Celebrating Brexit.

[Sydenham Syd]

I think we're at cross purposes. My point being that the life of the 52% hasn't and any change looks a long way off. It was ultimately a swap for DC to May. Establishment to establishment. The fiasco in the middle was fun to watch admittedly and Boris' book will sell plenty, but nothing really changes.

As an 'out' voter, I didn't expect any noticeable changes in my life after only two weeks, nor probably even after two years. But our political landscape is already rapidly beginning to change forever. How long do you think May, a 'remainer' about to become responsible for handling our exit from this European debacle is likely to last? As for Boris's book, it'll be in those supermarket wire bins at clearance prices by Easter next year, even following his future appearances back on HIGNFY.

So we kind of agree.
I'm pretty sure there were a fair few, however, who expected rapid change...and voted for Farage's Bastille Day pitch which is just fantasy. I sense there will be quite a bit of frustration from those who thought Monday morning would bring a new dawn when we are still here in the same place six months from now with A50 being talked about as a work of fiction.

I'm a Europe bear too in many ways, but I'm less bullish on our prospects without it.

[_HB]

Bastille Day pitch which is just fantasy. I sense there will be quite a bit of frustration from those who thought Monday morning would bring a new dawn

Indeed. "Take Back Control" or "Hand control to fewer than 130,000 members of the Conservative party while the country drifts onto the rocks"?

[stuart]

As an 'out' voter, I didn't expect any noticeable changes in my life after only two weeks, nor probably even after two years.

Oh dear. Its already affecting you - you just haven't noticed despite the clear warnings both before and after the referendum.

I had to pay my monthly supplier bills yesterday. The euro rate charged to me was 1.129. I was buying euros around 1.400 only last September. That means the increase I applied last week to my clients still leaves the company out of pocket and there will have to be another one. Some clients are in SE26. They will pass that on to their customers like you though the 'EU' aspect of it is hidden. Even this website you use will now require increased subsidies. And if you are planning to buy a new computer, buy now - the major manufacturers are already announcing substantial increases

The affects are all pervasive and inescapable and may (oops) get worse. Regulation in my industry is benign (even liberating) from the EU. The real issues which impact cost and service comes from HMG in general and Theresa May in particular. Another example of the misleading claims made by Brexiters. So switching suppliers to the UK (which I have tried several times before) can only lead to us offering a poorer service at even higher cost. Theresa becoming PM now with the right to remove our rights plus the imposition of greater surveillance (aks snoopers charter) is frightening. Problem is the John Redwood inspired Andrea Leadsom could be worse.

On the domestic front daughter 1 and her husband was planning the holiday of a lifetime in the US in September. That's now off unless I put my hand in my pocket. Daughter 2 works for a Canary Wharf US investment bank, is a year into a substantial mortgage and was planning to get married. Need I say more? (BTW she isn't a banker or gets anything like a banker's income).

So it don't affect you. Lucky you. Keep whistling a happy tune like Andrea did yesterday saying the stock market had not been impacted. Well do check. The FTSE250 is down about 10% in points. Each point, of course, is now worth 20% less in $. Which would suggest our companies are now worth 30% less in real world terms. And that may well be your pension and/or employer. Andrea's lies don't just lie in her CV.

Its not an insuperable problem if you realise it and try and do something about it. But it would appear many Brexiters are in complete denial of the threats before they voted and continue to believe that 'all is well' or 'just a blip'. So if I and others are over reacting (which is possible - forecasters aren't always right, though demonstrable more right than certain Brexiters) then are you going to put your money where your mouth is and bet against me?

Stuart

[Sydenham Syd]

A piece very worthwhile reading

https://next.ft.com/content/f4dedd92-43 ... eb4891c97d

[Eagle]

It is wrong to say the stockmarket has not been affected

True the FTSE 100 has bounced back. This is not surprising as most of these companies do most of their business overseas so their earnings have increased 10% or so.

The 250 index , much more of an indication of UK business is not doing well.

It is indeed very sad that some of these people just cannot see what they have done.

[leenewham]

Here are a few things the EU did to our economy. Make what you like of it:

Jaguar Land Rover stopped making its Defender in the UK because of EU laws on fuel emissions. It is now set to be built abroad outside the EU.

In 2007 the Peugeot factory in Ryton, Coventry closed down (2,300 job losses) and moved to Slovakia with the help of £78m EU funding.
Britain's remaining ferry service to Scandinavia (DFDS Harwich to Esbjerg) ended in 2014 after 140 years service because of an EU Directive.

'3000 police cars foreign made'. Police say they are powerless to offer contracts to British car factories because of EU procurement rules.

Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are thriving because they are not encumbered by Euro bailout costs and extortionate EU membership fees.

Parker, you are wrong with some of your post, which was copied and pasted from somewhere else. For a does of reality:
1 The Defender is being updated. The old Defender is being made abroad just like the Morris Oxford, Austin Montego etc were after their production run ended. In 1998 it couldn't be sold in the USA due to new regulations. An ageing design meant that sales slowed including a narrowing market. EU Crash regulations, not emissions, signalled the end of the design. Same for the Austin Metro, which was seen to be dangerous.

The new Defender is due (apparently) to be made in the UK. JLR is owned by an Indian company.

2. Britain's remaining ferry service to Scandinavia ended due to falling passenger numbers. You can still get to Scandinavia on a ferry via Holland. The EU has new regulations on ferry's to make them safer, but the investment COMBINED with the economics of falling passengers me ants that it's not viable. Concorde suffered the same fate. An ageing fleet was no longer taxable for service economically. However, there are still direct passenger ferries to Scandinavia from the UK, but they are cargo vessels that also take passengers. Ever heard of cheap air travel? Another reason it closed down.

3. The Peugeot factory in Ryton closing was due to problems with expansion, car sales (Pesky free markets once again) and the demise of the British car industry. Read this. No mention of the EU. It was simply too expensive to upgrade it. The funds from the EU are not accurate.


3.5. What the car industry in the UK really thinks about the EU:
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/indus ... kers-think

4. Eu police cars: these ARE made in the UK.
Vauxhall Astra 1.6 diesel – made in Ellesmere Port, UK
Vauxhall Vivaro Luton, UK
A few years ago there was outcry over Jaguars being bought by the police.
You can see a breakdown of how much police cars cost:
https://www.police.uk/procurement/fully ... mance-car/

Some of the police cars are from the USA. Last time I looked this was outside of the EU. They have to offer the best value for money.

More facts and details on the deal here:
http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/manufac ... fleet-cars

No mention of EU procurement rules. The real issue is value for money and the fact that we don'ts have British car industry any more.

5. Norway etc still pay huge amounts into the EU and have no say, no vote, have to comply with the rules to trade, have open borders etc.

I could pick off the other points, but I really can't be bothered!

[stuart]

Another opportunity for the Brexiters to remind us of the benefits of going through this pain.

1) Democratic deficit. The right of 150,000 conservative members to decide who will decide the fate of 62 million with no recall and no mandate. And no right to change our minds before final exit even if no-one wants it?

2) Immigration. The right (maybe) to control some EU immigration just like we have managed to control non-EU immigration. What could possibly go wrong? (or will the predicted impact on the economy encourage them to go anyway?)

3) EU contributions. How much will we actually save if we have to make up all the EU income and set up a duplicate system to administer it?

4) Regulation. Stuff that gets exported to the EU will have to meet their regs which we cannot vote on to ensure they accommodate UK idiosyncrasies like 3 pin plugs or right hand drive. Which means jobs will be needed to draw up a parallel set for our market. Yep control is good if a little expensive.

5) Economic success. Are you really sure the beatings the market is taking and forecast to take will improve industrial morale?

6) Place in the world. Yep we appear to have unimpressed almost every world leader bar Vladimir Putin who, I hear is delighted that the UK will no longer be stiffening EU sanctions. As for the security of the Baltic States ... are you aware of what the EU are doing non-military to ensure there is no repeat of the Ukraine and more serious threat to our security?

Have I forgotten something?

Stuart

[Eagle]

Stuart

You have summed up very well.

Daydreaning into oblivion

Although some I know have changed their minds it has surprised me that so many seem to still to their zenophobic postion.

I lived through Britain in the 1950's , although peaceful and very boring , I do not wish for its return.

[Parkrunner]

There is a great quote from a Telegraph article earlier this week: "There is no conceivable form of Brexit that will simultaneously avoid a UK recession, is acceptable to Leave voters, and be agreed by every one of the 27 EU nations in possession of a veto - there's just no way of making those circles of the Venn diagram overlap. That's one of the reasons Remainers thought Brexit wasn't such a great idea."

To avoid a serious and long-term recession, we need access to the EU single market. To get that, the other EU member states will require us to sign up to all four freedoms of the single market - free movement of goods, services, capital and labour (without any say in how future legislation relating to them is formed). And continuing free movement of labour will not be acceptable to a large chunk of Brexit voters.

