UKC

The old?
The poor?
The prejudiced?
The misinformed?
The government?

Hold on to your seats, its going to be a ride.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

52% of the British public is a good place to start.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Cameron for being craven, arrogant and useless and enabling Brexit
May for enacting it
Johnson/Farage et al for being self-serving liars
The right-wing press for dumbing down a significant proportion of the population

And maybe the EU for being too easy a target.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Mostly its the thick stupid people isn't it ??

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

"The people" are to blame. Don't you know that by now? We hear it around a million times a day from triumphalist leavers. It's "the will of the people".

In reply to Bulls Crack:


What on earth are you talking about? It was Jeremy Corbyn's fault.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I blame all of my primary and secondary school teachers. B*stards.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Someone we can blame unequivocally is David Cameron.

And - as Bulls Crack says - the right-wing press. The role of the Express and the Mail in particular will, I'm sure, come to be seen as a historical disgrace.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

and what does blaming anyone help?

In reply to elliott92:


Well, it doesn't help us get out of the quandary we're now in, but there is such a thing as justice. In an ideal world, those responsible would one day be held to account. But it's very unlikely to happen.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

We're all equally culpable - this is what happens when as a collective you take all the hard won freedoms and foundation on which your well-being is built for granted. It could get messy but then again as a nation I feel we could do with being taken down a peg or two, so in the long run it may do us some good.

Anyway, an early Radiohead track springs to mind, goes something like this:

You do it to yourself, just you, you and no-one else.
You do it to yourself, just you, and that's what really hurts.
You do it to yourself.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I'd go and say:

1) Populists like Johnson and Farage who lied until their pants caught fire
2) Cameron for trying to make himself look great
3) The people who voted in favour of Brexit, in many cases out of xenophobia
4) The anti-Brexit camp for pretending anyone who's against the EU must be a racist ****hole, further alienating people who might still have been open to rational arguments

And finally:

5) The EU leadership which has lost touch with the electorate and doesn't take any of the objections against the direction it's heading in seriously

So pretty much "Thanks all around, this was a team effort!"

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


Whiners who start zillions of threads on it, but do nothing else?

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Held to account for what?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
David Cameron for failing to understand the depth of feeling of many UK voters and assuming that, no matter what deal he returned with, the majority would vote to remain.
The EU for failing to reform in any meaningful way despite demands over many years to do so.

In reply to David Staples:

This is wrong. It was about 17.5m/65m.

In reply to Castleman:


For the national disaster which may happen. It may not, of course - but that seems unlikely, as all we now seem to be engaged in is an absurd, totally unnecessary and expensive 'damage limitation' exercise.

In reply to David Staples:

How about the 48% that couldn't put a decent argument across without resorting to 'labelling'?

In reply to Shani:


37.4 % to be precise.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
52% of the people who bothered to vote, actually.
Just to put this old, tired subject to bed ... again!

In reply to Lusk:

Yes, that's why I corrected Shani's figure.

In reply to Lusk:

52% of the people who were eligible to vote and voted actually

In reply to Mr Lopez:

51.89% to be precise.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
David Cameron for gambling the future of the country for internal party politics. All the scumbags who then jumped on board are secondary. Having said that I just see Cameron as a sort of tragic figure who made a massive misjudgement whereas I loathe the scumbags.

In reply to David Staples:

Or 51.89184198144116%

In reply to mrphilipoldham:


So all Remain voters were engaged in labeling? All of them? I trust you'll spot the irony of your comment.

In reply to Lusk:


But it does put paid to childish notions of the 'will of the people'. It's the will of a large minority of the people.

In reply to Removed UserFuchs:
Xenophobia certainly played a part but uncritical, credulous parroting of reactionary papers and politicians was, I think, a significant factor. A scary one too. Many people seem locked into a catch 22 cycle of perpetually reinforced ignorance - not ignorance in its perjurative sense, more a cynically induced condition

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Has it got anything to do with the Wombles?

In reply to Trevers:


It's the will of the majority of people who were eligible to vote, and took the opportunity to do so.

In reply to Trevers:
I'd struggle to name one from amongst my acquaintances that didn't at some point utter 'racist' or 'xenophobic', if I'm completely honest. There's no irony though, I wasn't a leave voter either

In reply to The Ice Doctor:


The Tories for doing it and Jeremy Corbyn for not making the slightest attempt to stop them.

In reply to Robert Durran:


He did preside over some other god-awful policies too remember? Recall that austerity thing, involving demonising the most vulnerable people in society so that we all laughed and jeered as disabled people's access to the things we take for granted was taken away, and which turned out didn't actually help eliminate the deficit at all?

Tragic my arse. Massive cu*t more like.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yes, but I was really just thinking in terms of his role in Brexit.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Fair enough. DC's pain and humiliation was at least something positive to come out of Brexit.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I'm sure if we all sit around our computers and have a damn good whine and a never ending game of; "they are to blame, not me", then all will be sunshine and roses, and rainbow farting unicorns will fly the skies forever

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Did you mean who do we thank for Brexit ?

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Numbers were never my strong point

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Held to account for what? Not voting in the way you wanted? I'm not over chuffed with the result, and even less chuffed with HMG seizing the opportunity to withdraw from things that aren't even related to the EU.

However 'those responsible', in the UK and in the EU, are those have contributed to the perfect storm of circumstances that have led to this sorry state. That probably includes you and me.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
The Liberal Progressives who rather than explaining in clear english about integration, the benefits of free trade and refused to acknowledge that there are issues with the EU, instead chose to call anyone with an alternate view, racist and stupid, thereby shutting down all discussion and debate.
Thats what I think anyway

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Successive UK governments, backed by powerful press, who relentlessly blamed anything they could find in order to distract public opinion from the real sociological and economic problems the UK government was creating in its own short-term self-interest.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
Top roping groups

In reply to Big Ger:


The electorate =/= the people though, that was the point I was making.

In reply to Trevers:

Fair comment.

In reply to bouldery bits:
Bottom ropers more likely ... unthinking entitled layabouts the lot of em. Scum retrobolters as well. Anyone different from me in fact, as I am very angry and someone must pay, as long as its not my mum.

So a cycle of traditional popularism starts again.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:


I uttered it too, but mostly in reference to Farrage's nasty little campaign, not about people voting to Leave.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I think history will judge Cameron harshly for his hubris.

I think a long established culture of scapegoating had created a demonic vision of the EU that no rational argument could challenge in the time available. For that the press and successive governments who've found it convenient diversion from their own failings bear the true blame.

Ultimately we all bear some responsibility.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

I am surprised nobody has mentioned the "cost " which Juncker has started talking about.

In reply to neilh:


You just have. What did you want someone else to say about it?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Popular thread, it's comforting to find someone to blame and fantasize about an "ideal world" where they would be "held to account". Who'd have thunk it?

In reply to neilh:

I mentioned the 60 billion euro figure on another thread weeks ago and it wan't picked up. Clearly Neil, we are ahead of our time! The EU are saying that issues such as the cost of leaving have to be dealt with before we can enter into trade discussions.

Currently David Davies is visitng various groups of countries (Scandanavia, Baltics) and the EU is seeing this as an attempt to 'divide-and-conquer'. It is pissing EU politicians off and they have said two can play at that game, lets talk about what Scotland wants.

When the Chinese say 'may you live in interesting times' you can see why they mean it as a curse!

In reply to The Ice Doctor:



The EU??



To me the very fact we got to a point where the prime minister felt it was in his interest to call a referendum on our membership shows how far the EU has failed to address any of the UK's concerns with the way it was treated within the EU. UKIP didn't come out of nowhere, they have been steadily growing for years, reflecting a growing dislike of the EU among the population. What did the EU do to address any of one of their biggest members issues?, Absolutely nothing, year after year they simply couldn't conceive that a nation wouldn't just love the EU and completely ignored a swelling resentment of the institution.

Even when the referendum was announced, a vote between staying in a 'reformed' EU or leaving, the EU didn't budge, it still just couldn't conceive a nation would want to leave its little club and felt it could treat us like crap and we'd just suck it up. Then boom, to everyone's surprise we voted to leave and suddenly the EU crapped its self. Well it's too late now, the EU is going to be majorly weakened by us leaving, it ultimately may not even survive in its current form, who will they have to blame? themselves.

In reply to David Staples:


That is 52% of the people eligible to vote who did vote, which is not quite the same thing. A whole generation of the people who are going to be the most impacted by a fragmented Europe (whatever that impact is) could not vote.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Hmm. I wonder how the population could have ended up disliking the EU so much? Could it perchance have anything to do with a government-led and press-supported blame game?

In reply to ring ouzel:

I thought that until I listened to the German CDU Mof P on R4 this morning who was saying that the EU have in effect started negotiating by raising the cost issue.He was unimpressed by the EU's stance, pointing out that the Uk was Germanys second largets market.

The cost includes things like completed projects where we are still apying the bill ( seems reasonable to me) and for Future costs like ERASMUS where we may still want to participate( very much a pick and select cost if we want it)

In reply to john arran:
While there's no doubt successive governments have used the EU as an excuse to cover their own failures I was more upset by the EU taking huge amounts of money from us to use in their social project and then failing to see how that make a sizeable number of people a bit miffed.

In reply to john arran:

Or the democractic deficit issue, in that nobody can really hold the EU to account, unlike country elections.And I say that with a heavy heart as a remainer.Even I cannot support a closer federal Europe, too undemocratic and disconnected from local issues.Its a fundamental flaw in the EU.The big weakness.

In reply to john arran:


Yes.

More specifically the editor of the Daily Mail who is a massive Euro Sceptic and had a personal axe to grind with David Cameron over his attempt to prevent the Daily Mail using its power to spread fake news.

We don't actually need anyone to blame as this will all esssentially be a massive job creation scheme for administrators to alter red tape to read UK instead of EU.

In reply to jkarran:


I don't know, I think I'm with Robert Durran on this one. Cameron could see that the Conservative party had been damaged by attacks from the Eurosceptic right since the days of John Major's 'bastards'. If anything, it was getting worse with a hard core of backbenchers obsessed with the EU as a single issue and he could see the possibility of UKIP becoming a credible threat. Frankly, he was getting exasperated by it and constant repetition of the argument that the 1975 Common Market referendum hadn't been a mandate for Major's signing of the Maastricht Agreement. He finally decided that he would shut them up once and for all by agreeing to a further referendum.

His big mistake, of course, was to assume that because to everyone he knew it was a no-brainer to stay in the EU the result was a foregone conclusion. It's easy to see in hindsight that he probably settled too easily in his negotiations with the EU (and wasn't sufficiently convincing that there was a real danger), didn't pay nearly enough attention to the shambolic Remain campaign, allowed a simplistic and uninformative referendum question and didn't specify a prudent 67% or 75% majority requirement to take account of the irreversible nature of the decision.

All of which leaves him open to accusations of being smug, complacent, having poor judgement and taking a reckless gamble but not, at least, of being undemocratic. He was also massively stabbed in the back by shits like Gove and Johnson. Had he won, of course, he would been hailed as the leader who finally lanced the boils of both Scottish independence and Euroscepticism...


Completely with you on this.

In reply to neilh:

I'd agree with that - the EU is far from perfect - but it's fixable without leaving. Why not try that first?

In reply to Bob Kemp:


Didn't David Cameron try to do that but was knocked back ?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I only know one person who voted for Brexit (or at least one person who has owned up to it). I'm blaming him.

In reply to baron:


I'm presuming you're referring to funds that all EU members contributed to (admittedly in different proportions) to fund "our" EU-wide social project to the benefit of the UK as well as all other EU countries?

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

He did get quite a bit of what he asked for, though.

See e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/02/eu-deal-key-points-what-ca... for a summary; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/19/eu-deal-what-david-cameron-asked... also broadly agrees (that's one link from an "in" and one from an "out" publication, so should be relatively balanced).

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

I don't think he really looked for changes in the democratic process - economic accountability, immigration and things like that were the focus.

In reply to john arran:
I'm referring to the huge (actual amount disputed) amount of money that the UK paid to the EU to fund its project of ever closer union.
The idea of 'free trade' seemed to have been lost as the EU pursued its agenda and the original economic purpose of the UK joining the Common Market seemed to have been overtaken by a political project.
The '£350 million to spend on the NHS' might have been a lie but it struck a chord with some people in the UK.
As this is the 'who's to blame for Brexit?' thread it might be that the failure to see how the unfairness of the EU contributions system affected some people's opinions is partly to blame.

In reply to Bob Kemp:

And he made very limited progress on them. He had been advised by the FO etc that he could not get any substantive changes on the big issues so he should not ask for them. Quite simply the Brussels nomenklatura is committed to it's project as are many, but not all, national leaders. So the UK, influential though it might be, had no chance of diverting the ship.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

people seem to have already forgotten Tony Blair and his cronies who opened our borders to the mass immigration and surrender of our sovereignty with 'ever closer union' that has driven the majority to vote for 'OUT' in the referendum, Blair et al created the very social conditions that made the referendum result inevitable, not Cameron.

Have we forgotten who signed the Lisbon Treaty with indecent haste hours before leaving Downing Street?

In reply to baron:


Therein lies the nub of the issue. People had been fed misleading info so relentlessly that even when told it's actually a big fat lie it still 'strikes a chord', because it tallies with everything they've been reading for years in the press.

In reply to baron:

>The '£350 million to spend on the NHS' might have been a lie but it struck a chord with some people in the UK.

Words fail me...

In reply to mac fae stirling:
Go on, try!

In reply to baron:

Well we'll find out how little we were getting back and how unimportant that single market had become in the coming decade or two won't we.


What unfairness, our 'rebate' perhaps? Moaning that economically sussessful nations contribute more to the EU budget fundamentally misunderstands the economic and security value in developing our poorer neighbours.
jk

In reply to mac fae stirling:


What amazes me is that people thought it was lot of money.

Not many people can get their heads around the big numbers involved around running a country.

In reply to jkarran:
Many people want 'free trade'. If this is what the EU offered we wouldn't have had a leave vote.
While having well developed, wealthy neighbouring countries to trade with is, no doubt, a benefit it is not the job of the UK people to fund that development.
A bit like government aid to 'poorer' countries around the world.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
I blame:

Jack Dorsey
Noah Glass
Biz Stone
Evan Williams
Mark Zuckerberg
Eduardo Saverin

I also blame them for Trump.

In reply to baron:

You're wrong on every point. 1) You can't have 'free trade' without all sorts of reciprocal rules, obligations and facilities. It doesn't work. If you are going to trade freely with non-tariff barriers, then you need free mobility of labour, you need agreed standards, you need compatible social policies - otherwise all competing countries compete in a race for the bottom. A great shame that this point wasn't explained to the inhabitants of Merthyr Tydful, who probably thought things couldn't get much worse when they voted to leave. They're almost certain to be the first in line to find out how wrong they were. 2) It made sense to assist other countries in the bloc to develop; ultimately that bit of enlightened self-interest would make the EU more economically powerful, grow the market for our goods and services, and also - incidentally - reduce the pressure for the brightest and best of the poorer countries to emigrate. 3) You put 'poorer' in speech marks. Why? We are one of the richest countries in the world; if we can afford to build aircraft carriers that have no planes, or invest £50 billion in a toy train so civil servants can get to Birmingham slightly quicker, I would have thought we could spend a few fractions of a penny in the pound ensuring that children in poorer countries can get clean drinking water and get a basic education? Or is that too generous of us - let the beggars rot, eh?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I think Cameron was culpable of on the one hand, not relaying to his EU peers how close run the outcome was likely to be - and how they really needed to support him, if only in their own self-interest; and secondly not having a coherent, clear strategy for reforming the EU which pretty much everyone could sign up to.

This idea that the EU is a supertanker than can neither change or change course is bonkers; it will evolve. It would have evolved faster, and in a direction that would have suited us better, if we were still on the inside pi$$ing out rather than on the outside pi$$sing in.

In reply to Robert Durran:

..and therein lies the problem. Too many people afraid of voicing legitimate opinion because of labelling and demonising, rather than decent rational debate.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

The rational debate is not always easy, though. I've been debating with a colleague about Brexit and Trump (he is a supporter of both) and his argument ended up with saying that he supports them because he opposes gay marriage.

I appreciate this is just one example, but how do you rationally debate with a stance like that?

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Or maybe because they don't want to admit to closet xenophobia or to just having made a monumental mistake (in fact the person I know who voted leave is one of the (minority?) who did so for properly thought out reasons, but which I happen to believe are outweighed by the arguments for remain)

In reply to andyfallsoff:

You can't necessarily, all you can do is plant a seed and hope a bud of sensibility develops.. but labelling or demonising him is just going to reinforce his stance because he'll associate his resulting anger with the liberal beliefs. How's that ever going to improve the situation?

In reply to Robert Durran:

There we go again... *rolls eyes*

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


If he realised how close it was going to be and if he'd relayed that he'd have been accused either of scaremongering or of holding a gun to their heads etc.

We were on the inside pissing about for forty years. If we'd have got in at the start we'd have had a chance of moulding it into something that worked but the horse had bolted by the time we joined.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Thanks for telling me I'm wrong.
I will now, of course, completely change my opinions and become a remainer.
Or more likely simply disagree with your opinions.
Free trade is obviously too simple a term for you to understand. Of course you need some regulation, standards, etc. I thought I said that.
I don't remember that being a big issue in the referendum.
Paying money to the EU means that the trade isn't free. That was an issue in the referendum.
You don't need social policies, etc although that might be attractive if you see the EU as more than a trading organisation.
I said that other countries developing was a benefit to the UK but still maintain it's not the UK's job to pay for it.
I put poorer in inverted commas because it's a relative term.
This is another Brexit thread, if you want a 'how to sort the world out' debate start another thread.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Do you have inside knowledge about this?

In reply to Shani:


What that we'd been inside pissing about for forty years?!!! I don't think that requires inside knowledge

In reply to Postmanpat:


Rapid expansion of the EU from 15 to 27 members & the single marked, two of the biggests events in the history of the EU, were both to a large extent British led. We had considerable clout as a member, although lost influence when the tories decided the leave the coalition of centre right parties.

In reply to Doug:

Hence my OP acknowledged that the UK has been influential, but essentially the political structures and inbuilt dirigisme were a result of the French being the key founders and that we couldn't change.

It's funny, isn't it? With one hand the UK is criticised for being recalcitrant and difficult and semi detached , but with the other it is described as highly influential in the development of the EU. Both, I guess, can be true. Maybe if we had played our cards better we could used our influence to have have halted the progress towards ever greater union and made it more democratic, but we didn't and possibly couldn't have done, and that's the way it is.

In reply to Doug:

not only that but no-one understood why, during that expansion, the British Government wouldn't implement transitional protection against large numbers of economic migrants that other states made, simply saying it wouldn't happen.

In reply to Doug:

Did we not leave the centre right parties as there were shades of neo nazi's in those parties which did not go down very well over here.?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Fundamental flaw.The inhabitants of Methyr Tydfil have now seen their steel plant saved......and a huge new investment planned by Tata.... aftter the Brexit.So I would be very careful about that argument.

In reply to baron:

If you read my post again - or possibly for the first time - I address each of your issues.

The point I will challenge you again on is this: 'I put poorer in inverted commas because it's a relative term.' Not when it comes to the developing world it's not. There are 1.3 billion people who live on less than $1.25 dollars a day. 22,000 children die each day because of poverty. That means, not enough food, no clean water, no medication, not enough shelter.

That's not relative to anything; that's absolute. Less than that, you're already dead.

But let's not the facts get on the way of a good story about hard-working taxpayers money being pi$$ed away by feckless corrupt plutocrats, eh.

In reply to neilh:

Better take another look at your atlas. Merthyr is quite a long way from Port Talbot, with a rather different set of problems. And we'll see how long the Tata investment holds up if tariffs are imposed on steel imported from outside the EU.

In reply to neilh:


I'm confused. Is there a Tata Plant at Methyr Tydfil? As well as at Port Talbot?

In reply to neilh:


Look at their new allies

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Fair point . 29 miles by the way, easy commuting.

In reply to neilh:


Fundamental flaw. We have yet to Brexit! So I would be very careful about that argument.

We had a referendum because Cameron thought it would be the best way to emasculate the increasingly irritating right of his party, and thus prevent any further swing away from his more centrist agenda.


He had seen the corrosive effects of the euro-sceptics in the late 80's and into the 90's, who were invariably free trade, minimal economic governance and not entirely happy with his socially liberal stance.

Sadly, it bit him on the arse, as he had neglected to consider the fact that the majority of the press Barons were vehemently anti -Europe and all to happy to further their own agenda.

I think people fail to realise that "getting our sovereignty back" actually means "getting dry f*cked by Rupert Murdoch".

In reply to Shani:

Why do we not just ask somebody who lives there to find out their views.Surely somebody on here is in that area.

In reply to neilh:

Don't forget to ask them whether they are happy with their pensions being significantly changed for the worse.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Let's wait for history's judgement!

I voted remain but would hope that we can make something out of this (I'm a glass quarter full sort of person)

Basically, I've heard little meaningful argument to leave the EU. A few clients, contacts and friends had genuine economic and social concerns about our membership, and voted Leave as a consequence.

Generally, the finance, banking, and business markets have been overwhelmingly Remain. Pretty much all of my US and Chinese clients and their investors / boards were horrified to find us voting Leave. The UK was ideally located not only our geography but our financial and monetary markets. It gave us the ability to attract massive investment through tax harmonisation, movement of trade, capital and people and a usefully light touch government, for investors.

Mostly, though, what I have heard from Leave is "if you hate the f*cking Polaks clap your hands".

but at least we got our sovereignty back.


Edit: typos

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:

The great lie was that, by reclaiming 'sovereignty' the average person will have any more say in how things are run simply because the rules etc. will be issued from Westminster, or that those decisions would favour them.

Any 'say' you have will be rendered even more elusive than God's belly button if you don't vote in local / general elections or partake in local politics.

In reply to neilh:


I wasn't aware that Merthyr Tydfil had a steel plant

Sadly, many folk from former industrial towns probably feel that they had nothing to lose by voting brexit. I think that many of them fell for the 350 million pounds a week lie. As regards the rest of us, I suspect that the economic pain will be felt in the next few years: without a free trade agreement with our biggest market it's difficult to see how we can retain Japanese car manufacturers, banking, etc at the same levels we do now. And the worst part about all this is that those charged with extricating as from the EU have no clue how to do it.

Who do I blame? Without a doubt, David Cameron for putting vanity and his party before the good of the country. Corbyn gets second place for failing to represent the 48% of the voting electorate who didn't vote to leave.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Well they voted in favour of the change to their pensions......

In reply to neilh:

I don't think pensions - fat, inflation linked final salary schemes - are a particularly big issue in Merthyr Tydfil.

In reply to Tony Jones:

>
Why do you think the brexit wing of the parliamentary Conservative party, and UKIP, were able to present such a threat to the remainer majority of the PCP?

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Good video explaining how it works here youtube.com/watch?v=R6F0inyJPDc&

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I did read your post, it would have been rude not to.
I simply disagreed with what you wrote.
Of course poor is a relevant term.
Even in the Third world.
Oh, and as an aside, we don't call it Third World any more, the correct term is Less Developed.
And you think that UK aid goes mostly towards helping the people in need of water and food?
You might wish it did but you're too old to actually think it does.
You'll have googled the recipient countries and the amounts.
It's about helping countries develop so we can sell them stuff.
Even a right winger like me knows that!

In reply to baron:


Are you saying you don't remember free trade being a big issue in the referendum debate?

What debate were you listening to? Free trade (and the subsequent need to negotiate trade deals with the entire world post-Brexit) and freedom of movement were very high in the list of issues.

In reply to Flinticus:


Wheras not participating in local / general elections or party politics gave you a greater say in the EU? How did that work?

In reply to captain paranoia:
I meant that neither side argued against the principle of free trade.
Both sides were in favour of it although, of course, remainers argued that leaving the EU would put an end to it.
Now free movement of people, that's a whole different ball game!

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

There's only one person to blame that t*at Cameron.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Justice aye. Please remind me of the heinous crime that has been committed. Bending the truth, exaggerating, manipulating. Even if we go as far as down right lies. Things that were done by both sides of the camp. Immoral yes. Crime and injustice, no. Posts like this only add to further divide an already divided country. Your whining serves as much purpose and progression as my girlfriends when she bitches about me going climbing.

In reply to elliott92:

I said 'for national disaster which may happen'. As I have also said several times before, I really hope I'm wrong and it doesn't happen. But it seems to me very likely that what the majority of experts warned will happen. I wasn't actually talking about the lies and distortions (on both sides).

PS. My viewpoint is almost identical to Trever's beautifully clear expression of frustration at 17:37 on Sunday on the 'Tony Blair' thread.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


Trevers backed the disaster that is Corbyn but has now seen the errors of his ways IIRC, so wherever that finger is I'm guessing it's not on the pulse.

Similar to yourself backing Clegg in 2010 I think, because if Gordon Brown had won in 2010 we would never have had a referendum, so all the I agree with Nick liberals should take a good long look at themselves.

In reply to baron:


Snowflake!

In reply to winhill:


Rubbish!

If Nick Clegg hadn't done the honourable thing in forming a government with the party with the most seats, either the Tories would have started their full blown authoritarian banker's paradise BS earlier or we would have had an election in 2011 with the Tories more than likely getting a majority. At least Clegg did what he could to keep those bastards in check for 5 years for the good of the country!

Look at the bollocks that is happening now.

In reply to Hugh J:


He could've formed a majority coalition with Labour alone. No, he gets into bed with the f*cking Tories, wanker! (him ,not you)
http://www.ukpolitical.info/2010.htm

In reply to Hugh J:

Oh, O.K. then, Less Economically Developed Country. (LEDC)
Can I not be a snowflake any more ,please?

In reply to Lusk:

Which would have collapsed in no time at all, leaving the Tories to hoover up the Liberals seats and gaining even more Labour seats as well.

It would have been also called undemocratic.

In reply to baron:

Sounds like even more snowflakery!

In reply to john arran:


The issue of the ( nett/gross) contributions was surely a vote winner for the remain camp.

Leave challenged it from every angle 24/7 , so if it was a 'lie' it was one that was exposed by remain, and therefore actually lost votes for the leave camp.

In reply to Flinticus:

Good to hear.
I would hope that the recent EU -Bill of Billions- for leaving will bring the leavers and remainers together against the EU negotiators stance.

As the UK poured many more billions into the EU than most members, if we are then to pay billions back for future EU commitments that we agreed to, then we should get many more billions back as our proportionate share of the vast assets that have been created using to a very large extent our contributions, with other EU members being beneficiaries.
It works both ways, and they have opened up a line of negotiations they will wish they had left alone.

If they give us a bill for 50 billion for future pensions etc, then we will bill them much more for OUR justified share of the huge number of buildings , massive infrastructure etc built right across the EU.
It should be quite a nice earner for the UK as part of the negotiations.

In reply to Jim C:

Best of luck with that!

In reply to Jim C:


You don't seem to have read or understood the post you were replying to. The fact that it still 'struck a chord' with voters, who will by then have been wrongly influenced by the repeated lies, both during the campaign and for a very long time before that in the press, is fundamentally incompatible with it being a vote winner for the remain camp.

In reply to Jim C:

If you enter into a contract e.g. to jointly fund some new infrastructure then that's what you've done - enter a contract. If contracts ceased to apply when circumstances changed - if you could say, oops sorry, my mistake, didn't really mean it, can I opt out now please - there would be no point in having contracts, and there would be no joint ventures at all - we'd still be living in the Dark Ages.

There IS a rule of law, we HAVE entered into contracts. and they WILL have to be negotiated out, and there will have to be give and take on both sides, which will be mediated by an army of lawyers and an even larger army of civil servants. There goes your £350 million a week, right there.

This is what the next 2 years will be about - you can forget about warm and fluffy chats about trade deals, border controls and all the rest, Theresa and her chums will be hard pushed to scratch the surface of the 1,000s of commitments we have entered into over the last 40 years that we now want to renege on.

And I am sorry if that wasn't explained very well before the referendum by either side, but if people weren't aware that that would be the reality, maybe there were weren't as well informed or hadn't thought about it as much as many Remainers did.

In reply to Jim C:


Why would anyone reasonable think we should walk away from financial commitments we've already made, not least for the simple selfish reason that doing so would ruin what remains of our relationship with the EU and would seriously damage our credibility further afield.


You're living a fantasy.
jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Those Brexiteers that are now complaining about this...it is as if they didn't think through the consequences of Brexit.

If only Fox, Johnson & Gove had outlined the costs of Brexit as well as the benefits ("£350m as week better off!").

More importantly, what other issues have the Brexiteers trivialised, ignored and lied about, that will similarly cost the UK massively? I suspect that their idea of the UK going out and trading freely with the world (in some kind of 1850's "rum, cotton and sugar" way), will be one such example.

In reply to Jim C:

From what I remember you were involved in purchasing for big contracts, so you of all people should know that you cannot just walk away from past contractual agreemnts without paying up.

Personally I suspect this figure will have been budgeted for years ago in UK governement spending for the next 10 years or so.I doubt its an extra 50 bn on Uk spending as most of it is existing commitments.

As regards future commitments, that depends on if we want to participate. So for example if we want to take part in ERASMUS, then there is a future cost. Clearly if we do not , then its a reasonable bet that the cost will not be there.

This figure will no doubt be chopped and changed ober the coming few years.

Interestingly there is a lesson from history on these things. When the Empire was dissolved after 1945, the Uk apparently earned losts of brownie points by overpaying for these type of costs. As a result the Uk was able to keep the concept of the Commonwealth alive and kicking and with alot of goodwill.We including you, will want a good realationship with Europe, so expect plenty of give and take on this issue.

In reply to Shani:

Never lose sight of the fact that Johnson was NEVER a Brexiteer, he only campaigned as such because he thought they would lose but he would gain support in his party. He understood all these complications perfectly well before the vote - which was why he was so devastated by the result.

Fox, Gove and Farage on the other hand are just morons.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I assume most Brexiteers would have realised exit negotiations was going to be a "can of worms" to greater or lesser degree but thought the end result was going to be an improvement. I saw a report of a 20 bn Euro divorce - two years UK net contributions?

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Morning Chardonnay....

In reply to neilh:


This is what concerns me. As a 'Remainer' who has come to terms with the fact we are leaving, I'm now worried that the 'hard line' of the government it going to erode any goodwill we may have pretty quickly. There are some hard headed characters in the EU organisation but I can't help but think that by starting the negotiations form a stand point of, 'we want to still be part of Europe and though we are leaving the EU we still want to co-operate and trade with you a lot in the future' would get us a better deal than, 'we're off and we're taking our ball with us'.

This seems to be epitomized by the failure to pass the amendment to the Article 50 bill that would allow EU nationals resident in the UK to stay. It would say that we are are a decent, reasonable country open for negotiation and happy to compromise in good faith. I realise Teresa May has backed herself into a corner over this but we'll see what happens when the Lords push it back to the Commons......

We're leaving, but lets not burn every bridge we cross on the way out eh!

In reply to galpinos:

Its all perception. As a remainer I just do not buy into this argument that there is a " hard line" in the govt.

Article 50 debate etc was a process that had to be done , nothing more.Its pretty bland imho.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:
So to sum up the bulk of the opinion on this thread:

Anybody who voted remain was well informed, educated and fully aware of all of the implications of remaining/leaving the EU and voted for the very best interests of the UK and Europe.

Everybody else is a moron.

In reply to galpinos:

>
You mean something along the lines of

"Our vote to leave the European Union was no rejection of the values we share. The decision to leave the EU represents no desire to become more distant to you, our friends and neighbours. It was no attempt to do harm to the EU itself or to any of its remaining member states. We do not want to turn the clock back to the days when Europe was less peaceful, less secure and less able to trade freely. ...

We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends. We want to buy your goods and services, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship."

???

In reply to cragtaff:


Brexit at any cost IS moronic. If you are a Brexiteer, what price are you willing to pay for it? Where are your 'red lines' - leaving the single market? On a national note, would you be happy to pay a price of the break up of the UK (there are serious concerns about the reappearance of a hard border in Ireland, and Scotland are bristling for another referendum, which leaves England with Wales - which is fine, but also an economic burden)?

And the other side of the coin; what are you willing to sacrifice to ensure we get deals with other countries? Australia and India have already asked for relaxed immigration rules in light of any trade deal. What about subsidising businesses? Nissan have had a subsidy agreement in principle from the government (as have other industrial sectors), and the finance sector have made similar appeals - who do you think will pay for this and what will be the cost you are prepared to accept (would it be a total bill of up to £350m perhaps)?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I'm aware of the speech, I'd just like to see those values enacted, actions speak louder than words and all that (I sound like my Mum). I'm 'worried' and 'concerned', i.e. I know what has been said but have little faith in the government to enact those words. As neilh said, this may be an issue with perception on my part, as a right wing government would not be my choice and they may be more competent than I give them credit for but we shall just have to wait and see......

In reply to cragtaff:

No. Gove and Fox (and a few others) were morons; they've had expensive educations, they should have known better. Johnson was just too good, he won an argument that he didn't believe. Most other brexiteers were not so well informed, and were swayed by relentless hammerblow arguments of the right wing media and demagogs like Farage who, like Trump, does not give a flying f*ck about lying - or about being caught out. Like Goebbels, in fact. Even though such unabashed dishonesty in public life will ultimately make democracy unsustainable.

So no, not all brexiteers are morons, and there are valid arguments for leaving, so it should be a nuanced argument; but it was not necessarily the informed choice that brexiteers believe.

In reply to Postmanpat:


That won't do, because it represents a mass of contradictions. Particularly, the 4th and the last sentences contradict the 1st sentence. After WW2, Europe, including Britain (indeed, led by Britain), adopted the values of less nationalism and greater union for the sake of securing peace ... as well as prosperity. We have now rejected the idea of being part of such a union, with all the political as well as economic risks that that involves. We know perfectly well that leaving the Union will damage it, so your third sentence is also a contradiction. I hope you don't mind my saying so, but this statement is an extraordinary muddle of ideas and values.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


I don't mind at all because it's not my statement, it's the PM's. But I don't accept that in 1973 the UK voted for "greater union", except on an economic basis. I certainly don't accept that reasserting the primacy of the UK as a nation state need have negative implications either for peace or prosperity.

Anyway, the point of using the quote was to rebutt the "alternative fact" narrative that the UK's approach is 'we're off and we're taking our ball with us'.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Sadly the cost of your education is no guarantee of intelligence. Furthermore it looks like the education of the privileged leads to a superiority and infallibility complex; look at Cameron who became PM because he 'thought he'd be rather good at it'. Overconfidence and a lack of self-doubt in politicians/monarchy/leadership are incredibly damaging to society.

When you are born it to privilege you can succeed despite your failings, and the education you receive will push you to the Dunning-Kruger zone.

Fundamentally we've ended up with people in politics who go with their gut feeling - which a makes political sense and gets them elected as this approach appeals to us all as that is how we go about life (we are Bayesian inference machines after all). But this is terrible for societal progress as a general rule. We need to make evidence based decisions not gut feelings - but the problems can be complex and the conclusions can be counter-intuitive and unpalatable. Add in a hostile press and you get sensible, evidence-based policy quickly crushed.

The UK's drug policy would be a case in point. Macro economics and Austerity would be another good example.

In reply to galpinos:
>
Exactly. So far there have only been words because there can only be words , and they have been along the lines of: we'd like to cooperate as far as is at all possible within the limits of the red lines we believe the UK electorate set by voting for brexit. In common parlance "we'd like to have our cake and eat it,but know perfectly well that we won't get all the cake we want, so let's talk"

None of us know how the negotiations will develop or even whether there will be a EU to negotiate with.

In reply to Postmanpat:


But there really isn't any genuine reason to think there won't be! Why is it that everyone on the leave side seems to think that this is some sort of inevitability?

In reply to andyfallsoff:

Dutch and French elections for a start....

In reply to Shani:


For all the opportunities that Cameron had, he didn't become prime minister because he 'thought he'd be rather good at it'. He became prime minister because, collectively, we voted him to be.

In reply to baron:


Extra points for writing in blank verse.
It has a touch of the Philip Larkin about it.

Or maybe Stevie Smith.

In reply to andyfallsoff:


Is this another "alternative fact"? I know lots of leavers and barely any that think the break up of the EU is "inevitable". But with Le Pen surging to only 10 points behind in a run off in some polls , and Wilders leading in the Netherlands, and the Italian banking system creaking at the joints it's not hard to put together a case together for some radical change in the EU.

Basically the Euro is unsustainable without fiscal union and that implies further political union. So the EU either has to move towards closer union quickly to sustain the Euro (not a popular move judging by the hostility of the electorate) , or it has to let some countries either leave the Euro or even the EU, or move towards looser union. The status quo cannot go on.

In reply to GrahamD:

Well obviously! But I think you know the point I am trying to make:

"Once, when asked why he wanted to become prime minister, he said: “Because I think I’d be rather good at it.”."

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/316056/Cameron-do...

And with regard to the angle you are getting at, there is privilege such that our political leaders are disproportionately from the same socioeconomic class and have been for generations. So yes, we might vote for him but our options are often limited.

