The economic consequences of Brexit
Poll: The economic consequences of Brexit
Total Members Polled: 732
Discussion
230TE said:
SilverSixer said:
We weren't arguing that. (1) We were arguing the incorrect assertion that the EU is undemocratic. (2) It is accepted (3) that membership of the EU entails some pooling of sovereignty (by consent of democratically elected national governments) for it to work, for example. (4) However this is minimal (5) and we have always retained the lion's share of our own governance, (6) and would continue to do so with our vetos and opt outs. (7) Nobody is telling us we've got to guillotine the Queen, for example (even though her existence stands in stark opposition to notions of democracy which the Leave side harp on about). (8) Democracy remains an essential bedrock of the EU in the form of its Parliament and treaty conventions. (9) All member nations proceed with their own national constitutions, unaffected on the whole, whilst making some allowances on sovereignty in order to benefit from the economic advantages of membership of the world's biggest single market. (10) As ATG said, if you don't like that, then fine, but don't try to make out we have no sovereignty or control over domestic law making, (11) have had no democratic say in the development of the EU since we've been members when we have in the form of electing our governments on EU membership manifestos, (12) nor try to dress it up as some kind of economic case for leaving. (13)
Allow me to fisk that for you.(1) Yes we were, once you claimed that the EU had been misrepresented. The question is by whom, and to what end.
(2) You originally provided a long list of "incorrect" beliefs. Now you're trying to narrow it down to one. Backpedalling?
(3) The Brexit vote suggests that acceptance might not be universal.
(4) Not that any mainstream politician has been stupid enough to say so, in 1975 or since.
(5) In the same way that my consumption of Marlboro Lights is minimal.
(6) About 60% of our government's legislative work consists of implementing EU directives and regulations.
(7) You hope.
(8) Oh look, it's a strawman argument.
(9) As long as the politicians behave themselves. And the important stuff gets decided elsewhere in "secret dark discussions" as dear old Jean-Claude put it.
(10) Of course those benefits don't include the right to negotiate proper free trade agreements.
(11) Strawman part II.
(12) Because people always vote for domestic governments on the basis of their policy towards the EU...
(13) Free trade seems like an economic argument to me. But given so many people on here regard trade as zero-sum (if one side gains, the other must lose) I'm probably in a minority.
Things could be worse. Imagine if we'd joined the Euro as all good Europeans are supposed to.
SilverSixer said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Carl_Manchester said:
Money, money, money, money. The above explains why the vote was lost - tunnel vision. If an argument other than just financially driven was made the vote to remain would have been won. It's the avoidance of non financial topics which buried the remain campaign.
Go on then. What exactly are the non financial arguments for staying in a protectionist bureaucratic undemocratic customs union run by an unhinged anglophobe?The sad truth is that people want to find scapegoats and bogeymen. It is easy to portray the EU as a big, incompetent, corrupt, threatening shadow hanging over the UK, even though that is an insane parody of reality.
The EU is a perfect target for abuse. It naturally fits the bill as a dislikeable authority figure, a bit like a traffic warden or a local authority planning officer. Anyone want to take responsibility for trying to rebrand traffic wardens? Not me. It's a lost cause. Key thing is that any fool could press the rabble-rousing buttons and swamp your message. It'd go like this:
ATG: "We need them to keep urban roads clear."
<some other PHer>: "Yeah, but they're w
kers who really like ticketting you, the hard working family person, who is constantly put down by traffic wardens who also want to come into your living room and ticket your TV, and this is your one and only chance to show them that they work for you, not you for them, blah, blah, blah"The Leave campaign was hardly a polished and sophisticated communications machine. But they had an extremely easy narrative to spin. It didn't matter that they knew they were talking s
te and half their audience also knew it too. They weren't trying to appeal to people's rational side. They didn't need to. They just needed to tap into their resentment, their wish to find simple targets for their frustrations, then decorate it with some airey fairy patriotic futuristic guff. Job done.Edited by ATG on Wednesday 31st August 14:55
walm said:
Seriously? (Genuine question!)
And if so - that sounds like work (some of it at least) that would need to continue post-Brexit wouldn't it? We will still need regulations - they'll just come from Westminster not Brussels.
Perhaps not as many, of course!
It's a difficult figure to calculate precisely and there is some controversy around it. As far as I can tell, around 13% is primary legislation, incorporating EU directives into national law, the rest is regulations which usually go through via Statutory Instrument without a debate or vote. Yes, some of the regulations cover stuff we would be doing anyway, and there's nothing anyone can teach our own Civil Service about over-complicating things. But I think the point still stands, there is a lot of stuff ending up as part of British law which originates in Brussels, and it's harder to stop bad ideas if you have to negotiate with the representatives of 27 other countries to get a majority against.And if so - that sounds like work (some of it at least) that would need to continue post-Brexit wouldn't it? We will still need regulations - they'll just come from Westminster not Brussels.
Perhaps not as many, of course!
230TE said:
walm said:
Seriously? (Genuine question!)
And if so - that sounds like work (some of it at least) that would need to continue post-Brexit wouldn't it? We will still need regulations - they'll just come from Westminster not Brussels.
Perhaps not as many, of course!
It's a difficult figure to calculate precisely and there is some controversy around it. As far as I can tell, around 13% is primary legislation, incorporating EU directives into national law, the rest is regulations which usually go through via Statutory Instrument without a debate or vote. Yes, some of the regulations cover stuff we would be doing anyway, and there's nothing anyone can teach our own Civil Service about over-complicating things. But I think the point still stands, there is a lot of stuff ending up as part of British law which originates in Brussels, and it's harder to stop bad ideas if you have to negotiate with the representatives of 27 other countries to get a majority against.And if so - that sounds like work (some of it at least) that would need to continue post-Brexit wouldn't it? We will still need regulations - they'll just come from Westminster not Brussels.
Perhaps not as many, of course!
SilverSixer said:
Dr Jekyll said:
SilverSixer said:
Yet again starting from the wrong place by unnecessarily translating my words in to some kind of incomprehensible waffle. I have done neither of the things you say, so I don't think I'm required to defend that which I have not said, by the normal rules of debate.
OK. In simple terms is your response to the suggestion that the EU is undemocratica) Denial, of course it's democratic.
or
b) Defence, referendums are a bad thing because the public aren't worthy to comment on the decision of their betters.
At the moment it seems to be both.
And b) is another case of you saying something I haven't said. Again.
What is the point in you acting like this?
230TE said:
ATG said:
Or to put it simply, no the 60% figure is utter crap. What does a "percentage of legislation" even mean?
There seem to be some very scatologically inclined (not to mention downright rude) Remainers around today. Must be the weather.ATG said:
The Leave campaign was hardly a polished and sophisticated communications machine. But they had an extremely easy narrative to spin. It didn't matter that they knew they were talking ste and half their audience also knew it too. They weren't trying to appeal to people's rational side. They didn't need to. They just needed to tap into their resentment, their wish to find simple targets for their frustrations, then decorate it with some airey fairy patriotic futuristic guff. Job done.
Apply excessive Saltires and a sprinkle of tartan paint, and you've exactly (well almost - they have a slick comms / media side) the same approach taken by SNP / Scottish nationalists to leaving the UK...te and half their audience also knew it too. They weren't trying to appeal to people's rational side. They didn't need to. They just needed to tap into their resentment, their wish to find simple targets for their frustrations, then decorate it with some airey fairy patriotic futuristic guff. Job done.Edited by ATG on Wednesday 31st August 14:55
ATG said:
You claimed 60% knowing you couldn't begin to justify it. You find the word "crap" offensive. I find deliberate lies offensive.
I claimed 60% knowing that it is a figure disputed by some within the Remain camp. That's not the same thing. All figures used in this argument are subject to dispute, otherwise this thread wouldn't have run to nearly 160 pages.I suppose I could escalate this by saying I find being called a liar offensive, but that kind of competitive victimhood doesn't really appeal to me. Anyway it wouldn't be true as I'm not offended. So I'd be lying about lying, at which point things get silly.
230TE said:
ATG said:
You claimed 60% knowing you couldn't begin to justify it. You find the word "crap" offensive. I find deliberate lies offensive.
I claimed 60% knowing that it is a figure disputed by some within the Remain camp. That's not the same thing. All figures used in this argument are subject to dispute, otherwise this thread wouldn't have run to nearly 160 pages.I suppose I could escalate this by saying I find being called a liar offensive, but that kind of competitive victimhood doesn't really appeal to me. Anyway it wouldn't be true as I'm not offended. So I'd be lying about lying, at which point things get silly.
http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/engineerin...
Something that's affecting my sector at the moment.
Something that's affecting my sector at the moment.
ATG said:
230TE said:
ATG said:
Or to put it simply, no the 60% figure is utter crap. What does a "percentage of legislation" even mean?
There seem to be some very scatologically inclined (not to mention downright rude) Remainers around today. Must be the weather.jsf said:
ATG said:
230TE said:
ATG said:
Or to put it simply, no the 60% figure is utter crap. What does a "percentage of legislation" even mean?
There seem to be some very scatologically inclined (not to mention downright rude) Remainers around today. Must be the weather.SilverSixer said:
Dr Jekyll said:
SilverSixer said:
Yet again starting from the wrong place by unnecessarily translating my words in to some kind of incomprehensible waffle. I have done neither of the things you say, so I don't think I'm required to defend that which I have not said, by the normal rules of debate.
OK. In simple terms is your response to the suggestion that the EU is undemocratica) Denial, of course it's democratic.
or
b) Defence, referendums are a bad thing because the public aren't worthy to comment on the decision of their betters.
At the moment it seems to be both.
And b) is another case of you saying something I haven't said. Again.
What is the point in you acting like this?
Perhaps, you would have us believe that they are a hairy green thing.
cookie118 said:
http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/engineerin...
Something that's affecting my sector at the moment.
I've got some good news for you. Once we leave the EU, the downward pressure on salaries will be reduced.Something that's affecting my sector at the moment.
Not everything about Brexit is negative, eh?
walm said:
every single voter was fully enlightened into the workings of the EU, the financial implications and potential non-financial ramifications, would be woefully optimistic, IMO.
I agree but they were certainly clued up on the following:UK City population sizes:
UK immigration figures:
What was the UK Governments strategy for dealing with the creation of a new City approximately the size of Cardiff every 12 months ? Strategy for NHS, Pensions, Housing, Transport ?
The failure to articulate such a strategy allowed people to take the above numbers literally from news outlets and apply these numbers to the affects that they were feeling from globalisation. Our government does most things well IMHO (I like the non-Etonian parts of the Conservative party) but, country strategy is one thing they do not do well at all. look at the balls-up of energy strategy.
Many people found the prospect of these immigration numbers continuing to rise year on year, plus the lack of strategy, mildly terrifying. I was one of them.
Re: Economy. One of the problems trying to open the current pandoras box which is the UK economy is that George Osborne's economic story was fuelled almost entirely on population growth rather than productivity increases (GDP per head). He was doing us no good with this approach and as a Convserative party supporter I am happy he is no longer chancellor. I have no idea how his legacy will be un-picked safely unless Government offers a strategy to improve productivity.
Alas, I offer no solutions to my waffle other than to stock up on popcorn. Finding solutions is someone elses job.
ATG said:
jsf said:
ATG said:
230TE said:
ATG said:
Or to put it simply, no the 60% figure is utter crap. What does a "percentage of legislation" even mean?
There seem to be some very scatologically inclined (not to mention downright rude) Remainers around today. Must be the weather.in the mean time, its pointless arguing over these numbers, the campaign is over, the vote has been held, lets concentrate on the future.
Interesting Chanel 4 news tonight following on from Newsnight last night. I sense a shift in sentiment in the media regarding the fact we are coming out of the EU and the economics can work, about time too.
Carl_Manchester said:
I agree but they were certainly clued up on the following:
UK City population sizes:
UK immigration figures:
What was the UK Governments strategy for dealing with the creation of a new City approximately the size of Cardiff every 12 months ? Strategy for NHS, Pensions, Housing, Transport ?
The failure to articulate such a strategy allowed people to take the above numbers literally from news outlets and apply these numbers to the affects that they were feeling from globalisation. Our government does most things well IMHO (I like the non-Etonian parts of the Conservative party) but, country strategy is one thing they do not do well at all. look at the balls-up of energy strategy.
Many people found the prospect of these immigration numbers continuing to rise year on year, plus the lack of strategy, mildly terrifying. I was one of them.
Re: Economy. One of the problems trying to open the current pandoras box which is the UK economy is that George Osborne's economic story was fuelled almost entirely on population growth rather than productivity increases (GDP per head). He was doing us no good with this approach and as a Convserative party supporter I am happy he is no longer chancellor. I have no idea how his legacy will be un-picked safely unless Government offers a strategy to improve productivity.
Alas, I offer no solutions to my waffle other than to stock up on popcorn. Finding solutions is someone elses job.
UK City population sizes:
UK immigration figures:
What was the UK Governments strategy for dealing with the creation of a new City approximately the size of Cardiff every 12 months ? Strategy for NHS, Pensions, Housing, Transport ?
The failure to articulate such a strategy allowed people to take the above numbers literally from news outlets and apply these numbers to the affects that they were feeling from globalisation. Our government does most things well IMHO (I like the non-Etonian parts of the Conservative party) but, country strategy is one thing they do not do well at all. look at the balls-up of energy strategy.
Many people found the prospect of these immigration numbers continuing to rise year on year, plus the lack of strategy, mildly terrifying. I was one of them.
Re: Economy. One of the problems trying to open the current pandoras box which is the UK economy is that George Osborne's economic story was fuelled almost entirely on population growth rather than productivity increases (GDP per head). He was doing us no good with this approach and as a Convserative party supporter I am happy he is no longer chancellor. I have no idea how his legacy will be un-picked safely unless Government offers a strategy to improve productivity.
Alas, I offer no solutions to my waffle other than to stock up on popcorn. Finding solutions is someone elses job.
don4l said:
cookie118 said:
http://www.imeche.org/news/news-article/engineerin...
Something that's affecting my sector at the moment.
I've got some good news for you. Once we leave the EU, the downward pressure on salaries will be reduced.Something that's affecting my sector at the moment.
Not everything about Brexit is negative, eh?
From my perspective I see zero downward wage pressure in my field. In fact I think several places are only operating because they've been able to recruit european or other foreign engineers
If we leave though will we get the investment that creates the jobs? And will we have enough engineers to support our manufacturing sector?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff