Would you vote the same again?

[Caballo]

Funny thing about all this is that the "Remainers" were all aware of exactly what they were voting for. Even now, no-one, including those that voted "Leave", has any clue what "Leave" actually means and it's implications. However, it is pretty clear that there was a very strong xenophobic element to the voting, hence the Tories dramatic shift to the right aiming to take advantage of it in the next GE.

I beg to differ, neither side knew what they were voting for. A future within the EU going forward was every bit as much of a mystery, anyone thinking they were voting for status quo was a deluded as those who believed that 350 million was going to the NHS.

[claretdom]

A fair point Paul Waine, but basically admitting that you did no research and don't care if what you think is proved to be ******** is a reason for satire on a thread such as this.

Not everyone who voted remain is a genius, and not everyone who voted leave is ignorant, just in case anyone thinks otherwise.

Are you in the genius section who voted remain lancaster ? You claim that you have already lost a few quid and we haven't left yet is it this that seems to make you resent people who voted a different way to you ?

[claretdom]

An odd post. From your first sentence I guess you're not Scottish or in favour, yet you describe it as "good news".

An Eire in the EU and a Scotland in the EU with the other parts of the UK out of it could potentially be absolutely chaotic and dangerous.
There could potentially be all sorts of issues regarding Free movement of people, potential border controls, and security and more than a possibility that some financial services could relocate from the City to Edinburgh, where notionally at least they speak the same language.
The EU getting access to export goods freely to the UK via Scotland, which shares our border would presumably be very attractive to them if we go for a "hard" Brexit.
Then there's also the issue that with tens of thousands now applying for Irish EU passports there would be a rush for the new Scottish EU passport for all the Scots and descendants currently resident south of the border.

Not an odd post at all, nope thankfully I am not a jock but yes I am massively in favour of them voting again.

If they vote yes, we get rid if again they bottle it it exposes them once again.

[Lancasterclaret]

If you seriously thought that I believed the Balkans and the EU were the same place, I think you need to sober up as well as sleep it off.

Eh? All I drink is coffee. I made the comment because you clearly don't know a lot about Balkan History, specifically Yugoslavia. Like Biggles, if you are going to engage in a debate, make sure you know what you are talking about.

[Lancasterclaret]

Are you in the genius section who voted remain lancaster ? You claim that you have already lost a few quid and we haven't left yet is it this that seems to make you resent people who voted a different way to you ?

No, I just don't like people making decisions based on incorrect facts, and then continuing to believe it even after its proved to be total horseshit.

And I think you meant Nil desperandum, as it hasn't cost me anything!

[claretdom]

Wether you agree or disagree with someones vote, surely they are entitled to vote any way they like and for any reason.

Apologies for mixing you up.

[Lancasterclaret]

Who said they aren't?

But voting is an essential prop of any democracy and the decisions that result from voting affect everybody in our country. Its far from ideal that people vote on stuff based on incorrect facts or on an stuff based on a "feeling". The amount of people who appear to think that Burnley (a town with considerable EU funding) is suddenly going to get a shed load of funding from a Southern based Conservative govt that can ignore the north now is staggering.

Anyway, Joseph Rowntree foundation report explaining the Brexit vote

https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/brexit-vo ... ortunities" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[claretdom]

Must be a tougher gig for you what with the people of both Burnley and Lancaster voting the same way.

[Lancasterclaret]

Not really, its not like I grab people in the street to tell them off.

And Burnley needs EU funding a lot more than Lancaster does.

[CrosspoolClarets]

I always find your posts interesting although there are often many elements that I disagree with, but on this point I am surprised by your viewpoint.
Are you really suggesting that when people go to the ballot box (in general terms, not the referendum), their main concern isn't the money in their pocket and how it will be affected ?
By and large people vote out of self interest and whether they believe it will lead to an improved standard of living.

I agree, but I may disagree on what is meant by "standard of living". Many refer to it as money, not me.

