More post brexit referendum good news!!!!

[Sidney1st]

Keith has beaten me to it, but have you got any realistic examples of how a deal could be better suited to us?

Keith said it was an interesting point, you want an actual example.

Are you suggesting Romania wants the same things from Japan as Portugal?

Would Turkey want the same deal as the Irish for items?

They've all got to accept the same deal for everything regardless when they may actually want more focus on certain parts to suit their countries individually.

[RingoMcCartney]

Here is a considered explanation of why Greece and Iceland experienced such varying fortunes. It has a lot to do with membership of the Euro (a point against the Euro but not against the EU) and a lot to do with their starting positions when the crisis struck. http://voxeu.org/article/imf-programmes ... vs-iceland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

All future members of the EU will have to adopt the Euro. So that get of jail free card wont be available as of now.

Reading the report there seems some things worth commenting on. It trys to say one form of debt easier to deal with for each respective nation or in Greeks unfortunate case, member state.

"Iceland’s external debt was de jure private, while Greece’s external debt was sovereign debt."

Both countries were financially goosed and its was expected, by the banks, that the tax payers of these countries would repay that debt.

The fact that one country was a member of the Single currency is just brushed off as incidental. Its simply not. The fact the Iceland could work out a plan without being shackled to doing what Berlin told it was in my view the single most important difference.

Heres the glaring omission from that link. Iceland had a referendum and decided to to simply tell the banks "NO". Greece wasnt allowed to. Wolfgang Schoeble put the Greek Peoples arms up their backs, financially and told them like some latter day Kamp Kommandant, " you vill pay zee debts of my beloved Deutsch Bank"

The IMF, the EU and the Commision then colluded to force the Greek people to accept cuts to their spending on their NHS, that were based on a percenrage of their GDP. Because the economy collapsed their GDP tanked , it meant the Greek People saw a real term slashing of health spending of around 30% Would Schoeble's own German people have accepted such a deplorable act by a foreign politician? NEINE.

But the thing I get from that report is that in no way, shape or form is any of it the fault of the unnaccountable bankers!!!!!!!!!!! Where is the bit that points out that Goldman Sachs admitted that they made at least 13 accounting errors in their asessment as to whether Greece was suitable to join the Euro in the first place? Where is it Keith?

Tony Benn was right. The EU is a club for banksters.

Greece - in the EU. Sees a 30% slashing of spending on health and around 30% of its People actually denied treatment.

Iceland - Out of the EU. Sees its sovereign Poeple get their mortgage debt slashed!!!

Isnt it interesting Iceland was criticised by the OECD the IMF and Standard and Poors. The very same banksters that said we should have joined the Single Currency, the Euro. And the very same globalist bodies that backed Remain.

Penny dropped yet Keith?

[Tall Paul]

Keith said it was an interesting point, you want an actual example.

Are you suggesting Romania wants the same things from Japan as Portugal?

Would Turkey want the same deal as the Irish for items?

They've all got to accept the same deal for everything regardless when they may actually want more focus on certain parts to suit their countries individually.

No, I'm not suggetsing that Romania and Portugal want the same things. The EU have negotiated a free trade deal with Japan. No deal the UK can negotiate will be better suited to us than that.

The only potential advantage I can see is that we might be able to negotiate deals more quickly than the EU can, but I think that's highly unlikely with the state of the people who would be doing the negotiations.

[keith1879]

Yes the EU can get better cost effective deals etc but they have to think about how it effects the whole bloc from Romania to Ireland.
Now not every country in the Bloc is going to require the same stuff from somewhere like Japan, although a lot of it will be the same.

The UK only has to worry about the UK because the whole country needs the same stuff.
It may cost us a bit more, but that's to be expected.

Same with any trade deal we strike, it can be tailored to suit the UK, not 27 different countries and counting.

In theory that's fine - but one has to judge whether the better deal that the EU can get outweighs the tailored deal that we can get. So basically - are we stronger than the modal average of the EU countries? It's a moot point and I certainly wouldn't want to argue it either way. I still come back to a general feeling that I would rather be on the same side as Germany, France, Italy and Spain - even if (or perhaps because) it also puts me on the same side as the smaller countries.

I think it's beyond debate that we can act quicker in the absence of having to please the other countries with their vetos - but the worry is that we get into a trade war with the EU as a whole.

[Bacchus]

Youre right Biggles....the politicians, media, universities et al.all stick together when push comes to shove. They are essentially the same people, a new elite, forever pontificating lecturing and sneering, but essentially greedy and self serving like every elite thats gone before them and just like the old elite they loathe ordinary working people.

