Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's a trade off, reds8n.

Yeah, our imports will be more expensive, but on the other hand, British tourism is booming like never before because of the weak pound. That's creating new jobs in the restaurant and hotel sectors.

The weak pound might also be the catalyst to kick-start British manufacturing again.

People might disagree with my Leave stance, and I respect that, but I've never denied the first few years of Brexit would be plain sailing, as we disentangle ourselves from the EU.

It's like missing the last bus and walking 2-3 miles in the pouring rain. Not good, but you've got a warm house waiting for you at the end.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last! My kind of expert.

"Hard Brexit offers £135 bn annual boost to economy. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

This could be the dawn of a golden age of British trading.

Fill our container ships with goods and send them across the 7 seas, and build up the navy again to keep an eye on them.

And in the opposite direction, nations eager to trade with us as we go back to our free market roots, our liberal heritage.

So your kind of expert is someone who doesn't know what the feth he's talking about?

One who says that if we remove all tariffs and barriers for the whole world we can be £135bn better off.

This is Laffer Curve levels of intellectual delusion.

I thought the leave side were supposed to be the people who were anti-expert.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last! My kind of expert.

"Hard Brexit offers £135 bn annual boost to economy. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

This could be the dawn of a golden age of British trading.

Fill our container ships with goods and send them across the 7 seas, and build up the navy again to keep an eye on them.

And in the opposite direction, nations eager to trade with us as we go back to our free market roots, our liberal heritage.

So your kind of expert is someone who doesn't know what the feth he's talking about?

One who says that if we remove all tariffs and barriers for the whole world we can be £135bn better off.

This is Laffer Curve levels of intellectual delusion.

Mark the day DINLT advocated for a full-on neoliberal reboot of the economy

Even when we were in the EU, we were heading that way anyway.

Removing all tariffs would be very niave, to put it mildly. I am in favour of lowering most of them after Brexit though, to show the world we are open for business.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The weak pound might also be the catalyst to kick-start British manufacturing again.

How? All the materials we need to manufacture those goods are now more expensive. We manufacture high-end goods, like scientific equipment, aircraft engines etc. These are not things which people go looking for bargain basement prices on as quality and reliability is of the utmost importance. As such making them cheaper has very little impact on how desirable they are within the market we are selling them in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I thought the leave side were supposed to be the people who were anti-expert.

Describing this man as an expert is insulting to people who have actually carried out quality research and analysis.

It is akin to having an astrophysicist describe how the planets move and interact with each other and then turning to an astrologer for a rebuttal and giving their bollocks equal weighting when it comes to planning your manned mission to Mars.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
At last! My kind of expert.

"Hard Brexit offers £135 bn annual boost to economy. "

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40972776

This could be the dawn of a golden age of British trading.

Fill our container ships with goods and send them across the 7 seas, and build up the navy again to keep an eye on them.

And in the opposite direction, nations eager to trade with us as we go back to our free market roots, our liberal heritage.

So your kind of expert is someone who doesn't know what the feth he's talking about?

One who says that if we remove all tariffs and barriers for the whole world we can be £135bn better off.

This is Laffer Curve levels of intellectual delusion.

Mark the day DINLT advocated for a full-on neoliberal reboot of the economy

Even when we were in the EU, we were heading that way anyway.

I thought take back control was supposed to prevent that?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The easiest solution to all this would be re-unification. It's a shame that this won't happen...

Yes, it would be so much easier if we ignored the will of the people of Northern Ireland and they just did what they were told.

 Henry wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The easiest solution to all this would be re-unification. It's a shame that this won't happen...

Yes, it would be so much easier if we ignored the will of the people of Northern Ireland and they just did what they were told.

Isn't ignoring the will of the people of Northern Ireland exactly what we're doing?

They are going to get shafted either way.

Herzlos wrote:
Isn't ignoring the will of the people of Northern Ireland exactly what we're doing

I don't know, ask DINLT. He's the brexit supporter who wants to give part of Britain to a foreign country.

