The economic consequences of Brexit
Poll: The economic consequences of Brexit
Total Members Polled: 732
Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
Puggit said:
Lloyds Bank closing 200 branches and losing 3000 jobs and blaming Brexit. I'm calling bullls
t onto that convenient excuse.
Are we reading the same thing? t onto that convenient excuse.bbc said:
The Group said the increased cost-cutting was as a result of the change in how people do their banking, and due to the chances of interest-rates staying low in the wake of Brexit.
But Mr Horta-Osorio emphasised that Lloyds was in a "strong position to withstand the uncertainty" created by the vote.
But Mr Horta-Osorio emphasised that Lloyds was in a "strong position to withstand the uncertainty" created by the vote.
bbc said:
Laith Khalaf, analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said that despite Lloyds' attempt to set out its stall as a "multi-channel bank", the reality is that "demand for banking services is moving online, and so banks must follow where their customers lead, and ultimately that doesn't bode well for high street branches".
He added that while the Brexit vote had hit Lloyds, "it remains a strong bank", and the impact of the vote will probably be felt most by shareholders, who may receive less cash this year.
Doesn't read to me that they are blaming Brexit. It reads to me that they are 'blaming' changes in how people do banking and low interest rates.He added that while the Brexit vote had hit Lloyds, "it remains a strong bank", and the impact of the vote will probably be felt most by shareholders, who may receive less cash this year.
ATG said:
Oh, come one. Mario posts an interesting thought experiment. He's basically asking what's the nature and purpose of a national boundary. It is worth thinking about.
I agree it's interesting.I think it's something that's become engendered over hundreds/thousands of years in parts of the world. But it's not universal - our meddling in the Middle East and applying/trying to apply similar constructs, for example, can't really be considered a success.
I suspect it's strongly related to ownership and control of resources. And the people part of those resources having a sufficiently common "identity" to conform to that control.
It is worth noting, however, that the EU very much does not abandon the concept. It just draws the line around a much wider area. So it's curious that those who decry a UK boundary (see it as pointless etc) are so keen to be part of the EU one - the concept is identical.
History suggests that the wider you draw those boundaries, the harder it is to maintain harmony and the strengths with size become a weakness. What the ideal size of a national boundary is who knows. The current world map isn't long standing enough to suggest we (as in the human race) have it right yet. Hopefully we can evolve it through peaceful means these days...though I suspect that's very wishful thinking
(Very OT though).
Murph7355 said:
History suggests that the wider you draw those boundaries, the harder it is to maintain harmony and the strengths with size become a weakness.
A bit like the management 'rule' of 150.The thing is, the majority of people in the UK, regardless of whether pro or anti Brexit, do want to preserve a degree of national identity and sovereignty. If you are not one of those people and don't share those values, it is perhaps easy to miss the nuanced reasons for them.
alfie2244 said:
You can't help yourself can you? - You don't want adult discussion, you just like the sound of your own keyboard - i think the word narcissist was invented for you 
I've asked some adult questions for you on immigration but you just return with insults.Run away if you want, I'll just jump to conclusions about you instead.
///ajd said:
alfie2244 said:
You can't help yourself can you? - You don't want adult discussion, you just like the sound of your own keyboard - i think the word narcissist was invented for you
I've asked some adult questions for you on immigration but you just return with insults.Run away if you want, I'll just jump to conclusions about you instead.
Murph7355 said:
ATG said:
Oh, come one. Mario posts an interesting thought experiment. He's basically asking what's the nature and purpose of a national boundary. It is worth thinking about.
I agree it's interesting.I think it's something that's become engendered over hundreds/thousands of years in parts of the world. But it's not universal - our meddling in the Middle East and applying/trying to apply similar constructs, for example, can't really be considered a success.
I suspect it's strongly related to ownership and control of resources. And the people part of those resources having a sufficiently common "identity" to conform to that control.
It is worth noting, however, that the EU very much does not abandon the concept. It just draws the line around a much wider area. So it's curious that those who decry a UK boundary (see it as pointless etc) are so keen to be part of the EU one - the concept is identical.
History suggests that the wider you draw those boundaries, the harder it is to maintain harmony and the strengths with size become a weakness. What the ideal size of a national boundary is who knows. The current world map isn't long standing enough to suggest we (as in the human race) have it right yet. Hopefully we can evolve it through peaceful means these days...though I suspect that's very wishful thinking
(Very OT though).
Mario149 said:
No, the concept is not identical. A national boundary (historically) has been fairly arbitrary - who conquered/bought/ceded etc what land. If you draw an ever large arbitrary boundary based on those criteria of course you're more likely to encounter problems. The EU concept is manifestly not that, it is to allow countries to join (increasing the boundary) once they have met certain requirements deemed necessary to ensure that the union (an increased boundary) succeeds. Essentially it is the quality of the boundary drawn, not it's size which is important
The boundary still encompasses those same historic boundaries though. And when countries join it's ultimately "ceding" that's taking place (definitively so if the project ever reaches it's conclusion).The way the EU is expanding may well be different. Only time will tell if it's ultimately healthy or not, but the growing problems in the EU do not seem to me to be markedly different to those experienced by earlier attempts at empire.