Take my parents, deep into retirement. Voted out. Own a little house and a small pension but will be up the creek financially if health issues take a turn for the worse. I know them better than most, and money definately didn't influence their Brexit vote and I suspect it wouldn't alter their general election votes either (former union shop stewards now Tory voters).

I think migration, not as pure numbers but affecting the "feel" of a town that some people never step out of so have a great love for matters. As is a dislike of being dictated to, another big driver in how people vote. Access to public sector services is big too (e.g. Getting grandkids into schools). Then there is a sense of fairness after grafting all your life and now tons of people are on benefits doing bugger all.

I think lots of people would prioritise that lot ahead of a £5,000 back hander for example.

[Paul Waine]

And your post was going so well until you mentioned that very unpleasant young man in the audience who seemed to have a serious attitude and anger issue, and went on to praise Trump in gushing terms. He's not a very good advert for Brexit, and unfortunately from your point of view he seemed to fall into the category of "stupid".

Agree this young guy's views on Trump were outside the range that I would want to defend. Surprising that he got Dimbleby's attention twice.

I only quoted the two youngsters views in support of "Leave" - as a contrast to the popular claim that all Leave supporters were old and all youngsters voted Remain.

I'm still of the opinion that we do ourselves no favours when we denigrate the other guy, his/her intelligence, his/her motives.

However, I don't deny that we can and should question the intelligence/motives/hypocrisy of political leaders - and with respect to QT, anyone else who joins the panel. I'd not seen/heard of Amol Rajan before - I was impressed. His views are worth listening to - whether we are on the same side or the other side of the argument.

And, I recognise that a lot of (minor) politicians embed themselves in the QT audience. It wouldn't surprise me if a high proportion of the audience members who speak on every QT programme are linked to/paid up members of political parties. I'm not sure if it would make better TV if they were all required to identify their political party status - and not just the usual "I work in the NHS/I run a small business" etc.

[Paul Waine]

No, I just don't like people making decisions based on incorrect facts, and then continuing to believe it even after its proved to be total horseshit.

And I think you meant Nil desperandum, as it hasn't cost me anything!

Hi Lancs,

Who is to judge which are the "incorrect facts" and which are the "correct ones?"

The "beauty of democracy" (you will be familiar with "democracy, a poor system - but much better than all the alternatives" - my paraphrase, of course) is that we don't need to ask "was this person well enough informed so that we should count her/his vote." (Communist Russia followed this approach as the slaughter millions through the 1920s and 1930s).

Some of us have had 45+ years to learn the facts about the EEC and the EU - and the UK. Others have only just reached the age when they can vote. Should the older person's vote count more than the younger age group? Should someone who has been political active and gathered all the facts have a great say? Should we dismiss the votes of those who've spent the better part of their live on other things, only read a "red top" - perhaps only for the sport and the betting pages, spend their days in the pub and at football? Should we dismiss the vote of the "differently abled" with learning difficulties or other differences?

Our democracy says "no - we count everyone's vote equally." And, that's the only correct fact.

Why "45+ years" - because 1971 UK was on the verge of voting in Parliament to join the EEC. And, those on here who were lucky enough to support Burnley through 1959/60 and through the 1960s may also remember Harold Wilson's applications to join the EEC - and De Gaulle's emphatic "Non."

I wonder if the old General is shouting "told you so" from his grave.

[Lancasterclaret]

I hear a lot of old people going on about 1971.

With the greatest respect, its now 2016 and its a completely different world out there. Hell, we still had colonies in 1971!

We joined the EEC for economic benefit, and we are leaving the EU to lose that economic benefit.

I know that the EEC is completely different from the EU today, but any benefit from leaving is far into the future and the financial implications (let alone the constitutional ones with Scotland wanting to go again) alone should stop this going ahead.

I hope I'm wrong, I really, really, really do, but if I'm not, we are in for a time in which we will look at the era of austerity as a time of prosperity, and thats before you factor in just how much more intolerant as a nation we've become.

[If it be your will]

.

[Paul Waine]

I hear a lot of old people going on about 1971.

With the greatest respect, its now 2016 and its a completely different world out there. Hell, we still had colonies in 1971!

We joined the EEC for economic benefit, and we are leaving the EU to lose that economic benefit.

I know that the EEC is completely different from the EU today, but any benefit from leaving is far into the future and the financial implications (let alone the constitutional ones with Scotland wanting to go again) alone should stop this going ahead.

I hope I'm wrong, I really, really, really do, but if I'm not, we are in for a time in which we will look at the era of austerity as a time of prosperity, and thats before you factor in just how much more intolerant as a nation we've become.

Hi Lancs,

I'm only referencing 1971 to address your concern that some people might not have understood the facts. 45 years is a decent time to build some knowledge and understanding, no?

I don't think it's quite "we are leaving the EU to lose ... economic benefits." I think we are leaving because the direction of the EU is away from the interests of the UK electorate. The EU no longer wants to accommodate a "broad church" - the political "projet" must move to its conclusion of a "Federal States of Europe." Fine, if that's what you believe in - but wrong (and potentially dangerous) if you don't believe Europe is ready for this dominant political structure.

The economics stuff is very much secondary. The UK as a whole has achieved a certain living standard while it has been a member of the EU. Some things, such as the single market (remember this was Margaret Thatcher's initiative) has been to our economic gain. Others, including the (French led) Common Agricultural Policy and the Euro have been in economic terms negatives. Similarly, a single energy market could have been achieved 15+ years ago - but the French (and some other smaller countries) continue to delay these economic benefits.

The UK can also progress economically outside the EU, including being outside the EU single market - if that is the outcome of the negotiations.

I've referred to the "UK achieving a certain living standard." There are those who argue that these economic gains haven't been shared equally across the whole UK population. Perhaps J Rowntree Foundation (and other socio-economic research groups) while have the stats that validate the inequality of economic outcomes. It may be that some of the "less economically successful" attribute their (lack of) sharing in the overall economic progress to the UK's membership of the EU and particularly the results of the eastward expansion of the EU.

Personally, I was politically excited and in favour of the countries of Central Europe joining the EU - much better than the old "iron curtain" and "cold war." But, the EU elites have "screwed it up" by chasing their (impossible) dream of a "United States of Europe." That's where the EU "train wreck" starts for me. Better that the UK disembarks the "projet" - that the UK demonstrates that there are good alternatives to the EU - and, perhaps we will ready to guide and support our friends in Europe before the EU runs into the buffers and the "projet" ends, as it inevitably will, in tears.

[dsr]

I hear a lot of old people going on about 1971.

With the greatest respect, its now 2016 and its a completely different world out there. Hell, we still had colonies in 1971!

We joined the EEC for economic benefit, and we are leaving the EU to lose that economic benefit.

I know that the EEC is completely different from the EU today, but any benefit from leaving is far into the future and the financial implications (let alone the constitutional ones with Scotland wanting to go again) alone should stop this going ahead.

I hope I'm wrong, I really, really, really do, but if I'm not, we are in for a time in which we will look at the era of austerity as a time of prosperity, and thats before you factor in just how much more intolerant as a nation we've become.

You can't run a country purely based on finance, any more than you run your life based purely on finance. You might be richer if you sold your house and bought one in Millwall, but would you do it? No, because money isn't anything.

The financial losses from hurting our trading position with the EU but improving it with the rest of the world are dubious. But the political gains from being independent and the legal gains from ditching the European legal system are (IMO) well worth it. And obviously the removal of the threat/promise of yet more integration is a big plus too. To me, anyway.

[Walton]

And obviously the removal of the threat/promise of yet more integration is a big plus too. To me, anyway.

Because you're a big racist?

[dsr]

Because you're a big racist?

No, because the idea of the Code Napoleon stinks. It isn't racist to dislike the European forms of legal system.

[Lancasterclaret]

Dsr/Paul - I get the concerns about the way the EU is going, but it depends on how willing you are to accept change.

Whatever happens (as far as I'm concerned), I'll still be British, and English, and a part of Europe.

You are both knocking on a bit, so you be long gone (apologies for the terminology!!) but I look at my kids (for example, and I know other people will have differing views) and they will happily be chatting to the Hungarian and Polish kids at their school, without drawing any negative connotations from it.

Thats the future, not some vaguely remembered "better time" that the likes of Farage go on about.

The rise of anti-immigration rhetoric, the almost certain economic impact and the resulting scramble to heap yet more blame on the blameless (immigrants) is not something that I'm ever going to be comfortable with, and if stopping that means being more integrated into our closest neighbours and allies, then I'm happy with that.

I fully understand others are not, but it doesn't mean that you are right.

[Blackrod]

Would I pay more for holidays and fuel in the short term but benefit from controlling our borders and making our own laws in the future ? Yes. Some people really are short sighted. Would I pay more to protect our rights. Yes.

[nil_desperandum]

Would I pay more for holidays and fuel in the short term but benefit from controlling our borders and making our own laws in the future ? Yes. Some people really are short sighted. Would I pay more to protect our rights. Yes.

Do you know where the majority of our immigrants currently derive? It's not the EU, and we've had little success in curbing that so far - even if we want to.

[Walton]

Do you know where the majority of our immigrants currently derive? It's not the EU, and we've had little success in curbing that so far - even if we want to.

Where is it then?

Looking at the ONS' data on NINO registrations, the top 5 EU nations far outweigh the top 5 non-EU nations for migration to the UK.

Romanian: 179k
Polish: 109k
Italian: 57k
Spanish: 48k
Bulgarian: 40k

Indian: 34k
Australian: 14k
Chinese: 13k
Pakistani: 12k
Nigerian: 10k

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... -to-the-uk

[SammyBoy]

Voted remain and probs JUST about vote the same. However being one for respecting a vote it's a shame those paragons of virtuosity and democracy( lefties and luvvies etc)have squealed and bitched and stomped their feet. Imagine how refreshing and positive if Corbyn and co actually said " we don't like it but, let's make a bloody good go at this and show the British people we're a proud patriotic party and a feasible opposition" as opposed to the farcical scaremongering and virtually willing failure.

Have you considered that an awful lot of people that voted remain are genuinely very concerned about the future of the UK? Rather than simply 'scaremongering' and 'willing failure', most (including myself) will have seen nothing since the referendum to allay any fears already held. Also, I'll make it clear in case anybody wonders that I believe Brexit does need to happen now it's been voted for - reneging on it would make the notion of democracy in this country look like a farce, even though the whole referendum was a debacle from start to finish.

[nil_desperandum]

Where is it then?

Looking at the ONS' data on NINO registrations, the top 5 EU nations far outweigh the top 5 non-EU nations for migration to ......[/url]

How is that stat relevant to my post? It's still a fact that there is more immigration to the UK from outside the EU than from EU countries.
The actual breakdown into individual nation states has no impact on the overall total from inside or out of the EU

It actually states this in the link you posted if you'd actually read it before posting.

[Walton]

Well of course there's more total immigration from outside the EU, because that's the rest of the entire ******* world.

Your post definitely read as though you had a specific region in mind. What region was it?

[aggi]

Where is it then?

Looking at the ONS' data on NINO registrations, the top 5 EU nations far outweigh the top 5 non-EU nations for migration to the UK.

Romanian: 179k
Polish: 109k
Italian: 57k
Spanish: 48k
Bulgarian: 40k

Indian: 34k
Australian: 14k
Chinese: 13k
Pakistani: 12k
Nigerian: 10k

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... -to-the-uk

Erm, from your own link

Immigration of EU citizens was estimated to be 270,000 compared with 264,000 the previous year. Non-EU citizens (277,000) showed a similar immigration estimate to EU citizens and a slight decrease compared with the previous year to 287,000 (Figure 4).

[claretspice]

I voted remain and I continue to believe that the country has made an error which will affect the wellbeing of everyone under the age of about 35 profoundly, and badly.

