Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Eloise posted:

But think how much stronger the economy would have been without the pesky EU!  :-)

 

Yes, good point.

 We’d be able to cut corporation tax, funded with the money the pesky EU formally made us distribute to the poorer parts of the nation.

Don Atkinson posted:

We have the £. I think Sweden still has its Krona.

Denmark still use their Krone too.  Like the UK they have a formal opt out.

winkyincanada posted:

Suzy Wong posted:

winkyincanada

 

 

The UK will otherwise leave the EU against the best interests and the wishes of the great majority of its people.

 

Looking at the result, it appears that the majority of people who expressed a preference by voting, wish to leave the EU. 

You're being naive. I'm not taking about the subset that voted. I'm talking about the entire population. If the referendum were to be run again, the outcome would be different.

Yeah, sure, more people should have voted, and people should have voted according to their wishes, rather than the stupid "protest votes" that may have actually changed the outcome. But I'm not talking about any of that. My point is that most people actually want to stay and it is in the overwhelming interests of the vast majority to stay.

I am afraid that it is you that does not appear to understand how the process of "democracy" works in the UK system. There is no compulsion on people to vote in any election. There is no compulsion to vote in any particular way. 

You are stating "as fact" that the majority of people wish to remain; the vote shows differently.

Suzy Wong posted:

winkyincanada posted:

Suzy Wong posted:

winkyincanada

 

 

The UK will otherwise leave the EU against the best interests and the wishes of the great majority of its people.

 

Looking at the result, it appears that the majority of people who expressed a preference by voting, wish to leave the EU. 

You're being naive. I'm not taking about the subset that voted. I'm talking about the entire population. If the referendum were to be run again, the outcome would be different.

Yeah, sure, more people should have voted, and people should have voted according to their wishes, rather than the stupid "protest votes" that may have actually changed the outcome. But I'm not talking about any of that. My point is that most people actually want to stay and it is in the overwhelming interests of the vast majority to stay.

I am afraid that it is you that does not appear to understand how the process of "democracy" works in the UK system. There is no compulsion on people to vote in any election. There is no compulsion to vote in any particular way. 

You are stating "as fact" that the majority of people wish to remain; the vote shows differently.

 

With such a narrow majority (48/52) I don't consider the "Vote" to be a reliable indication of the wishes of the whole population.

if the vote had been:-

10/90 to Leave, we might feel justified in waving two fingers at the EU and leaving without bothering to invoke Article 50. Forget any trade deals unless they come begging and close the borders.

At 35/65 at strong but polite exit might seem more appropriate. negotiate a good trade deal if possible, without too many offset deals.

Anything in region 45/55 (or vice versa) would suggest that matters be scrutinised very carefully before deciding which way to jump. But if Remaining, it would be on the basis of driving significant change to the EU. (Cameron wouldn't have been the person for this job)

At 65/35 Remaining, with polite but positive drive for change (not just Perks for the UK) but real change for the betterment of the whole Community (again, not one for Cameron)

At 90/10 Remaining, Long term strategy for evolutionary improvement in the EU. Cameron could start the ball rolling, but don't hold your breath...........

100% on democracy & compulsion to vote etc,  but truth be told then Winky is probably right re the majority of people wanting to stay,  problem is they did not bother their arse to get out & vote. As is usual with all elections/referendums there was a general trend for turnout to increase in line with age. The generational divide on brexit has been common knowledge throughout the campaign, younger wanted to remain, older trended towards brexit & had turnout been higher among younger people the remain vote would probably have won.  

Don, I totally agree with you. IIRC that nice Mr Farage went on record - before the vote, naturally - as saying that a 48-52 split, if in favour of remain, should not be considered conclusive and  a second referendum should be held (or words to that effect). Funny that he seemed to forget that argument afterwards......

Mike, again I agree with your thoughts. BTW, not every old buqqer voted Leave!

Nevertheless,  a referendum was held in which a simple majority was all that was required, and a simple majority was achieved.

Don Atkinson posted:

With such a narrow majority (48/52) I don't consider the "Vote" to be a reliable indication of the wishes of the whole population.

if the vote had been:-

Agree completely... the fact that no threshold was set, no requirement for each country within the Union to agree, etc. just adds to my feelings and anger that this referendum was nothing to do with giving the UK population a say, or helping improve the UK, or anything to do with what the government should be concerned with; but purely about cowtowing to the Eurosceptics in the Conservative party and buying votes from potential UKIP supporters.

Suzy Wong posted

 

Mike, again I agree with your thoughts. BTW, not every old buqqer voted Leave!

100%  !!!!   & less of the old !!!  

Boris is the new Foreign Secretary. Bet that will go down well abroad.

And David Davis to be the newly created SoS for Brexit.

and Hippo Head for England Manager?........

Suzy Wong posted:

 Nevertheless,  a referendum was held in which a simple majority was all that was required, and a simple majority was achieved.

The problem is though that no one spelled out what the alternative to the status quo is.  Theressa May keeps stating "Brexit means Brexit" but essentially it's a meaningless phrase as Brexit means nothing.

If the UK activates article 50 and leaves the EU, but the. Negotiates to join the EEA in a Norway type agreement then yes, we will have left the EU so will have Brexited.  But we will still be part of the common market, subject to the majority of EU regulation and red tape and have to accept free movement.  Do you think that will satisfy people? Yet it will be what was voted for.  

Alternatively should the government activate Article 50 and walk away knowing that trade and therefore the economy will be affected by the WTO arrangements the UK would be working under.  How far should the government go to keep companies like Nissan and Toyota investing in the UK?  How important is it to keep the financial industry in London considering Paris (amongst others) would welcome them with open arms?

Suzy Wong posted:

and Hippo Head for England Manager?........

Still waiting on KevinW's views on that one. 

MDS posted:

Suzy Wong posted:

and Hippo Head for England Manager?........

Still waiting on KevinW's views on that one. 

Is she 'king serious BoJo as foreign sec?????

I guess we can't be more of a laughing stock than we already are.

BigH47 posted:

Is she 'king serious BoJo as foreign sec?????

I guess we can't be more of a laughing stock than we already are.

 

Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer!

Hmack posted:

DrMark posted:

I would rest safe in the knowledge that stay or leave, most of Europe is about to enter a bond and currency crisis...and the UK will too, with or without the EU. So when it happens, don't blame the Brexit, and just know that your own politicians and central bankers will almost certainly follow the same misguided and ultimately unsuccessful measures to deal with it.

As one of the Fed Chairmen lamented to a reporter last week, "QE only works if you're the only one doing it." (I would add it only works sort of (at best) and in any event temporarily.) Right now it's a global currency race to the bottom in the world's developed markets.

The EU is an economic basket case. According to a report in Spanish newspaper Expansión over the weekend, the debt of seven different Spanish companies – worth nearly 16 billion euros ($17.7 billion in U.S. dollars) – is now trading with negative interest rates.

When the corporate debt of one of the weakest economies in the eurozone is now charging, rather than paying interest – while even short-term U.S. Treasurys are still paying a positive yield – is it any surprise money is fleeing to the U.S.?

Today, so-called "risk free" U.S. 10-year and 30-year Treasury securities yield 1.5% and 2.2%, respectively. ("Risk free" because unlike a company, the government can always print money to pay off the bonds if necessary, rather than default.) So, basically America is the "last man standing" with positive yields.

Eventually, this capital flight into US Treasuries will push down the yields there as well. Eventually – whether this trend is allowed to play out, or the Federal Reserve proactively slashes short-term rates to weaken the dollar and stem the tide – negative interests rates are likely coming to the U.S.

And when all this bad sovereign and corporate debt starts to default - watch out, it will be party time.

So don't fret about the Brexit and the upcoming recession (or perhaps even depression) - in the end it will all go the same way irrespective of the outcome of the referendum.

You may now shoot the messenger...

So Dr Mark,

Basically what you are saying is that Capitalism itself is flawed, and that we should have listened to Marx after all. 

Capitalism? Where the f-bomb is capitalism? There hasn't been capitalism for decades - this is CRONYISM; you throw a bunch of cash at the election campaigns of a bunch of these (s)elected criminals, and get them to pass legislation that funnels public money into your coffers, or subsidizes your products (same thing really). Oh, and pass a bunch of regulations that make it almost impossible for anyone to really compete with you.

The corporation I work for is a pretty egregious example - they are always sending us emails to join and support the company PAC. Since we sell drugs wholesale as our primary business (along with cancer treatment clinics, and a host of other health care related products) I would guesstimate that easily well over half our gross sales numbers in some form or another originate with a tax dollar...Medicare and Medicaid being the lion share of that. If I were king for a day, every PAC would be out of business, and every lobbyist unemployed.

If we had capitalism, GM, and a number of banks would be gone. And yes that would have had a painful impact in the short term, but papering things over and letting the criminals in the banking system off Scot-free will make for bigger problems down the road. Too Big To Jail. They made loans they knew were going to default, sold them to all kinds of places packaged as AAA debt, and then took the short position against them. Pure criminal activity. And nobody went to jail. Heck, one of them got to be the Treasury Secretary.

Central banks artificially keeping the price of money (interest rates) down - NOTHING capitalistic about that. At all. But these stupid governments have over borrowed and over committed - if the interest rates go up, they will default (which they will eventually anyway...they just won't admit it's a default). Remember, bond prices run inversely to interest rates...so eventually this will have to unwind.

So  they artificially lower the interest rate, and "print" more money trying to devalue it, because if interest rates were set by the market right now the carrying cost on their profligate borrowing would bury them.  Instead they hope to inflate the debt away. But try as they might, they can't gen up the inflation they so desperately need right now. (And in case you didn't know, inflation is nothing more than a stealth tax.)

Capitalism indeed. Absolutely NOTHING in my post above on which you commented is free market capitalism. In fact, as
Central Planners" it is a lot closer to Marxism.

thebigfredc posted:

To Winkincanada,

I am sorry to appear nniave but if you are Canadian would you like NAFTA to be extended to a political union whereby a group of unelected and unaccountableo bureaucrats in another country have influence over your life. They want to remove your currency, set your interest rates, over rule your courts and even do bizarre things like perhaps banning that thing you do with a brush on ice as well as letting in the Mexicans. Sounds a bit shit does it not but that was our position within the EU.

Ray

"....letting in the Mexicans"? Dear oh dear. Is that what this is about? Too many foreigners?

Sorry meant to say '...letting in waves of Mexicans...' that will make it easier for you to label me as a xenophobic or bigot and dismiss my views.

Ray

ursus262 posted:

BigH47 posted:

Is she 'king serious BoJo as foreign sec?????

I guess we can't be more of a laughing stock than we already are.

 

Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer!

Apparently TM had written F Off against Boris" name but some civil servant misinterpreted.

BigH47 posted:

ursus262 posted:

BigH47 posted:

Is she 'king serious BoJo as foreign sec?????

I guess we can't be more of a laughing stock than we already are.

 

Keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer!

Apparently TM had written F Off against Boris" name but some civil servant misinterpreted.

thebigfredc posted:

Sorry meant to say '...letting in waves of Mexicans...' that will make it easier for you to label me as a xenophobic or bigot and dismiss my views.

Ray

Your views are what they are and not for me to dismiss. I'm not labeling anyone. I actually have no real idea what your views on immigration are. But there do seem to be a significant number of people who are uncomfortable living near people "not like them". If they think that leaving the EU will relive their anxiety, they will be bitterly disappointed.

Mike-B posted:

 problem is they did not bother their arse to get out & vote. As is usual with all elections/referendums there was a general trend for turnout to increase in line with age. The generational divide on brexit has been common knowledge throughout the campaign, younger wanted to remain, older trended towards brexit & had turnout been higher among younger people the remain vote would probably have won.  

and maybe a problem with a chronic shortage of Wellington boots.  The 'Remain' side just happened to be the one most prone to complacency, given the massive assumption that the final verdict was likely to be for this.  If there ever were a 'Brematch' referendum, perhaps there is also a case for EU grant support and assistance for a full-scale air-dropping campaign of Wellington boots, umbrellas and rain macs over rain-affected regions, so that the more casual electorate would be better equipped to venture out.  Some areas could have benefitted with some kyaks and snorkelling gear too.

 Having seen some discussions involving younger people, some are also bemused by the old-fashioned nature of the entire voting procedure, especaily since they were born in the digital era.  It may well be possible to modernise the system one day, have online device voting which is kind of what they'd expect.

Eloise posted:

Suzy Wong posted:

 Nevertheless,  a referendum was held in which a simple majority was all that was required, and a simple majority was achieved.

 

If the UK activates article 50 and leaves the EU, but the. Negotiates to join the EEA in a Norway type agreement then yes, we will have left the EU so will have Brexited.  

Also depends what will be left of the UK as it is now.  What are the scenarios going on from this point..

England - brexit from EU

Wales - brexit from EU

Northern Ireland - bremain, once breunited with R.O.I ?

Scotland - bremain in EU by independence from UK?

Gibraltar - bremain in EU by independence?

London - bremain in EU by independence?

Also Brighton wanted EU membership?

As per the Independent today Theresa May has signalled that Britain will not trigger Article 50 to start the process of leaving the European Union until Scotland’s position in negotiations is clear. “Scotland’s very important to me. When I stood on the steps of Downing Street on Wednesday I made clear that I believe in the United Kingdom,” she said.

Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/n...urgeon-a7138971.html

So how is she going to square this position with her statement that Brexit means Brexit?

Are we just going to see months and months of posturing and theatrics before everything collapses and the UK stays in the EU?

Having watched her reshuffle yesterday, I think it would be wrong to under-estimate her. She knows what she is doing and, unfortunately, I think that does mean that she will succeed to take us out of Europe. Which our children and grandchildren will regret (and of course will certainly reverse one day in the future).

best

David

David Hendon posted:

Having watched her reshuffle yesterday, I think it would be wrong to under-estimate her. She knows what she is doing

Yes she's thinking of how she and her party can keep power rather than thinking what is bets for the country!  She's already positioned several handy fall guys ... Hunt she can blame for NHS, Jonson, Fox and Davis positioned to take the fall for any Brexit troubles. 

The most right wing cabinet since Margaret Thatcher.