimated the European and British steel industries, and it is a fact that various design codes have had to be bolstered within the civil engineering field to account for the changes to specifications of some steels, with an increase in protection required for design life too. These are just drops in the ocean of how our economy is being continually dumbed down presumably until the pound is dragged down to the Euro giving the EU more leverage to force us into the Eurozone for tying up federal union. That may be an assumption too far, but the blatant protectionism of mainland European industries pitted directly against UK industries is there for all to see.
I am voting for my children's future Too Richard and whilst no amount of debate will convince you and other pro-EU voters otherwise, I am convinced that their future interests are far better served out of a failing EU whose economy is in nose dive and whose currency is failing. Despite what our PM assures us, no-one actually believes the man when he says that we will exercise our veto and wont bail out the Euro...of course we will! We'll be forced into it just as we were forced into it the first time round. Leave is the only way that we can take back control of our industrial competitiveness and expansion for the future, to rid ourselves from the shackles of the EU dictating our trade deals with the rest of the world and so that we can take back decision making into our own parliament who are accountable.
+1
The arguments I have heard coming from Brussels, its politicians and its Institutions rarely, if ever, relate to the actual (human) well-being of real people (i.e. citizens as opposed to consumers). it's all about Corporate, State and politicians interests & privileges and how to best preserve them. The media tactics used are the usual ones which consist to make people afraid of being independent.
Look at who is actually at the helm of the EU Institutions. A succession of un-elected professional politicians that have miserably failed over the last decade or so by neglecting the fact that countries cannot be run like large companies.
Absolutely right.
Look at the latest example of Jean-Claude Juncker, who wont be carrying on for much longer as head of the Commission, where he was elected. The EU Council it is rumoured are to offer him a place within the unelected European Council as his reward for being voted out of office. The man is anti-UK and anti-democracy. He is hell bent on forced federalism and now looks like joining the rest of the elitist unelected in the European Council making up the rules for Europe. How long do you suppose that the unrest of other member states will stay under wraps for? Not long I suspect.
Oldpinkman
20-06-2016, 13:31
OK, have it your way Richard and go on ignoring what the IMF is on public record as saying...I quote:
"The Fund said that the UK economy would be comparatively weaker if it left the EU but under its "limited" scenario - in which Britain stayed in the European Economic Area, the group that includes Norway - growth would slip from 2.2% to 1.4% next year. The drop is significantly smaller than that forecast by the Treasury."
So there we have it. The treasury who are in the pockets of the bias of our Remain politicians are quoting one thing and the IMF are saying something completely different.
The EFTA deal may not be as favourable for the EU as it is now, plainly that is true BUT we will be left free to negotiate new deals with the rest of the world. The EU trade block deals with China and India are far from impressive. Going it alone we do have more chance of negotiating more favourable terms with these nations longer term and I'd rather be in a position to do that than whinge over higher rates for exports to an EU market which has shrunk over the past decade from circa 60% to 44% today and which will continue to shrink as the EU continues to asset strip the UK and where it's own growth continues to decline.
What is being held back post Brexit vote is the fact the European Council are planning to introduce mandatory changes to the way that all of our ports operate, essentially disadvantaging us even though ALL of our MEPs voted against the motion (democracy in action again?). That, and our vetos are up for grabs and we'll have to fight hard to keep them, this whole EU army threat (and I don't trust or believe a single politician who says we wont be forced into that). Further more, the future within the EU is just as uncertain as the future out. We are due over the next year or two to renegotiate our contribution which by all accounts will rise above 10 Billion net each year within the next few years. How much higher, we don't yet know.
The EU allowing cheap imports of inferior steel have also decimated the European and British steel industries, and it is a fact that various design codes have had to be bolstered within the civil engineering field to account for the changes to specifications of some steels, with an increase in protection required for design life too. These are just drops in the ocean of how our economy is being continually dumbed down presumably until the pound is dragged down to the Euro giving the EU more leverage to force us into the Eurozone for tying up federal union. That may be an assumption too far, but the blatant protectionism of mainland European industries pitted directly against UK industries is there for all to see.
I am voting for my children's future Too Richard and whilst no amount of debate will convince you and other pro-EU voters otherwise, I am convinced that their future interests are far better served out of a failing EU whose economy is in nose dive and whose currency is failing. Despite what our PM assures us, no-one actually believes the man when he says that we will exercise our veto and wont bail out the Euro...of course we will! We'll be forced into it just as we were forced into it the first time round. Leave is the only way that we can take back control of our industrial competitiveness and expansion for the future, to rid ourselves from the shackles of the EU dictating our trade deals with the rest of the world and so that we can take back decision making into our own parliament who are accountable.
Plainly it was too much effort to watch 24 minutes of Mr Dougan.
Yes - the IMF latest forecast is less bleak than the treasuries. That's a bit like saying death by firing squad is less distressing than burning at the stake. True, but small comfort.
"The EFTA deal..." ?? The IMF forecast was on the basis of "in which Britain stayed in the European Economic Area, the group that includes Norway " (I've just copied your quote above). EEA means all the rules, all the contributions, all the free movement of people (= no control of borders), no vote, and no influence.
As for the UK negotiating a better deal with China than the EU - it seems highly improbable. Nearly as good as Switzerlands would be an achievement - and by no means easy (they have stable relations with the EU - it might take us 10 years to acheive those). The official position of India, China, the USA and many others, the OFFICIAL position, is that they will not be interested in negotiating ANY trade deal with the UK until AFTER the UK has finalised its relationship with the EU. The experts in the field think it will take 10 years to finalise those relationships. Both of those "facts" are from the MD video. He is an expert, with all that implies on this forum. Maybe he's dishonest. Maybe he's incompetent. He doesn't strike me as either, but he's been accused of both. That would be convenient for you.
bottom line is that ALL these so called institutions (including the private ones like goldman sachs & al.) have made catastrophic and wrong decisions / predictions for the citizens over the last decade.. so how can they be trusted now?
To many who may be undecided or wavering I would absolutely recommend watching the full 24 mins of the video Richard linked to.
Very precise answers to many of the questions I have failed to hear any meaningful response to on forums swamped with opinions on this whole messy affair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y&app=desktop
This is not about whether cables do or don't have any effect on sound quality or how crystals on your speaker may or may not lead to audio nirvana or whether your ears or experts have the best answer - simply the very real legal implications of whether we stay or go - and how long and messy the whole process might actually be.
This really is too big a decision to leave to your gut feeling or some romantic dream of King Arthur rising from his grave in the nick of time and pointing us in the right direction.
Oldpinkman
21-06-2016, 07:27
bottom line is that ALL these so called institutions (including the private ones like goldman sachs & al.) have made catastrophic and wrong decisions / predictions for the citizens over the last decade.. so how can they be trusted now?
That's a popular mantra - it will find supporters here. But I don't think its true. Economic forecasting is like weather forecasting - not precise, and almost certainly not completely accurate. Sometimes its 30 degrees when they said it would be 29 degrees. Sometimes it rains at 3 O'clock instead of 5 O'clock. ITV said it would be westerly winds and BBC said south westerly with bigger gusts. And sometimes a Michael Fish positively states there won't be a hurricane and 6 out of Sevenoaks 7 Oaks are flattened in the storm.
So they get it wrong, badly sometimes, and never perfectly right. Does that mean you are better off ignoring the weather forecast completely and randomly choosing whether to wear a bikini or a duffel coat today? Or worse, as often seems to be the choice when it suits an argument, assume that whatever the forecast is the truth is the complete opposite.
Today the forecast for Granes, is sunshine, light winds and 30 degrees. I've cheated, and peeked out the window, but I plan to put suncream on, and leave the snow suit in the wardrobe.
And I plan to vote Remain ;)
That's a popular mantra - it will find supporters here. But I don't think its true. Economic forecasting is like weather forecasting - not precise, and almost certainly not completely accurate. Sometimes its 30 degrees when they said it would be 29 degrees. Sometimes it rains at 3 O'clock instead of 5 O'clock. ITV said it would be westerly winds and BBC said south westerly with bigger gusts. And sometimes a Michael Fish positively states there won't be a hurricane and 6 out of Sevenoaks 7 Oaks are flattened in the storm.
So they get it wrong, badly sometimes, and never perfectly right. Does that mean you are better off ignoring the weather forecast completely and randomly choosing whether to wear a bikini or a duffel coat today? Or worse, as often seems to be the choice when it suits an argument, assume that whatever the forecast is the truth is the complete opposite.
Today the forecast for Granes, is sunshine, light winds and 30 degrees. I've cheated, and peeked out the window, but I plan to put suncream on, and leave the snow suit in the wardrobe.
And I plan to vote Remain ;)
And don't we all know it! :lol:
The UK is not a place I want my kids to grow up in if we end up as part of a European superstate. Lets face it, it doesn't matter longer term what happens as the Eurozone is set to fail within a decade if not sooner. It will implode and the hope was that we could extract ourselves before it does. Those who think it wont are only deluding themselves and ignoring what's going on around them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YNcF3h3NgQ
Oldpinkman
21-06-2016, 08:14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YNcF3h3NgQ
I did watch it. He is an articulate and engaging speaker. I have no doubt he believes what he says. But it was painful. Too many "sillies" (We haven't grown as much as India and China - really! Nor has the USA or Australia). And too much "industrial scale dishonesty" to quote Michael Dougan. To be fair, probably "industrial scale ignorance and wishful thinking" rather than dishonesty. The idea that not worrying about Italian tomatoes would make Britain free to sign instant and valuable trade agreements is so far from reality as to be the reason for Michael Dougan using the phrase "industrial scale dishonesty"
Appealing, but then so is the Hogwarts Express as a way of travelling from platform 9 3/4 to Inverness
.... That's a popular mantra....
:)
yep, it is popular because many people feel they have no say in the steamroller decision process.
The amusing fact is that the very same institutions and politicians that are at the heart of the core problems are now mandated to solve them. And no one has the power to vote them out.
PS Daniel Hannan is a brilliant speaker compared to lets say Mr Van Rumpuy (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Herman_Van_Rompuy_675.jpg/800px-Herman_Van_Rompuy_675.jpg) ;)
Oldpinkman
21-06-2016, 10:39
I think we have been overcomplicating this
As a guitarist, this is my last word on the subject
http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t582/oldpinkman/boris%20capo_zpskqpvpavu.jpg (http://s1315.photobucket.com/user/oldpinkman/media/boris%20capo_zpskqpvpavu.jpg.html)
I think we have been overcomplicating this
As a guitarist, this is my last word on the subject
http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t582/oldpinkman/boris%20capo_zpskqpvpavu.jpg (http://s1315.photobucket.com/user/oldpinkman/media/boris%20capo_zpskqpvpavu.jpg.html)
Ha!
Suggested caption:
'I sold my soul to the Devil and still I can't get a tune out of this thing!'
I think we have been overcomplicating this
As a guitarist, this is my last word on the subject
http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t582/oldpinkman/boris%20capo_zpskqpvpavu.jpg (http://s1315.photobucket.com/user/oldpinkman/media/boris%20capo_zpskqpvpavu.jpg.html)
Haha, gave me a laugh that did.
I see that Aston Martin have also come out and suggested that a short term slump in Sterling will be a good things for exports and is backing Vote Leave.
I see also, more arguments by the Pro-Euro brigade that this will harm the UK economy. What, in the same way the a slow down in EU growth is harming our economy, and that a forecast increase in our net contribution to the EU will harm our economy, and that a likely future bail out of Greece and perhaps Spain will harm our economy? (I don't believe for a nano-second that out veto is worth the paper it's written on). Then there's the 33,000 unelected servants of the EC all paid for with your money, their huge allowances and salaries, their 2 hour lunches (again all paid for at your expense) and a majority of MEPs who'd rather sit on pointless committees at your expense, turning up and drawing their expense claims (for, err, turning up) in place of representing their constituents at home and really getting to grips with what their constituents want. The system is to blame as it encourages this behaviour and even rewards it. The scale of the EU expense gravy train makes our own past parliamentary expense claims look like childs play, and the gravy train has made millionaires out of failed politicians like the Kinnocks, all at your expense.
Is Japan struggling on its own, or New Zealand, or Australia, or even Greenland who opted out of Europe many years ago? We're the 5th largest world economy not because of the EU but in spite of the EU. for all those that argue we're only the 5th largest because of the EU, that's laughable, as we were the 5th largest world economy when we joined the EEC despite all the industrial woes of the 1970s!
Oldpinkman
21-06-2016, 12:25
Is Japan struggling on its own,
??? :eek:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040715/japans-strategy-fix-its-deflation-problem.asp
??? :eek:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040715/japans-strategy-fix-its-deflation-problem.asp
...or to put it in context, they're doing better than 50% of EU member states with a 2016 growth rate of around 0.5% and with lower unemployment! (currently around 3%) and currently rank as the 3rd largest world economy ;)
Oldpinkman
21-06-2016, 16:17
http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t582/oldpinkman/japan%20GDP_zpsxysq7nze.jpg (http://s1315.photobucket.com/user/oldpinkman/media/japan%20GDP_zpsxysq7nze.jpg.html)
walpurgis
08-07-2016, 23:01
So Theresa May says 'Britain faces tough times but can enjoy a better brighter future outside the EU'. Bullshit! She will have no idea about how things may turn out. This is our next Prime Minister. The Leadsom creature will not get in. I predict a limp Thatcher Clone with a put on 'tough' facade in charge of our country for a while. She'll soon make herself the most hated person in the UK.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/08/theresa-may-britain-faces-tough-times-but-can-enjoy-a-better-bri/
Done right, there is no need for tough times. But they wont tell you this as its another opportunity for them, the moneymen and politicians to line their pockets;)
pgarrish
09-07-2016, 11:39
The doom and gloom economic forecasts are from the same experts that completely and totally missed the crash in 2008. They have no more idea than you or I because the system they claim to understand is far too complex and random than they could ever admit.
So far the forecast has been right - not too surprising given the way the city works where they all reinforce each other. Nothing actually changed on Brexit day and yet the uk was suddenly worth a trillion less? Nothing changed the day after and the pound and ftse were better?
The big companies all argue for light regulation and flexibility - exactly what the uk gives them. So they should be happy. They are not because they have the eu in their pocket and it is far less transparent than uk politics.
If the media stop crowing how the sky is falling, people might stop thinking it and reinforcing it through their actions and we could simply make a decent fist of the divorce.
You been reading the "Tarleton Advertiser Guide to Economics " again ? :)
BTH K10A
09-07-2016, 12:10
The 2008 crash was mainly due to sub-prime mortgage lending, complex credit default swaps and which were little understood combined with unprecedented levels of debt. It was a house of cards waiting to fall down.
The current economic issues for the UK are different. The pound s till down and whilst the stock market has to a degree recovered, that recovery is largely due to the footsie 100 companies earning most of their profit in foreign currency resulting in a windfall bonus of extra £££££'s due to the current exchange rate. The key to this is whether the UK (if there still is a UK) can maintain its position as a trading nation or looses key industries to the EU and becomes a bit of a backwater. Osbourne's half hearted gesture towards turing the UK into a corporate tax haven might help but he will probably need to undercut the Irish to succeed.
Which is something he should have done in 2010 IMO. Include in that abolishing employer NI, massively simplifying the tax code and everything else that could be done to make running a business and employing people a lot easier. Far better for the economy to have companies paying salaries to people with the money rather than giving it as tax to the government,
pgarrish
09-07-2016, 17:22
You been reading the "Tarleton Advertiser Guide to Economics " again ? :)
I've leant it to Carney now.
walpurgis
12-07-2016, 19:05
Looks like Osborne will get the push: http://www.itv.com/news/2016-07-12/dont-hold-the-front-page-osborne-out-of-treasury/ :lol:
BTH K10A
13-07-2016, 20:24
Pure genius from May.
Give Boris a role where he will have to meet all those Johnny foreigners he has insulted in the past including this man http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/22/london-mayor-boris-johnson-slams-obama-as-part-kenyan-hypocrite.html
Perhaps he can put off meeting him until he leaves office ::lol:
The appointment of Liam Fox as International Trade Secretary is a strange one as whilst we are still a member of the EU it is apparently against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with third parties. In other words the UK cannot undertake any International Trade negotiations until after it has left the EU. Will the UK just ignore this and if so is there likely to be any repercussions in our future negotiations with the EU?
