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

[BaaLocks]

some of the deals we can do are dead simple.

Indeed they are, but they're not the ones that will make and break the future of this country. It's the ones with the likes of China, US and Germany that will decide. In the case of China we import about £37bn of Chinese products a year and only export nearly £17bn. So you would think the argument would be the same as the Polish one. However, three points might be worth considering.

1 - The Chinese economy is currently about £6.5 trillion so imports, even exports, as a percentage of GDP is simply less. For the UK it is about £1.8 trillion (fag packet conversion rates from dollars aside). So I don't see that as being such a simple 'take it or leave it' discussion.

2 - If we were having this discussion as the EU the numbers would be that £8 trillion for our market size. Imports would be £170bn and exports £85bn. You can't doubt that is potentially a stronger discussion than the one the UK will now potentially need to have.

3 - We have to do that discussion 53 (or 79) times over (52 times for countries that the EU currently has a trading relationship with that we will now need to renegotiate and either one for the EU or another individual one for each country within it - depending on the terms that Toryesa and Boris negotiate.

All points that will have been pretty much invisible to the voting public at the time they took the decision (myself included - I'm not trying to pretend I am some super clever boffin who had the inside track).

So what from here? My hope is that they go away and negotiate bloody hard, seriously I want them to. Then come back and put the deal on the table, when we can see what it is we have voted for. Then, at that point, say to the people 'Is this what you really want, because this is the best we can get?' And if the answer to that is 'Yes' then so be it. I'm not saying second referendum on the decision, I'm saying an additional referendum on the content.

[ramAnag]

BaaLocks...truly appreciate that input but, tbh I'm not sure I entirely understand it as well as you or some of the other more economically literate contributors to this site.
I think I get it, and I think I agree with you but there lies the problem with a second referendum, or indeed the concept of any referendum over an issue as complex as this.
I'm reasonably bright and well educated - though not I willingly accept in the ways of business - but if the likes of myself and many others of similar intelligence/ability don't fully grasp all the economic/trading implications and complexities is there really any point in putting this to an 'additional referendum on the content', or are you just proposing this because of the proposterous precedent set by Cameron in the first place?
Surely we have to accept that, above all, the referendum result was never actually 'binding', that the 'majority' never represented a genuine mandate, that the matter of EU membership was hijacked by those with a different agenda and that damage has subsequently been done to our economy on an almost daily basis. Let's take serious note of the concerns expressed via the referendum but is there really any point in putting even more complex details in front of an electorate who frankly don't understand them?

[Ram59]

You say negotiate hard and see where we stand then. But, supposedly, Cameron has already done that and we didn't like what was on the table and voted against it, well 37% of us did.

[Andy_Faber]

1 - The Chinese economy is currently about £6.5 trillion so imports, even exports, as a percentage of GDP is simply less. For the UK it is about £1.8 trillion (fag packet conversion rates from dollars aside). So I don't see that as being such a simple 'take it or leave it' discussion.

2 - If we were having this discussion as the EU the numbers would be that £8 trillion for our market size. Imports would be £170bn and exports £85bn. You can't doubt that is potentially a stronger discussion than the one the UK will now potentially need to have.

3 - We have to do that discussion 53 (or 79) times over (52 times for countries that the EU currently has a trading relationship with that we will now need to renegotiate and either one for the EU or another individual one for each country within it - depending on the terms that Toryesa and Boris negotiate.

4) - I'm not saying second referendum on the decision, I'm saying an additional referendum on the content.

1. China will be a tricky one, especially given their (very well known to me, I work for them) 'difficult' cultural differences. IMO their strongest card (but diminishing) is low-cost labour, followed by vast natural resources, our strongest card, and no apologies for blowing a UK trumpet, is that we are bloody ****-hot at high-end engineering and technology. I'm not sure size is such an issue as folk think - look at the Olympics medal table, a vast population doesn't necessarily make you much cop at stuff.

2. I think we are dealing with an 'evolving' EU where the old national self-interests are once more coming to the fore, hopefully we can exploit that

3. Keep a few folk in a job won't it! In that respect, Brexit can proudly proclaim it's increased employment

4. That's a good point, and in retrospect Cameron should have done that with the absolutely lousy deal he came back from Brussels with.

[Gaspode]

You say negotiate hard and see where we stand then. But, supposedly, Cameron has already done that and we didn't like what was on the table and voted against it, well 37% of us did.

Cameron didn't negotiate hard at all - he didn't go into the negotiations asking for anything really difficult and came out with even less. I suspect he was convinced we'd vote to stay in and probably told the EU as much - he then announced a few minor concessions and made a lot of fuss, but he achieved nowhere near what was needed to convince 52% (of those who voted) to stay

[roger_ramjet]

Surely we have to accept that, above all, the referendum result was never actually 'binding', that the 'majority' never represented a genuine mandate, that the matter of EU membership was hijacked by those with a different agenda and that damage has subsequently been done to our economy on an almost daily basis.

Sorry Mangara but I think it is time for you to do a bit of a reality check and move on.

1. there were no success criteria set within the referendum framework, so the mandate was left as being simply a majority of those who voted. Yes, it was badly designed and should have been more precise in its definition, but the fact remains the majority decision of those voting was all that was needed. What's done is done, it may have been flawed but it is what it is and there is not point arguing "what if's". The mandate is there.

2. is it binding - I think this isn't terribly clear in the referendum "conditions" but I think it is fair to say that everyone campaigning on both sides were working under the assumptions that it was. Now the result has gone against a proportion of the electorate this "isn't binding" myth has arisen. It would be a brave and indeed foolhardy PM that ignored the wishes of the majority of the public who voted and decided that we will not Exit by exercising political override. It would also very shortly be a former PM voted out overwhelmingly by a nation furious at being ignored.

3. was the referendum hijacked? yes I think it probably was, and no doubt that all the issues were neither clearly explained nor understood. But that's life - decisions are often made for the wrong reasons, and the basis for those decisons corrupted by spin doctors and mouths in suits. get over it!

4. daily damage to our economy. This is an unknown - yes the pound is weaker but does that damage our economy? The Germans have made a living out of an artificially weak currency for the past 15-20 years. Time will tell how the economy develops - the answer will probably not be known in our remaining lifetimes. I can only observe that my pension fund has gone up by about 10% since 23rd June: what does that tell you? Well apart from being stacked into US and Far Eastern investments it suggests there is no clear panic about our economic future. Things may change, and do on a daily basis, but for now the numbers do not show economic gloom for the passive investor.

As regards our GDP/Trade balance - weak sterling = strong cheap exports and weak expensive imports. Both are positives to our domestic production as people eschew expensive imports in favour of local products. Inflation may notch up a bit where there is still a demand for imported goods, but the BOE has been trying to avoid deflation for the last 3 years or more, so no problem there - unless we suddenly leap, Mansfield like, into stagflation, but that isnt exactly likely in the medium term. the economy will be and has been destabilised and more volatile for sure, but that does not mean it will be bad: just different. remember the merchants of doom in 2008 (when we were in EU) and the economy crashed - within 18 months the markets were higher than the crash.

[Andy_Faber]

Nice crayoning Roger

[roger_ramjet]

I do like the new adult colouring book

[mistaram]

Swales apologies for the delay someone has to support our team and go to work So yo

[ramAnag]

Not sure about the colouring RR...simple numbers would have sufficed.

I recognise that you know more about economics than me...that's not terribly hard, but I have to take issue with two or three points.

1. 'Yes it was badly designed and should have been more precise in its definition'.
2. Think you'll find it was always absolutely clear that it isn't 'binding' and is only - technically - 'advisory'.
3. 'Was the referendum hijacked? Yes I think it probably was, and no doubt all the issues were neither clearly explained nor understood'.

Given these two concessions of yours (1&3) and the fact about #2, why should I, and others, accept things and 'move on'?
Maybe I'm being stubborn but I don't think acceptance of an error and blind adherence to the consequence of that error is ever a good idea.

You say yourself, '...that's life...decisions are often made for the wrong reasons, and the basis for those decisions corrupted by spin doctors and mouths in suits. Get over it!'

But isn't that the whole point? When bad decisions are made they have to be challenged.
The acceptance of bad decisions is what killed a man in Huddersfield yesterday, it's what leads to children being placed in the care of sometimes dangerous people, it's why inflexible football managers end up being sacked just before their team is relegated and why soldiers are slaughtered in misguided military campaigns.
We have to challenge bad and ill thought out decision making before the damage is compounded and to tell me simply to 'get over' what you yourself describe as a decision made for the wrong reasons on the basis of 'corruption by spin doctors and mouths in suits' (aka establishment liars) is something I, respectfully, find hard to accept.