General Election 2017 Poll.

[Corky34]

But politicians, with relatively few exceptions, didn't want to give us a say, so why on earth would they talk about what Brexit involved? I mean, BOTH major parties, them being the only ones that could have taken us out, spent most of the last three decades avoiding the subject and taking us further in, without ANY mandate from the people.

You'll forgive me for not wanting to turn this into a brexit thread so I'll try to keep it short, arguably we had a say about how far we wanted to go ahead with further EU integration at every general election, yes the EU may not have been front and center of peoples minds, yes political parties have flipped and flopped from Eurosceptic to Europhile, however to say we've never had a say seems a little disingenuous.

At the end of the day no matter how duplicitous politicians have been we (in the collective sense) have been just as culpable by allowing such behavior to go unpunished, by reelecting parties that have consistently been shown to have deceived the electorate, as much as it would be nice to lay all the blame at the feet of the politicians, politics is a two way street, just like any other relationship.

Many Remainers now like to pretend, for example, that Leave meant staying in the single market and nobody said it meant Leaving. And that's unmitigated cobblers. I have video recordings, from the likes of Marr, Sunday/Daily Politics and Newsnight, of Cameron and Osborne saying that, and using it as a threat that it would involve that, and Boris, Farage and, IIRC, Gove, among others, all pointing out that the EUs position means we WOULD leave the single market, and tgat legally we'd have to leave at a minimum those parts of the Customs Union that preclude us making our own international trade deals.

The thing is many leave campaigners said exactly that, that leaving wouldn't mean leaving the single market.

[spacein_vader]

Well, even Blair's 1997 landslide victory was on less than 31% of the electorate, yet it gave him a huge majority of seats - 418 out of 660-ish. And that "landslide" was despite very nearly 70% of the electorate not voting Labour.

But that's my point. FPTP and the 'party' system locks us pretty effectively into a "two-party plus protest vote" scheme. If you happen to support one of the protest votes, the best you can do is tactical voting, but inevitably, you'll ultimately be disappointed as the best you can do is get someone you didn't want a bit less than someone else that you REALLY didn't want.

Given that, maybe being the largest minority is about the only mandate they need, because you get more than any other "party" position, and it does produce, usually, a clear winner.

Paraphrasing Churchill .... FPTP is the worst method of deciding an election known to man, except for all the others.

Maybe, in this internetted, connected world, decisions ought to be made hundreds of micro-referenda? Ask the peopke directly.

I'm not sure why that's considered a good thing. Many countries (including our own for 5 years,) have governments that work perfectly well with more than 1 party sharing power.

[Lanky123]

Paraphrasing Churchill .... FPTP is the worst method of deciding an election known to man, except for all the others.

To see what I mean, look at what we voted on in the exit referendum in the mid 70s, and especially on the PROMISES made about what the EC DIDN'T involve. Then look at 'progress' towards a united Europe, mostly via Maastricht (John Major) and Lisbon (Blair/Brown), but also more minor treaties and day-to-day 'erosion' of those promises, all without giving US any say.

Had those self-same politicians had the balls to, first, make the case and second, flaming well get a mandate then I firmly believe we'd have EITHER:-

- exercised sufficient brakes and/or veto to keep the EU as more economic and less politically interfering, OR

- we'd have had a series of arguments, domestically, about signing up for each stage of the EU agenda, and most likely, signed on.

Just trying to understand your views on FPTP? You defend the system, but complain that politicians felt they could ignore issues of the EU for several decades. I would argue this was because there was no chance of a single issue party taking any seats from them (until UKIP). In some form of PR a single issue party might well have garnered say 5-10% of the vote (and crucially seats) much earlier and either stemmed the tide of EU integration or at least required a referendum on any further treaties as a condition of their support for a government.

While there were certainly issues with the Brexit camp's claims, like that £350m, what we deserved from Remain, which included both Government and most of the Opposition, was a rational discussion of both benefits AND drawbacks, and the balance, not a patronising and ludicrous campaign of fear.

Corbyn's infamous 7/10 for the EU sounds pretty balanced to me. Perhaps the man has one or two redeeming qualities.

[Zak33]

I'm voting for Donald Trump cos frankly he's awesome and everything

[Saracen]

Just trying to understand your views on FPTP? You defend the system, but complain that politicians felt they could ignore issues of the EU for several decades. I would argue this was because there was no chance of a single issue party taking any seats from them (until UKIP). In some form of PR a single issue party might well have garnered say 5-10% of the vote (and crucially seats) much earlier and either stemmed the tide of EU integration or at least required a referendum on any further treaties as a condition of their support for a government.

....

Corbyn's infamous 7/10 for the EU sounds pretty balanced to me. Perhaps the man has one or two redeeming qualities.

Corbyn does have some redeeming qualities - sincerity, for a start. I have no doubt he's (largely) very genuine. Thd exceptions being when he's .... forced .... by party realities to adopt positions we KNOW he roesn't hold, like lukewarm pre-referendum support for Remain. Or Trident renewal.

The problem I have with him is that, personally, I regard his Marxist ideology as economically illiterate, a puke-inducing reflection of everything that was wrong with the 60s and 70s, and the amplification of the very worst tax, borrow and spend habits that Labour have long tended towards, and this leaded manifesto puts bells on it, if the leak proves to have any real resemblance to the final item.

While he might be genuine, I believe he'd be a genuine disaster as PM, both personally and policy-wise. I don't yet know who I will vote for, but it won't be Labour while Corbyn, McDonnell, etc, are running it. It'll probably be either the most pro-Brexit local candidate, or the one tactically most likely to keep Labour, and hence Corbyn, out. So far, that appears to be the same one - our local Tory.

[Saracen]

....

The thing is many leave campaigners said exactly that, that leaving that.

Thanks for the clip .... of heavily edited, contextless and dateless clips, a spew of words edited together.

We had 18 months of debate, starting from a position of Leavers not wanting to leave the single market. However, the EU made it blatantly, explicitly and repeatedly clear with their mantra of "no cherry picking", the four freedoms being "indivisible", etc, that control of borders, etc, and market membership was not ever going to happen. That it was all freedoms, or none. And fair enough, it's their EU, so their rules.

The "video" I referred to of BOTH sides spelling out that Leave means ldaving the single market were full interviews, not a few random words, and all within the last week or so. The relevant parts of those, of both sides, were played over and again on just about evrry political show, news roundup and major evening news broadcasts. Anyone with even half an interest in the Brexit referendum can't have missed it, and those (I know a few) disinterested enough to tune out anything Brexit-related can't bitch about it afterwards if they didn't know.

The Brexiter position was explicitly clear - Leave means no membership of the single market because the EU won't allow it. However, we will still have access to it. The terms of that are dependent on the deal, if any, the talks reach.

The terms, however, will not be as advantageous as being members. There will be a cost. BUT .... as an independent nation, out of the CET aspects of the CU, at least, we can make our own trading relationships, including free trade deals where appropriate, with those parts of the planet not in the EU, that being the US, Canada, all of South America, not to mention Commonwealth partners like Australia and New Zealand, and Africa ... oh, and China.

That, in a nutshell, is the Brexit case .... independence, sovereignty, and in regards to trade, that the benefits of being outside the protectionist CET will benefit us more, over time, than the advantages of single market membership.

But either way, the leaders of both sides repeatedly made clear, especially in the last week or two before the vote, that Leaving the EU meant Leaving the single market membership, because the EU had stipulated that it did. Anyone that missed that really wasn't paying much attention.

[Saracen]

I'm not sure why that's considered a good thing. Many countries (including our own for 5 years,) have governments that work perfectly well with more than 1 party sharing power.

And many don't. Try Italy.

It's debatable how well our own power-sharing worked, too. Ask LibDems how it worked out for them? What lots of people voting LD in 2010 apparently thought of ending up with a Tory dog with an LD tail? And, for example, tuition fees.

[scaryjim]

... Ask LibDems how it worked out for them? ...

That was entirely a problem of their own making though; they picked the wrong policy to allow to slide and it bit them in the rear, hard.

I'm sure there are plenty of (mostly ex) Lib Dem MPs who will still tell you that the Lib Dems role in coalition was hugely successful and that they managed to block or tone down a lot of Tory legislation. We can't really tell how true that is because we didn't get to see what the Conservatives would've done had they had a majority in 2010. What is unarguably true is that the coalition government lasted for a full parliament and got a lot of legislation through the house. As a government it worked about as well as any other I can remember, and better than some...

[Corky34]

Thanks for the clip .... of heavily edited, contextless and dateless clips, a spew of words edited together.

We had 18 months of debate, starting from a position of Leavers not wanting to leave the single market. However, the EU made it blatantly, explicitly and repeatedly clear with their mantra of "no cherry picking", the four freedoms being "indivisible", etc, that control of borders, etc, and market membership was not ever going to happen. That it was all freedoms, or none. And fair enough, it's their EU, so their rules.

The "video" I referred to of BOTH sides spelling out that Leave means ldaving the dingld market were full interviews, not a few random words, and all within the last week or so. The relevant parts of those, of both sides, were played over and again on just about evrry political show, news roundup and major evening news broadcasts. Anyone with even half an interest in the Brexit referendum can't have missed it, and those (I know a few) disinterested enough to tune out anything Brexit-related can't bitch about it afterwards if they didn't know.

The Brexiter position was explicitly clear - Leave means no membership of the single market because the EU won't allow it. However, we will still have access to it. The terms of that are dependent on the deal, if any, the talks reach.

The terms, however, will not be as advantageous as being members. There will be a cost. BUT .... as an independent nation, out of the CET aspects of the CU, at least, we can make our own trading relationships, including free trade deals where appropriate, with those parts of the planet not in the EU, that being the US, Canada, all of South America, not to mention Commonwealth partners like Australia and New Zealand, and Africa ... oh, and China.

That, in a nutshell, is the Brexit case .... independence, sovereignty, and in regards to trade, that the benefits of being outside the protectionist CET will benefit us more, over time, than the advantages of single market membership.

But either way, the leaders of both sides repeatedly made clear, especially in the last week or two before the vote, that Leaving the EU meant Leaving the single market membership, because the EU had stipulated that it did. Anyone that missed that really wasn't paying much attention.

Sorry but you did say "Many Remainers now like to pretend, for example, that Leave meant staying in the single market and nobody said it meant Leaving." when that's clearly not true, Remainers aren't pretending, that's what many people who supported leaving had said, you can certainly say leavers were being ambiguous and misleading but to say leavers never said leave meant staying in the single market is just plain wrong.

And as for the leave side changing their mind because the EU said no that's frankly laughable, not only because their position should have been settled long before the 3 months leading up to the referendum, but also since when did the people campaigning for leaving the EU take the EU's word as gospel, or for that matter anyone's.

[cheesemp]

That, in a nutshell, is the Brexit case .... independence, sovereignty, and in regards to trade, that the benefits of being outside the protectionist CET will benefit us more, over time, than the advantages of single market membership.

Sorry to take part of your argument but I keep seeing this being mentioned and I just don't believe it. How will the 40%+ of our trade that we do with Europe be replaced by trade outside of Europe - China, India and American are all currently ruled by protectionist governments. I just don't see us making big trade gains from Africa/Asia either... Sure we might make say 20% more trade but no way we can make back the 40%+ we have with Europe with low transport and tariff free access that currently exist.

[badass]

Corbyn does have some redeeming qualities - sincerity, for a start. I have no doubt he's (largely) very genuine. Thd exceptions being when he's .... forced .... by party realities to adopt positions we KNOW he roesn't hold, like lukewarm pre-referendum support for Remain. Or Trident renewal.

The problem I have with him is that, personally, I regard his Marxist ideology as economically illiterate, a puke-inducing reflection of everything that was wrong with the 60s and 70s, and the amplification of the very worst tax, borrow and spend habits that Labour have long tended towards, and this leaded manifesto puts bells on it, if the leak proves to have any real resemblance to the final item.

While he might be genuine, I believe he'd be a genuine disaster as PM, both personally and policy-wise. I don't yet know who I will vote for, but it won't be Labour while Corbyn, McDonnell, etc, are running it. It'll probably be either the most pro-Brexit local candidate, or the one tactically most likely to keep Labour, and hence Corbyn, out. So far, that appears to be the same one - our local Tory.

I was going to write more but this exactly sums up my feelings of Corbyn. The way he speaks and considers many things is a breath of fresh air. He has a very good point on many of the things he says and puts them in a respectful manner appropriate in a proper debate. Not the usual punch and Judy crap that others practice. I actually align with him on many of the less popular things he says.

However. Letting him and McDonnell in would be a complete disaster for the country, both economically or socially. Completely clueless on how to run an economy, party or country. Having seen the leaked manifesto, it's living in la la land.

We'll give all of the many more money (by which they mean all of the whingers and spongers*) that earn less than the top 40% of earners by increasing taxes on the rich further. The problem is, country to popular belief, tax on the richest has been increasing continuously for at least the last 10 years when compared to tax for everyone else. There gets a point when the marginal tax rates are so high that people either don't bother trying to earn any more and just cut back on income e.g. by working less hard for the bonus, doing less hours/days for clients getting more holiday or in extreme cases its enough to make them consider a move abroad.

The most obviously I see that is the £100,000 Taper. It puts the effective tax rate at 62% on every pound earned between £100,000 and £122,000. i.e. you get 38p for every pound earned. Plus your employer pays an additional 13.8%
This is a huge discouragement for those that are in that band. Nothing discourages those in the private sector more than the feeling that they are working more for the government than themselves

McDonnell proposes increasing NI by a further 7.5% for those over £70,000 increasing the marginal tax rate to 49.5% for over £70,000, to 69.5% for £100-£122,000 and to 54.5% for those on over £150,000. I'm sure that all of a sudden the ridiculously expensive housing in Switzerland looks cheap!



*whingers and spongers - yes unless you are earning at least £40,000 pa then you are a net sponger from the state. That is that you take more in benefits (e.g. tax credits) and benefits in kind (e.g NHS, schools) than you give.**





** Yes that's supposed to be tongue in cheek but the numbers are true.

[scaryjim]

... How will the 40%+ of our trade that we do with Europe be replaced by trade outside of Europe ...

It won't - we'll still trade in Europe, but likely with much less favourable terms. In fact, it's almost inevitable that the terms will be less favourable, since we currently trade freely with the other EU/EEA countries. I don't see any way that the EU will allow the UK completely unfettered access to that market. After all, if they're as protectionist as Saracen says it's likely that they'll aim to make it as hard as possible for us to trade there.

No, the plan isn't to replace the trade with Europe, it's to negotiate our own trade deals with non-EEA countries (instead of being tied into the EU deals) that will be more favourable than the jointly negotiated deals. This more favourable trading arrangement with the rest of the world will offset any financial impact caused by our less favourable trading arrangement with Europe.

Of course, that relies on the government at the time being able to negotiate a better trade deal than the EU currently has in place. But I think we can all agree that it's perfectly rational to expect a single country with no experienced trade negotiators to have no problem carving itself out a better deal than a 28 country block with almost 50 years of trade negotiation experience...

[spacein_vader]

And many don't. Try Italy.

It's debatable how well our own piwer-sharing worked, too. Ask LibDems how it worked out for them? What lots of people voting LD in 2010 apparently thought of ending up with a Tory dog with an LD tail? And, for example, tuition fees.

Most of Italy's governmental issues have been with corruption rather than anything to do with multiparty governance. FPTP wouldn't have made any difference to that.

Our power sharing worked perfectly well, bills were proposed, debated and passed. Government didn't grind to a halt, the executive wasn't paralysed by indecision and none of the other horror stories mentioned by those who favoured single party control did either. If anything bills got more scrutiny than they would otherwise, having to be agreed by both ruling parties before the Commons scrutiny began. The system worked.

The fact that one party had a large backlash from it was largely down to 2 things. The first was (as has been mentioned,) letting 1 of their big commitments fall by the wayside so publicly and so early. The 2nd is down to perception. People are used to voting in a single party government and then judging it by what that party promised. In a multi party system there will (by definition,) have to be compromise. Add to that a media that was keen to champion a return to a single party and you get the backlash.

I voted LD in 2010 and I was quite pleased with how the 2 parties worked together and curbed each others more extreme excesses. Cleggs only fault was to concede the wrong policy IMO.

[Lanky123]

Corbyn does have some redeeming qualities - sincerity, for a start. I have no doubt he's (largely) very genuine. Thd exceptions being when he's .... forced .... by party realities to adopt positions we KNOW he roesn't hold, like lukewarm pre-referendum support for Remain. Or Trident renewal.

The problem I have with him is that, personally, I regard his Marxist ideology as economically illiterate, a puke-inducing reflection of everything that was wrong with the 60s and 70s, and the amplification of the very worst tax, borrow and spend habits that Labour have long tended towards, and this leaked manifesto puts bells on it, if the leak proves to have any real resemblance to the final item.

While he might be genuine, I believe he'd be a genuine disaster as PM, both personally and policy-wise. I don't yet know who I will vote for, but it won't be Labour while Corbyn, McDonnell, etc, are running it. It'll probably be either the most pro-Brexit local candidate, or the one tactically most likely to keep Labour, and hence Corbyn, out. So far, that appears to be the same one - our local Tory.

I agree with large portions of that. However, I don't see the Tories as a credible alternative in (long term) economic terms either.

In the short term cut, cut, cut and selling stuff off will balance the books (almost). However, while socialists eventually run out of other people's money the Tories will eventually run out of stuff to sell. While I'm happy with a free market approach in areas where you can actually induce competition, in many instances the Tories seem intent upon privatising things out of dogmatic persistence rather than because the numbers add up (I'll leave suggestions of self-interest on the part of certain MPs/donors for now).

The current state of schools is disastrous. Bringing in private companies has resulted in precisely zero competition as far as I can see. There is no easy way for parents to move students between schools en masse so where would competition come from? Teachers are subjected to a multitude of 'performance' related targets which not only detracts from teaching time but ensures nobody who has a choice chooses to teach. Which means there is *less* competition for teaching positions (especially in key STEM subjects). Which is kind of the important bit. The students currently being taught will be the ones keeping the economy running in future decades when automation will have removed a huge number of manual/unskilled jobs. If teachers are reduced to paperwork and larger class size crowd control where will we be in 20 years time? Who cares, that's another government's problem.

I understand the need to control NHS costs, but the rising costs are largely due to demographic changes and newly available treatments, not because a publicly funded NHS is an inefficient model. You cannot make any 'competition' induced savings by selling chunks of it off to one company which will then have a monopoly in that sector. And god forbid we end up in a USA style insurance system where there is an active incentive to get people addicted to medication. To my mind the best financial model would be a public NHS where decisions can be made in the interests of public health, but with a reduced list of available treatments if necessary. And increase social care in the community/mental health care where things can be dealt with cheaply before they reach A&E. But no, we get pretty much the opposite of that. Why? Because in the short term those are the easier bits to cut and the benefits of a sensible solution might not be felt for a while. In the long term? Who cares, it's someone else's problem.

Railways? I'm open to an intelligently designed private sector option there, because if you had multiple operators running services on each line customers could choose which to travel with. But nope, a monopoly on each line is the way to introduce 'competition' apparently.

I could go on, but I doubt too many people are reading by this point - fundamentally, I see the choice between Labour and the Tories as a choice about *when* the excrement hits the fan. And that is why I would absolutely back a change in the electoral system - because both dominant parties seem intent upon pushing bone-headed solutions. In this election I would ideally like the Lib Dems to have another opportunity to temper the extremes of one of the main parties again. And if they can push for a genuinely proportional electoral system in the process then all the better.

[Saracen]

That was entirely a problem of their own making though; they picked the wrong policy to allow to slide and it bit them in the rear, hard.

I'm sure there are plenty of (mostly ex) Lib Dem MPs who will still tell you that the Lib Dems role in coalition was hugely successful and that they managed to block or tone down a lot of Tory legislation. We can't really tell how true that is because we didn't get to see what the Conservatives would've done had they had a majority in 2010. What is unarguably true is that the coalition government lasted for a full parliament and got a lot of legislation through the house. As a government it worked about as well as any other I can remember, and better than some...

Oh, I'd agree ... to a point.

We needed .... sorry about this ... "strong and stable government" ( ) at that time as never before, in the turbulent post-crash era, and I wholeheartedly admire Clegg and Co for putting Country ahead of Party and doing the deal. Especially given that some (private) comments they made that I'm aware of makes it clear they knew there was a strong likelihood of a serious electoral cost come the next election. Whether they realised quite how bad is another matter.

My point was a bit different.

Getting a coalition in the UK under FPTP is the exception that proves the rule. All predictions suggest it'll be the rule under PR. And, as soon as we had a coalition, people voting Tory didn't get the government they voted for, and people voting LD sure as hell didn't.

So, whether voting Tory or LD, after thecekection party mandarins disappear into a back room, do all sorts of horse-trading of this policy or position for that, agree a cosy little stitch-up between them, then present it to the country and pretend they have a mandate.

So, assume a good proportion of LD voters voted LD because of a cast-iron, written pledge on tuition fees, only to find that THAT us one of the things horse-traded away? Those voters may have voted Labour had they known. And EU-sceptical Tories may have voted UKIP rather than have a referendum traded away under LD pressure.

The danger wit coalitions is that the coalition can end up agreeing a position that a large number of voters on both sides do not support, and would have voted elsewhere had they known.

FPTP and PR both have major weaknesses, in the sense of how "democratic" they are. Not that our system is truly democratic at all, when what we have is a conjuring trick pretending to be democratic, but in fact relying on FPTP to keep it at a 2.x party system, with "parties" and the whip system, and as if that's not bad enough, MPs as "representatives" that consider themselves elected to exercise their judgement on an issue, not to representvthe will of their constituents. The whole thing is a monumental con-job bearing, either in FPTP or PR implementations, only a passing resemblance to actual democracy.

And when we do get a truly democratic decision, such as "Leave the EU" we get LibDems, and others, trying to frustrate that, reframe the question, pretend it didn't mean Leave if leave means 'that' type of leave, and even threatening to use their wholly disproportionate representation in the UNELECTED Lords to slow down, frustrate, weaken and if possible, prevent, Brexit. What was it they promised for post-art50? Grind it to a halt" in the Lords?

All that respect I had for LDs going into coalition evaporated when they decided to frustrate and try to reinterpret the one major national referendum we've had in 40-odd years.

It's like this. We had 18 months of debate, most of it admittedly of an incredibly low standard, at least among both -professional' sides.

Then we were asked a BINARY question - Leave or Remain.

And though a proportion of those on the losing side don't seem to want to accept it, the decision as "Leave". Not "leave if we can stay in tne single market", not "leave if we get £350m a week for the NHS". Not "Leave if our peers in the Lords agree".

Not even "Leave if those voting Remain can stomach it" (though, as a matter of fact, a large part of the Remain vote DO accept, despite not liking it, that the result was Leave). Certainly not "Leave if our peers don't dislike any exit deal".

The referendum result was Leave. Period. The ONLY democratic thing to do is to assume that ALL voters evaluated all the various implications (both financial and otherwise) of leave to the best of their individual abilities and understanding, and decided, on balance that their choice from that unqualifued binary option was "Leave".

Failure to accept THAT amounts to either negating the democratic expression of the people, however qualified that opinion is, or saying "damn democracy, do what WE think is best."

[Saracen]

It won't - we'll still trade in Europe, but likely with much less favourable terms. In fact, it's almost inevitable that the terms will be less favourable, since we currently trade freely with the other EU/EEA countries. I don't see any way that the EU will allow the UK completely unfettered access to that market. After all, if they're as protectionist as Saracen says it's likely that they'll aim to make it as hard as possible for us to trade there.

No, the plan isn't to replace the trade with Europe, it's to negotiate our own trade deals with non-EEA countries (instead of being tied into the EU deals) that will be more favourable than the jointly negotiated deals. This more favourable trading arrangement with the rest of the world will offset any financial impact caused by our less favourable trading arrangement with Europe.

Of course, that relies on the government at the time being able to negotiate a better trade deal than the EU currently has in place. But I think we can all agree that it's perfectly rational to expect a single country with no experienced trade negotiators to have no problem carving itself out a better deal than a 28 country block with almost 50 years of trade negotiation experience...

There's no doubt about the protectionism - thst is the sole function of the CET and CU - protect those inside the block from thise outside it by imposing both tariff and non-tariff barriers.

HOWEVER ... the existence of various "deals", from FTA's to the Norway, Switzerland type deals says the world is more complicated than a one-size-fits-all barrier.

So .... why did Switzerland, Norway etc, and countries that have done, or seek to fo, FTAs do so? Because a deal can be found that suits BOTH sides.

I do agree that that 40% figure (and there's arguments about exactly what that is, with teans-shipping etc taken into account) will not "be lost". It MIGHT reduce, and again, I agree, terms are very likely to be less favourable. But, both sides have a very large vested interest in coming to a deal, not least because the UK is a net importer by quite a karge margin, and especially in relation to UK-Germany trade.

So, trade may go down, at least short-term, but by nowhere near 40%. Costs may go up ... but in both directions.

And, once out, the UK has options to trade on bilaterally agreed terms, or FTA once signed, with the rest of the world. So, if trading with, oh, the US or Japan, for example, we AREN'T then subject to EU CU tariffs, or non-tariff barriers.

And while NOBODY knows how that turns out, because NOBODY knows the future, it seems perverse to assume that while being subject to EU CU measues will depress trade with the EU, not being subhect to them with RoW won't stimulate trade with RoW.

This is one card the government can and should play in Brexit talks and, I'd suggest, a significant factor in Nissan's reaction to Brexit. The EU does not have the option we do, post-Brexit. If any deal is too harsh, too punitive, WE, the UK consumer, will have the option to buy from non-EU sources that aren't subject to EU protectionism .... such as Japanese cars, US computer parts and tech, and both high and low tech from right across Asia. Or, given a mutually acceptable deal, carry on trading via the EU.

So, when I buy my next car, do I look at BMW, Mercedes and Audi, or Honda, Toyota and Nissan? When I buy my next set of kitchen knives, German steel or Japanese? Do I buy meats from the EU or New Zealand?

Each of the countless decisions like this WILL be affected by both trading terms, maybe FTAs, with third-parties like Haoanvand Australia, and being outside EU barriers with the Rest of the World, and, of course, whatever the post-Brexit deal with the EU proves to be.

Will being outside the EU CU have costs? Almost certainly. Will EU trade reduce? Probably, though by how much depends on that deal ... and cuts both ways. And in the short term.

But in the medium and long term, I can se no reason why increased trade with the 6.5bn people in the RoW should not compensate, and indeed exceed, losses with the 440m in the EU. And yes, large numbers of those 6.5bn are in poverty, but that's descreasing as China, South America and even Africa start to catch up, and parts of South America and much of Asia is already well underway. It is, IMHO, where both future growth and prosperity lie, and if I were even 20 years younger, it's sure as hell where most of my business attention would be focussed. I'd also be frantically polishing my Japanese and learning Mandarin.