BREXIT - leave or remain?

[Deleted]

It´s the never ending circle of elections.

Let's wait until every other country swithes to dictatorships. Then there won't be any pesky elections to stand in the way of the Great British Empire.

[Deleted]

Let's wait until every other country swithes to dictatorships. Then there won't be any pesky elections to stand in the way of the Great British Empire.

well not the British - The proud English would never submit to a tyrant!

[Teleros]

The proud English would never submit to a tyrant!

Which is of course exactly why we have Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith .

= + =

In other news, threats from Siemens to leave if we voted for Brexit... turn out to be pretty hollow:

http://order-order.com/2016/07/12/siemens-stays

I'm thinking this is going to be the norm for most (all?) of the big pro-Remain companies TBH. "Well, we did what Cameron wanted, now let's get back to making piles of moolah in the UK..." basically.

[Deleted]

And you know, there is UK parliamentary elections in 2020 - Best wait until after those too.

But in 2021 germany has the next election. 2022 should be fine.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is of course exactly why we have Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith .

= + =

In other news, threats from Siemens to leave if we voted for Brexit... turn out to be pretty hollow:

http://order-order.com/2016/07/12/siemens-stays

I'm thinking this is going to be the norm for most (all?) of the big pro-Remain companies TBH. "Well, we did what Cameron wanted, now let's get back to making piles of moolah in the UK..." basically.

Well they actually said they might rethink their investments. Noone ever said theyd immediately press the self destruction button...

[Acidbaron]

Which is of course exactly why we have Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith .

= + =

In other news, threats from Siemens to leave if we voted for Brexit... turn out to be pretty hollow:

http://order-order.com/2016/07/12/siemens-stays

I'm thinking this is going to be the norm for most (all?) of the big pro-Remain companies TBH. "Well, we did what Cameron wanted, now let's get back to making piles of moolah in the UK..." basically.

Hardly Cameron behind them moving, the reason of the move is market accessibility. Seeing there's no political figurehead even getting close to announcing article 50, why cut in your own flesh with bad press and risk of product boycots before it actually happens which is remember 2 years from when that article gets set in motion.

Seeing how badly the unions reacted to moving factories to other countries regarding the car industry, i can fully understand them back peddling now till it actually has to happen. I personally wouldn't build up false hope from that till you actually see the new trade deals that is, if the brexit ever becomes an actual thing since right now it is nothing more than a big joke on the UK.

[Teleros]

Well they actually said they might rethink their investments. Noone ever said theyd immediately press the self destruction button...

Oh sure, but in terms of propaganda "we might have to reconsider our investments in the UK" is basically code for "if you vote to leave, we're out".

= + =

Hardly Cameron behind them moving, the reason of the move is market accessibility.

All the big public pronouncements of doom and gloom seem just a little like propaganda though, no? After all, if you don't know what the deal is going to be like (and nobody does), saying "we might have to reconsider our investments" is (a) stating the bleeding obvious, and (b) pro-Remain propaganda due to the tone. It's not like "on the one hand it could be a great investment opportunity, but on the other hand it could mean job losses for our UK workers", which is what a neutral statement of the same thing would be like.

And of course, let's not pretend Cameron didn't want as many as possible to try and publicly encourage fear of job losses and economic calamity if we voted to leave the EU. Heck, look at George Osborne's absurd & heavy-handed "budget".

Seeing there's no political figurehead even getting close to announcing article 50, why cut in your own flesh with bad press and risk of product boycots before it actually happens which is remember 2 years from when that article gets set in motion.

Well indeed - why say anything at all? Ie, it was propaganda.

Seeing how badly the unions reacted to moving factories to other countries regarding the car industry

As if the unions matter that much in the UK. Well, not the private sector ones - teachers & nurses etc are a bit different, but our unions are pretty toothless, especially with the Tories (a) in power, and (b) likely to remain in power come the next election.

i can fully understand them back peddling now till it actually has to happen.

It makes Siemens sound very insincere TBH.

Before Brexit: "Oh we might have to cut lots of jobs and investment and stuff."
After Brexit: "We're here to stay."

(That's a direct quote BTW)

So to get back to what I originally said, I think these threats were/are pretty hollow by and large. Heck, mid-April saw Siemens training its Hull workforce whilst at the same time backing Remain: this is not a rational action if you're either at all worried about a Leave victory, which Siemens should have been. I think they were betting that in the event of Brexit, doing business in the UK would still be worthwhile* - but that in the interests of either (a) business, or (b) politics, it was decided necessary to make ominous noises about job losses etc.

*For example, the UK will probably dump a lot of EU regulations etc, which might make it cheaper to do business here, therefore offsetting some, if not all, of the cost for Siemens of the UK being outside the EU. Or not - who knows - but the UK has been much more right-wing when it comes to economic policies than the rest of Europe (indeed, this is one of the reasons we've been such a PITA in the EU :P ).

I personally wouldn't build up false hope from that till you actually see the new trade deals that is, if the brexit ever becomes an actual thing since right now it is nothing more than a big joke on the UK.

It's in the UK's interests for the Article 50 process to not start yet, simply because 40+ years of EU membership means we have very few expert diplomats when it comes to trade negotiations. Personally I'd have liked Article 50 to have been invoked because I've more confidence in (a) our ability to get a good deal, and (b) the resilience of the UK economy... but I also completely understand the desire to do it slowly in order to get it right first time around.

It also makes sense in terms of politics, I suppose. There have been lots of angry / upset Remain supporters demanding new referendums, or outright fascist "no votes for old folks" drivel... letting them get over these emotions before invoking Article 50 is probably a good thing too. You know, "5 stages of grief" kind of stuff.

[Acidbaron]

Oh sure, but in terms of propaganda "we might have to reconsider our investments in the UK" is basically code for "if you vote to leave, we're out".

= + =


All the big public pronouncements of doom and gloom seem just a little like propaganda though, no? After all, if you don't know what the deal is going to be like (and nobody does), saying "we might have to reconsider our investments" is (a) stating the bleeding obvious, and (b) pro-Remain propaganda due to the tone. It's not like "on the one hand it could be a great investment opportunity, but on the other hand it could mean job losses for our UK workers", which is what a neutral statement of the same thing would be like.

And of course, let's not pretend Cameron didn't want as many as possible to try and publicly encourage fear of job losses and economic calamity if we voted to leave the EU. Heck, look at George Osborne's absurd & heavy-handed "budget".


Well indeed - why say anything at all? Ie, it was propaganda.


As if the unions matter that much in the UK. Well, not the private sector ones - teachers & nurses etc are a bit different, but our unions are pretty toothless, especially with the Tories (a) in power, and (b) likely to remain in power come the next election.


It makes Siemens sound very insincere TBH.

Before Brexit: "Oh we might have to cut lots of jobs and investment and stuff."
After Brexit: "We're here to stay."

(That's a direct quote BTW)

So to get back to what I originally said, I think these threats were/are pretty hollow by and large. Heck, mid-April saw Siemens training its Hull workforce whilst at the same time backing Remain: this is not a rational action if you're either at all worried about a Leave victory, which Siemens should have been. I think they were betting that in the event of Brexit, doing business in the UK would still be worthwhile* - but that in the interests of either (a) business, or (b) politics, it was decided necessary to make ominous noises about job losses etc.

*For example, the UK will probably dump a lot of EU regulations etc, which might make it cheaper to do business here, therefore offsetting some, if not all, of the cost for Siemens of the UK being outside the EU. Or not - who knows - but the UK has been much more right-wing when it comes to economic policies than the rest of Europe (indeed, this is one of the reasons we've been such a PITA in the EU :P ).


It's in the UK's interests for the Article 50 process to not start yet, simply because 40+ years of EU membership means we have very few expert diplomats when it comes to trade negotiations. Personally I'd have liked Article 50 to have been invoked because I've more confidence in (a) our ability to get a good deal, and (b) the resilience of the UK economy... but I also completely understand the desire to do it slowly in order to get it right first time around.

It also makes sense in terms of politics, I suppose. There have been lots of angry / upset Remain supporters demanding new referendums, or outright fascist "no votes for old folks" drivel... letting them get over these emotions before invoking Article 50 is probably a good thing too. You know, "5 stages of grief" kind of stuff.

Both sides propelled propaganda, that's the nature of politics to expect everything to be doom is just as wrong to expect everything to remain the same or get better.
Once we have a clear view of trade deals we'll have a better idea, i fully expect all parties involved to take a hit for numerous reasons. I treat the brexit only as a win to move European politics forward not as an economic win for either side. Right now the Brexit has only cost money and will continue to do so and this is the markets just reacting to what can be not to what will be, Since remember this Brexit was about more sovereignty it was not for a better economy, if this was presented to you that was a lie since nobody can predict this and common sense with history has always show us that protectionist measures are harmful for an economy dependent on a global market.

Job losses are still on the table, i don't see why that wouldn't happen i am not stating that it will be as dramatic as the polarized politics claimed it will be. A lot of the Brexit campaign seems to depend on European good will or Claims that the UK economy is strong enough, while also excluding that strength is for a large part dependent on being in the EU market. The only reason is see the UK getting any good deals is due to member states being dependent on the export/import and so the EU does not wish to cut more in its own flesh than it has to but take note the EU will have an easier time finding newer markets due to its size. A lot of it will depends what comes in the coming months, if things like EU bonds happen and no more national bonds that means the south part of Europe is going to get a big boost through that. Are the sanctions with Russia going to remain? If those are gone again more trade opens up, it's a complicated spiderweb and for me personally nothing is off the table, i do see this as a loss for both involved as i stated earlier.

EU regulations, cheaper to do business will mean the loss of worker rights, lower minimum wage and so forth, not sure you would want to wish that upon your fellow country men. If you speak of less regulation on goods, on what you import yes, that's your right. What could boost certain sectors, if you speak of this in terms of export to other regions specifically the EU, no. The same regulations and standards will still apply. Also take note that big regions like China are also due to the large trade with the EU things like REACH (what in short regulates what may or may not be in products regarding chemicals and what not).