In reply to Shani:

Really, does the evidence base analysis support that?

Was Cameron of the same social class as Major, or Attlee the same social class as Callaghan ?

In reply to Dave Garnett:

Not waving but drowning?

In reply to Postmanpat:


Let's look at the government. In 2015 7 per cent of the UK population attended private schools whilst 40% of Tory MPs attended private schools.

The Lords acutely illustrate the problem of privilege: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2016-00...

In reply to Postmanpat:

'The status quo cannot go on.'

You say that as though that's a surprise, or even a bad thing. It's neither. The EU has made some f*ck ups - possibly the Euro; certainly allowing the PIGS to join the Eurozone before they were ready; admitting some Eastern European countries before they were ready or without making preparations (though that was as much as British Govt issue as an EU one.)

But that's what happens when you create new things; you correct the errors, learn from your mistakes and try not to repeat them. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

In reply to Shani:

I get the point you are making about socioeconomic class (background, not class, surely ?).

The general point I was trying to make is different: Implicit in asking "who is to blame ?" is the assumption that we don't collectively share the blame. The reason the political status quo exists is because we either allow it to be so through apathy or because the status quo is actually what the majority actually want.

The older I get, the more disillusioned I am about what the "will of the people" actually is.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Indeed. It has been said before that the Euro was a work in progress and our best chance was to change it from the inside.

The other side of the mistakes equation are those made by the Tories in pursuing Austerity (now abandoned), and refusing to borrow for large infrastructure projects when interest rates were at the zero lower bound.

In reply to galpinos:

This seems to be epitomized by the failure to pass the amendment to the Article 50 bill that would allow EU nationals resident in the UK to stay. It would say that we are are a decent, reasonable country open for negotiation and happy to compromise in good faith. I realise Teresa May has backed herself into a corner over this but we'll see what happens when the Lords push it back to the Commons......We're leaving, but lets not burn every bridge we cross on the way out eh!

I think you will find , if you look, that May already offered to deal up front of A50 with the EU nationals resident in the UK being allowed to stay. And was sent packing.

NO negotiation before A50 is triggered she was told .

So you are right in the sense that May DID TRY to be seen as decent, reasonable country open for negotiation and happy to compromise in good faith.
But they threw it back in her face.

In reply to Hugh J:


Thats what I like about Remainers (not) they are defeated before they even try.
Everything is lost, its hopless , lets just take whatever the EU want from us and roll over, so they want 50 Billion for future EU pensions etc. , well thats what we deserve for thinking of leaving, lets just right the cheque .

In reply to Postmanpat:


Woah, easy there tiger/Postman..... Don't tar me with the "alternative fact" brush. I wasn't stating a "fact", I was stating a concern that we wouldn't follow the approach I believe would be best epitomised by the amendments to the Article 50 bill that were turned down, especially the one highlighted.

In reply to jkarran:

So you really think the EU should be paid 50 Billion by the UK when they leave the EU ?

And you don't think that we have ANY claim on the assets of the EU that we paid a huge amount towards?

You're the one living a fantasy.

In reply to Lusk:


Thing about that analysis is that it assumes Labour wanted this. I recall reading in at least 2 places that Clegg and Price's approaches to Labour were rebuffed.
One day it'll be interesting to find out the finer details of that from the Labour Party's sarcophagus.

In reply to Shani:

A neat visual summary:

https://twitter.com/Michael78372976/status/821337841972244480

In reply to Jim C:


I am aware of that, though I wouldn't have worded it like that. She went in to start negotiations when the EU had said no negotiations before Article 50 is triggered. I would then have liked her to include it in the Article 50 bill despite the perceived slight by the EU. I believe this would have stood us in better stead in the forth coming negotiations (though I am no negotiator so I could be quite wrong) and is the RIGHT thing to do by the EU nationals living here.

In reply to Jim C:

*If* that's what we've committed to combined with the ongoing cost of membership of certain desirable schemes and institutions. Absolutely, yes.

If walking away from our obligations and responsibilities is a core tenet of your vision for a brighter more successful future then I absolutely f**king despair.


Time will tell. Sadly.
jk

In reply to Postmanpat:

OK, perhaps "inevitable" was too strong, but many (yourself included) appear to believe, as you state above, that a break-up of the EU is sufficiently likely as to be a factor in us wanting to leave.

I accept the French and Dutch elections represent a chance for more Eurosceptic parties to gain share, but that isn't the same as thinking the whole project is doomed (any more than us leaving means the whole of the EU is doomed)

In reply to Jim C:


I find it amazing that you seem to think it is fair to sign up to obligations and then, when we decide to leave, stiff them.

Would you walk in to a restaurant, order a meal, leave just before it arrives (but after they have cooked it) and claim you won't pay because you haven't eaten it?

In reply to andyfallsoff:


but if you are part owner of the restaurant?

In reply to andyfallsoff:
>
Well, I've outlined where I think we are and why it has to change.

Were Le Pen and Wilders to be elected, (unlikely but not impossible) do you really think the EU would survive in its current form with its current principles of eg. free movement. Were the no 2 and 3 economies in the EU (France and the UK) and one of its main founding members (3 of the biggest net contributors) to leave how do you think it would look?

In reply to Shani:


Have you seen this piece in today's Guardian?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-deg...
A bit long but making similar points

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I don't know you you think I'm surprised by it. On the contrary, it is the remainers who complain that brexit is a "leap in to the unknown" and don't seem to grasp that remaining is equally a leap, into another unknown. The problem is that they don't learn from their mistakes, they see every crisis as an excuse to repeat the same mistakes: push for further union.

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Then you'd be talking about wanting to end your part ownership for the analogy to work. If the business was in debt you wouldn't be able to just walk away from it, you'd have to negotiate with the other others if you wanted to end ties.

In reply to Doug:

Cheers. I will take a look.

In reply to Shani:

>
That is one group of MPs, not generations, and not really our "leaders".

In reply to Postmanpat:


Imagine you've crashed in the wilderness with 26 other people. You need to sort out food, shelter, warmth and security (there are wild bears in the area). "F*ck it!" declares Postmanpat, "These others don't learn from their mistakes, they see every crisis as an excuse to repeat the same mistakes: push for further union. I am going to go it alone."

There is a reason team work and co-operation leads to very successful species such as bees, ants and humans.

In reply to Shani:

>
Imagine you'd crashed because the driver was drunk and going at 100mph. Would you say,
"phew" that was a close shave, lets work with the locals to find food and shelter, or would you jump back on the bus with the drunken driver to see if he laid off the bottle of whiskey by his side or just kept accelerating?"

In reply to Postmanpat:


Of course. But there's no one driver with the EU. It's we're more like a large sailing ship and we're all crewing her.

In reply to Shani:

Christ, going at 100mph and all the drunks squabbling over the steering wheel!! Scary

To be honest, reading threads like this is like entering a parallel universe where otherwise sensible people treat every bad thing they read as gospel and every good thing as lies.

The truth is that we don't know, that we'll probably muddle through and that all the posturing of the last six months will look silly when the negotiations play out.

In reply to Postmanpat:

the bus would have been built to a carefully engineered design.

We'd actually more likely be in the wreckage of somebody's personal vision of something that person has become convinced will fly and which he filled full of unwilling passengers with promises "Stop remoaning about it being safer on the ground, it'll all be fine" and "It'll all be lovely, heights, danger? Project Fear!!!!"

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

I haven't read the 170 replies, so possibly this has already been said.
Those that you want to "blame" for Brexit are presumably those that voted for Brexit, who were the majority of voters. Usual old thing, the losing minority need to blame someone for losing.

If someone has to take the blame, I go for those that would have voted Remain but didn't bother to cast a vote.
I voted Remain by the way, but have sort of got over losing and want to move on, made our bed so now we have to sleep in it, a cliché but sums up my feelings.

In reply to Ridge:

Do you intentionally misunderstand or...?

Where did I propose that? My argument is that neither option gives the average individual greater say but some sold one option as granting such.

In reply to Shani:


We're about to cast ourselves off in a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean, in the hope of finding land with natives that won't want to eat us, because we disagreed on the finer points of which rigging was best and threw a strop.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'To be honest, reading threads like this is like entering a parallel universe where otherwise sensible people treat every bad thing they read as gospel and every good thing as lies. '

That's total b*llox, if I may say - upthread I plainly list some of the many issues that the EU got wrong, and I have consistently said that there were plenty of problems. I don't know *anyone* who thinks the EU was anything other than an imperfect and flawed organisation; but actually one founded on solid principles - democratic accountability, economic prosperity, mutual defence, social justice and environmental protection - and capable of reform.

I met a brexiteer skiing this Christmas, within 10 minutes conversation he had declared that the EU was the invention of Nazis, the Jews and 'big business.' That sometimes seems to be the level of debate we remainers have been faced with.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Invention of the Nazis and the Jews?

Unusual combination of fellow travellers, that's for sure...

Or was he also a Holocaust denier and conspiracist, claiming that was all a cunning cover story to hide 'The Truth'...?

In reply to john arran:


Yep! The right wing press have really drilled this as an 'us versus them' issue - and have done for decades. It is a simple narrative that appeals to our atavistic tendency to fight for territory and resource. I foresee a slow and steady decline in our economic wellbeing and then the same press will start to look on internal groups within the UK to blame. There will be more cuts to services and more tax cuts for the wealthy.

If I was to stick my neck out, I would go so far as to say that Peterloo will not be a one-off but that could be pushing my own Project Fear!

In reply to captain paranoia:

Go and ask him, if you like - he reviews restaurants in Meribel for a living.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>

I was referring to the prognostications for the upside and downsides of leaving rather than the institution itself. Having said that, given that as you say it is so obviously flawed, I have been very surprised by the black and white and highly emotional way so many remainers reacted to the vote.

There seems to be a bizarre assumption that the UK only believes in democratic accountability, economic prosperity, mutual defence, social justice and environmental protection as part of the EU.

In reply to Flinticus:


I obviously misunderstood.

However, (should the UK ever manage to organise a functioning opposition party), would it not be far easier for your vote to change the direction of a single nation with common economic and social concerns?

I shudder to use Brexit as an example, but would it have been possible for the UK to make such an abrupt change of direction if it relied on the votes of everyone else in the EU? The other EU nations would have voted in their own best interests (UK to remain), not the interests of the UK. (Hypothetically assuming leaving was in the best interests of the UK).

In reply to andyfallsoff:

You are missing the point, the UK should have a share of far more assets built up over the many years of our very high contributions, than we have debts of obligations for the future.

So we will not be walking away, ( without paying for any meal ) but we will be leaving with a tidy wad in our pocket if the EU are stupid enough to negotiate on that basis, that is after we take their puny 50 billion off OUR share of the vast EU assets.

In reply to Jim C:

You're going to be sorely disappointed.
jk

In reply to galpinos:
But the way that this is being portrayed is that it is the UK that is resisting discussing this issue that is stressing out both UK and EU nationals.
That is not true, we offered, we were rejected.

And of course we have already said that we would be happy to allow their nationals to stay , if they will allow ours, but we would be stupid to offer a unilateral deal to take their national, and leave OUR nationals in limbo.

That would be just bonkers, how would you feel if your PM looked after EU nationals first , but left you out to dry like that ,hoping that the EU would reciprocate ( when they clearly are not likely to do, they had the offer, they rejected it.

Get behind the UK, the EU are big enough to look after themselves.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:


That's a particularly vindictive attitude Gordon, not to mention incredibly arrogant. Is that why you ran that thread with a list of leavers v remainers just before the referendum so you could hold us all "to account" for for having the audacity to disagree with you?
I used to have some respect for you as a kind of UKC elder statesman, I'm afraid to say I can no longer say that, you've turned into a bitter old man.

In reply to pec:


I was on that list
I'm not in the least concerned about being the list either, he can put me at the top next time.

I'm ready to be held to account for my 'crime' ( of actually voting) when so many others who are complaining about the way we voted, but did not bother to vote themselves ( my own family members included)

Those that did vote, good on you whatever way you did vote, but please let's all now just forget petty grievances , and get behind our Government , and get on with it.

The EU does not need our help to give us a bad deal, but the UK can do with all our backing.

In reply to Jim C:

I also commend those that voted. But the fight is still on. The vote was non-binding. We have a Parliamentary Democracy in the UK, not a Plebiscitary Democracy. So those unhappy with the concept of Brexit - keep fighting the good fight. We're British, we don't quit! #BritishValues

In fact i proudly reflect on Churchill's 'Declaration of Union' with France where he saw two nations becoming one. I also commend Churchill's thoughts on Europe in a letter to his secretary:

"Hard as it is to say now.. I look forward to a United States of Europe, in which the barriers between the nations will be greatly minimised and unrestricted travel will be possible."

In reply to Jim C:

>The EU does not need our help to give us a bad deal, but the UK can do with all our backing.

Bollocks to that.

In reply to Jim C:

There's 2 generations out there who can't 'just get on with it', because against their wishes they had their futures yanked for under their feet and are now looking at a very bleak future with fewer opportunities, advantages and rights.

'Getting on with it' for you means enjoying a juicy pension while watching Celebrity Bake Off and a weekly outing to the Bingo, for them it's a lifetime of financial uncertainty and being trapped in an ever shrinking Little Britain.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

>

And you know this how?

In reply to Jim C:


But that wasn't really true, was it, since all nationals are currently already able to stay, as long as they have work in their country of residence. What was being offered was a hypothetical 'if we were to leave, what would happen to displaced persons?' arrangement, for which the timing was completely inappropriate. Why should countries who want to see a united Europe be keen to offer a hypothetical deal to a country that's wondering whether it can get away with quitting and ruining it for itself as well as for everyone else? It's hardly surprising they called May's bluff by saying 'put your money where your mouth is and then we can talk'. Problem is that May refused to deny that EU nationals resident in the UK could be a valuable bargaining tool, so she'd prefer to play the poker game with people's livelihoods as chips. Pretty sad really, but depressingly not surprising.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I read it on the Daily Mail

In reply to wercat:

Called the Euro? Or CAP?

In reply to john arran:

But of course they did not say anything like you suggest. They simply said NO negotiations before you trigger A50.

You seem to be hell bent on seeing everything the UK government say or do as wrong. They are looking after our interests, and I don't believe for a second that she is 'playing' with anyone's livelihoods, she was asked to put this to bed earlier than the timetable for A50' she tried , was rebuffed, and is now accused by you as playing games. She cannot win.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

Maybe those who have had enough of the UK Governments excuse that “this extra tax is because of a EU regulation” or “we can’t do anything about this (obviously stupid) tax because it’s an EU regulation” or “this extra (obviously stupid) cost on a small business is an EU regulation” or “we can’t help a domestic company due to an EU regulation”.

I have had enough of this excuse for 30-40 years. Perhaps others have too.

Brexit may well turn out to be a minor problem. Other countries have dissatisfaction as well. 1 or 2 others leaving may be the end of the EU before the negotiations are complete.

EU Alt. Bring it on.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


I've don't know what you mean by that.

It's a serious question. What makes you confident to make your statement as if it were a matter of fact? It is what I referred to above: this weird tendency of remainers to take everything negative about brexit as gospel and everything positive as untrue?

In reply to Mr Lopez:

If I come back in twenty years you will be harping on with the very same grudge that I was allowed a vote at all.
Yet the polls still say that a majority want to leave, and if there was another vote ,with the same result, you would still not be happy.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I hazard a guess that's because the 'negatives' are largely assesements based on facts, expertise, general knowledge and a bit of common sense , whereas the 'positives' are rainbows and unicorns having your cake and eating it wishful thinking feelgood propaganda with no connection to the real World. The remainers are largely convinced by the former, the brexiters by the later.

In reply to Jim C:


Exactly.
If May wasn't ready to trigger A50 why should anyone make it easier for her to do so by negotiating any deals? Like Brexiters are so keen on repeating: Brexit means Brexit. So go ahead and commit to it - then we'll talk. Otherwise it's just testing the water and that could only mean she was still unsure as to whether to really pull the trigger or not!

Probably not what you wanted to hear, I appreciate.

In reply to Mr Lopez:
All you are doing is giving your uninformed opinion that this is the case. "It's true because I believe the remainers are right and the brexiters are wrong". That is not an argument.

There is absolutely no hard evidence on any of this because there is no clarity even on what the terms of brexit will be.

It is true that the majority of economic projections suggest lower growth on a long term basis post brexit but not hugely lower and there are others forecasting higher growth. Even if the former are correct, this is entirely different to assessments, let alone non-existent "facts" demonstrating "futures yanked from under their feet and are now looking at a very bleak future with fewer opportunities, advantages and rights."

You simply appear, like a lot of remainers, to be quoting media headlines which are not even reflective of the assessments they pretend to be. Can you actually substantiate any of the claims you make as opposed to simply holding that opinion?

In reply to neilh:


And the Netherlands, and Italy. The EU experiment is coming to an end.

In reply to The Ice Doctor:

"A book written 2000 years ago" ?



Or maybe REM.


Shit. Wrong thread

In reply to Big Ger:

You do know that the 'the Dutch' and 'the Netherlands' are the same thing, right...?

In reply to captain paranoia:
LOL! Whoopsy! :-D


Should read "And the German, and Italy. The EU experiment is coming to an end."

In reply to Postmanpat:

'There seems to be a bizarre assumption that the UK only believes in democratic accountability, economic prosperity, mutual defence, social justice and environmental protection as part of the EU.'

Yep, bizarre, isn't it? We all know how we can rely on Theresa May and Liz truss to defend the civil liberties and the rule of law, and Jeremy Hunt to safeguard the NHS ... Hammond hasn't done too many f*ck ups yet, but obviously he's still trying to stay within the EU ... environmental protection under the Tories? You're 'aving a larrrf!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
>
And there we have it. Basically your position is just based on old fashioned tribal prejudice not on the EU at all. "Tory scum, blah blah..."

In reply to Postmanpat:


Told you i read in the Daily Mail, didn't I? It was in between the articles "25 million muslim Turkish terrorists refugees from Syria are coming here to take your jobs on benefits" and "Brown toast gives you cancer".

In reply to john arran:

Because it was said to be for the greater good for both sides to act early, and so give both UK and EU nationals some security of residence, now rather than possibly in two years time . The UKs position is clear, we will keep your nationals if you will keep ours. The EU are the ones playing delaying games with people's lives.

>Like Brexiters are so keen on repeating: Brexit means Brexit. So go ahead and commit to it - then we'll talk.

I think you will find that phrase belongs to May ( who was a remainer

>Otherwise it's just testing the water and that could only mean she was still unsure as to whether to really pull the trigger or not!Probably not what you wanted to hear, I appreciate.

You might be hopeful of that ,however, I have no doubts (at all ) that A50 will be triggered.
( probably NOT what you wanted to hear I appreciate

In reply to Shani:


Ah, the man who wanted to invade the Soviet Union ... http://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/operation-unthinkable-churchill-s...

Eeee, he had his head screwed on right!

In reply to Postmanpat:

Er no. Not tribal at all. We have May's record in the Home Office to judge her by - would you care to defend her trail of lost court cases and failed initiatives? - and Liz Truss, who was like a rabbit caught in headlights when the Daily Mail attacked the very principle of a judiciary independent of politics. She didn't know what anyone was talking about.

Conversely, I still have some residual respect for Hammond, as a 2nd reading of my post will show you.

Tribal? Moi? Look in the mirror, I suggest.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Not necessarily scum. Just, in the case of Truss, an idiot. Or Hunt, living up to rhyming slang. An evidence-based assessment, not prejudice.

In reply to Jim C:


Haha!

In reply to Mr Lopez:

>
Funnily enough it does sound like something out of a tabloid, just not the DM .

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


So basically your views on the EU are based on a particular view and (there are others) of a handful of policians whose names we"ll probably barely remember in five years.
Me, tribal? I'm shocked!The bulk of Tory mps were remainers.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yup. Boris included. That worked out well...

In reply to Mr Lopez:

You are right that I'm retiring, but I can assure you, as I have gone early, my pension will not be at all juicy.( passes hat round!
( but at least I'm still alive - whereas my father was dying before my current state retrial age)
However, as a teetotal non smoker, I do try hard to reduce my outgoings in retirement (whilst of course reducing the bill to the Health service)

>while watching Celebrity Bake Off
Never watched it, it might be good though, I have no idea.

>and a weekly outing to the Bingo.
If I ever go, it will be for a bucket list ( it's at the very end of mine)

>for them it's a lifetime of financial uncertainty and being trapped in an ever shrinking Little Britain.
I reject your reality and substitute my own.
( it's rather more positive )
And it's not too difficult to be more positive and optimistic than you

In reply to arch:


For the most part indeed.

In reply to Hugh J:



Jesus, still you don't understand coalitions! There is no reason for anyone to form a coalition with the party with the most seats, otherwise Brown would have had to look to the Tories! Name a country where this is a principle of coalitions, rather than the principle of sticking with your closest allies.

Had Clegg done this his party might be in a better shape now.

But the point which has flown over you head is that in 2010, after the TV debates Gordon and quite a few on here were the I Agree With Nick types, if they had shown some mettle and stuck with Labour then we wouldn't have seen Brexit, so it is with some irony that we have to listen to them complaining now.

Just as listening to people say they were Corbyn but now realise he's a bit useless is a no shit, Sherlock moment.

In reply to winhill:

How could I 'stick with Labour' when I've always voted Liberal (except once in the 1970s for Heath, and I think before that for Wilson ... but it's lost in the mists of time, so I can't remember)?

In reply to Postmanpat:


I hope you're right Pat. I spent a lot of time looking for some coherent, evidenced based, economic argument for Brexit. There didn't seem to be much - Minton seems to be a bit of a wacko, unless you fancy unilaterally dropping all tariffs and in the process destroying British manufacturing; well, what's left of it. It all seemed a bit like climate change - a small minority of contrary opinion is presented as equal to the much bigger consensus.

Of course the consensus could be wrong. I work in risk, and it alarms me that the Leavers seem to be denying all downsides and attacking anyone who voices such sentiment; this seems delusional at best. Even if you're philosophically in favour of leaving the EU simple realism must say that this is a huge risk, with lots of unforeseen problems, delay, issues, arguments and difficulties. I would have some respect for the government if they acknowledged and planned for this. Unfortunately Brexit has become a faith based issue. I'm often wrong, but I've seen this many times before on large transport, infrastructure and oil/gas projects - where project management as an article of faith have disregarded the 'experts'. It doesn't often end well, with the f*ck-ups I've experienced costing up to $1 Bn. Still, the experts usually come out in rude financial health, as the ensuing chaos means cash.

Anyway, maybe Brexit will work as well as one of the Tory's ideologically driven policies that experts told them would be a big mess: rail privatisation.

Interesting times. I guess history will be the judge of all this. Good job everyone agrees on history..........

In reply to George Ormerod:

I'm tempted to start new accounts on here just so I can give this more likes!

In reply to George Ormerod:

I'm with you on your view that Brexit is a leap into the unknown, but the fact is that the 'experts' such as the Bank of England and the Treasury predicted before the vote that the UK economy would plunge straight into recession. The reality was that in the second half of 2016 our economy performed better than the majority of the developed world. It's too early to know what the long-term consequences will be, but the 'experts' have been proved wrong already.

In reply to John2:
We haven't left yet. There has been no Brexit. Second time on this thread I've had to point this out to a Brexiteer.

On the 'experts' bit you are wrong. Several macroeconomists have opined a more subtle interpretation on events after the vote. Perhaps you need to stop reading fake news in the alt-right press?

Edit: in fact macroeconomists like Simon Wren-Lewis have described you John2, to a tee!

"If you think this is all so obvious that the propaganda about economists being hopelessly discredited will not work, I think you need to get out more. The line 'they all got the immediate impact completely wrong so we cannot take their medium term predictions seriously, and who can forecast until 2030 anyway' will be repeated ad nauseam in the press and by Leave advocates. Most political journalists will not know this line is rubbish and full of elementary confusions, because they do not talk to academic economists either directly or indirectly."

In reply to George Ormerod:

1) There is a range of economic projections post brexit but the median projection seems to be that GDP would be about 4% lower by 2030 than if the UK had remained. To put that in context, I think the OECD long term forecast for UK economic growth is about 2%pa. So to 2030 UK GDP might grow 26% rather than 30%.
That is clearly negative but I don't think it justifies the lurid language being used about it.
PS. Economics is not a science so brexit projectiosn are not comparable to climate change.

2) This, of course, assumes that one believes that the projectors are reliable or objective. They may well be right but I think you'll agree that long term economic projecting is a precarious business.

3) Secondly, the issue is not solely or even mainly about GDP growth. Many people are prepared to accept slightly lower GDP growth for what they regard as the benefits of brexit.

4) In some ways my view overlaps with yours: that history will be the judge. There can be no certainty about the outcome of any of this because we can only postulate how the negotiations will play out, then postulate how relations with the rest of the world will play out, and then postulate how this might impact the economy, never mind anything else. .

You get irritated by what you regard as the "faith" of brexiters. I get irritated by the unjustified and misplaced sense of certainly and superiority of some remainers. From where I sit the latter don't even have the common sense or humility to realise there can be no confidence in any outcome.

In reply to Shani:

I'm sorry, I didn't claim that Brexit had already happened. I said, 'the 'experts' such as the Bank of England and the Treasury predicted before the vote that the UK economy would plunge straight into recession'.

Bank of England faces fresh embarrassment as it tears up its forecasts
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/02/bank-of-england-forecasts-...

University of Cambridge academics: Treasury's Brexit forecasts 'have little basis in reality'
http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-university-of-cambridge-treasury-forec...

In reply to Postmanpat:

' From where I sit the latter don't even have the common sense or humility to realise there can be no confidence in any outcome.'

We can extrapolate from what has happened in the past though. 40 years of peace and free movement; increased cooperation on range of issues, from climate change to refugees; at least two financial crises weathered; and a tariff free market of 500 million consumers created.

The one thing that we can both agree on is all of those are now gone. (Well, maybe not the peace, fingers crossed.)

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Well there's certainly not been a euro-related financial crisis, has there?

In reply to Jim C:


No they don't. Not by much (about what 'leave' won by) but they don't back your assertion http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-brit...

jk

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>

Of course we can't. We can cooperate on any issues the UK and the EU agree to co-operate on. Defence, security, climate change are the ones that spring to mind. A tariff free market will be a stretch, but it's perfectly possible that a reasonable deal will be reached and the downsides of the the changing relationship with the EU will be offset by benefits of more open relationships with the rest of the world.

Time will tell.

In reply to John2:

I apologise, but you didn't explicitly state if your point about recession was after the vote or after Brexit so it wasn't clear.

A Treasury that gave us Austerity should always be treated with suspicion. If you read Simon Wren-Lewis or Chris Dillow, you'd have had a broader understanding of the possible impacts of Brexit.

In reply to silent disliker:

What's to dislike about data you bellend?!

In reply to Shani:

Thanks for the apology, but I think our non-EU future is rather harder to predict than some would have it. For instance, the WTO tariff on car imports is 10%, but the pound has devalued against the euro by roughly 10% since the Brexit vote. Moreover, if we did go to a WTO tariff future British people would be more likely to buy British-manufactured cars since European ones would become 10% more expensive in sterling terms.

In reply to John2:

... and because of the devaluation inflation will also rise (already happening) so either wages will have to rise and prices then go up further, or wages stagnate and everything is less affordable ...

Some aspects are rather easier to predict that you seem to be suggesting.

In reply to john arran:

What I'm really suggesting is that it's too early to make definite predictions. We don't yet know what tariffs and customs impositions will exist between us and the EU. As for the possibility of Wilders or Le Pen being elected, who can say what would happen?

In reply to John2:

'Moreover, if we did go to a WTO tariff future British people would be more likely to buy British-manufactured cars since European ones would become 10% more expensive in sterling terms.'

Except they won't be able to afford to, because the cars that they manufacturer won't be sold abroad as the cost of imported components will have gone up and the tariffs will have kicked in...

...And so it goes on. It is an irrefutable fact that no-one knows for certain what is going to happen; in my view Brexit and associated ructions - disruption to trade, economic downturn, increased political instability in mainland Europe, side-lining by the US - mean that the likelihood of some really nasty outcomes is more probable that was the case before we took such a leap into the unknown. This is probably the most complex international project since the rebuilding of Europe after WW II - there is just so much scope for things to go wrong.

Yeah, I know that makes me a snowflake, but I'd rather save what little courage I have for climbing, skiing and sailing rather than day to day stuff!

In reply to John2:


On that much we can agree, but that doesn't mean we can't have a reasonable idea of the direction things are likely to be heading in. And economic prosperity for the vast majority of UK inhabitants in the foreseeable future is pretty far down the scale of credible outcomes. Of course, some people no doubt will do very well out of the new order in which everyone else gets poorer; notably the ones in charge and the ones running most of the press.

In reply to john arran:

>. And economic prosperity for the vast majority of UK inhabitants in the foreseeable future is pretty far down the scale of credible outcomes. everyone else gets poorer;
>

How do infer that from an economy growing 26% over the next 14 years?

In reply to John2:
Actually we DO know much of what is going to happen with regard to things like immigration. Already there have been huge drops in university applications from overseas. This carries not only a capital fee (they are a huge source of revenue to local economies), but it also carries a soft power penalty (people who study in a country often have affinity with it and may also develop friendship, kinship and familial links), but also we're detering intellectual and creative people.

Now stopping free movement of Europeans can be better quantified. EU immigrants to the UK tend to be young and educated. They make a net contribution to the economy, drive business activity and creativity, and take less from the benefits and social systen (NHS).

Furthermore, if we take back control and abolish 'EU red tape', this HAS to carry an administrative burden for our goods and services - just as we doubt the integrity of goods and services from some parts of the world. Customs are there to protect us, not to simply impair free trade.

Leving the EU does put us outside of a market of 400m rather wealthy, educated people.

In reply to John2:


Maybe the fact that it didn't go into recession had something to do with Bank of England intervention to stop that happening: http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/liveblogs/2016-08-04/

That's £70 billion of UK taxpayer money, over £1,000 for every man, woman and child. And that's only one part of the response and one part of the cost to taxpayers. Everyone is already poorer by a significant amount, even before the inevitable inflation kicks in.

But of course, the country didn't go into recession, so the experts were clearly all wrong.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'How do infer that from an economy growing 26% over the next 14 years?'

So you do believe in economic forecasts after all!

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


I'm simpler taking the projections that the remainers are so wedded to and asking them how they make their inferences from them.....

Whether the projections are believable I couldn't possibly comment....

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:



He's peddling figures from forecasts that pre-date the Brexit vote when the projected growth was of roughly 2.1% year on year till 2030. Most forecasters now expect that to be reduced significantly as you would expect.

In reply to Postmanpat:

You get irritated by what you regard as the "faith" of brexiters. I get irritated by the unjustified and misplaced sense of certainly and superiority of some remainers. From where I sit the latter don't even have the common sense or humility to realise there can be no confidence in any outcome.

Far from it Pat, I'm full of uncertainty about the future. However almost all of the uncertainties, with the current path of Brexit, seems to be on the downside. So it's highly likely that the impact of Brexit will be negative - maybe compensated to some degree by trade deals in 7-15 years time. You've just got to look at the attacks on Phillip Hammond by his own party, or the EU ambassador for saying a complex and difficult political process was going to be complex and difficult, to see that it has become an article of faith by many leavers.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

So, basically anybody who holds a view different to your own is a moron?

The Brexit camp heard all the same arguments both In and OUT, as did the Remain camp. The Brexit camp did not necessarily believe the words and promises of the pro-brexit camp, but they certainly chose not to believe the words and promises of the Remain camp. There is a difference. They could predict the future in the EU based on years as part of it and the Remain camp simply did not present a future they could face, based on their experience of past membership.

We know that the promises and the word of politicians simply cannot be trusted (in either camp), but our own gut instinct based on experience probably can.

In reply to john arran:
A spade is a spade John. The Treasury and Bank of England could have said they would be forced into expensive action to prevent recession. It was dumb scare tactics even if in terms of lies it was a smaller porky than the Brexit Battle Bus claims.

You are right that the country is now in more debt for longer. UK assests have dropped 20% compared to international averages following the collapse of the pound and the current growth seems mainly credit fuellled and yet we have barely started. Arranging the reality of Brexit looks horrendous in complexity, cost and divisiveness. Its all awful news as far as I can see in economic, social, and legal terms. Still I'd hope for that slim chance to be proved wrong as I won't be celebrating any decline. We now have our fredom to cut off our nose to spite our face and to lose more real individual freedoms by parliamentary law, as our government doesn't seem to like protecting such things as funding the individual rights of its ordinary citizens.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

No yer wally! I'm taking the original forecast you refer to and downgrading it by roughly the median amount implied by the various projections of the impact of brexit, the ones that you think imply the four horses of the apocalypse. See my post of 9.23am.

Aaaggghhhh!

In reply to George Ormerod:

I wasn't referring to you.

But I disagree that the uncertainties are all on the downside. The fall in sterling has largely discounted much of those uncertainties. It's perfectly possibly that we get some positive surprises.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Yes, short term it is great. Medium to longer term this HAS to feed through to our manufacturing (remember how we were meant to be rebalancing the economy?) and lead to obviously more expensive imported goods and costlier holidays. Inflation is already rising.

We'll be a cheaper holiday destination though and i guess our labour costs will be more attractive.

In reply to cragtaff:

Two points. I only said a couple of notable brexiteers were morons. I'll happily add you to the list if you can't be a*sed to actually read.

Second point 'but our own gut instinct based on experience probably can.' As Carl Sagan memorably said in a different context, 'I prefer not to think with my gut.'

In reply to Shani:


Yup, going back to your (?) earlier post, it's swings and roundabout. We benefit from a lower sterling in the form of lower export prices and lower labour and related domestic costs, but we suffer from (possibly) higher tariffs (to the EU) but (possibly) lower tariffs elsewhere and higher imported input costs. How that pans out is going to vary over time and by industry and is pretty difficult to analyse.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'I'm taking the original forecast you refer to and downgrading it by roughly the median amount implied by the various projections of the impact of brexit'

So you're taking some original statistical b*llox, applying a bit of jiggery-pokery ('roughly the median amount implied by ...' blah blah blah) and claiming it as Holy Writ?

Stats are supposed to reflect reality, not predict or determine it. They are useful so long as you remember they ARE only reflecting what has happened in the past; and one of the first rules of stats is that they have to have a basis in common sense; there has to be a credible causality. What is credible is that the practical consequences of Brexit ('who the f*ck do I send this invoice to? How long will my truck be stuck at Dover? How long will it take me for a product specialist to get to my distributor in Germany?') will dent economic activity. We're in a sui generis situation but I'll bet you a meat pie it will be a lot worse than you fondly imagine.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


No, the projections I am using are exactly the same "jiggery-pokery" ones that you presumably are basing your economic assumptions on. From memory when I looked at it they were: Treasury, CBI, Oxford economics, CBI, Centre for economic performance, Open europe, and EFB.I may have ignored the outliers (which would include EFB, the most positive)
They will, of course, encapsulate the impact of increased regulatory requirements that brexit will likely result in.

The "original statistic" was the OECD forecast. Can you tell me where your numbers can from?

Can I assume that you're one of those people "who have had enough of experts"?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Show me how you get a growth of 30% at an annual rate of 2% over 13 years then

In reply to Mr Lopez:

The simplest way is to stick it in a CAGR calculator!

The formula is CAGR = ( EV / BV)1 / n - 1

where:

EV =GDPending value
BV = GDP beginning value
n = Number of periods (months, years, etc.)

In reply to Postmanpat:

I mean put it down in numbers.

Forecasted GDP growth at pre- brexit levels you used of 2% per annum for 2030 is 26%. Not 30%.

You end up at 26% after doing your giggery Pokery, when you should have done the giggery pokery starting with 26% and applying the reductions to that.

In reply to Mr Lopez:


A forecast of 2% GDP growth pa over 14 years(2016-2030, because the forecasts were mainly made in spring 2016) gives growth of to 2030 of 31.9%. So I took a conservative outcome of 30%. Over 13 years you would require 2.04% growth pa to achieve the 30%, so next to bugger all difference.
I'm suspecting you are not allowing for compounding. I'm sure you recognise that compounding is pretty fundamental to such calculations.

In reply to Postmanpat:

'Can I assume that you're one of those people "who have had enough of experts"? '

Nice try! No, I'm very happy with experts who show some understanding of stats.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


So what do you think the experts I am using don't understand about "stats" and which alternative facts would you like to use?
If you don't have any alternative facts , and you won't because I've used the mainstream projections which were widely quoted, can you provide your alternative estimate of what they imply that brexit will do to GDP growth relative to the original no-brexit projection. It should be easy because mine was a back of an envelope estimate so I don't doubt it can be improved upon.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Worse than that, i was using an online calculator to see the rate that was being used in the OECD GDP long term forecast, since the table only showed the actual GDP for the years, then i quickly 'reverse engineered' the rates for the figures given here above, and all this without realising that it was a percent growth calculator that i was using... Nevermind, move along, nothing to see here

In reply to Mr Lopez:

I appreciate your honesty. Stuff happpens!