Mario149 said:
No, the concept is not identical. A national boundary (historically) has been fairly arbitrary - who conquered/bought/ceded etc what land. If you draw an ever large arbitrary boundary based on those criteria of course you're more likely to encounter problems. The EU concept is manifestly not that, it is to allow countries to join (increasing the boundary) once they have met certain requirements deemed necessary to ensure that the union (an increased boundary) succeeds. Essentially it is the quality of the boundary drawn, not it's size which is important
Clearly, you missed the memo about 'ever closer union'.Digga said:
Clearly, you missed the memo about 'ever closer union'.
Is that one from Tusk that says ;Tusk said:
The document also sets out the various areas in which the UK already enjoys a semi-detached relationship inside the EU, such as its opt-outs from the Euro and the passport-free Schengen area and its ability to pick and choose which EU justice and home affairs laws to adopt. In light of these exceptions, it notes that “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union” and envisages that “The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision.”
That one? Or something else?Murph7355 said:
The boundary still encompasses those same historic boundaries though. And when countries join it's ultimately "ceding" that's taking place (definitively so if the project ever reaches it's conclusion).
Yes but those boundaries cease to exist in the way they previously did, they just become administrative cutoffs and lines on a map in a similar way that are county boundaries are.Murph7355 said:
The way the EU is expanding may well be different. Only time will tell if it's ultimately healthy or not, but the growing problems in the EU do not seem to me to be markedly different to those experienced by earlier attempts at empire.
I'd say they're different, in 40 years the EU and its predecessors have not had an armed insurgency against them or anything even close to it unlike any empire I can think of off the top of my head. For all the EUSSR doom-mongering and "diktats" from Brussels, they're clearly not very good at the un-democratic arch overlords thing if all it takes for us to exit is TM to rock up there one afternoon and give them an A50 letter saying that we're off rather than instigating a multi-year violent guerrilla movement.jjlynn27 said:
Digga said:
Clearly, you missed the memo about 'ever closer union'.
Is that one from Tusk that says ;Tusk said:
The document also sets out the various areas in which the UK already enjoys a semi-detached relationship inside the EU, such as its opt-outs from the Euro and the passport-free Schengen area and its ability to pick and choose which EU justice and home affairs laws to adopt. In light of these exceptions, it notes that “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union” and envisages that “The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision.”
That one? Or something else?JawKnee said:
Northern Munkee said:
I think this has a lot more to do with the way the majority of people bank these days (on line) and if not a way to bury bad news let's hint at something else as an excuse, and let the disaffected media run with it.
ETA just listening to LBC from 5pm, and experts are coming on to rubbish this, this decision also predates 23/6/16 and an awful lot to do with their PPI misselling and online banking.
Edited by Northern Munkee on Thursday 28th July 17:12
Digga said:
jjlynn27 said:
Digga said:
Clearly, you missed the memo about 'ever closer union'.
Is that one from Tusk that says ;Tusk said:
The document also sets out the various areas in which the UK already enjoys a semi-detached relationship inside the EU, such as its opt-outs from the Euro and the passport-free Schengen area and its ability to pick and choose which EU justice and home affairs laws to adopt. In light of these exceptions, it notes that “It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union” and envisages that “The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision.”
That one? Or something else?If you have an article sating that UK is going to be made part of 'ever closer union' I'll be grateful. Till then, above stands.
jjlynn27 said:
I'm not sure what you are reading. It does seem that oft repeated line 'ever closer union' is a bs.
If you have an article sating that UK is going to be made part of 'ever closer union' I'll be grateful. Till then, above stands.
Have a some facts about who said what:If you have an article sating that UK is going to be made part of 'ever closer union' I'll be grateful. Till then, above stands.
http://ec.europa.eu/archives/emu_history/documents...
We signed up all this a bit later. The bit about ever closer union is on page 1.
Rovinghawk said:
jjlynn27 said:
I'm not sure what you are reading. It does seem that oft repeated line 'ever closer union' is a bs.
If you have an article sating that UK is going to be made part of 'ever closer union' I'll be grateful. Till then, above stands.
Have a some facts about who said what:If you have an article sating that UK is going to be made part of 'ever closer union' I'll be grateful. Till then, above stands.
http://ec.europa.eu/archives/emu_history/documents...
jjlynn27 said:
I'm not sure what you are reading. It does seem that oft repeated line 'ever closer union' is a bs.
If you have an article sating that UK is going to be made part of 'ever closer union' I'll be grateful. Till then, above stands.
That wasn't what I was saying. I agreed; the Uk had an opt out.If you have an article sating that UK is going to be made part of 'ever closer union' I'll be grateful. Till then, above stands.
however, for the remainder, it was ever closer union which, as others point out, at a certain scale, does not always work that well. I would argue that where there are strong cultural differences, irrespective of the geographic scale of an entity, the conglomeration can be tricky at best.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff