The economic consequences of Brexit

[davepoth]

JawKnee said:

What is the "best deal"? Many businesses for example would like to keep freedom of movement in both directions, others wouldn't. Some want financial passporting for the city, others aren't bothered.

Incorrect. Very few companies would give a toss about freedom of movement if there was no impediment to hiring the people they needed from the EU.

[RYH64E]

sidicks said:

RYH64E said:

sidicks said:

The original poster didn't really have an argument, just the false pretence that many Brexiters expected an extra £350m per day for the NHS as a result of leaving the EU. That this false claims keeps getting reported is extremely boring, hence the appropriate response.

How is the claim false?

What evidence do you have that 'many Brexiters expected' this?

Did you believe everything the 'Remain' campaign claimed?

Why would they would they not expect it? It's a clear statement, surely an attractive proposition, and oft repeated by one of the leading campaigners for leave.

[Jockman]

davepoth said:

JawKnee said:

What is the "best deal"? Many businesses for example would like to keep freedom of movement in both directions, others wouldn't. Some want financial passporting for the city, others aren't bothered.

Incorrect. Very few companies would give a toss about freedom of movement if there was no impediment to hiring the people they needed from the EU.

You will find that relatively few 'additional' voters joined the Leave campaign on the basis of immigration. It was a figure posted up by JJ a few pages back and surprisingly low.

[Jockman]

RYH64E said:

sidicks said:

RYH64E said:

sidicks said:

The original poster didn't really have an argument, just the false pretence that many Brexiters expected an extra £350m per day for the NHS as a result of leaving the EU. That this false claims keeps getting reported is extremely boring, hence the appropriate response.

How is the claim false?

What evidence do you have that 'many Brexiters expected' this?

Did you believe everything the 'Remain' campaign claimed?

Why would they would they not expect it? It's a clear statement, surely an attractive proposition, and oft repeated by one of the leading campaigners for leave.

It was a load of rubbish and it was being undermined at the time. Do you feel if it had said £100m it would have reduced the Leave vote?

[sidicks]

RYH64E said:

Why would they would they not expect it? It's a clear statement, surely an attractive proposition, and oft repeated by one of the leading campaigners for leave.

You didn't answer my question...

Did you expect the emergency budget to be implemented, post Brexit?

Did you believe that we'd be £4,300 worse off per person by 2030, post Brexit?

[JawKnee]

davepoth said:

JawKnee said:

What is the "best deal"? Many businesses for example would like to keep freedom of movement in both directions, others wouldn't. Some want financial passporting for the city, others aren't bothered.

Incorrect. Very few companies would give a toss about freedom of movement if there was no impediment to hiring the people they needed from the EU.

What's incorrect? Read my post again, that's exactly what I'm saying. Businesses want to hire whoever they like from the EU without worrying about quotas, minimum salaries etc etc just as they do now. The National Farmers Union being a case in point. Other people in this country are quite clearly against this idea. So what is the "best deal"?

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/farmers-warn-bre...

[Gogoplata]

RYH64E said:

sidicks said:

RYH64E said:

sidicks said:

The original poster didn't really have an argument, just the false pretence that many Brexiters expected an extra £350m per day for the NHS as a result of leaving the EU. That this false claims keeps getting reported is extremely boring, hence the appropriate response.

How is the claim false?

What evidence do you have that 'many Brexiters expected' this?

Did you believe everything the 'Remain' campaign claimed?

Why would they would they not expect it? It's a clear statement, surely an attractive proposition, and oft repeated by one of the leading campaigners for leave.

Surely only the party in government can decide where money can be spent. As both campaigns were cross party, neither side were in a position to deliver a manifesto as this was not an election. Given that all of the parties except UKIP backed remain, they're not going to commit to spending because <insert name> MP from <insert Party> said we can spend on <insert cause>.

At least that's how I understood it before the vote as an uneducated Leave voter.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

You didn't answer my question...

Did you expect the emergency budget to be implemented, post Brexit?

Did you believe that we'd be £4,300 worse off per person by 2030, post Brexit?

IMO it is possible. We have not left the EU yet.