Actually, right is now in power in most of Europe and conservative economics is a very popular subject among many, also in general you'll be hard pressed to find many on the left in power in Europe France is the exception and even that party is pushing through reforms that are considered anything but socialist in nature (hence all the protests and strikes), take note that 'liberal' does not mean socialist at all in Europe. So the UK is not alone in that regard. My party actually belongs to the coalition of Cameron on the EU level (ECR). Political disagreements with the UK are more of a different nature, plus the EU being the scapegoat of all makes it rather hard for UK politicians to say anything positive about it, that's pretty much the bed they made and have to sleep in.

Well honestly from your point of view that's understandable to not want to launch that article. However from our point of view it isn't it's rather mind boggling that so much time and effort was put in the brexit campaign but yet not a single political person actually has a plan ready to enact it. Better yet those leaders of the campaign pretty much all went in hiding waiting for others to do the heavy lifting.

Division in your country is to be expected and is seen on both sides so far, it was not a clear large victory it was an almost 50/50 split. What raises the question if the brexit outcome is going to be something positive, guess time will tell but right now i'm not seeing it producing anything positive.

[Nigel Tufnel]

EU regulations, cheaper to do business will mean the loss of worker rights, lower minimum wage and so forth, not sure you would want to wish that upon your fellow country men.

The EU's competence in relation to labour law doesn't extend to: "pay, the right of association, the right to strike, or the right to impose lock-outs". E.g., there are EU countries that don't have a statutory minimum wage - Italy, Austria, Denmark, Finland, etc. - as there is no legal requirement for them do so.

Minimum wages across Europe fluctuate hugely:

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statist...h)_YB16-II.png

Given that it was only recently (April 2016) that Osborne & the Tories went further (than even Labour were suggesting) and introduced the National Living Wage, I'd be surprised if they backtracked on this. Unless unemployment were to become a real problem.

But, yes, the erosion of workers' rights was touted as a major issue by Remain:

"Some of the UK's employment law comes from the EU. However, the impact a Brexit might have on workers' rights and protections depends on which existing laws the UK decides to keep or get rid of."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36434855

If the time comes when the Tory government (if they finally get round to actually leaving) does try and water down or entirely remove some of the decent laws that have emanated from the EU, I hope everyone who eagerly exercised their democratic right to vote Leave, gets off their arses and makes it clear to their MP that they don't want this. If they don't, they have no-one to blame other than themselves.

Not that I give a fuck though, particularly: self-employed, working 60+ hours per week, no sick pay, no paternity leave, etc. I laugh sometimes when I hear union officials (e.g., Len McCluskey) bang on about workers' rights. ~15% of the population are self-employed. We have bugger all rights.

Division in your country is to be expected and is seen on both sides so far, it was not a clear large victory it was an almost 50/50 split. What raises the question if the brexit outcome is going to be something positive, guess time will tell but right now i'm not seeing it producing anything positive.

Completely agree with this, though. The whole thing's a colossal mess.

[Teleros]

Both sides propelled propaganda, that's the nature of politics to expect everything to be doom is just as wrong to expect everything to remain the same or get better.

True, although I'm not sure the Leave campaign ever promised sunshine & roses the instant they won, or we left the EU. The Brexiteer thing that most annoyed me in this sense was the "£350M for the NHS" thing, for example.

This is getting a bit off-topic though, in that I was thinking specifically of big companies like Siemens threatening to pull out of the UK etc if we voted for Brexit.

Once we have a clear view of trade deals we'll have a better idea, i fully expect all parties involved to take a hit for numerous reasons.

I expect the UK economy will suffer in the short term post-Brexit, but that it will do as well, if not better, in the medium to long term. I expect the EU to do... eh, maybe marginally worse, but then given I also expect the EU to crash and burn sooner rather than later, a percentage point or two due to Brexit will be small fry :P .

I treat the brexit only as a win to move European politics forward not as an economic win for either side. Right now the Brexit has only cost money and will continue to do so and this is the markets just reacting to what can be not to what will be

TBH I don't care what the markets are doing in the short term (well, unless I want to cheer the weak pound aiding our exports :P ). It's not even been a month after all, and the fundamentals haven't changed. It's not like voting Brexit suddenly made the City of London vanish overnight, or caused hundreds of German factories to disappear into thin air. Things will probably normalise sooner or later.

Since remember this Brexit was about more sovereignty it was not for a better economy, if this was presented to you that was a lie since nobody can predict this and common sense with history has always show us that protectionist measures are harmful for an economy dependent on a global market.

Indeed.

I voted for Brexit for reasons of sovereignty first, second, and third. If the economy takes a hit due to that, well so be it.

That said, I think the UK has traditionally been pro-free trade, and accordingly I expect it to have relatively little protectionist stuff in place, especially as compared to the EU. The UK has very few natural resources beyond its people: most of the coal & iron was used up already, so it's in our own interests to trade as freely as possible with as much of the world as possible.

Hence why I think it'll be good for the economy in the medium/long term. Obviously I may be wrong: nobody's yet made an economic model that's managed to consistently predict the future after all .

Job losses are still on the table, i don't see why that wouldn't happen i am not stating that it will be as dramatic as the polarized politics claimed it will be.

Yup. Again, going back to my initial post, I do find the "propaganda vs reality" aspect re Siemens & other big companies amusing. In two years... yeah, Siemens may well cut jobs, but it's fun to see that so soon after Brexit, their position is "nothing to worry about, we're staying".

A lot of the Brexit campaign seems to depend on European good will or Claims that the UK economy is strong enough, while also excluding that strength is for a large part dependent on being in the EU market. The only reason is see the UK getting any good deals is due to member states being dependent on the export/import and so the EU does not wish to cut more in its own flesh than it has to but take note the EU will have an easier time finding newer markets due to its size.

In fairness, I think the Leave campaign has a point re European good will. Several economies (ohai Germany) want to trade with us, so tit-for-tat protectionism isn't in their interests - though it will be for others of course (ohai France, President Juncker, etc).

As for whether the UK economy is strong enough... well remember the worst case scenario* is that the EU raises tariffs up to the maximum allowed under WTO rules. That'll hurt, but at the end of the day the UK is a first world nation, with a first world economy - it would be I think unprecedented in history were the UK economy crash and stay crashed post-Brexit, simply due to a lack of good trade deals with the EU. Domestic policy frankly matters much more in this regard - see how the UK bounced back from being the "sick man of Europe" once there were new policies in place.

*Well okay it could be more than WTO rules allow, but that really would be stupid from a global point of view for the EU.

A lot of it will depends what comes in the coming months, if things like EU bonds happen and no more national bonds that means the south part of Europe is going to get a big boost through that. Are the sanctions with Russia going to remain? If those are gone again more trade opens up, it's a complicated spiderweb and for me personally nothing is off the table, i do see this as a loss for both involved as i stated earlier.

Yeah.

I remember when the Tories did that big strategic defence review and decided to slash the MoD budget. Then Libya & Syria happened.

Point is, things happen, and goodness knows how things will turn out in the next two years.

EU regulations, cheaper to do business will mean the loss of worker rights, lower minimum wage and so forth, not sure you would want to wish that upon your fellow country men.

Oh I would wish it though.

Now to be sure, I don't think you could do well ATM without some replacement for the minimum wage for example (I think a negative income tax or similar might work), but the fewer EU regulations we end up with the better, frankly. They're very anti-competitive, usually outright ignore the idea of unintended consequences, and as we have the common law system I have every reason to think we can effectively run an economy without them.

Actually, right is now in power in most of Europe and conservative economics is a very popular subject among many, also in general you'll be hard pressed to find many on the left in power in Europe

It's all relative. I view the EU as pretty much irredeemably left-wing - but then I have a more Anglosphere conception of left/ring wing - ie the right is for small, limited government, minimum interference in the free market, etc. So from my point of view, the EU is either run by the far left or the nearly-far left :P .

Well honestly from your point of view that's understandable to not want to launch that article. However from our point of view it isn't it's rather mind boggling that so much time and effort was put in the brexit campaign but yet not a single political person actually has a plan ready to enact it.

I'm not sure if there were really no plans made or not (it's the Civil Service: never believe anything until it's been officially denied :P ), but in that case, the blame falls squarely in David Cameron's lap as PM.

Better yet those leaders of the campaign pretty much all went in hiding waiting for others to do the heavy lifting.

Not really. Saint Nigel is an MEP but has no real overt or official political power in the UK, so he literally can't do much. Daniel Hannan, likewise. Boris Johnson & Michael Gove are out of the leadership contest for the Tory party, so they can't do much, at least for now (though perhaps Theresa May will appoint them to the Brexit stuff). The simple fact is that the Brexit leaders were mostly not in positions of power, and so can't do the next stage unless appointed (etc) to useful positions of power by others.

Division in your country is to be expected and is seen on both sides so far

Mhmm, though from what I've seen us Brexiteers haven't tried to rub it in much, whereas too many in the Remain camp have gone completely nuts over the result (and I can't help but feel they'd be rubbing our faces in it if Brexit had lost).

it was not a clear large victory it was an almost 50/50 split

Depends on how you view it. 52-48 for Brexit given the tremendous resources of the Remain faction (BBC, all the main parties, big business, the EU, EU-funded organisations, charities etc, foreign leaders, blah blah blah) is impressive IMHO. Or in terms of raw numbers, winning by 1.3M votes given the turnout and total population is pretty good. Winning by 4% ... not so much .

What raises the question if the brexit outcome is going to be something positive, guess time will tell but right now i'm not seeing it producing anything positive.

Obviously I think it will be, but ask me gain in a couple of decades .

What worries me ATM is that the EU will implode in a particularly messy way. The recount in Austria could well see nationalists in power there. Add Marine Le Pen in France, increasing civil strife due to the invasion from the Middle East that Merkel encouraged, the possibility of an EU Army & Turkey joining... all this is could result in a very messy Europe in the decades to come. In which case frankly I'm glad the UK's doing a runner.

[Mayhem]

What worries me ATM is that the EU will implode in a particularly messy way. The recount in Austria could well see nationalists in power there.

It´s only the presidential elections, he´s merely the top diplomat. If anyone is fucked, then it´s austria because we elected a moron bordering extreme right to represent our country.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Oh I would wish it though.

Now to be sure, I don't think you could do well ATM without some replacement for the minimum wage for example (I think a negative income tax or similar might work), but the fewer EU regulations we end up with the better, frankly. They're very anti-competitive, usually outright ignore the idea of unintended consequences, and as we have the common law system I have every reason to think we can effectively run an economy without them..

Isn't that the model that the Tories are moving away from? By obliging companies to pay their employees more at the expense of their own profits the state benefits in the form of a reduced welfare bill? In other words: why should the state subsidise low wages?

Not sure I like the idea of Sports Direct and co. being granted the freedom to further abuse their workforce!

[Teleros]

It´s only the presidential elections, he´s merely the top diplomat. If anyone is fucked, then it´s austria because we elected a moron bordering extreme right to represent our country.

Perhaps - I freely admit to not knowing much about how much power the Austrian president has.

But I don't see Austria as the end of this - I see it spreading, and that places a lot of strain on the internationalist EU. I mean, it's hard to run any kind of club or organisation when more and more members are agitating for either (a) massive changes that are of a nature diametrically opposed to the club's raison d'etre, or (b) to leave the club :P .

= + =

Isn't that the model that the Tories are moving away from?

Well, Osborne wants a £9/hr minimum wage by 2020. Not sure it's a good idea (unless you want to buy votes I guess :P ), but there we go.

By obliging companies to pay their employees more at the expense of their own profits

Generally it just leads to price rises wherever possible, so as to maintain profits. It can also make new firms more awkward to start up, as fewer profits = fewer reasons to start a new business.

Again though, I think it's Osborne trying cynically to buy votes, rather than for reasons of actual welfare.

the state benefits in the form of a reduced welfare bill? In other words: why should the state subsidise low wages?

Why should the state subsidise your healthcare, education, or pension?

I mean, I don't think it should do any of those either, but assuming you're in favour of a welfare state, it seems a negative income tax (or similar) would be a better way of dealing with most forms of welfare (including a minimum wage in this case) than lots of complicated forms for tax credits, benefits, and the like. Doubly so given how many people simply don't know how many benefits they can use.

Not sure I like the idea of Sports Direct and co. being granted the freedom to further abuse their workforce!

I'm not sure they would have additional powers to do so though. Liberalising labour laws doesn't affect every firm the same way after all.

Still, assuming it does benefit Sports Direct (and let's assume they continue acting as a bad employer)... well, do something about it then. Boycott them, write letters, invest in or otherwise help (eg advertising) more ethical rivals, and force them to reform or go down. Ultimately they're going to do what's best for the bottom line, so make it more expensive for them to screw their workers over than to treat them better. Meanwhile, the firm two blocks down that's a new startup and full of eager young guys willing to pull stupid hours to make it a success doesn't get hammered by employment laws written up to target Sports Direct.

Incidentally, I'd like to see a much more laissez-faire economy, but implicit in that is the idea of being able to screw over bad companies in both courts of law (and yes, I'm in favour of a decent legal aid budget for that very reason), and in the court of public opinion.

= + =

Edit: Missed this...

Free trade is a short term benefit because it's an immediate effect.

Completely wrong - the point of free trade is that it's a long-term gain vs short-term protectionism.

Assuming it's done reasonably fairly, free trade means more competition, which means bad firms fail quicker, good firms do better, and consumers end up with more and better stuff. Short-term it can of course be quite destructive - eg if a local formerly protected industry is suddenly faced with superior foreign competitors and has to close.

[Mayhem]

Perhaps - I freely admit to not knowing much about how much power the Austrian president has.

But I don't see Austria as the end of this - I see it spreading, and that places a lot of strain on the internationalist EU. I mean, it's hard to run any kind of club or organisation when more and more members are agitating for either (a) massive changes that are of a nature diametrically opposed to the club's raison d'etre, or (b) to leave the club :P .

He also said an Austrian EU-referendum is a no go because we´d lose to much. I guess we have to thank the UK for that, because prior to brexit he was pro leaving the EU.

[ranzino]

AFAIK nobody wants to leave EU now. Looking at UK stammering for months to come without any plan how to find the door is a bad example. It may be very informal, but fat chance behind the doors UK is already told what to expect in upcoming negotiations.

[Teleros]

He also said an Austrian EU-referendum is a no go because we´d lose to much. I guess we have to thank the UK for that, because prior to brexit he was pro leaving the EU.

Maybe - though if he gets in, he'd have a few years to change his mind when the negotiations finish.

However, it's not just a case of Ausxit or whatever, but of general policy clashes etc. Suppose, for sake of argument, the government wants more restrictions on the media, but the EU says no. Or they decide to (a) close the borders, and (b) not pay other EU countries, as the EU wants.

I'm not saying any one thing will be a problem, but taken together, and with a possible National Front government in France (if not this election, then maybe the next)... you can see why I'm pessimistic about the EU's survival chances. The less legitimacy it's perceived to have, the easier it will be for member states to pull out of it etc.

[Sodia]

[Deleted]

AFAIK nobody wants to leave EU now. Looking at UK stammering for months to come without any plan how to find the door is a bad example. It may be very informal, but fat chance behind the doors UK is already told what to expect in upcoming negotiations.

Why behind the doors. They akready said what to expect:

- follow the 4 big rules like freedom of movement
- EU members need better treaties than non EU members

It's stupid to think they'd get better conditions than EU members, just by magical negotiations. Unless you are ready to leave the single market.

[Deleted]

Where's the outrage over the people not voting for Theresa May as PM? Shouldn't you guys vote to leave Britain since it's an undemocratic union now?

Or what happened to those arguments against the EU?

We have never voted for party leaders

[Deleted]

True, although I'm not sure the Leave campaign ever promised sunshine & roses the instant they won, or we left the EU. The Brexiteer thing that most annoyed me in this sense was the "£350M for the NHS" thing, for example.

You mean the blatant lie?

This is getting a bit off-topic though, in that I was thinking specifically of big companies like Siemens threatening to pull out of the UK etc if we voted for Brexit.

The pound is down.
That means that less money is flowing in - Investments are on the down.

I expect the UK economy will suffer in the short term post-Brexit, but that it will do as well, if not better, in the medium to long term.

Why? - Can i have one cogent reason to assume this ?

I expect the EU to do... eh, maybe marginally worse, but then given I also expect the EU to crash and burn sooner rather than later, a percentage point or two due to Brexit will be small fry :P .

You get that your entire strategy requires it?

TBH I don't care what the markets are doing in the short term (well, unless I want to cheer the weak pound aiding our exports :P ).

What export industry? -

It's not even been a month after all, and the fundamentals haven't changed. It's not like voting Brexit suddenly made the City of London vanish overnight, or caused hundreds of German factories to disappear into thin air. Things will probably normalise sooner or later.

Yes until you push the button - at this point you are down on the mere idea of this happening.

I voted for Brexit for reasons of sovereignty first, second, and third. If the economy takes a hit due to that, well so be it.

ah yes Muh sovereignty.
- By its sheer size and location the EU, makes the UK lose sovereignty, and that is not going to go away unless the EU goes away.

That said, I think the UK has traditionally been pro-free trade, and accordingly I expect it to have relatively little protectionist stuff in place, especially as compared to the EU. The UK has very few natural resources beyond its people: most of the coal & iron was used up already, so it's in our own interests to trade as freely as possible with as much of the world as possible.

Indeed - so what is your draw in a negotiation again?

In fairness, I think the Leave campaign has a point re European good will. Several economies (ohai Germany) want to trade with us, so tit-for-tat protectionism isn't in their interests - though it will be for others of course (ohai France, President Juncker, etc).

If only trade deals didn't require unanimity...
oh and more importantly, the only thing you export is services, something you require the internal market for, so enjoy.

As for whether the UK economy is strong enough... well remember the worst case scenario* is that the EU raises tariffs up to the maximum allowed under WTO rules. That'll hurt, but at the end of the day the UK is a first world nation, with a first world economy - it would be I think unprecedented in history were the UK economy crash and stay crashed post-Brexit, simply due to a lack of good trade deals with the EU. Domestic policy frankly matters much more in this regard - see how the UK bounced back from being the "sick man of Europe" once there were new policies in place.

And EU entrance had nothing to do with it - Sure.

*Well okay it could be more than WTO rules allow, but that really would be stupid from a global point of view for the EU.

Why would they do that? - They fuck you with regulations instead.

but the fewer EU regulations we end up with the better, frankly. They're very anti-competitive,

you mean the regulations requiring Euro denominated trade be done in the EU ?(that the UK pushed for to screw NY) ?
Yeah Tots.

usually outright ignore the idea of unintended consequences, and as we have the common law system I have every reason to think we can effectively run an economy without them.

British bureaucrat is better than European bureaucrat.

It's all relative. I view the EU as pretty much irredeemably left-wing - but then I have a more Anglosphere conception of left/ring wing - ie the right is for small, limited government, minimum interference in the free market, etc. So from my point of view, the EU is either run by the far left or the nearly-far left :P .

clearly showing you are out of touch with reality.

I'm not sure if there were really no plans made or not (it's the Civil Service: never believe anything until it's been officially denied :P ), but in that case, the blame falls squarely in David Cameron's lap as PM.

No 10000% of the blame falls on the leave campaign - when the Scots held their referendum they produced a 600 page document of their plans - the leave campaign haven't even produced a page of its post brexit plan weeks after the election.

Not really. Saint Nigel is an MEP but has no real overt or official political power in the UK, so he literally can't do much. Daniel Hannan, likewise. Boris Johnson & Michael Gove are out of the leadership contest for the Tory party, so they can't do much, at least for now (though perhaps Theresa May will appoint them to the Brexit stuff). The simple fact is that the Brexit leaders were mostly not in positions of power, and so can't do the next stage unless appointed (etc) to useful positions of power by others.

there is no fucking question in regards about power to implement shit - It about having a fucking plan, some desired fucking post brexit scenario - That the media didn't not relentlessly ask the leaders what the fuck they wanted to do post brexit is an indication of their incompetence.

Mhmm, though from what I've seen us Brexiteers haven't tried to rub it in much, whereas too many in the Remain camp have gone completely nuts over the result (and I can't help but feel they'd be rubbing our faces in it if Brexit had lost).

you mean laughingly point out how literally the entire 'platform' was backtracked on the 24th?

Depends on how you view it. 52-48 for Brexit given the tremendous resources of the Remain faction (BBC, all the main parties, big business, the EU, EU-funded organisations, charities etc, foreign leaders, blah blah blah) is impressive IMHO. Or in terms of raw numbers, winning by 1.3M votes given the turnout and total population is pretty good. Winning by 4% ... not so much .

you mean the people who were not blatantly lying?

the possibility of an EU Army

ah yes now the paranoia comes.

& Turkey joining...

Well its definitive - Turkey is currently occupying parts of Cyprus, any EU member (cyprus is one) can veto the ascension of a new member.
Is short anyone who thinks turkey is joining sometime this century is ignorant - but then so every single brexiter i have engaged with have show stunning degrees of paranoia, jingoism, and ignorance - so why would you be different.


all this is could result in a very messy Europe in the decades to come. In which case frankly I'm glad the UK's doing a runner.[/QUOTE]

[Teleros]

Sorry, phrasing.

The free trade deals you are now able to negotiate due to the increased sovereignty you gained as a result of the Brexit is an immediate benefit to the UK. I mean this as a short-term gain for the UK.

Ah, fair enough, that makes more sense .

= + =

Okay, now let's all laugh at GoblinP...

= + =

You mean the blatant lie?

Technically not a lie, in that they never claimed the money would be spent, on the NHS . I'm pretty sure the truth screamed a bit as it was twisted into that particular pretzel though.

I'll also note that Saint Nigel was never aboard with that particular piece of propaganda, so it's not like the Leave campaigns were united behind this.

The pound is down.
That means that less money is flowing in - Investments are on the down.

That's not what the Siemens CEO was saying though.

Why? - Can i have one cogent reason to assume this ?

Good trade deals with the rest of the world, for one. Cutting of unnecessary & expensive red tape, for another.

In before "international trade is a zero sum game therefore everyone will twirl villainous moustaches and screw the UK over" :P .

You get that your entire strategy requires it?

Huh? What "strategy"?

I do not expect the EU to collapse to be required for decent British terms with the EU member states.

What export industry?

The UK is ~8th largest manufacturing nation in the world you know. I mean, unless you're claiming all that stuff is purely for the domestic market...?

Yes until you push the button - at this point you are down on the mere idea of this happening.

Huh?

Whilst FOREX manipulations are of course possible, they tend to reflect (a) underlying reality, and (b) the occasional bubble etc. Short-term surprises tend to go away unless someone comes along and makes it worse. Which, given that nobody's imposing capital controls in the UK (etc etc etc)... well yeah. I note the pound's recovering against the Euro and the US dollar ATM.

ah yes Muh sovereignty.
- By its sheer size and location the EU, makes the UK lose sovereignty, and that is not going to go away unless the EU goes away.

Can I have one cogent reason to assume this?

Indeed - so what is your draw in a negotiation again?

1. Relatively few =/= zero.
2. It has 64 million quite rich people.
3. International trade is not a zero sum game.
4. It has 64 million quite well educated & intelligent people.
5. Cultural ties. I don't suppose you've heard of this itty-bitty thing called the Commonwealth of Nations, right?

Oh BTW. Did you know that New Zealand was offering to loan us some negotiators for Brexit? Jolly decent of them, what?

If only trade deals didn't require unanimity...

Yes, there'll be some negotiating for sure. But given that the rest-of-EU exports more to the UK than vice versa, it's basically in their interests to continue being able to sell us stuff.

oh and more importantly, the only thing you export is services, something you require the internal market for, so enjoy.

I expect this will continue okay TBH.

1. In the medium to long term, London is much friendlier to banking etc than the EU. See: Financial Transactions Tax, and the dominance of the City of London at present.
2. Being able to control our own trade deals, we can offer the expertise of the City of London to non-EU nations more easily.
3. Even if some stuff does move to the EU, see point #1. An FTT, if passed (likely, now London won't be in the way for much longer) will do much to kill off banking etc in the EU.

And EU entrance had nothing to do with it - Sure.

No, joining the EU didn't help fix the UK. The Iron Lady did that.

Why would they do that? - They fuck you with regulations instead.

Going to make it awkward at the next WTO meeting. "Oh, sorry about screwing over the trade deal Mr President, but we wanted to screw the UK and forgot about you."

you mean the regulations requiring Euro denominated trade be done in the EU ?(that the UK pushed for to screw NY) ?
Yeah Tots.

Huh?

I'm talking about EU regulations in general - be they about bendy bananas or the working time directive.

British bureaucrat is better than European bureaucrat.

No.

British legal system is better than EU legal system. British bureaucrats bad. Fired bureaucrat now having to work in the private sector good.

clearly showing you are out of touch with reality.

Showing how the perception of left- and right- wing differs based on culture, but whatever.

I mean, you're the guy insisting international trade is a zero sum game with every country always out to screw every other country. All hail autarky for the fatherland, right ?

No 10000% of the blame falls on the leave campaign - when the Scots held their referendum they produced a 600 page document of their plans - the leave campaign haven't even produced a page of its post brexit plan weeks after the election.

The Leave campaign can't produce that plan, because they lack the expertise of the government. It is the government's job to plan for these things. You don't hire army generals on the basis of not planning for a worst case scenario. You don't hire members to the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee on the basis that the ideal situation will result and thus you won't need to plan for any other situation.

Now like I said, I'm suspicious over the claim that there was no planning done in case of Brexit - but if there wasn't, then it's the job of the government to do the planning. The comparison with Scotland is bad for two reasons:

1. Alex Salmond & the SNP had their own Scottish government departments etc able to produce plans.
2. Their plans were goddamn nuts, like remaining in the EU and keeping the pound, to say nothing of funding everything.

The Leave campaign didn't have #1, and wasn't so stupid as to claim things like "oh yeah the French WILL ABSOLUTELY DEFINITELY 100% give us unrestricted access to their agricultural markets like they do now", which is the kind of drivel Alex Salmond was peddling.

there is no fucking question in regards about power to implement shit - It about having a fucking plan, some desired fucking post brexit scenario - That the media didn't not relentlessly ask the leaders what the fuck they wanted to do post brexit is an indication of their incompetence.

Oh, so you don't mean a plan. You mean having a target to aim for.

So... basically you didn't pay a bit of attention to the Leave campaign. Talk about talking out of your posterior.

I mean, clearly you must be talking out of your posterior, because you'd know that everyone from Saint Nigel to Dan Hannan to Boris Johnson to Michael Gove et al were all for a post-Brexit scenario whereby the UK has as free trade as possible with the EU, and the other 6.5 billion people inhabiting the planet as well.

In point of fact, some rather smart people were also writing up scenarios of various likelihoods and results well before the campaign got underway. The Institute of Economic Affairs gave a 100k cash prize out for one, in fact:

http://www.iea.org.uk/brexit

Go & read it.

you mean laughingly point out how literally the entire 'platform' was backtracked on the 24th?

Backtracking =/= rubbing the losers' faces in it.

I mean, I'd have thought you'd know that, because so far your English comprehension has seemed pretty good, but maybe this is just a particular deficiency you have.

you mean the people who were not blatantly lying?

Who said anything about lying? As above, you can twist the truth pretty far without it being a lie. "Brexit could lead to WW3" Cameron said... well yeah, it could, so it's not a lie.

ah yes now the paranoia comes.

Someone doesn't read the news, do they?

http://www.euractiv.com/section/glob...-european-army
https://fullfact.org/europe/hunt-eu-army
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...erstate-Brexit

It's not paranoia when they really are out to get you.

Well its definitive - Turkey is currently occupying parts of Cyprus, any EU member (cyprus is one) can veto the ascension of a new member.

Yup. Assuming of course that the EU doesn't force a new government on Cyprus (see: Greece, Italy) or otherwise pressure them into agreeing. Heck, a resolution of the Turkish occupation could be included in the accession talks, thus paving the way for the Cypriot government to agree to Turkish accession.

Is short anyone who thinks turkey is joining sometime this century is ignorant

You've yet to prove this, but go on.

but then so every single brexiter i have engaged with have show stunning degrees of paranoia, jingoism, and ignorance - so why would you be different.

By Jingo
We don't want to fight, but by Jingo if we do,
we've got the ships, we've got the men, we've got the money too!

Paranoia: noun, unjustified suspicion and mistrust of other people.

Ignorance: noun, lack of knowledge or information.

Okay let's see...

1. I'm not advocating war, least of all with any European states. I fear it, but I am not advocating it. So... that's a no for jingoism at least.
2. I am probably not paranoid about, say, an EU army, given the facts being reported. You on the other hand believe international free trade is a zero sum game, which sounds a bit more paranoid you know.
3. I am, if ignorant, less ignorant than you, given you not only didn't know about the latest plans for an EU army, you didn't even know what "rubbing someone's face in it" means.

Well, you scored 2/3 so I guess that's... something? I mean, it means you're a paranoid ignoramus, but at least you're not a warmongering paranoid ignoramus! Go you - that's definitely something worth celebrating!