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

[swaledale]

Oh shut up you tart. You really are the most yellow bellied bell end I have ever heard of.

If no one agrees with you, you go on the offensive,
You don't give and take, you provoke and label folks you don't even know. Quite frankly, you're a complete cock.

Oh er missus, I seem to have touched a nerve!

Your an ignorant xenophobic **** who posts false news whilst berating everyone who isn't white and born in England. Your exactly the type of **** that frankly we should urge the government to exile to some remote island that we own somewhere. No sane person would want to be associated with your twisted views.

I have proven you wrong so many times yet you still come back for more, either your a glutton for punishment or just thick!

You haven't a clue about history, your so called facts are gleaned from the gutter press or right wing sources with a clear agenda and frankly one does not have to know you to understand that the bile and exaggerated rubbish you spout is the sign of someone who clearly has a very low IQ and as you've just proved low self esteem!

Now piss off back to your own forum where it seems even your own kind think your a pathetic joke.

[swaledale]

Who mentioned 'referendum after referendum'? We now generally accept the following...

I think 'we' is still less than 50% of those who'd vote

The Brexit referendum was brought about in an attempt to settle internal Tory party squabbles.

80% agree

It wasn't taken as seriously as it should have been

Totally disagree inasmuch as it was taken as seriously as previous national polls

and was hijacked by the right wing press.

Partly agree but I don't hear you moaning about left wing activists 'hijacking' social media at the last election. Efficient marketing is no crime, if it was Mrs Faber would be serving life

People were misled into voting a certain way.

See above

Only approximately 37% of the electorate voted in favour of 'Leave'.

Correct arithmetically but totally disagree with your logic that such numbers invalidates the outcome

The result was advisory and not binding

We'll see how 'advisory' it was when the final deal is announced, IMO the next election WILL be voted for on satisfaction with the Brexit deal

The consequences are likely to be financially damaging if not disastrous for the U.K.

No idea where you get that from unless it was the BBC's Kamal Ahmed, its waaaay too early to tell

Agree with your summary except the question that "The consequences are LIKELY to be finacially damaging if not disastrous for the UK"

There are not many respected commentators or financial professionals who are not currently forecasting or assessing the likely outcome of brexit as being negative. So likely negative as things stand is a realistic viewpoint. Whilst much depends upon the type of Brexit we undertake, the reality is this.

The process will cost millions - revising laws, compiling bodies to take over tasks such as dug monitoring and approval, approval of chemicals, changing eu law into Uk law, creating border posts increasing customs staff etc. etc. All for no return.

The shift, which is already taking place of HQ's abroad, to Dublin , Paris Frankfurt etc. is seeing high paid skilled jobs leave the country. Inward investment and the creation of factories arising from that by companies who want easy access to the EU will reduce and is reducing further losing jobs and revenue.

Yet the leavers crow on about all those wonderful trade deals we will do, sometime somehow which will magically cover not only the costs but also the missing jobs and investment without actually saying where and how this will happen. Of course we may of course finish up outside the EU, but still in the customs union or even the EEA, but then what exactly will Brexit have achieved?

[ramAnag]

Who mentioned 'referendum after referendum'? We now generally accept the following...

I think 'we' is still less than 50% of those who'd vote

The Brexit referendum was brought about in an attempt to settle internal Tory party squabbles.

80% agree

It wasn't taken as seriously as it should have been

Totally disagree inasmuch as it was taken as seriously as previous national polls

and was hijacked by the right wing press.

Partly agree but I don't hear you moaning about left wing activists 'hijacking' social media at the last election. Efficient marketing is no crime, if it was Mrs Faber would be serving life

People were misled into voting a certain way.

See above

Only approximately 37% of the electorate voted in favour of 'Leave'.

Correct arithmetically but totally disagree with your logic that such numbers invalidates the outcome

The result was advisory and not binding

We'll see how 'advisory' it was when the final deal is announced, IMO the next election WILL be voted for on satisfaction with the Brexit deal

The consequences are likely to be financially damaging if not disastrous for the U.K.

No idea where you get that from unless it was the BBC's Kamal Ahmed, its waaaay too early to tell

1) Even if you're right, significantly more than voted 'Leave'.
2) We agree then.
3) Lots of complacency and the referendum took place at a particularly difficult time for students to register...changed by last month's GE.
4) We at least partly agree. I know nothing about social media. Nothing wrong with 'efficient marketing'...but the Brexit campaign would have breached trading standards.
5) You see above too.
6) 'Correct arithmetically'. That's a first at least, but seriously...how can a Yes/No vote be 'won' by just over a third of the electorate and still have credibility?
7) It's just advisory...legal fact. IMO the next election will be long before there is a Brexit deal.
8) You've said it yourself and added that it'll be the weakest/those most likely to have voted Brexit who are likely to suffer most. It's one thing that you, Rog, Swale and I actually seem to agree on. Look at the concern expressed by business leaders including the head of Rolls Royce.

