Brexit Referendum Superthread

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

in any case, the claim that Mrs May cannot call a snap GE without realistically calling for a vote of no-confidence in herself is true.

No it's not - there's the mechanism I've already outlined. Why would she opt for any other mechanism, particularly one that called for a call of no-confidence?

Cartouche

Brexit means Brexit
Except no one knows what Brexit means really

alastair

alastair wrote: »

It's a view. But not one I'd agree with. Any party seen to avoid an opportunity to advocate for their platform is making itself redundant electorally.

You agree that it would be a remarkably easy way for Labour to pick up 'politi-points' by forcing the Tories into calling a vote of no-confidence in themselves?

If the Tories really want a GE, they can have one. Why would Labour let them have the easy route to it?

alastair wrote: »

No it's not - there's the mechanism I've already outlined. Why would she opt for any other mechanism, particularly one that called for a call of no-confidence?

The mechanism that is not realistically available to Mrs May. Its a mechanism for the Opposition to enact, not the Government.

Cartouche

Cartouche wrote: »

Brexit means Brexit
Except no one knows what Brexit means really

I enjoyed 'Baldrick means Baldrick'

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

You agree that it would be a remarkably easy way for Labour to pick up 'politi-points' by forcing the Tories into calling a vote of no-confidence in themselves?

If the Tories really want a GE, they can have one. Why would Labour let them have the easy route to it?

The mechanism that is not realistically available to Mrs May. Its a mechanism for the Opposition to enact, not the Government.

Neither of the mechanisms are for the Government to enact - they both require a parliamentary majority. The opposition will not vote against the Government for a general election that allows them an opportunity to advocate their platforms. It just makes no sense to do so.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Thankfully I'm not relying on the £ for those savings. The economic damage is already evident, and it'll not get better before it gets worse. Clearly the UK isn't going to become a third world nation, but it's a bit daft to suggest that Brexit isn't going to harm the UK economy.

I thought people would be wise to 'experts' proclaiming economic outcomes with no proof offered of their brilliant crystal ball insights. Talk is cheap though. Everyone wants to appear smarter then they are.

What is the saying again? Economists have predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions, or something to that effect.

For example, you say that the 'economic damage is already evident', yet even here you are completely wrong.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37786467

The UK's service sector helped the economy to grow faster than expected in the three months after the Brexit vote, official figures have indicated.

The economy expanded by 0.5% in the July-to-September period, according to the Office for National Statistics

"There is little evidence of a pronounced effect in the immediate aftermath of the vote," the ONS said.

So, who is right. The Office of National Statistics or Alastair on boards.ie. Hmmm, let me think on that

So, yea forgive me if I take your opinion with a vat of salt.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Neither of the mechanisms are for the Government to enact - they both require a parliamentary majority. The opposition will not vote against the Government for a general election that allows them an opportunity to advocate their platforms. It just makes no sense to do so.

It makes loads of sense. If the Government (which holds a majority) wants to call a GE, it is entitled to do it without the support of the Opposition.

The Opposition (which of course knows this) would therefore require them to go down that route if they wished to hold an early election. Because to do so would score them the fabled 'politi-points' by forcing them to do something embarrassing in order to achieve their own intentions.

As an aside, there is 0 chance that the 54 SNP MPs would support a bill for a GE, they could not possibly improve their standings. So that's 8% of seats already out.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

I thought people would be wise to 'experts' proclaiming economic outcomes with no proof offered of their brilliant crystal ball insights. Talk is cheap though. Everyone wants to appear smarter then they are.

What is the saying again? Economists have predicted 7 of the last 3 recessions, or something to that effect.

For example, you say that the 'economic damage is already evident', yet even here you are completely wrong.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37786467



So, who is right. The Office of National Statistics or Alastair on boards.ie. Hmmm, let me think on that

So, yea forgive me if I take your opinion with a vat of salt.

You'll trade the pre and post referendum £ for a like-for-like value then?

Everyone in the UK is now going to have to pay more for any imported items. That's not sounding like good news in an economy that had a £12.1 billion import trade deficit in the last month measured. As I said - it's not going to get better before it gets worse. Even your 'good news' reflects a lower growth level than was predicted.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

You'll trade the pre and post referendum £ for a like-for-like value then?

Everyone in the UK is now going to have to pay more for any imported items. That's not sounding like good news in an economy that had a £12.1 billion import trade deficit in the last month measured. As I said - it's not going to get better before it gets worse. Even your 'good news' reflects a lower growth level than was predicted.

Ha, keep digging. It was expected growth was to be 0.3% instead it came in at 0.5%
At least read the entire article before you make [false] claims.

That was slower than the 0.7% rate in the previous quarter, but stronger than analysts' estimates of about 0.3%.

Also any economist will tell you that a weaker currency != lower growth. There is a reason why Japan and China have been deliberately for years now weakening their currencies using various methods.

See, you will notice I am not making a grand bold prediction as if I am some authority on the subject and as if I have some insights that others do not have here in relation to the topic at hand. Sure, Brexit might be bad. It may also be good. History will tell, I just know I am smarter then making predictions on what will happen regardless, especially when claims in the last few posts are demonstrably wrong. I am sure there might be a broken clock somewhere at the next prediction

Warren Buffet

Forecasts may tell you a great deal about the forecaster; they tell you nothing about the future.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

It makes loads of sense. If the Government (which holds a majority) wants to call a GE, it is entitled to do it without the support of the Opposition.

The Opposition (which of course knows this) would therefore require them to go down that route if they wished to hold an early election. Because to do so would score them the fabled 'politi-points' by forcing them to do something against their own intentions.

As an aside, there is 0 chance that the 54 SNP MPs would support a bill for a GE, they could not possibly improve their standings. So that's 8% of seats already out.

That really doesn't matter where 88% of parliament has either called for a snap election to ensure a parliamentary mandate for what EU policy should be, or is part of the party of government.

And the SNP could indeed improve their standing. Still vulnerable seats there for the winning.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ha, keep digging. It was expected growth was to be 0.3% instead it came in at 0.5%
At least read the entire article before you make [false] claims.

Lower than the previous year (0.7%), and lower than IMF predictions.

FA Hayek wrote: »

Also any economist will tell you that a weaker currency != lower growth. There is a reason why Japan and China have been deliberately for years now weakening their currencies using various methods.

See, you will notice I am not making a grand bold prediction as if I am some authority on the subject and as if I have some insights that others do not have here in relation to the topic at hand. Sure, Brexit might be bad. It may also be good. History will tell, I just know I am smarter then making predictions on what will happen regardless, especially when claims in the last few posts are demonstrably wrong. I am sure there might be a broken clock somewhere at the next prediction

Warren Buffet

I'm happy enough with my prediction. Brexit will harm the UK economy, and already has.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

Lower than the previous year (0.7%), and lower than IMF predictions.

Christ, you really really need to stop digging. Stop reacting and READ.
0.7% was from the previous quarter. Not year. It is there in black and white in the link I posted. Your IMF prediction is also wrong by the way but what can I do. Sigh..

God, its like the post-truth world disease has even infected this forum of all places.

alastair wrote: »

I'm happy enough with my prediction. Brexit will harm the UK economy, and already has.

Even when the ONS say other wise, today. OK fair enough, I admire your faith.

Bertrand Russell

We may define "faith" as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence. Where there is evidence, no one speaks of "faith". We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.

djpbarry

Bit cynical wrote: »

But you may also want the government to handle questions of the exact relationship between the UK and the EU post-brexit. At some point a line has to be drawn between what the government handles and what is put to the people.

The problem with that is a large number of Leave campaigners are staunchly opposed to the terms of Brexit being debated in parliament – apparently this would undermine the decision of the electorate, even though nobody really knows what the electorate has decided. Because nobody has asked them.

djpbarry

solodeogloria wrote: »

I think if one seriously claims that immigration wasn't a major issue in the referendum they weren't following it.

Nobody has made such a claim. But, what certainly cannot be claimed is that 52% of the electorate want to see an end to free movement of EU citizens to/from the UK.

solodeogloria wrote: »

You have to realise that London is the most multicultural city in Europe and probably one of the most multicultural on the face of the earth.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that, but anyway, it doesn’t change the fact that the British are largely rather insular.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The people voted because they felt Brexit was in the national interest. That needs to be respected.

I assume by “respected”, you mean their wishes need to be carried out. The problem is, nobody knows what they wish.

djpbarry

FA Hayek wrote: »

With the spotlight on the UK, people seem to forget the huge structural issues in the EU itself. Greece has not gone away. Germany is having a crisis of confidence, France is near turning to the National Front for some semblance of control, Italy and its banks are near bankruptcy and are only kept alive by the generosity of the ECB, the Dutch and Austrians if given a chance would vote for their own Brexit, Sweden wants to be a case study on how not to do migration and Ireland is stuck in the middle of all this.

This is all straight out of UKIP's “Let’s abandon the sinking EU ship” propaganda.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

Christ, you really really need to stop digging. Stop reacting and READ.
0.7% was from the previous quarter. Not year. It is there in black and white in the link I posted. Your IMF prediction is also wrong by the way but what can I do. Sigh..

God, its like the post-truth world disease has even infected this forum of all places.




Even when the ONS say other wise, today. OK fair enough, I admire your faith.

Bertrand Russell

No 'faith' required to see which way this is going:

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2016/update/02/

http://www.oecd.org/economy/the-economic-consequences-of-brexit-a-taxing-decision.htm

https://www.ft.com/content/68c61094-3870-11e6-a780-b48ed7b6126f

And again - everyone in the UK is materially worse off already as a consequence of the referendum outcome, let alone the triggering of Brexit.

I'd argue the real 'faith-based initiative' is the head-in-the-sand response to the new economic reality in the UK. But the best of luck with that.

Chips Lovell

K-9 wrote: »

Did they though?

48% voted Remain. Maybe 20% would vote leave no matter what so we are talking 30% that it is hard to define what they voted for.

My own feeling is that it was made fairly clear in the campaign that if Britain wanted to restrict freedom of movement, then a hard Brexit would follow.

Zubeneschamali

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

My own feeling is that it was made fairly clear in the campaign that if Britain wanted to restrict freedom of movement, then a hard Brexit would follow.

I thought May's speech at the convention summed up what Brexit was about, and reflected the Leave campaign's pitch pretty well. Immigration control, no more Euro laws, regulations or courts.

Notice that these are things which are within the control of Westminster.

The other stuff that Brexiteers promised, that the EU would allow continued free market access, that there would be loads cash swilling around for the NHS etc, these are not things May or Westminster can deliver. So she will deliver what she can, and let the chip butties fall where they May.

djpbarry

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

My own feeling is that it was made fairly clear in the campaign that if Britain wanted to restrict freedom of movement, then a hard Brexit would follow.

It really wasn't. Leavers are still insisting that the UK can both restrict immigration and retain free access to the single market:

The most relaxed of the formal options available to the UK is a typical free trade deal. Britain would retain full or partial access to the Single Market, meaning tariffs on the vast majority of goods would continue to be exempted. But there would be no requirement for the UK to adopt regulations from Brussels, nor would Free Movement be a pre-requisite.

http://leave.eu/en/negotiations

Zubeneschamali

djpbarry wrote: »

It really wasn't. Leavers are still insisting that the UK can both restrict immigration and retain free access to the single market:

May can restrict immigration. She can ask for single market access.

We all know she won't get it, but she will blame the EU for that, and tell the UK voters that she delivered Brexit as ordered.

djpbarry

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

May can restrict immigration. She can ask for single market access.

We all know she won't get it, but she will blame the EU for that, and tell the UK voters that she delivered Brexit as ordered.

Quite possibly, but "We can have our cake and eat it" might as well have been the official slogan of the Leave campaign.

68deville

Well we can look forward to euro/ sterling parity in the short term!
I like Theresa's " We will fight them on the beaches" attitude to it all
They really are still convinced the are a superpower in global terms
Where as industry wise their finest and biggest exports are JCB diggers and Dyson vacuum cleaners..the harder the Brexit the better for em

alastair

68deville wrote: »

Well we can look forward to euro/ sterling parity in the short term!
I like Theresa's " We will fight them on the beaches" attitude to it all
They really are still convinced the are a superpower in global terms
Where as industry wise their finest and biggest exports are JCB diggers and Dyson vacuum cleaners..the harder the Brexit the better for em

Dysons are made in Malaysia though.

68deville

Looks like JCB then!

alastair

68deville wrote: »

Looks like JCB then!

Or about a third of each JCB. The remaining two thirds of the parts are sourced outside the UK.

The UK certainly does make some genuinely indigenous stuff for export, but so much of manufacturing is tied into multinational supply chains, that a start-from-scratch trade negotiating position outside the EU, combined with a weakened currency is going to be something of a hurdle to get past.

68deville

The whole immigration argument and blaming the EU for its woes is
Offloading the blame to an extent , England's influx of non nationals was
In play long long before the joining of the European Union thanks to its
Colonial Empire and all of its own doing and no one else..the cost of Empire!

68deville

alastair wrote: »

Or about a third of each JCB. The remaining two thirds of the parts are sourced outside the UK.

The UK certainly does make some genuinely indigenous stuff for export, but so much of manufacturing is tied into multinational supply chains, that a start-from-scratch trade negotiating position outside the EU, combined with a weakened currency is going to be something of a hurdle to get past.

They do manufacture their own power plants but not by choice since
caterpillar bought Perkins and that just wouldn't be cricket using the
Enemies Engines!

murphaph

The breadth and depth of the UK economy (yeah yeah they don't make as much as they used to but they design and in some cases build a tonne of very advanced products like satellites and microprocessors) is something to be admired and aspired to but they have made and are making a monumentally stupid decision to exit the EU. They will be back knocking on the door within a generation but will have to rejoin with no rebate and no opt outs. Theresa May is gutless and won't say to the public what she believes in private. If the referendum was run again tomorrow it would be at least 60/40 remain IMO.

68deville

Will they have to introduce a whole new range of standards for the all products
Not manufactured in the Uk? Say safety/emissions/conformity for consumers
it could be costly and would manufacturers even bother making A UK standard
Product for just one single market???? A small thing but could be complicated

prinzeugen

68deville wrote: »

Will they have to introduce a whole new range of standards for the all products
Not manufactured in the Uk? Say safety/emissions/conformity for consumers
it could be costly and would manufacturers even bother making A UK standard
Product for just one single market???? A small thing but could be complicated

The old British kite mark is basically what the EU adopted for safety testing of products.

On the other hand, the UK railways are struggling to get diesel trains due to the new EU regs.

There was the case of a company buying all the engines for a locomotive order before the new year to complete them as they would be illegal after Jan 1st due to emissions regs.