You must have a strong shoulder to bear the weight of that chip it's carrying. Is there anyone that you don't consider to be part of an 'elite' that should be ignored at all costs? Who are 'ordinary working people' in your head?

[keith1879]

Keith said it was an interesting point, you want an actual example.

Are you suggesting Romania wants the same things from Japan as Portugal?

Would Turkey want the same deal as the Irish for items?

They've all got to accept the same deal for everything regardless when they may actually want more focus on certain parts to suit their countries individually.

I was toying with asking for an example - but an actual real-life example not just a theoretical construct like this. tbh I think that would be an unrealistic request in this forum - I think you've made a good point but it does have limitations.

[keith1879]

Penny dropped yet Keith?

I'm content that the quantity, quality and general tone of your postings has established a baseline of reliability for them to be judged.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm still struggling with which two bits of the global elite backed brexit and which didn't, and why they would give a **** about a small ex mill town in Lancashire.

[RingoMcCartney]

That wasn't my point and I think that is clear.

If you'd read my post instead of jumping in and trying to belittle me. You'd have noticed that I actually said, "I have an hierarchy of things I stick up for and defend."

Being concerned about about events occuring at a national level, I can simultaneoulsy co-exist while still sticking up for my family.

How does being the OP on a "thread of national importance" while prioritising my family become "inconsistant" Keith. The two distint things are not mutually exclusive you know.

Wanting England to do well in the 4 nations on a given Saturday. Doesnt lesson you giving the Ref a load of grief for a blatant penalty the Clarets should''ve had.

Where I do agree with you keith, is in what you said at the beginning of you post. "Its a cheap shot"

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm content that the quantity, quality and general tone of your postings has established a baseline of reliability for them to be judged.

Glad you're content Keith. Pity you arent over the referendum result eh!?

[randomclaret2]

Bacchus and keith1879 seem like politicians to me. Verbose...like patting one another on the back, dazzling with their grasp of the language, and enjoying above all belittling people.

[randomclaret2]

Mid ranking County councillors I think.

[randomclaret2]

The Cox & Evans of UTC

[Cryssys]

Glad you're content Keith. Pity you arent over the referendum result eh!?

You're starting to back slide into sneering Ringo again. It's a pity because some your recent posts have shown that you are quite capable of debating on a reasonable and rational level without resorting to sneering, insults and belittling people.

As Quoon said earlier in this thread "fair play to Ringo for this post." "nice to see him engage in actual sensible debate rather then the copy and paste soundbites and slogans which are his norm"

it's unlikely that we will ever see eye to eye (BFC aside) but it's a pleasant change to see you making a positive contribution. I can respect that.

[aggi]

"Cannibilising 80%" Really!? Deutsche Bank ahve just signed a long term lease on new multi million pound offices in London.

And you know a "fair few people" that the "likelihood " is their job will go abroad. How many MILLIONS of manufacturing jobs have been lost while the UK has been a member of the EU? Do you really think the majority of British people actually giva a toss about the livelihoods of a few highly paid, kept in clover, bankers being relocated to nice swish apartments in the wealthiset parts of wherever? (if it does happen!) Do you? Are they the very same bankers that were allowed to bring the global financial sytem to its knees? Is it those bankers that youre losing sleep over?

Whats "romantic" about making things? AMS Neve are a Burnley based company. They "Romantically" make things. Recognised by all the premier bodies in the various fields of music, TV and film, the products and their designers have been honoured by two Scientific and Engineering Academy® Awards, an Emmy™ and a Grammy™ amongst many others. Burnley based and recognised the world over. What's "romantic" about that Aggi?

https://ams-neve.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Brexit could help boost the prospects of manufacturing and therefore the prospects for many many towns like Burnley. How? by the UK being free to make its all mutually beneficail trade deals all around the globe. Stop being a bit myopic, and Little Europeaneresque. Theres a whole world out there.

How's Germany done it? One of the reasons is by being a member of a common currency that artificially keeps its goods relatively cheap, while simultaneously punishing the poorer economies, who are restrained from setting fiscal and monetary policies that would be more appropriate and beneficial to their national long term circumstances.

Another reason is that by, presumably, pure coincidence. When the EU announces changes to pan European specifications on manufactred goods. German manufactures always seem to have already tooled up for these changes and able to get a head start on other countries manufactures! Ive read about this phenominum with regards, with as such varied products as, cetral heating boilers, hair dryers, vacuum cleaners and even incinerators used in creamtoriums. You dont think a German dominated EU, is having a word in the shell-like of its allies in German manufacturing do you!?

The new DB office is replacing 3 or 4 existing London offices from what I hear. They are also likely to shift jobs to Frankfurt.

There are a lot of people who work in financial services and associated businesses who aren't super rich bankers (the vast majority in fact). It does contribute a significant amount to GDP and UK tax revenue though (about 12.5% I seem to remember).

You haven't really explained why the EU has caused all these manufacturing jobs to be lost, correlation doesn't always imply causation.

There is a romantic image that the golden era of UK business was when we were manufacturing. There is still a very large focus on it (hence you starting this thread) given it isn't a huge sector of the UK economy. I'm not quite sure what your point is re: AMS Neve, a small, UK company with a very small turnover (on a global scale) having its products used around the world is pretty much the romantic image I'm referring to.

Not counting time spent in the UK I spend more time working out of Europe than I do in it, there is a significant difference in regulatory restrictions out of Europe compared to dealing within it. Getting rid of this and starting again doesn't seem the best way to increase our areas of influence. We also sit a much further way down the chain of priorities for a deal when trying to make a deal by ourselves rather than as a bigger bloc.

I wouldn't be surprised if German companies do have advance notice of future regulations, but given the multi-European nature of those boards I would suspect that it is the same for other nations in the EU as well. Fortunately we'll soon be shot of that kind of advantage.

Your main issue seems to be that areas of the UK have suffered, particularly with the greater emphasis on service sector industry in the UK and its focus in the south-east and I don't disagree with this. What I don't understand is how the EU is being blamed for UK government policy that has resulted in that imbalance, it isn't that big an issue in other EU countries so how has the EU caused it in the UK?

[Bacchus]

Bacchus and keith1879 seem like politicians to me. Verbose...like patting one another on the back, dazzling with their grasp of the language, and enjoying above all belittling people.

Sure, you just generalise that a people from a whole bunch of professions are a self serving, greedy, sneering elite and then complain that I'm belittling you when I pick you up on it. Let the hatred flow, keep pointing the finger of blame, I'm sure it will make you feel better in the end. Or alternatively if you aren't able to constructively join in with a discussion maybe you should just leave it alone.

[Healeywoodclaret]

Can you imagine how salty they're going to be when there's a second referendum because polling shows a significant shift in opinion towards Remain? I'm really looking forward to that.

What are you looking forward to Turtle? A second referendum? Dream on matey. Not gonna happen. And even if it did you remainers are so sure that the vote would go the other way......... Now that would be funny!

Is it not you Lefties always banging on about democracy? A re-referendum cannot possibly happen as it would make a complete mockery of democracy.

[Lancasterclaret]

You'll have to explain how having another vote would be a complete mockery of democracy.

Btw if there is another vote, it will be on the final terms of the deal, and one thing is for sure we will know for sure what we are voting for and what will happen whichever way we vote.

Probably a good thing to be honest.

[Paul Waine]

Keith has beaten me to it, but have you got any realistic examples of how a deal could be better suited to us?

Hi Paul, I think Keith's plan is to use his "bigger stick" to beat everyone.

More seriously, a trade agreement between (a) a large block and (b) a single nation is not about (a) beating (b). It is important that the agreed terms of "fair" to both parties. Why else would Japan, Canada - as previously mentioned - want trade agreements with the EU? It isn't because Japan or Canada wants to sign up for "unequal" trade terms.

[Paul Waine]

Here is a considered explanation of why Greece and Iceland experienced such varying fortunes. It has a lot to do with membership of the Euro (a point against the Euro but not against the EU) and a lot to do with their starting positions when the crisis struck. http://voxeu.org/article/imf-programmes ... vs-iceland" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hi Keith, good link. Good to read this report on how Greece got into a mess and how Iceland got into a mess. (No Greek banks involved in the Greek mess).

There are things that aren't mentioned in the report about Greece: Greece did not meet the economic conditions, set out by the EU, to qualify to join the euro and eurozone. Greece only "qualified" to join the euro by some, let's say "imaginative" financial engineering - with the assistance of Goldman Sachs (the deal was also very profitable for GS, according to public domain info). Why did the EU agree to Greece joining the euro? Were the "hood winked" by the financial engineering? or did it not matter to the EU at the time, it was more important to get as many countries as possible into the euro?

The report makes a very good point about the national government (Iceland) taking ownership of their problem.

[RingoMcCartney]

You're starting to back slide into sneering Ringo again. It's a pity because some your recent posts have shown that you are quite capable of debating on a reasonable and rational level without resorting to sneering, insults and belittling people.

As Quoon said earlier in this thread "fair play to Ringo for this post." "nice to see him engage in actual sensible debate rather then the copy and paste soundbites and slogans which are his norm"

it's unlikely that we will ever see eye to eye (BFC aside) but it's a pleasant change to see you making a positive contribution. I can respect that.

When some one has a dig at me, they get one back.

I'm off work this week so able to put more time into each post. When I'm working I have to be quicker. My posts may come across as sound bitey and cut n paste jobs but I can assure you I've been interested in current affairs for a good while, and there's a lot of stuff stored up there! (There's plenty of room!) So the majority of my "work" is original. It may be utter bol****** but at least credit me for spewing original utter bol******!

But I'll happily take your post in the spirit it was made.

Thank you.

[Tall Paul]

Hi Paul, I think Keith's plan is to use his "bigger stick" to beat everyone.

More seriously, a trade agreement between (a) a large block and (b) a single nation is not about (a) beating (b). It is important that the agreed terms of "fair" to both parties. Why else would Japan, Canada - as previously mentioned - want trade agreements with the EU? It isn't because Japan or Canada wants to sign up for "unequal" trade terms.

Well they want trade agreements with the EU because the EU have more to offer them than the UK (or any individual country) does on its own.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, surely that's an argument that supports my point?

[Paul Waine]

All future members of the EU will have to adopt the Euro. So that get of jail free card wont be available as of now.

Reading the report there seems some things worth commenting on. It trys to say one form of debt easier to deal with for each respective nation or in Greeks unfortunate case, member state.

"Iceland’s external debt was de jure private, while Greece’s external debt was sovereign debt."

Both countries were financially goosed and its was expected, by the banks, that the tax payers of these countries would repay that debt.

The fact that one country was a member of the Single currency is just brushed off as incidental. Its simply not. The fact the Iceland could work out a plan without being shackled to doing what Berlin told it was in my view the single most important difference.

Heres the glaring omission from that link. Iceland had a referendum and decided to to simply tell the banks "NO". Greece wasnt allowed to. Wolfgang Schoeble put the Greek Peoples arms up their backs, financially and told them like some latter day Kamp Kommandant, " you vill pay zee debts of my beloved Deutsch Bank"

The IMF, the EU and the Commision then colluded to force the Greek people to accept cuts to their spending on their NHS, that were based on a percenrage of their GDP. Because the economy collapsed their GDP tanked , it meant the Greek People saw a real term slashing of health spending of around 30% Would Schoeble's own German people have accepted such a deplorable act by a foreign politician? NEINE.

But the thing I get from that report is that in no way, shape or form is any of it the fault of the unnaccountable bankers!!!!!!!!!!! Where is the bit that points out that Goldman Sachs admitted that they made at least 13 accounting errors in their asessment as to whether Greece was suitable to join the Euro in the first place? Where is it Keith?

Tony Benn was right. The EU is a club for banksters.

Greece - in the EU. Sees a 30% slashing of spending on health and around 30% of its People actually denied treatment.

Iceland - Out of the EU. Sees its sovereign Poeple get their mortgage debt slashed!!!

Isnt it interesting Iceland was criticised by the OECD the IMF and Standard and Poors. The very same banksters that said we should have joined the Single Currency, the Euro. And the very same globalist bodies that backed Remain.

Penny dropped yet Keith?

Hi Ringo, I think you are wrong in some respects about Greece and Iceland.

Iceland - their banking failures were privately owned Icelandic banks that used Iceland's sovereign credit rating to borrow money and then lend and invest in other countries. I guess you remember ISave, Kaupting (sp?) and one or two other Icelandic banks that offered great savings rates in UK and elsewhere. Iceland let these banks go bust, their shareholders lost all their money. I don't know (can't remember) if the Icelandic government has covered those banks external debts to depositors in the UK and elsewhere. Initially, the UK government bailed out the UK based depositors - and later asked for the Icelandic government to repay them.

Greece - it wasn't a failure of Greek banks, it was Greek government debt - because the Greek government borrowed heavily, taking advantage of the low euro interests rates (rather than much higher drachma interest rates) - because all countries in the Eurozone were (mistakenly in my view) believed to have the same credit rating as the strongest countries, Germany and a limited number of others. Yes, many bankers, including Deutsche Bank reached the conclusion that Greece as a member of the Eurozone, was as creditworthy as Germany. Banks are often a lot more optimistic about the prospects of their loans getting repaid than is shown to have been merited after the events.

Goldman Sachs is involved in the "scandal" of Greece being in the euro - but not in the way you suggest. The EU/Brussels was responsible for assessing the economic situation of the member states and determining if they qualified to join the euro. Whatever assessments GS made would be for their own internal purposes...

[Sidney1st]

Interesting how Iceland let it's privately owned banks go bang, but the UK government crapped itself and wouldn't do the same....

[Paul Waine]

Interesting how Iceland let it's privately owned banks go bang, but the UK government crapped itself and wouldn't do the same....

Hi Sid, don't think the situations were comparable:

Iceland - couldn't afford to do anything other than let them go bust - plus most of the money that was lost was not owed to Icelandic depositors, or the government's electorate...

UK - first bank to fail was Northern Rock - and Gordon Brown decided that all retail depositors would be protected from the failure, even those who had £1 million on deposit. (At that time only the first £2,000 plus 90% of the deposit up to £35,000 was guaranteed by deposit protection scheme). Having made this decision, Gordon Brown had to protect the retail depositors in every UK based bank - and not just those that were UK banks. Gordon Brown also protected depositors in the Iceland banks that operated in the UK. (As mentioned above, the UK gov't later asked Iceland gov't to repay these amounts - but I can't remember whether how this was resolved). (I also cannot recall how it was resolved for non-retail depositors, though I think that all commercial depositors and bank bond holders were also protected - by the government becoming shareholders in the banks).

The "melt down" in the UK economy if several of the UK banks were allowed to fail would have made the "brexit economic issues" look like a primary school summer fete.

[bluelabrador16]

Sydney1st

"Interesting how Iceland let it's privately owned banks go bang, but the UK government crapped itself and wouldn't do the same...."

Could it be that the City of London/Bank of England have too much power in relation to our Government.

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest...George Monbiot

Working beyond the authority of parliament, the Corporation of London undermines all attempts to curb the excesses of finance

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... y-medieval" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"...As Clement Attlee lamented, "over and over again we have seen that there is in this country another power than that which has its seat at Westminster." The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it "has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate". It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts....."

[Paul Waine]

Well they want trade agreements with the EU because the EU have more to offer them than the UK (or any individual country) does on its own.

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, surely that's an argument that supports my point?

Hi Paul, perhaps we are misunderstanding each other....

I understand that you are arguing that the EU, because it is a "club" of 28 countries (in the future to become 27), can always negotiate more favourable trading agreements than any single nation could negotiate. You are also arguing that because of the EU's size it has got more to offer to the other side in any trade agreement than and individual country could offer.

My position is that a free trade agreement is a free trade agreement. Party A can agree with Party B that there is free trade between those two parties. If however, Party A said "I'm bigger than you, so you won't charge any tariffs on goods I sell to you, but, as you are smaller than me, I will still charge tariffs on goods you produce and want to sell to me." I'd expect Party B to say "no deal. Thank you."

Of course, there are also non-tariff barriers, and perhaps Party A will say to Party B, "my standards are better than yours, so if your goods don't meet my standards then I won't permit them to be imported." In this case, Party B might say, ok your standards are "better than" my standards, so we will improve our standards and then we can sell to you.

Interesting question, specific to Japan and Canada trade deals with EU. Were those two countries motivated by access to the UK market, or just access to the markets of the other 27 member states? If access to the UK markets matters, then I'd anticipate replica trade agreements in the near term.

[Imploding Turtle]

The dust hasn't settled on the old referendum yet.
If there was a 2nd then Leave could demand another one to triple check, that's how silly it would become, an endless circle of referendums because people can't accept a decision.

How many referendums would you want to make sure?
2, 3, 4, 5.....

What part of "legally binding" are you struggling to understand?

[Sidney1st]

What part of "legally binding" are you struggling to understand?

I understand perfectly what it means but if it went leave again Remain would still kick up a stink about it, I think we all know that's guaranteed based on the last 18 months.

[Imploding Turtle]

I understand perfectly what it means but if it went leave again Remain would still kick up a stink about it, I think we all know that's guaranteed based on the last 18 months.

How can you understand what it means yet still think whining about the possibility of unlimited referendums is a viable argument?

And i'm yet to read an actual, substantive reason why the public's opinion shouldn't be double-checked on something this huge in case we've changed our mind. It's like you're trying to avoid answering that question.

[nil_desperandum]

I understand perfectly what it means but if it went leave again Remain would still kick up a stink about it, I think we all know that's guaranteed based on the last 18 months.

I don't believe that to be true at all. I believe that if the terms of a referendum that were "legally binding" were made clear in the wording then 99.9% of remainers would accept it.
You could even have a tick box on the ballot paper that says "I understand that this result is legally binding". Anyone who failed to tick it - their vote would be invalid.

[Sidney1st]

How can you understand what it means yet still think whining about the possibility of unlimited referendums is a viable argument?

And i'm yet to read an actual, substantive reason why the public's opinion shouldn't be double-checked on something this huge in case we've changed our mind. It's like you're trying to avoid answering that question.

I'm not whining about unlimited referendums, but I don't think there should be a 2nd one either.
It's been voted upon, let Parliment finalise the deal and move on.
The constant demands from some for a 2nd one makes me assume that they'd want a 3rd if they lost the 2nd and so on, so forth.
Doesn't matter if it would be legally binding, people like you would still kick up a bloody stink about a loss if it happened again and there's no guarantee Remain would win either.

Why shouldn't there be a 2nd one?
You should tell me why there should be a 2nd one.

How do you think we'd be treated by the EU if after all these negotiations we suddenly change our minds?
Do you think they'd take us back on the same terms, or do you think we'd be 'punished' for trying to rebel and end up being worse off somehow then we were?

It hasn't been the nicest of break ups as it stands now, so I suspect we'd get a rawer deal than we had if we stayed, probably lose our veto etc.

[Sidney1st]

I don't believe that to be true at all. I believe that if the terms of a referendum that were "legally binding" were made clear in the wording then 99.9% of remainers would accept it.
You could even have a tick box on the ballot paper that says "I understand that this result is legally binding". Anyone who failed to tick it - their vote would be invalid.

They wouldn't accept it, that's been proven already.
They'd still be on here whinging about it on a weekly basis until the deal is sorted out.

Then they'd jump on every little issue and blow it out of all proportion whilst stating that if we'd remained then the issue wouldn't be there and bang on about it being a fact

[Bacchus]

If a second referendum ended up with a Leave vote there'd be unhappy people, sure, but far less objection than there is now. The general picture of what Leave means is clearer than it was 18 months ago. If people still vote for it then so be it.

A lot of the anger at the moment is based on the sense that people voted Leave based on promises that are fundamentally undeliverable.

[Lancasterclaret]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42420829" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting

I wonder if its a ploy to make the EU do the same? In our very weak hand, its our best card so be interesting to see what results from this

[Lancasterclaret]

I genuinely don't know how you can't see that the Brexit promised to the British people is undeliverable Sid (and others)

What the Leave promised is effectively better than actually being in the EU, but with all the benefits of being in the EU. That is a fantasy.

With that in mind, and it becoming very clear, then its not actually that "anti-democratic" to ask for a 2nd referendum.

[Sidney1st]

I'm not talking about what can or can't be delivered though, People voted for their own reasons, some where very simple whilst others did it with more knowledge and expected more on both sides.

I'm talking about people wanting another referendum, have been harping on about another one and seem to think that getting one at the end of negotiations would be a good idea.

We'd have to lose something to get back into the EU I think.

[Imploding Turtle]

I'm not whining about unlimited referendums, but I don't think there should be a 2nd one either.
It's been voted upon, let Parliment finalise the deal and move on.
The constant demands from some for a 2nd one makes me assume that they'd want a 3rd if they lost the 2nd and so on, so forth.
Doesn't matter if it would be legally binding, people like you would still kick up a bloody stink about a loss if it happened again and there's no guarantee Remain would win either.

Why shouldn't there be a 2nd one?
You should tell me why there should be a 2nd one.

How do you think we'd be treated by the EU if after all these negotiations we suddenly change our minds?
Do you think they'd take us back on the same terms, or do you think we'd be 'punished' for trying to rebel and end up being worse off somehow then we were?

It hasn't been the nicest of break ups as it stands now, so I suspect we'd get a rawer deal than we had if we stayed, probably lose our veto etc.

See? Again, you're bringing up unlimited referendums. No wonder you people find that the rest of us have little respect for you, all you do is stick to talking points as if you're politicians.

I've already explained why i think there should be a second one, because i think the public is changing its mind. If i didn't think that then I wouldn't want a second one. It's taken me eighteen ******* months to change my mind on whether there should be a second referendum or not so you're going to get absolutely no respect from me with the argument that Remain voters have all been demanding on since day zero.

No, of course we wouldn't get a worse deal than we already have by staying. Lol. We'd be able to veto anything we dislike you daft sod.
I don't imagine we'd be treated particularly well by the rest of the EU, but there's nothing they can do about it since we can veto any attempt to punish us. We can't do that if we're not in the EU though.

So, i'll ask again and maybe this time you'll decide to answer without deflecting by asking more worthless and clearly poorly thought through questions. Why should we the public not have the right to change our minds if there's is compelling statistical evidence that we might in fact have changed our minds?

[Sidney1st]

See? Again, you're bringing up unlimited referendums. No wonder you people find that the rest of us have little respect for you, all you do is stick to talking points as if you're politicians.

I've already explained why i think there should be a second one, because i think the public is changing its mind. If i didn't think that then I wouldn't want a second one. It's taken me eighteen ******* months to change my mind on whether there should be a second referendum or not so you're going to get absolutely no respect from me with the argument that Remain voters have all been demanding on since day zero.

No, of course we wouldn't get a worse deal than we already have by staying. Lol. We'd be able to veto anything we dislike you daft sod.
I don't imagine we'd be treated particularly well by the rest of the EU, but there's nothing they can do about it since we can veto any attempt to punish us. We can't do that if we're not in the EU though.

So, i'll ask again and maybe this time you'll decide to answer without deflecting by asking more worthless and clearly poorly thought through questions. Why should we the public not have the right to change our minds if there's is compelling statistical evidence that we might in fact have changed our minds?

No respect from others on here?
Oh well, that's my life in ruins then, I don't know how I'll be able to cope with no respect from people I'm never going to meet face to face
I already know Walton has declared on Twitter that I'm the person who annoys him the most on here, so no respect from someone like you hardly bothers me.

Ah but we've activated article 50 which is a statement of intent to leave, we've started negotiations etc.
If we turned around and asked to stay are you sure the EU wouldn't use our initial attempt to leave as leverage to gain concessions?
That's what I'd expect them to do.

So you think the public may have changed it's mind, but you're basing it on a maybe?
There isn't compelling statistical evidence, there have been some polls and you're well aware polls can be manipulated to suit one side of a discussion, just like the Remain camp were absolutely convinced when polls suggested they'd win the last one.

Why shouldn't we have another referendum?
It was a one off vote, it's been cast, lets just leave it at that and move forward.
Millions have quite probably been spent by Government, businesses etc preparing themselves for Brexit and you're happy to see that wasted?

Now you've read this you can dismiss it all and ask me again and again and again why there shouldn't be another referendum, just like you keep saying again and again and again that there should be....

[quoonbeatz]

Why shouldn't there be a 2nd one?
You should tell me why there should be a 2nd one.

because - and i quote the grand high brexit overlord, david davis, here - ‘A democracy that has lost the right to change its mind has ceased to be a democracy.’

How do you think we'd be treated by the EU if after all these negotiations we suddenly change our minds?
Do you think they'd take us back on the same terms, or do you think we'd be 'punished' for trying to rebel and end up being worse off somehow then we were?

the former. reverse article 50 and we retain the same terms. try and get back in after we're out and we'll never get a good deal.

It hasn't been the nicest of break ups as it stands now, so I suspect we'd get a rawer deal than we had if we stayed, probably lose our veto etc.

the eu would still rather have us in rather than out. if we changed our minds and stayed in we wouldn't be renegotiating our deal so we wouldn't lose anything, we'd still retain the benefits.

[nil_desperandum]

We'd have to lose something to get back into the EU I think.

Again - I disagree.
Firstly because we haven't left, but even if they were to regard involving Article 50 as "leaving", I think that the key players would be relieved to keep us "in the fold" and avoid further distractions for the next goodness knows how many years. This would make the EU more stable, and enable them to get on with more important business.
They can't offer us much in terms of concessions without offering them to all, but they would probably agree to have discussions on some of the UKs main grievances if we revoked Article 50, since many of the issues that concern us are shared by their own populations.

[Imploding Turtle]

Would you be OK with the next general election being the last general election? If not, why?
If a general election is forced before we leave the EU why shouldn't there be a simultanious referendum? Why the hell shouldn't the government be able to ask us "are you idiots sure about this?" I don't understand the opposition. You people were screaming about the referendum being a shining light of democracy so what the hell are you so afraid of? In a democracy sometimes we change our minds. We do it so often that we have to have general elections every 4 or 5 years. So why are you so OK with a one and done on an issue that that will affect the country for generations? And how can you be so sure that we are so sure when by any objective viewing a 52/48 decision is anything but decisive?

Yes. It's a "maybe" on whether we've changed our mind or not, but why isn't that enough? If you're so sure that we haven't changed our mind then what is wrong with double checking right before we pull the plug and exit? Once we've left do you really think it will be healthy for 16 or 17 million people being able to credibly say "this isn't what we wanted. We had changed our minds"? You talk about wanting to "move on", that's never going to happen if we leave the EU when polling shows that we didn't want to. It will consume our politics for years is Labour are able to say that the Conservatives took us out of the EU against credible evidence that we had changed our minds. How healthy do you think that will be for our politics, for public discourse and for unity?

If you really want us to be able to move on once we leave then the very last thing we should do before walking out the door should be to ask ourselves "are we sure about this?". That's the only way we're going to be able to move on without a massive cloud of uncertainty looming over us for the next 2 or 3 election cycles.

[Sidney1st]

I haven't screamed about anything and your comment about are the idiots sure just shows what you think about the people who voted Leave.

Leaving the EU is entirely different to a general election, you know it is so it's a daft comparison.

There are going to be lots of people who won't be sure about this 100%, but there are people on both sides who made their vote regardless of how certain they are.
Some people, probably people like you, will never be able to move on even if a 2nd referendum was leave because you simply don't want too.

I'm well aware what Labour will do, which what they always do in opposition and complain about everything and then do similar things when they're in power, just like the Tories do.
Haven't Labour already said they'd follow this through to the end anyway?

It's going to take a fair number of years for the real outcome of leave to be realised anyway, there's bound to be short term pain or gains, but it will take longer for the dust to settle so I'd expect a cloud of uncertainty for a few elections.

[Bacchus]

Can we just admit that the real reason Leavers don't want a second referendum is nothing to do with it being anti-democratic, nothing to do with money spent / plans made to date, nothing to do with whether A50 would allow it and everything to do with a fear that the public might have actually changed its mind and that their 'will of the people' narrative no longer holds water?

[Lancasterclaret]

https://www.ft.com/content/e3b29230-db5 ... 4b1c09b482" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Oh good

[UpTheBeehole]

https://www.ft.com/content/e3b29230-db5 ... 4b1c09b482

Oh good

FT research shows that the weekly hit to the British economy could be the same £350m that Leave campaigners promised to claw back







How the Brexit vote has hit the economy
0%
The average worker
After taking inflation into account, pay including bonuses for the average worker in October 2017 was £490 a week. Official figures show that in May 2016 before the EU referendum it was £491, so real pay levels have been flat. This squeeze on real incomes has constrained consumer spending growth and it has increased only because employment has risen and household savings rates have fallen.

<11.5%
A company contemplating investment
Uncertainty over future trading relations with the EU has led companies to postpone some investment projects. Purchases of lorries, vans and other transport equipment in the third quarter of 2017 were down 11.8 per cent on the same period a year earlier, limiting the contribution investment made towards economic growth. The Bank of England’s regional agents report that uncertainties over the UK’s trading ties“continued to deter investment for some firms”.

>1.5%
A retailer facing a tougher trading environment
Sales in John Lewis, the department store favoured by Britain’s middle classes, have been 1.5 per cent higher in the second half of 2017 than in2016. With inflation at 3.1 per cent, this implies a decrease in the volume of goods purchased. To gauge what was possible at this most robust of UK retailers, the equivalent sales growth in the second half of 2016 was 3 per cent, which at the time was well above the 1.2 per cent level of inflation

[Sidney1st]

Ah good old research, which is guess work and opinions.

Doesn't mean it's going to happen, just like the financial crash didn't happen.

[Sidney1st]

Can we just admit that the real reason Leavers don't want a second referendum is nothing to do with it being anti-democratic, nothing to do with money spent / plans made to date, nothing to do with whether A50 would allow it and everything to do with a fear that the public might have actually changed its mind and that their 'will of the people' narrative no longer holds water?

There could be an element of that or people just don't want to go through the whole rigmarole again and have to listen to more drivel and lies from both sides.
It's all guess work as to what things will be like when we leave yet Remainers are convinced the world is going to end for the UK when they haven't actually got any proof it will.

[Lancasterclaret]

Ah, "we've had enough of experts"

39 pages on and people still think thats a valid reason to dismiss stuff they either don't understand or don't want to understand.

[Lancasterclaret]

JIT in car parts deliveries Sid

will that be affected by us not being in the single market or more importantly, the customs union?

Yes or no