Pure genius from May.
Give Boris a role where he will have to meet all those Johnny foreigners he has insulted in the past including this man http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/22/london-mayor-boris-johnson-slams-obama-as-part-kenyan-hypocrite.html
Perhaps he can put off meeting him until he leaves office ::lol:
The appointment of Liam Fox as International Trade Secretary is a strange one as whilst we are still a member of the EU it is apparently against EU law for a member to negotiate its own trade deals with third parties. In other words the UK cannot undertake any International Trade negotiations until after it has left the EU. Will the UK just ignore this and if so is there likely to be any repercussions in our future negotiations with the EU?
Well Davis as Brexit minister was a good choice and Fox I'm not so sure about. However, intentions have already been expressed about ignoring the EU. Who really cares now as our intention is to get out. The official position is that trade deals will be negotiated directly with Berlin and Paris, bypassing the EU institutions in Brussels after article 50 has been triggered. It's said that if tariffs are threatened on car trade, Britain, freed from EU state aid rules (or ignoring them) could simply take the billions raised by the Exchequer and subsidise the UK car industry, and Two fingers up at the European parliament who also broke EU rules by having their initial Brexit meetings behind closed doors without us present. Time will tell how it will pan out but so far, the FTSE is up, the pound has bounced back a bit and various EU nations have expressed very positive intentions on doing business with the UK post Brexit. Even Carney has back-tracked and said that there's no need to be gloomy about the outlook and incredibly, denied that he tried to influence the institutions during the campaign! Two fingers up to Junckers and that madman Martin Schultz.
walpurgis
14-07-2016, 09:30
Getting rid of Osborne was a good move. Gove is booted too I see.
Firebottle
14-07-2016, 09:59
Getting rid of Osborne was a good move.
Too right, he hardly talked the country up :mental:
Getting rid of Osborne was a good move. Gove is booted too I see.
I think that May is choosing wisely and clearly intends on clearing the old guard out so that she can reinvent the Tory party. No bad thing as Cameron's party was the Tory equivalent of New Labour. Lets see whether her choices bear fruit. Ridding the party of Gove and Osborne was a shrewd move,. No-one trusts Gove and Osborne will be remembered for austerity, so wouldn't win many votes for them at the next election. This is clearly a party for the people she's trying to invent and probably no bad thing at present. Certainly, Labour's shambles has no-one to compete and they really do need to sort themselves out if any credible opposition is to be formed, and whatever your choice of colour, a credible opposition is essential for balance in parliament. I fear what May will progress with ACPO and with the snoopers charter.
Trade-wise, it's too early to tell but Fox and Davis between them have an interesting challenge ahead and initial vibes seem positive.
The doom and gloom economic forecasts are from the same experts that completely and totally missed the crash in 2008. They have no more idea than you or I because the system they claim to understand is far too complex and random than they could ever admit.
So far the forecast has been right - not too surprising given the way the city works where they all reinforce each other. Nothing actually changed on Brexit day and yet the uk was suddenly worth a trillion less? Nothing changed the day after and the pound and ftse were better?
The big companies all argue for light regulation and flexibility - exactly what the uk gives them. So they should be happy. They are not because they have the eu in their pocket and it is far less transparent than uk politics.
If the media stop crowing how the sky is falling, people might stop thinking it and reinforcing it through their actions and we could simply make a decent fist of the divorce.
:exactly:
The 2008 crash was mainly due to sub-prime mortgage lending, complex credit default swaps and which were little understood combined with unprecedented levels of debt. It was a house of cards waiting to fall down.
where were the "experts" then ? Oh, yeah, they where busy handing out the credits...
Yes, the credit agencies who gave all those worthless CDOs the triple A rating. Amazing expertise displayed there. All those who bought them blind - they were experts too. And all the banks and building societies that went broke - all run by experts. And the expert advisors to the government who predicted it all well before it happened so action could be taken. Not.
Why intelligent people are taken in by all this 'I'm an expert listen to me' bollocks is beyond me. Unless they only rate the 'experts' when they agree with that they already imagine is the truth, of course...
My uncle always said to me if anyone comes to you and tells you 'I'm an expert on this' then run a mile.
BTH K10A
14-07-2016, 21:05
where were the "experts" then ? Oh, yeah, they where busy handing out the credits...
You missed the point, there were no experts, very few people understood the complex deals and those that did were not going to be offering any advice as very little was tangible.
In a similar vein it appears that those who championed leaving the EU did not really understand the implications and when the penny dropped the leavers left. May has now rounded those who promised nirvana up and placed them in roles where they can either deliver on their promises or fall on their swords. It's a win win scenario for May.
BTH K10A
14-07-2016, 21:09
Yes, the credit agencies who gave all those worthless CDOs the triple A rating. Amazing expertise displayed there. All those who bought them blind - they were experts too. And all the banks and building societies that went broke - all run by experts. And the expert advisors to the government who predicted it all well before it happened so action could be taken. Not.
Why intelligent people are taken in by all this 'I'm an expert listen to me' bollocks is beyond me. Unless they only rate the 'experts' when they agree with that they already imagine is the truth, of course...
My uncle always said to me if anyone comes to you and tells you 'I'm an expert on this' then run a mile.
So I take it that your uncle had no expertise in this matter.
walpurgis
14-07-2016, 21:17
One can be an authority on a subject. I don't believe in experts, because nobody can know all there is to know about anything.
BTH K10A
15-07-2016, 04:52
One can be an authority on a subject. I don't believe in experts, because nobody can know all there is to know about anything.
So how do you tell an authority from an expert? It's just semantics.:rolleyes:
The OED definition of an expert is: "A person who is very knowledgeable about or skilful in a particular area" Is doesn't imply that they know all there is to know. We seem to have gone back to the dark ages with cries of "he's an expert, don't believe him". Perhaps May should create a new cabinet post of Expertfinder General then they can all be exposed and debunked. :rfl::rfl::rfl::rfl::rfl:
You missed the point, there were no experts, very few people understood the complex deals and those that did were not going to be offering any advice as very little was tangible.
In a similar vein it appears that those who championed leaving the EU did not really understand the implications and when the penny dropped the leavers left. May has now rounded those who promised nirvana up and placed them in roles where they can either deliver on their promises or fall on their swords. It's a win win scenario for May.
You're right, it doesn't take an "expert" to figure out that generating huge amounts of debt is not good for anyone except those, and I quote you that "weren't offering any advice as very litte was tangible". (I'm talking about the so called financial experts like Goldman Sachs & al. but maybe also the ex EU president Mr. Barroso who apparently has morphed into a financial expert. (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36787931))
I do have doubts on the part you said that "very little was tangible". All these "experts" were fully aware of the growing problem but let it carry on until they proclaimed that the only way to save the day was to slap even more austerity on the affected economies (all whilst the countries assets where bought up for peanuts by their pals from the private banks and the (Multinational Corporations) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_corporation).)
The truth is, that the "experts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Draghi)" are the cause of the problem. They are at the beginning and the end of the circle.Their actions benefit the entities the really work for: large companies which then can move in, are granted generous tax reductions and can play the role of the saviour by providing some low paid jobs, all whilst exploiting and privatising the countries ressources to their own profit and not that to the Citizens of the affected countries.
Just my 2 cts. ;)
The idea was to bundle together a lot of low rated debt (i.e hard or impossible to recover) with a little high rated debt, rate the whole package triple A and then sell it. The credit agencies ('experts') handed out the ratings. Without the rating no-one would have bought. This was not a one-off event, it had happened before however there was a lot of sub-prime debt due to the policy the Clinton administration inititated in giving mortgages to people living on welfare payments who were always going to default.
The entire shambles was an accident waiting to happen: either the experts are no experts or they turned a blind eye. Either way trusting them was idiocy.
An expert speaks!
http://m.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/britain-to-get-absolutely-everything-it-wants-from-brexit-negotiations-20160715110899
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
I know it is a joke but not really that far from the truth. If I am holding a grenade that will kill us both if I release it then you don't have too many options when it comes to meeting my demands. If those demands are sensible and reasonable then you are likely to agree with relief.
I know it is a joke but not really that far from the truth.
#iamnathanmuir
Sent from my GT-I9195 using Tapatalk
BTH K10A
16-07-2016, 07:48
I know it is a joke but not really that far from the truth. If I am holding a grenade that will kill us both if I release it then you don't have too many options when it comes to meeting my demands. If those demands are sensible and reasonable then you are likely to agree with relief.
:lolsign:
So neither of you has ever worked in business and therefore have no concept of how negotiation works. I suspected as much from earlier posts but thanks for confirming it :)
So neither of you has ever worked in business and therefore have no concept of how negotiation works. I suspected as much from earlier posts but thanks for confirming it :)
Oh dear, Martin, you appear to have reverted to making bizarre assumptions about people!
:)
I do wonder what school of business negotiation it was that you attended where you were taught that holding on to a hand grenade and saying "either you do what I want or I kill both of us" was a successful opening gambit?
However, as I know that you don't like facts or opinions from people who might actually know what they are talking about to get in the way of your gut feelings, I shall gracefully withdraw and "agree" with you:
"We will write trade agreements, we'll have the best trade agreements. Our trade agreements will be unbelievable. We'll make everyone else pay for them. Those losers. Let's make Britain great again!"
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/07/14/everything-you-need-to-know-about-theresa-may-s-brexit
Who is Nathan Muir and why is Macca plagiarising him?
Dunno... An explanation would be good... Also some folk are getting mighty close to crossing the line, if they have not done so.
Dunno... An explanation would be good... Also some folk are getting mighty close to crossing the line, if they have not done so.
I'm afraid Grant, that the original intention of a grown up and meaningful exchange of ideas has degenerated into the usual suspects bemoaning the outcome of democracy at work still trying to push the buttons and win an argument that they lost a few weeks back. The purpose of this thread was to look at our options and economic future without all the emotive nonsense or meaningless drivel from "experts" and naysayers. Unfortunately people don't seem able to resist the pointless back-biting and nonsense, so I'm perfectly happy if you close the thread as trying to put forward a POV to some on here is an utter waste of time as nothing is conceded or at least approached with reason.
I was tempted to underline the importance of leaving being far greater than economics. I'm still utterly bemused why anyone still thinks that European central government democracy and centralised Federalism is healthier than UK based sovereign government.
Have these people actually done any sort of in depth research into what that actually means and what we stand to lose? Forget the hype over May's snooper's charter, that's small-fry compared with the rights we all stand to lose by becoming assimilated within a federal Europe. Laws dating back to Magna Carta would be stripped from the UK for a start, particularly within the central criminal justice system that the UK operates. Habeas Corpus does not apply in continental Europe either. Fundamental protections, assumed innocence, trial by jury and the right to appear before a court have all been sacrificed on the altar of the EU superstate. That's just the tip of a very large iceberg.
Then there's industrial protectionism. Britain has suffered greatly over the past two decades, not from fair competition, but from protectionism and moving the goal posts when bidding for EU contracts. There are countless examples where we have crossed the finishing posts only to have the French or German governments, with the full collusion of the EU Commission, move the goal posts and invent new conditions which invalidate British contracts in favour of French or German ones (anyone remember the bendy-bus scandal for one?).
We have been asset stripped industrially as part of a super-state move to try and leave us no choice but to remain but to no longer be of any industrial threat. It is very convenient when looking back to see that it has helped smooth the path towards federalism, too convenient. The French have bought up countless British Utilities from water companies to power supply companies but manipulating the same EU competition laws and with EU funding and backing, yet our own monopolies and mergers commission has been powerless to prevent the whole of the South cost water companies falling to to the French, and really this is an area where the government ought to have stepped in to re-nationalise those industries.
Successive UK governments have acted too slow to protect our national industrial interests and as a result we have lost everything from our car industries to our steel industries to the companies that supply our water, our light, our heating. It has been insidious and all the time Europe protects its own and builds its industrial strength, especially Germany who have seen the most remarkable post war industrial growth of any nation. Had we stayed within a common market and had Bliar not signed away so much that Thatcher won back from that idiot Heath and subsequent labour governments, then the EU would have looked possibly a little different today. That or we'd have left long ago.
What does it take to get through to some people so hell bent on destroying UK democracy and traditions, our identity and the protection of our remaining industry that they'd rather sell out to federalism, burn the Union Jack in favour of the blue flag and stars, and these people purport to be loyal Britons? Really?
It's about high time that those hell bent on a European superstate future packed their bags and moved to mainland continental Europe and left the UK to re-build itself. Oh, and close the door behind yourselves and don't come crawling back when the EU implodes. It is good enough for you now, then it will be plenty good enough for you then. The truth is that the UK is not anti-European...the grief we all shared with our French brothers and sisters after the terrible atrocities of the past few days show that. We are though very anti-EU government which is nothing but a deeply corrupt and delusional group of unemployable super-state federalists.
There is plenty to be optimistic about providing that Article 50 is triggered. There remains a healthy economic outlook and whilst we cannot expect the pound to hit it's all time highs against the dollar or the Euro, it will rally and it will stabilise and we will lick our wounds and we will all be ok, thanking our lucky stars that we elected to leave such a non-democratic super-state with some parallels to the former USSR in their federalist models (and NO I DO NOT wish to be drawn into a pointless debate about that pov either tank you so will not respond to any response on that).
This thread, like the others has run its course. Naysayers obviously want no part in rebuilding our economy on more than the false bubble of the Eurozone, set to burst, so again, Continental Europe is free for you to move to and I'm sure we'd gladly accept on a one for one basis, any proud Europeans who see the UK's move as being the only right one for us, and who want to be part of a true democracy and contribute their skills to the Uk as being a good swap for the naysayers and remainers who might be better off with a Brussels post code.
Yebbut who is Nathan Muir?
Oh dear, Martin, you appear to have reverted to making bizarre assumptions about people!
:)
I do wonder what school of business negotiation it was that you attended where you were taught that holding on to a hand grenade and saying "either you do what I want or I kill both of us" was a successful opening gambit?
]
I never attended a school of business which probably explain why I know something about it. I've negotiated with many people whose opening gambit was the grenade. Perhaps you have never heard of the 'Door In The Face' technique? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Door-in-the-face_technique
Firebottle
16-07-2016, 12:47
Excellent post again Paul :)
Excellent post again Paul :)
But it will fall on deaf ears for those who think that a superstate is the way to go, that nations and national identities are outmoded and indeed undesirable, and that an eventual one-world government is the optimum future for mankind. Superstates like the EU are the building blocks required to lead to that goal. I know as I have just had lunch with one such believer.
Whilst the idea has some logic behind it, it ignores many realities. Maybe it will happen one day but it needs to happen like water finding its own level. Forcing it along makes it ever less likely to occur, not more likely.
But it will fall on deaf ears for those who think that a superstate is the way to go, that nations and national identities are outmoded and indeed undesirable, and that an eventual one-world government is the optimum future for mankind. Superstates like the EU are the building blocks required to lead to that goal. I know as I have just had lunch with one such believer.
Oh well, that settles it then. (Mind you, I've spoken to people who 'believe' that certain records contain coded messages meant specifically for them).
Firebottle
16-07-2016, 13:22
..... eventual one-world government is the optimum future for mankind.
Too many disparities to overcome IMO, however many millennia you give it.
Yebbut who is Nathan Muir?
See the piece of satire linked to in post #69.
I'm afraid Grant, that the original intention of a grown up and meaningful exchange of ideas has degenerated into the usual suspects bemoaning the outcome of democracy at work still trying to push the buttons and win an argument that they lost a few weeks back. The purpose of this thread was to look at our options and economic future without all the emotive nonsense or meaningless drivel from "experts" and naysayers.
“see if we can open a friendly debate on the trade issue by itself” was the stated aim of the thread in post #1.
Your tone is not exactly friendly here, Paul, and I am at a loss to understand how we are supposed to talk about the situation if we are not allowed to refer to anything that suggests that Brexit is going to be very difficult indeed without you dismissing this as “meaningless drivel from “experts” and naysayers”. Are you seriously suggesting that because the referendum result was to leave the EU that anyone who does not believe it is a great idea should be denied their voice in the debate as to what happens next? The LSE article that I linked to explained many of the grave issues facing us (including the fact that the trade deals that we appear to need and desire are not going to be as simple as “look how strong our economy is we’ll be fine”) and it seems fairly clear to many that the uncertainty of our situation in the world is not a good thing.
