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

[ramAnag]

That sums up the whole sorry mess. It (the referendum) should never have been couched in terms of win or lose...

I hear what you’re saying Andy, but surely the real problem was that an enormously complex issue was ‘couched’ in ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ terms.
That massive over simplification, coupled with Cameron using it as a means to solve his own Party’s problems has cost our country a fortune and continues to make us a laughing stock.

[MadAmster]

One step nearer to No Brexit. Always said I would believe it when I saw it. I still don't think we will see Brexit happen.

[Andy_Faber]

Cameron

Agreed, he should be made to explain himself on network TV

[swaledale]

I've really got to take you to task over the sh*t you're shovelling on GDP here Swale. I don't think you understand what the supposed 17% your possibly real contact gave you means, and whether you do or not, pitching it into a conversation with no context is just a Boy Scout version of project fear. It does nothing without context other than to spread uncertainty, so lets go back to basics and work out whether you mean 17 percentage POINTS ie the GDP rise would have been nearly 21% over ten quarters without Brexit (impossible), or 17% of the increase so 4.5% over the time period instead of 3.9 (possible, and yes sort of concerning, but also a bit lost in the rounding when the hot summer for instance had a significant impact on GDP too). Or something else

I love been taken to task by someone who thinks a mature comment is calling someone a **** and then criticises me for responding in kind!

Forgive if having seen the ****e you post, I don't actually give much credence to your criticism or indeed observations!

[swaledale]

No deal is better than a bad deal and a bad deal is what we have. Lets just leave and get on with it. I don't agree with another vote as it could end up being the best of 3, unless Brexiteers won again then the remainers would want the best of 5!

Really? Do you have any idea what leaving with a no deal would mean? The impact it would have economically? Sure it would not be quite the chaos that those who over egg the negative sides of Brexit, but it would be a certain way of tipping the UK into a recession but maybe that would not affect you and so would be worth it for this obscure principle of patriotism - quite how its patriotic to do damage to the country and cause problems for large numbers of its citizens I can't fathom but maybe someone will enlighten me?

[MadAmster]

Really? Do you have any idea what leaving with a no deal would mean? The impact it would have economically?

This is one of the problems with the entire Brexit issue Swale. Nobody knows the full extent. From your musings on this topic you have given the impression that you know quite a lot on the subject and the rest of us don't. Going on the premise that you do know a lot more than the rest of, would you please be so kind as to enlighten us so that we can get closer to your level of wisdom?

The explanation doesn't have to be of essay length, just the more relevant bullet points.

Thanks in advance,
Amster

[ramAnag]

This is one of the problems with the entire Brexit issue Swale. Nobody knows the full extent. From your musings on this topic you have given the impression that you know quite a lot on the subject and the rest of us don't. Going on the premise that you do know a lot more than the rest of, would you please be so kind as to enlighten us so that we can get closer to your level of wisdom?

The explanation doesn't have to be of essay length, just the more relevant bullet points.

Thanks in advance,
Amster

Tbf, ‘Amster...while I won’t attempt to speak for Swale, I do feel he knows more about the economic implications of Brexit than many of us. Like most on here, I profess no degree of economic expertise but in that area at least I always feel I can learn from Swale and GP.

I also share Swales’ despair at the unceasing attempts of the Right and certain Brexiteers to lay claim to having the monopoly on patriotism. As has been said elsewhere, there is nothing remotely ‘patriotic’ about following a course of action which looks likely to make the people of this country poorer. The hijacking of the English and GB flags by the far right has been going on since the early seventies and is something we should all be ashamed of. Likewise any claim that suggests those who wish to remain ‘European’ are lacking in patriotism (as totally distinct from nationalism) is typically misleading at best and completely fatuous at worst

[MadAmster]

Tbf, ‘Amster...while I won’t attempt to speak for Swale, I do feel he knows more about the economic implications of Brexit than many of us. Like most on here, I profess no degree of economic expertise but in that area at least I always feel I can learn from Swale and GP.

