UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Jim wrote: "the problem is the end of the world hasn't happened."You cannot be serious! The effect of the Brexit vote was never going to be "the end of the world". What the Government and just about every serious commentator said was that there would be an economic downturn. Each household would be worse off financially. And that is precisely what is happening.
Immediately after the referendum, the stock markets crashed. They didn't know whether a hardliner like Gove or a buffoon like Boris Johnson would become PM. They didn't know if the Government would sign article 50 immediately. They didn't know if there would be a hard Brexit. They didn't know if we were going to have months of indecision while the Tory party elected a new leader. They didn't know what the Bank of England would do.
Since then we've had some good news. The Tory party chose their leader quickly and it isn't one of the Brexit campaigners. There will be no quick article 50. If there is a Brexit it will be a soft Brexit. The Bank of England has lowered the base rate once and hinted that it will lower it again to 0.1% before Christmas. They have put in place tens of billions of pounds in quantitative easing.
Because of this, the stock markets have recovered - the FTSE 100 more than the 250. But the value of the pound has tanked. The UK has lost its triple A credit rating. All of the economic analysts are saying that we are heading into an economic downturn. This might be a technical recession or it might not. But it will certainly mean less money in your pocket.
A weak pound means that imported goods are more expensive - which we are starting to see in the rise in the inflation rate. The rock bottom base rate means that savers and pensioners are starting to feel a hit to their incomes. Business confidence is at an extremely low point with a large proportion of businesses saying that they expect lower profits in the future, which could result in job losses.
And all this at least two and a half years before we leave the EU.
The Leave campaign promised that leaving the EU would save money which could be spent on the NHS instead. We knew at the time that they were lying about the amount that might be saved. Now it is becoming more and more likely that leaving the EU will cost us more money than it saves.
It's not the end of the world, but it is exactly what the Remain campaign said would happen.
Michael Cargill wrote: "It was the generation that saw off Hitler which voted to join the EU in the first place."No Michael, we didn't. What we voted for was a lie. We voted for a Common Market, not a supra-national political union. If we had been told that was the plan (Which it was) we would never have voted to join.
Some here are accusing the Bexetiers of lying to get us to leave, but that is as nothing compared to the massive lie told us to get us to join.
message 4204:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Aug 17, 2016 12:51AM)
(new)
Michael Cargill wrote: "Proof, if any were needed, that the Leave camp had no idea what they were voting for."Exactly the same as the joiners in 1975.
T4bsF (Call me Flo) wrote: "Will just doesn't seem to be the budging sort Jim."I notice that he still hasn't answered my question. I think that speaks volumes.
What plan?Who instigated it prior to 1975 and is still pulling the strings here in 2016?
Will wrote: "It's not the end of the world, but it is exactly what the Remain campaign said would happen..."like they said nobody wanted to do trade deals with us?
And a lot of industries are doing well because the pound is at a more sensible level
Trade deals take years to negotiate and the few voices we've had saying "We'll do a deal with the UK" are unlikely to be involved in anything.We've got a few industries/companies who are benefiting from the current exchange rate, but that's little more than paper over the cracks.
You seem quite determined that we must fail Michael!! Whatever the rights and wrongs of who voted what and why...... don't we all want to make the best of whatever hand we're dealt with??
Of course, but you can't just wish these things away.
Nobody is trying to - but I think a lot of energy is being wasted with all the talk about things past! Talking about it isn't going to change anything - but there's still a lot we could focus on for the future.
T4bsF (Call me Flo) wrote: "Nobody is trying to - but I think a lot of energy is being wasted with all the talk about things past! Talking about it isn't going to change anything - but there's still a lot we could focus on fo..."absolutely, making the most of the advantages of being outside the EU, getting rid of the farcical working time directive amongst other things, doing trade deals with countries without having to have 27 other member states agree, being able to spend our money in the UK as we want without the EU claiming that it is against the rules, and no longer having minsters able to claim they'd love to do something but cannot because of EU law. Now they'll have to find a whole new raft of excuses
Yes, without pesky laws that protects employees rights we can having Chinese-style working conditions, but get shafted in those trade deals because we don't have the Chinese clout on the international stage.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Yes, without pesky laws that protects employees rights we can having Chinese-style working conditions, but get shafted in those trade deals because we don't have the Chinese clout on the internatio..."the working time directive is a farce.
It was brought in by majority voting against the UK's best endeavors and the only reason they got it as a majority voting issue at the time was they classed it as a health and safety measure.
But it's a health and safety measure that does not apply to the self employed. Indeed when I mentioned in my COSHH that I was taking account of it, the H&SE told me to take a long walk off a short pier because it wasn't a Health and Safety issue.
Given that most of the people who seem to need such things as working hours directives and minimum wage agreements work for the state (or for agencies which are contracted directly to supply services to the state or local authorities etc) I suspect we need a government that has a duty of care for its citizens rather than treating them a cheap and expendable labour force. (And that isn't a party political view, we saw the same attitude under the last Labour government)
T4bsF (Call me Flo) wrote: "Nobody is trying to - but I think a lot of energy is being wasted with all the talk about things past! Talking about it isn't going to change anything - but there's still a lot we could focus on fo..."the whole point is that we're in unchartered territory, so of course people are looking back to the past to try and make some predictions for the future.
Jim wrote: "Michael Cargill wrote: "Yes, without pesky laws that protects employees rights we can having Chinese-style working conditions, but get shafted in those trade deals because we don't have the Chinese..."Jim, why would you mention the working time directive in relation to control of substances hazardous to health? Unless of course you used fatigue as a risk in using them safely?
Michael Cargill wrote: "Yes, without pesky laws that protects employees rights we can having Chinese-style working conditions, but get shafted in those trade deals because we don't have the Chinese clout on the internatio..."In areas where we were "getting shafted" prior to entering the EU - we stuck up for ourselves and fought our own fights - if we hadn't managed on our own up to that point in history - we would still have little 7 yr old boys working down the pits, opening and closing doors in total darkness for 12 hours a day and only landed gentry being able to vote etc., etc., etc,!! We might have got out of the habit of refereeing our own wrestling matches - but we'll soon get back to biting the bullet when necessary.
I understand why Remainers are hurting over BREXIT, I felt exactly the same in 2014 when I was on the losing side of a referendum, but if they could step back for a minute and think this through, they'll see what a wonderful opportunity BREXIT could be for left wing or progressive politics. It's clear with each passing day that the Tories have no vision for a 21st century Britain, and they won't lift a finger to change things, as the status quo suits them and their backers...
But for the rest of us, this is an opportunity that only comes along every 2 or 3 centuries...
The economy could be restructured away from London dominance. The lords could be scrapped and replaced with an elected senate, we could have a written constitution, massive infastructure projects, trade deals galore, a focus on making the UK a wonderful place to live and so on...
Britain will have to rise to the challenges of the 21st century, but will it be managed decline from the 2 corpse parties of Labour and the Tories, or will it be something better?
from who on the Left exactly?The City of London may suffer if the European hub of finance is moved to Paris or Frankfurt as an outcome of Brexit. But if it doesn't, let London go its own way and see how far the rest of the country gets under their own steam. And yes I include Scotland in that. You may feel miffed at London's supposed privilege but it helps prop you up and graduates in the main come down to London for their jobs, that was certainly what all my uni contemporaries from the provinces did.
RMF, none of that is relevant to our membership of the EU.
message 4221:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Aug 17, 2016 12:10PM)
(new)
Michael Cargill wrote: "What plan?Who instigated it prior to 1975 and is still pulling the strings here in 2016?"
It is the policy of the EU to become increasingly federalised to allow the Euro to work. This has been discussed since the Rome treaty was signed and was kept very quiet indeed during the build up to the referendum.
Ah, it's all a conspiracy along the lines of Global Warming.
Elizabeth wrote: "Jim, why would you mention the working time directive in relation to control of substances hazardous to health? Unless of course you used fatigue as a risk in using them safely? ..."
because in agriculture the H&SE laid down that COSHH covered working practices generally and a substance hazardous to health included livestock
Marc wrote: " But if it doesn't, let London go its own way and see how far the rest of the country gets under their own steam. ..."Well if London stays in the EU and the rest of us leave, London will have to reapply and will of course have to accept the euro and join Schengen and this will mean that we'll have to use the M25 as a hard frontier with papers shown when people want to cross in and out :-)
Jim wrote: "Marc wrote: " But if it doesn't, let London go its own way and see how far the rest of the country gets under their own steam. ..."Well if London stays in the EU and the rest of us leave, London ..."
