Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Making sense of Brexit Britain


Ozymandias
 Share

Recommended Posts

One academic's explanation of why the UK voted Brexit. Although this lecture is three years old (and some of you may have already seen it) it still remains an interesting analysis of the data. Some highlights occur at the following time points:

12.00 - major shifts in social history occur when the young express a disrespect for their old elites.

24.00 - graphic showing how the young and old voted in the 2016 Referendum.

26.00 - the Tories left the centre-right EPP grouping in the EU parliament to join and become the far-right fascist parties largest contingent with 52% of UK voters voting Far Right.

30.00 - the educational system in the UK has resulted in the current situation.

49.00 - Dorling says the UK is in uncharted waters. That was 3 years ago. Look what has happened since!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The public are now starting to regret the referendum result. But as itsnotoutthere implies, it is old news.What will be topical is the damage being done and is yet to be done. This is the latest poll on public opinion:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, The Silver Shroud said:

The public are now starting to regret the referendum result. But as itsnotoutthere implies, it is old news.What will be topical is the damage being done and is yet to be done. This is the latest poll on public opinion:

I agree, of course. It is old news. But I am a history buff and old news is grist to my mill and will be also for future generations of historians looking back on this period, trying to make sense of it.

What Dorling's lecture did, in his attempt to answer the question 'why', was to put the 2016 Referendum result into its historical context, which is interesting and will occupy historians of the future long after we are dead. 

Edited by Ozymandias
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

I agree, of course. It is old news. But I am a history buff and old news is grist to my mill and will be also for future generations of historians looking back on this period, trying to make sense of it.

What Dorling's lecture did, in his attempt to answer the question 'why', was to put the 2016 Referendum result into its historical context, which is interesting and will occupy historians of the future long after we are dead. 

I watched it quite a while ago. I personally read Chris Grey every Friday, if you don't you'll find it interesting. He does a weekly round-up of the latest dishonesty and lunacy:Brexit & Beyond (chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com)

Edited by The Silver Shroud
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dorling was a Labour party and Corbyn enthusiast, which brings into doubt his cognitive abilities when assessing anything of note. ;)

The proof of this is his desire to conflate the end of Empire with brexit 75 years earlier, the topic of empire is only brought up by left wing liberal types when they want to run down the UK for one reason or another. :yes:

Also his video's on this topic seem to have dried up about 3 yrs ago, must have been about the same time the UK failed to find and jump off that much discussed cliff edge and he is now far too busy dealing with foreign students that were set to vanish from UK universities after brexit.    :w00t: 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Silver Shroud said:

I watched it quite a while ago. I personally read Chris Grey every Friday, if you don't you'll find it interesting. He does a weekly round-up of the latest dishonesty and lunacy:Brexit & Beyond (chrisgreybrexitblog.blogspot.com)

I've come across him on occasion but much obliged for the link. He is well qualified in his field and comes highly recommended. I wish more people in the UK listened to experts like Chris Grey instead of people like Gove (who has a degree in English and professes to be bored with 'experts'). The UK is now governed in the main by people who have no understanding of those disciplines needed to run the country properly, effectively and with integrity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Dorling was a Labour party and Corbyn enthusiast, which brings into doubt his cognitive abilities when assessing anything of note. ;)

The proof of this is his desire to conflate the end of Empire with brexit 75 years earlier, the topic of empire is only brought up by left wing liberal types when they want to run down the UK for one reason or another. :yes:

Also his video's on this topic seem to have dried up about 3 yrs ago, must have been about the same time the UK failed to find and jump off that much discussed cliff edge and he is now far too busy dealing with foreign students that were set to vanish from UK universities after brexit.    :w00t: 

That is like saying:  'That swimmer is useless because he's a socialist'! Reminds me of Hitler's attitude to the black American athlete Jesse Owens at the 1938 Olympics in Berlin.

Academics are not judged by their personal politics, but on their scholarship, research and publications. Academia is not perfect by any means, but at its heart it is a meritocracy. Dorling does not hold the Halford McKinder Chair of Geography in Oxford because of his political beliefs.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

That is like saying:  'That swimmer is useless because he's a socialist'! Reminds me of Hitler's attitude to the black American athlete Jesse Owens at the 1938 Olympics in Berlin.

