Almost There! Hexus EU Referendum Straw Poll #2

[opel80uk]

I'm not defending Andrew Roberts on internment; If Andrew Roberts is right wing and was wrong about Irish internment, it doesn't make his observations on the EU/UK situation, wrong by default.

My point was that by expressing such fundamental prejudices he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, objective. I am in no way surprised that he would think the UK is somehow 'special' and deserving of different treatment, and I'm sure there are equally German, French, Italian etc historians who are of the similar ilk with regards to their own country. It is of course, all nonsense - the UK is no more special than any other country is special, each with it's own unique history, culture socio-economics and politics. And by the way, i've actually read Roberts; he's the sort of historian that one reads to confirm ones own already set particular narrative, rather than to get informed.

Well, maybe that's the bottom line that vindicates the current situation. The UK needed the flexibility that the EU could not or would not provide and it decided to leave. I'm still of the opinion that certain elements of the EU elite were in denial as to what was about to happen and had they'd known, they may have made a last ditch offer of some sorts. This event was literally unprecedented, so maybe it just caught them with their pants down.. shock, panic and anger ensued.

Of course that's your opinion, and you are entitled to have it, but I don't see what offer anyone could possibly expect the EU to make. In that regard, perhaps you are right and that for the sake of the rest of the EU, it was better the UK leave. You can only tolerate a brat for so long.

I'm not saying Neil's opinion was a definitive case for Brexit and I'm merely pointing out there was hysterical stampeding by both sides using any info that came to hand including economists who were willing to cooperate with one side or the other for whatever reason. The vast majority of the roughly 4000 economists contacted by the Remain camp, didn't reply at all. Neil Woodford simply didn't take sides, he just stated his opinion, adopting a neutral stance.

The problem with saying X amount of economists say this scenario is good and that Y amount of economists say some other scenario is good, is that it doesn't hold much weight. Too many economists said it be a disaster for Britain to leave ERM in '92 and they turned out to be wrong, same again with the Euro and perhaps the same again now. Another example would be the majority of economist's did not predict the '07/'08 crash. The few economists that did were literally laughed at on interviews and in printed media, before things really started falling off the edge.

If there are choppy seas ahead for the UK, the pound will likely devalue and the UK export it's way out, even with the likes of Juncker possibly threatening retribution in some form.

I would be hesitant to compare economists to doctors by the way!

Did leaving the ERM not cost billions to the tax payer? I mean, I know it's hard to actually define disaster, and i'm no economist, but to me that sounds pretty bad. Of course, a lot of investors made a fortune, and dare I say it, a lot of Rich Brits richer, so perhaps that evens it all up.

The main, and obvious, difference with the 07/08 crash is that a lot of that was caused by external factors that the UK had no control over, and perhaps even no knowledge of. This is different.

[The Hand]

It's not much use going on 3 year old data, it's why i specifically said 2015, I'd be interested where you're getting this 2nd largest in contribution figure from though as all statistics I've seen show we've not been the 2nd largest contributor, ever, in fact in 2013 Italy made more in contributions than us, we were 4th largest back then.

Re: Devalued pound: The effect won't balance itself out as we trade at a deficit, a £10.4bn deficit, and tariffs aren't going to make the slightest difference, for one it's going to take years before we can impose any tariffs, and secondly even if we abolished tariffs on all imports it wouldn't make up for the devaluation.

That's not really the point though, with regards to the contributions. Why would the EU risk letting an EU country that is either the 2nd or 3rd net contributor leave rather than make a proper deal? It's not like the UK was like Greece costing the EU hundreds of billions of Euros in bailouts.

On the devalued pound the UK has been operating a with trade deficit for years, I don't expect it to evaporate of night. The EU tariffs on the non-EU food could disappear once the UK is outside the EU. So The UK could import cheaper food from non-EU sources. The price of food could fall more than or in line with the devalued pound.

[excalibur2]

That's not really the point though, with regards to the contributions. Why would the EU risk letting an EU country that is either the 2nd or 3rd net contributor leave rather than make a proper deal? It's not like the UK was like Greece costing the EU hundreds of billions of Euros in bailouts.

On the devalued pound the UK has operating at with trade deficit for years, I don't expect it to evaporate of night. EU tariffs on the non-EU food make. Such tariffs could disappear once the UK is outside the EU. So The UK could import cheaper food from non-EU sources. The price of food could fall more than or in line with the devalued pound.

Probably most don't remember (for example) the butter mountains when the price of butter was artificially kept high and yet to reduce the mountain sold it off to Russia at dirt cheap prices.

[Corky34]

That's not really the point though, with regards to the contributions.

Yes it is, it's the point you raised here when you said "The UK is/was the second largest contributor to the EU budget, so maybe it deserved to be spoiled from time to time."

Why would the EU risk letting an EU country that is either the 2nd or 3rd net contributor leave rather than make a proper deal? It's not like the UK was like Greece costing the EU hundreds of billions of Euros in bailouts.

Maybe because they already offered a proper deal, they've bent over backwards to accommodate the cantankerous, petulant, and reluctant member throughout the years, a member that they never wanted in the first place, a member that begged to be let in no less than 3 times because it was the sick man of Europe.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Trust Frankie Boyle to put a funny(if not politically correct) spin on things:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b08d2c5638f1d0

[DanceswithUnix]

[The Hand]

My point was that by expressing such fundamental prejudices he is not, by any stretch of the imagination, objective. I am in no way surprised that he would think the UK is somehow 'special' and deserving of different treatment, and I'm sure there are equally German, French, Italian etc historians who are of the similar ilk with regards to their own country. It is of course, all nonsense - the UK is no more special than any other country is special, each with it's own unique history, culture socio-economics and politics. And by the way, i've actually read Roberts; he's the sort of historian that one reads to confirm ones own already set particular narrative, rather than to get informed.

I do try and read through articles/books/media across the political spectrum. I'm always trying to avoid reaffirming my own biases. I'm a fan of Simon Schama as well, who was in favour of remain and Niall Ferguson too also a remainer. I'm just getting into Mary Beard stuff now too who is also a remainer!
I'm not sure which side, if any, Robert Miles and Robert Bartlett are on though. Probably conflicted!

When I say the UK is different within the EU, specifically I mean at this very juncture inside the EU. The Eurozone is at a crossroads and will need radical reform in order for it to work. Possibly, a collective debt pool/eurobonds(post-Merkel) for all Eurozone countries will be required in the years ahead. Legislation and treaties will probably favour this new EU/Eurozone reality and could be pushed through to the possible detriment of non-Euro EU states such as the UK.

The UK being a non-Euro country with the Eurozone probably on the verge of significant change, in my view, it was reasonable to expect significant change (not Cameron's deal) that protected the UK's position indefinitely with no possible outflanking by new laws or treaties. Denmark and Sweden would probably fall into this scenario as well, but don't have the clout of a larger country do anything about it.

Of course that's your opinion, and you are entitled to have it, but I don't see what offer anyone could possibly expect the EU to make. In that regard, perhaps you are right and that for the sake of the rest of the EU, it was better the UK leave. You can only tolerate a brat for so long.

Judging by the number of referendums other EU countries have had, I don't think the UK is only spoilt brat out there. Britain has only had two referendums - joining and leaving the EU. Denmark appears to be the most prolific, winning concessions after the Maastricht treaty two referendum farce. It was probably a mistake to deny the referendums in the UK on the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties, as resentment may have built up over time.

Did leaving the ERM not cost billions to the tax payer? I mean, I know it's hard to actually define disaster, and i'm no economist, but to me that sounds pretty bad. Of course, a lot of investors made a fortune, and dare I say it, a lot of Rich Brits richer, so perhaps that evens it all up.

The main, and obvious, difference with the 07/08 crash is that a lot of that was caused by external factors that the UK had no control over, and perhaps even no knowledge of. This is different.

There was no way the UK could have realistically stayed in the ERM without destroying the UK economy in a similar way the Euro has done with the Mediterranean countries. Yes, people suffered after the UK left the ERM, but it could have been an awful lot worse had the UK tried to stay in.

I was talking about economists in general with relation the 07/08 crisis. It's still a relevant comparison in my opinion, as it draws into question how legitimate opinions of large numbers of economists are, when they turn out to be wrong.

[The Hand]

Yes it is, it's the point you raised here when you said "The UK is/was the second largest contributor to the EU budget, so maybe it deserved to be spoiled from time to time.

The 2013 contributions don't count now? If the UK and France were/are jockeying for 2nd position in contributions, it still doesn't change the point I'm making. Why let the UK leave? Why not listen and change?

Maybe because they already offered a proper deal, they've bent over backwards to accommodate the cantankerous, petulant, and reluctant member throughout the years, a member that they never wanted in the first place, a member that begged to be let in no less than 3 times because it was the sick man of Europe.

That just feels like a rhetorical statement? You're claiming the EEC/EU saved the UK? I think you're giving it too much credit. There were many other factors coming into play too at that point in time.

[TooNice]

Xenophobia showing it's ugly face. We know why they voted for Brexit..

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Xenophobia showing it's ugly face. We know why they voted for Brexit..

It gets worse:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...396075?q7fzuxr

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Also:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0d2571149cffd

Faisal Islam, Sky News Journalist, Says Pro-Brexit MP Told Him ‘Leave Campaign Don’t Have A Plan’

[aramil]

Also:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0d2571149cffd


Faisal Islam, Sky News Journalist, Says Pro-Brexit MP Told Him ‘Leave Campaign Don’t Have A Plan’

Surely thats the Governments Job? in the scottish referendum they had both a stay & leave plan (even though they where pushing for stay)...... Surely when you, as a government, call for a referendum you should have a responce planned for either outcome? screams more of a inept/useless government than anything else. It's not like either leave "group" would actually be incharge of enacting a leave vote.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Surely thats the Governments Job? in the scottish referendum they had both a stay & leave plan (even though they where pushing for stay)...... Surely when you, as a government, call for a referendum you should have a responce planned for either outcome? screams more of a inept/useless government than anything else. It's not like either leave "group" would actually be incharge of enacting a leave vote.

Well I am more interested in the Leave group also not apparently having any plan at all - I would expect them poo-pooing all the Leave campaign's economic reasons due to them having some sort of idea of what they were going to do.

Did they also really expect,David Cameron to be the one who voted to stay,to be the one to push the button.

There has been a lot of indication of in-fighting in the Tory party and Cameron feeling he was betrayed by Johnson,et al.

This is all crap and its us who is going to pay for it all.

In fact I read this comment somewhere recently:

"If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

This indicates how personal this has become for many of the politicians involved in this - Labour is disintegrating and Cameron just made a big eff you to the rest of the conservatives.

The whole political system is in chaos - its like a couple of headless chickens running around the coup.

Edit!!

Ignore the referendum annul stuff - that is crap,but the rest at the end is what is interesting.

Anybody triggering Article 50 will have to take the brunt of any ill effects at least in the short term.

[TooNice]

The whole political system is in chaos - its like a couple of headless chickens running around the coup.

Ignore the referendum annul stuff - that is crap,but the rest at the end is what is interesting.

Anybody triggering Article 50 will have to take the brunt of any ill effects at least in the short term.

If not for the consequence of the situation (while all this is happening, they can't be focussed on running the country), I'd say that it's all rather entertaining.

Well, whoever is the next PM needs to be rather brilliant at being a politician, and preferably be a Jedi to persuade the public that it's not really his/her fault.

And, geez. In relation to the other link, it is worse than I thought. I need to make a trip back to the UK later this summer, but if that's the atmosphere, I'll be out as soon as I can (Wonder how things are in Scotland)

[Corky34]

The 2013 contributions don't count now?

Since when did anyone say they don't count?
I believe what i said is that saying we were the second biggest contributor to the EU budget was no correct.

If the UK and France were/are jockeying for 2nd position in contributions, it still doesn't change the point I'm making. Why let the UK leave? Why not listen and change?

Because of all the points I've already made, the UK already had the sweetest deal of all EU member states and yet they wanted more, there comes a time that treating one member of a community like daddies little princes wears a little thin, there comes a time when your patience runs thin and you couldn't care less if the spoilt little brat leaves home.

That just feels like a rhetorical statement? You're claiming the EEC/EU saved the UK? I think you're giving it too much credit. There were many other factors coming into play too at that point in time.

No, it's not a rhetorical statement, it's not a claim, it's fact.

[The Hand]

Since when did anyone say they don't count?
I believe what i said is that saying we were the second biggest contributor to the EU budget was no correct.



Because of all the points I've already made, the UK already had the sweetest deal of all EU member states and yet they wanted more, there comes a time that treating one member of a community like daddies little princes wears a little thin, there comes a time when your patience runs thin and you couldn't care less if the spoilt little brat leaves home.



No, it's not a rhetorical statement, it's not a claim, it's fact.

What's a fact? The UK was in dire straits in the 70's? Yes, true. Or that the EEC/EU saved it? The latter is false.