Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Peter Hun]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

No don't think so.

I just thought it worth pointing out there are economic experts whose models are in conflict with the Treasury model.

There is also a belief that all "experts" are in agreement that Brexit will have a negative economic impact, whereas here you can see some professors in economics who say the opposite.  Whatever you think of them, their credentials as economic "experts" exceeds anyone's on this forum.

Whoever they are, they are ****ing idiots.

[Confusion of VIs]

45 minutes ago, sikejsudjek said:

The Germans can shout all they like. The inescapable fact is that under WTO tariffs cars are one of the few items with a higher tariff. Germany sells 20% of all cars manufactured to us. Outside the EU we can find ways of subsidising our car plants. The Germans have to find another market or face a huge loss of profits. This is on top of massive fines for rigging fuel tests. Merkel is already in trouble in the polls, and as we know Deutsche bank is about to blow up. This is not a strong negotiating position for Germany to be in IMO.

If the end product is less spiky haired idiots driving Audi's and BMW's too fast down our roads, and cheaper cars from Korea, so be it ! Free trade agreements are not always in the best interests of a country. TTIP would have been a disaster.

If you think TTIP would have been a disaster, imagine how bad a trade deal we will get when we turn up with about 13% of the EUs negotiating power and desperate for a quick deal.  

[Konig]

Transcript from Hammond's interview today in the US....

Question: EU will say you either get migration controls or single market. From conference it appears migration is more important.

Hammond: I don’t agree. There will be discussions and there will have to be give and take on both sides... if there is a solution that is advantageous to both sides. We don’t delude ourselves our European partners owe us any favours.

They still want access to UK market.

It has to be a win-win solution.

But we have to realise the Brexit vote said implicitly that we should not have freedom of movement in way we had in the past. That is about control, not saying people from Europe cannot come into the UK.

So we voted Leave to 'take control' and then we will again start filling all those skilled and unskilled jobs, sector by sector, with.... EU immigrants.

The reason we need the skilled immigration is because we do not have enough home grown skilled labour coming through - doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. 

The reason for unskilled immigration is fundamentally that we have a UK working class who gave up working after Brown gave them a tax credit 16 hour per working week lifestyle option, including as pretend self-employed 'nail technicians' and the like, plus if you don't fancy working at all you have the option of the disability benefit lifestyle - 7m now claim!

Pretty obvious why we need to import people to do all those jobs my (working class) parents generation did - labour on cold building sites, wipe arses on an NHS ward or in a care home, wait on tables in a cafe, do mind-numbing factory work, etc.  

[Sheeple Splinter]

55 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

I tricked you by not listing it.

The taxation system.

Nah, lack of new housing or...

[Sheeple Splinter]

6 minutes ago, Konig said:

Transcript from Hammond's interview today in the US....

Question: EU will say you either get migration controls or single market. From conference it appears migration is more important.

Hammond: I don’t agree. There will be discussions and there will have to be give and take on both sides... if there is a solution that is advantageous to both sides. We don’t delude ourselves our European partners owe us any favours.

They still want access to UK market.

It has to be a win-win solution.

But we have to realise the Brexit vote said implicitly that we should not have freedom of movement in way we had in the past. That is about control, not saying people from Europe cannot come into the UK.

So we voted Leave to 'take control' and then we will again start filling all those skilled and unskilled jobs, sector by sector, with.... EU immigrants.

The reason we need the skilled immigration is because we do not have enough home grown skilled labour coming through - doctors, engineers, scientists, etc. 

The reason for unskilled immigration is fundamentally that we have a UK working class who gave up working after Brown gave them a tax credit 16 hour per working week lifestyle option, including as pretend self-employed 'nail technicians' and the like, plus if you don't fancy working at all you have the option of the disability benefit lifestyle - 7m now claim!

Pretty obvious why we need to import people to do all those jobs my (working class) parents generation did - labour on cold building sites, wipe arses on an NHS ward or in a care home, wait on tables in a cafe, do mind-numbing factory work, etc.  

Do you think the blues are going to wean people off TC/DB culture?

[Futuroid]

32 minutes ago, Konig said:

Pretty obvious why we need to import people to do all those jobs my (working class) parents generation did - labour on cold building sites, wipe arses on an NHS ward or in a care home, wait on tables in a cafe, do mind-numbing factory work, etc.  