I also share Swales’ despair at the unceasing attempts of the Right and certain Brexiteers to lay claim to having the monopoly on patriotism. As has been said elsewhere, there is nothing remotely ‘patriotic’ about following a course of action which looks likely to make the people of this country poorer. The hijacking of the English and GB flags by the far right has been going on since the early seventies and is something we should all be ashamed of. Likewise any claim that suggests those who wish to remain ‘European’ are lacking in patriotism (as totally distinct from nationalism) is typically misleading at best and completely fatuous at worst

With you on that. The Leavers believe they are being patriotic by holding on to that feeling of "we are the best and will prove it by going it alone". The Remainers believe that there is a more prosperous road ahead from within the EU.

Both talk about trade deals. Leave rabbits on about the UK being able to have them with countries we can't currently have a deal with unless it's an EU wide deal. Remain rabbits on about the deal we currently have with the EU and, through the EU, deals with other countries.

Neither seems to realise that you don't need a trade deal to trade with other nations. All a deal does is give you tit for tat reductions on tariffs with a particular country. We still buy New Zealand Lamb (as does my other we, the NL) although there is no EU/NZ trade deal.

The EU can have its uses. I know that and admit that. However, my conviction that the EU, going back to the very first discussions about creating a Common Market way back in the 50s, has always been about evolving into a US of E. Something that the elite always denied until Merkel recently let the cat out of the bag. Despite the populist movement of a few years ago that is still rampant, especially in Eastern Europe, that sees masses of people wanting "less Europe", the EU's answer is "more Europe". The EU Commission is totally out of touch with the reality of people's views. The EU is built on lies.

Lie #1 - The aim isn't a US of E - Yes it was, yes it is and it will remain so until the US of E is a reality. It is a handful of wealthy people and multinational companies that are driving this on. More money and power for them and less for us. I do not sanction that "progress".

Lie #2 - We are not intending to form an EU Army - It is now being put together. Austria has just pulled out of the project.

Lie #3 - The Euro. Based on lies from the off. - A decent enough idea on paper but, 18 months before it came into existence they published the financial criteria countries would have to meet to join up. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and others were nowhere near meeting the requirements. 18 months later as if by magic (or by "creative accounting") they all met the criteria. Too many countries were not stable enough financially and that is the reason it hasn't become the strong currency it could have.

Lie #4 - all member countries are treated equally - So, France exceeds the permitted 3% overspend on GDP year on year on year for the past 20 years or so. This overspend is, under EU Law, supposed to lead to heavy fines. The French have never been fined. When challenged on this bu a journalist as to why the French haven't been fined, Juncker's answer was "because they are the French". The French can get away with it. Utter stupidity.

I have explained in other posts why I don't believe we need between 50 and 60 million migrants over the next 10 to 20 years. The elite think we do. IMO for no other reason than to keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed. It won't benefit the man in the street one iota.

[Geoff Parkstone]

A couple of thoughts:

"Lie #3 - The Euro. Based on lies from the off. - A decent enough idea on paper but, 18 months before it came into existence they published the financial criteria countries would have to meet to join up. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and others were nowhere near meeting the requirements. 18 months later as if by magic (or by "creative accounting") they all met the criteria. Too many countries were not stable enough financially and that is the reason it hasn't become the strong currency it could have."

The central point that you miss here is that you cannot have a harmonious shared currency without a common, consistent tax policy. Southern Europe has a totally different perspective on tax than northern europe, eastern europe is still more out of synch. Yet they still share a currency which will forever be weakened by the weakest link.

Now you would think, would you not, that the northern european power economies would want to sort this out. But they dont. Why? Simples - a weak Euro is brilliant for Germany. if it was to operate its own currency, representative of their economic well being and so stronger and more powerful than the watered down euro, their exports would be much more expensive. They have effectively "borrowed" the underperforming economies lack of power to weaken the common currency that they use, and so export cheaply and they have enjoyed the benefits of a ramped up economy for years as a result. In the same way as the enfeebled economies should not be in the euro, nor should Germany if one wants equity.

