Brexit - real world implications

[kurt535]

John145 said:

Blib said:

A mature democracy should never indulge in a referendum. The simple fact is that vast swathes of the electorate cannot possibly have enough knowledge of the consequences inherent in such a huge decision. Simply put, they are not armed with all the facts.

Edited by Blib on Wednesday 29th June 16:45

Tell that to Switzerland.

Arrogance that you believe you're more aware of everyone's personal circumstances more than the people in those circumstances.

It's a long road, but the best governance proven time and again is when there is direct democracy.

It takes time to develop because we are in such a poor position (wrt experienced populace) at the moment but it's a direction I prefer over ever more autocracy.

When the demos is engaged, informed, enthused they make the centre ground decision.

Switzerland is an educated, multilingual country made of of a series of cantons that respect and encourage education, social behaviour and protection of their urban and countryside environment.

England's own struggle to uniformly write and speak the mother tongue; FREE education is abused and not respected; social behaviour is horrendous whether here or at a football tournament; so many of our town centres evidence decay, filth and nastiness its a wonder we are even still given a vote for local councillors.

[xjay1337]

jjlynn27 said:

it'll never be their own fault.

I didn't vote so it can't be mine haha.

I do agree with some of the above posters ramblings though. You never hear of football thugs from Switzerland...

[Don]

AJL308 said:

munky][Columbo]just one more thing..[/Columbo said:

I presume it has already been discussed on here that the referendum is not legally binding, it's advisory and can be overruled, and that 52% is hardly a mandate etc etc. I think it's unlikely that it would be ignored though (the Greek way), and unlikely that there'll be a second referendum and third until the sensible answer comes out (the French way, on treaty changes).

So the most likely outcome is that our elected politicians (and an unelected PM) do what's sensible and negotiate to remain in the free trade area to avoid recession and ruining people's futures. That would mean that we still have freedom of movement, and we still pay to be a member. Which begs the question what was the point of leaving and dividing the country against each other if nothing really changes.. silly Cameron for holding a referendum. Some things are too important for the public to decide directly, and that's why we elect a government to decide things for us. Good job we don't have referenda on defence, taxation, education.. who knows what stupidity we'd vote for.

Can someone tell me who the last elected PM was please?

The point you are making is that, of course, no PM is ever elected. The PMs job is given to the leader of the party that wins the election by his colleagues in his party. (Or her party, of course).

But there are PMs like Blair and Cameron who successfully led the campaign that saw their party elected into Government and there are PMs like Gordon Brown (and maybe Boris Johnson!!!!!!!) who did not.

[munky]

AJL308 said:

munky][Columbo]just one more thing..[/Columbo said:

I presume it has already been discussed on here that the referendum is not legally binding, it's advisory and can be overruled, and that 52% is hardly a mandate etc etc. I think it's unlikely that it would be ignored though (the Greek way), and unlikely that there'll be a second referendum and third until the sensible answer comes out (the French way, on treaty changes).

So the most likely outcome is that our elected politicians (and an unelected PM) do what's sensible and negotiate to remain in the free trade area to avoid recession and ruining people's futures. That would mean that we still have freedom of movement, and we still pay to be a member. Which begs the question what was the point of leaving and dividing the country against each other if nothing really changes.. silly Cameron for holding a referendum. Some things are too important for the public to decide directly, and that's why we elect a government to decide things for us. Good job we don't have referenda on defence, taxation, education.. who knows what stupidity we'd vote for.

Can someone tell me who the last elected PM was please?

People vote for their MP knowing who would become PM if that party wins. It's the potential PM that is the most visible and audible campaigner, does most of the speeches, gets the most airtime and takes part in the televised debacles, sorry, debates. Many people haven't got a clue who their MP candidates are, or what they stand for. Therefore, many if not most of them vote according to which PM they want, or, which party. If people didn't vote for the PM, why is it said that Labour is unelectable under Comrade Corbyn or Ed Millipede? If Gordon Brown had been the potential PM rather than Tony Blair, would they have won any elections at all? I have my doubts. Big ones.

[ATG]

xjay1337 said:

Blib said:

Rubbish and ypu k ow it.

We elect MPS to make these difficult decisions.

Because the MPs do things for the good of the people.
Not to maintain a position of power / money / respect among their privately educated buddies.
Pricks, the lot of them.

Oh, come on. If you really believe that, then you're part of the problem. Rational scepticism is good. Mindless cynicism is disastrous.

[V8RX7]

LasseV said:

Well, England did loose at least one tourist because of brexit. I was planning a road trip to england but now i think i just go straight to Scotland. I just doesn't respect you guys as much as i used to. One part is brexit but bigger part is those Leavers and their messages/contribution in PH and elsewhere. They were just so arrogant, disrespectful and almost hostile towards other EU-nations.

BTW, i want my money back from Cornwall.

Oh no you aren't coming...

I'm devastated.

I think you'll find it was all our money we received back off the EU - less approx £140BN over the years.

[don4l]

munky said:

don4l said:

It's a bit late for all this.

The referendum was last Thursday.

True. And yet, if you try warning people in advance, they just call it 'project fear' and ignore it anyway. What bugs me is that so many Leave voters (maybe many Remains as well, who knows) didn't have a clue what they were voting for, or what the ramifications were. That's partly their fault for voting without doing the research, but obviously much down to the Leave campaigners for (much more than the other side) making up and exaggerating their claims, and to the Remain campaigners for not giving them the facts that would actually help. Did anyone tell the Cornish how many EU financed projects there are in Cornwall? (I seem to remember 486 projects). I bet nobody told them.

The assumption that people who voted Leave were ill informed is a bit patronising.

I've known for years that I wanted out, and I've known exactly why.

I see useless burdens placed on business that make UK companies less competitive in the global economy.

I see the constant erosion of our sovereignty.

I see a bunch of, mainly socialist, idiots in Brussels heading merrily towards ever closer union, and at the same time they are trying to integrate the economies of Greece with the economy of Germany. That is never going to work.

I have my reasons for voting Leave. They are real reasons, and I can defend them all.

The remain argument was based on pure FUD. Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

[plasticpig]

AJL308 said:

Can someone tell me who the last elected PM was please?

David Cameroon. Anyone could vote for him; all they had to do was join the conservative party.

[jjlynn27]

xjay1337 said:

jjlynn27 said:

it'll never be their own fault.

I didn't vote so it can't be mine haha.

I do agree with some of the above posters ramblings though. You never hear of football thugs from Switzerland...

Too busy making bhing watches.

[vonuber]

Spoke to 4 more directors around the company today.
Consensus is that we have roughly enough work for 4-6 months tops due to existing contracted projects then it drops off like a cliff.
Uk staff is around 15,000 engineers - this is going to be fun isn't it.

[paul789]

cloggy said:

I think it is a great opportunity for the UK.

I think it's a great opportunity in 5 - 10 years, wir shaffen das. It's getting over the economic shock and emerging the other side first that concerns me. How's the deficit and debt going to look if we do have a significant volume of jobs re-located?

[AreOut]

FTSE 100 closes above pre-Brexit level

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/29/fts...

no moaners to mention this?

[munky]

don4l said:

munky said:

don4l said:

It's a bit late for all this.

The referendum was last Thursday.

True. And yet, if you try warning people in advance, they just call it 'project fear' and ignore it anyway. What bugs me is that so many Leave voters (maybe many Remains as well, who knows) didn't have a clue what they were voting for, or what the ramifications were. That's partly their fault for voting without doing the research, but obviously much down to the Leave campaigners for (much more than the other side) making up and exaggerating their claims, and to the Remain campaigners for not giving them the facts that would actually help. Did anyone tell the Cornish how many EU financed projects there are in Cornwall? (I seem to remember 486 projects). I bet nobody told them.

The assumption that people who voted Leave were ill informed is a bit patronising.

Not *all* people, but a good deal of them. Unless you think these people are informed?
https://www.facebook.com/midlandstoday/videos/1015...

don4l said:

I've known for years that I wanted out, and I've known exactly why.

Which implies additional possibilities such as you weren't going to change your mind no matter what the facts, or that you weren't informed. Or maybe you were informed and chose accordingly. I used to want out, until I started researching the facts and what those facts imply for the economy.

don4l said:

I see useless burdens placed on business that make UK companies less competitive in the global economy.

How do you see them, and do you have examples?
I'll quite happily admit that small businesses, especially those that don't export to the global economy, would benefit due to less red tape. If their customers still have any money, that is. Large businesses however overwhelmingly supported Remain as the benefits of the single market far outweigh any burdens.

don4l said:

I see the constant erosion of our sovereignty.

Meaning what though? We still have our sovereign. She's known as the Queen.

don4l said:

I see a bunch of, mainly socialist, idiots in Brussels heading merrily towards ever closer union, and at the same time they are trying to integrate the economies of Greece with the economy of Germany. That is never going to work.

It's the currency union without fiscal union that doesn't work. More union would resolve that, as would the abandonment of the single currency. Don't confuse the Eurozone with the EU though. The economy of Alabama is 'integrated' with the economy of California after all, with a single currency but crucially a central federal government with powers of taxation and spending. It has some federal laws and it has devolved laws, just like the EU and indeed the UK.

don4l said:

I have my reasons for voting Leave. They are real reasons, and I can defend them all.

The remain argument was based on pure FUD. Fear, uncertainty and doubt.

I agree, they didn't mention nearly enough about the positives of remaining. However the Leave campaign outright lied. And then admitted afterwards that they lied. Therefore much of the vote was based on lies. Not saying yours was, or all of the vote was, but much of it.

[vonuber]

AreOut said:

FTSE 100 closes above pre-Brexit level

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/29/fts...

no moaners to mention this?

Hang on, I thought this was just short fluctuations and we need to wait for years? Also the 250 is still down by nearly 8%.

[Einion Yrth]

munky said:

the Leave campaign outright lied.

Both campaigns "outright lied" and it's a fking disgrace. The result is what it is though.

[cymtriks]

klootzak said:

cymtriks said:

• No talk of what the EU needs to be in the future to tempt us back

Why should there be? The UK has just voted to leave, surely working that out should be the priority. Anything else is of merely academic interest.

Actually the EU has plenty of previous examples of people voting no to option A, no to option B and finally yes to option C.

It is no different than a company thrashing out a pay deal:
1% ? No, that's just not on.
2% ? No, It's better but we'd like 2.5% please
2.2% ? Oh, OK 2.2 it is.

klootzak said:

cymtriks said:

• No talk of what the EU needs to be in the future to stop other countries leaving

As above, why should there be? The UK has voted to leave and at that point forfeit any right to have an influence or opinion about the EU's future.

Of course, if you want to influence the EU without accepting any responsibility within it. Or believe deep down that we won't really leave (as appears to be the case for some of the leave campaigners), those last two points will be relevant. Otherwise, they are of no more than the vaguest academic interest.

It really needs to. Lots of posts on here about what friends, colleagues and family in the EU are saying and a great many of them would love to have their own referendum.

The sensible thing to do for the EU (and possibly for us as well) is for them to announce a five year breathing space for consultation on the contentious issues. The gap, in vote terms was only a few percent, so it is entirely do-able. Then they try to get EU-2 going after that.

There's the debt crisis, the immigrant crisis, the question of sovereignty, it all needs a proper airing.

If they get it right they could come out of this with us, Norway, Greenland and Iceland back in with a clear plan to get things back on course.

The fact that this seems increasingly unlikely actually says a lot about them, and it isn't good.

Here's a good question, would you run a business...

• like this:

Introduce a new product
The customers don't like it
Insult the customers and tell them they are stupid to turn down your amazing offer
Threaten to tell other shops that the customers are on a black list because they are so stupid

• Or like this:

Introduce a new product
The customers don't like it
Ask them how you could change the product to suit them
Invite them to your new promotion and offer a reward for introducing a new customer

Tick which company you would prefer to work for, manage your pension or be a customer of.

[markcoznottz]

Einion Yrth said:

munky said:

the Leave campaign outright lied.

Both campaigns "outright lied" and it's a fking disgrace. The result is what it is though.

Essentially people don't trust drop out upper class twits, so they decide themselves. Says a lot about Cameron when he just flounced off in a huff when faced with a leave process, a process that is a result of a referendum that HE instigated. Oh how he must wish for the days when he could lie to his hearts content in the sun newspaper about a referendum for the Lisbon treaty then quietly brush it under the carpet, good little plebs, go about your business.

[munky]

AreOut said:

FTSE 100 closes above pre-Brexit level

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/29/fts...

no moaners to mention this?

Easy. Many people here know that the FTSE 100 is irrelevant.

1) The FTSE 100 contains several non-British companies (e.g. German, American) and many multinationals, that have a limited if any link to the British economy; they're simply listed on the LSE. Many of them have share prices that are far more linked to commodity prices than anything happening in the UK. Investors (and, shock, even the BBC) know this, even if joe public and most journos do not. Many predictions of Brexit market moves (stocks, interest rates, credit spreads, inflation, FX etc) included a zero or tiny impact on the FTSE 100 for this reason.

2) The FTSE 100 contains several companies whose revenues are reported in USD, not GBP. And companies whose revenues are mostly earned in USD or other currencies, and they will benefit from a depreciation in sterling. Shell and BP were *up* on the day of the vote result. Oil is priced in USD.

2) Taking any particular day's move as an indicator of anything is also largely irrelevant. As any investor knows, markets often over react, then bounce (known as the dead cat bounce, because even a dead cat bounces when it hits the floor) and then often drop again. The market is still finding its level, as bulls and bears tussle over who's right. And, it is waking up to the fact that the UK isn't leaving yet, for 2 years or so. 2 years is a long time in equity markets. I believe that the market over-sold property companies in the panic, so I bought some yesterday and today they're up over 7%.

Take a look at the FTSE 250, which is much more representative of the British economy, and let us know where that is compared to before the vote. Actually I'll save you the bother, as if you read the article you linked, you'll find this:
"The FTSE 250 index, which is considered a closer barometer to the UK economy than the blue chip index, has also bounced back. However, its recovery has been less impressive, as it is still 7.5pc lower than it was a week ago."

You can read various claims and counter claims about what the stock market moves mean in this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36660133 however annoyingly they've only interviewed retail bit players, no professional investors or institutional broker-dealers. Probably they're too busy to talk to journalists.

[munky]

Einion Yrth said:

munky said:

the Leave campaign outright lied.

Both campaigns "outright lied" and it's a fking disgrace. The result is what it is though.

It is. But just take a look at the BBC fact checker, to see which side of the campaign told the biggest porkies.

[Podie]

Alistair Campbell's opinion - http://www.alastaircampbell.org/blog/2016/06/28/a-...

Until it was sent to me, I had no idea he'd have a blog.