Brexit thread [Poll added]

[foxy]

Its the government who should be embarrassed they lied they are about to find out how little those voters who trusted them think of those lies and how Brexit has turned out when Labour win a super-majority next Thursday.


View attachment 101172

Saturday 28 July 2018

1 - 'The money saved from leaving the EU will result in the NHS getting £350m a week'
One of the most prominent claims made by the Leave campaign was that the UK would take back £350m a week once it had left the EU – with the sum going to the NHS.
The UK Statistics Authority has since said this was a “clear misuse of official statistics” – most notably because the figure did not take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU after paying into the budget.

2 - 'A free-trade deal with the EU will be 'the easiest thing in human history'

3 - ‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’

4 - 'Turkey is going to join the EU and millions of people will flock to the UK'

5 - 'Brexit will lead to Scotland renewing calls for independence'

6 - 'Brexit does not mean the UK will leave the single market'

Full details of all six can be found here

Their source of information is heavily biased, by them.
What I don't understand is the trade deficit. The UK has had a trade deficit with the EU for over 20 years. On top of that there is the 2.5 million GBP (net) that was paid into the coffers of the EU every week so not only losing out on the balance of trade but giving the EU the 2.5 million for the pleasure of doing so!
On the other hand, the UK has a trade surplus with those countries outside of the EU, so what is the benefit of being in the EU?
It's worth taking a look at the top 10 of the world economies by 2050, the UK doesn't come out of it too shabbily, it has to be expected there is going to be a change in the economic order by 2050. It's better to hold your nerve and don't fold to rejoining the EU argument. That is if there is still going to be an EU in 2050

 

[JockyBrewer]

Hubris on Cameron's part.

Annoying considering the way they expertly handled the referendum on electoral reform a few years before.

 

[DaleMC]

What I don't understand is the trade deficit. The UK has had a trade deficit with the EU for over 20 years. On top of that there is the 2.5 million GBP (net) that was paid into the coffers of the EU every week so not only losing out on the balance of trade but giving the EU the 2.5 million for the pleasure of doing so!

Without meaning to be funny, would you expect a surplus from one small island into 27 other countries, with a population some 7 times higher than ours? It's a bit of a silly argument. The access made trade easier in both directions - plenty on here used to be able to buy German and Belgian beers for personal consumption at decent prices. No more. Grit in the gears of trade has seen people that previously exported pivot to domestic markets only - and no small businesses aren't suddenly taking advantage of trade deals further afield because a) it's more difficult to trade the further from home you go and b) it's no where near as easy as single market trade was anyway.

The whole thing is a miserly endeavour that was sold on the basis that you could suddenly pretend that there was a draw bridge and no give and take. And if you look at our replacement red tape on things like procurement and subsidies it's *more* involved than it was. Partly due to new requirements in trade deals and partly because we've always reduced our 'sovereignty' to operate globally, such an amorphous concept. We just now have to employ loads more people to do roles that were previously pooled across 28 countries. So the money saving argument falls down again. At some point the Tories will attempt to recreate the single market by a different name, when it's right there.

The reason it's not gone well is largely because it cannot go well on its own terms.

 

[samale]

Without meaning to be funny, would you expect a surplus from one small island into 27 other countries, with a population some 7 times higher than ours? It's a bit of a silly argument. The access made trade easier in both directions - plenty on here used to be able to buy German and Belgian beers for personal consumption at decent prices. No more. Grit in the gears of trade has seen people that previously exported pivot to domestic markets only - and no small businesses aren't suddenly taking advantage of trade deals further afield because a) it's more difficult to trade the further from home you go and b) it's no where near as easy as single market trade was anyway.

The whole thing is a miserly endeavour that was sold on the basis that you could suddenly pretend that there was a draw bridge and no give and take. And if you look at our replacement red tape on things like procurement and subsidies it's *more* involved than it was. Partly due to new requirements in trade deals and partly because we've always reduced our 'sovereignty' to operate globally, such an amorphous concept. We just now have to employ loads more people to do roles that were previously pooled across 28 countries. So the money saving argument falls down again. At some point the Tories will attempt to recreate the single market by a different name, when it's right there.

The reason it's not gone well is largely because it cannot go well on its own terms.

Nice to hear some common sense

 

[Brew_DD2]

Without meaning to be funny, would you expect a surplus from one small island into 27 other countries, with a population some 7 times higher than ours? It's a bit of a silly argument. The access made trade easier in both directions - plenty on here used to be able to buy German and Belgian beers for personal consumption at decent prices. No more. Grit in the gears of trade has seen people that previously exported pivot to domestic markets only - and no small businesses aren't suddenly taking advantage of trade deals further afield because a) it's more difficult to trade the further from home you go and b) it's no where near as easy as single market trade was anyway.

The whole thing is a miserly endeavour that was sold on the basis that you could suddenly pretend that there was a draw bridge and no give and take. And if you look at our replacement red tape on things like procurement and subsidies it's *more* involved than it was. Partly due to new requirements in trade deals and partly because we've always reduced our 'sovereignty' to operate globally, such an amorphous concept. We just now have to employ loads more people to do roles that were previously pooled across 28 countries. So the money saving argument falls down again. At some point the Tories will attempt to recreate the single market by a different name, when it's right there.

The reason it's not gone well is largely because it cannot go well on its own terms.

This a great post. Full of sensible analysis of why it could never go well, even with the best of intentions.

 

[Agentgonzo]

This a great post. Full of sensible analysis of why it could never go well, even with the best of intentions.

Project Fear!

 

[foxy]

Without meaning to be funny, would you expect a surplus from one small island into 27 other countries, with a population some 7 times higher than ours? It's a bit of a silly argument. The access made trade easier in both directions - plenty on here used to be able to buy German and Belgian beers for personal consumption at decent prices. No more. Grit in the gears of trade has seen people that previously exported pivot to domestic markets only - and no small businesses aren't suddenly taking advantage of trade deals further afield because a) it's more difficult to trade the further from home you go and b) it's no where near as easy as single market trade was anyway.

The whole thing is a miserly endeavour that was sold on the basis that you could suddenly pretend that there was a draw bridge and no give and take. And if you look at our replacement red tape on things like procurement and subsidies it's *more* involved than it was. Partly due to new requirements in trade deals and partly because we've always reduced our 'sovereignty' to operate globally, such an amorphous concept. We just now have to employ loads more people to do roles that were previously pooled across 28 countries. So the money saving argument falls down again. At some point the Tories will attempt to recreate the single market by a different name, when it's right there.

The reason it's not gone well is largely because it cannot go well on its own terms.

Well the UK managed to get a trade surplus with Indonesia, Mexico, America, Japan, Australia, Switzerland Israel plus other non-EU countries with a far greater population than the UK.
Why have German and Belgian beers gone up in price?
Why would you think small businesses would find it more difficult to trade with countries further afield? I am a long way from Europe, Canada, and the Middle East but still found it easy to export, importing is more difficult.
The whole idea is about employing more people in the UK is more people working equates to more tax collected.
To many people think that the UK woes are all about Brexit, The UK has been in decline since 2008 and has never recovered from the GFC. Then there is Covid and the war in the Ukraine. Look at the trouble local councils are finding themselves in, less essential services provided some going bankrupt, and nothing to do with leaving the EU.
I appreciate the demographic age on this forum is 50 plus and are frightened by change but the economic forecast to 2050 paints a positive picture for the UK. It is only to be expected that the UK will be out of the G7 in a new world economic order but will still be in the top 10.