I fail to understand how you can dismiss these issues as “meaningless drivel from ‘experts’”, when it is precisely these kind of experts that we will be relying upon to negotiate our new position in the world.
You may be happy to dismiss any argument that is put up against your (admirably optimistic) beliefs as “pointless backbiting and nonsense” but it doesn't really lead to a rigorous examination of our situation.
Laws dating back to Magna Carta would be stripped from the UK for a start, particularly within the central criminal justice system that the UK operates. Habeas Corpus does not apply in continental Europe either. Fundamental protections, assumed innocence, trial by jury and the right to appear before a court have all been sacrificed on the altar of the EU superstate. That's just the tip of a very large iceberg.
Where is the evidence to support any of these outlandish statements?
The highest court in the UK is The Supeme Court of the UK. Your use of the past tense in “have all been sacrified” suggests otherwise. It holds no water.
What does it take to get through to some people so hell bent on destroying UK democracy and traditions, our identity and the protection of our remaining industry that they'd rather sell out to federalism, burn the Union Jack in favour of the blue flag and stars, and these people purport to be loyal Britons? Really?
This is a straw-man argument, and also seems to fall into the “emotive” category that you claim you did not want to see in the thread.
No-one is trying to destroy UK democracy and traditions.
No-one is burning Union Jacks.
Just because someone may have a different view from you on how they see their country does not mean that you have the right to question their loyalty to their country.
It's about high time that those hell bent on a European superstate future packed their bags and moved to mainland continental Europe and left the UK to re-build itself.
So, any British citizen [at least half we can probably assume, possibly a lot more if we are allowed to include the children] who would rather our country remained in the EU should leave the UK? That doesn’t seem like a very rational position, nor does it seem very much in the spirit of “friendly debate” over the future of OUR country.
Your response to “Brexit is going to be a very difficult and uncertain process” appears to be “if you think that then move to Brussels and good riddance”.
R
PS:
I've spoken to people who 'believe' that certain records contain coded messages meant specifically for them).
They were clearly deluded - the coded messages are meant for everyone.
Oh well, that settles it then. (Mind you, I've spoken to people who 'believe' that certain records contain coded messages meant specifically for them).
You misunderstand. People like to think in dialectical terms even though in reality everything in life is a compromise, a fudge. But when you talk ideologies it is always either one way or another and the two are never compatible. So as you rightly point out I'm not settling anything simply saying that it can never be settled - not in an abstract discussion. Which doesn't mean there is no point in having the abstract discussion. But posting graphs of economic performance or attempting to belittle the 'opponent' rather than counter his rhetoric with your own is a bit boring to me.
Had an interesting discussion of Islamic theology with a bloke yesterday. We discussed the nature of Angels and Djinn. Surprising what some people believe, and there is a lot of it about.
Your response to “Brexit is going to be a very difficult and uncertain process” appears to be “if you think that then move to Brussels and good riddance”.
It is going to be a difficult and uncertain process. I don't disagree with that. I'd be surprised if Paul does. The argument is whether or not it will be worth it further down the road. I believe, if handled well, it will.
Incidentally I've met plenty of people now who voted remain and their reasoning was 'better the devil you know.' Which has some logic but it isn't exactly the stuff of Agincourt, Crecy or Trafalgar is it? (suppose I'd better point out that last bit is meant to be humorous, here are some smiley things etc ;) ;) ;) )
Incidentally I've met plenty of people now who voted remain and their reasoning was 'better the devil you know.' Which has some logic but it isn't exactly the stuff of Agincourt, Crecy or Trafalgar is it? (suppose I'd better point out that last bit is meant to be humorous, here are some smiley things etc ;) ;) ;) )
I would imagine that most people who voted on both sides had a very incomplete view of what they were voting for, and how the vote was likely to be used. What the future will be like, in or out of Europe, we will have to wait and see. Personally I believe that many of the things that people were upset about were caused by bad government from Westminster. I don't really see that changing under Theresa May and there appears to be no opposition. We are certainly living in "interesting times".
On the bright side the "Brexit" situation, coupled the current mess with both the major parties, seems to be leading to an engagement with politics among many people that shows a possible hope for a brighter future.
I would imagine that most people who voted on both sides had a very incomplete view of what they were voting for, and how the vote was likely to be used. What the future will be like, in or out of Europe, we will have to wait and see. Personally I believe that many of the things that people were upset about were caused by bad government from Westminster. I don't really see that changing under Theresa May and there appears to be no opposition. We are certainly living in "interesting times".
On the bright side the "Brexit" situation, coupled the current mess with both the major parties, seems to be leading to an engagement with politics among many people that shows a possible hope for a brighter future.
Yes agree on all counts. I don't think it is humanly possible to have a 'complete' view on something of this nature, but as Churchill (?) said, 'democracy isn't perfect but it is infinitely preferable to the alternatives'.
Arkless Electronics
16-07-2016, 14:08
Most potential methods of reversing globalisation mean less profit for the super wealthy and so they are not likely to happen. Look at Dyson for an example. A profit was being made in the UK but manufacturing was outsourced to China to make even more profit. Are they likely to move back to the UK? No.
A rebirth of British manufacturing would probably take a left wing government like Corbyn's to enact. Manufacturing set up with primary aims to provide quality goods for UK consumers, jobs for the workers, both in the factories themselves and in the supply industry, and training for an industrial workforce rapidly losing old skills... NOT to be profitable. So long as everyone gets paid and they don't trade at a loss then bring it on I say. It would be great for the country and who knows... it may eventually be profitable in the longer term as increased industrial and technical infrastructure and a well trained workforce make us more competitive in manufacturing.
Or we can just wait decades for the Chinese to force up there own wages to the point that multinationals think they can move here where there is a workforce that will toil for a bag of chips a day... rather than a bowl of rice!
Arkless Electronics
16-07-2016, 14:10
Yes agree on all counts. I don't think it is humanly possible to have a 'complete' view on something of this nature, but as Churchill (?) said, 'democracy isn't perfect but it is infinitely preferable to the alternatives'.
He also said "15 minutes talking to the average voter is the best argument against democracy". VERY apt in the case of the referendum which IMO should never have been offered.
Most potential methods of reversing globalisation mean less profit for the super wealthy and so they are not likely to happen. Look at Dyson for an example. A profit was being made in the UK but manufacturing was outsourced to China to make even more profit. Are they likely to move back to the UK? No.
A rebirth of British manufacturing would probably take a left wing government like Corbyn's to enact. Manufacturing set up with primary aims to provide quality goods for UK consumers, jobs for the workers, both in the factories themselves and in the supply industry, and training for an industrial workforce rapidly losing old skills... NOT to be profitable. So long as everyone gets paid and they don't trade at a loss then bring it on I say. It would be great for the country and who knows... it may eventually be profitable in the longer term as increased industrial and technical infrastructure and a well trained workforce make us more competitive in manufacturing.
Or we can just wait decades for the Chinese to force up there own wages to the point that multinationals think they can move here where there is a workforce that will toil for a bag of chips a day... rather than a bowl of rice!
The solution to globalisation a I see it is to let it happen as quickly as possible. A level playing field in wages and living standards across all the major economies would solve a lot of problems.
But it needs to be a levelling and not a race to the bottom.
Much as I'd like to think we could somehow back the UK (or England and Wales since we might soon be down to that) out of the whole globalisation process I can't see any workable way of doing that.
BTH K10A
16-07-2016, 15:31
So neither of you has ever worked in business and therefore have no concept of how negotiation works. I suspected as much from earlier posts but thanks for confirming it :)
And I suppose you have and therefore you do :lol:
RDPX
I am not going to get drawn into any further debate with you. It is a pointless exercise.
Martin
Yes, I agree with you. Brexit is going to be a very difficult and uncertain process, but as you'll probably agree, it is very necessary given the alternatives, and I think that you and I are both in agreement that it will be worth it some years down the road.
Arkless Electronics
16-07-2016, 17:31
We really need another referendum to settle it. as explained here by Richard Dawkins http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/second-referendum-only-way-get-britain-back-brexit
Also backed by the traitor Owen Smith of Labour.
One far from minor problem is that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU.
BTH K10A
16-07-2016, 21:31
RDPX
I am not going to get drawn into any further debate with you. It is a pointless exercise.
The irony in your above comment is priceless given your intolerance evident in post 77 of this thread.
The irony in your above comment is priceless given your intolerance evident in post 70 of this thread.
? Are you refering to post 77?
Guys, I'm not liking the tone of some of the posts on this thread, especially ones that the mods have had to delete. You know the rules, as highlighted in an announcement at the top of this section of the forum, so kindly adhere to them or this thread will be closed.
READ AND DIGEST: http://theartofsound.net/forum/announcement.php?f=10
I simply can't be bothered hosting this yawn-inducing waste of bandwidth.
Get out and do something more interesting/constructive with you lifes than sitting behind a computer arguing about bloody politics, if you can't do it in such a way as not to aggravate others! I'm still seeing the same old entrenched views expressed by the very same old people, with the very same old end result: animosity amongst those concerned, combined with 'insult tennis'.
Anyway, one more sniff of any more crap, from ANYONE, and the thread will be gone, along with possibly a few enforced holidays for certain members.
Marco.
Maybe we should just tell the Scots to sod off. We've had our referendum, and we want out, and when do we want out? NOW!
Or possibly it's not that simple, and May and Sturgeon will cook-up a Brexit that is not really Brexit.
They met the other day. Think May said pretty much that.
walpurgis
16-07-2016, 22:25
I think Brexit will encompass the whole of the UK. It will happen sooner or later in some form once Article 50 is invoked. I'm sure some positive things will arise from this.
What? Sod off, or lets cook up a pseudo-brexit?
The West Lothian Question. It was said a long time ago that it would bite us on the arse one day if we didn't resolve it. And we never did.
What? Sod off, or lets cook up a pseudo-brexit?
The West Lothian Question. It was said a long time ago that it would bite us on the arse one day if we didn't resolve it. And we never did.
If May is to be believed, Article 50 won't be invoked until there's a UK-wide agreement on what Brexit should mean. She told the Beeb:
'"I have already said that I won't be triggering Article 50 until I think that we have a UK approach and objectives for negotiations - I think it is important that we establish that before we trigger Article 50."
Seeing as how the Scottish people have expressed the view that they don't want Brexit at all, on any terms, it's difficult to see how this circle can be squared, but I'm guessing the Article 50 trigger will remain unpressed for quite a while.
What? Sod off, or lets cook up a pseudo-brexit?
The West Lothian Question. It was said a long time ago that it would bite us on the arse one day if we didn't resolve it. And we never did.
Tis a question without an answer .... I knew Tam well, and he was a close friend of my dads. He was at dads funeral, but had to stand in the aisles, or outside, lol. serves him right ;)
Agree - under the treaty there is all the time in the world to formulate a strategy. Which will probably mean they just keep kicking the can down the road for as long as possible whilst unofficial negotiations happen.
walpurgis
16-07-2016, 22:49
I suspect it will happen relatively sooner rather than later. It will start looking foolish otherwise. Not that HMG has worried about looking foolish. Think Blair, WMD & Iraq.
I'd say no sooner than six moths from now and maybe as long as 2 years.
BTH K10A
17-07-2016, 06:40
? Are you refering to post 77?
Thanks Barry, now corrected although looking back on the thread it appears one of my posts has been deleted without any reasoned explanation as to why, and it certainly broke no rules, just highlighted hypocrisy.
There has been a definite bias to the moderation on this thread with the same old clique rallying to the call of one of the mods who is peddling his own agenda whilst making wild assumptions about others that could not be further from the truth. In a way it's quite hilarious but open debate is healthy even when there are entrenched positions. We have a post calling for threads to be closed because others have different views and effectively saying shut up or shove off (all in the name of democracy :rolleyes:). If repost to this view is unacceptable to the moderators then I will be taking further part in this forum.
All I want, and indeed INSIST upon, is for threads like this (which I don't follow, as the content bores me to tears), not to cause ME any hassle, in terms of moderating, so I can happily ignore them and go about my daily business, blissfully uninterrupted by any aggro.
All of you need to learn how to express your legitimate opinions in such a way so as not to irk your 'opponent' (consciously or not), thus keeping things 100% civil at ALL times.
If that happens, you can carry on rabbiting on about politics until the cows come home, but if not, then there will be no such threads taking place. It's really as simple as that. I just don't have the time or inclination to 'fuss' over this stuff! :)
Marco.
BTH K10A
17-07-2016, 06:53
So what was it that caused you hassle on this thread?
Moderated posts, and the content therein responsible for it being moderated, including the content of some posts not moderated, which were arguably just as bad, and you moaning on about 'bias' and 'cliques' :rolleyes: ;)
I simply can't be doing with any of it. All I want is a quiet life, free from stress, and for all of you to get on!
Marco.
I'd say no sooner than six moths from now
I reckon seven butterflies.
Moderated posts, and the content therein responsible for it being moderated, including the content of some posts not moderated, which were arguably just as bad, and you moaning on about 'bias' and 'cliques' :rolleyes: ;)
I simply can't be doing with any of it. All I want is a quiet life, free from stress, and for all of you to get on!
Marco.
But unless someone complains (and I don't know if anyone has) I can't see the problem. You write passionately about things you care deeply about (e.g. Scottish independence) and in the course of your posts sometimes go over the top slagging off the English. I don't know if anyone can or does moderate your posts because of possible hurt feelings.
The EU referendum outcome and consequences raise similar passions amongst other AoS members, so surely heated debate is only to be expected? (Personally, I can remain calm and moderate in my language, but that's because I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter, and that's not always the right way to be). If you can't live with that, or find it too much hassle, it might be best to ban political discussions altogether.
But unless someone complains (and I don't know if anyone has) I can't see the problem.
It's a problem, Joe, because you have to keep an eye on it all the time (or are subconsciously 'aware' that things might be kicking off), so are forced to check on it, and that's a ball ache! :rolleyes:
I simply want to leave political threads alone to take their natural course, without having to 'nanny' them to ensure that no personal insults are taking place, in the way I can do with 95% of hi-fi discussions conducted here, so that the mods and I can get on with our lives in peace, and/or I, say, can go out for a while or have my lunch, without coming back to deal with a load of reported posts or hassle.
I don't think that's too much to ask!
You write passionately about things you care deeply about (e.g. Scottish independence) and in the course of your posts sometimes go over the top slagging off the English.
First of all, I don't "slag off the English". That's merely your (incorrect, somewhat overly-sensitive nationalistic) interpretation of the matter. I "slag off" that which I have a problem with (Westminster control of the UK and 'the establishment'), some of which may happen to be English/England-derived.
That's a rather different thing from universally "slagging off the English". I also never deliberately personally insult anyone here; my ire in political matters, as it were, is directed at governments and institutions whose raison d'etre I abhor. If some here take objection to that, and see it as a personal affront to their sensibilities or them, then that's their problem, not mine.
We must have the wherewithal to differentiate between personally insulting those taking part in debates, and their political belief system. The latter is playing the ball, the former is playing the man - and it is *that* which is not acceptable.
The EU referendum outcome and consequences raise similar passions amongst other AoS members, so surely heated debate is only to be expected?
I have no problem whatsoever with heated debate, but heated debate can occur without recourse to personally insulting anyone or losing your rag. It's called behaving like a well-adjusted adult.
It goes back to the same old thing: challenge/attack opinions, not the person holding those opinions - and I expect folk here to have the tolerance and intelligence to differentiate between both and behave accordingly!
If you can't live with that, or find it too much hassle, it might be best to ban political discussions altogether.
Nope. Read the announcement at the top of this section of the forum, in relation to political discussions. The situation is very clear: if you want to discuss politics here, then it must be done within the framework outlined as being acceptable, or if you're incapable of that, don't start or participate in such discussions in the first place - simples! :)
Marco.
Thanks Barry, now corrected although looking back on the thread it appears one of my posts has been deleted without any reasoned explanation as to why, and it certainly broke no rules, just highlighted hypocrisy.
