Already seeing 'disastrous' consequences of Brexit, Richard Branson says

[baskev]

I guess you just need to do better at expressing your opinion, and not presenting it as a fact. Facts and opinions can be the same or differ. You can use facts and opinions in the same text

If it is opinion preface it as such.

But you present all of this as though it is fact... it isn't and you admit that it could be wrong. So from a reader's perspective your facts (as they are presented) are suspect. If you qualify a statement with "I could be wrong." how likely am I really to buy into your thoughts/opinions? Not likely...

Do i present it all as facts?? Do i say this is the truth and i am not wrong?? I never said these are the FACTS. So okay... As for you likely to buy in to my stuff. What am i a jehova witness?? I said what i thought. What you do with it is your choice


The UK is stronger with EU? I don't think that is true at all. Obviously subject to opinion. But as sovereign nation I think they command far more respect than they do as they would as simply a player in EU games. Furthermore the EU was not formed to be a political powerhouse or a United States of Europe... it was for economic purposes, and has since used its economic influence to meddle in political affairs.

Yes its subject to opinion. And yes UK is stronger with EU, EU brings allot of safetynets with it. Allot of money ( yes its cost them but it also gets them money). And yes as a solo nation they have a better look then being a part of EU. And yes it has meddled in political affairs. But very very very little.

AA vs AAA... again we are talking about countries. Not corporations... so the credit rating is completely different. Your credit rating is based on your ability to pay off current and long term debt. AA is still a damn good rating. As stated previously when dealing with fiat money that money is not actually back by anything tangible... it is worth what it is because of military power.

And lowering of credit rating is never positive. And yes its about paying longterm debts. But allot of company's use it to look if its a good market to invest in. And lower rating means more interest a country pays on the loans they take. So it cost them more money.Credit rating has nothing to do with military power.

If owe you $1 and I hand you a leaf to pay you back, you are going to tell me to pound sand. If I owe you $1 and hand you a leaf and tell you its worth a dollar whilst holding a gun to your head... well you're probably going to take it. When you go try and spend that leaf I hold a gun to the merchant's head... and they'll probably accept it. As long as I can maintain that "fear" that leaf... is a dollar.

Holy shit you are batshit crazy. If you think every bank in the world does that.

The moment you question that belief and call the bluff I either have to act and shoot you, or the leaf loses its value.

So you really think germany controls american banks. So they can lower credit rating??? my god...

By downgrading an agency to AA, or a country to AA you are essentially saying... well that $1 (or leaf) is still a leaf... but its a brown leaf. Germany over here... they have AAA or GREEN LEAVES. It's still a fucking leaf, I've still got a gun, and ultimately everyone goes on with business as usual.

my god. you really think everyone in the market square has a gun and try's to "motivate" you into buy the leaf story.

Using Robocop as an example here... is in poor taste. (1) I'm not even sure what you point is (2) By maintaining the current deficit and debt to asset ratio the UK will look like detroit IF they stay with the EU. By pulling out, and reducing that ratio they have their best chance of maintaining independence, by staying they make themselves more reliant on the EU for their well being and the well being of their people, which is NOT the concern of the EU.

It is not in poor taste. Its the hearse truth.(poor taste is talking about putting guns to people's head to discus stuff with them. My point was; lower credit rating does count. You said look at america it has a AA rating and its fine. My point was, look at how fine it is.

There is no fucking conspiracy. The credit rating is/was lowered because its not the decisions the banks would have wanted/advised. Shocking right? It's the only recourse the banks have, the only power they have. Banks don't have a military, they can't occupy the UK, so they hurt them how they can... with a rating. Again AA is still pretty solid. It doesn't REALLY effect anything, it scares the average person which influences their decisions. Invest in AAA instead of AA... its safer. Well who has AAA? The countries in the EU... convenient. It isn't at all an accurate depiction of the country's ability to pay back debt, but it IS the bank's rating and ultimately the country is powerless to do anything about it.

Again you think their are evil banks that want to punish the UK. They did a normal thing. If i lend a person money, but i hear he is in debt and might not pay it all back. ill be doubtful that he will pay him back and i would have lest trust in him.

I don't know enough about the UK to talk about trade and what their competitive advantage is... I'm sure if I spent some time in UNICEF reports I could determine that for you. In a world economy though countries aren't competing with each other we are trading because of what each can offer the other. Cheap labor, cheap goods, etc.

eeuuuhhh what has a child laber organisation have to do with UK?? And yes that was my point. UK has good things to offer but its going to be harder and more costly to offer it.

Your present a lot of good questions, and they are all valid.

But ultimately the country will be better off.

Thats doubtful my OPINION is they will be worse off. But the FACTS are not in yes. So time will tell.

The real question is will the UK take on a view of protectionism? Or will the join the world economy solo, vs part of a group.

I would compare this to a rock band... probably Nirvana and Foo Fighters.

The UK is Dave Grohl.

Germany is probably Kurt Cobain.

Nirvana is the EU.

The only difference in this scenario is Kurt Cobain doesn't kill himself, and Nirvana (EU) continues to be a major force.

Nobody knew who Dave Grohl was while he was the drummer for Nirvana. When he became the lead for Foo Fighters, then people knew who he was and his personal success sky rocketed.

Bad comparison. We already knew who the UK was. This is more like a boy band breaking up. They might go the Justin timberlake ( lucky bastard with his wife ) or robbie williams, or they might go the Chris Kirkpatrick way. Thats my point since the start. Yes they could rock solo, or they could sink.

I think what we have with the UK is a Dave Grohl who was yet to be given the opportunity to form Foo Fighters... it is too early to claim "disaster".

sigh thats what i am saying so far. I think one thing. But it all can change.

[Deleted]

It is nothing to do with Theresa May. The referendum was fought on the basis of hard Brexit = Leave / soft Brexit = Remain

52% or 17 million people voted/decided leave for hard Brexit. "soft brexit" or Remain Lost. The vote was quite clear = bye bye single market.
Just grow up and stop those remoaning tears already. You lost.

No, the vote was a clear lets leave the EU - Because that was what was on the poll.
Now i personally believe it should have said, do you want to leave the EEA and not the EU.
Because a non trivial part of the brexiter crowd pretended you could leave the EU ("the bad stuff") and stay in the EEA ("the good stuff").

- - - Updated - - -

Parliament is sovereign, but their supposed to represent the electorate.

No, that's the way they avoid a popular uprising.
Parliament could tomorrow pass a bill that made the current parliament due for election in 2200 instead of 2020 and that would be legally valid.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet the video I linked of the then prime minister and chancellor clearly frames the referendum that way. It was quite clear that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market.

Maybe you should look at the brexiters who pretended that was not the case?

Some now cast doubt on their motives, or even on their understanding of what was at stake.

British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down. As the German equivalent of the CBI – the BDI – has very sensibly reminded us, there will continue to be free trade, and access to the single market

the UK will extricate itself from the EU’s extraordinary and opaque system of legislation: the vast and growing corpus of law enacted by a European Court of Justice from which there can be no appeal.

[Tinch]

No, that's the way they avoid a popular uprising.
Parliament could tomorrow pass a bill that made the current parliament due for election in 2200 instead of 2020 and that would be legally valid.

No it wouldn't, it would be in direct contradiction to the Human Rights Act and would have to be passed by the House of Lords.

[Deleted]

If you could keep my co-national romanians out of UK and/or jail them on their first strike I would be so happy. Our biggest shame is after we joined EU we "let" our gypsies and trash people leave. Upside at least Romania is better now inside.

[Deleted]

It is simple, most of those who voted for leaving didn't have a clue what that actually meant for the bottom line. But they will feel it soon enough if not already. Leaving was a mistake and it will take many years to go back to the same level as before. I feel the powers to be are dragging out the "leave" process hoping enough support for staying would make it possible to ignore the original referendum and state that the "country has changed".

[Deleted]

Of course a billionaire capitalist is in favor of EU. The pound loosing strength is not an indicator of anything.

[Deleted]

No it wouldn't, it would be in direct contradiction to the Human Rights Act and would have to be passed by the House of Lords.

They can repeal the human rights act.

[Tinch]

They can repeal the human rights act.

Which could be delayed by the House of Lords, who then have a veto on extending parliament beyond 5 years. Even if it somehow made it past the House of Lords, both actions would then have to receive royal assent.

Not exactly the same as passing the bill tomorrow is it.

[Swizzington]

51.9% is hardly a "majority".

Almost exactly half the population voted against it. A great deal of people voted based on lies peddled by the leave campaign.

Plenty of lies on both sides tbh.

[Tinch]

Plenty of lies on both sides tbh.

Don't be silly, the Remain side were the arbiters of truth.

Just look at how their predictions of an immediate recession, increased unemployment, collapse in house prices and the need for an emergency budget all came true.

[Deleted]

Which could be delayed by the House of Lords, who then have a veto on extending parliament beyond 5 years. Even if it somehow made it past the House of Lords, both actions would then have to receive royal assent.

Not exactly the same as passing the bill tomorrow is it.

You do get that parliament can pass bills that turns the UK into a republic tomorrow too?
Anyway my point is that the 'people' have no power in the UK.

[Deleted]

Don't be silly, the Remain side were the arbiters of truth.

Just look at how their predictions of an immediate recession, increased unemployment, collapse in house prices and the need for an emergency budget all came true.

You are heading into a recession, some employment numbers are down, commercial real estate volume is down (surefire predictor of lower prices) - Oh and the next budget will be more expansive as they have indicated that they wont be able to shrink the deficit as fast as the old plan.
Oh my.

[Tinch]

You are heading into a recession, some employment numbers are down, commercial real estate volume is down (surefire predictor of lower prices) - Oh and the next budget will be more expansive as they have indicated that they wont be able to shrink the deficit as fast as the old plan.
Oh my.

Who is still predicting a recession for the UK? The IMF have said that we will be the fastest growing economy in the G7 this year.

[Kronik85]

And yet the video I linked of the then prime minister and chancellor clearly frames the referendum that way. It was quite clear that a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market.

He says a vote for Brexit means leaving the Single Market. That's not him talking about hard or soft Brexits, that's him stating the reality.

North Korea has access to the single market yet doesn't offer freedom of movement. All the UK wants is the same terms.

Every country without sanctions has access to the single market, that's not the same as being a member of it.

[Mayhem]

Who is still predicting a recession for the UK? The IMF have said that we will be the fastest growing economy in the G7 this year.

The UK also haven´t started negotiations.

[alexkeren]

51.9% is hardly a "majority".

Almost exactly half the population voted against it. A great deal of people voted based on lies peddled by the leave campaign.

It only takes 50% + 1 more vote to be a definite majority. And in some situations, like the upcoming US election, a majority can be reached under 50%.

[Kronik85]

It only takes 50% + 1 more vote to be a definite majority. And in some situations, like the upcoming US election, a majority can be reached under 50%.

When considering the General Election in the UK less that 50% is the standard. What I take issue with in the rhetoric following Brexit however is the use of terms like "clear majority". A 52/48 split is not a clear majority, it's a technical majority.

[Deleted]

When considering the General Election in the UK less that 50% is the standard. What I take issue with in the rhetoric following Brexit however is the use of terms like "clear majority". A 52/48 split is not a clear majority, it's a technical majority.

It's still a majority. If people for once get their head out of their own ass and acknowledge it they can maybe move to the next issue. If you have to doubt each and every YES-OR-NO answer you will get nowhere.

[dribbles]

The UK also haven´t started negotiations.

Is it possible to even negotiate about negotiations with the EU? Whats the point in trying just to repeat the Canadian 7 year experience? Today....

Chrystia Freeland, Canada's international trade minister, said: "It's become evident for me, for Canada, that the European Union isn't capable now to have an international treaty even with a country that has very European values like Canada. And even with a country so nice, with a lot of patience like Canada."


All because of half a dozen Walloonys. Far better to just take the North Korea option.

[Tinch]

The UK also haven´t started negotiations.

They were predicting a recession this year, not just after we left.