I agree to some extent. Tax credits are very damaging, acting as corporate welfare essentially. But a demotivator that many on here can surely have some empathy with is that feeling of just working to pay the money out to your landlord. When the carrot of home ownership is being dangled so far away it looks impossible to achieve, why bother?

When you tax earned wealth more than you tax unearned wealth, you diminish the motivation to earn. Toss in a labyrinthine benefit system with loopholes and gotchas galore and you have a recipie for disaster. 

What motivated your parents was likely the threat of the workhouse / inability to feed their family. Maybe we could return to the treat 'em mean keep 'em keen approach, but the skilled workers would likely just hop on a plane at the first chance, leaving the chaff behind and the UK desperately trying to fill the gap with immigration (much as now).

[Peter Hun]

1 hour ago, Konig said:

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Peter Hun
cannot get out of quote box

[Richmond]

12 hours ago, Futuroid said:

Is the EU closer to the edge? The edge of what exactly?

Oh silly me, of course, total collapse and dissolution when a few EE countries get a bit shirty about taking their share of refugees. As net beneficiaries of the EU, they will be quickly be invited to use the exit door still warm from the UK and the EU will be all the stronger because of it!

Are you seriously suggesting it will be harder for the EU to accept tariffs on 10% of its exports vs the UK accepting tariffs on almost half of ours?

Also, the tariffs (and quotas, let's not forget them*) on some goods are higher than others. Cars for example run at 10% until WTO rules, effectively destroying the competitiveness of the UK car industry overnight.

* = the main reason Nissan built it's plant in Sunderland was quotas. Japan was hitting the EU quota limit for imports of motor vehicles from a single country, to get around this limit they built a factory inside the EU - i.e. in the UK. There are still EU import quotas for motor vehicles and other goods in effect.

That was the question, yes. Will tariffs on 10% be more destabilising than tariffs on 50% when looked at in context of the health of the economies, banks, predicted GDP growth rates etc of each side? 

For example, if tariffs on 10% knock a eurozone nation into recession and bailout territory then it could actually be worse than tariffs on 50% that just makes people a bit poorer, because bad news quickly multiples.

[Peter Hun]

1 hour ago, Konig said:

 

But we have to realise the Brexit vote said implicitly that we should not have freedom of movement in way we had in the past. That is about control, not saying people from Europe cannot come into the UK.

No it didn't.

This is why the Cons deciding to implement Article 50 without any consultation with Parliament is so wrong. They have given themselves a 'do what I want card' without any interference from the electorate whatsoever.

[billybong]

2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The bit where we give people who cannot understand words like consultative or advisory a vote!

Pathetic.

[Confusion of VIs]

Just now, billybong said:

Pathetic.

I know the state of English teaching today.

[Confusion of VIs]

9 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

The main reason they can't give FOM up is because of the glaringly missing 5th 'f'....fiscal transfers/union. FOM is, along with deflationary depression, the only valves left in the common currency area.

The why doesn't really matter, the fact is attitudes are hardening just as much in the EU as they are here and the forthcoming German and French elections will only exasperate this. FoM could easily become the touchstone that decides if we can do a sensible deal or head off on WTO terms.

Telegraph article below, seems more realistic than the idea the Germans are blustering and will cave in promoted by some on here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/german-industry-cannot-save-britain-from-hard-brexit-warns-merke/

[billybong]

3 hours ago, rollover said:

UK car factories face uncertain future after Brexit

Plants run by Nissan, Honda and Toyota most at risk of closure after UK leaves EU, says new report (FT)

 

 

That new report just seems to regurgitate the idea that those companies are all going to leave when Britain leaves the eu.  People knew that when they voted.  Of course there'll be a transition but leave the keys and Britain will find some new occupiers for the factories.

Even better if house prices fell to take the pressure off wages.

Edited October 6, 2016 by billybong

[Chunketh]

6 hours ago, Byron said:

This great LIE,

'It was advisory only.'

Invented by sour grape bad losers after they lost.

No mention of it before the vote.

From the reality of Project Fear  i.e. 'You vote out, and these awful things will happen'

To absolutely no remainer before the vote claiming that it was anything but a full referendum.

 

What does the word referendum mean?  Definitely not 'opinion poll'

It's not a lie, here look

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

" There are two types of referendum that have been held by the UK Government, pre-legislative (held before proposed legislation is passed) and post-legislative (held after legislation is passed). To date the previous three UK-wide referendums in 1975, 2011 and2016 were all post-legislative. Referendums are not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results; for example, even if the result of a pre-legislative referendum were a majority of "No" for a proposed law, Parliament could pass it anyway, because parliament is sovereign. "

Not invented by "sour grapes bad losers", just a fact. We didn't have to claim it wasn't a "full" referendum, there is NO SUCH THING.

[billybong]

.

The 2011 referendum on AV  was pre-legislative wasn't it - not post legislative?.  At the time most everyone was led to believe that if the vote had been in favour of the AV version voted on then that would be automatically implemented - but maybe now British people know better and that if the vote had gone against the first pass the post interests then it would only have been advisory and have been eventually kicked into touch - in the name of democracy?

In any event AV never happened.

Edited October 6, 2016 by billybong

[billybong]

.

[Chunketh]

2 minutes ago, billybong said:

The 2011 referendum on AV  was pre-legislative wasn't it - not post legislative?.  At the time most everyone was led to believe that if the vote had been in favour of the AV version voted on then that would be automatically implemented - but maybe now British people know better and that if the vote had gone against the first pass the post interests then it would only have been advisory and have been eventually kicked into touch - in the name of democracy?

In any event AV never happened.

I think most people (myself included) expect the result of a referendum to be honoured. Then again, these are politicians we are talking about!

However, in this case my complaint would relate to article 50. I accept that we are leaving, I dont accept that the government has the right to invoke A50 without the consent of parliament. How we do this is as important as the act of leaving itself. It needs reasoned debate so the correct choices are made.

[billybong]

43 minutes ago, Chunketh said:

I think most people (myself included) expect the result of a referendum to be honoured. Then again, these are politicians we are talking about!

However, in this case my complaint would relate to article 50. I accept that we are leaving, I dont accept that the government has the right to invoke A50 without the consent of parliament. How we do this is as important as the act of leaving itself. It needs reasoned debate so the correct choices are made.

It's been mentioned before but one of the points made was that the referendum was debated in Parliament before the referendum and it was emphasised then that the decision was going to be made by the people via the referendum and Parliament voted in favour of it.  There was plenty of debate before the referendum.   By all means send the decision back to Parliament to rubber stamp it.

Incidentally although the 1975 was post legisative in that Britain had already entered the Common Market via legislation it was also non binding.  So I guess if that vote had gone against the Common Market they would have reneged on it - actually like 2016 they only allowed the vote because they were extremely confident of getting their own way.  This time the vote upturned their apple cart so it's renege on it time. 

Also to me the 2016 referendum being post legislative means that Britain got a belated vote (belated like 1975) on the sovereignty grab.  Sovereignty grab as a result of legislative treaties like the Maastricht Treaty etc.  Britain should have been given a referendum in a more timely and less deceptive manner but that didn't suit the VIs because they knew they would never get the British people's approval for the treaties because of the sovereignty grab.

Edited October 6, 2016 by billybong

[XswampyX]

It's a done deal... get over it! 

 

[billybong]

1 hour ago, Chunketh said:

I think most people (myself included) expect the result of a referendum to be honoured. Then again, these are politicians we are talking about!

However, in this case my complaint would relate to article 50. I accept that we are leaving, I dont accept that the government has the right to invoke A50 without the consent of parliament. How we do this is as important as the act of leaving itself. It needs reasoned debate so the correct choices are made.

Maybe after the rubber stamping Parliament should be allowed to debate a straightforward choice for the mechanics of leaving.  

Basically along the lines of

Invoke Article 50

or

Just repeal the 1973 Act - and any other bits and pieces necessary.

or 

It might involve a bit of both etc.  

By all means let them all contribute to the mechanics of the leave procedure against a tight and rapid timetable for exit.  

Nothing else.

Quote

 

http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

Fact No. 3. The British Parliament in Westminster retains the final right to repeal the Act which took us into the Market on January 1, 1973.

 

  That's as much say as they should have now.  The final decision to be May's after the (consultory and advisory) debates.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by billybong

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, billybong said:

 

That new report just seems to regurgitate the idea that those companies are all going to leave when Britain leaves the eu.  People knew that when they voted.  Of course there'll be a transition but leave the keys and Britain will find some new occupiers for the factories.