[Andy_Faber]

Agree with your summary except the question that "The consequences are LIKELY to be finacially damaging if not disastrous for the UK"

There are not many respected commentators or financial professionals who are not currently forecasting or assessing the likely outcome of brexit as being negative. So likely negative as things stand is a realistic viewpoint. Whilst much depends upon the type of Brexit we undertake, the reality is this.

The process will cost millions - revising laws, compiling bodies to take over tasks such as dug monitoring and approval, approval of chemicals, changing eu law into Uk law, creating border posts increasing customs staff etc. etc. All for no return.

The shift, which is already taking place of HQ's abroad, to Dublin , Paris Frankfurt etc. is seeing high paid skilled jobs leave the country. Inward investment and the creation of factories arising from that by companies who want easy access to the EU will reduce and is reducing further losing jobs and revenue.

Yet the leavers crow on about all those wonderful trade deals we will do, sometime somehow which will magically cover not only the costs but also the missing jobs and investment without actually saying where and how this will happen. Of course we may of course finish up outside the EU, but still in the customs union or even the EEA, but then what exactly will Brexit have achieved?

I will agree that there's too much crowing about the Americans and Australians coming to our rescue.

The 'unseen' bits of UK/EU intertwining are going to be a BITCH to unravel if the EU play hard and dont let us become associate members of bodies etcc

IMO, the issue of movement of 'labour' is (at the mo) patchy and anecdotal. My 9-5 company is shovelling skilled folk in as quick as we can buy the plane tickets, from all over the world, but I wouldn't extrapolate from that

[Andy_Faber]

1) 8) You've said it yourself and added that it'll be the weakest/those most likely to have voted Brexit who are likely to suffer most. It's one thing that you, Rog, Swale and I actually seem to agree on. Look at the concern expressed by business leaders including the head of Rolls Royce.

Economically, yes. But, and here's my Nick Clegg moment, TTR is right, its not why most leavers voted to leave. Maybe RR said it too. Ive mentioned before my facebook window on a world different to my own (I sound such a snob talking about class, but these are folk who think Ode To Joy is a perfume), and the anger was and still is about immigration, sovereignty and the size of the bill (yes £350m was a lie but there IS a bill), many of them have no concept of the kind of economics associated with Brexit, it fries my brain and I claim to be knowledgeable in that area.

[ramAnag]

[QUOTE=Andy_Faber;38585217]Economically, yes. But, and here's my Nick Clegg moment, TTR is right, its not why most leavers voted to leave. Maybe RR said it too. Ive mentioned before my facebook window on a world different to my own (I sound such a snob talking about class, but these are folk who think Ode To Joy is a perfume), and the anger was and still is about immigration, sovereignty and the size of the bill (yes £350m was a lie but there IS a bill), many of them have no concept of the kind of economics associated with Brexit, it fries my brain and I claim to be knowledgeable in that area.[/QUOTE

I'm aware we're in danger of just going round in circles, have been for a while actually, but this is so frustrating.
Swale is absolutely right to ask 'what exactly will Brexit have achieved'?
We may have been seen to 'stand up' to the bureaucracy and lack of democracy that I accept are too prevalent within the EU but their impact on our laws and legislation is tiny and in some instances actually clearly beneficial. Maybe we will move towards the free movement of 'labour' rather than 'people' and I can see the arguments in favour of that...but at what cost?
You, along with the mischievous Ramjet, accept that 'economically...yes' - times are going to get harder. Again to quote Swale, there are so many 'respected commentators' offering the same prognosis and yet for some bizarre reason we continue down this route of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

We just can't afford the cost of Brexit. Yes of course there is a bill for membership of the EU, just as there is for any 'club' but there are also numerous benefits. Don't be afraid of being labelled a 'snob'. It's not snobbery to wish to avoid being led by a bizarre alliance of social (though not intellectual) elitists such as Gove, Johnson and Rees Mogg and the half wits you describe on Facebook who think that any one who is 'pro-European' is a cowardly collaborator...it's common sense.

[Andy_Faber]

Ramanag Said 'I'm aware we're in danger of just going round in circles, have been for a while actually, but this is so frustrating. Maybe we will move towards the free movement of 'labour' rather than 'people' and I can see the arguments in favour of that...but at what cost?'


At what cost? Good question, and I’ve done a bit of cack-handed research on this (not Swale-proof, I can’t be bothered to cite sources)

To cut a long story short, those who’s mantra is ‘immigration is good for the economy’ are looking at things to simplistically, whether deliberately or not

The big measure of economic/producing wealth is GDP, but that is AGGREGATE wealth, so if a million immigrants arrived, there was one hard-worker and the rest were non-producing loafers, GDP would go up, but the measure of a person’s producing wealth, GDP Per Capita, would go down. So GDP per capita should be the measure

On balance, it looks like immigrants’ impact on GDPPA is about neutral, but being generous lets say it’s marginally positive. All good so far.

But then look at the distribution curve of GDPPA, and its evident that 85% of people sit below the average, ‘propped up’ by those evil bankers, amoral footballers, gob****ing pop stars and, being serious, (proper) engineers, doctors, other pointy heads and clever dicks etc.

So lets assume that such a curve also applies to immigrants. It probably doesn’t, all commentators seem to agree that many more are further down the curve, but let’s assume so.

On that basis, 85% of immigrants do not increase GDPPA because they would be contributing less than the average.
Using that line of reasoning, ‘the ‘cost’ of controlling/limiting immigration that you refer to (lets say reducing by 85%) is actually a benefit, if the 85% were turned away, GDP AND GDPPA would go UP.

And I’m not entrenched/callous/bigoted enough to suggest that this should be the single measure of a person’s chance of being allowed to come to UK, but what it would do is (in theory) satisfy both the little Englanders who want a drastic reduction in immigration come what may, and the soft lefties who use ‘benefit’ to justify their open arms policy.

I doubt TTR or Lily Allen would buy it, but you can’t please everyone.

[ramAnag]

Ramanag Said 'I'm aware we're in danger of just going round in circles, have been for a while actually, but this is so frustrating. Maybe we will move towards the free movement of 'labour' rather than 'people' and I can see the arguments in favour of that...but at what cost?'


At what cost? Good question, and I’ve done a bit of cack-handed research on this (not Swale-proof, I can’t be bothered to cite sources)

To cut a long story short, those who’s mantra is ‘immigration is good for the economy’ are looking at things to simplistically, whether deliberately or not

The big measure of economic/producing wealth is GDP, but that is AGGREGATE wealth, so if a million immigrants arrived, there was one hard-worker and the rest were non-producing loafers, GDP would go up, but the measure of a person’s producing wealth, GDP Per Capita, would go down. So GDP per capita should be the measure

On balance, it looks like immigrants’ impact on GDPPA is about neutral, but being generous lets say it’s marginally positive. All good so far.

But then look at the distribution curve of GDPPA, and its evident that 85% of people sit below the average, ‘propped up’ by those evil bankers, amoral footballers, gob****ing pop stars and, being serious, (proper) engineers, doctors, other pointy heads and clever dicks etc.

So lets assume that such a curve also applies to immigrants. It probably doesn’t, all commentators seem to agree that many more are further down the curve, but let’s assume so.

On that basis, 85% of immigrants do not increase GDPPA because they would be contributing less than the average.
Using that line of reasoning, ‘the ‘cost’ of controlling/limiting immigration that you refer to (lets say reducing by 85%) is actually a benefit, if the 85% were turned away, GDP AND GDPPA would go UP.

And I’m not entrenched/callous/bigoted enough to suggest that this should be the single measure of a person’s chance of being allowed to come to UK, but what it would do is (in theory) satisfy both the little Englanders who want a drastic reduction in immigration come what may, and the soft lefties who use ‘benefit’ to justify their open arms policy.

I doubt TTR or Lily Allen would buy it, but you can’t please everyone.

God, now I'm really confused. When you refer - a lot - to GDPPA do you actually mean GDPPC?
If you don't then I've honestly no idea what you're talking about...if you do then I've marginally more idea (my fault not yours) and actually do understand your conclusion.
It would also be completely impossible to satisfy both TTR and Lily Allen...but then who would ever try?

[roger_ramjet]

I dont think Id even want to try to satisfy either self opinionated bigot

[Trickytreesreds]

Oh er missus, I seem to have touched a nerve!

Your an ignorant xenophobic **** who posts false news whilst berating everyone who isn't white and born in England. Your exactly the type of **** that frankly we should urge the government to exile to some remote island that we own somewhere. No sane person would want to be associated with your twisted views.

I have proven you wrong so many times yet you still come back for more, either your a glutton for punishment or just thick!

You haven't a clue about history, your so called facts are gleaned from the gutter press or right wing sources with a clear agenda and frankly one does not have to know you to understand that the bile and exaggerated rubbish you spout is the sign of someone who clearly has a very low IQ and as you've just proved low self esteem!

Now piss off back to your own forum where it seems even your own kind think your a pathetic joke.

no sir, you and your ilk, in your protected countryside environment are what pisses me off.

NIMBYS, you don't see it or get it.

Not that I give a **** anyway.

You're a jelly fish, roll over, up the butt lover of collaboration going.
The French would have loved you in 1941