 Henry wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Isn't ignoring the will of the people of Northern Ireland exactly what we're doing

I don't know, ask DINLT. He's the brexit supporter who wants to give part of Britain to a foreign country.

Technically NI isn't part of Britain and in the context of the North the ROI isn't really a foreign country in the typical sense of the word. It wouldn't be like, for example a county of England becoming part of Scotland in which most of the original population would feel like they are joining a completely different country a large proportion of the country identify as and are Irish citizens.

Reading and listening to how un-organised the border issue is being handled is honestly terrifying for me, I live in Derry, a city that receives little to no help from Stormont and has suffered heavily throughout the years because of it, however the ability to easily trade and move across the border into the republic has been a life line for the city and the idea of this being cut off is terrible especially for an area that voted 78% to remain as pat of the EU.

 gianlucafiorentini123 wrote:

Technically NI isn't part of Britain and in the context of the North the ROI isn't really a foreign country in the typical sense of the word. It wouldn't be like, for example a county of England becoming part of Scotland in which most of the original population would feel like they are joining a completely different country a large proportion of the country identify as and are Irish citizens.

You are right, I said Britain when I should have said UK. Sorry, I'm usually better than that in this subject.

However the fact is a far greater part of Northern Ireland identify as British than Irish. Ireland is a foreign country. There's a reason that unionists don't call for union referendums in NI - they would lose in a landslide.

The irony of the free trade proposal is that we are inside the world's largest, richest free trade zone right now, and we've decided that is a bad idea and we want to leave.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The irony of the free trade proposal is that we are inside the world's largest, richest free trade zone right now, and we've decided that is a bad idea and we want to leave.

Nah, the trade was good. It was the organisation behind it that most people have a beef with.

It's because said free trade zone is effectively trying to annex us. Other countries will trade with us without trying to take over our day to day lives.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It's because said free trade zone is effectively trying to annex us. Other countries will trade with us without trying to take over our day to day lives.

We had a deciding stake in the free trade zone. It did nothing without our approval. It was only "trying to annex us" either with our agreement or because we weren't turning up to the meetings.

About that; I said this earlier with regards the EU to doing things with 'our agreement' via the 'elected leaders':

 Future War Cultist wrote:
But those elected officials are so easy to butter up aren't they? Tony Blair (the PM with the srinking majority) would have had us join the euro had Brown not stopped him. Then Brown went ahead and signed us up to the eu constitution without asking us. Brown the unelected PM. All you have to do is ensure that they have cushy jobs in the eu after they leave their respective parliaments and you can get them to agree to anything.

This is one reason why I voted to leave. I was tired of our representatives passing the buck up to the eu whilst argeeing to everything they proposed without consenting us. For me the Lisbon treaty was the straw that broke the camels back.

The only reason we weren't dragged into the euro is because of brown. If you think Blair would have asked us if we wanted to join the euro you'd be dead wrong.

But that's a problem with our politicians and political system, not the EU. And now that broken political system will be operating without any moderating influence.

For example, I went on holiday to Cornwall this summer; do you know how much public infrastructure and tourist attractions have a nice blue flag indicating that they were funded by the EU? Are you hand-on-heart going to tell me that you honestly believe that any London-centric UK government would invest money in regional projects like that? Nevermind a Tory London-centric government. We've already seen from the recent railway electrification debacle that they won't and that's before any economic impacts of Brexit are taken into account.

 Henry wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The easiest solution to all this would be re-unification. It's a shame that this won't happen...

Yes, it would be so much easier if we ignored the will of the people of Northern Ireland and they just did what they were told.

I'm not ignoring anybody's will. The future of Ireland is for the Irish people to decide, be they from the Republic, be they from Northern Ireland. I would always defend and respect that.

My own personal preference is for a united Ireland, but obviously, that's not for me to decide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jadenim wrote:
But that's a problem with our politicians and political system, not the EU. And now that broken political system will be operating without any moderating influence.

For example, I went on holiday to Cornwall this summer; do you know how much public infrastructure and tourist attractions have a nice blue flag indicating that they were funded by the EU? Are you hand-on-heart going to tell me that you honestly believe that any London-centric UK government would invest money in regional projects like that? Nevermind a Tory London-centric government. We've already seen from the recent railway electrification debacle that they won't and that's before any economic impacts of Brexit are taken into account.

That's the EU bribing us with our own money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The irony of the free trade proposal is that we are inside the world's largest, richest free trade zone right now, and we've decided that is a bad idea and we want to leave.

If it had stuck to being a common market, and had not started morphing into the United States of Europe, I would be the first to lead the charge to remain in the common market.

 Jadenim wrote:
But that's a problem with our politicians and political system, not the EU. And now that broken political system will be operating without any moderating influence.

For example, I went on holiday to Cornwall this summer; do you know how much public infrastructure and tourist attractions have a nice blue flag indicating that they were funded by the EU? Are you hand-on-heart going to tell me that you honestly believe that any London-centric UK government would invest money in regional projects like that? Nevermind a Tory London-centric government. We've already seen from the recent railway electrification debacle that they won't and that's before any economic impacts of Brexit are taken into account.

You raise a very good point. Yes we do have hopelessly inept people in charge. But I think they get by because they can use the eu as a crutch. And about funding, we are a net contributor right? So why bother? It would be different if we received more than what he pay in but we don't. It's like, Mr A pays Mr B £100, and Mr B then gives £70 back to Mr A whilst telling him how to spend it. And when I ask Mr A why the hell doesn't he just keep the full £100...blank stares.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Jadenim wrote:
But that's a problem with our politicians and political system, not the EU. And now that broken political system will be operating without any moderating influence.

For example, I went on holiday to Cornwall this summer; do you know how much public infrastructure and tourist attractions have a nice blue flag indicating that they were funded by the EU? Are you hand-on-heart going to tell me that you honestly believe that any London-centric UK government would invest money in regional projects like that? Nevermind a Tory London-centric government. We've already seen from the recent railway electrification debacle that they won't and that's before any economic impacts of Brexit are taken into account.

You raise a very good point. Yes we do have hopelessly inept people in charge. But I think they get by because they can use the eu as a crutch. And about funding, we are a net contributor right? So why bother? It would be different if we received more than what he pay in but we don't. It's like, Mr A pays Mr B £100, and Mr B then gives £70 back to Mr A whilst telling him how to spend it. And when I ask Mr A why the hell doesn't he just keep the full £100...blank stares.

Assuming of course the money would be spent on thos things by Mr A without the involvement of Mr B.

Maybe it's the working class mill town in me, but I'm highly skeptical that would be the case. Perhaps in the 50's but not after the shift to the financial sector.

Something something Thatcher something something.

It's a bit more complex than that.

For example, apart from Common Agricultural grants, the UK receives payment from the EU for hosting the European Medical Agency. Another factor is that development grants to countries like Ireland and Spain helped improve their infrastructure and economy a lot, making them better trading partners and bigger contributors to the budget.

It isn't a simple money swapping exercise.

I just hope that after leaving politicians will stop blaming all of our issues on the EU too.


It doesn't help our government that we live next to a massive scapegoat.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not ignoring anybody's will. The future of Ireland is for the Irish people to decide, be they from the Republic, be they from Northern Ireland. I would always defend and respect that.

But the people of NI voted 78% (IIRC) not to Brexit, and you want them to Brexit anyway. There's no way you can twist it that you're respecting their will. Ditto for Scotland.
For England and Wales to get their 1.9% "Will of the people!" you need to completely ignore the will of 2 of the 4 countries in the bloc, whilst totally shafting them, whilst pretending it's for their own good and hoping they'll play along.

My own personal preference is for a united Ireland, but obviously, that's not for me to decide.

But by insisting on Brexit you're forcing the matter. The only outcome that will work from a logistics point of view is unification. You could always offer them another referendum: "UK or EU" and watch them leave whilst the Scots jump up and down demanding they get one too.

That's the EU bribing us with our own money.

Surely if they were bribing us with our money, they'd spend it on London?

I view it as a sensible larger body spending money that the smaller body can't be trusted to. Like how I buy clothes/toys for my toddler instead of handing him cash to do it himself.

Do you honestly thing London centric parties would spend any money outside of London if they had any say?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If it had stuck to being a common market, and had not started morphing into the United States of Europe, I would be the first to lead the charge to remain in the common market.

And the reason it didn't is because people we elected agreed to move it in a more coherent direction.


You keep blaming Europe for the failings of our politicians. You're going to be in for a huge disappointment when our politicians keep failing you after we've left, and they've got even less checks and bounds on them.

Herzlos wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

I'm not ignoring anybody's will. The future of Ireland is for the Irish people to decide, be they from the Republic, be they from Northern Ireland. I would always defend and respect that.

But the people of NI voted 78% (IIRC) not to Brexit, and you want them to Brexit anyway. There's no way you can twist it that you're respecting their will. Ditto for Scotland.
For England and Wales to get their 1.9% "Will of the people!" you need to completely ignore the will of 2 of the 4 countries in the bloc, whilst totally shafting them, whilst pretending it's for their own good and hoping they'll play along.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:


The people of Scotland voted to reject independence a year prior to Brexit, knowing that meant that future UK wide referenda applied to them for whatever the result of the whole country. The Brexit referendum was never offered to the parts of the UK individually, it was a whole nation vote. And immediately afterwards Scotland start crying that they aren't being treated as an independent nation, when they aren't independent and specifically voted not to be. Talk about wanting your cake and eating it.

And they were told voting no was the only way to keep the EU. No one (even brexiters) actually expected Brexit to win. If you wanted to stay in and had to choose between definitely leaving and probably staying, which would you take?

Flip it the other way. Why should the whole nation be prevented from leaving because of a small number of people in Scotland? 62% of a 67% turnout from just under four million eligible voters? For some reason the Scots, despite being so up in arms about the brexit vote, didn't even match the national average voter turnout. Maybe Scotland is less enthusiastic for the EU than some want to claim.

I'd be happy for England and Wales to leave the EU and leave Scotland and NI in (and ideally scoop up all the banking jobs they want to throw away).



The larger point is that people only care about "the will of the people" when it suits them.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's a bit more complex than that.

For example, apart from Common Agricultural grants, the UK receives payment from the EU for hosting the European Medical Agency. Another factor is that development grants to countries like Ireland and Spain helped improve their infrastructure and economy a lot, making them better trading partners and bigger contributors to the budget.

It isn't a simple money swapping exercise.

^

There's a ton of complexity behind these things and where the money comes from and what it does is more than just what accounts its swapping through.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
It's because said free trade zone is effectively trying to annex us. Other countries will trade with us without trying to take over our day to day lives.

Is it really annexation when you're one of the largest and most important members, with a ton of exceptions and deals, massive political influence, and probably the most powerful military of any member of the coalition? One might make the case that, in a hypothetical USE, that the UK might become part of a larger superstate, but that would really be a merger, not an annexation. *Very* different concepts.

Nobody is or ever was going to be marching in and taking over Britain in anything like could be described as an Annexation in the sense of Crimea, the Sudetenland, Tibet, Goa, the Golan heights, Hawaii, etc.

Maybe the SNP should have held off the independence vote, but they wanted it as soon as possible knowing brexit was yet to be settled, and now want to hold another referendum because they lost the first and Brexit doesn't suit them.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Maybe the SNP should have held off the independence vote, but they wanted it as soon as possible knowing brexit was yet to be settled, and now want to hold another referendum because they lost the first and Brexit doesn't suit them.

And we're elected with a large majority and a mandate to do exactly that.

What's wrong with another vote?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What's wrong with another vote?

It's too likely to end up Remain.

I'd say at this rate a second vote is unavoidable. But only after the deal is secured so that we know what we're voting for. Three options: yes to deal and leave, no to deal and leave under wto rules and no to deal, stay in eu. But the third option has to win an overall majority.

Or, more elegantly, have those three options and have the two winning ones compete in a second round. That way the Leave vote doesn't get split.