Support for Brexit is collapsing

[stevewinn]

Remainers need to step away from the polls, no wonder you love the side of buses.

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, stevewinn said:

Remainers need to step away from the polls, no wonder you love the side of buses.

What buses? The famous Farage's bus promising millions for the NHS?

Turns out you'll get Americanization of your health care instead of millions more for the NHS.

You threw your own country under the damn bus. Because you were so irrational you thought you can bluff and extort the whole EU. 

 

[Helen of Annoy]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Brexit hasn't failed on all of its promises, because Brexit hasn't happened yet ! 

@Helen of Annoy, there is some truth in what you say.  The EU is very successful at boosting the economy of Europe as a whole. 

However, this can be to the detriment of some individual countries, the UK being one of them. In a nutshell, the British public became disgruntled at having to subsidise Greece, Latvia, Rumania, and a seemingly neverending list of new accession countries. In addition, in order to fulfil its original mandate, the European Union was abstracting too many legal powers to itself, and in effect becoming a fully-fledged superstate. Again, this might benefit the EU as a whole, but it can be to the detriment of individual Nations, the UK being one of them. 

In a nutshell, you've got a problem with other countries developing. 

And you're ready to destroy your own country in desperate attempt to stop others from moving forward. It's very amusing, in morbid sort of way. Very... karmic  

Anyway, the "populist" wave is losing momentum, Russian money is drying up since the oil price remains low, Trump is... trumping, not for much longer... you're alone. While the pandemic is breaking world's economy down. 

If there ever was the worst moment in history for an isolationist extravaganza, it is now. Serve you right. 

[itsnotoutthere]

43 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

In a nutshell, you've got a problem with other countries developing. 

And you're ready to destroy your own country in desperate attempt to stop others from moving forward. It's very amusing, in morbid sort of way. Very... karmic  

Anyway, the "populist" wave is losing momentum, Russian money is drying up since the oil price remains low, Trump is... trumping, not for much longer... you're alone. While the pandemic is breaking world's economy down. 

If there ever was the worst moment in history for an isolationist extravaganza, it is now. Serve you right. 

The EU is the epitome of 'isolationist'  

We're leaving the EU so that we can join the rest of the world.  But you just stick with the other 26...you deserve each other.

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, Helen of Annoy said:

What buses? The famous Farage's bus promising millions for the NHS?

Turns out you'll get Americanization of your health care instead of millions more for the NHS.

You threw your own country under the damn bus. Because you were so irrational you thought you can bluff and extort the whole EU. 

 

Where did you read that on the side of a bus. 

[stevewinn]

5 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

The EU is the epitome of 'isolationist'  

We're leaving the EU so that we can join the rest of the world.  But you just stick with the other 26...you deserve each other.

EU trying to control UK state aid.

The EU in the talks wants the UK to sign up to EU laws on state aid. And the UK unable to change them laws without the EUs approval. 

EU once again terrified of UK competition. Eu worried The UK looking after UK businesses will give the UK an unfair advantage. But the EU want to control UK state aid to prevent the UK from doing so. 

But that means the EU wants the UK to sacrifice its ability to help UK businesses at the expense of looking after EU businesses. 

Yeah right. 

[Jarocal]

10 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

@Helen of Annoy, there is some truth in what you say.  The EU is very successful at boosting the economy of Europe as a whole. 

However, this can be to the detriment of some individual countries, the UK being one of them. In a nutshell, the British public became disgruntled at having to subsidise Greece, Latvia, Rumania, and a seemingly neverending list of new accession countries

If the EU system as a whole were optimized, then it's components cannot be. If the individual components are optimized then the EU as a whole will not be.

Let's take for example the financial sector. The United kingdom and Germany excel at providing cost effect financial services. Unfortunately there are a myriad of other countries within the EU with aspiration to grow their financial services sector domestically instead of leveraging the advantage of the high level of product available to them in order to innovate.

The UK (like the USA) bemoans loss of factory jobs that they (like we) used to excel at. That paradigm has shifted and the onus cannot be squarely placed on cheap labor. Quite frankly it is a failure on the part of industry leaders to predict the level of competition and to innovate ahead of that competition by creating new markets and expanding current ones. They are fixated on quarterly or annual snapshots of marketshare for existing markets that are going to contract with the increasing connectivity we have globally.

A prime example is USA agriculture markets. Yes we have a large presence but it is diminished yearly as other countries advance their domestic capabilities. Global commodities brokers are only concerned with the bottom line. As more countries can compete with American farmers in production, the market share will continue to decline. Another would be the global aerospace market. The EU (through Airbus) has continued to chip away at that dominance that U.S. aerospace companies enjoyed a couple decades ago.

Countries such as Greece as you mentioned do bear some burden in  their lack of innovation as well receiving bailouts to continue the status quo coupled with "austerity measures" in exchange for those bailouts.

[Electric Scooter]

7 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

The Express online survey? What a joke! This was conducted between 12 midnight and 8am this morning (Monday 29 June) while the rest of us slept soundly in bed. For a 'graveyard shift' poll it managed to get a creditable 2293 of its nocturnal readership to respond. They were asked what they would be willing to sacrifice in order to obtain a trade deal with the EU. Not surprisingly these Brexit supporters voted overwhelmingly to sacrifice nothing. The results as reported by Simon Osbourne are given as follows:

• 91% (2027 people) would make no sacrifice whatever to strike a deal.
• 4% (88 people) would be willing to yield the UK's fishing grounds ...
• 2% (88 people) would give up on the idea of a 'level playing field' ...
• 1% (52 people) would sacrifice security ...

I have not made any typos here. Not only is the quality of the journalism in the Express shamefully poor but so is their ability to make simple calculations and report on the outcome of a survey. 88 people cannot be both 4% and 2% of 2293. Even if we allow this to be a typo on the part of Simon Osbourne, the other two figures he provides are plainly incorrect. 2027 people do not represent 91% of the total number surveyed and 52 people cannot be the equivalent of 1%. But I doubt very much that any of the readership of the Express will notice, or care. These errors do not change the overall result of the poll but they call into question the integrity of the paper, its backroom staff, its reporters, and even its readership.

As Simon Osbourne wrote, Angela Merkel warned that the UK would have to 'live with the consequences' of Brexit. This kind of journalism is not a consequence of Brexit but rather Brexit is a consequence of this kind of journalism.     

I`m sorry but you really are on another planet if you think a poll of people is invalid just because its conducted during the night.

While I am always sceptical of the claims of polls I think you are engaging in wishful thinking if you believe the majority of us want to stay in the EU or are willing to give up some of our sovereignty to remain in it. I personally have wanted a hard Brexit since day one. I voted out, not half out, not out so long is the EU are happy for us to leave.

Out, out, out, totally out!

[Electric Scooter]

4 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

What buses? The famous Farage's bus promising millions for the NHS?

Turns out you'll get Americanization of your health care instead of millions more for the NHS.

You threw your own country under the damn bus. Because you were so irrational you thought you can bluff and extort the whole EU. 

You arent capable of a truthful debate are you?

Trump met May, Trump said to May the NHS should be on the table, May told him at their press conference in front of the world that the NHS would not be on the table. Boris has said the NHS is not on the table, and is in fact on about building new hospitals to kickstart demand in our economy following the coronavirus rebound.

Its like you read something, but ignore that its later shown to be wrong and remain trapped in your alternate dimension instead lol.

Edited June 29, 2020 by Cookie Monster

[Jarocal]

9 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

The UK, France, and Germany, have a lot of strengths with few weaknesses. Eastern Europe has a lot of weaknesses with few strengths

Nonsense, Eqstern European communities have plenty of strengths that the EU governing body as a whole could have recognized and utilized to the benefit of the European Union as a whole.

9 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

In order to create an EU of equals its member states are drowned in red tape, suffocated in 1001 trade regulations to prevent nations exploiting what they are good at while helping weak states to compete. We dont need it, we dont benefit from it, and its another of the major reasons the UK voted for Brexit. A third region is the free movement of people which has seen a large number of Eastern Europeans move to the wealthier member states knowing they can earn more money.

I partially agree with you on the inhibitions part. But a more collaborative approach would have had the three hegemonic powers ((UK, Germany, France) working together to create an environment that maximizes the system without taking advantage of the poorer countries who have a lot to offer. Instead of working competitively within the EU system, the best and brightest in those countries could have benefitted from mentoring in the financial sector under the umbrella of UK and German finance institutions. Engineers could have worked collaboratively to establish more consistent standards that the rest of the global market may have adopted. France and Spain may have invested in UK fishing industry rather than waste time hammering out deals to allow their boats to fish territorial waters freeing up experienced sailors to perform other nautical activities at an efficient pace. 

[Helen of Annoy]

14 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

You arent capable of a truthful debate are you?

Trump met May, Trump said to May the NHS should be on the table, May told him at their press conference in front of the world that the NHS would not be on the table. Boris has said the NHS is not on the table, and is in fact on about building new hospitals to kickstart demand in our economy following the coronavirus rebound.

Its like you read something, but ignore that its later shown to be wrong and remain trapped in your alternate dimension instead lol.

Ah, I see. You'll have a libertarian paradise with Trump's deals, sensationally low taxes and no regulations, but NHS alone will survive it all and keep functioning like it did before. Only there won't be any money to finance it. And it will fend for itself unprotected in the free market. 

 

I know you can't see it, but there's tiny logical fault in your cunning plan. 

  

[Electric Scooter]

Just now, Jarocal said:

Nonsense, Eastern European communities have plenty of strengths that the EU governing body as a whole could have recognized and utilized to the benefit of the European Union as a whole.

I partially agree with you on the inhibitions part. But a more collaborative approach would have had the three hegemonic powers ((UK, Germany, France) working together to create an environment that maximizes the system without taking advantage of the poorer countries who have a lot to offer. Instead of working competitively within the EU system, the best and brightest in those countries could have benefitted from mentoring in the financial sector under the umbrella of UK and German finance institutions. Engineers could have worked collaboratively to establish more consistent standards that the rest of the global market may have adopted. France and Spain may have invested in UK fishing industry rather than waste time hammering out deals to allow their boats to fish territorial waters freeing up experienced sailors to perform other nautical activities at an efficient pace. 

Having been on holiday to several Eastern European countries then I can say with a high degree of confidence that they are dirt poor. Its not their fault, well WW1 is some of their faults, but they are not to blame for being under Soviet rule for much of the 20th century.

They will recover given time and have been steadily improving, but its at the expense of those richer members of the EU. I would class those paying more into the EU than they get out as making tribute payments. This is what happens when a free trade agreement grows into a socialist political project. Just as those socialists redistribute the wealth of richer citizens away, EU socialism redistributes the wealth of richer countries away.

The EU is not capitalist, its a socialist dystopia.

It also has a centralised form of government rather than a federation which for a combined population of 450 million citizens leads to poor representation of the people. How can one single set of trade and economic policies work for 27 nations with 450 million people? Its crazy.

The USA arent insane enough to try that, they have a federation for their 50 states and 320 million people. Neither are we that bonkers in the UK, we have decentralised government for our 67 million people. This is how unions work, the EU could do with examining the USA and UK then learning from it to create a better form of government.

Then the creation of a level playing field for all which you term `collaboration` but yet again is a form of socialism. Its an attempt to create EU member states which are all equals. How is this done? By the over regulation of national economies, trade practices, and employment law. Its a move to prevent firms gaining competitive advantages over each other inside the block.

The consumer loses out the most.

Germany knows that, thats why they wanted us to stay in the EU. The Brits and Germans represented a counter-measure acting against all the socialism because we know you build a world beating economy by making it competitive and innovative.

Thank God we have escaped that socialist dystopia!

[Electric Scooter]

32 minutes ago, Helen of Annoy said:

Ah, I see. You'll have a libertarian paradise with Trump's deals, sensationally low taxes and no regulations, but NHS alone will survive it all and keep functioning like it did before. Only there won't be any money to finance it. And it will fend for itself unprotected in the free market. 

I know you can't see it, but there's tiny logical fault in your cunning plan. 

  

Low taxes would be great.

Some regulation is needed but not the level of regulation that the EU has in place. A reduction in those regulations to the ones we actually need would be great. As it is then 1001 EU rules and regulations creates a nightmare for small business owners.

If you doubt me then setup a small business yourself. Then you can pull your hair out too when you have to bring in a stream of experts charging high fees to tell you have to be compliant with all the EU regulations. Once bald you can then start plucking out your eyebrows instead when you apply for planning permission. All this is crazy, it prevents entrepreneurship.

Why exactly would the NHS suffer from not being in the EU? Why exactly wont we have the money to finance ourselves? Why exactly would our businesses be unprotected in a free market? Those three points are just complete tosh.

The UK is not going to economically implode, it will be business as normal. The only difference is it becomes cheaper for exporters outside the EU to sell their products into the UK and a little more expensive for EU companies to sell to our consumers.

Thats great for us, but its bad for the EU lol.

[Unusual Tournament]

8 hours ago, stevewinn said:

Of course because you have no answer to it. as the facts and figures don't fit your belief. as for all the sectors you list, these policy areas NOW all fall under the gift of the UK Parliament. you once again highlight some of the many benefits of leaving the EU.

Benefits? Okay!

[Tatetopa]

5 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The only difference is it becomes cheaper for exporters outside the EU to sell their products into the UK and a little more expensive for EU companies to sell to our consumers.

Thats great for us, but its bad for the EU lol.

Maybe.  We in America are certainly eyeing your potential market.  

What has been top of US growth this decade?  Not our manufacturing, but our service industries.  Banking, business expertise, health insurance.  For US health insurance companies, British markets are a plum.  Likewise, is British manufacturing going to be your chief source of income?  Can you compete without tariff barriers?  From what you say about starting a small business in Britain, you are doomed to be out-competed by other nations.

So maybe it makes sense to free yourself from being shackled to the poor countries of Europe, but in the long term what do you have to offer the world?  Have you got a strategy?

When dealing with poor nations, the Marshall Plan seemed to work pretty well for US industries rebuilding Europe for a fee.  China is trying it across the world.  Is Britain going to look outward toward developing parts of the world or remain  isolated?

\

[Jarocal]

33 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Having been on holiday to several Eastern European countries then I can say with a high degree of confidence that they are dirt poor

 

Never said they weren't.  But as new members to the EU, Their strengths could have been assessed/harnessed  by EU leadership and policy crafted to  benefit the EU as a system rather than the level playing field you will later decry (and I never advocated). Not a level playing field, but one where their quality of life improves as well as a modest return on investment for the the net contributing components of the EU in that instance. It may not be just a favorable financial service from the  UK or Germany, it may be engineering assets from Portugal which would not only improve the new countries position but also that of Portugal who are plagued with their own employment issues.

 

33 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

Then the creation of a level playing field for all which you term `collaboration` but yet again is a form of socialism.

There is a distinct difference between level playing field and collaboration where both parties profit.

33 minutes ago, Cookie Monster said:

The USA arent insane enough to try that, they have a federation for their 50 states and 320 million people. Neither are we that bonkers in the UK, we have decentralised government for our 67 million people. This is how unions work, the EU could do with examining the USA and UK then learning from it to create a better form of government.

The US has states intelligent enough to almost comprehend their assets.  West Virginia is not going to try and set up a financial sector to compete with New York. Yet that is what occurs within the EU with a marginally larger population and roughly half the member states. Ironically the EU even has more means of transport to Asian Markets than North America. You not only have the air and sea routes delivering products from China who doesn't want that transport going back empty, you also have a land route which could be developed and exploited to the detriment of suppliers where I reside. The EU (and Asia) are uniquely positioned by continental drift to become an integrated system that North and South America would have issues dealing with competitively as both could service not only each other but Africa at a far lower cost than the western hemisphere can. The fall of the soviet union was decades ago. It took Japan less than a decade to regain global presence after WW2. The onus is on the policies your leaders have promulgated since then that restricted the reassertion of European dominance in the global market for over a half century. Yes the UK rebuilt rather quickly. But after joining the EU in the 80's with a dominant global role, self interest rather than a long term view of the gains which could have been achieved through a stronger EU have led to the Brexit movement. 

 

[Jarocal]

8 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

When dealing with poor nations, the Marshall Plan seemed to work pretty well for US industries rebuilding Europe for a fee. 

Umm err, until it led to well...

[Electric Scooter]

6 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Maybe.  We in America are certainly eyeing your potential market.  

What has been top of US growth this decade?  Not our manufacturing, but our service industries.  Banking, business expertise, health insurance.  For US health insurance companies, British markets are a plum.  Likewise, is British manufacturing going to be your chief source of income?  Can you compete without tariff barriers?  From what you say about starting a small business in Britain, you are doomed to be out-competed by other nations.

So maybe it makes sense to free yourself from being shackled to the poor countries of Europe, but in the long term what do you have to offer the world?  Have you got a strategy?

When dealing with poor nations, the Marshall Plan seemed to work pretty well for US industries rebuilding Europe for a fee.  China is trying it across the world.  Is Britain going to look outward toward developing parts of the world or remain  isolated?

The UK has a very large banking and financial services sector with this being our chief source of income.

Most of our manufacturing and engineering drifted to China (if consumers wanted the cheapest) or Germany (if they wanted high quality). The EU prevents its members erecting trade barriers, it prevents governments setting up industries, and it prevents governments giving financial support to profitable businesses which are going through a difficult patch.

A liberal capitalist economy is self-correcting in that if a business goes bust then it exerts a small downwards force on inflation and slightly increases unemployment. So if several businesses go bust to lower inflation and drive up the number of unemployed then it attracts new entrepreneurs and investment.

What this does is over-time an economy left to its own devices will drift towards having only businesses that have a comparative advantage over their foreign competitors. This produces the best deal for consumers. It means they can buy more with their money, and better products or services with it too.

Trade barriers harm economies because they provide a safety buffer to those firms without a comparative advantage. Our plan is a 5% trade barrier on all areas of our economy we can do ourselves, and zero tariffs for those we cannot. That is better than what the EU is doing but still not optimum. Zero trade barriers with every single nation is the best a country can do.

Once implemented it loses its businesses that dont have a comparative advantage, inflation drops, unemployment goes up, wages decline, and that attracts new businesses. Over time the economy accumulates only businesses that have a comparative advantage.

[Jarocal]

10 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

What has been top of US growth this decade?  Not our manufacturing, but our service industries.  Banking, business expertise,

Umm yer, we are still a little behind the UK on that globally. 

 

12 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

So maybe it makes sense to free yourself from being shackled to the poor countries of Europe, but in the long term what do you have to offer the world?  Have you got a strategy?

Yes and no. I understand the frustration on the part of British residents investing in poorer members of the EU without seeing any growth on their part. But that is the fault of who they elected to lead the union, not those countries. Rigid austerity measures to Greece in exchange for assistance rather than working to improve Greece economically hampered the growth of the EU overall. Unemployment rates in Portugal benefit Germany who are going to get their best as immigrants because hermany can afford a higher wage. Yeah the same happens in America all the time, someone from Chicago gets an engineering degree and moves to another for a job. The difference is we view ourselves as American,  not like in the EU where it is more a foreign citizen talking a job outside their country. 

[itsnotoutthere]

Just as a side note, it's worth following the link for this 'survey' , three guesses who funds them. Nah..forget that, you only need one guess.

Edited June 29, 2020 by itsnotoutthere

[Jarocal]

1 minute ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Just as a side note, it's worth following the link for this 'survey' , three guesses who funds them.

So long as the survey follows proper sampling techniques who paid the bill is moot. If deviations from standard techniques can be proven. Then who signed the check may be significant.

[itsnotoutthere]

1 minute ago, Jarocal said:

So long as the survey follows proper sampling techniques who paid the bill is moot. If deviations from standard techniques can be proven. Then who signed the check may be significant.

Indeed, so if they only asked people that live in say...London then the result would be skewed. 

[Jarocal]

2 minutes ago, itsnotoutthere said:

Indeed, so if they only asked people that live in say...London then the result would be skewed. 

There again that would depend on the question in the survey. If it were about a traffic tax on vehicles in London that would matter far more to London residents than say a farmer in James Herriot's Yorkshire (intentionally showing my age).

[Tatetopa]

1 hour ago, Jarocal said:

Umm err, until it led to well...

True enough.

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

Benefits? Okay!

Oh yes, without a doubt. 

The UK brings the commonwealth and CPTTP to the front door of Europe. Both are a threat to the EU. 

CPTTP,  represented by just 11 countries. 13% of Global GDP. 500M people. 

Then we have the Commonwealth. 52 territories and countries. 2.4Bn people. 20% of the world's landmass. 14.8 of Global GDP. 

America 50 States. 328 million people. 25% word trade. 

The UK connected to the world in a way the EU never can. Part of 56% of Global GDP. 

Meanwhile while the EU sits there with its share of 13% World GDP. And the UK reconnects to its historical place in the world. 

No wonder the EU is pooing itself. Never mind the UK being the world's 5th largest economy. But bringing the party to Europe. Will have a significant impact on the EU.