Fortunately, the over-advertised potential immediate effects of Brexit haven't been as bad as some of the immediate (always OTT) threats. But the devaluation in the pound over the last 3 months has been dramatic and the attempts to suggest it is a good thing smack to me of wishful thinking. It isn't inconceivable that food prices will rise somewhere in the region of 5% over the next year, and that will hit those on lower incomes very hard indeed. That's not a good thing. And the effect of devaluation on exports is massively over-estimated by some on here for the simple reasons that few firms who export don't relying on imports in producing their products, and export manufacturing represents a tiny proportion of our economy.

"I think migration, not as pure numbers but affecting the "feel" of a town that some people never step out of so have a great love for matters. As is a dislike of being dictated to, another big driver in how people vote. Access to public sector services is big too (e.g. Getting grandkids into schools). Then there is a sense of fairness after grafting all your life and now tons of people are on benefits doing bugger all."

I found this quote interesting. It may well be right in terms of the drivers that led people to vote "out". But that doesn't make those drivers correct. How many towns, or even neighbourhoods outside London (which voted remain) and the East of England can genuinely claim to have had their "feel" changed by EU migration? A tiny number. So if that was a driver, its born of people conflating EU and non-EU migration. The same argument applies to access to services, where of course as a general rule the issue is investment and availability, not the fact that EU nationals are swamping services. It is telling that the South East, which voted remain, is the area of the country where access to services has been most affected by immigration.

Perhaps the sense that people were being dictated to is also to blame. But does the EU really dictate to us, any more than domestic politicians and civil servants do? I'm really not sure it does. And perhaps we're getting to the root of what happened in June here. The anti-establishment, anti-globalisation rhetoric won the day. I can understand and sympathise with that sentiment. But I can't help but think that the EU became a scapegoat for that, because it certainly isn't the root evil in that context.

[ngsobob]

Who is to judge which are the "incorrect facts" and which are the "correct ones?"

One of the welcome innovations in recent times is the emergence of fact-checking organisations. You could try Fullfact or Infact if you want to understand facts as opposed to estimates/gestimates/lies. You may not like what you read, though, as it's clear as crystal that leaving the EU will be catastrophic for many, many years. As a Remainer, I'm furious that a false prospectus built on lies and underpinned by xenophobia swayed enough voters to capture a small minority. my children and yours will pay for this, if it happens. Cameron is and was an idiot.

[nil_desperandum]

Well of course there's more total immigration from outside the EU, because that's the rest of the entire ******* world.

t?

It's not as obvious a point as you make out.
Who is more likely to make the journey to the UK :
A Dubliner moving to Belfast, or a Samoan to London?
Yes the population of the entire world is bigger than that that of the EU, but it's not so easy to get here.
Guess why Mexicans generally migrate to the USA?

[ngsobob]

Er... majority, not minority, obviously. I'm still furious, y'see.

[Lancasterclaret]

Fullfact is excellent, but sadly because it debunks all the Brexit myths, its not used.

[Jambo]

"How do you know there's no plan for Brexit when negotiations haven't started yet?"

Because it's several months since the result of the vote and negotiations haven't started yet...

[dsr]

Who is to judge which are the "incorrect facts" and which are the "correct ones?"

One of the welcome innovations in recent times is the emergence of fact-checking organisations. You could try Fullfact or Infact if you want to understand facts as opposed to estimates/gestimates/lies. You may not like what you read, though, as it's clear as crystal that leaving the EU will be catastrophic for many, many years. As a Remainer, I'm furious that a false prospectus built on lies and underpinned by xenophobia swayed enough voters to capture a small minority. my children and yours will pay for this, if it happens. Cameron is and was an idiot.

And yet, if you look on factchecker, will you find confirmation of the fact of the catastrophic effects many, many years hence? No. It's an opinion, one among many, and while of course you're going to believe that your opinion is right and the others are wrong, it's still an opinion.

[Paul Waine]

Who is to judge which are the "incorrect facts" and which are the "correct ones?"

One of the welcome innovations in recent times is the emergence of fact-checking organisations. You could try Fullfact or Infact if you want to understand facts as opposed to estimates/gestimates/lies. You may not like what you read, though, as it's clear as crystal that leaving the EU will be catastrophic for many, many years. As a Remainer, I'm furious that a false prospectus built on lies and underpinned by xenophobia swayed enough voters to capture a small minority. my children and yours will pay for this, if it happens. Cameron is and was an idiot.

Am I getting old and not understanding things?

Has Fullfact worked out how to forecast the future with 100% certainty, or are you confusing facts (things that we can know, because they are happening now or happened in the past) and forecasts which are predictions about what might happen in future.

Economics is well named as the "dismal science" because economists have often been found to confuse what has happened (with a statement along the lines of "and I think this is why it happened") and what might happen in the future if (A) happens, but (B) didn't happen.

When I'm looking at a model, before I get excited about the forecasts of the model, I want to know what assumptions are used in the model.

A few months back I got the chance to speak with one of the economic forecasting organisations. Their "brexit impact" model was built on a base line assumption that the 27 EU member states would grow at 1% p.a. through their forecast period. Their model assumed that "everything would be all right in euroland." Easy to build a model with this type of assumption - but not much use to anyone who was thinking of relying on the "reasonableness" of the model (In my experience, models aren't accurate, just some more reasonable than others). Meanwhile, in the "real world" - when they aren't worrying about the impact of Brexit on the UK - the markets are trying to guess when the next Eurozone crisis will occur. (I think it was 2 weeks ago that media headlines were full of the problems at Deutsche Bank and the (smaller) Commerz Bank - and those are Germany's two largest banks).

[Lancasterclaret]

So the pound collapse is based on models that predict that the UK will be a poorer place outside of the EU.

The models are predicting that it will be worse for us, and the markets are following the models.

You can only go on what you know about so far, which is

1) UK Gov doesn't appear to have a plan for Brexit that will be acceptable to EU, ie full movement of people

2) EU is continuing to say that free movement of people is non-arguable, while Uk is refusing to accept that in any form

3) No idea if "passporting" of the financial sector is going to be continued to be allowed

4) More worryingly, the various types of Brexit all have support somewhere in the Leave camp, so even more uncertainty there.

The models are changing all the time, but the current model and for the foreseeable future are not good for the UK.

The UK Govt has got to get this right, and its nowhere near that at the moment.

[Dazzler]

No real reason for me asking this,just curious like

Have any of you remoanians served in the Armed Forces ?

[Imploding Turtle]

What can that question possibly have to do with anything?

[Dazzler]

Is that a yes or no ?

[nil_desperandum]

No real reason for me asking this,just curious like
Have any of you remoanians served in the Armed Forces ?

If it's just curiosity then why post it on this thread? Why not start a new one?
You might get more responses.

[Lancasterclaret]

In a previous life I served with Sir John Moore at Corunna.

Does that count?

[Imploding Turtle]

Is that a yes or no ?

It's a 'not relevant to the thread'.

If you want to talk about military service then start a thread. Or if you can explain why you think it's relevant to this one then perhaps i'll answer.

[Dazzler]

Just a yes or no will suffice

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm intrigued now as well.

What difference does it possibly make?

If you said that members of the armed forces are concerned about a Euro army, then I'd at least understand it a bit better.

If its any help, its pretty clear that the "peace dividend" after the cold war is over, and we've cut back far too much and might have to think about more recruitment into the forces.

[CrosspoolClarets]

But the devaluation in the pound over the last 3 months has been dramatic and the attempts to suggest it is a good thing smack to me of wishful thinking. It isn't inconceivable that food prices will rise somewhere in the region of 5% over the next year, and that will hit those on lower incomes very hard indeed. That's not a good thing. And the effect of devaluation on exports is massively over-estimated by some on here for the simple reasons that few firms who export don't relying on imports in producing their products, and export manufacturing represents a tiny proportion of our economy..

Apologies but I can only skim this thread a few times a day so I haven't picked up on everything, but I have noticed claretspice's post above and the rest of it discussing my earlier comments.

I think it's right that the EU wasn't solely responsible for people voting out, but then the EU isn't responsible for people voting in either - there is a big fear of change element in the latter despite having no love of the EU, and there is a sense in the former that people want a certain type of country and see this as the only way to move towards it in the longer term. For some that's a little xenophobic, for others it is more simply that they don't enjoy living in it the same way now for a whole host of reasons. It's a bit like electing Trump as president - it may be a disaster, but unless you try, you are guaranteed the same over and over again. That's why I respect the views of most people on both sides of this debate, though not the actions of those in power trying to hijack it.

On the above quote though, I do think there is a basic economic way of looking at it, such as higher food prices, and then the bigger picture. There is a reason countries have been in a "race to the bottom" for years in terms of printing money to devalue their currency.

For me the three big benefits would be:

1. Export Growth - encouraging more big international firms to set up shop here, employ tons of people, and prepare their accounts in sterling (i.e. unlike Unilever who are in Euros and who despite their costs not going up still suffer due to the margin on Marmite).

2. Create Inflation - avoids that self-perpetuating cycle of slow economic activity through deflationary forces, with businesses and consumers postponing spending money due to falling prices. Savers benefit too due to interest rates going up.

3. Decrease Debt - tax receipts go up due to inflation, income payments go up, and debt stays the same, so overall indebted people, businesses and governments become better off.

I suspect that's why Mervyn King has been trying to do these things throughout his time as Governer. There's no good just having lower food prices if the wider economy is going to pot in the long term. There's a good argument about whether the Brexit effect will offset the currency effect, but there isn't one about whether the currency effect in isolation is good or not. It is.

[JohnMac]

Yes

[levraiclaret]

Wow Crosspool
"Create Inflation - avoids that self-perpetuating cycle of slow economic activity through deflationary forces, with businesses and consumers postponing spending money due to falling prices. Savers benefit too due to interest rates going up."
"Decrease Debt - tax receipts go up due to inflation, income payments go up, and debt stays the same, so overall indebted people, businesses and governments become better off. "

Any contradiction in the two views yow expressed?

[claretspice]

Whilst there are undoubtedly benefits of inflation, it has to be carefully managed if those benefits aren't to exceed the downsides. And it is very difficult to manage inflation when it is being driven by foreign currency fluctuations based on the perception the country's economy is not a good bet, and so the country is, in effect, getting much poorer relative to the rest of the world.

The idea that we can have an export-led recovery is currently pie in the sky for the simple reason that we do not have many export manufacturers of any size, and indeed many of those we do have are here because we're in the single market so may well depart if we leave it. Creating an export manufacturer base is a long term job and we've barely touched the sides of it so far (its a bit like the youth system at Burnley - the infrastructure takes a couple of years to turn around after it was largely destroyed, and it then takes several more years for us to start getting a return). I entirely agree that it as a good aspiration but we have to be realistic about the impact improved export environment will have in the near term.

And in any event, many of the benefits of exports being cheaper are offset by the fact we are heavily reliant on imports from the rest of the world. Inflation in raw materials affects exporters, inflation in food affects everyone and either ends up with us all getting materially poorer (affecting discretionary spend in leisure etc. which is the bedrock of our consumer economy currently, jeopardising thousands of jobs) unless wages go up, in which case the benefits of cheaper exports may well be wiped out. And I haven't even mentioned the negative effects of leaving the single market which in turn have the potential to make the UK a far less attractive place for exporters.

Inflation is a good thing, but in this context it is more likely to be rather scary.

[keith1879]

Excellent post claretspice - but far too long to be understood by many!

[nil_desperandum]

Excellent post claretspice - but far too long to be understood by many!

For goodness sake don't start implying that anyone on here is stupid. Some take offence very easily.

[keith1879]

The whole Brexit debate was conducted in soundbites. The only person who contributed interesting and thoughtful opinions in my view was Michael Dougan - he has a good piece out today on the Single Market.