Academics are not judged by their personal politics, but on their scholarship, research and publications. Academia is not perfect by any means, but at its heart it is a meritocracy. Dorling does not hold the Halford McKinder Chair of Geography in Oxford because of his political beliefs.

Would socialist swim or worry that all the folks who want to swim do not have enough pool space and as such are discriminated against by the Tory Government.  :yes: :lol: and made worse by brexit and the British Empire. :rolleyes: 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Would socialist swim or worry that all the folks who want to swim do not have enough pool space and as such are discriminated against by the Tory Government.  :yes: :lol: and made worse by brexit and the British Empire. :rolleyes: 

Oh, please. You are so silly! A socialist doesn't need to be able to swim to worry about anything! And Dorling doesn't need to be a Labour supporter to be a top-flight Oxford academic. He is eminently qualified to analyse the demographics of the support for Brexit and to attempt to put it into its historical context. If I had a choice between his analysis and that of Corbyn or Starmer, I know whose research I would choose.     

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

One academic's explanation of why the UK voted Brexit. Although this lecture is three years old (and some of you may have already seen it) it still remains an interesting analysis of the data. Some highlights occur at the following time points:

12.00 - major shifts in social history occur when the young express a disrespect for their old elites.

24.00 - graphic showing how the young and old voted in the 2016 Referendum.

26.00 - the Tories left the centre-right EPP grouping in the EU parliament to join and become the far-right fascist parties largest contingent with 52% of UK voters voting Far Right.

30.00 - the educational system in the UK has resulted in the current situation.

49.00 - Dorling says the UK is in uncharted waters. That was 3 years ago. Look what has happened since!

 

When an argument is lost its really easy to tell.

The insults racist, fascist, far-right, and omg you`re worse than Hitler, soon follow.

Notice the arrogance of the left assuming that we voted to leave the EU because our youngsters weren`t `educated` correctly. Even funnier shall we point out the contradiction in that reasoning? Claiming it was the old who voted for Brexit (mean nasty racist OAPs!!!) while then claiming the school system didn`t educate the younger voters proper. Make up your mind LMAO.

Do you think he even realises he is lying and contradicting himself? Of course not. Something is broken in the minds of these people when they can come out with absurd statements, yet string them together so they are logically coherent in their own minds. LMAO.

How about everybody knew what they wanted, they weren`t intellectually uneducated or feeble minded, and they voted for it.

I would vote Brexit forever! Long live Britain, a free and independent land!

I`m not going to eat my banana whose curve does not comply with EU standards, and it will be yummy.

Edited by Cookie Monster
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

When an argument is lost its really easy to tell.

The argument against Brexit, in my view, is not lost. It's a bit like a war. On the field of democracy the Brexiteers have won a battle - barely - but the enemy, Remainers, are still fighting fit and time is showing that Brexit was not the victory people thought it was. 

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

The insults racist, fascist, far-right, and omg you`re worse than Hitler, soon follow.

Is it an insult to call a spade a spade? The UK MEPs to the EU parliament were far-right, ultra-nationalist and autocratic. According to the Oxford English Dictionary that is a definition of fascist. I don't know that anyone has made any racist insults in this context.

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

Notice the arrogance of the left assuming that we voted to leave the EU because our youngsters weren`t `educated` correctly. Even funnier shall we point out the contradiction in that reasoning? Claiming it was the old who voted for Brexit (mean nasty racist OAPs!!!) while then claiming the school system didn`t educate the younger voters proper. Make up your mind LMAO.

Well, it is plainly the case that many who voted for Brexit were not very well educated or, as Dorling points out, were indoctrinated by what education they had to think that the UK is special and the British people exceptional. I agree with him. I have encountered this attitude personally myself over a long academic career and I have watched many such people interviewed on TV where they unabashedly broadcast the fruits of their education (or lack thereof) and their ignorance of Europe and of the EU. Besides, analysis of those who voted in the referendum has shown that the better educated were less likely to vote Leave; there was a clear correlation between wanting to Leave the EU and poorer education. What can I say?

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

I would vote Brexit forever! Long live Britain, a free and independent land!

Britain was never in bondage while in the EU.

2 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

I`m not going to eat my banana whose curve does not comply with EU standards, and it will be yummy.

There was never any EU directive that bananas should be straight. EU Regulation 2257/94 only ever classified bananas according to their physical shape and defects and that classification was done at the behest of fruit traders and in accordance with their own trade practice. It was simply another example of the EU regularising the industry, just as potatoes, carrots, and a myriad of other commodities have been regularised for trade purposes. There was never any ban on 'bendy' bananas.  

Edited by Ozymandias
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See, I can understand why people voted for Brexit - the promises from the leading government ministers about the future under Brexit were amazing, and a lot of people used to (and still do) think politicians don’t lie and have their best interests at heart. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

See, I can understand why people voted for Brexit - the promises from the leading government ministers about the future under Brexit were amazing, and a lot of people used to (and still do) think politicians don’t lie and have their best interests at heart. 

Rather than the promises made by the leave side the biggest influence on voters was probably what looked like over the top disaster scenarios that made remain supporters look farcical, even to those without a big interest in the EU or politics.

Remain overplayed their hand by a good margin.

And without apparently anything inspiring to recommend stopping in the EU the game was up. 

Even staying a member and reforming from inside didn't look at all likely given the UK had been on the Brussels naughty step for a long time. :passifier:

The UK would have been patted on the head and told to shuffle off. ;)

 

 'It was Project Fear and it didn't work:' Head of Remain campaign says economic dangers of Brexit were exaggerated.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-10/it-was-project-fear-and-it-didnt-work-head-of-remain-campaign-says-economic-dangers-of-brexit-were-exaggerated

Edited by L.A.T.1961
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Rather than the promises made by the leave side the biggest influence on voters was probably what looked like over the top disaster scenarios that made remain supporters look farcical, even to those without a big interest in the EU or politics.

Remain overplayed their hand by a good margin.

And without apparently anything inspiring to recommend stopping in the EU the game was up. 

Even staying a member and reforming from inside didn't look at all likely given the UK had been on the Brussels naughty step for a long time. :passifier:

The UK would have been patted on the head and told to shuffle off. ;)

 

 'It was Project Fear and it didn't work:' Head of Remain campaign says economic dangers of Brexit were exaggerated.

https://www.itv.com/news/2021-06-10/it-was-project-fear-and-it-didnt-work-head-of-remain-campaign-says-economic-dangers-of-brexit-were-exaggerated

Interesting interview that does not reflect well on Stuart Rose's ability and competence as chief executive officer or chairman of powerful retail chains like Marks & Spencer or EG Group. He admits he had little control or influence over the Britain Stronger in Europe Campaign even though he was its chair, that he had no say in how it conducted itself, was told what he was to say before he said it, and had little contact with either Cameron or Osbourne throughout the whole campaign!! 

But Rose's integrity aside, you cherry-picked the click-bait headline above the article because it ostensibly supports your stance on Brexit and not for Rose's more nuanced comments as they do not, so for balance I'll quote some of his other statements:-

On the Leave Campaign: “You were fighting a campaign which was patently mendacious. I mean there were big porky pie lies,” Rose insists. “We never were giving £350 million a week to the European [Union]…That [was] a massive lie. There was lots of other innuendo, wasn’t there? About people arriving from Turkey. That was just a lie, a scare story. "

While Rose thinks that Brexit has not triggered economic armageddon he sees plenty of signs of disruption and admits that the full extent of the damage won't be known for some time yet to come. He mentions the fall in the value of the pound, trade difficulties, small business struggling with export paperwork, labour and job shortages, and fishermen unable to sell their fish abroad. More importantly, he points out that the future of the UK’s financial services sector - which wasn’t included in the government’s trade deal with the EU - looks precarious. He says this is work in progress and isn’t resolved and until it is resolved, it isn’t good. He continues:

“There’s no doubt about it in my view, and I think that most people would agree with this, that the rate of growth of the UK economy going forward will be less great than it would have been had we had the status quo been maintained.”

And he ends by declaring that the economic impact of Brexit has been significant but almost entirely obscured by the upheaval caused by the coronavirus pandemic which “has been a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful piece of camouflage.” 

And despite faffing about on the shortcomings of the Remain Campaign and the exaggerations of its Project Fear, as if they have any relevance to current Brexit realities, Joel Hills has to lamely end his article by pointing out the Bank of England's and the OBR's long-term estimate of the hit to the UK economy of 3.5% and 4% respectively.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

More importantly, he points out that the future of the UK’s financial services sector - which wasn’t included in the government’s trade deal with the EU - looks precarious.

The City of London is one of only 3 major International Finance Hubs on the face of the planet. Guess where the other 2 aren't?

Clearing Houses in the City of London deal with the lions share of clearing business conducted across Europe every year, and the EU does not have the capacity to take on their part of that trading themselves, and they won't have any time soon either, and the EU knows it, which is why they have had to climb down and put provisions in place for the City to act as the EU's Clearing House until at least the end of June 2025. And this isn't to allow the City to operate in the EU, it's to allow the EU to continue to operate... Full Stop.

The UK's dominance in financial services has been built up over centuries. London is ranked Number 2 on the latest 'Global Financial Centres Index' (GFCI), released on 24th March 2022 - (New York is in 1st place). This has not changed since the previous rankings were published in September 2021, despite the UK now being out of the EU since January 2021.

The GFCI is a ranking of the competitiveness of Financial Centres based on over 29,000 Financial Centre assessments from an online questionnaire, together with over 100 indices from organisations such as 'The World Bank', the 'Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development' (OECD), and the 'Economist Intelligence Unit'. The City of London (which is the only European Financial Centre in the Top 10 by the way) is followed by Hong Kong. Mainland Europe is a minor sideshow in the world's financial markets, and always will be.

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/eu-gives-itself-three-more-years-to-end-euro-clearing-reliance-on-london

Edited by So Far Away
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, So Far Away said:

The City of London is one of only 3 major International Finance Hubs on the face of the planet. Guess where the other 2 aren't?

Clearing Houses in the City of London deal with the lions share of clearing business conducted across Europe every year, and the EU does not have the capacity to take on their part of that trading themselves, and they won't have any time soon either, and the EU knows it, which is why they have had to climb down and put provisions in place for the City to act as the EU's Clearing House until at least the end of June 2025. And this isn't to allow the City to operate in the EU, it's to allow the EU to continue to operate... Full Stop.

The UK's dominance in financial services has been built up over centuries. London is ranked Number 2 on the latest 'Global Financial Centres Index' (GFCI), released on 24th March 2022 - (New York is in 1st place). This has not changed since the previous rankings were published in September 2021, despite the UK now being out of the EU since January 2021.

The GFCI is a ranking of the competitiveness of Financial Centres based on over 29,000 Financial Centre assessments from an online questionnaire, together with over 100 indices from organisations such as 'The World Bank', the 'Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development' (OECD), and the 'Economist Intelligence Unit'. The City of London (which is the only European Financial Centre in the Top 10 by the way) is followed by Hong Kong. Mainland Europe is a minor sideshow in the world's financial markets, and always will be.

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/eu-gives-itself-three-more-years-to-end-euro-clearing-reliance-on-london

The UK's dominance in financial services has been built up over centuries. And that is why it is still dominant. It will become less dominant over the coming years. But it doesn't matter, before then we will have rejoined the Single Market in some form or another. People are quite rightly motivated by self-interest. Neglected areas and towns like Boston felt they had missed out on the boom enjoyed by the South while in the EU. They had been, and they are still, missing out. Once they realise that Brexit and the present government is still ignoring them, they will vote to change things. I get why Boston was 75% Leave- run down civic centres, East Europeans living in HMOs pushing up house prices,local farmers enjoying fat profits, the London bankers having huge bonuses. But Brexit hasn't changed that, or at least hasn't changed it for the better. The problem was never the Single Market. it was the way the UK governments (not just the present one, though this is by far the least talented and most corrupt) interpreted it. The "elite" that Johnson and Farage criticise is them- not you or me. If you are a millionaire you are not going to rock the boat, you are just going to persuade the people that you are going to, some time in the future.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
38 minutes ago, The Silver Shroud said:

before then we will have rejoined the Single Market in some form or another.

Go and take a look at any 'EU Single Market Scoreboard' that includes the UK, because it reveals some interesting information. These reports are published by the EU itself and are available on their own website. Within their reports is a section on 'Integration and Market Openness' that shows data on the amount of goods and services imported and exported between EU member "States" and the rest of the world. It also has an indicator that shows the level of EU trade in goods integration that each member "State" enjoys. - ("Trade integration" refers to the percentage of a country's GDP that is accounted for by trade with other EU countries (imports and exports), and is the EU's fundamental measure of how well a country does from its 'Single Market' membership).

So, where do you think the UK was on the EU trade in goods integration table?

Well, from the EU's own reports, the UK was in, wait for it.... last place.!!

This indicator is the percentage of a country’s GDP that is accounted for by trade in goods with EU countries as an average of imports and exports, so for all the talk about how important the EU Single Market is for the UK, it didn't seem to be integrated too much into our economy did it?

Then we come to the percentage of GDP that represents exports in goods to the rest of the EU by each member "State". So, as you Remoaners are so sure that this is central to our economy, where do you think we sit on this table?

Well on this indicator we lie second.... from the bottom, with just 8%. Does that sound like a good bargain to you, especially when, as a whole, the average is 20%?

Ah, but the UK is a service economy I hear you say, so we must have done really well with the exports of services to the rest of the EU surely? And yes, we were doing better here. On this indicator we were third... from the bottom, with just 5.6%, compared to an EU average of 7.5%. Then when you look across the board at the levels of imports and exports to and from the UK in goods and services to both the rest of the world and the EU27 you realise that the UK is at or near the bottom of just about every single table.

But what all this really shows is how our membership of the EU has not made the UK into the international player that you Remoaners would try and have us believe. So why was the UK not benefiting hugely from the amount of money it put in?

Why were we not exporting more to both the EU and the rest of the world?

All those EU council meetings, all those EU Parliament debates as well as all those trade deals the EU is supposed to have come up with, and it hasn't opened up either the world markets or the EU market in any meaningful way for the UK.

Despite the UK being the second largest net contributor to the EU's budget, the EU's own figures show that this whole project did not work for the UK. All it shows is what 17.4 million of us have been telling you Remoaners all along, that the EU has been taking the UK for a ride, and it has been for decades.

Edited by So Far Away
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, The Silver Shroud said:

it was the way the UK governments (not just the present one, though this is by far the least talented and most corrupt) interpreted it.

If you really want to see the very definition of the word "corruption", then look no further than the highest echelons of your beloved EU, because your beloved EU is covered in the stench of hypocritical double dealing and failing the standards they themselves set.

French Commissioner Jacques Barrot was convicted of embezzlement in 2000. The case involved the diversion of £2m of Government money (French taxpayers money) to his CDS Party. He received an 8-month suspended prison sentence. Despite this, Jacques Barrot was appointed as 'Commissioner for Regional Policy' for eight months in March 2004, 'Commissioner for Transport' (2004 - 2008), and, unbelievably, 'European Commissioner for Justice' (2008 - 2010).!! He was also one of five vice-presidents of the Barroso Commission (2004 - 2010).

Estonian Commissioner Siim Kallas, a former member of the 'Supreme Council of the Soviet Union', the most authoritative legislative body of the USSR, was convicted in 2001 of providing false information during his trial for the theft of $10m from the Central Bank of Estonia in an oil-trading scam in 1993. Despite this, Siim Kallas was appointed as 'Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs' for six months in May 2004. After this short tenure he was then, unbelievably, appointed as 'Commissioner for Administrative Affairs, Audit and Anti-Fraud' (2004 - 2010). You honestly couldn't make it up.!!

Jean-Claude Juncker was Prime Minister of Luxembourg for eighteen years before getting his cushy job at the EU. It was under Juncker's leadership that Luxembourg rose to become the EU's main 'In House Tax Haven' and money-laundering facility. During the period when he was Luxembourg's PM he was involved in thirteen major financial scandals.... just google "Luxleaks", it's all there. His last one, a spy scandal involving the activities of Luxembourg's intelligence agency, was so serious that he was forced to resign. Unbelievably, shortly after this serious dereliction of duty, Juncker was awarded his job as EU President.!!

This just proves that the EU recruit established crooks and fraudsters to their highest positions. Look it up all you holier than thou Remoaners who rant against the UK (your own country) and hold the EU up as some sort of better than everything else remedy for all the ills of the world. When will you finally realise just how vile and underhanded your beloved EU really is. The EU is corrupt to the core.

Oh, and I almost forgot, Siim Kallas, the former member of the Soviet Union's Communist Party, also served as a vice-president of the Commission for ten years as well (2004 - 2014).!! Oh the delicious irony, considering the amount of absolute crap you Remoaners have been screeching about Russian "interference" in the Brexit vote, when it wasn't that long ago that you obviously didn't have a problem with one of the most senior positions within the whole EU structure being held by a former high ranking member of the Soviet Union's Communist Party.!!

https://www.dw.com/en/luxembourg-prime-minister-juncker-poised-to-resign-over-spy-scandal/a-16944261

Edited by So Far Away
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Interesting interview that does not reflect well on Stuart Rose's ability and competence as chief executive officer or chairman of powerful retail chains like Marks & Spencer or EG Group. He admits he had little control or influence over the Britain Stronger in Europe Campaign even though he was its chair, that he had no say in how it conducted itself, was told what he was to say before he said it, and had little contact with either Cameron or Osbourne throughout the whole campaign!! 

But Rose's integrity aside, you cherry-picked the click-bait headline above the article because it ostensibly supports your stance on Brexit and not for Rose's more nuanced comments as they do not, so for balance I'll quote some of his other statements:-

On the Leave Campaign: “You were fighting a campaign which was patently mendacious. I mean there were big porky pie lies,” Rose insists. “We never were giving £350 million a week to the European [Union]…That [was] a massive lie. There was lots of other innuendo, wasn’t there? About people arriving from Turkey. That was just a lie, a scare story. "

While Rose thinks that Brexit has not triggered economic armageddon he sees plenty of signs of disruption and admits that the full extent of the damage won't be known for some time yet to come. He mentions the fall in the value of the pound, trade difficulties, small business struggling with export paperwork, labour and job shortages, and fishermen unable to sell their fish abroad. More importantly, he points out that the future of the UK’s financial services sector - which wasn’t included in the government’s trade deal with the EU - looks precarious. He says this is work in progress and isn’t resolved and until it is resolved, it isn’t good. He continues:

“There’s no doubt about it in my view, and I think that most people would agree with this, that the rate of growth of the UK economy going forward will be less great than it would have been had we had the status quo been maintained.”

And he ends by declaring that the economic impact of Brexit has been significant but almost entirely obscured by the upheaval caused by the coronavirus pandemic which “has been a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful piece of camouflage.” 

And despite faffing about on the shortcomings of the Remain Campaign and the exaggerations of its Project Fear, as if they have any relevance to current Brexit realities, Joel Hills has to lamely end his article by pointing out the Bank of England's and the OBR's long-term estimate of the hit to the UK economy of 3.5% and 4% respectively.

 

Stuart Rose did not want the job in the first place but was cornered and then couldn't say no. He obviously did not accept the remain logic used in the campaign.

Which sort of shows how a lot of business viewed the situation privately, as one situation replacing another, rather than a good situation replaced with a bad one.

Business has to cope with continuous change, either competition, or rules from EU or UK. 

Brexit was just another day at the office.

Only those who have no in depth appreciation of typical business life could look at brexit and call it a show stopper.

And this predicted turmoil was pushed at the public, who's knowledge of business is often based on the activities at Emmerdale Farm, in the hope that minimal public understanding of the remain economic argument could then persuaded folks to vote against change. 

But as the business case was over many voters heads the economic argument was ineffective. 

As a public face of remain Rose would be expected to include comments to say he was not entirely wrong supporting the cause. 

Its called saving face.;)

Regards covid covering brexit he says its makes it impossible to see the effects, not that there have been effects to hide. 

Rather than long term issues it looks like most were short term transition changes that caused the problems, which could have been expected, before the new normal bedded in. 

This is despite the EU wanting to turn brexit into a demonstration of how to deal with wayward members. :gun:   

 

 

Edited by L.A.T.1961
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, So Far Away said:

The City of London is one of only 3 major International Finance Hubs on the face of the planet. Guess where the other 2 aren't?

Clearing Houses in the City of London deal with the lions share of clearing business conducted across Europe every year, and the EU does not have the capacity to take on their part of that trading themselves, and they won't have any time soon either, and the EU knows it, which is why they have had to climb down and put provisions in place for the City to act as the EU's Clearing House until at least the end of June 2025. And this isn't to allow the City to operate in the EU, it's to allow the EU to continue to operate... Full Stop.

The UK's dominance in financial services has been built up over centuries. London is ranked Number 2 on the latest 'Global Financial Centres Index' (GFCI), released on 24th March 2022 - (New York is in 1st place). This has not changed since the previous rankings were published in September 2021, despite the UK now being out of the EU since January 2021.

The GFCI is a ranking of the competitiveness of Financial Centres based on over 29,000 Financial Centre assessments from an online questionnaire, together with over 100 indices from organisations such as 'The World Bank', the 'Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development' (OECD), and the 'Economist Intelligence Unit'. The City of London (which is the only European Financial Centre in the Top 10 by the way) is followed by Hong Kong. Mainland Europe is a minor sideshow in the world's financial markets, and always will be.

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/eu-gives-itself-three-more-years-to-end-euro-clearing-reliance-on-london

All well and good, but the EU cannot allow London to clear all of its business going forward. Your Lords Committee on European Affairs has just recently cautioned your government to avoid complacency regarding the possible Brexit damage yet to materialise in respect of the UK's financial services sector, especially in view of the EU's declared position on its own 'strategic autonomy'. It notes the UK's lost influence in the EU and the latter's political decision not to grant the UK equivalence. It also urged the government to engage positively with the EU on their Memorandum of Understanding on regulatory cooperation and on financial service issues in general. Financial service exports to the EU alone make up 37% of all of the UK's financial services exports. With the EU determined not to be reliant on the financial centres of third countries (e.g. the UK) whose systems it does not control and cannot regulate, the writing is on the wall for London as the long-term financial centre for the EU, and this despite the difficulties the EU faces in bringing its financial services into its own orbit. The three-tear extension granted to certain London clearing houses was necessary to make the process less disruptive and costly, but it has already begun and after June 2025 there will be no further extension. It is a no-brainer that EU clearing business and other financial services have to be under EU control.        

London is second to New York but in terms of GFCI rating points it dropped 2% over the last two years with the biggest part of that drop occurring last year. At that rate London will be overtaken by Hong Kong and Shanghai within two years. Also, in the last two years many of Europe's financial centres have been gaining in rating points. There can be no doubt that London will lose the EU's financial services business going forward and the House of Lords Committee clearly sees that. London might hold its place as the world's second largest financial centre despite the strong growth in other centres coming at its heels, but that won't matter to the EU one way or the other. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

All well and good, but the EU cannot allow London to clear all of its business going forward.

Well it has done, and I bet it really grinds your gears that it's The City of London that controls the financial taps of Brussels. What was that about how the EU doesn't even need the UK? Hmmmm.

And as for the rest of your nonsense, did you actually bother to even read the link I provided? Quote: "Banks have said they prefer using London because they can net positions across different currencies to save on capital, while Frankfurt largely focuses on just the euro."

So why do you have to believe that just because we have left that far too overpriced political union folly that the rest of the world outside of your insular, inward looking EU bubble will all of a sudden decide to abandon the City of London and its world-renowned financial expertise? Why can't you just accept that the UK leaving your beloved EU won't actually make a blind bit of difference to the City of London's position as one of the leading financial centres on the entire planet?

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/eu-gives-itself-three-more-years-to-end-euro-clearing-reliance-on-london

You know, this is the one thing that really grinds my gears about the mentality of you despicable UK-hating Remoaners who don't actually even reside in the UK. You actually want our country to fail dont you. You go to bed every night actually praying that a post-Brexit UK fails, and when you wake up in the morning you are actually disappointed that the country hasnt collapsed arent you, because in your eyes the EU can do no wrong, because in your irrational mind the only way is the EU way. Is that how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (oops, sorry, I meant the EU), deals with dissenters who dare to voice opposition to them then?

You know, even if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, or even if there had never even been a referendum in the UK in the first place but another country (Ireland for instance) had held a referendum and voted to Leave the EU, I certainly wouldn't be putting them down and hoping they fail out of sheer spite just because they are leaving, I would actually wish them all the very best for the future, but you lot now all of a sudden wish the very worst for us, which just proves to me you lot in the EU were never really our true friends anyway, and our true destiny really is outside of the EU.

If one of your work colleagues you'd worked alongside for years decided to leave your place of employment to seek outside opportunities, would you nastily sneer at them and hope their decision to leave brings about the end of their marriage and they starve to death just because they wanted to pursue other interests, or do you do what anyone else sane would and wish them all the very best for the future?

Edited by So Far Away
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, So Far Away said:

Well it has done, and I bet it really grinds your gears that it's The City of London that controls the financial taps of Brussels. What was that about how the EU doesn't even need the UK? Hmmmm.

And as for the rest of your nonsense, did you actually bother to even read the link I provided? Quote: "Banks have said they prefer using London because they can net positions across different currencies to save on capital, while Frankfurt largely focuses on just the euro."

So why do you have to believe that just because we have left that far too overpriced political union folly that the rest of the world outside of your insular, inward looking EU bubble will all of a sudden decide to abandon the City of London and its world-renowned financial expertise? Why can't you just accept that the UK leaving your beloved EU won't actually make a blind bit of difference to the City of London's position as one of the leading financial centres on the entire planet?

https://financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/eu-gives-itself-three-more-years-to-end-euro-clearing-reliance-on-london

You know, this is the one thing that really grinds my gears about the mentality of you despicable UK-hating Remoaners who don't actually even reside in the UK. You actually want our country to fail dont you. You go to bed every night actually praying that a post-Brexit UK fails, and when you wake up in the morning you are actually disappointed that the country hasnt collapsed arent you, because in your eyes the EU can do no wrong, because in your irrational mind the only way is the EU way. Is that how the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (oops, sorry, I meant the EU), deals with dissenters who dare to voice opposition to them then?

You know, even if the UK had voted to stay in the EU, or even if there had never even been a referendum in the UK in the first place but another country (Ireland for instance) had held a referendum and voted to Leave the EU, I certainly wouldn't be putting them down and hoping they fail out of sheer spite just because they are leaving, I would actually wish them all the very best for the future, but you lot now all of a sudden wish the very worst for us, which just proves to me you lot in the EU were never really our true friends anyway, and our true destiny really is outside of the EU.

If one of your work colleagues you'd worked alongside for years decided to leave your place of employment to seek outside opportunities, would you nastily sneer at them and hope their decision to leave brings about the end of their marriage and they starve to death just because they wanted to pursue other interests, or do you do what anyone else sane would and wish them all the very best for the future?

I have pointed out to them before that the London banking and financial sector has long-term sustainability.

This is because it is an expert knowledge industry which to outcompete requires a nation creating a focus in its education system to produce large amounts of finance and economics graduates 20 years from now. Hence London is economically defendable, and easily defendable at that.

After the 20 years of a country churning out large numbers of finance and economics graduates then there is the second problem. How to outcompete an established industry, with centuries of experience, which is well organised with its resources and capabilities.

London has the EU by its meatballs. We can easily defence our banking and financial services sector, and even sanctions wouldn`t stop that as it would take decades to replace the gap left. But German engineering is not so defendable. If they annoy us we can buy cars and televisions and computers and consumer electronics from elsewhere easily.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

We can easily defence our banking and financial services sector, and even sanctions wouldn`t stop that as it would take decades to replace the gap left. But German engineering is not so defendable. If they annoy us we can buy cars and televisions and computers and consumer electronics from elsewhere easily.

Exactly. There are two fundamental issues in business. If you lose your biggest supplier, you go and find another one. If you lose your biggest customer, you're screwed. That will be Germany and the EU's biggest problem. They need to sell to us, whilst we can buy everything the EU sell cheaper elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve had a look and can’t see this posted anywhere, which is surprising due to the tenacity of Brexit posting and thread spamming on the topic we have seen, even half a decade on from the decision

Why Labour's leader has made peace with Brexit

Quote

After the long-haul anguish and argument over Brexit, this was the leader of the only alternative main party of government at Westminster definitively accepting it and seeking to move on.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62045237

This is actually quite a vindication of my position on Brexit, and one a few posters here should take stock of.

Inspite of being labelled a prolific Brexiteer on these forums, my position has always been one of incredulity at the sheer stubbornness and unwillingness to move on from the 2016 referendum, and that a major part of the problem is a handful of people unwilling to actually be productive and swallow their pride.

So now we have it.  The Labour leader actually saying as much.  A bit late but welcome none the less.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.