Even better if house prices fell to take the pressure off wages.

I don't think the people of Sunderland knew that, I seem to remember they were told by the Brexit campaigners that this was just project fear nonsense.

[Sheeple Splinter]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I don't think the people* of Sunderland knew that, I seem to remember they were told by the Brexit campaigners that this was just project fear nonsense.

Maybe, the following is from The ChronicleLive hours after the result:

Quote

Michael Elvin, chair of Ukip’s Wearside branch, could barely contain his joy as supporters continued to rally round him long after the result was declared.

He said the people of Sunderland had sent a very clear message that they wanted out of the EU.

“I am absolutely delighted with the result, we were very hopeful but we never dared dream we could achieve this result. It is incredible”, Mr Elvin said.

He added: “Nissan has played a role in this campaign it has been used to put fear into people.

“I think the people of Wearside have taken a bigger world view when voting, they have thought about their future and their children’s future.”

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/local-news/sunderland-eu-referendum-results-your-11504547

This BBC article was from yesterday:

Quote

How Sunderland defied Nissan's boss

When Carlos Ghosn made his not-very-veiled threat about the future of the giant Nissan plant in Sunderland last week, he might have thought locals would have quailed and rallied to his cause.

He has longer to wait.

People in Sunderland don't always do as they are told; before the vote on Britain's membership of the European Union, the Nissan chief executive urged people to vote to remain, stressing the advantages to Nissan, the region's biggest employer, of staying in the single market.

They ignored him, with just under two-thirds of the Sunderland electorate voting to leave.

Paul Watson, Labour and Co-operative leader of the city council since 2008, says people value Nissan's contribution to the local economy - it is the region's largest employer, providing work for 7,000 people - but that Sunderland is used to the vagaries of the world economy having big effects at home.

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37574954

*The population of Sunderland is over 250,000 and Nissan employs 7,000. (I realise there are additional jobs linked to Nissan)

Will Nissan stay, with or without compensation, or vacate; more positioning within the Brexit process?

Edited October 7, 2016 by Sheeple Splinter
* added

[XswampyX]

The population of Sunderland is over 250,000 and 7,000 of them know they are to be replaced by foreign workers at some point.

What do they have to fear?

[Sheeple Splinter]

1 hour ago, billybong said:

Maybe after the rubber stamping Parliament should be allowed to debate a straightforward choice for the mechanics of leaving.  

Basically along the lines of

Invoke Article 50

or

Just repeal the 1973 Act - and any other bits and pieces necessary.

or 

It might involve a bit of both etc.  

By all means let them all contribute to the mechanics of the leave procedure against a tight and rapid timetable for exit.  

Nothing else.

  That's as much say as they should have now.  The final decision to be May's after the (consultory and advisory) debates.

 

 

I don't think the SNP and remainers in the other parties will want to rubber stamp it. Anyway, Judicial Review next - I think 14th of this month.

[Sheeple Splinter]

I haven't seen this on here:

Quote

Swiss offer EU solution for Britain

The former Swiss president has said the UK should work with her country to find a way to balance freedom of movement with single market access.

Micheline Calmy-Rey said the two countries shared a common purpose out - or planning to be out - of the European Union.

But both still want a good trade relationship with the union.

She also urged the European Union to become more "flexible" on the issue of immigration or risk "exploding".

Its "very rigid" approach to free movement was not the correct response to the new pressures it faced following the UK vote to leave, she said, adding that Switzerland had found it very difficult to negotiate with the EU on the issue.

In 2014, Switzerland voted against free movement in a referendum.

"Switzerland and Britain have in common the same question - that means the question of freedom of movement and [the need] to find a solution in order to respond to our population to limit migration," Ms Calmy-Rey told the BBC.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37312807

I wonder if there is any mileage in the EU morphing into the Eurozone club with all four freedoms and a sovereign currency club?

Quote

The eurozone, officially called the euro area, is a monetary union of 19 of the 28 European Union member states which have adopted the euro as their common currency and sole legal tender. The monetary authority of the eurozone is the Eurosystem. The other nine members of the European Union continue to use their own national currencies, although most of them are obliged to adopt the euro in future.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurozone