Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeG said:
It would help in the long term in the demise of the CAP, and other intentional and unintentional barriers to trade with the third world (Africa in particular).
Click to expand...

Do you think a post Brexit UK will be a fairer trading partner for African countries?
 
MikeG said:
Really? I don't remember signing up for that.
Click to expand...

You are taking the pro-Brexit side in this conversation. If you're not up for it we can just assume you were BSing and that 'Leave' had a virtual monopoly on dishonesty, as is the general view in the rest of Europe.
 
uke2se said:
It's your job to list the remain lies if you think you can. Then we can compare magnitude and numbers. Should be a funpointless excersice.
Click to expand...

FTFY

I've already posted about the £4300 worse off a year by 2020 claptrap, then there's the "There will have to be an emergency austerity budget" claptrap.

There were lies on both sides ( I could point to more Remain campaign lies and exaggerations, but it's pointless.)

Both campaigns were run by politicians.

Newsflash: Politicians lie to win elections. They all do. British, French, German, Australian, American, the lot of 'em.

Lots of economists, and people in the finance industry and people in big business had a vested interest in the status quo.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair.

So who should Joe Public believe in all of the lies and exaggerations, and protection of self interest that the referendum campaign was?

The policies of the last couple of governments have left the average person poorly off. It's all too easy to blame the EU, or immigrants, or the fat cat bankers, or <insert villain of choice>. The reality is always more complicated, things are always shades of grey and never black and white.
 
Lothian said:
If that was the case there would be no need to be honest in their campaigning, they could make anything up knowing they would not have to stick to the promise afterwards..... Oh.
Click to expand...

That seems to have been a problem with both sides of the campaign. Fortunately there were other outlets to get one's information from. It's a bit fallacious to assume that the people who voted to leave were somehow more influenced by lies than those who voted to stay, or that their choice was somehow less informed, presumably because they chose "wrong".
 
uke2se said:
This is the entirety of your post.
Click to expand...

I asked you to read it in context, not outside of it. Do I have to spell it out for you? Agatha said that the brexiters (whatever that means, I assume she meant those campaigning in favour of Leave) had no plan for a post-Leave vote. I responded that they didn't have to (because until the decision is made, you don't need to actually enact it) because what they were doing was asking people (and campaigning for one side of the issue) to tell them if that's what they wanted, via the referendum.

Economic downturn caused by Brexit vote. It's in the news.
Click to expand...

First of all, "it's in the news" is no proof. Second, an economic downturn is not only expected, it's also not what you claimed.

Well, in that case they weren't doing their jobs, because they did tell tall tales about how the post-EU UK would be. Turns out that's all they were. Tall tales.
Click to expand...

That wasn't your claim. I'm getting the impression that changing the conversation after the fact will be your modus operandi here.
 
Argumemnon said:
I asked you to read it in context, not outside of it. Do I have to spell it out for you? Agatha said that the brexiters (whatever that means, I assume she meant those campaigning in favour of Leave) had no plan for a post-Leave vote. I responded that they didn't have to (because until the decision is made, you don't need to actually enact it) because what they were doing was asking people (and campaigning for one side of the issue) to tell them if that's what they wanted, via the referendum.
Click to expand...

Brexiters or Brexiteers has been a common term to apply to those wanting to leave or campaigning to leave the EU.

The problem is that many people who voted did so under certain assumptions about what a Leave would look like and that is unlikely to be what they end up with.
 
angrysoba said:
Brexiters or Brexiteers has been a common term to apply to those wanting to leave or campaigning to leave the EU.

The problem is that many people who voted did so under certain assumptions about what a Leave would look like and that is unlikely to be what they end up with.
Click to expand...
Pretty dumb assumptions
 
angrysoba said:
Brexiters or Brexiteers has been a common term to apply to those wanting to leave or campaigning to leave the EU.

The problem is that many people who voted did so under certain assumptions about what a Leave would look like and that is unlikely to be what they end up with.
Click to expand...

I think people on both sides voted under certain assumptions, but that doesn't negate their votes.
 
Francesca R said:
It's not at all clear to me that a second one would not produce a bigger leave margin
Click to expand...


And if it did, we would have to accept it. But this one we have is so flawed that accepting it is tantamount to treason!

It is not a definitive decision. It is apparently setting us on a road to very reduced well being.

I agree that there's more to life than economics, and "well being" is it. Unfortunately, without a healthy economy, and with a society as divided as this one, we are not increasing the well being of the people here.

The fatuous cries for a mythical and abstract "sovereignty" wrapped in lies about the EU being undemocratic when all three bodies are either directly elected (two of them) or appointed by our elected heads of state, are a major reason the well being of our people is going to be reduced.

It is so unacceptable that the whole thing is like a farce, except it is a tragedy.
 
catsmate said:
My three scenarios are:
Best case the UK loses one tenth of the FS sector, or around 2.25% of GDP
Middle case (most probable) the loss is around one quarter, i.e. 5.5% of GDP
Worst probably case is the loss of two-fifths, around 9% of GDP.
Click to expand...

This looks fairly reasonable to me. The only thing I disagree with is that the middle case is necessarily the most probable. While this is normally true, you need to factor in what has happened since the referendum on the political field. Given the chaos in British politics in both major parties and the surprisingly unified, disciplined stance from the continent (plus Ireland), it could well be the most probable case is somewhere south of that, between middle and worst-case scenario.

Note these scenarios are FS and directly connected supporting services only. Given that the rest of the services sector contributes another ~60% of UK GDP and that is also looking shakey there is a real possibility of more than one-tenth of the UK's economic activity disappearing within 2-3 years.
Click to expand...

This is also not counting the effects of Scottish independence, which isn't all that unlikely if UK leaves the EU. Some firms may opt to move to Scotland instead, that Nissan factor is one of them.

I'd recommend you say UK's economic activity moving instead of disappearing though.

McHrozni
 
MikeG said:
Nope.

Financial services 9.6% of UK GDP

Don't believe that one? Well, how about the Bank of England?
Click to expand...

Hope you noticed how fraught with uncertainty the estimates are. As I said, I was working off recollection. So let's agree 9.6% of the economy. Say half is lost. Still a huge hit, on the order of recent declines in the GDP of Brazil.

***
Changing tack for second: after doing some further reading on the financial sector, it seems it may have nefarious effects when it reaches too high a portion of GDP. It could be the case that losing The City would actually be - after much pain - a boon. This is not the reasoning behind Brexit, and I still oppose it, but fair is fair.

Closed my browser and lost most of what I was looking at yesterday, but I found the wiki entry on financialization - a broad topic - quite interesting.
 
Francesca R said:
I don't know what the economy "breaking" means. It is very likely contracting and will experience recession as a very significant number of economic agents (any allocator of scarce capital, whether asset owner or advisor, corporation setting strategy or business allocating capital) push the pause button. How much of a contraction is guesswork as it usually is.
Click to expand...

I am wondering given that some of the indicators, deficit, commercial property, investment by businesses and household debt were already were showing signs of contraction in Q1 and Q2 (according to the Bank of England report yesterday) whether we were already moving towards a technical recession and all that has happened is that Brexit has speeded up that process due to uncertainty. It may be that we are following a Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc argument.
 
Last edited:
MCel58 said:
I am wondering given that some of the indicators, deficit, commercial property, investment by businesses and household debt were already were showing signs of contraction in Q1 and Q2 (according to the Bank of England report yesterday) whether we were already moving towards a technical recession and all that has happened is that Brexit has speeded up that process due to uncertainty. It may be that we are following a Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc argument.
Click to expand...

Referendum on Brexit was injecting uncertainty in the market prior to the referendum itself. Some of the contraction could well be linked to investors withholding money until things cleared up. Opinion polling was close during the entire period. Voting for Brexit worsened the situation, but it was causing uncertainty for many months in advance - half a year is certainly plausible.

McHrozni
 
Ambrosia said:
FTFY

I've already posted about the £4300 worse off a year by 2020 claptrap, then there's the "There will have to be an emergency austerity budget" claptrap.

There were lies on both sides ( I could point to more Remain campaign lies and exaggerations, but it's pointless.)

Both campaigns were run by politicians.

Newsflash: Politicians lie to win elections. They all do. British, French, German, Australian, American, the lot of 'em.

Lots of economists, and people in the finance industry and people in big business had a vested interest in the status quo.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair.

So who should Joe Public believe in all of the lies and exaggerations, and protection of self interest that the referendum campaign was?

The policies of the last couple of governments have left the average person poorly off. It's all too easy to blame the EU, or immigrants, or the fat cat bankers, or <insert villain of choice>. The reality is always more complicated, things are always shades of grey and never black and white.
Click to expand...


Delusional. If you can't see the massive difference in honesty between the campaigns, this conversation is pointless.
 
Ambrosia said:
Both campaigns were run by politicians.

Newsflash: Politicians lie to win elections. They all do. British, French, German, Australian, American, the lot of 'em.
Click to expand...

Good, good. Let the desperation flow through you ... Take your Brexit weapon, strike me down. I am unarmed.

McHrozni
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom