OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[roger_ramjet]

So after 1750 posts we seem to have narrowed down the argument to its basics.

ECONOMICS : As Swale rightly observes, there will be a mass of costs which will arise with brexit both in putting it into affect and in the post brexit universe. It may well be that the net annual cost (after rebate and inwards receipts from CAP etc) no longer payable to Brussels will be absorbed by the incremental costs of the post brexit management of the functions previously carried out by the EU - but at least they will be carried out by British labour - if there is enough qualified to do it, which is a huge IF - and so our social security costs will fall.

Lets call that a breakeven.

TRADE : Unpredicitible outcome, but most likely to be initially negative connotations which should improve longer term as the new trade relationships bed in.

SOVEREIGNTY : perhaps the key determining factor for a number of reasons - not least of which is the fact that noone did, nor now does, clearly understand the economic issues outlined above. The fact remains that the EU is NOT what the Great British public originally voted for. It has evolved from being a trade area, like EFTA, ANZFTA or SICA, into a quasi-federal state, with, it must be said, the complicity of successive British governments. People do not want this degree of integration and so voted by a voting majority against continuing to be part of it.

Those people are prepared to pay the price in potential economic retardation and cash flow to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the UK. Whether they quite rationalised it this way is a moot point, but in effect we have (or have commenced the process to) "bought ourselves out of the system" by sacrificing the economic benefits of membership at the high altar of sovereignty.

Time will tell if this decision was long term advantageous, but can you put a price on "Freedom". Are today's idealistic brexiteers following in the footsteps of William Wallace regardless of the price: or are they simply a petty bunch of disenfranchised racists seeking to find a cause to blame their personal ills on, rather than examining their own limitations?

The truth may well lie somewhere in between those two polarised views, but all the arguments about whether we are better off in or out from a financial perspective is sort of irrelevant. We have traded finance off against freedom. Arguments can be promoted on both sides of the trade off but the simple truth is we dont know and wont maybe ever know if it is the right decision.

So by all means Tricky and Swale argue about angels on a pinhead until the cows come home. You will doubtless both go to your graves (as will I) without knowing whether the decision was right. It is very much a pragmatism v principles argument; head v heart and will always remain that.

[swaledale]

Well summed up, I'd take issue on the financially neutral, because we are already at 3.8% unemployemtn and anything under 4% is considered full employment, so can't see the savings in social security, plus those damned immigrants actually contribute a significant tax yield.

I guess the argument has moved on from if we leave (we are, though i did read an interesting view the other day that the EU may collectively come to its senses and realise that it would be worth changing its approach and offering an improved deal to the Uk IF it voted to remain in, unlikely though, one sure thing about a collection of humans is that it takes time and usually history before they begin to recognise what could have been achieved and even then some remain in denial) to what the deal and relationship will be when we leave.

Its this debate (hard soft or slightly floppy Brexit which is crucial and it will i think end in a result which the Brexit side will think they have not got what they wanted other than the fact the Uk left the EU, I say that because the economic interdependence - in all areas of the economy is so interlinked and interdependent that some sort of compromise is essential or a substantial part of the Uk and european economy will be ****ed!

As fr freedom and control, mmm it will be in name only, for me the big plus of the Eu was that it could and did regulate companies and global corporations (yes I hear you say not as well as it could ahve done but more than those organisations liked) such is the nature of the world today that a single government is actually quite powerless against the big corporations - be punitive and they will simply move jobs etc elsewhere, plus of course they have such financial power that they can lobby (or buy influence).

The notion of sovereignty and freedom is one which only those who yearn for the days of yore actually hold dear and the reality is that a single nation is not strong enough to operate on its own - one reason why the SNP will never in my view achieve independence, yes an independent scotland sounds sey, but the reality is they would be a lot worse off and most Scots know this.

So welcome to Brexit

We will obey the same laws have largely the same regulations, adopt many that eminate from the EU, especially those which we have to in order to sell goods there, replicate subsidy that the Eu provided, find we need foreign labour to keep our economy and services going and more than likely suffer a drop in the standard of living but we will be "in control"!

[ramAnag]

Not sure you, Tricky or Swale will go to your graves without knowing Rog. Not unless you're all thinking of going quite imminently. Seems likely to me that there will be a lot of regrets before mid summer.
Interesting that you bring it down to Trade, Sovereignty and Economics with no direct mention of Immigration which was probably the main motivation behind a great many of those who voted 'Leave'. At the risk of repeating the argument I'd also challenge your suggestion that 'people' do not want this degree of integration because, by definition, 'people' only refers to the 37% who voted against it so by no means...'the people'.
The point I still have great difficulty with is...you have written very intelligently about the situation, as have others - Swale, AF and Ram59 amongst them - but I don't actually believe that the majority of people are capable of following your reasoning - some Sun readers probably won't even be able to read it - so is there not a real danger that we are now being led into possible recession by the knee jerk reaction of a minority who simply used the referendum as a populist protest vote against perceived immigration levels and over bureaucratic government.

[roger_ramjet]

Not sure you, Tricky or Swale will go to your graves without knowing Rog. Not unless you're all thinking of going quite imminently. Seems likely to me that there will be a lot of regrets before mid summer.
Interesting that you bring it down to Trade, Sovereignty and Economics with no direct mention of Immigration which was probably the main motivation behind a great many of those who voted 'Leave'. At the risk of repeating the argument I'd also challenge your suggestion that 'people' do not want this degree of integration because, by definition, 'people' only refers to the 37% who voted against it so by no means...'the people'.
The point I still have great difficulty with is...you have written very intelligently about the situation, as have others - Swale, AF and Ram59 amongst them - but I don't actually believe that the majority of people are capable of following your reasoning - some Sun readers probably won't even be able to read it - so is there not a real danger that we are now being led into possible recession by the knee jerk reaction of a minority who simply used the referendum as a populist protest vote against perceived immigration levels and over bureaucratic government.

I am perhaps ascribing a greater degree of reasoning to voting patterns than the voters actually applied in their decision making, and perhaps making the case ex post facto for the decision, but ..... Undoubtedly immigration was a major factor in voting choice, but since the Brexit decision is unlikely to reduce immigration and reliance of external labour, the issue folds into that of "freedom" and "being in control" and "sovereignty" - ie we retain the inalienable right to control our borders even if we end up controlling them in the same way as the EU did! Form over substance

[roger_ramjet]

Not sure you, Tricky or Swale will go to your graves without knowing Rog. Not unless you're all thinking of going quite imminently. Seems likely to me that there will be a lot of regrets before mid summer.
Interesting that you bring it down to Trade, Sovereignty and Economics with no direct mention of Immigration which was probably the main motivation behind a great many of those who voted 'Leave'. At the risk of repeating the argument I'd also challenge your suggestion that 'people' do not want this degree of integration because, by definition, 'people' only refers to the 37% who voted against it so by no means...'the people'.
The point I still have great difficulty with is...you have written very intelligently about the situation, as have others - Swale, AF and Ram59 amongst them - but I don't actually believe that the majority of people are capable of following your reasoning - some Sun readers probably won't even be able to read it - so is there not a real danger that we are now being led into possible recession by the knee jerk reaction of a minority who simply used the referendum as a populist protest vote against perceived immigration levels and over bureaucratic government.

I think we will go to our graves not knowing, but we may have an inkling. The virtues of this decision are far more long term than this summer. The first implications and impacts may start to play out by then, but the merits of Brexit can only really be evaluated after no less than 10 years out - after all we had 40 odd years in to see how it did, before many decided that they didnt like it. I fully expect that the impact in the next three to five years will be potentially difficult to deal with and financially expensive, but once all the revamped trade deals fall into place we may return to the neutral position trade wise, but with our sovereignty (for what its worth) in our own hands. This may be illusory but that illusion may keep the proles happy.

Yes, as Swale says, global corporations will have their way over small markets/countries - but even a reduced stature EU may struggle to stand up to those mega corporations. As Ben Brockman might ask "who would win in a battle between a robot and a T Rex?" Answer probably neither. besides when all the dust is settled we will probably still be in the EEA (perhaps modified a bit re movement of labour / Schengen) via EFTA and so be subject to most EU legislation except the chaotic EU CAP and Fisheries Policies. That may be a reasonable soft compromise in my view.

[ramAnag]

By which time I fear the futures of those who will, by then, be approaching thirty may have been seriously scuppered.
Not being disrespectful but there is something seriously wrong when those with dementia or possibly only months to live have a bigger say on a decision which may take decades to play out than those aged six**** or seven****.

[roger_ramjet]

Cannot disagree

Wibble

Wibble

[Akwesasne]

By which time I fear the futures of those who will, by then, be approaching thirty may have been seriously scuppered.
Not being disrespectful but there is something seriously wrong when those with dementia or possibly only months to live have a bigger say on a decision which may take decades to play out than those aged six**** or seven****.

What has happened to the concept of the village elder, the person who has taken and survived the worst and enjoyed the best that life can throw at them and recommend to the younger generation what works best. ****agers are so gullible that they are prepared to put their necks on the block just because politicians tell them to go, subdue and possibly kill people they don't know, never met and probably would like if they did meet.

[swaledale]

I think the young people have realised (probabely back in the 60's that the village or indeed town elder was telling them a lot of tripe!

Now I get that age and experience counts for something but not when it holds back innovation, experimenting and generally carries on myths and falsehoods!

[Ram59]

My lads thought I knew nothing when they were ****agers. Surprisingly now they're in their late twenties, they come to me for advice on a regular basis.