Brexit, for once some facts.

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,376
16,875
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
Just what we don't need, 3% inflation with 0.5% or less interest on savings.

A Brexit achievement. :rolleyes:
.
blame Jeremy Corbyn.
He could have flipped 48%-52% the other way.
I bet if he is replaced by someone else more sympathetic to remainers, the Pound will rise and inflation will be muted.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,200
30,603
blame Jeremy Corbyn.
He could have flipped 48%-52% the other way.
No, I blame the leave voters. Not only did they bring about Brexit, because so many were Labour voters they placed Corbyn and the party in an impossible situation. Back what they knew was right but in opposition to their own supporters and the will of the people, or go against their consciences and support Leave.
.
 

Kudoscycles

Official Trade Member
Apr 15, 2011
5,566
5,048
www.kudoscycles.com
There is a possible deal at Brexit end becoming known as zero-zero. It is basically a transition period between leaving the eu and moving onto wto tarrifs,this transition can last 10 years,with no tariffs from either country.
Would seem an ideal method of leaving.
kudosdave
 
  • Like
Reactions: robdon

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,200
30,603
There is a possible deal at Brexit end becoming known as zero-zero. It is basically a transition period between leaving the eu and moving onto wto tarrifs,this transition can last 10 years,with no tariffs from either country.
Would seem an ideal method of leaving.
kudosdave
I could see this possibly confined to certain categories. For example, vehicles and parts, since both sides have a strong interest in this continuing as at present.

Having WTO tariffs in other areas would help the EU present the deal as the UK not getting it all their own way, honour satisfied.
.
 

oldtom

Esteemed Pedelecer
  • Like
Reactions: robdon

anotherkiwi

Esteemed Pedelecer
Jan 26, 2015
7,845
5,786
The European Union
Very good documentary last night on Arte about the EU. Confirmed what many of us have been saying through these pages: the UK has been employed by the USA (who encouraged the creation of the EU via the Marshall plan) to make sure that it didn't work too well, well enough for the Americans purpose but still controlable by them via the UK. When they were surprised by the rapid creation of the Euro they used Goldman Sachs to get Greece in by cheating thus destabilising the new money. That didn't go to plan. Thatcher and the neo liberal city were cast in the role of the bad guys, very convincingly I might add! There was some talk (by an Oxford professor) about the UK clutching at straws and living in a parallel universe where it is still a major player when all indicators point to the contrary, e.g. you can't be a major trading player when your merchant fleet is smaller than Denmark's... etc. etc.

Conclusion: brexit is a good thing for the EU which will most likely come out reinforced. Fiscal and social unity will be accelerated so the EU will become that which it was never destined to become by its creator, the USA, a major world power.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,200
30,603
Very good documentary last night on Arte about the EU. Confirmed what many of us have been saying through these pages: the UK has been employed by the USA (who encouraged the creation of the EU via the Marshall plan) to make sure that it didn't work too well, well enough for the Americans purpose but still controlable by them via the UK. When they were surprised by the rapid creation of the Euro they used Goldman Sachs to get Greece in by cheating thus destabilising the new money. That didn't go to plan. Thatcher and the neo liberal city were cast in the role of the bad guys, very convincingly I might add! There was some talk (by an Oxford professor) about the UK clutching at straws and living in a parallel universe where it is still a major player when all indicators point to the contrary, e.g. you can't be a major trading player when your merchant fleet is smaller than Denmark's... etc. etc.

Conclusion: brexit is a good thing for the EU which will most likely come out reinforced. Fiscal and social unity will be accelerated so the EU will become that which it was never destined to become by its creator, the USA, a major world power.
I'm in total agreement, I've long believed the role of the USA has been deliberately damaging and solely in their own interests.

Not just in Europe but worldwide, which is why I believe them to the world's worst terrorist nation. Their terrorism is not only conducted with arms but surreptitiously through covert actions by the CIA and other agents.

These methods have been used to attempt complete encirclement of western Russia with EU/Nato countries, an implied threat which has led to all the current tensions. Russia is not the enemy the US propaganda makes it out to be, by its continuous propagation of warlike policies the USA is.

The best thing the EU could do following the departure of the UK is to turn its back on the USA and reach agreements with Russia, a large part of which is in Europe anyway.
.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,200
30,603
  • Like
Reactions: robdon

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,376
16,875
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
the BBC has a story on the report by Civitas
'Single Market benefit 'largely imaginary'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

The report itself seems credible enough.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/mythandparadox.pdf

Essentially, the author argues that before we joined the EU, growth in our exports to the EU was faster than later while other countries continue to enjoy much higher growth in their exports to the EU.
My guess you could argue that the EU is hugely successful in trading with outside countries but somehow, I don't feel that is the case.
Hence our exports to the EU should grow after we quit.
The author accepts that his view seems counter-intuitive.
 

oldtom

Esteemed Pedelecer
I have been following the TV reporting of yesterday's (apparently) lone-wolf attack in Westminster and I have been struck, not for the first time, by the inept, headline-grabbing coverage from SKY, ITV and the BBC.

My sympathies go out to those killed and those horribly maimed and injured by the murderous actions of the perpetrator, subsequently shot dead by police. I really feel for the families of all the victims in this atrocity.

Apart from the disgusting nonsense spouted by the various outside broadcasters in the absence of actual facts, some of the interviews conducted with passers-by who claimed to have witnessed the events were ill-conceived as some were clearly in shock, still unable to rationalise what they had just seen.

In addition, once again we saw banner headlines across our TV screens with exaggerated numbers of dead and injured - this happens every time there is a major incident in the UK and is entirely the fault of news broadcasters. I believe it is a quite deliberate ploy to exaggerate the shock factor by poor journalists. The official, collated figures were only released a couple of hours ago by the Met Police and revealed less fatalities and injuries than journalists had claimed.

I actually believe there should be legislation in place to prevent the kind of wildly inaccurate claims made by the media and they should be instructed to simply state that they cannot confirm any victim numbers until figures are released by the police co-ordinating office.

This morning, I actually read the speech of our incompetent PM, in which she stated that 'such attacks are ultimately doomed to failure'. Really! If I were a supporter of terrorism, I would take the view that yesterday's attack was very successful, although not on the same scale as previous atrocities in London, Paris and elsewhere. To imagine that she might discourage further attacks by lunatic groups bent on terrorism by such a statement is sheer stupidity. Of course, people will get on with their lives - they don't have a choice in that - but there will be many who will avoid central London precisely because of the the fear attacks like yesterday's engender.

Mrs May, both as a Home Secretary and now as Prime Minister, has singularly failed to address the root causes of why the UK should be a target for terrorists but to be fair to her, neither did any of her predecessors.
Perhaps if those inside the Westminster bubble were able to see the world through the eyes of an Irishman.....or a Scot, a Syrian, an Iraqi, an Afghan or a Palestinian, they might come to understand why it is that certain people resent the British government so much that they see terrorism as the only way of articulating their grievances.

This is another very sad day for British people and all decent people around the world.

Tom

ps I know I could have created a new thread but I think it fits quite well with this one.
 
the BBC has a story on the report by Civitas
'Single Market benefit 'largely imaginary'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

The report itself seems credible enough.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/mythandparadox.pdf

Essentially, the author argues that before we joined the EU, growth in our exports to the EU was faster than later while other countries continue to enjoy much higher growth in their exports to the EU.
My guess you could argue that the EU is hugely successful in trading with outside countries but somehow, I don't feel that is the case.
Hence our exports to the EU should grow after we quit.
The author accepts that his view seems counter-intuitive.
The problem with this argument is this sentence...

"before we joined the EU, growth in our exports to the EU was faster than later while other countries continue to enjoy much higher growth in their exports to the EU."

Before we joined the EU, was a different time, in different conditions in a different world market. So us leaving won't put us back into the conditions as they were before we joined the EU, because they don't exist anymore.

We'll go from being part of the EU, to competing with it!
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,200
30,603
the BBC has a story on the report by Civitas
'Single Market benefit 'largely imaginary'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39356664

The author accepts that his view seems counter-intuitive.
"Counter intuitive" is a polite way to describe his argument. It has so many flaws I scarcely know where to begin, so I'll content myself with dismissing it as the clutching at straws that it is.
.
 

Woosh

Trade Member
May 19, 2012
20,376
16,875
Southend on Sea
wooshbikes.co.uk
"Counter intuitive" is a polite way to describe his argument.
the problem I see is that the advantages of the Single Market seem intuitive enough until you actually try to pin down numbers to support the argument.
Take unemployment for example, I can't say for sure that the single market reduces or increases unemployment.
The EU negotiates trade deals on behalf of its members. It takes so long that makes me wonder if we couldn't do a quicker job ourselves and arrive at more suitable deals for us.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,200
30,603
Take unemployment for example, I can't say for sure that the single market reduces or increases unemployment.
This hasn't been a problem for us while in the single market. Despite a large increase in our population over many years, we've not only kept our own employed but also migrant labour.
.
 

Advertisers