Sterling has taken a hit and fuel and food will be more expensive. 14 years as we are could amount to £4,300

Emergency budget could be implemented if we have no trade deals and it all hits the fan on leaving the EU.

I'm no expert but that's what it looks like to me.

[Digga]

Mario149 said:

Digga said:

I'm kind of a big deal. <\Ron Burgundy>

You can try and laugh it up all you want. The fact remains (boom boom tsh!) that it ain't gonna be the well off/metropolitan elite/people of means/whatever who by and large voted Remain who are going to end up on the breadline if Brexit goes tits up

Digga said:

But you are actually British, right?

With the greatest of respect to Germany, France and Italy, with the way you describe your lack of attachment to the UK, you don't sound like you really had any skin in the game.

I am British yes, and I am very attached to the UK, or at least what I thought it was and stood for. I had plenty of skin in the game, in fact the most personal you can have: your identity. Like I said, the Leave vote showed me that something I had always taken for granted as part of how I defined myself was false, or at least not shared by about half the country. Maybe my vision of what the UK was is as unreal as the land of milk and honey that was sold by the Brexit campaign, which I find very sad.

A lot of those who voted leave are the ones form whom ZIRP is already failing. I do think that has a lot to do with the metro-provincial vote split.

There are a lot of people who saw themselves as 100% British - albeit perhaps second or third generation immigrant - who did not like what the EU had become and how it was shaping the UK.

Sadly unsullied facts, or the time to digest them (for many) was not a luxury we were allowed prior to Cameron's idiotically hasty referendum date. Any one who says they know, without doubt, all the facts and which way we should have voted is a bone fide bkhead.

[sidicks]

Ghibli said:

IMO it is possible. We have not left the EU yet.

Sterling has taken a hit and fuel and food will be more expensive. 14 years as we are could amount to £4,300

Emergency budget could be implemented if we have no trade deals and it all hits the fan on leaving the EU.

I'm no expert but that's what it looks like to me.

Something being a (remote) possibility and something being expected are two quite different things!

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Something being a (remote) possibility and something being expected are two quite different things!

Fair enough,

If we expect the pound to fall on exit can we also expect imported food and fuel to go up.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

You didn't answer my question...

Did you expect the emergency budget to be implemented, post Brexit?

Did you believe that we'd be £4,300 worse off per person by 2030, post Brexit?

Cobnapint said:

And besides, the poster is only a 'suggestion', not a definite pledge.

If all the leave side offered were 'suggestions' maybe that's all the remain side did too?

[sidicks]

cookie118 said:

If all the leave side offered were 'suggestions' maybe that's all the remain side did too?

Agreed.

[RYH64E]

sidicks said:

RYH64E said:

Why would they would they not expect it? It's a clear statement, surely an attractive proposition, and oft repeated by one of the leading campaigners for leave.

You didn't answer my question...

Did you expect the emergency budget to be implemented, post Brexit?

Did you believe that we'd be £4,300 worse off per person by 2030, post Brexit?

I expect there to be an emergency budget soon in order to try to mitigate the effects of a likely recession.

I also expect the average man in the street to be significantly worse off by 2030, the UK will almost certainly be a poorer country post Brexit (and before due to uncertainty). On a personal note, when my stash of dollars is exhausted I'll be about £4k per month worse off (per month not per year) due to currency losses alone, I'll try to pass the increased costs on to my customers but that doesn't always work.

[anonymous-user]

I think the £4300 was per household and not per person?

[rs1952]

RYH64E said:

I expect there to be an emergency budget soon in order to try to mitigate the effects of a likely recession.

We have already been told of a possible "reset" in the coming autumn statement.

A recent previous Chancellor suggested that there would have to be an "emergency budget" and was accused of yet another "Project Fear" tactic.

Semantics spring to mind. Our present Chancellor thinks the glass is half full. The last one thinks the glass is half empty. Either way, you've got 50% liquid and 50% fresh air in the glass. And a fresh look at the national finances post-referendum.

But never mind, we're on our way to the sunlit uplands

[jjlynn27]

rs1952 said:

We have already been told of a possible "reset" in the coming autumn statement.

A recent previous Chancellor suggested that there would have to be an "emergency budget" and was accused of yet another "Project Fear" tactic.

Semantics spring to mind. Our present Chancellor thinks the glass is half full. The last one thinks the glass is half empty. Either way, you've got 50% liquid and 50% fresh air in the glass. And a fresh look at the national finances post-referendum.

But never mind, we're on our way to the sunlit uplands

Does anyone know what 'reset' means?

And rs1952, don't be so negative, recession is reading these posts and you'll type us into it.

[///ajd]

Digga said:

Mario149 said:

Digga said:

I'm kind of a big deal. <\Ron Burgundy>

You can try and laugh it up all you want. The fact remains (boom boom tsh!) that it ain't gonna be the well off/metropolitan elite/people of means/whatever who by and large voted Remain who are going to end up on the breadline if Brexit goes tits up

Digga said:

But you are actually British, right?

With the greatest of respect to Germany, France and Italy, with the way you describe your lack of attachment to the UK, you don't sound like you really had any skin in the game.

I am British yes, and I am very attached to the UK, or at least what I thought it was and stood for. I had plenty of skin in the game, in fact the most personal you can have: your identity. Like I said, the Leave vote showed me that something I had always taken for granted as part of how I defined myself was false, or at least not shared by about half the country. Maybe my vision of what the UK was is as unreal as the land of milk and honey that was sold by the Brexit campaign, which I find very sad.

A lot of those who voted leave are the ones form whom ZIRP is already failing. I do think that has a lot to do with the metro-provincial vote split.

There are a lot of people who saw themselves as 100% British - albeit perhaps second or third generation immigrant - who did not like what the EU had become and how it was shaping the UK.

Sadly unsullied facts, or the time to digest them (for many) was not a luxury we were allowed prior to Cameron's idiotically hasty referendum date. Any one who says they know, without doubt, all the facts and which way we should have voted is a bone fide bkhead.

So Digga you didn't have all the facts but voted for the leave gamble anyway?

Sounds like Bregret.

And someone elses fault.


As more and more of these "someone elses fault we voted leave by mistake" stories come in, the case for having a rethink is stronger.

And Derek is quite right to suggest a norway option is just like staying in the EU. It is exactly like that.

Its not better than what we have today, but might be the best we can hope for. Any govt that did it to us would go down in history for all the wrong reasons.

[Derek Smith]

sidicks said:

Derek Smith said:

Sorry to be subtle. I really should know by now.

You weren't 'subtle', you were wrong.

HTH

I'll explain it for you in as simple a way as I can. Oh, wait. I’ve already done that.

I pointed out that the second brexit is unknown so the statement, brexit means brexit, cannot stand. How could it when we don’t know what the result will be?

I then said, in simple language, but without emoticons or initials, what I meant by not leaving the EU.

The point is that you must have understood my point. I assume you have no trouble reading. So why just gainsay it? If you have a particular argument that the Norwegian option isn’t, in many ways, similar to being in the EU, then by all means share it with us.

A statement of ‘you were wrong’ is a statement that you disagree. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

If we follow the Norwegian option, if the EU allow it that is, which I doubt, the changes for us will be minimal. In essence the only difference will be that we will not have a seat at the table for the making of the regulations which we will have to comply with.

But, as I pointed out, we have no idea what brexit means for us. The negotiations have probably not even started at the moment, although the games, as we see on our southern motorways, are underway.

Let me put is clearly and precisely: brexit could mean something very much like not brexit.

[Dr Jekyll]

Derek Smith said:

If you have a particular argument that the Norwegian option isn’t, in many ways, similar to being in the EU, then by all means share it with us.

A statement of ‘you were wrong’ is a statement that you disagree. Nothing less and certainly nothing more.

What we are saying is quite simple. The Norway option means NOT BEING IN THE EU, because NORWAY IS NOT IN THE EU. Therefore you are wrong in stating that the Norway option means not leaving the EU.

Specifically in means that only a tiny fraction of EU rules will apply to us and judging from Norway's experience it will be a lot cheaper.