UK Votes to leave EU

First Up · 11-10-2016 07:40AM

Fratton Fred wrote:

My understanding is that a lot of the leave votes were based on wage deflation caused by endless amounts of cheap labour, rather than the belief the country was better off making its own trade deals.

So what happened to all the Romanians and Poles who were supposed to be flooding in just to claim benefits? Don't tell me these immigrants actually want to work?

A Dub in Glasgo · 11-10-2016 07:43AM

and the UK will just boot every job hunter from abroad out and then apply controls?

Peregrinus · 11-10-2016 08:16AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

My understanding is that a lot of the leave votes were based on wage deflation caused by endless amounts of cheap labour, rather than the belief the country was better off making its own trade deals.

We may be overthinking this. Could I suggest that a lot of the "leave" vote was motivated by a belief, or a perception, that whatever additional prosperity did accrue as a result of EU membership was accruing to the 1%, so to speak, and not to the 99%? It's possible to believe this without being too specific about the exact mechanisms that are bringing this about. "Maybe EU free movement rules make it easy to import cheap labour, and so depress wages. Maybe EU free trade rules make it easy to export jobs, and so increase unemployment. It doesn't matter; either way, I get screwed and the benefits accrue to the like of Nigel Farage (Dulwich College; Drexel Burnham & Lambert; Credit Lyonnais) and Boris Johnson (Eton College; Balliol College, Oxford)."

I mention the class and background of Farage and Johnson not just to score a cheap point (though I like scoring cheap points just as much as the next bloke) but to highlight the fact that, even if the 99% have been screwed during the UK's membership of the EU, there's no reason to think that terminating the UK's membership of the EU will do anything to change that, which is why people from such backgrounds are happy to support the Brexit campaign. Across the EU, income inequality and wealth inequality vary quite widely, so it's entirely possible to pursue policies within the EU which make for social inclusion and a "fair share" for all in whatever prosperity is happening. Conversely, it's entirely possible to be outside the EU and not pursue such policies.

Fratton Fred · 11-10-2016 08:23AM

First Up wrote: »

So what happened to all the Romanians and Poles who were supposed to be flooding in just to claim benefits? Don't tell me these immigrants actually want to work?

They are all in Ireland eating swans.

11-10-2016 08:50AM

maryishere wrote: »

And its economy is stlll better than the EU.
The share of world output accounted for by the 28 current members of the EU has fallen from 30% to 16.5% from 1980 to 2016.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/

Because China.

That's a woeful statistic. I'm shocked that the IMF even provide it.

From the G20, only China, India, South Korea, Indonesia and Argentina have increased their proportion in the past 25 years.

https://www.quandl.com/collections/economics/gdp-as-share-of-world-gdp-at-ppp-by-country

Would there be any sound reason for this? Perhaps, just perhaps, they started from a lower base 25 years ago with far more capacity in their economies?

First Up · 11-10-2016 08:58AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

They are all in Ireland eating swans.

Plenty of swans in the UK.

R P McMurphy · 11-10-2016 09:04AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

We may be overthinking this. Could I suggest that a lot of the "leave" vote was motivated by a belief, or a perception, that whatever additional prosperity did accrue as a result of EU membership was accruing to the 1%, so to speak, and not to the 99%? It's possible to believe this without being too specific about the exact mechanisms that are bringing this about. "Maybe EU free movement rules make it easy to import cheap labour, and so depress wages. Maybe EU free trade rules make it easy to export jobs, and so increase unemployment. It doesn't matter; either way, I get screwed and the benefits accrue to the like of Nigel Farage (Dulwich College; Drexel Burnham & Lambert; Credit Lyonnais) and Boris Johnson (Eton College; Balliol College, Oxford)."

I mention the class and background of Farage and Johnson not just to score a cheap point (though I like scoring cheap points just as much as the next bloke) but to highlight the fact that, even if the 99% have been screwed during the UK's membership of the EU, there's no reason to think that terminating the UK's membership of the EU will do anything to change that, which is why people from such backgrounds are happy to support the Brexit campaign. Across the EU, income inequality and wealth inequality vary quite widely, so it's entirely possible to pursue policies within the EU which make for social inclusion and a "fair share" for all in whatever prosperity is happening. Conversely, it's entirely possible to be outside the EU and not pursue such policies.

The possibility of the further erosion or employment rights being exacerbated with the removal of EU regulations must be a very real concern. Looking at some of the exponents of brexit it might not auger well.

Peregrinus · 11-10-2016 09:08AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Because China.

That's a woeful statistic. I'm shocked that the IMF even provide it.

From the G20, only China, India, South Korea, Indonesia and Argentina have increased their proportion in the past 25 years.

https://www.quandl.com/collections/economics/gdp-as-share-of-world-gdp-at-ppp-by-country

Would there be any sound reason for this? Perhaps, just perhaps, they started from a lower base 25 years ago with far more capacity in their economies?

If we're talking about shares of world output, then any increase in anybody's share must be balanced by a corresponding reduction in someone else's share. That's how shares work, really. Unless we think that there is some iron law of nature by which each countries share of world output is fixed, then (a) we should expect every country's share of world output to vary over time, and (b) the shares of developing countries will tend to rise because that's pretty much what "developing" means, and the the shares of developed countries will tend to fall.

Why does the IMF publish this data? Because it's evidence that the countries concerned are developing countries. It's important and relevant data. It just doesn't bear the construction that maryishere puts on it.

Peregrinus · 11-10-2016 09:15AM

R P McMurphy wrote: »

The possibility of the further erosion or employment rights being exacerbated with the removal of EU regulations must be a very real concern. Looking at some of the exponents of brexit it might not auger well.

Well, yes. All that unites the supporters of Brexit is their support for Brexit. Everyone has already commented on the fact that, when the Brexiters unexpectedly won the Brexit vote, there was no Brexit plan - as in, there was no common vision among Brexit supporters of what the UK wanted instead of EU membership. Even now, the British government is only slowly feeling there way towards formulating a vision of the kind of Brexit they want. But it's undoubtedly the case that a chunk of Brexit supporters - by no means all, but a chunk - oppose the EU because they think it's too communitarian, too focussed on solidarity and inclusivity, too cosy and corporate, and their ideals are neoliberal, individualistic and generally aligned with the right wing of the US Republican party. Obviously the kind of Brexit that they would like is going to do nothing at all for Brexit voters who feel that, up to now, they have been getting the sh1tty end of the stick. It could get a lot sh1ttier for them.

FrancieBrady · 11-10-2016 09:16AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

If we're talking about shares of world output, then any increase in anybody's share must be balanced by a corresponding reduction in someone else's share. That's how shares work, really. Unless we think that there is some iron law of nature by which each countries share of world output is fixed, then (a) we should expect every country's share of world output to vary over time, and (b) the shares of developing countries will tend to rise because that's pretty much what "developing" means, and the the shares of developed countries will tend to fall.

Why does the IMF publish this data? Because it's evidence that the countries concerned are developing countries. It's important and relevant data. It just doesn't bear the construction that maryishere puts on it.

You need to look at Mary, A Litte Pony and Fratton Fred's share of the posting on these boards to see the reason why it is 'put on here' in that misleading fashion.
The thrust of their posts on these boards is basically 'the UK are intrinsically right in everything they do'.
Even if they are not sure why, facts will be twisted and slanted to 'win' that argument.
And woe betide a paddy being critical of anything the UK does because The 'Ra and Gurry and etc etc etc.

You will get no further questioning any figures/facts presented by them, the argument, so to speak, will just deflect elsewhere.

CMOTDibbler · 11-10-2016 09:26AM

SeanW wrote: »

Keynesian economics is the foundation of all economic theory today, and is the central justification for modern economic structures and institutions such as central banks. "Aggregate demand" is a key part of this.

You were talking about the circular flow model. That model doesn't even include governments. So yes, it's a cornerstone, but like all cornerstones, it doesn't do anything except provide a strarting point for the building.

SeanW wrote: »

My experience has been the exact opposite. And I doubt I'm alone in that.

Which is a subjective opinion and to which an gave an alternative. The actual facts are that Britain imports over £60 billion worth of cars from the EU every year. Some of those are also Japanese models manufactured in plants in Europe. People in the UK don't just buy Toyota Avensis and Auris models.

SeanW wrote: »

It's unique to the EU. Other nations have free trade agreements with each other and some are even in other trading blocs. For example, NAFTA members do not give each other free-movement rights, there is no political union, and each NAFTA member can and do make their own laws and their own free trade agreements with other nations/blocs. No reason Europe can't or shouldn't do the same.

No country bordering the EU has a free trade model that doesn't include the other freedoms of movement. Many countries have trade deals with the EU, but they are not 'free trade' agreements. That's Britain's choice and they are free to decide what they want. The EU member states can also decide what's best for them.

Zubeneschamali · 11-10-2016 09:39AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

the 99% have been screwed during the UK's membership of the EU

This is why Corbyn has never liked the EU - he says it is hostile to Socialism.

Unfortunately for the ordinary British pleb, it is not half as hostile to Socialism as the permanent Tory government of England will be.

Zubeneschamali · 11-10-2016 09:41AM

First Up wrote: »

Plenty of swans in the UK.

Yes, but they belong to the Queen.

Peregrinus · 11-10-2016 09:41AM

SeanW wrote: »

It's unique to the EU. Other nations have free trade agreements with each other and some are even in other trading blocs. For example, NAFTA members do not give each other free-movement rights, there is no political union, and each NAFTA member can and do make their own laws and their own free trade agreements with other nations/blocs. No reason Europe can't or shouldn't do the same.

There is. The EU can't allow its member states to make their own laws and free trade agreements with third countries, and also have a single market among its member states. Think about it; it's unworkable.

The EU would rather have the single market. The UK, it seems, would rather have the competence to make its own laws and its own trade agreements. That's fine. But they do have to choose one or the other; they must recognise the impossiblity of both. Until they do, they don't have a coherent negotiating position.

Fratton Fred · 11-10-2016 09:53AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes. All that unites the supporters of Brexit is their support for Brexit. Everyone has already commented on the fact that, when the Brexiters unexpectedly won the Brexit vote, there was no Brexit plan - as in, there was no common vision among Brexit supporters of what the UK wanted instead of EU membership. Even now, the British government is only slowly feeling there way towards formulating a vision of the kind of Brexit they want. But it's undoubtedly the case that a chunk of Brexit supporters - by no means all, but a chunk - oppose the EU because they think it's too communitarian, too focussed on solidarity and inclusivity, too cosy and corporate, and their ideals are neoliberal, individualistic and generally aligned with the right wing of the US Republican party. Obviously the kind of Brexit that they would like is going to do nothing at all for Brexit voters who feel that, up to now, they have been getting the sh1tty end of the stick. It could get a lot sh1ttier for them.

I guess you could compare it to a revolution. Different parties united against a common foe, but when the foe us defeated, they all realise they were fighting for different things.

I doubt a fisherman in Penzance cares about immigration any more than a plumber in Bradford or a taxi driver in Slough care about fishing quotas it "days of empire". I doubt either of them give two ****s about building Nissans.

Cina · 11-10-2016 09:53AM

maryishere wrote: »

And its economy is stlll better than the EU.
The share of world output accounted for by the 28 current members of the EU has fallen from 30% to 16.5% from 1980 to 2016.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/

That's an ultimately pointless statistic - developed countries generally increase in population at a far slower rate than developing countries, and that's mostly what this is attributed to. Since 2000 the EU population has gone from 501m to 520m - whereas China has gone from 1.24bn to 1.32bn.

The 'world output' of the EU is in no way a reflection of its economy.

Also you're comparing an economy in one country with 60m people to an economy that comprises 27 countries of mixed incomes with 520m people which is ridiculous in itself. Let's see how healthy the UK economy gets when they no longer have access to 460m people in trade.

Fratton Fred · 11-10-2016 09:55AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You will get no further questioning any figures/facts presented by them, the argument, so to speak, will just deflect elsewhere.

Ad hominem aside, isn't that exactly what you are doing?

Other than the odd news dump, have you or catbear added anything of substance to this discussion?

Zubeneschamali · 11-10-2016 09:56AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The UK, it seems, would rather have the competence to make its own laws and its own trade agreements. That's fine. But they do have to choose one or the other; they must recognise the impossiblity of both. Until they do, they don't have a coherent negotiating position.

I think May was perfectly clear at the Tory conference: They will control immigration to the UK, and they will not accept EU laws, regulations or courts, unlike Norway and Switzerland. She stated this very plainly.

They are leaving the single market.

Kotek Besar · 11-10-2016 10:05AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In Malta they drive on the shadier side of the road.

I think the song goes:

"..he smiled at me and said we got it made - in Malta everybody drives in the shade.."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kMajOOgR6k

First Up · 11-10-2016 10:07AM

Cina wrote:

Also you're comparing an economy in one country with 60m people to an economy that comprises 27 countries of mixed incomes with 520m people which is ridiculous in itself. Let's see how healthy the UK economy gets when they no longer have access to 460m people in trade.

They will have access, just on less favourable terms.

FrancieBrady · 11-10-2016 10:07AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Ad hominem aside, isn't that exactly what you are doing?

Other than the odd news dump, have you or catbear added anything of substance to this discussion?

It isn't an ad hominem but a point based on posting histories here. If you are not someone who appears on threads to defend the UK/British position then ignore it.

I am certainly not presenting spurious data in an attempt to defend the UK's strategy or policy (if there is one) in Brexiting. I am as concerned for it's effect on us here in Ireland as the next person.
The petty defence from the usual suspects is getting in the way. Plenty of other sites to cheerlead if you must.

Call me Al · 11-10-2016 10:07AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess you could compare it to a revolution. Different parties united against a common foe, but when the foe us defeated, they all realise they were fighting for different things.

I doubt a fisherman in Penzance cares about immigration any more than a plumber in Bradford or a taxi driver in Slough care about fishing quotas it "days of empire". I doubt either of them give two ****s about building Nissans.

I completely agree with your thoughts here. And that has been the fundamental flaw for the Brexit supporter. There is no cohesion in what they supported. They were all wanting to change different things be that fishing quotas, immigration, EU regulations and bureaucracy, or (bizarrely) NHS funding.
48% voted to keep the status quo and you will find that by the end of negotiations only a part of the 52% who wanted to leave will be satisfied with what they are leaving for.
Part of me is wondering if May is actually hoping for a backlash against Brexit once the cold hard financial facts become apparent to the majority of that 52%.

First Up · 11-10-2016 10:07AM

Zubeneschamali wrote:

Yes, but they belong to the Queen.

All of them?

Peregrinus · 11-10-2016 10:11AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think May was perfectly clear at the Tory conference: They will control immigration to the UK, and they will not accept EU laws, regulations or courts, unlike Norway and Switzerland. She stated this very plainly.

They are leaving the single market.

Yes, May gets that. But not everybody else does, yet.

First Up · 11-10-2016 10:13AM

Call me Al wrote:

Part of me is wondering if May is actually hoping for a backlash against Brexit once the cold hard financial facts become apparent to the majority of that 52%.

They are making such a hash of it so far, you could certainly suspect it is deliberate.

But setting next March as the deadline doesn't give her much time. We are not talking about quick learners here.

Fratton Fred · 11-10-2016 10:17AM

Call me Al wrote: »

Part of me is wondering if May is actually hoping for a backlash against Brexit once the cold hard financial facts become apparent to the majority of that 52%.

I think that is part of the plan. I have a feeling that a lot of the noise coming from politicians across Europe at the moment is directed as much at their own people as it is each other.

A hard Brexit in the manner she spoke of is monumentally stupid, which she isn't.

Peregrinus · 11-10-2016 10:17AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I guess you could compare it to a revolution. Different parties united against a common foe, but when the foe us defeated, they all realise they were fighting for different things.

Pretty much. Which highlights the fundamental stupidity of a referendum asking for a mandate for a negative policy - not to be a member of the Union. There's no mandate for any positive policy, and an awful lot of voters who thought they were voting for, e.g., restrictions on emigration, or more NHS funding, or economic deregulation, or better protection for the interests of British workers, or the repeal of the Human Rights Act, or whatever are going to feel betrayed. Some of the things that some of the voters thought would happen will happen, to some degree, but it's inevitable that with no clear proposals about what would happen, and such a wide variety of expectations, most expectations won't be met and there's going to be much more disappointment that satisfaction.

steddyeddy · 11-10-2016 10:35AM

Sorry for the news dump.

The Times managed to get their hands on some files from the Treasury that say a hard Brexit will see up to 66 Billion lost in tax revenues a year. It seems the cabinet has seen this and no doubt the EU negotiators will have seen it and/or know it already. A hard Brexit its madness. Like previous posters I think May might be doing this on purpose to generate backlash. She's quite intelligent.

Cabinet ministers are being warned that the Treasury could lose up to £66 billion a year in tax revenues under a “hard Brexit”, according to leaked government papers.

GDP could fall by as much as 9.5 per cent if Britain leaves the single market and has to rely on World Trade Organisation rules for trading with the continent, compared with if it stayed within the EU, the forecasts show. Such a steep drop in revenue would force ministers to slash public spending or raise taxes.

The £66 billion drop, contained in a draft cabinet committee paper seen by The Times,…

kunst nugget · 11-10-2016 10:43AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Sorry for the news dump.

The Times managed to get their hands on some files from the Treasury that a hard Brexit will see up to 66 Billion lost in tax revenues a year. It seems the cabinet has seen this and no doubt the EU negotiators will have seen it and/or know it already. A hard Brexit its madness. Like previous posters I think May might be doing this on purpose to generate backlash. She's quite intelligent.

Sure isn't that from the experts. Everyone knows that the ordinary people of Britain are sick of them. Michael Gove told us.

Fratton Fred · 11-10-2016 11:03AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Pretty much. Which highlights the fundamental stupidity of a referendum asking for a mandate for a negative policy - not to be a member of the Union. There's no mandate for any positive policy, and an awful lot of voters who thought they were voting for, e.g., restrictions on emigration, or more NHS funding, or economic deregulation, or better protection for the interests of British workers, or the repeal of the Human Rights Act, or whatever are going to feel betrayed. Some of the things that some of the voters thought would happen will happen, to some degree, but it's inevitable that with no clear proposals about what would happen, and such a wide variety of expectations, most expectations won't be met and there's going to be much more disappointment that satisfaction.

It was stupid, but I guess no one really thought leave would win.

It's done now though, so there are two choices, butch, moan and cry about it, or make the best of a bad situation.

UK Votes to leave EU

Comments