OOB - not a bad start, but given the time since it was written some things have changed. Theresa May's position is now (0900 Thursday) more extreme than Farage's quoted position in that piece.
Meanwhile some things have come true, though I suspect it is patchy - the fall in investment by car manufacturers for example.
Edit: THM is of course spot on there. If somewhat more passionate on the subject that me (for a change 😉 )
5plusn8 - MemberWhy can't you fix it (the pensions problem) by increasing popluation?
that's not a solution, that's just punting the problem along a few decades.
(and making it an even bigger problem)
Which car company has reduced its investment since the vote?
"The Brexshiteers conceded the economic argument from the outset."
I'd go further than that, I think a slowing of growth is perceived as a good thing by a many people.
I didn't vote Brexit but it was obvious that Brexit might reduce the amount of building going on and sure enough the day after shares in building firms dropped like a stone which perhaps supports the idea there will be less building.
Many people are sick to death of growth.
Not a clue THM, but the SMMT say so - down from £2.5b to £1.66b - and they should know.
An article from the pro-remain Torygraph...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/26/uk-car-production-drives-17-year-high-investment-stalls-uncertainty/
I didn't vote Brexit but it was obvious that Brexit might reduce the amount of building going on and sure enough the day after shares in building firms dropped like a stone which perhaps supports the idea there will be less building.Many people are sick to death of growth.
Bit of a problem as it won't stop the fact that there is not enough house building for the current population as it stands. I thought they had just announced all these new towns & villages - should be a kick off in building if that was the case.
[i]Not a clue THM, but the SMMT say so - down from £2.5b to £1.66b - and they should know. [/I]
Pretty normal capex vs output process.
Invest plenty, then as you turn off the investment the output continues to grow as you're 'using' the investment.
The bigger concern is that they'll need to turn back on the investment 'tap' at some point otherwise output will fall as machinery becomes dated/worn-out, new products are required or better manufacturing techniques are identified. And this really is the crux of the whole Nissan story in the summer.
@5nplus8 @awhiles has answered it. We are not saving enough per head to pay for future costs. More people just makes the problem worse. The immigration solution onky works if the people do not stay and leave the uk without any pension benefits
The immigration solution onky works if the people do not stay and leave the uk without any pension benefits
Which plenty do, at this stage we don't know what migration will be post Brexit, seeing as with a target of 10,000 they signed off on about 150k non EU migrants it could all get a bit messy. That's before we work out there are not enough Dr's Nurses and fruit pickers.
The immigration solution onky works if the people do not stay and leave the uk without any pension benefits
And if they have no kids. If they have two or more, then we're ok.
And if they have no kids. If they have two or more, then we're ok.
eh?
it only works if they have no kids? [u]and[/u] it works if they have 2 or more?
(not trying to be difficult, just having trouble making sense of stuff today - full of cold and coffee)
Jambas that isn't true, especially with public sector pensions. As we both agree this is a little more than a ponzi scheme, even if some vocal residents of this parish who will rely on it don't understand.
For the pyramid to stay standing the base needs to bigger than the summit. Under current demographics this will not be the case. We need to have a bigger economically active base to support the increasing number of economically inactive pensioners. Either that or cut the pensions dramatically .
or, pay more in...
(individually, and or nationally. There are a few options, it's not an either-or)
Agree re Ponzi scheme.
"Bit of a problem as it won't stop the fact that there is not enough house building for the current population as it stands. I thought they had just announced all these new towns & villages - should be a kick off in building if that was the case."
Yep.
B r , I agree except that in this case the Brexshit Bugle suggests that the reduction in investment was due to the uncertainty over the vote. That is logical and another reason why delaying/obstructing the process further is unhelpful.
Are all the people who are sick of growth, sick of rising earnings?
Or pay in more, true.....
...how did that suggestion go down last time?!?
Teamhurtmore - MemberAre all the people who are sick of growth, sick of rising earnings?
the first in no way guarantees the latter.
...how did that suggestion go down last time?!?
more or less every year, i receive a letter, from my pension provider, telling me that i along with all my colleagues now need to pay in more, for longer.
we all grumble about it, and carry on.
For the pyramid to stay standing the base needs to bigger than the summit. Under current demographics this will not be the case. We need to have a bigger economically active base to support the increasing number of economically inactive pensioners. Either that or cut the pensions dramatically .
Yup the oldies have doubly screwed us over
having enjoyed low tax, free healthcare, libraries, retiring at 65, (tripple locked) state pensions, things that I and my children will definitely never have.
Now as theyve voted to shut us out of the free market in the fear of immigrants and sneering condescension towards europeans the pyramid will crumble
No jobs will be created, no industries saved, no community enhanced by scapegoating immigrants for our problems. It’s time to call out those whose diet of hate, division and suspicion will create nothing but misery and poverty. It’s time to stop the nuanced language and call out lies where we see them.
Seb Dance MEP for london and the guy who summed up Farage yesterday with a piece of A4 nails why Brexit is a sad joke.
Yup the oldies have doubly screwed us over
This one didn't. I'm as pissed off as you.
Heard John McDonald on the radio this am, and I'm confused now by the actual process (may be covered above but there's about a billion messages)
He said that they (Labour) would not impede the progress of triggering article 50 through Parliament, because that's what democracy voted for.
But then as i understand it that is simply the process of giving notice that we're leaving, the leaving happens in 2 years time. And he wouldn't commit to supporting that because they don't know what the deal is yet.
I know no-one's ever done this before so it's all a bit don't know, but I was under the impression that once you give notice you can't then withdraw it if you don't like the deal you get. It's a case of when the music stops in 2019 then you unwrap whatever you're holding at the time. If that's right what's the point of promising that they won't keep the door shut now, but if needs be will slam it very hard once the horse is somewhere in the next field?
The Brexshiteers conceded the economic argument from the outset.
Are all the people who are sick of growth, sick of rising earnings?
Since you pointed out the case for Brexit wasn't an economic one perhaps you should tell me.
If you want me to guess I'd say that Britain is cash rich-land poor and many people would bite your hand off for a bit less wealth for a bit more land per person.
With our lousy productivity record, I'm afraid it does ahw
[i]That is logical and another reason why delaying/obstructing the process further is unhelpful.[/I]
Except if the new 'world' is deemed to be either riskier or less attractive than the vote-to-now scenario then investment will now reduce.
In theory you can't. Hence as she who must be hated noted, you would fall back on WTO. Those who voted leave should have understood that.
As I said several pages back, it's now about finding a win:win solution to a lose:lose problem. Not easy
conceded the economic argument from the outset.
Growth alone is insufficient to look at net benefit/cost of membership. It should be a full analysis looking at all the costs including housing and health care provision. It should also look at the drag of being shackled to an economic corpse and the loss of flexibility in being able to efficiently and quick negotiate trade arrangements. O such analysis has ever been carried out to my knowledge, the Leave campaign where denied access to the data and now the Government is very busy with getting on with Brexit. Had Remain based their Brexit projections on more reasonable assumptions they may have had more credibility although I suspect margin of Leave vicotry woukd have been greater as more people would have decided the reduced [b]growth[/b] in the short term was a price worth paying for taking back control.
The net benefits are obvious - membership of the EU resulted in a significant increase in trade both with the EU and outside the EU, the latter boosted by our ability to negotiate better deals thanks to being part of the EU. Immigration had a net positive impact on the economy too and the EU also bought benefits in terms of safeguarding rights, the environment and common standards. All for a cost that is less than 1% of national output.
Leave merely discounted facts and experts in favour of BS, and it worked. Brillantly in fact. That's why is so sad.
Still we are now faking control - funny that the SNP want to do this further by faking control, giving it Brussels in a manner that we had avoided. The perverse nature of modern post truth politics
teamhurtmore - Member
With our lousy productivity record, I'm afraid it does ahw
no, it doesn't.
more people = growth, but it does not mean that i/we/everyone gets a pay-rise.
it does mean more pressure on schools, hospitals, transport, etc. more pollution, higher house prices, etc.
growth definitely comes with problems, it definitely doesn't guarantee tangible benefits for all.
With our lousy productivity record, I'm afraid it does ahw
oh come one. lack of investment and a failure to automate is well recognised as a contributor to our lack of productivity. well, that and STW. 😉
how do you increase productivity? well i guess if we're taking about manufacturing, you automate. in my industry a large local customer did just that with our help. then exported the lot to china. 😕
No-one actually knows if A50 can be revoked. There's a court case pending (in Ireland, will go to euporean court). Tories have promised they will not revoke in any case. But of course promises are easily broken, like their promise to stay in the single market.
When was that promise made? By defintion, we lose memberships. We are now negotiating access. Hence as May pointed out, Brexshit really is Brexshit.
True in parts ahw, ultimately productivity determines wages. If you increase wages but reduce productivity you ultimately get fewer people in work but earning more. In laymans terms that means higher inequality. Odd that....unions rarely mention it!!
When was that promise made?
In the Conservative Party manifesto all Tory MPs were elected on.
There are countries operating in the Single Market today that are not full members.
Countries with arguably "less to offer" than the UK.
When was that promise made?
Wow. Just wow.
It should be a full analysis looking at all the costs including housing and health care provision.
Indeed. Oh, that did happen… but NHS logo, lies about burden of immigration on the NHS, and "non-promises" about NHS funding, trumped all talk of migrants propping up the NHS, both staffing and taxation wise.
Do we need to post that Leave NHS video again? Bullshit of the highest order. And it stuck.
In a vote where no one will ever be held accountable by a future vote, bullshit works. It is the winning tactic.
Yes they have "access to" the market. That's what we are negotiating now.
teamhurtmore - Member
When was that promise made? By defintion, we lose memberships. We are now negotiating access. Hence as May pointed out, Brexshit really is Brexshit.
Wish I was that confident. My suspicion is the first thing we will be negotiating is the bill for leaving.
They'll get on to access once we have agreed that.
Possibly with the 2 years.
But not definitely.
The manifesto doesn't promise to remain in the Single Market:
reclaim power from Brussels on your behalf and safeguard British interests in the Single Market
We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market. Yes to turbo- charging free trade. Yes to working together where we are stronger together than alone. Yes to a family of nation states, all part of a European Union – but whose interests, crucially, are guaranteed whether inside the Euro or out. No to ‘ever closer union.’ No to a constant flow of power to Brussels. No to unnecessary interference.
We want to preserve the integrity of the Single Market, by insisting on protections for those countries that have kept their own currencies. We want to expand the Single Market, breaking down the remaining barriers to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened up to British firms. We want to ensure that new rules target unscrupulous behaviour in the nancial services industry, while safeguarding Britain as a global centre of excellence in finance.
That contains no commitment to remain in the Single Market.
We are clear about what we want from Europe? We say: yes to the Single Market?
We want to preserve the integrity of the Single Market, by insisting on protections for those countries that have kept their own currencies? We want to expand the Single Market
Leaving the single market is neither expanding it (quite the contrary) nor saying yes to it (ditto)
Indeed - no commitment to stay in.
They explain that they are in favour of and want to protect the integrity of it. Nothing more. But no surprise, the government wanted us to remain.
There is one very clear commitment though, I will let you read that kelvin, its on page 73, second para...
you might want to post that too?
Only if you take the most nitpickingly legalistic approach to what is intended to have been written in plain english for popular consumption.
"We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say yes to the Single Market"
How can this possibly be interpreted to mean anything other than that they intend to stay in the Single Market?
If I said yes to a bike ride tomorrow and didn't show up, would you think it a reasonable excuse that I never actually formally promised to go?
We ARE leaving the EU igm and therefore giving up membership of the single market. The great British public were not in favour of honouring the commitments that this entails.
We are NOW negotiating (or will be when we stop fannying around) the terms of our "access to" the single market in the future. We know where our starting point is, and why, and we know what the default option will be if we do not manage to agree terms.
So what are we waiting for?
They explain that they are in favour of and want to protect the integrity of it. Nothing more
So, another "non-promise"?
Fair enough.
The government wanted us to maintain membership of the SM, the public voted against that. What is hard to understand? (apart from the rationale of the voters, but thats a separate point! 😉 )