The Germans love the weak links and are happy to subsidise their continuing euro and EU membership because of the greater, wider benefit on exports. Kick the Greeks out, the Euro strengthens, so Germany props up the Greek economy but keeps control over it by rates charged on loans. If the Greek economy were ever able to improve, the Germans can manipulate it back down to keep the euro where they want it. Win Win for Germany, Lose Lose for Greece.

"I have explained in other posts why I don't believe we need between 50 and 60 million migrants over the next 10 to 20 years. The elite think we do. IMO for no other reason than to keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed. It won't benefit the man in the street one iota."

There are two main reasons for continued EU immigration as I see it. Im not going to quibble over numbers, its more a principles thing here. (1) the wealthy can benefit because there is cheap labour pool brought here, allowing for better competition with the far eastern cheap labour based economies.

But more critically, and this will benefit everyone who has a pension or an NHS (2) the EU birth rate is falling, and mortality rates are rising. As a result we have an ever growing non working population being funded in illness and retirement by an ever shrinking workforce paying taxes/NI etc. Thus there arent enough people to pay for the ones already there, and who are hanging around for longer.

This isnt just an EU thing, its been the case in Japan for a long time. Again the Germans jumped onto the idea first within EU and recruited all the best refugee talent early, but as more EU economies get to the same position the need for more labour from outside will escalate, maybe to levels you mention, out of need to support the ageing population, not to make some more pennies for the wealthy - who have already globalised themselves anyway. Immigration from outside the EU, or from stronger to weaker economies within the EU is ***** (oops I mean crucial) for all people.

[MadAmster]

Your tax comments are spot on and something I have said many a time and oft.

Another preferred quote of mine is that the EU is run BY the French and Germans FOR the French and Germans.

Who benefitted when Greece, as part of the so called rescue package that increased their debt tenfold, was forced to sell off lumps of infrastructure like ports? German industrialists bought them at a knockdown price.

The French don't get fined for exceeding the permitted 3% overspend on GDP.

French fishermen ram UK vessels fishing legally in French waters. The blame lies with their own government which passed Laws preventing French fishermen fishing certain waters for certain fish for somethng like 4 months a year but granting UK fishermen rights to fish right throughout the year

The whole thing is a huge mess and needs dismantling. I could go on about the EU accounts never being signed off by the accountants because Billions of Euro go missing each year and they don't know where it has gone.

All governments have known since the 1950s that there would be more pensioners around this time and since to 70s that less people are being born and it would lead to a care and a pensions problem. They did nowt. They have made their problem our problem. B*st*rds. In another 15 to 20 years there will be less people reaching pensionable age. Those of us who are already got there will be dead or close to it. Less people in total. They will, naturally buy less goods so less has to be made so you need less workers but that isn't a problem because there are less people of a working age...... it all balances out....... except for the 1% who will see theor profits and dividends dwindling........ Within 2 decades the whole thing will sort itself out as it should. No need for mass immigration of people, be that 10 million or 60 million......... unless you are the 1%.

[Geoff Parkstone]

.......but most pensioners are in that 1%, directly or indirectly, via personal pensions and corporate pensions. It is often forgotten in this mixed up, muddled up, shook up world that the biggest long term investors in business are pension funds, and if you cut corporate profits, the biggest losers will be pension fund values and ultimately pensioners: and this will only gets worse as the government urge more private pension wrappers and corporate schemes fall by the wayside. Thus transferring investment risk to the individuals.

What goes around comes around - its not just the tiny few that lose out, its all of us. The minority that you talk of are probably comfortably insulated anyway. So lets not get aggressively NWO about this

[ramAnag]

As I said earlier, GP...you have a better understanding of economic matters than me but there are one or two things I don’t understand here.
You talk about the ‘different perspective’ between Northern and Southern European attitudes to taxation, by which one imagines you are referring to the sort of ‘back pocket’ cash based economy of the tourist/vineyard/olive grove based incomes that are to be found in the South.
Yet is that really so different from the system here with those paying PAYE and those who are self employed. I’m not btw having a go at all the self employed but there is definitely a ‘different’ perspective as regards paying and avoiding tax.
Also...if, as you and ‘Amster seem to suggest, the EU is being run for the benefit of Germany and France wouldn’t we have been better off remaining in and using our influence to persuade the other nations of the need for change? Maybe we are still hampered by our late entry and reluctance to embrace the Euro but we are, or were, the third - possibly second - wealthiest nation in Europe. We have, imo, self evidently done pretty well during our EU years...progressing from the ‘sick man of Europe’ to one of the wealthiest five nations in the World. Shouldn’t we have used our influence better rather than attempted to run away?

[swaledale]

This is one of the problems with the entire Brexit issue Swale. Nobody knows the full extent. From your musings on this topic you have given the impression that you know quite a lot on the subject and the rest of us don't. Going on the premise that you do know a lot more than the rest of, would you please be so kind as to enlighten us so that we can get closer to your level of wisdom?

The explanation doesn't have to be of essay length, just the more relevant bullet points.

Thanks in advance,
Amster

Nobody truly knows what the impact of Brexit per se will be (though even arch brexiteer Ress-Mogg said the benefits could take 50 years to become apparent. - but what is clear is the impact of a no deal Brexit - a severe economic blow to the UK's economy which is very likely to result in recession.

Why? Thats simple - the loss of confidence by investors (very good for those Brexiteers, especially the really keen ones who are ex pats!) a further reduction if not a virtual halt in foreign investment, very severe issues with supply chains, a loss of the finance sector (which underpins a great deal of the U's economy) ability to trade, loss of access to eu markets, firms continuing to shift production away from the UK - job losses.

Additional costs for everyone some in the short term, whilst arrangements are sorted out over everything from tarrifs, regulations on medicines, flying,driving, insurance, banking mobile phones etc etc. I could go but virtually everything connected to everyday life the list is endless would be impacted negatively by a no deal rather than a managed withdrawal.

Of course everything wont just stop and there will be food, but it will be very costly, for the country as a whole and it will impact on individuals as jobs are lost, prices of goods rise and labour shortages will impact on industry and services.

[swaledale]

Your tax comments are spot on and something I have said many a time and oft.

Another preferred quote of mine is that the EU is run BY the French and Germans FOR the French and Germans.

Who benefitted when Greece, as part of the so called rescue package that increased their debt tenfold, was forced to sell off lumps of infrastructure like ports? German industrialists bought them at a knockdown price.

The French don't get fined for exceeding the permitted 3% overspend on GDP.

French fishermen ram UK vessels fishing legally in French waters. The blame lies with their own government which passed Laws preventing French fishermen fishing certain waters for certain fish for somethng like 4 months a year but granting UK fishermen rights to fish right throughout the year

The whole thing is a huge mess and needs dismantling. I could go on about the EU accounts never being signed off by the accountants because Billions of Euro go missing each year and they don't know where it has gone.

All governments have known since the 1950s that there would be more pensioners around this time and since to 70s that less people are being born and it would lead to a care and a pensions problem. They did nowt. They have made their problem our problem. B*st*rds. In another 15 to 20 years there will be less people reaching pensionable age. Those of us who are already got there will be dead or close to it. Less people in total. They will, naturally buy less goods so less has to be made so you need less workers but that isn't a problem because there are less people of a working age...... it all balances out....... except for the 1% who will see theor profits and dividends dwindling........ Within 2 decades the whole thing will sort itself out as it should. No need for mass immigration of people, be that 10 million or 60 million......... unless you are the 1%.

That is such a simplistic and erroneous view of how things might pan out that I am having difficulty in thinking you actually believe what you have just said.

Just a couple of points to illustrate this.

We have a labour problem now - maybe your happy to live into your old age where the health and care services don't operate because there are no staff?

Who is going to be paying for your pension if nobody is producing stuff, if the economy isn't operating?

Who is going to be providing the goods and services you require if there is no labour force?

Who is going to provide your food?

It would take a fair few pages to dismantle this fatuous argument of yours but dear me that such a simplistic and unrealistic view that excuse me whilst I try not to die laughing!

[swaledale]

A couple of thoughts:

"Lie #3 - The Euro. Based on lies from the off. - A decent enough idea on paper but, 18 months before it came into existence they published the financial criteria countries would have to meet to join up. Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and others were nowhere near meeting the requirements. 18 months later as if by magic (or by "creative accounting") they all met the criteria. Too many countries were not stable enough financially and that is the reason it hasn't become the strong currency it could have."

The central point that you miss here is that you cannot have a harmonious shared currency without a common, consistent tax policy. Southern Europe has a totally different perspective on tax than northern europe, eastern europe is still more out of synch. Yet they still share a currency which will forever be weakened by the weakest link.

Now you would think, would you not, that the northern european power economies would want to sort this out. But they dont. Why? Simples - a weak Euro is brilliant for Germany. if it was to operate its own currency, representative of their economic well being and so stronger and more powerful than the watered down euro, their exports would be much more expensive. They have effectively "borrowed" the underperforming economies lack of power to weaken the common currency that they use, and so export cheaply and they have enjoyed the benefits of a ramped up economy for years as a result. In the same way as the enfeebled economies should not be in the euro, nor should Germany if one wants equity.

The Germans love the weak links and are happy to subsidise their continuing euro and EU membership because of the greater, wider benefit on exports. Kick the Greeks out, the Euro strengthens, so Germany props up the Greek economy but keeps control over it by rates charged on loans. If the Greek economy were ever able to improve, the Germans can manipulate it back down to keep the euro where they want it. Win Win for Germany, Lose Lose for Greece.

"I have explained in other posts why I don't believe we need between 50 and 60 million migrants over the next 10 to 20 years. The elite think we do. IMO for no other reason than to keep them in the style to which they have become accustomed. It won't benefit the man in the street one iota."

There are two main reasons for continued EU immigration as I see it. Im not going to quibble over numbers, its more a principles thing here. (1) the wealthy can benefit because there is cheap labour pool brought here, allowing for better competition with the far eastern cheap labour based economies.

But more critically, and this will benefit everyone who has a pension or an NHS (2) the EU birth rate is falling, and mortality rates are rising. As a result we have an ever growing non working population being funded in illness and retirement by an ever shrinking workforce paying taxes/NI etc. Thus there arent enough people to pay for the ones already there, and who are hanging around for longer.

This isnt just an EU thing, its been the case in Japan for a long time. Again the Germans jumped onto the idea first within EU and recruited all the best refugee talent early, but as more EU economies get to the same position the need for more labour from outside will escalate, maybe to levels you mention, out of need to support the ageing population, not to make some more pennies for the wealthy - who have already globalised themselves anyway. Immigration from outside the EU, or from stronger to weaker economies within the EU is ***** (oops I mean crucial) for all people.

Don't disagree with some of the points, though your rather kind to the Greeks who were architects of their own downfall albeit aided and abetted by the EU.

However, immigration is not something that is ****e for the average person in the street, a glance at the service industry, the agricultural industry, the construction industry and services such as the NHS would tell anyone that there is a need for labour - given that we are in a state of full employment, there clearly isn't a great pool of UK labour available or indeed capable of filling the gap - the economy would be ****ed without immigration.

These things go in cycles anyway, as economic conditions improve then many will return home after having contributed in a massive way to the economic prosperity of the UK from which all of us have benefited.

Of course we could follow the logic espoused by you and others on here and see where it gets us - a massive hit for the "ordinary person" and the 1% would still be lauding it, though maybe not in the UK, after all they have options all over the world.