Therefore nobody, Brexiter or Remainer, is likely to be happy with the outcome of the negotiations. Is it really democracy (or a desirable form of democracy) to push ahead and insist this outcome must be forced without further recourse of some sort to the British people or their elected representatives? Especially on a narrow margin of 3.7% when there is widespread acceptance that both sides in the campaign were not entirely truthful?

And that is before you get on to the fact that forcing through such an outcome could result in the break-up of the United Kingdom as Scotland decides, Sod this, we didn't vote for this bullshit, we're off. The break-up of the Union is another enormous piece of constitutional change which could happen without the people of the UK as a whole having a chance to have their say on it. How does that sit straight with the democratic purists of Brexit that say the people have expressed their will and that will must now be executed without question?

[Parkrunner]

And a few facts on the EU's democratic deficit for the Brexiters while I'm at it. No, it's not perfect, but show me a political system that is.

There are three political institutions in the EU - the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.

The Commission: basically the civil service (we have one of those here too, by the way). Plus each member state's democratically elected national government gets to put forward a head of one of those civil service directorates. Secondary democracy, admittedly, but still a say of some sort. Until the Brexit vote, the UK's representative was head of the financial services directorate - the one in whose actions the UK has the largest vested interest, since we have the EU's leading financial services sector. So not a bad outcome. Civil servants that staff the Commission are from all member states that make up the EU in proportion with that country's size in the EU, therefore the UK was also well represented within it - people who understand the UK and ensure its interests are reflected in the drafting of legislation.

The Commission produces legislative proposals, but before these get adopted and become law, they have to do through the co-decision procedure with the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, which is very similar to the way a bill in the UK has to be debated, amended and approved by both the upper and the lower house of parliament.

So that brings me on to the next of the EU's three political institutions:

The European Parliament. That's full of MEPs. We elect them. Directly. Don't blame me if you don't bother to turn out for those elections. And all those of you on here that are insisting the democratic will of the people must be carried out because you are so passionate about democracy, I assume you have a 100% turn-out record for European Parliament elections (and national ones for that matter).

And finally, the Council of Ministers: that's where our relevant cabinet minister (y'know, someone we here in the UK elected) for the piece of legislation being discussed attends to fight our corner before they'll agree to something. Yes, in theory, things can be passed by a qualified majority vote (where the UK's vote is weighted in accordance with its size - i.e. big), but in practice, 99.9% things get agreed by consensus - ie. the horse-trading of national interest continues until everyone is happy.

So no, it's not perfect, but it's also a complete misrepresentation to say the UK has no say and everything is forced upon us by unelected Brussels bureaucrats. And everything HB said in an earlier post about the role of British civil servants in the process is also true - I too have direct professional experience of it.

And in the UK, our civil service is also unelected (show me somewhere that does have an elected civil service?), as is our entire upper chamber of parliament. So hardly a perfect democracy either.

[Eagle]

Unfortunately most of the secessionists still believe in what they voted for , despite evidence to the contrary.

Not sure how you convince someone , who despite the facts , has no intention of being convinced.

[stuart]

To avoid a serious and long-term recession, we need access to the EU single market. To get that, the other EU member states will require us to sign up to all four freedoms of the single market - free movement of goods, services, capital and labour (without any say in how future legislation relating to them is formed). And continuing free movement of labour will not be acceptable to a large chunk of Brexit voters.

Therefore nobody, Brexiter or Remainer, is likely to be happy with the outcome of the negotiations. Is it really democracy (or a desirable form of democracy) to push ahead and insist this outcome must be forced ...

The killer part of a great post Parkrunner. Thank you.

The Celebrating Brexiters have gone a bit quiet here lately in response to some very searching questions. Have they fled the country leaving the Remainers to pick up the bits? Or beginning to realise they have just won a Pyrrhic victory?

Stuart

[mosy]

The point you make disregards that the EU is an additional layer of bureaucracy on top of our own, sometimes overriding it by automatically applicable directives. Many think that that extra layer comprising 27 other voices is unnecessary, wasteful or specifically just not wanted/needed irrespective of how democratic it is, but that is not the main point.

The main point is that the EU will not accept that the UK can no longer accept the principle of open ended free movement as it stands. By refusing to allow any thought of long term treaty change in this regard (and others which were scarcely even given lip service), the EU left even David Cameron with the ultimatum of telling the UK that it's their way or the highway. It's hardly surprising that many voted for the highway when an untenable future was the alternative perceived by many even on the Remain side by continued compliance.

G Osborne's prolonged austerity budget strategy that there is no public money to alleviate pressure on infrastructure and services nor will there be for a long time to come, thus also deflating our economy in effect, supported the Leave argument that sending a net £10bn to the EU can't exactly be helping.

I don't blame you and _HB and lots of others for not being able to see a positive future outside the EU especially if you are or have been close to it. To me it's like being too attached to a favourite balloon that you can see is going down yet using all the breath you have to blow into it is never going to be enough to stop the inevitable. Unless it becomes willing to change, which ironically it might have to now.

European leaders by all accounts are now looking to the future - shouldn't the UK be?

[stuart]

The main point is that the EU will not accept that the UK can no longer accept the principle of open ended free movement as it stands.

On the contrary at British insistence it does accept this. Hence the Lisbon Treaty and Article 50. You just have to grasp that free movement (at least of workers) is an intrinsic part of the single market. We are free, under EU rules, to opt out. Which is what the 52% have voted for.

They chose to believe having left either the myth that we could have one but not the other (the Boris tendency) or the more honest alternative of accepting the consequences of leaving the single market no matter what the cost (the Nigel tendency). There was never a clear Brexit plan to do one or the other. Boris & Nigel always ducked serious discussion on that.

The more astute Brexit voters may, I hope, be beginning to realise they voted for a pig in a poke. Just like many (with one notable exception) who voted for the Iraqi invasion have this very same week admit regretting it despite the clear warnings they ignored beforehand? Too late, the damage is done, the damage continues. Is this to be the Brexit way too?

The many shortcomings of the EU and the perceived pressure of immigration doesn't cost as much as the loss of control, wealth, freedom and our place in the world that is becoming daily more and more apparent. Unless your eyes are really closed. I can't really believe that of you Mosy.

Surely second thoughts must be lurking there somewhere?

Stuart

[mosy]

@ Parkrunner and stuart: If the EU is adamant on insisting on "same rules as before" then they should be sent away with a flea in their ear the same as D Cameron was in February. You're right, "same rules" is not why I voted Leave. If our government after September agrees such, I'd expect falling on swords by the minute immediately afterwards.

When free movement for example was dreamed up, all countries were of similar economic standing as were future members expected to be. As DC kept saying during his campaign (somewhat pointlessly IMO), net movement in 2008 was about equal, or equal enough to be OK. That era is now well past and evenly flowing two-way traffic is unlikely to be seen for a very long time, even with current membership, without some form of control, which like tariffs will have to be some form of face-saving tit for tat no doubt.

I'll add here that I think it is horrendous that T May won't give any assurance to EU citizens already in some way established here. There should be a cross-party agreement within a week or two about those here now. As to rules about rights of any arriving after "now" until eventual exit, they can be left in limbo perhaps but not ones already here. Shame on her.

[stuart]

@ Parkrunner and stuart: If the EU is adamant on insisting on "same rules as before" then they should be sent away with a flea in their ear.

So because of your principle over free movement you are prepared to ditch the single market and all the other benefits of membership no matter what the cost? Oh and those that are coming after us who, on the whole, disagree with you but may suffer the consequences?

And given our record on non-EU immigration why do you think it could be effective without making the UK a less attractive economy to work in?

Stuart

[maestro]

Its not an insuperable problem if you realise it and try and do something about it. But it would appear many Brexiters are in complete denial of the threats before they voted and continue to believe that 'all is well' or 'just a blip'. So if I and others are over reacting (which is possible - forecasters aren't always right, though demonstrable more right than certain Brexiters) then are you going to put your money where your mouth is and bet against me?

Stuart

Oh I wasn't in any way in denial of the threats, indeed it was because of the threats that I voted out. Threats, threats and more threats, but very little selling of what benefits there may have been in remaining within this failed experiment, probably because in reality there aren't many, so really all that could be done was to issue threats. That was reason enough for the majority of over a million of us to want to get the hell out of it. I don't like being on the losing side, I like to win. Whether it's nailing that 100,000th post (if you're going to bother trying then you have ensure you hit it!) or being the first to ever be served at the newly opened Beer Rebellion, there's no point if you're just going to turn up and find yourself standing in the queue behind Maestro, no one ever remembers who came second, so you'll need to up your game Stuart! So here I am, on the winning side again, and you're determined to educate me that I've got it all wrong! Good luck with that, the beers are on me forevermore if you succeed.

As for the Brexit effect on UK business's, well this really depends on who one wants to listen to. Eddie Stobart, a farmer friend of my late father's, started a small haulage business on his farm at Hesket Newmarket up here in Cumbria, back in the 50's. They now have about 2800 vehicles and run two airports (Carlisle and Southend). They are about to double their dividend and pay £300m to their shareholders, so I guess they're doing rather well, as indeed they should be as they're one of the largest logistics companies in Europe. Their CEO, Andrew Tinkler, not only voted 'out', but has stated that the effects on his business will be minimal. Now he has quite a lot at stake, he isn't a politician, he has no agenda or axe to grind, so why shouldn't we respect what he has to say? Whingeing and moaning at 'outers' about the result two weeks on isn't going to get us anywhere, perhaps we should just knuckle down and get on with life.

http://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/com ... -5205.html

[mosy]

Stuart, I say that you have to grasp that open-ended free movement indefinitely is an untenable concept when we're not even able to cope with the extra numbers already, let alone future ones. To his credit, DC did agree an emergency brake as a sticking plaster. Presumably you're happy then?

It is nonsense to me to expect hat either side could give firm plans post-Brexit since only the government can decide those. Neither side knew or even planned. Brexiters can be excused having set themselves aside from government and with no access to papers, Nigel Farage can be excused since he's not even in government (except as an MEP). Cameron cannot be excused for not having a plan since he called the referendum and maintained he'd stay on either way. He can be for not announcing one but not for not having one, but, hey, why bother if intending to resign immediately?

A logical one is fully out and EEA or WTA rules. As an individual, I'd rather pay more for goods than keep paying more into the treasury for it to mispend. Besides, you'll know that our exports to the EU are often destined for further afield and imports from the EU are also imported into the EU so the EU is a middleman only for those (Imports from Far East are an obvious example).

I have no doubts about my vote. I didn't believe a lot of what was said by either side so I haven't been "sold" anything, except a way to avoid carrying on along a hopeless path that the UK government itself is permanently digging its heels in against in an EU that's fed up of us wanting "Special case" exceptions.

In my view, our place in the world did not diminish by a Brexit vote, if anything, much respect that this is democracy in action when put to the test. It might well be diminishing now by our ludicrous politicians' "do nothing" behaviour, but no-one on either side would have expected that!

By the way, I didn't and don't intend to reply to your post in the Town Hall as all your woes expressed are primarily personal to you and your family, in case Eagle or anyone else is wondering why I went quiet.

[mosy]

@ Parkrunner and stuart: If the EU is adamant on insisting on "same rules as before" then they should be sent away with a flea in their ear.

So because of your principle over free movement you are prepared to ditch the single market and all the other benefits of membership no matter what the cost? Oh and those that are coming after us who, on the whole, disagree with you but may suffer the consequences?

And given our record on non-EU immigration why do you think it could be effective without making the UK a less attractive economy to work in?

Stuart

You know full well from reading my posts that free movement is just one item in my reasons for voting as I did. No-one expects us to lose access to the single market, although terms might well be different. (I doubt anyone in their right mind believed we'd get away with ongoing tariff-free at no cost.) Other benefits - too vague to reply to.

On controlling immigration, better ask T May what went wrong. Here's a thought, if we're not obliged to take all and sundry EU citizens, we might have been able to be more generous in helping desperate refugees. However, part of the point was the equalisation of potential access from EU and elsewhere. It's reasonable to assume therefore that other countries will have or impose their own entry restrictions. Our economy should also be attractive for our own people to work in by the way. I'm not by any means suggesting becoming isolationist but it wouldn't hurt to have a few more home grown companies and talents would it?

I don't see how you can speak for "those coming after us" given the low turnout.

[stuart]

Oh I wasn't in any way in denial of the threats, indeed it was because of the threats that I voted out. Threats, threats and more threats,

You speak of threats in terms of being bullied. This is not the way I was using the word. Politicians can say what they like, invent what they like (as both sides did disgustingly) but that doesn't change facts or our best estimation of them. And there are threats out there you cannot sensibly ignore. It doesn't help when politicians try and get between objective information and the voter and discredit disgracefully those that try to inform rather than browbeat the people. Democracy is not the people's friend unless it is an informed democracy.

They are likely to be rather better informed when stuff happens and terms are known. I can't see why anyone wouldn't want decisions to be confirmed or reversed as we know more. That's how you do business. Being the first to realise you have made a wrong decision and recovered from it is what makes risk takers successful. Unlike politicians making U turns is good if events support it.

Your point about Eddie Stobart is well made. I would not argue against Dyson & Bamford either. Exit suits their business model. It suits others too. But any analysis of UK industry points to far more losers than gainers. The market agrees. One side has to suffer but which do you go with?

Be careful of reacting negatively to threats - unless they are make believe. Or thinking trivial stuff is important - there are more important things in life than posting or being first in the queue. Like ensuring there is something to post on and ensuring there is a queue in the first place. But I doubt we will agree on that. Just appreciate some people are different.

Stuart