There has been a definite bias to the moderation on this thread with the same old clique rallying to the call of one of the mods who is peddling his own agenda whilst making wild assumptions about others that could not be further from the truth. In a way it's quite hilarious but open debate is healthy even when there are entrenched positions. We have a post calling for threads to be closed because others have different views and effectively saying shut up or shove off (all in the name of democracy :rolleyes:). If repost to this view is unacceptable to the moderators then I will be taking further part in this forum.
Only one post has been moderated on this thread. It was one of yours. I didn't moderate it, I read it and left it up. It was removed later. Assumptions? The posts that are personal attacks on me are still there. Assumptions again?
We are discussing a topic, not the people in the discussion. If you don't want to make that distinction then don't participate.
I think the fundamental problem here is that the issue is inseparable from the people. Thus, some people believe, firmly and passionately, that Britain should leave the EU to avoid becoming part of a German-controlled superstate, and that anyone who doesn't understand this is gullible and has been hoodwinked by <insert name(s) of sinister organisation(s)>. The opposite argument is that Britain must remain in the EU, and will suffer dire consequences if/when we leave. The people who take this view believe that Brexiters have been hoodwinked by the right-wing mass media, and/or are stupid, and/or racist.
Now, no-one likes to be told, even if by implication, that they are gullible, or stupid, or racist, but that is the inevitable conclusion of one or other of the above positions, so even if direct ad hom abuse is avoided, people are going to be offended or upset. As a forum owner/moderator, you can either take the line that we're all grown-ups and should therefore be able to deal with such indirect offence and upset, or that it's too much hassle keeping an eye on 'emotive' threads
walpurgis
17-07-2016, 10:50
I'm going to have a nice cup of tea and a biscuit. Hmm. Shortbread or Bourbon I wonder...
We are discussing a topic, not the people in the discussion. If you don't want to make that distinction then don't participate.
I think that's the fundamental message here! :)
Marco.
I think the fundamental problem here is that the issue is inseparable from the people. Thus, some people believe, firmly and passionately, that Britain should leave the EU to avoid becoming part of a German-controlled superstate, and that anyone who doesn't understand this is gullible and has been hoodwinked by <insert name(s) of sinister organisation(s)>. The opposite argument is that Britain must remain in the EU, and will suffer dire consequences if/when we leave. The people who take this view believe that Brexiters have been hoodwinked by the right-wing mass media, and/or are stupid, and/or racist.
Now, no-one likes to be told, even if by implication, that they are gullible, or stupid, or racist, but that is the inevitable conclusion of one or other of the above positions, so even if direct ad hom abuse is avoided, people are going to be offended or upset. As a forum owner/moderator, you can either take the line that we're all grown-ups and should therefore be able to deal with such indirect offence and upset, or that it's too much hassle keeping an eye on 'emotive' threads
In reference to the emboldened text, then when addressing/challenging your 'opponent', don't use language which conveys those sentiments. I simply don't understand why that's so difficult?
Unless you're some sort of belligerent, self-obsessed 'I am never wrong' moron, with a rather poor grasp of language, you should be able to put forward your argument/express your opinion on any subject, in such a way so as not to simultaneously cause insult to anyone.
Marco.
In reference to the emboldened text, then when addressing/challenging your 'opponent', don't use language which conveys those sentiments. I simply don't understand why that's so difficult?
Unless you're some sort of belligerent, self-obsessed 'I am never wrong' moron, with a rather poor grasp of language, you should be able to put forward your argument/express your opinion on any subject in such a way so as not to simultaneously cause insult to anyone.
Marco.
Well, it's a nice idea, but I don't see how it can be achieved. Let's say I believe that leaving the EU is a daft idea, and so obviously daft that no sensible person would ever vote for such a move. The 52% who did in fact vote in such a way would regard my position as implying that they were daft. How can I express my strongly-held views without offending them? If they take offence, whose fault is that? Skimming through the 'Scottish referendum vote was rigged' thread reinforces my point; however carefully you expressed your passionately-held beliefs, some English people took your comments as being anti-English.
Now, personally, I don't take offence easily. I've never reported a post here on AoS, and have only ever reported one on pfm, which I perceived as bullying. I don't mind people making incorrect assumptions about me; it's more or less inevitable that some will, and it does me no harm, but others are more easily offended or upset. I guess the point is, where does one draw the line between not offending people, even indirectly, and stating one's point firmly?
You need to put yourself into the other peoples shoes when you read your post back, trying to use their mindset, WHILE considering what the site rules say. If in doubt the delete it.
It is not difficult, and is what we have to do, whether we agree or not, irrelevant of the person posting it. It is impossible to get it right 100% of the time but we do try.
BTH K10A
17-07-2016, 12:15
So neither of you has ever worked in business and therefore have no concept of how negotiation works. I suspected as much from earlier posts but thanks for confirming it :)
Only one post has been moderated on this thread. It was one of yours. I didn't moderate it, I read it and left it up. It was removed later. Assumptions? The posts that are personal attacks on me are still there. Assumptions again?
We are discussing a topic, not the people in the discussion. If you don't want to make that distinction then don't participate.
If you were at all consistent in applying that principle there would be some credibility in that statement but your own words say otherwise. It is also unwise to make assumptions about people without first knowing the facts. ;)
Anyway, I see the clique has resorted back to their "tea and biscuits" routine so there's little point in posting anything on this forum anymore.
Marco, Barry I wish you well :goodbye: :wave:
Okay see you.
This is an interesting map, from the EU, showing in red the countries that the EU actually has a preferential trade deal with. It isn't many and includes only 1 top ten economy outside Europe:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2012/june/tradoc_149622.png
Well, it's a nice idea, but I don't see how it can be achieved. Let's say I believe that leaving the EU is a daft idea, and so obviously daft that no sensible person would ever vote for such a move.
Well, there's your problem right there, and it's in using the word "daft", which is completely unnecessary in order to get your point across. It may be "daft" to you, but to someone else of a diametrically opposed mindset, it might be very far from "daft", for equally justifiable reasons! ;)
The trick, therefore, is to convey the message to your opponent that you consider his or her stance as "daft", without actually using that word or other derogatory inferences like it, via quoting (in this case political) data/facts/stats, which confirm and/or add weight to your position/standpoint, and in turn challenge the veracity/validity of their opposite one.
The exact same thing applies in cable discussions, which more often than not are conducted amicably amongst participants, until someone rather rudely tells someone else that they're 'deluded' or 'imagining' what they hear - then it all kicks off, and no wonder!
In precisely the same way, during political discussions, no-one likes being told that they're "daft" for believing what they do, or "not sensible" for voting for a particular policy or policies.
If you've got a brain in your head, possess the ability to control your emotions and show tolerance towards those who think differently from you, can accept (and admit) that you may not always be right, then you should be able to discuss any form of emotive topic on an Internet forum, without upsetting anyone.
Marco.
You need to put yourself into the other peoples shoes when you read your post back, trying to use their mindset, WHILE considering what the site rules say. If in doubt then delete it.
It is not difficult, and is what we have to do, whether we agree or not, irrelevant of the person posting it. It is impossible to get it right 100% of the time but we do try.
Spot on - in fact, so much so, it deserves to be lit up in neon lights!
Some folk, not necessarily on here, are under the gross misconception that on AoS we're operating a democracy, and/or you can say and do what you like on ANY forum.
Well, here's the reality: there are rules to be observed on ANY forum where one participates, so the fact is either you comply with them, or face the consequences - and if the latter happens, hold YOURSELF responsible for that outcome, not the behaviour of any mods or "clique".
Right folks, it's a beautiful sunny day here, and we're just about to have lunch, so I may be some time! Laters :cheers:
Marco.
walpurgis
17-07-2016, 14:11
Anyway, I see the clique has resorted back to their "tea and biscuits" routine so there's little point in posting anything on this forum anymore.
Marco, Barry I wish you well :goodbye: :wave:
I've never been called a "clique" before. How many of me does it take to constitute one I wonder?
Perhaps you might find it more rewarding to post on threads actually about Hi-Fi and audio instead of reacting negatively on a non mainstream thread which is being taken far too seriously by people who's input will have not the tiniest amount of impact on what is to be.
It was a nice cuppa actually. I decided to forego the biscuit and had a bag of crisps instead.
Marco, Barry I wish you well :goodbye: :wave:
All the best, Andy. Please don't allow a dispute on a political thread to spoil your enjoyment of the forum, so I hope to see you popping up again in future! :cool:
Marco.
walpurgis
19-07-2016, 16:38
Not quite trade related, but I've just seen that Angela Eagle is no longer going to contest the Labour leadership. I wonder why? No reason has yet been given. Her bid seems all a bit of a 'flash in the pan' really.
Not quite trade related, but I've just seen that Angela Eagle is no longer going to contest the Labour leadership. I wonder why? No reason has yet been given. Her bid seems all a bit of a 'flash in the pan' really.
They are going to have a tough time unseating Corbyn so there is no point in splitting the vote. I reckon Corbyn will walk it again. He does have a weird sort of charisma but it rarely shows through. There has never been a better time in politics in 30 years for someone who is different. But either he is feeling his age or he lacks confidence in himself. Either way he seems to lack energy.
walpurgis
19-07-2016, 20:02
The previously unheard of new challenger Owen Smith seems a bit 'wimpy'. You can tell he's trying to talk the business and sound firm, but it just doesn't quite ring true, unlike Corbyn, who at least sounds as though he believes in what he says.
I agree.
But Corbyn's lack of real-world experience seems to hold him back. His whole work experience is politics but because he refuses to play the game that seems to be useless to him. He has 90 per cent of what he needs to actually be a credible Prime Minister but I think he doesn't have that 10% to find.
walpurgis
19-07-2016, 20:38
Corbyn lacks the flexibility to compromise. With his views being what they are, despite the ghastliness of the tories, I don't see Labour winning a GE with him in charge. He scares people.
Sadly, Corbyn reminds me of Michael Foot: someone who would not compromise his principles for expediency; looked like Werzel Gummage and would not look good on the world stage. Foot was an excellent orator nonetheless; something I don't ascribe to Corbyn.
Yes - for me some of what he says makes perfect sense and I like his refusal to enter into the Punch And Judy soundbite bollocks. On the other hand some of what he says is either badly informed or bat shit crazy.
Not quite trade related, but I've just seen that Angela Eagle is no longer going to contest the Labour leadership. I wonder why? No reason has yet been given. Her bid seems all a bit of a 'flash in the pan' really.
She and Owen Smith, the other leadership contender, had agreed beforehand that whoever received fewer nominations from Labour MPs would drop out, so there would only be one contender. Presumably Owen Smith got more nominations.
I understand the plan is that Smith will promise to keep Corbyn's popular/populist policies, e.g. on anti-austerity, in the hope that Corbyn will stand down.
I think the only way Corbyn will stand down is if the Unions lean on him to do so. Not seen anything about that side of it. I still say if he stands then he will win.
I think the only way Corbyn will stand down is if the Unions lean on him to do so. Not seen anything about that side of it. I still say if he stands then he will win.
I agree that Corbyn will win if he stands again. There's bound to be a lot of backroom discussions and horse-trading between the unions and the candidates to work out a way of Corbyn handing over the leadership to Owen Smith. One problem for Labour is that the unions want different things; e.g. over Trident, so it's not going to easy to find a compromise.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n15/john-lanchester/brexit-blues
This is both long and very good.
walpurgis
03-09-2016, 22:18
Interesting, but not entirely surprising!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/09/03/brexit-shock-threatens-to-do-far-more-damage-to-the-european-eco/
interesting article a you say. There has been very little said about this since the first week or 2.
interesting article a you say. There has been very little said about this since the first week or 2.
Because we're still in the EU, and will be for a couple of years more, at least. In the words of the article:
'But a word of warning. The resilience of the UK economy has fuelled demands among some Leave campaigners for an immediate “hard” exit. This would be a hubristic mistake. Today’s relative calm owes little to any already emerging Brexit dividend, but rather is a mix of three related phenomena – that it will be some while before we actually leave and the meantime things won’t change much, that a strong centre right government rapidly emerged from the political rubble of the vote, and that the Bank of England took immediate stabilising actions.'
Because we're still in the EU, and will be for a couple of years more, at least. In the words of the article:
'But a word of warning. The resilience of the UK economy has fuelled demands among some Leave campaigners for an immediate “hard” exit. This would be a hubristic mistake. Today’s relative calm owes little to any already emerging Brexit dividend, but rather is a mix of three related phenomena – that it will be some while before we actually leave and the meantime things won’t change much, that a strong centre right government rapidly emerged from the political rubble of the vote, and that the Bank of England took immediate stabilising actions.'
Im not a leave campaigner :). Not even camp...
Don't Panic
We won't be leaving the EEC
Our Politicians are too corrupt to allow it
You watch, they will find away for us to stay in regardless of any referendum result, no matter what the result was
Conspiracy theorists are great.
Before the referendum: 'The vote will be fixed, there's no way 'they' will allow a vote to leave'.
After the referendum: 'There won't be a Brexit. 'They' will see to that'.
No doubt after Brexit we'll get: 'We haven't really left the EU. That's just what 'they' want you to think'.
Conspiracy theorists are great.
Before the referendum: 'The vote will be fixed, there's no way 'they' will allow a vote to leave'.
After the referendum: 'There won't be a Brexit. 'They' will see to that'.
No doubt after Brexit we'll get: 'We haven't really left the EU. That's just what 'they' want you to think'.
Especially true when you realise that 'they' are far more interested in party poppers and Romanian rent boys than anything that might be happening in politics or government.
walpurgis
05-09-2016, 11:23
Conspiracy theorists are great.
Are there no conspiracies?
What is a rent boy? Or shouldnt i ask
walpurgis
05-09-2016, 11:25
What is a rent boy? Or shouldnt i ask
Bit like a 'call girl', but for those who don't like ladies. :lol:
Are there no conspiracies?
I'm sure there are, but conspiracy theorists tend to twist the fact to fit the theories. It's also a bit suspicious how these people come to know all these deep, dark secrets that are covered up by the Establishment. A paranoid person might suspect that the Establishment is actually behind some of the rumours, and that the most prolific conspiracy theorists are actually employed by MI5.
What is a rent boy?
Are you a High Court judge?
It makes them comfortable to think there is an all-powerful government pulling the strings and the wool over everyone's eyes.
To live in the real world where the government is composed of idiot perverts who don't have a clue what is going on and wouldn't have the ability to do anything about it even if they did, is far more psychologically disturbing. The Illuminati may be working for their own nefarious ends, but at least we can imagine that they are competent at it.
Especially true when you realise that 'they' are far more interested in party poppers and Romanian rent boys than anything that might be happening in politics or government.
I think you are confused as to who 'they' are in my post. My 'they' are the establishment, rather than the devourers of tabloid tat. Of course, following Brexit, those Romanian rent boys will be shown the door, leaving the way open (hem hem) for British rent boys. Youth unemployment will fall to almost zero in Manchester.
I think you are confused as to who 'they' are in my post. My 'they' are the establishment, rather than the devourers of tabloid tat. Of course, following Brexit, those Romanian rent boys will be shown the door, leaving the way open (hem hem) for British rent boys. Youth unemployment will fall to almost zero in Manchester.
I was talking about the establishment!
It makes them comfortable to think there is an all-powerful government pulling the strings and the wool over everyone's eyes.
To live in the real world where the government is composed of idiot perverts who don't have a clue what is going on and wouldn't have the ability to do anything about it even if they did, is far more psychologically disturbing. The Illuminati may be working for their own nefarious ends, but at least we can imagine that they are competent at it.
Indeed. It's worth remembering that the average government is, as Mencken said, made up of one or two genuinely bright people, a few downright rogues, but mostly poor fish, just like the rest of society.
Ali Tait
05-09-2016, 11:44
Are you a High Court judge?
:D
walpurgis
05-09-2016, 12:02
I'm sure there are, but conspiracy theorists tend to twist the fact to fit the theories. It's also a bit suspicious how these people come to know all these deep, dark secrets that are covered up by the Establishment. A paranoid person might suspect that the Establishment is actually behind some of the rumours, and that the most prolific conspiracy theorists are actually employed by MI5.
Theories evolve from suspicions about things that are regarded as being kept quiet or about which what information is available is seen as misinformation. When there are no solid 'facts' or an atmosphere of secrecy exists, people will rightly theorise that a conspiracy may exist.
Theories evolve from suspicions about things that are regarded as being kept quiet or about which what information is available is seen as misinformation. When there are no solid 'facts' or an atmosphere of secrecy exists, people will rightly theorise that a conspiracy may exist.
Sometimes that's true (e.g. the assassination of JFK), but sometimes it's just daft (e.g. the idea that the moon landings were faked in a film studio). The trouble with avid conspiracy theorists is that they never apply Occam's Razor, and will always prefer a complicated conspiracy to deceive, in which thousands of people agree to participate, over a simpler version of events in which what is supposed to have happened actually did happen.
Arkless Electronics
05-09-2016, 12:58
Don't Panic
We won't be leaving the EEC
Our Politicians are too corrupt to allow it
You watch, they will find away for us to stay in regardless of any referendum result, no matter what the result was
I do very much hope so!
Arkless Electronics
05-09-2016, 13:02
I'm just completely amazed that no one, including the papers (lol) seems to have said the obvious! That Vaz put some very wealthy and powerful people through some embarrassing and difficult questioning (and quite rightly) as Chairman of the Parliamentary home affairs select committee and this appears to be a revenge sting!!
Frank Field next?
hifinutt
23-09-2016, 19:04
well we just lost a car company ...MG to brexit
very sad really
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-37449289
walpurgis
23-09-2016, 19:20
We lost proper MGs years ago.
Brexit may be getting the blame but I dont see it... It had a poor business plan and it wasnt working. If Brexit was the hurdle then why not move to mainland Europe? Its purely financial, as importing all the parts from overseas to be assembled here is not the way to do it... It will affect 25 employees
in there heyday weree a great company but its been long gone as a car company.. shame though
Oops!
Brexit: leading banks set to pull out of UK early next year
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/22/leading-banks-set-to-pull-out-of-brexit-uk
Here is the Observer article that is the 'source' of the above.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/22/brexit-threat-to-british-banks
Long, rambling, I skimmed through to find any substance to the claim that banks are planning to leave. Skim down to the penultimate paragraph and all that emerges is an unsubstantiated supposition that: 'most international banks now have project teams working out what operations they need to move.'
How the Guardian can get from that to its headline is a marvel. I suppose it is called 'journalism' but it just goes to show it's best not to believe everything you read. Unless you're David St Hubbins of course.
How the Guardian can get from that to its headline is a marvel. I suppose it is called 'journalism' but it just goes to show it's best not to believe everything you read.
I think it was probably because the "unsubstantiated supposition" (nb. this is a tautology. What definition of "supposition" are you using here?) was actually from a comment piece that was written by the chief executive of the British Bankers Association.
https://www.bba.org.uk/about-us/
You clearly skimmed the piece too lightly, because as well as missing who this was written by you evidently also missed the sentence after the one you quoted, which reads:
"Many smaller banks plan to start relocation before Christmas; bigger banks are expected to start in the first quarter of next year."
That sounds awfully like a statement of fact, rather than mere opinion, would you not agree?
(Remember, this was written by the chief executive of the BBA)
He's trying to make it sound like a statement of fact when it isn't. Without that he has no article. Which banks specifically? Who has he spoken with there?
The BBA is just a lobby group for bankers, not an independent watchdog or government department. Of course they will ramp up the pressure with this type pf panic fire. They don't want to be forgotten or side-lined in the negotiations. Doesn't mean anything.
Oh and I dispute that 'unsubstantiated supposition' is a tautology. A supposition can be based on substantive evidence, or not.
He's trying to make it sound like a statement of fact when it isn't. Without that he has no article. Which banks specifically? Who has he spoken with there?
The BBA is just a lobby group for bankers, not an independent watchdog or government department. Of course they will ramp up the pressure with this type pf panic fire. They don't want to be forgotten or side-lined in the negotiations. Doesn't mean anything.
Oh and I dispute that 'unsubstantiated supposition' is a tautology. A supposition can be based on substantive evidence, or not.
Oh right okay I'm sure he's just making it up and doesn't know what any of the members of his organisation are actually doing or thinking. I had forgotten that you rejected any evidence that didn't fit with your own opinion as being an untrustworthy source!
But you can't just invent your own definitions for words though, shurely? Maybe you should check a dictionary, and take it up with the publishers? What do the OED know, right? We've had enough of experts!
ROFL!
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/supposition
[emoji1]
That doesn't mean what you think it does either. (I have hons degree in English btw).
A supposition can be based on no facts or knowledge at all or it could be based on a lot of facts and knowledge. the example given ‘they were working on the supposition that his death was murder’ could be based on some knowledge of how he died, or no knowledge of how he died. In the latter case it would be true to say that the supposition was unsubstantiated.
In any case, banks go, banks stay, I don't see the point in this speculation at this early stage. If Brexit has a price we will have to pay it regardless. It is for the best in the long run.
Also regarding 'experts'. Whilst it may be a pleasant fantasy to imagine that everything in the world is taken care of by 'experts' and we don't need to worry, fact is that once something gets beyond a certain level of complexity it is no longer possible to be expert in it (or at it). So you can be an expert horseman, or jumbo jet pilot, but not an expert in, say, economics. This is pretty obvious given that the head of the BBA is writing articles for the Observer for pin money, instead of making millions playing the markets. I bet he didn't predict the banking crisis in 2008 either. Fairly poor show from the 'experts' on that one.
(I have hons degree in English btw).
Blimey. From a proper University?
Blimey. From a proper University?
no need to be rude... of course it was a proper one. Martin is a genius:D
no need to be rude... of course it was a proper one. Martin is a genius:D
I didn't mean to sound rude, he just seemed very proud of it so I thought he might want to give us some more details.
[emoji1]
fair enough; so he should be. I got an O'level, which was pretty good as I didnt write much more than my name ....must have liked my style
, he just seemed very proud of it
[emoji1]
No not really, it was a doddle. Getting into University to do it was the hard part. Obviously I only mentioned it as it seemed relevant to the tautology issue; knowing how much you like experts and all.
Not that I'm suggesting I'm an expert; but I am qualified. ;)
, he just seemed very proud of it
[emoji1]
No not really, it was a doddle. Getting into University to do it was the hard part. Obviously I only mentioned it as it seemed relevant to the tautology issue; knowing how much you like experts and all.
Not that I'm suggesting I'm an expert; but I am qualified. ;)
it seemed relevant to the tautology issue;
At the risk of getting sidetracked from this incredibly informative discussion about the self-inflicted economic disaster the UK is causing by talking about the possibility of leaving the EU, I'm still interested as to what is the definition of "supposition" that you are using. Especially as it seems to be so at odds with the one provided by the OED.
[emoji56]
Oldpinkman
24-10-2016, 10:16
Here is the Observer article that is the 'source' of the above.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/22/brexit-threat-to-british-banks
Long, rambling, I skimmed through to find any substance to the claim that banks are planning to leave. Skim down to the penultimate paragraph and all that emerges is an unsubstantiated supposition that: 'most international banks now have project teams working out what operations they need to move.'
How the Guardian can get from that to its headline is a marvel. I suppose it is called 'journalism' but it just goes to show it's best not to believe everything you read. Unless you're David St Hubbins of course.
And the planet isn't getting any hotter, at least not due to man made causes. At least the lead time to discovering you are wrong on this issue will be shorter than for planetary warming - that is if it turns out the unsubstantiated supposition (sic) is true. (PWC produced a report on the subject based on interviews with senior executives in the leading financial services institutions). Of course - maybe we won't be stupid enough to leave the single market and so won't find out. Brexit may mean Brexit, but exactly what it means changes daily with the headlines. It is obviously evident*** the 3 clowns in charge of it have no coherent consistent idea. Just repeats of unacheiveable promises and delusions.
Given the clowns https://scontent-cdg2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14632879_323968281302995_6941414313845663104_n.jpg ?oh=6957a509d6c2c2d13b466c5d8cbb3d5f&oe=58A0A2C5have got no further than vascillating suggestions, we can but marvel at the achievement on the primary measure of economic management - the exchange rate, which managed an all time (168 year) low on a trade weighted basis (source: Financial Times https://www.ft.com/content/78478eee-e170-32d3-bdbb-b88a98f2f9bd) - which surpasses even the efforts of Jim C and Dennis the eyebrows who had the currency worth more at the time of their IMF bailout. It used to be 4 dollars to the pound ( "a dollar" was 5bob ). How long before we hit 4 pounds to the dollar?
I see on the failed promise front (aka outright lies) that T May has announced there will be exactly £0 pounds extra for the NHS https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/oct/14/no-extra-money-for-nhs-theresa-may-tells-health-chief(nearly £325m per week , rounded down).
And now the government is going to spend a further £15m pa on additional software costs due to Microsoft hiking its prices for business following the collapse of the pound.
Of course, the thing to do with uncomfortable facts which don't support your tenets is to ignore or discredit them - and we all feel much wealthier as a result. Loads of trade deals either with people the EU has them with already, or is likely to get them with before we do, and the EU is likely to get better ones - or wonderful deals with countries whose impact on our economy is on a par with the UK market for kangaroo dung. Excellent.
*** I can do tautology with the best of them :)
. Loads of trade deals either with people the EU has them with already, or is likely to get them with before we do, and the EU is likely to get better ones - or wonderful deals with countries whose impact on our economy is on a par with the UK market for kangaroo dung. Excellent.
:)
Not true, the EU has been a disaster at negotiating trade agreements and there are hardly any in place. Not surprising when you have 27 different vested interests to satisfy before you can sign the deal,
The fact is you think the EU is in general a wonderful thing with a few minor bad points and I think the EU is in general a terrible thing with a few minor good points. Consequently I am happy to pay whatever price is required in order to extricate us from it.
I don't understand the focus on the relative value of the pound that seems to obsess those who wanted to remain in the EU, but then I actually know something about economics so that is probably why.
walpurgis
24-10-2016, 11:39
I think the EU is in general a terrible thing with a few minor good points. Consequently I am happy to pay whatever price is required in order to extricate us from it.
I never liked the EU, but originally was not in favour of Brexit. I now tend to agree with you Martin.
Oldpinkman
24-10-2016, 12:06
Another degree Martin? Or that omniscience that assists you with climate change. No subject in which you lack more expertise than anyone you speak to
We economists describe money as a "medium of exchange". Something you can swap for something else. It superceded barter in most countries. Early systems used scarce commodities like gold with an intrinsic value based on its scarcity. Modern economies issue promises. Money has no intrinsic value. It's worth what you can swap it for something else. In effect world exchange rates measure what you can swap your bushels of oats for other peoples bananas and Mercedes. So the easiest way to work out what your economy is worth, is to compare what its currency can buy. You do that by looking at exchange rates on a trade weighted basis (the significance of a countries rate is proportionate to how much trade you do with each other).
As for trade deals - lets use some unpleasant facts - those awkward things blusterers prefer to ignore
Who did you have in mind for being better than the EU at negotiating deals? The EU have 50, Switzerland 38, Canada and Australia 15 each. Switzerlands of course includes their deal with China which gives China immediate access to Swiss markets but Switzerland progressive access to Chinas markets over a 15 year period. (Just so we don't forget quality - and just play a counting game)
The CBI agrees with me http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/uk-and-the-european-union/eu-business-facts/10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf/
Which country(ies) are you suggesting have done better and what evidence do you have in support?
walpurgis
24-10-2016, 12:14
Nice to see that we have a thread striving to put the world right. I imagine debate here will have a huge impact on trade deals and policy decisions involving the UK, Europe and also worldwide.
Just a quick reminder to folks here re politics.
http://theartofsound.net/forum/announcement.php?f=10
Another degree Martin? Or that omniscience that assists you with climate change. No subject in which you lack more expertise than anyone you speak to
We economists describe money as a "medium of exchange". Something you can swap for something else. It superceded barter in most countries. Early systems used scarce commodities like gold with an intrinsic value based on its scarcity. Modern economies issue promises. Money has no intrinsic value. It's worth what you can swap it for something else. In effect world exchange rates measure what you can swap your bushels of oats for other peoples bananas and Mercedes. So the easiest way to work out what your economy is worth, is to compare what its currency can buy. You do that by looking at exchange rates on a trade weighted basis (the significance of a countries rate is proportionate to how much trade you do with each other).
As for trade deals - lets use some unpleasant facts - those awkward things blusterers prefer to ignore
Who did you have in mind for being better than the EU at negotiating deals? The EU have 50, Switzerland 38, Canada and Australia 15 each. Switzerlands of course includes their deal with China which gives China immediate access to Swiss markets but Switzerland progressive access to Chinas markets over a 15 year period. (Just so we don't forget quality - and just play a counting game)
The CBI agrees with me http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/uk-and-the-european-union/eu-business-facts/10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf/
Which country(ies) are you suggesting have done better and what evidence do you have in support?
The EU has no trade deal with any major economy. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
Such big players as Montenegro and the Faroe Isles. If they are so good at negotiating trade deals is this motley list really the best they could do in fifty years? Sadly yes.
You do realise that it is possible to trade with countries without having a trade deal?
The value of a nations currency is not a measure of the success of an economy, or its health. It can be an indicator, but generally speaking it is easy to tell if an economy is a basket case way before the currency tanks.
The Pound has been over-valued for years, due to many various contributing factors. As has the Euro, for that matter. For a country with several decades of balance of payments deficits there are many positive aspects to a weakened pound, notably cheaper exports (bringing in foreign currency reserves and increasing manufacturing output), and making imports less attractive compared to equivalent domestic products (the money spent stays in the UK).
Thus currency fluctuation is actually about swings and roundabouts, and a rise or fall in the value of the pound will, broadly speaking, gain as much as it loses either way. It just so happens that in our current situation a fall in value of the pound is IMO a marginal positive.
That is, unless you are an expat living in Europe and you didn't get out of sterling before the Brexit vote. But then we all have to take one for the team every now and then.
Arkless Electronics
24-10-2016, 13:40
Well I'm still 100% anti brexit and everything it stands for and always will be. I will do any small things I can do personally to mess it up or boycott it and will in future vote for any party that promises to bring us back into Europe.
Jeremy Corbyn doesn't like the EU, I thought you were a big fan of his?
Oldpinkman
24-10-2016, 14:36
Well I'm still 100% anti brexit and everything it stands for and always will be. I will do any small things I can do personally to mess it up or boycott it and will in future vote for any party that promises to bring us back into Europe.
Shit - that looks like both of us resolving, from opposite directions, to vote LibDem! :mental:
Oldpinkman
24-10-2016, 14:39
Lets break it down into bite size pieces shall we Macca
The question, asked twice, in response to your statement that the EU gets poor trade deals, was "which country are you using as an example of a country which gets good trade deals"?
Just answer a straight question
Oldpinkman
24-10-2016, 14:48
I'd love to ask Martin, as a separate question, what basis you have for deciding the pound was overvalued at just over its all time 168 year trade weighted low point, but I doubt it would be productive.
I will observe that you are correct about the balance of payments problem. We are, as Mark Carney puts it, dependent on the kindness of strangers. In simple terms, we need inward investment. A Nissan Qashquai plant in Sunderland would help. But in this context, so does Chinese and Russian Oligarchs buying Mayfair houses. And so do Financial Services business buying or renting premesis in the City. We'd rather they didn't stop owning them - sell them - and take their capital flows out of the country. Actually, forget taking them out of the country, we are up shit creek if they don't keep bringing them into the country.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-24/brexit-bulletin-bankers-threaten-exodus
THe other teency worry on exchange rates you forgot to mention is on imports you can't switch from importing. Then you get Marmitegate, or Microsoftgate, and a risk of stagflation. When you currency underperforms Argentina - stagflation looms as a real possibility. (it's only outperforming Zimbabwe because they had stopped playing the game - but if they reintroduce the Zimbabwe dollar, we may have a competitor for biggest basket case). It's a real possibility when you can't grow your own bananas and coffee beans, can't realistically replace Chinese TV's with UK ones, and when your best export is services not goods, and your market for those is mainly the EU.
walpurgis
24-10-2016, 14:51
I think I'll go and have a nice cuppa and a biscuit.
Oldpinkman
24-10-2016, 14:53
And finally, keeping things separate to reduce your excuses for failing to answer a straight question, your smug assumption about expats and foreign exchange was another example of knowing best, but knowing wrong
On 24 May I transferred the whole of our capital out at a spot rate of 1.3002 - not quite the best available this year, but a good bit better than todays spot of 1.10 (to me - not being a major financial institution trading at exchange spot rates)
Of course, every penny I earn today and want to spend anywhere in the world other than the UK is worth 20% less than before the dumb vote. But I got the capital out in time! ;)
Arkless Electronics
24-10-2016, 14:53
I think for myself Martin.
There is a cancer growing in the heart of this country and others lately in the form of bigotry, racism, nationalism, jingoism, hate and intolerance and it needs cutting out at any cost.
I see front pages of gutter press tabloids telling me I should hate those of other nationalities and colour who have found themselves having to flee death and destruction in wars caused by us and our allies and I think "this is not the Great Britain I grew up in".
There is a rising Untermensch in my country who considers it ok to boo a Polish women on Question Time merely for being Polish, to send racist leaflets to people in Portsmouth, to say publicly that they hope migrant dinghy's sink with the death of all those on board rather than them reach our shores... These are exactly the types who caused brexit to win the referendum, a referendum which should never in a million years have been offered for exactly the reason that it was always going to draw the haters and bigots out of the woodwork.
Sure there will be a probable majority of pro brexiters who took into account the economy, the democracy or lack of it in Brussels etc.... but without the farce of allowing NF, BNP, UKIP and "Millwall boot boys" types to have their voices heard and their vote counted, brexit would have lost by maybe 30% rather than won by a paltry 4% (which is being referred to now as "overwhelming" and "a landslide" by Tory rags!). This is why the referendum should never have been held and why I will continue to fight the result, the concept and the process as long as I draw breath.
Note that I didn't mention the economy. In comparison with the importance of the above I simply couldn't care less about the economy...
Richard - I do not have a 'benchmark' for trade deals. part of the problem is that people assume no trade deal then no trade when in fact it just means no preferential tariffs, or no tariffs at all. To an extent the EU, being a closed free trade area, are taking in each other's washing. As you are aware globalisation is virgin territory for everyone.
If I had to pick a benchmark I would probably say UK 1750 to 1955. problem is the world is very different now.
None of this disguises the fact that the EU has done nothing to extend the free trade area outside of Europe, which was my main point. We are losing our free trade deal with the Faroe Isles and Albania. Boo hoo.
I'm glad that you were able to cover yourself with the currency fluctuation, btw I don't put any importance in the claim that the pound was already at an all time low, we both know that there are many ways to calculate that and get different answers, one as valid as the other, proves nothing.
Jez - This is an island that has spent it's history defending itself against foreign aggression and as a consequence the people tend to be instinctively insular. I don't go along with the dialectic argument that you either let anyone come and live and work here or you are a racist.
There are proper racists in this country (your 'Millwall Boot Boys), as there are in any country. Then there are people who are just a bit ignorant. The proper racists are maybe a fraction of 1%, the ignorant maybe 20%. A lot of the ignorant will have voted Remain btw, since although they are ignorant of other cultures they will not necessarily be motivated to vote on those lines.
I live in a poor area, full of immigrants from pretty much every shithole country in the world, I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates to me that anything has changed since the referendum. And this is an area that several years ago had many BNP councillors. That isn't to say there are not racially provoked attacks, but they have been happening for the last 50 years. The idea that post referendum there has been a huge upsurge in racism and racist-inspired violence is absurd.
Jez - This is an island that has spent it's history
Ahem.
(I would post something more substantive, but I fear this is one of many subjects where no-one's mind is likely to be changed, whatever is said. As someone or other once said: 'I have come to the melancholy conclusion that people only ever agree on things that they do not really care about').
Oldpinkman
24-10-2016, 16:08
I should just note I share Jez' concerns about non-economic issues. The UK looks sad and bitter from the rest of the world. And hate filled. And bigoted
I think that was the biggest tragedy. Flawed though the EU was, it aspired to unity, harmony, peace, integration, sharing and compassion - not nationalism and competetive advantage at the expense of others. The new National Socialist party ruling the country (unelected) aspires to nationalism, and state control and intervention, and national, if not yet racial purity (although too many of its supporters fail to make that distinction). It has been hijacked by its right wing extreme. Theresa May perhaps only claims an interest in the Royal Prerogative for the purpose of invoking article 50, but you get the feeling she thinks it would be easier to extend the principle and abolish the Reichstag.
It is such a pity that the main viable opposition is in hiding, having been hijacked by its left wing extremists - who have effectively just stolen the brand. As Tony Benn once said - the Labour party is like a bird - to fly it needs both a left wing and a right wing. But all too easily its left wing dominated membership forgets that, and dooms it to electoral irrelevance, and an irrelevance as an opposition.
Not a pretty sight :(
Arkless Electronics
24-10-2016, 16:29
Richard - I do not have a 'benchmark' for trade deals. part of the problem is that people assume no trade deal then no trade when in fact it just means no preferential tariffs, or no tariffs at all. To an extent the EU, being a closed free trade area, are taking in each other's washing. As you are aware globalisation is virgin territory for everyone.
If I had to pick a benchmark I would probably say UK 1750 to 1955. problem is the world is very different now.
None of this disguises the fact that the EU has done nothing to extend the free trade area outside of Europe, which was my main point. We are losing our free trade deal with the Faroe Isles and Albania. Boo hoo.
I'm glad that you were able to cover yourself with the currency fluctuation, btw I don't put any importance in the claim that the pound was already at an all time low, we both know that there are many ways to calculate that and get different answers, one as valid as the other, proves nothing.
Jez - This is an island that has spent it's history defending itself against foreign aggression and as a consequence the people tend to be instinctively insular. I don't go along with the dialectic argument that you either let anyone come and live and work here or you are a racist.
There are proper racists in this country (your 'Millwall Boot Boys), as there are in any country. Then there are people who are just a bit ignorant. The proper racists are maybe a fraction of 1%, the ignorant maybe 20%. A lot of the ignorant will have voted Remain btw, since although they are ignorant of other cultures they will not necessarily be motivated to vote on those lines.
I live in a poor area, full of immigrants from pretty much every shithole country in the world, I have seen absolutely nothing that indicates to me that anything has changed since the referendum. And this is an area that several years ago had many BNP councillors. That isn't to say there are not racially provoked attacks, but they have been happening for the last 50 years. The idea that post referendum there has been a huge upsurge in racism and racist-inspired violence is absurd.
This is in fact an island that was forged by foreign aggression!! It is our own aggression, as foreigners, along with our allies, that caused the whole debacle in the M.E that resulted in there being so many refugees!
One does not need to be a paid up member of the BNP to be a racist.. ignorant, yes, and there are more than enough indigenous ignoramuses... Your 20% are the ones I hear using "the N word" amongst themselves in the pub, chatting about how we should "send 'em all back" etc. They are the ones who the character of Alf Garnet was a piss take of but who are too thick to realise it was a piss take! I hate to admit it but I have friends who whilst being life long Labour voters are openly racist in private, which truly disgusts me.
It is these same ignoramuses who, if offered the privacy of the polling booth to register their ignorant hatred, would likely also vote to lock up gays, or deport all blacks, and of course would just love the opportunity to vote for the return of the death sentence! This is why we don't offer a referendum on such volatile issues..... the ignorant and intellectually challenged cannot be allowed to change a nations laws and mores based on knee jerk reactionary-ism, prejudice and hatred.
Hence it was so wrong to allow a referendum on brexit. Even more so when the reason for it was political capital for Cameron!
It is absurd to suggest that brexit has not resulted in more racist attacks when statistics show a huge rise of between 30 and 60%! As bad or worse is the way that brexit has, to a certain section of society, legitimised their hatred and racism. Tabloid newspapers carry front page headlines which seem to me to be bordering on breaking the law re "incitement to racial hatred".... Now we could take this further and bemoan the human condition for the fact that newspapers will stoop so low as to stir up hatred and bigotry for the sake of sales... but that would be stretching out "terms of reference" a bit far...
The fact that you describe the provenance of these unfortunate people as "pretty much every shithole country" is no doubt symptomatic of the cancer which seems to be metastasising within every limb of our once tolerant nation..... and not just ours. Look at Le Penn and Trump elsewhere.
Arkless Electronics
24-10-2016, 16:34
I should just note I share Jez' concerns about non-economic issues. The UK looks sad and bitter from the rest of the world. And hate filled. And bigoted
I think that was the biggest tragedy. Flawed though the EU was, it aspired to unity, harmony, peace, integration, sharing and compassion - not nationalism and competetive advantage at the expense of others. The new National Socialist party ruling the country (unelected) aspires to nationalism, and state control and intervention, and national, if not yet racial purity (although too many of its supporters fail to make that distinction). It has been hijacked by its right wing extreme. Theresa May perhaps only claims an interest in the Royal Prerogative for the purpose of invoking article 50, but you get the feeling she thinks it would be easier to extend the principle and abolish the Reichstag.
It is such a pity that the main viable opposition is in hiding, having been hijacked by its left wing extremists - who have effectively just stolen the brand. As Tony Benn once said - the Labour party is like a bird - to fly it needs both a left wing and a right wing. But all too easily its left wing dominated membership forgets that, and dooms it to electoral irrelevance, and an irrelevance as an opposition.
Not a pretty sight :(
Well said Richard.
The fact that you describe the provenance of these unfortunate people as "pretty much every shithole country" is no doubt symptomatic...
I raised an eyebrow at that as well. Although I am sure I was wrong to do so as will no doubt be explained.
One positive about the crashing pound (if we can forget the 20% increase in costs of Japanese cartridges, or valves from Germany) is that when we finally throw off the European yoke we will be saving even more money that we can then spend instead on the NHS, or perhaps tax cuts, or maybe riot shields and water cannon. This is because we apparently pay our EU subs in euros, so the £350 million a week that we wasted on these evil thieves is currently now actually(***qv above) somewhere north of £400 million a week. Even more reason to get out fast!!!
Sent from my sofa
walpurgis
24-10-2016, 17:47
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/10/16/euro-house-of-cards-to-collapse-warns-ecb-prophet/
This is in fact an island that was forged by foreign aggression!! It is our own aggression, as foreigners, along with our allies, that caused the whole debacle in the M.E that resulted in there being so many refugees!
One does not need to be a paid up member of the BNP to be a racist.. ignorant, yes, and there are more than enough indigenous ignoramuses... Your 20% are the ones I hear using "the N word" amongst themselves in the pub, chatting about how we should "send 'em all back" etc. They are the ones who the character of Alf Garnet was a piss take of but who are too thick to realise it was a piss take! I hate to admit it but I have friends who whilst being life long Labour voters are openly racist in private, which truly disgusts me.
It is these same ignoramuses who, if offered the privacy of the polling booth to register their ignorant hatred, would likely also vote to lock up gays, or deport all blacks, and of course would just love the opportunity to vote for the return of the death sentence! This is why we don't offer a referendum on such volatile issues..... the ignorant and intellectually challenged cannot be allowed to change a nations laws and mores based on knee jerk reactionary-ism, prejudice and hatred.
Hence it was so wrong to allow a referendum on brexit. Even more so when the reason for it was political capital for Cameron!
It is absurd to suggest that brexit has not resulted in more racist attacks when statistics show a huge rise of between 30 and 60%! As bad or worse is the way that brexit has, to a certain section of society, legitimised their hatred and racism. Tabloid newspapers carry front page headlines which seem to me to be bordering on breaking the law re "incitement to racial hatred".... Now we could take this further and bemoan the human condition for the fact that newspapers will stoop so low as to stir up hatred and bigotry for the sake of sales... but that would be stretching out "terms of reference" a bit far...
The fact that you describe the provenance of these unfortunate people as "pretty much every shithole country" is no doubt symptomatic of the cancer which seems to be metastasising within every limb of our once tolerant nation..... and not just ours. Look at Le Penn and Trump elsewhere.
I broadly agree with your second and third paragraphs. Disagree that British 'aggression' is responsible for the state of the middle east. As a Kurd said to me just yesterday, it is oil that is the cause of all the problems. Okay so we backed up idiotic American interventionism when we probably shouldn't have, but the Yanks have been calling the shots since 1941 and you can blame Hitler and the Japanese for that, it is hardly our bloody fault. My solution would have been to keep the entire middle east and North Africa as a British/American protectorate after WW2. Not very PC I know but there would have been an awful lot less blood and suffering. (Probably, you can never get away from the law of unintended consequences of course).
The fact is these people are from shithole countries, that is why they came here. I have a colleague just come over to live here from South Africa, she cannot believe the difference. We moan, but this is actually Shangri-La compared to where 95% of the rest of the worlds population live. Lot less racism and religious bigotry here than most places, too. Now I am not disagreeing that the Brexit win was a tangential victory for racism. Clearly racists believe it was. But to extend that to suggest that this is the start of some fantastical racist revolution is just hysterical hand waving. It would never happen in this country.
Arkless Electronics
24-10-2016, 18:22
New job in The Ministry of Truth Martin? Or just practising Newspeak?
The oil itself is to blame and not the Americans for stopping at nothing to get it?
We are blameless in spite of not only supporting the yanks but being an actual ally in all of this?
The west should occupy the M.E. so we can steal their oil? Even if it's "not very PC"?
Racism and bigotry in the UK is fine 'cos it's worse still elsewhere?
Brexit did not herald the start of a "fantastical racist revolution"? This one I won't leave rhetorical. It has not only caused an increase in actual racist assaults etc but it has legitimised such bigotry in the minds of the ignorant and allowed headlines in the gutter press which would have been unthinkable even for them a few years back. When do they start shooting a new series of "Love Thy Neighbour"? Brexit has changed the nation to a point where before long it won't be too un-PC for them to do that... expect a petition calling for it in The Daily Mail before long... with Katy Hopkins as the white housewife no doubt... and maybe a family from Syria next door to keep it topical....
Brexit did not herald the start of a "fantastical racist revolution"
Whilst not everyone who voted LEAVE was racist, every racist voted LEAVE.
Racism and bigotry in the UK is fine 'cos it's worse still elsewhere?
....
If you are just going to put words in my mouth then argue against them I might as well bow out as I'm clearly not required. Incidentally 'Love Thy Neighbour' was actually about an unsympathetically portrayed white racist who was made a fool of every week by his own family and his black neighbour. It was shit, but it was actually a (now extremely dated) attempt to attack racism, not encourage it. Have you never watched it?
walpurgis
24-10-2016, 18:41
Whilst not everyone who voted LEAVE was racist, every racist voted LEAVE.
Ah. I did wonder. Not seen the statistics though.
Arkless Electronics
24-10-2016, 18:41
If you are just going to put words in my mouth then argue against them I might as well bow out as I'm clearly not required. Incidentally 'Love Thy Neighbour' was actually about an unsympathetically portrayed white racist who was made a fool of every week by his own family and his black neighbour. It was shit, but it was actually a (now extremely dated) attempt to attack racism, not encourage it. Have you never watched it?
Just using the twisting of words and there interpretation to suit an agenda, as you yourself did in your last post.... hence the first line of my last post...
Anyway, enough politics for one day:)
Oldpinkman
25-10-2016, 08:46
Not true, the EU has been a disaster at negotiating trade agreements and there are hardly any in place. Not surprising when you have 27 different vested interests to satisfy before you can sign the deal,
... but then I actually know something about economics so that is probably why.
The EU has no trade deal with any major economy. See here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_free_trade_agreements
You do realise that it is possible to trade with countries without having a trade deal?
Richard - I do not have a 'benchmark' for trade deals. part of the problem is that people assume no trade deal then no trade when in fact it just means no preferential tariffs, or no tariffs at all. To an extent the EU, being a closed free trade area, are taking in each other's washing. As you are aware globalisation is virgin territory for everyone.
If I had to pick a benchmark I would probably say UK 1750 to 1955. problem is the world is very different now.
None of this disguises the fact that the EU has done nothing to extend the free trade area outside of Europe, which was my main point. We are losing our free trade deal with the Faroe Isles and Albania. Boo hoo.
So trade deals don't matter - but our ability to negotiate them outside the EU is the best reason for leaving
The EU is better than any country or group in the world at negotiating trade agreements, but not as good as Queen Victoria was
Brilliant!
martian sunrise
25-10-2016, 09:04
It is such a pity that the main viable opposition is in hiding, having been hijacked by its left wing extremists - who have effectively just stolen the brand.
whilst I agree with you, the same could be said for the Tories - they appear to have had their brand hijacked by UKIP...
Oldpinkman
25-10-2016, 10:01
whilst I agree with you, the same could be said for the Tories - they appear to have had their brand hijacked by UKIP...
Yup
So trade deals don't matter - but our ability to negotiate them outside the EU is the best reason for leaving
The EU is better than any country or group in the world at negotiating trade agreements, but not as good as Queen Victoria was
Brilliant!
Again, putting words in my mouth and then responding to them. What a waste of everyone's time. Is anyone here actually capable of having a reasoned debate?
Again, putting words in my mouth and then responding to them. What a waste of everyone's time. Is anyone here actually capable of having a reasoned debate?
It's rather difficult, Martin, because every time a person puts anything forward it is just dismissed by you as being untrustworthy speculation, and you usually go on to say that you understand the issues far better than anyone else because you have a deep understanding of the subject thanks to your own extensive private research on the issue which you have somehow managed to fit in alongside your investigations into ancient alien civilisations on earth, and apparently also Mars.
[emoji56] [emoji1] [emoji56]
I think the more pertinent point about trade deals is that currently we belong to the largest free trade area on the planet, and conveniently it is also very close to us geographically. I for one don't really understand the logic behind why leaving this trade area will be of any benefit to us, if the argument is that it will enable us to strike hypothetical trade deals with other countries that are further away and with whom we do less trade.
But then probably this is because I have a poor grasp of the issue?
It's rather difficult, Martin, because every time a person puts anything forward it is just dismissed by you as being untrustworthy speculation, and you usually go on to say that you understand the issues far better than anyone else because you have a deep understanding of the subject thanks to your own extensive private research on the issue which you have somehow managed to fit in alongside your investigations into ancient alien civilisations on earth, and apparently Mars.
[emoji56] [emoji1] [emoji56]
?
See my previous post.
You posted a link to a Guardian article. I offered the opinion that the article was bollocks, as was the article it drew from, and explained why I thought that. You may agree, or disagree with my conclusions, I am not concerned one way or the other, although I do wonder why you would bother posting it if all you were expecting was a chorus of 'Oh that's terrible news, thanks for sharing.'
What I won't do is continue to engage in debate with people who seem incapable of addressing my arguments and instead prefer to invent a position for me and then address that. Presumably because that involves a lot less thought and effort.
See my previous post.
You posted a link to a Guardian article. I offered the opinion that the article was bollocks, as was the article it drew from, and explained why I thought that.
That's all you ever do though it seems. You always have a reason to dismiss the opposing view, and it is usually for incredibly spurious or disingenuous reasons(ie that guardian piece was bollocks because you deemed that the chief exec of the BBA was just reporting a hypothesis, rather than facts that he was party to thanks to his job. You further attempted to undermine his piece by saying if he was any good he'd be earning millions as a banker rather than "writing articles for pin money" when clearly writing the comment piece is the kind of thing he does as part of his job).
It's not debate really because you rarely address what is being said, rather just attempt to dismiss the authority of the source, and usually dismiss any of us holding the opposite view to you as being less well informed and lacking your understanding.
I'm pinning a lot of my hope on the "second rate lawyer" Kier Starmer at the moment, for the EU and for Labour generally.... and Nicola Sturgeon's going great guns as well.
You have been warned as has everyone, to stick to your point and not play the man.
I didn't undermine his piece, I simply pointed out that it had no real substance to it, no quoted sources, no evidence presented, and that the writer had a vested interest.
It's called being critical, and it is absolutely necessary to do this when dealing with any published article to avoid being taken in hook line and sinker by a load of bollocks. I personally don't regard any source as gospel, whether it is saying something I like/agree with or not. Anything written in a newspaper, whether reportage or comment, goes to the bottom of my credibility list automatically.
Oldpinkman
25-10-2016, 13:28
Not true, the EU has been a disaster at negotiating trade agreements and there are hardly any in place. Not surprising when you have 27 different vested interests to satisfy before you can sign the deal,
OK
Here we go again Martin.
Please justify that comment that the EU has been a disaster in negotiating trade agreements. The comment about Britain pre-1955 being good at trade agreements is too risible to respond to further (how many IT and complex FX services did those pre-1955 non-existent "deals" reference. Instead of banal platitudes, please reference the following points
1) Demonstrate that others have done a better job than the EU - the CBI think the EU has done a wonderful job, and justifies it's conclusion http://www.cbi.org.uk/business-issues/uk-and-the-european-union/eu-business-facts/10-facts-about-eu-trade-deals-pdf/
2) Specifically address the point (referred to in the CBI paper) that the EU is in the latter stages of negotiating deals with the USA, Japan and Canada, and that those would provide access to 2/3 of the Worlds markets by value
3) as RPDX has pointed out - we have the ultimate deal with a very large market right on our doorstep.
4) Most of the delays in the big deals are the other side - not the UK. For example Canada has to obtain agreement from all 10 provinces, who have significantly varied objectives and who have been responsible for most of the delays in the negotiations (although the EU delays pick up the headlines for Express readers) http://www.eve.coop/?a=90
5) It's not like Australia is any easier - take a look at the law regarding E-cigs down under https://www.vapingmad.com.au/e-cig-nicotine-laws/
6) Address the CBI point that a good trade deal is not about tarrifs but about opening non-tarrif barriers and in particular of importance to the UK is opening markets for services
And remember - though we are a great big important economy, we are less than 1/4 the size of the rest of the EU - and smaller than California.
I didn't undermine his piece, I simply pointed out that it had no real substance to it, no quoted sources, no evidence presented, and that the writer had a vested interest.
But he isn't a journalist. He was writing a piece setting out what what the current position is of his members.
It is ludicrous to expect him to qualify every statement he makes, so what you are in effect saying is that you are accusing him of lying, or at the very least being incompetent to do his job. There really is no other interpretation of it as he is clearly stating it as a fact, and you are saying that you do not believe him.
You have been warned as has everyone, to stick to your point and not play the man.
Is that addressed to me, Grant? Forgive me if you think I have contravened this in some way, surely it's not forbidden to point out flaws in someone's position, or method?
I didn't undermine his piece, I simply pointed out that it had no real substance to it, no quoted sources, no evidence presented, and that the writer had a vested interest.
So you can be an expert horseman, or jumbo jet pilot, but not an expert in, say, economics. This is pretty obvious given that the head of the BBA is writing articles for the Observer for pin money, instead of making millions playing the markets.
Would it be obtuse of me to ask what is the definition of "undermine" that you are using?
[emoji1] [emoji9] [emoji12] [emoji56]
Gordon Steadman
25-10-2016, 14:44
One thing and one thing alone matter about all this.:doh:
I have seen our pensions decimated - literally - over the last few months. So serious is this that we will have to consider moving back to the UK in order to survive. We did the opposite to do that last time, this is getting boring!!
It can only get worse:(
I have seen our pensions decimated - literally - over the last few months. So serious is this that we will have to consider moving back to the UK in order to survive. We did the opposite to do that last time, this is getting boring!!
You are being very selfish just looking at the direct catastrophic impact upon your own life, rather than the enormous benefit being provided to the 37% of voters who have a vague uneasy feeling about the EU that they can;t put their finger on really but they want to have more control over everything rather than being pushed around by Brussels and forced to eat straight bananas. The 1.2million UK citizens living in the EU have to man up and stop moaning...
...unless you are an expat living in Europe and you didn't get out of sterling before the Brexit vote. But then we all have to take one for the team every now and then.
CBI think the EU has done a wonderful job
This barely deserves comment. The CBI? If they really knew anything about business they would be making millions selling knickers on Oxford Street, rather than working for the CBI. Case dismissed. That Dyson bloke thinks leaving the EU is a good thing, and he charges £300 for a hairdryer that he gets made in Malaysia, so is clearly nobody's fool.
Gordon Steadman
25-10-2016, 16:19
You are being very selfish just looking at the direct catastrophic impact upon your own life, rather than the enormous benefit being provided to the 37% of voters who have a vague uneasy feeling about the EU that they can;t put their finger on really but they want to have more control over everything rather than being pushed around by Brussels and forced to eat straight bananas.
:lol: Aha, my irony button slipped!
Ah! So many personal attacks and misrepresentations, where to even begin responding? Should I even bother?
Richard - you miss my point about British trade in previous centuries. My point was that since the 1970s, arguably a little earlier, world trade entered an entirely new paradigm. So there can be no comparison. And the EU has not managed to bag a trade deal with a major economy in this new paradigm, despite having almost half a century to do it. We could not do worse on our own, since zero deals is de-facto the worst you can do. But we might do better on our own.
But he isn't a journalist. He was writing a piece setting out what what the current position is of his members.
It is ludicrous to expect him to qualify every statement he makes, so what you are in effect saying is that you are accusing him of lying, or at the very least being incompetent to do his job. There really is no other interpretation of it as he is clearly stating it as a fact, and you are saying that you do not believe him.
No. I don't doubt that banks have contingencies in place for a worst-case scenario. They would be remiss if they did not. He implies that it is likely they will use them. He offers nothing tangible to back this up. The Guardian article you linked us to takes this a step further and claims it is going to happen soon. Even the original article does not say this.
The writer of the article is a paid lobbyist. It needs to be read in that light.
No. I don't doubt that banks have contingencies in place for a worst-case scenario. They would be remiss if they did not. He implies that it is likely they will use them. He offers nothing tangible to back this up. The Guardian article you linked us to takes this a step further and claims it is going to happen soon. Even the original article does not say this.
The writer of the article is a paid lobbyist. It needs to be read in that light.
I do completely understand what you are trying to say, but I think you are wrong and that what you say is often factually incorrect and misleading.
Mr Browne is not implying anything, nor does the article I linked to exaggerate what he says, as I pointed out in my first response to your dismissal of it. Again, this is the sentence from his original comment piece:
"Many smaller banks plan to start relocations before Christmas; bigger banks are expected to start in the first quarter of next year."
It is not framed as an opinion, or as a prediction, but quite clearly he is purporting to report what he knows from his members. I concede that the headline of the article I linked suggests that the big banks are going to pull out of the UK early next year, whereas what he actually says is that far less drastically they are only going to start to relocate parts of their businesses early next year. Your response to this is "I don't believe him" it is as simple as that. Furthermore you seemed to object to his unsubstantiated supposition that the banks had teams looking at relocation, and yet now you say
"I don't doubt that banks have contingencies in place for a worst-case scenario. They would be remiss if they did not."
I find it hard to separate what you declare there with what you so objected to earlier in the thread which was this bit:
"But businesses can’t wait to the last minute. It takes years to move operations. Banks might hope for the best but have to plan for the worst. Most international banks now have project teams working out which operations they need to move to ensure they can continue serving customers, the date by which this must happen and how best to do it."
Even that well known left wing disruptive organ The Telegraph reported on Mr Browne's comments without questioning his legitimacy. They even went so far as to say:
"A Government spokesman attempted to play down Mr Browne's concerns, saying: “We are determined to maintain the City's leading position as one of the key centres of global finance as we make a success out of Brexit."
(my emphasis)
They aren't personal attacks Martin, it is just taking you to task for the way you attempt to simply dismiss points of view that you do not agree with, rather than actually arguing your position.
R
Robert thank you for an intelligent response. My point all along was that he was not saying anything that was not already pretty obvious (that contingency plans must exist in at least some proto-form) but couching it in terms of doom inside the rest of his article. And the Guardian's reportage is simply untrue. I probably didn't make that distinction clear enough.
In any case the significance of his article is diluted by the fact he is a paid lobbyist and therefore has a specific agenda which does not encompass anyone's best interest except the people he lobbies for. Ask yourself, apart from making a few hundred quid, what is his motivation for writing this piece? What is he hoping to achieve?
...the Guardian's reportage is simply untrue. I probably didn't make that distinction clear enough.
I continue to be puzzled as to why you keep saying this. As I conceded above, they did write it as if they would be completely relocating, rather than just commencing partial relocation, but that's arguably just spin and certainly not "completely untrue". However I get the feeling that it is not just this that you object to.
In any case the significance of his article is diluted by the fact he is a paid lobbyist and therefore has a specific agenda which does not encompass anyone's best interest except the people he lobbies for. Ask yourself, apart from making a few hundred quid, what is his motivation for writing this piece? What is he hoping to achieve?
I just disagree with your position on this. The BBA is indeed a trade organisation which does lobbying and PR alongside all the other functions performed by a trade association. It is not just a lobbying group and he is not simply "a paid lobbyist". Even were it true that this was his sole function that still doesn't lead me to think that everything he says will be a lie. What it means is that you can be sure of at least two things. One that he will probably be far better informed on the banking industry than you or I, and secondly that he will be representing the interests of the banks. However this on no account means that he is lying to us or that what he writes should be automatically disregarded simply because he is being paid.
I went back and read his comment piece again (god knows I am not that interested in it really). Your immediate response to it was that it was long and rambling and relied solely on the speculation that banks had plans in place to relocate which they were going to shortly start putting into effect to a certain degree. I found teh peice neither long (1,000 words) nor rambling. It was also mainly warning about the danger the politicians might wreak on the banking industry, on both the EU and UK side. Most of what he said I would have thought you would largely agree with, because he is not saying "BREXIT IS A DISASTER" but rather something closer to "this can be easily sorted out if you would just leave it to the bankers we'll have it all negotiated in a jiffy and we'll all be happy". It was only at the end that he mentioned that many banks are planning to start relocating sooner rather than later, but his conclusion was "putting up barriers to the trade in financial services across the Channel will make us all worse off, not just in the UK but in mainland Europe." I imagine that the intended effect of this was to put a little more pressure on Theresa May, not to renege on her promise to leave the EU, but rather simply in the hope that his industry's passporting rights get retained during the negotiations.
>
To bring it back to the whole Article 50 blah blah business, clearly banking is just one facet of our relationship with the EU. Banking alone is clearly a can of worms. There are many other facets. It is a very very complicated knot to untangle and I personally don't believe that those in charge of the process have the slightest idea what they have got themselves into or how they will get us all out of it. I also don't believe that we have enough civil servants to do the untangling, and those that we do have I believe were largely on the REMAIN side. Not to say that they will not perform their jobs professionally, but their hearts will not be in it and indeed many of them may resign, for better paid jobs in Zurich.
My nieces have UK, Australian and USA passports. I used to say this was a huge gift to them. All of those countries that they would be able to work and live in when they grew up. Imagine how we have voted to take that away that incredible possibility from all of us.
Here is another link, regarding the unprecedented recent warning from the Japanese government about the concerns of Japanese businesses operating in the UK. It addresses whether the actual businesses are saying the same things. I would hope that as the link is to Hansard, and as the minister is admitting something that they would no doubt prefer was not the case, that the trustworthiness of this source will not be dismissed:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2016-10-18/49205/
(NB. Text of original letter from Japan govt can be found here... https://www.freemovement.org.uk/full-text-stark-japanese-government-warning-uk-brexit/ )
Oldpinkman
26-10-2016, 10:06
We could fill the thread with links Robert
Regarding the veracity of the comments made in the Guardian article, this is a quote from James Gorman - CEO of Morgan Stanley
"“From our perspective, just narrowly from the financial sector and from our institution, there’s nothing good about Brexit,” Gorman said Tuesday in an interview with Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Micklethwait at Bloomberg LP’s The Year Ahead Summit. “Now we’re going to have to have our headquarters in Europe, in addition. We are probably going to have to have, with our legal entities there, more capital and liquidity trapped in those legal entities. None of this is good.”
He goes on to explain why global institutions such as his will have to reappraise all the locations in which they operate - and the short version is concludes that there will be movement out of London - partly to continental Europe (inside the EU) and significantly to New York
As much as May etc say it will happen, I have a feeling it may in fact never happen. There is so much involved, and so far the people involved on both sides haven,t even scratched the surface. A new election could see it be part of the manifesto of a party that does well enough to change thinking. I also believe much of the public will have had time to reconsider. I would say that Europe are being a trifle silly in their handling of this, and should beware of shaking a snake by its tail too much. Europe did this to Germany once and see how that turned out.
I, like my country voted to remain after due consideration, and we, mostly, in Scotland are a tad miffed that we are being again classed as a region and dont count.
We could fill the thread with links Robert
Sadly yes. I thought the parliament one world be hard to dismiss though!
[emoji12]
Grant - I hope that you are right. It's not looking that good for May at the moment really, did you see the news today about her very anti-leave position she put forward in private at Goldman Sachs just before the referendum?
It seems to me that she didn't really join the debate publicly before the referendum because she knew that if the vote was to leave then she would be very well placed to become PM. If that suspicion is correct then she put her own personal political ambition ahead of concern for the country. As the referendum itself was only really called by Cameron for the benefit of his own short term internal party political strategy this seems to show that we are not very good at choosing our leaders.
R
I, because he is not saying "BREXIT IS A DISASTER" but rather something closer to "this can be easily sorted out if you would just leave it to the bankers we'll have it all negotiated in a jiffy and we'll all be happy". It was only at the end that he mentioned that many banks are planning to start relocating sooner rather than later, but his conclusion was "putting up barriers to the trade in financial services across the Channel will make us all worse off, not just in the UK but in mainland Europe." I imagine that the intended effect of this was to put a little more pressure on Theresa May, not to renege on her promise to leave the EU, but rather simply in the hope that his industry's passporting rights get retained during the negotiations.
.
yes, I agree with all of this.
re the passports: my father had the option of taking out both U.S and Dutch citizenship but never bothered, which is annoying as it would have given me the option of getting a U.S passport too.
I've never had any desire to work on mainland Europe, however plenty of people I know did work (and live) there long before the Lisbon Treaty with no problems whatsoever. Again I think the case is being overstated. Again, I think the price worth paying in any case.
Oldpinkman
26-10-2016, 12:28
I think you may be right Grant - although I think she will go all the way - and then pull out
Europe is being obvious. In simple terms they are saying their union is a political one, the 4 freedoms are key, and however much they want good relations with the UK they are not going to create a status for ANY outsider which is better than membership. However, there are lots of noises to the effect that we can change our mind after invoking article 50.
Maybe that is how it will play out. The issues with Scotland, and more particularly Northern Ireland will be critical. It would be just too awful if this stupid decision leads to a a resumption of "the troubles" - but the removal of EU as a support mechanism for the peace agreement and the imposition of a customs border with Eire are going to be troublesome.
Then there's all the details regarding EU laws, citizen rights, passports, health care - and then there's the famous trade deals. And the UK completely lacks the resources to do it properly.
I think May appointed the 3 jokers to let them fail, hoped it would happen in failed "pre-negotiations" but now realises she is going to have to invoke article 50 and start failing then
At that point - maybe there will be a chance to reverse the decision.
Oldpinkman
26-10-2016, 12:30
yes, I agree with all of this.
re the passports: my father had the option of taking out both U.S and Dutch citizenship but never bothered, which is annoying as it would have given me the option of getting a U.S passport too.
I've never had any desire to work on mainland Europe, however plenty of people I know did work (and live) there long before the Lisbon Treaty with no problems whatsoever. Again I think the case is being overstated. Again, I think the price worth paying in any case.
I don't think passporting rights for financial services has anything to do with passports
Sadly yes. I thought the parliament one world be hard to dismiss though!
[emoji12]
Grant - I hope that you are right. It's not looking that good for May at the moment really, did you see the news today about her very anti-leave position she put forward in private at Goldman Sachs just before the referendum?
It seems to me that she didn't really join the debate publicly before the referendum because she knew that if the vote was to leave then she would be very well placed to become PM. If that suspicion is correct then she put her own personal political ambition ahead of concern for the country. As the referendum itself was only really called by Cameron for the benefit of his own short term internal party political strategy this seems to show that we are not very good at choosing our leaders.
R
No I don't agree. The simple fact is the mood of the country was totally misjudged and none of us, including those of us who voted out, thought that the decision would be to leave. I think that included Teresa May. No-one considered what would happen if we voted out as no-one thought for a second that would happen. it was supposed to be a box-ticking exercise that would give Cameron a stick to beat his Eurosceptic back-benchers with, and at the same time undermine UKIPs support. That's it.
However the Conservative Party promised a referendum in their manifesto, they were elected by due process, held the ref as promised, and the people expressed their democratic will, as was their entitlement. So we are where we are.
I don't discount the possibility of a U-turn or a fudge even now. But it is starting to look less likely, which is reassuring (for me anyway). I don't know if the Japs are blowing hot air or are really serious. The Japanese government does not run Japanese companies so not really sure how it can speak directly for them. Should be interesting since I doubt very much that freedom of movement will be retained. So we will see if this is bluff or not somewhere down the line.
No I don't agree. The simple fact is the mood of the country was totally misjudged and none of us, including those of us who voted out, thought that the decision would be to leave. I think that included Teresa May. No-one considered what would happen if we voted out as no-one thought for a second that would happen. it was supposed to be a box-ticking exercise that would give Cameron a stick to beat his Eurosceptic back-benchers with, and at the same time undermine UKIPs support. That's it.
However the Conservative Party promised a referendum in their manifesto, they were elected by due process, held the ref as promised, and the people expressed their democratic will, as was their entitlement. So we are where we are.
I don't discount the possibility of a U-turn or a fudge even now. But it is starting to look less likely, which is reassuring (for me anyway). I don't know if the Japs are blowing hot air or are really serious. The Japanese government does not run Japanese companies so not really sure how it can speak directly for them. Should be interesting since I doubt very much that freedom of movement will be retained. So we will see if this is bluff or not somewhere down the line.
First bit to a degree, but the big mistake was the anti Brexitt campaign tried to win merely by throwing facts that werent fact at time, and more importantly treated a large % of the country as lepers and bigots because they had concerns and fears for their future. That was the deciding thing imv. Many who would have just stayed disgruntled, but would decide to remain in Europe said to themselves... bollocks to this. The film passport to pimlico summed up the British spirit to being told what to think, and be , very accurately. I agree that many felt it wouldnt actually come to this, but many ive spoke to who did vote out, and imo out of characterly too, did so because they were fed up being pushed, shoved and abused by folk who actually dont really have to see the consequences of non Brexitt.
Quite sure if it was done again, and everyone treated the public as normal EQUALS then it would be a 2/3 to remain, as it should have been.
I don't think passporting rights for financial services has anything to do with passports
He knows that! That was in response to my emotional plea about my poor betrayed nieces. :violin:
Oldpinkman
26-10-2016, 13:35
I don't know if the Japs are blowing hot air or are really serious. The Japanese government does not run Japanese companies so not really sure how it can speak directly for them. Should be interesting since I doubt very much that freedom of movement will be retained. So we will see if this is bluff or not somewhere down the line.
"Nissan Motor Co., the U.K.’s top auto producer, will decide next month whether to continue producing one of its best-selling vehicles in the country preparing to leave the European Union.
The Japanese automaker is determining whether to build the next-generation Qashqai sport utility vehicle from the Sunderland plant, which employs about 6,700 people, Chief Executive Officer Carlos Ghosn told Ma Jie in an interview with Bloomberg Television. The factory’s competitiveness needs to be protected regardless of Brexit-related discussions, he added.
“We’re at the eve of a sourcing decision,” Ghosn, 62, said Friday from Nissan’s headquarters in Yokohama, Japan. “If you don’t take care of your competitiveness, one day or the other you lose your sourcing.”
Nissan met with Prime Minister Theresa May last week after having called on the U.K. to compensate the company for any negative consequences resulting from Brexit as a condition for new investment in the country. Nissan built one in three of the vehicles the U.K. produced last year and exports more than half of them to Europe, exposing Japan’s second-largest automaker to risks."
Oldpinkman
26-10-2016, 13:40
He knows that! That was in response to my emotional plea about my poor betrayed nieces. :violin:
I wondered, but couldn't justify the time "searching the archive".
It may be tougher than he suggests though. The days of easy access to Europe were before the modern age of terror. The EU is looking at securing the Shengen zone. If the UK is outside the EU it may find it has visa requirements. Now - these may not be show-stoppers but they are a major pita
My step-son is in Florida for a year, and Sue wants to visit. To do so, we have to personally attend the embassy for a visa - which should be a formality. I have a small cut on my right index finger today - which means I can't arrange an interview until it heals - because they need to take finger prints, and they are unacceptable with a cut on any finger.
And this is for a short holiday.
That sort of shit!
No I don't agree. The simple fact is the mood of the country was totally misjudged and none of us, including those of us who voted out, thought that the decision would be to leave. I think that included Teresa May....
However the Conservative Party promised a referendum in their manifesto, they were elected by due process, held the ref as promised, and the people expressed their democratic will, as was their entitlement.
How do you explain her being so quiet in public on the issue, and yet being very pro-remain in private?
link to audio I believe... (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/26/theresa-may-hard-brexit-goldman-sachs-private)
Other point about the manifesto etc is that it was extremely carelessly implemented with no "vote will be binding" or "advisory" or thresholds set etc. This perhaps because as you say no-one expected it to go the way it did. This backs up the point of extremely piss poor leadership from a fatally overconfident Cameron who only had his eye on his own career.
The Japanese government does not run Japanese companies so not really sure how it can speak directly for them.
If you look at the question and answer at the parliament.gov.uk link above, the point is that it refers to a meeting with Japanese business, and asks whether the businesses were reflecting the same concerns as the Japanese government had raised. The answer came back as:
"During my discussions, Japanese investors and business raised issues broadly in line with those set out in the Japanese government's paper of 2 September."
Lloyds bank seem to have done fine since the vote so its not all doom
Nissan met with Prime Minister Theresa May last week after having called on the U.K. to compensate the company for any negative consequences resulting from Brexit as a condition for new investment in the country. Nissan built one in three of the vehicles the U.K. produced last year and exports more than half of them to Europe, exposing Japan’s second-largest automaker to risks."
Looking for a taxpayer handout, that's all. Nothing to see here, just follow the money. This was the point I was trying to make the other day. Any change or ruction is viewed an opportunity to get some leverage, or some free money from the government. Brexit is no exception.
Oldpinkman
26-10-2016, 15:05
Looking for a taxpayer handout, that's all. Nothing to see here, just follow the money. This was the point I was trying to make the other day. Any change or ruction is viewed an opportunity to get some leverage, or some free money from the government. Brexit is no exception.
Yes, well , sort of. Looking for a taxpayer handout - so that represents a cost if we pay it. And looking to build Qashquai's in Europe instead of Sunderland if they dont. "follow the money" seems a bizarre dismissal regarding a business decision. They are all made on that basis.
And - the point was made with regard to your earlier casual dismissal that the Japanese Government couldnt speak for Japanese Business, by pointing out this was a Japanese Business speaking.
It is tiresome engaging in a debate with you when you make a sweeping statement, like "thats the government speaking not business" and someone points out business are saying it too, and you deflect the point with another sweeping statement. You get so much wrong it gets wearisome pointing out the trail of errors when you just duck and evade and dismiss in a lofty superior omniscient tone.
However, it has enabled me to explain to our Maire that the "secheresse" this year has nothing to do with global warming and is the fault of 200,000 year old aliens who travelled a universe full of gold to mine it here :doh:
Yes, well , sort of. Looking for a taxpayer handout - so that represents a cost if we pay it. And looking to build Qashquai's in Europe instead of Sunderland if they dont. "follow the money" seems a bizarre dismissal regarding a business decision. They are all made on that basis.
And - the point was made with regard to your earlier casual dismissal that the Japanese Government couldnt speak for Japanese Business, by pointing out this was a Japanese Business speaking.
It is tiresome engaging in a debate with you when you make a sweeping statement, like "thats the government speaking not business" and someone points out business are saying it too, and you deflect the point with another sweeping statement. You get so much wrong it gets wearisome pointing out the trail of errors when you just duck and evade and dismiss in a lofty superior omniscient tone.
However, it has enabled me to explain to our Maire that the "secheresse" this year has nothing to do with global warming and is the fault of 200,000 year old aliens who travelled a universe full of gold to mine it here :doh:
Read your link again it is from the Japanese govt. And business is not about getting free money from taxpayers with blackmail. That is cynical opportunism, not doing business. Although you can't blame them as they are not the only ones looking to make free money from this situation.
What does the ancient alien theory have to do with Global warming? Or this topic? More flailing personal attacks instead of reasoned argument?
Read your link again it is from the Japanese govt.
If that is aimed at me, which I think it is, then i have just checked my link and it still points to the website of the British parliament.
And business is not about getting free money from taxpayers with blackmail. That is cynical opportunism, not doing business.
You clearly have no idea about how business at this scale works. Have a look at how many tax breaks, subsidy etc Elon Musk got from the state of Nevada to persuade him to build the Tesla gigafactory there, rather than in Utah or wherever. Nissan built their factory here for many reasons, one major one no doubt being that we were part of the EU. That is now uncertain, and they want assurances. Blackmail indeed.
Although you can't blame them as they are not the only ones looking to make free money from this situation.
Well yep. UK has put itself in an incredibly vulnerable position. It's open season and it was predictable, and predicted. We have lost control, ironically.
What does the ancient alien theory have to do with Global warming? Or this topic? More flailing personal attacks instead of reasoned argument?
LOL.
It doesn't seem to be Richard who is flailing.
[emoji12] [emoji1] [emoji56] [emoji9]
Excuse me whilst I stifle a YAWN........ <Yawn> Oops, I failed.
Carry on.
Marco.
CornishPasty
27-10-2016, 03:33
I thank God we never adopted the Euro. Germany controls most of Europe because they're the only country that can print the Euro. Because we still print our own money we are still in control our own finances and our country. This is another war Germany isn't going to win and when the EU eventually implodes I'd rather be on the outside looking in than on the inside looking out.
You clearly have no idea about how business at this scale works. [emoji12] [emoji1] [emoji56] [emoji9]
Wrong again. I work in business on this scale. That doesn't make it right, nor do I approve of large corps getting the breaks and the bribes when smaller companies don't. Of course the EU is a big corporation's wet dream in that regard. Another reason to be out.
Oldpinkman
27-10-2016, 07:59
And business is not about getting free money from taxpayers with blackmail. That is cynical opportunism, not doing business.
Business investment decisions legitimately take account of financial incentives whether they are tax breaks or direct investment. That was basic business school investment theory - CAPM is based on AFTER tax cash flows. The original Nissan investments in a UK and EU development area like Sunderland benefited from UK and EU direct investment and tax breaks.
However - the investment decision will be based on other qualitative issues like access to markets, distribution infrastructure, supply chain integration and local human and other capital. What has changed is that by removing the UK from a large integrated market - as much for supply of components as for sale of vehicles - the Brexit decision has made the UK more expensive and less attractive. The options are lose the investment to competitor locations with better fundamentals, or compensate financially
Although it receives the stock reply from this government of "we are not going to provide a running commentary" for "we want to abandon open government and keep secret anything embarrassing" - the government is clearly planning to compensate Nissan for the damage Brexit will do
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Lords/2016-10-17/HL2367/
Which means the UK taxpayer picks up the tab, depriving the UK of government funds for the health service or education, or (and/or) pushing up the deficit the Conservatives were elected to reduce to NIL by the end of the parliamentary term
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-26/hammond-faces-84-billion-pound-deterioration-in-public-finances?utm_content=brexit&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&cmpid%3D=socialflow-facebook-brexit
That £45.5bn defecit for the first six months at the bottom of the article is 25% more than Osbornes forecast due to an estimated £14bn shortfall in tax receipts post Brexit. (Still - in a peak year like last year, we could save as much as £5bn in real net EU contributions by leaving )
Oldpinkman
27-10-2016, 08:01
Wrong again. I work in business on this scale. That doesn't make it right, nor do I approve of large corps getting the breaks and the bribes when smaller companies don't. Of course the EU is a big corporation's wet dream in that regard. Another reason to be out.
You work in a business of the scale of Nissan ??? A company with paid up capital of 606 billion Yen! Who do you work for?
Excuse me whilst I stifle a YAWN........ <Yawn> Oops, I failed.
I'm not surprised. Twenty to one in the morning. You should have been in bed hours ago.
You work in a business of the scale of Nissan ??? A company with paid up capital of 606 billion Yen! Who do you work for?
Don't tell him, Pike!
I'm not surprised. Twenty to one in the morning. You should have been in bed hours ago.
Trust me, the contents of this thread are ample to transport even the most rabid insomniac to the land of nod... ;)
Anyway, I'll leave you guys to it. Just play nicely!
Marco.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.