Sounds like a third Snake Plissken film in the making.
Jim wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "Jim, why would you mention the working time directive in relation to control of substances hazardous to health? Unless of course you used fatigue as a risk in using them safely? ..."
That doesn't seem to fit well with the intention behind the COSHH regulations. And is a broad stretch by anyone's definition. No wonder farmers moan about red tape.
R.M.F wrote: "I understand why Remainers are hurting over BREXIT, I felt exactly the same in 2014 when I was on the losing side of a referendum, but if they could step back for a minute and think this through, they'll see what a wonderful opportunity BREXIT could be for left wing or progressive politics."What opportunity?
The economy is crashing. A large proportion of employers say that they are not going to expand their businesses in the next few years and that they may be contracting with job losses. The UK has lost its triple A credit rating.
We have a very weak pound. That makes imports more expensive, which leads to inflation. At the same time, we have extremely low interest rates. Anyone on a pension or living on savings will see their income go down and their expenses go up.
The costs of running the Government increase as we have to replace all the EU inspired legislation. This leads to increased borrowing from an already too high level of Government debt. That in turn leads to pressure for higher taxes and lower Government spending.
Politically we've just handed power to the right wing of the Tory party. The Labour party was probably going to be in disarray whatever had happened in the referendum, but Brexit has made their position even worse.
We are leaving an organisation which championed workers' rights and equality. We've given the racists a boost and increased the entrenched prejudice.
We've thrown away membership of a highly profitable trade organisation for vague promises of new trade deals that might be in place in three years or more.
In one sense, you have a point. The UK now has a blank canvas (sort of) on which it could create one of several different types of future. We could go in many different directions. We could turn to the left. We could turn to the right. We might become a new global superpower or we might become a third rate economy. We could have a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. We could stay as Great Britain or we could lose Scotland, Northern Ireland and London.
So we do know that we are in a period of economic downturn. We do know that the Leave campaign was full of lies. We don't what Brexit will look like.
In essence, we are gambling. It's a roll of dice, There is a small chance that life might eventually be better than what we had before the referendum. And a very large chance that it could be worse.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Ah, it's all a conspiracy along the lines of Global Warming."Why do you think it's a conspiracy, Michael? Do tell.
Jim wrote: "like they said nobody wanted to do trade deals with us?And a lot of industries are doing well because the pound is at a more sensible level"
Come on, Jim. No-one said that we wouldn't be able to get any trade deals if we left the EU. That's hyperbole. What the Remain campaign said was that the alternative trade deals would not be as beneficial as what we currently have from the EU. We've seen nothing to suggest that is not going to be the case.
The pound is most certainly not "at a more sensible level". The Bank of England have taken two steps to stave off a recession - they have reduced the base rate to 0.25% (with hints of a further drop to 0.1%) and they have printed tens of billions of new money through quantitative easing. The Chancellor will have to announce further measures in the Autumn budget that he said he wasn't going to need.
Yes, some industries are doing well become exports are profitable. Other industries and consumers are feeling the pain because of more expensive imports. And the overall impact is to lead to a weaker economy with more national debt.
What is happening is that the Government and the Tory press are trying to cherry pick little snippets of news which look like good news. A country has said that they would like a trade deal with us. One employer has said that they intend to hire more workers.
But when you step back and look at the bigger picture, it's quite obvious what is happening. The economy is already suffering from the prospects of the UK leaving the EU which won't happen for at least another 2 and a half years.
We need to look at the big picture (imports as well as exports) and not cherry pick the bits of news which support one side or another.
Geoff, I don't think it's a conspiracy but you clearly do.
Will wrote: "Come on, Jim. No-one said that we wouldn't be able to get any trade deals if we left the EU. That's hyperbole. What the Remain campaign said was that the alternative trade deals would not be as beneficial as what we currently have from the EU. We've seen nothing to suggest that is not going to be the case.The pound is most certainly not "at a more sensible level". The Bank of England have taken two steps to stave off a recession - they have reduced the base rate to 0.25% (with hints of a further drop to 0.1%) and they have printed tens of billions of new money through quantitative easing. The Chancellor will have to announce further measures in the Autumn budget that he said he wasn't going to need.
.."
The fact that the latest report saying how bad things were going to get took as a basic assumption that we wouldn't get any deal but standard WTO terms was downright mendacious.
But the problem with all these forecasts is that the are based on the assumption that we'd do better in the EU in future. Given the state of the EU, the Italian banking situation, Greece kicking off again, social unrest due to massive youth unemployment, making that assumption is a total nonsense
All those things would be happening regardless of whether we are in the EU or not.They will affect us negatively whether we are in the EU or not.
The only difference is that we now have no say in what measures are taken in response to them.
Which latest report are you referring to? I can't comment on it unless you link to it or name it.All the credible reports I have seen refer to a range of assumptions about Brexit, the kind of trade deals that we might get and the likely future costs and benefits of EU membership. That's certainly what the main Treasury report looked at. It's what economic modelling is all about.
This was the difference between the two campaigns. The Leave campaign talked in airy-fairy terms about fantasy numbers like the £350 million per week which could be spent on the NHS if we didn't have to pay our EU subscriptions. It was a back of a fag packet number which had precisely zero science to it.
By contrast the Treasury, the IMF, the Bank of England et al used detailed economic forecasts which took into account a wide range of possible outcomes. And they are turning out to be right.
A back of a fag packet calculation or a detailed economic analysis? It's hardly a fair comparison, is it?
Michael Cargill wrote: - The only difference is that we now have no say in what measures are taken in response to them. Why does everyone keep harking back to this old chestnut?? We didn't have any clout anyway!
Of course we had clout in the EU. We are one of the largest economies in the partnership. Like all member states we have a veto in a number of policy areas.The point is that we will have no or very little influence with the EU when (if) we are outside the EU. That's why this is far from being an old chestnut and why people keep talking about it.
A very likely scenario is that we could exit the EU, but still end up paying for EU free trade and having to accept free movement of people. The both Leave and Remain voters will quite rightly ask whether it was worth doing.
We could end up with most of the costs of being in the EU without all of the benefits.
Marc wrote: "from who on the Left exactly?The City of London may suffer if the European hub of finance is moved to Paris or Frankfurt as an outcome of Brexit. But if it doesn't, let London go its own way and ..."
Scotland has been a net contributor to the UK for decades, and that's not Scottish nationalists like myself saying that, that's HM government saying that...
On London, the city succeeds because it has to succeed. It gains that much investment and money, we've no choice but to keep the wheel turning. It's a vicious circle we've created in London over the years, and if the music stops, nobody has a chair...
I've always seen London as this giant black hole sucking the life out of the rest of the UK, and I stand by that...
Michael Cargill wrote: "RMF, none of that is relevant to our membership of the EU."I'm talking about realpolitik here. For better or for worse, we're leaving the EU. Instead of wondering what might have been, we'd better better of focusing on what could be.
And for me, that means rolling up our sleeves and building a better nation. Labour and the Tories have clearly demonstrated they are unable or unwilling to do this. Hopefully, new parties will emerge to remove the dead hands of Labour and the Conservatives from the UK's neck.
R.M.F wrote: "Scotland has been a net contributor to the UK for decades, and that's not Scottish nationalists like myself saying that, that's HM government saying that..."Where do you get that from? Everything I have seen says that the only parts of the UK that are net contributors are London and the South East. Things like this freedom of information Act request from last year:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...
And this from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland...
I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just intrigued. Have you got a source for that?
message 4239:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Aug 18, 2016 06:19AM)
(new)
Will wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "The economy is crashing. A large proportion of employers say that they are not going to expand their businesses in the next few years and that they may be contracting with job losses. The UK has lost its triple A credit rating.
Where is the economy crashing, Will? There may be a slowdown in the economy, but we are nowhere near a crash. Talk of a crash is pure hyperbole.
We have a very weak pound. That makes imports more expensive, which leads to inflation. At the same time, we have extremely low interest rates. Anyone on a pension or living on savings will see their income go down and their expenses go up.
Once again, you are painting the negative. The drop in the value of the pound is a good thing for exporters. This gives us a significant advantage as well as a disadvantage. Add into the fact
that the State Pension is "triple locked". Interest rates have been at a low rate for years before Brexit was won.
The costs of running the Government increase as we have to replace all the EU inspired legislation. This leads to increased borrowing from an already too high level of Government debt.
That in turn leads to pressure for higher taxes and lower Government spending.
The costs of changing legislation is temporary. We already spend enormous amounts of time and money translating the raft of EU-inspired legislation that pours out of Brussels. In the same paragraph you say that Government costs will increase and follow it with pressure for lower government spending.
Politically we've just handed power to the right wing of the Tory party. The Labour party was probably going to be in disarray whatever had happened in the referendum, but Brexit has made their position even worse.
How can you possibly blame this on Brexit? The Labour Party already did then when they elected a leader that couldn't win a general election. This occurred months before the referendum.
We are leaving an organisation which championed workers' rights and equality. We've given the racists a boost and increased the entrenched prejudice.
More hypobole. Not even worthy of answer.
We've thrown away membership of a highly profitable trade organisation for vague promises of new trade deals that might be in place in three years or more.
That includes the assumption that the two year period will not be extended to allow completion of negotiations. Your statement itself assumes that the timescales will be extended. Also, the word in that paragraph is "might". We haven't even enacted Article 50 or begun negotiations yet, and you're talking it down and extending the deadline. Also, bearing in mind that our exports to the EU were already in decline and our sales to the rest of the World increasing, because the EU is currently in stagflation and has been for years. By what criteria, excluding Germany, do you believe that Europe is highly profitable, and for whom, apart from the bureaucrats?
In one sense, you have a point. The UK now has a blank canvas (sort of) on which it could create one of several different types of future. We could go in many different directions. We could turn to the left. We could turn to the right. We might become a new global superpower or we might become a third rate economy. We could have a hard Brexit or a soft Brexit. We could stay as Great Britain or we could lose Scotland, Northern Ireland and London.
So we do know that we are in a period of economic downturn. We do know that the Leave campaign was full of lies. We don't what Brexit will look like.
No, we know that both the Brexit and Remain campaigns were exaggerations. Both were peddling their own versions of the truth, whether they be the monthly payment or the doom-laden statements of Remain. If you call one a lie, you must call both lies.
In essence, we are gambling. It's a roll of dice, There is a small chance that life might eventually be better than what we had before the referendum. And a very large chance that it could
be worse.
Again, the doom-laden forecast. Time after time there is the tedious repetition of negativity in your posts. It's getting so ubiquitous in your posts that I'm waiting for the OED to define pessimism with a reference saying see: Will Once.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Geoff, I don't think it's a conspiracy but you clearly do."So why use the word conspiracy, then Michael?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal...
Sorry, what?I used the word 'conspiracy' because of how you are talking about 'the policy of the EU' for the federalisation of Europe, a plan that the rest of Europe was privy to back in the 70s yet was somehow kept hidden from the poor and unsuspecting peoples of the UK.
It's a crackpot conspiracy theory.
Do I really have to explain how Government finance works? Again?I am not saying anything which isn't also being said by respected organisations such as the IMF and the Bank of England. The UK's economy is in a downturn which may or may not become a technical recession. To try to prevent this from becoming worse, the Bank of England has tried economic stimulus through base rate cuts and tens of billions of QE. This will be followed shortly by further emergency action by the Chancellor in an Autumn budget that he had originally said he didn't want to have.
The UK's credit rating has been downgraded. Public borrowing is increasing. Business confidence levels are falling with the prospect of either zero growth or job losses. Sterling is falling. The base rate is headed for 0.1% with the possibility of negative interest rates where you will have to pay the banks to hold your money.
These aren't predictions of doom. This is what is happening right now. These are facts.
I know you don't want to hear these facts. It's not what the Leave politicians promised you. It isn't what the pro-Leave Telegraph wants to print. It is an uncomfortable feeling that we are heading for years if not decades of slower growth or no growth at all.
But that is where we are. There is no point in trying to say that it is doom-mongering. A doom monger is someone who says "it is going to be awful" and then turns out to be wrong. What we have here is that almost all the experts predicted an economic slowdown after Brexit and they have been proved right.
And there is also no point in trying to argue that the Leave and Remain campaigns were equally honest or dishonest. That patently isn't true. Like the "we don't listen to experts" guff from Gove, it was a line spun by the Leave campaign to hide their lack of evidence.
The Leave campaign's tactic is the same one that Trump uses. It's the one that you use a lot. If you don't like what someone else has said about a risk you accuse them of being negative or a doom monger.
As a debating tactic it appeals to the gallery (that's why Trump uses it), but it's a cheap trick. The real point is to judge how likely something is. Turkey joining the EU is very unlikely. Talking about it is doom mongering. An economic downturn after the referendum is here now. You don't need to predict anything. Just open your eyes.
And, as usual, if you start to lose an argument you can always insult your opponent. In the OED under pessimism, eh?
Come on, argue facts not personalities.
Will wrote: "Of course we had clout in the EU. We are one of the largest economies in the partnership. .."good, so they'll be keen to do business after brexit then
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "How can you possibly blame this on Brexit? The Labour Party already did then when they elected a leader that couldn't win a general election. This occurred months before the referendum...."
Not only that but they chose one of the most consistently anti-eu candidates they could find
And then got upset because he didn't campaign enthusiastically for remain!
Whatever you say about Jeremy Corbyn, he's never made any secret of his Euroskepticism, it wasn't some nasty little secret that just slipped out.
Indeed it may well be that a lot of his votes in the membership election were happy with this
I quite agree, Jim. Corbyn was a back-bencher for a reason. That reason was because he wouldn't follow the whip. Lo and behold, he gets elected leader and though he tries, he cannot compromise, after all he's been defiant all these years.Whilst this level of stubbornness is admirable for a back bencher, it is a real problem to a leader that should be trying to reach consensus.
I couldn't agree more Geoff - Labour doesn't stand a chance with Corbyn at the helm.
T4bsF (Call me Flo) wrote: "I couldn't agree more Geoff - Labour doesn't stand a chance with Corbyn at the helm."Labour never stood a chance anyway. Scotland gone, the old Welsh heartlands and NE of England lost to UKIP, plus boundary changes, plus Middle England marginals, all adds up to defeat for Labour...
People are making the point that BREXIT is a bad thing for the UK, and only time will tell on that one, but even if we had stayed in the EU, Westminster has nothing to offer but more decades of managed decline...This political class has failed the nation time and time again...
T4bsF (Call me Flo) wrote: "I couldn't agree more Geoff - Labour doesn't stand a chance with Corbyn at the helm."Agreed. For one thing, his politics are too far to the left to make him electable to disenfranchised Tories. But he has also turned out to be a poor leader. He doesn't communicate well within his own party and he's not decisive enough for the highest level of politics. The thuggish behaviour of Momentum worries me too.
Nice chap, but just not up to it, I'm afraid.
Jim wrote: "Will wrote: "Of course we had clout in the EU. We are one of the largest economies in the partnership. .."good, so they'll be keen to do business after brexit then"
The rest of the EU countries are pulled in (at least) two directions. Yes, they will want to do business with the UK. They won't want to freeze us out totally. But equally they can't give us a deal which is too good because it might tempt other countries to leave the EU and ask for similar terms.
This means that we will almost certainly have to have a deal which is less beneficial than full membership of the EU. And we will almost certainly have to accept at least some free movement of people. And many of the EU's regulations. And we will have to pay a levy without having a say in how the EU is run.
That's (one form of) Brexit lite.
The good news is that it will probably be close enough to what we have at the moment that it won't cause too much damage to the economy. The bad news is that the people who voted to leave will ask what has changed.
And let's not forget where the economy was before 23 June. We had the structural problem of an ageing population which meant that the costs of healthcare and social services were rising and the income from workers was not keeping pace. Osborne responded with austerity measures to try to get the costs of the state down so that we didn't have too much national debt. This was controversial - some argued that his austerity measures were too much pain too quickly.
So what have we just done with a vote for Brexit? We've increased the cost of the state (possibly temporarily) as we need to hire more civil servants to rewrite our legislation and to negotiate new trade deals. We've reduced tax income as an economic slowdown reduces consumer spending. We've increased inflation and reduced savers' incomes by having a weaker pound. We are heading for a less beneficial trade deal with the EU.
The Chancellor was forced to abandon his target of eliminating the deficit by 2020. He was probably not going to hit that anyway. But what that really means is more borrowing and therefore more debt.
The UK national debt is currently more than £1.5 trillion. It costs us more than £43 billion a year simply to pay the interest. That makes our EU contribution seem relatively small (£13 bn gross, £9 bn net).
And if we do reduce immigration we are worsening the ratio of workers to pensioners, which is the main cause of our problems in the first place.
So, sure we can put on our most optimistic face and say that "surely they'll have to do a deal with us, won't they?" We'll need it.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
I think light has dawned, but somebody's blinds remain drawn Lynne!!