Brexit

There are a dozen opposing arguments.

It's true that the frustration of Brexit by a sequence of remainers from Miller to the Lords to Yvette cooper has cost uncertainty but blame the right people for that. Remoaners are what cost uncertainty not the principle of Brexit.

Any entrepreneur will tell you kicking in the routine job and spending to create a future costs disruption and money. So all expect some turmoil. But that's what is needed to build the future.

Also blame a completely intransigent EU That refuses to negotiate on trade Is the problem. Theintransigence of EU, the dysfunction of the euro , the inability of 27 to agree on anything meaningful, and an ideology that has self harmed growth is the reason we must leave.
So now calculate the GDP loss caused by being in EU, since EU growth is way below many other leading economies. That is huge.

Whenever you see the exchange rate argument cited as "bad" you can be certain the article you read is remainer b@ll@x. In reality It makes our exports more co petitive and also the economics of manufacture at home. It's why our economy is doing well despite project fear. We need to dissuade importers, or those who spend money abroad. The fact is the reason for German export success is because of a Euro down priced by averaging with the basket case economies.
And so on.

The independent is a remoaners rag, that just sees what it wants to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

I'm interested to know why you think this is the case. My interpretation - as I've already stated, is the exact opposite.

PS. Did you see the article a few days ago saying Brexit has cost £66bn already.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...-a8854726.html

I always take these analyses with a pinch of salt. It's clearly had some effect on the economy in terms of less investment and a few business decisions to move work elsewhere. But £66bn is such a staggeringly large amount, I don't believe it.

---

Let down again by politicians!
New date 31st October

Not fit to organise a piss-up in a brewery!

Hopefully this nonesense will fade eventually from folks’ minds. “Hey can you remember when some people thought we might leave Europe, and screw up people’s lives for five generations because no-one had thought about, or explained how it would actually affect us?” “Err, no . . . “

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derby Tup

Hopefully this nonesense will fade eventually from folks’ minds. “Hey can you remember when some people thought we might leave Europe, and screw up people’s lives for five generations because no-one had thought about, or explained how it would actually affect us?” “Err, no . . . “

---

Nobody will even look up from their glowing screen to listen...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Derby Tup

Hopefully this nonesense will fade eventually from folks’ minds. “Hey can you remember when some people thought we might leave Europe, and screw up people’s lives for five generations because no-one had thought about, or explained how it would actually affect us?” “Err, no . . . “

---

The trouble is Tup, even your statement is a set of preconceptions in my view ill conceived. "Screw up for five generations" , where is your crystal ball?

I would say many do understand how it will affect us, which is why we see a bright future. We see the future of the EU as a oneway downhill ride. Those who oppose it are those who say "it had not been thought about". Brexiteers knew the EU would be awkward, but EU allowing dogma to trump pragmatism surely is a reason to leave not stay? since no such organisation can ever be successful, and the EU certainly is not.

The biggest disagreement between remainers and leavers, is that remainers measure EU in terms of continuity of a stable present. Many Leavers see it disintegrating so the measurement of benefits from the status quo is therefore a false paradigm. Rats and sinking ships. Lifeboats and the titanic are closer to our vision.

All I can say is: if everyone held the remoaner view of uncertainty ,everyone would certainly be bankrupt, because no entrepreneur would ever have a vision or accept the uncertainty that comes with following the vision!
Those who have written out a cheque for six or seven figures and have mortgaged the home for starting a business, are those who wonder why leaving the EU is considered such a risk! Walking across the road is a risk!

If none accepted uncertainty, we would have a nation of unemployed permanent job seekers and no entrepreneur willing to employ them. There would be no entrepreneurs. And becaue there would be no private sector, nor would there be funding for the public sector. Britain and the MPs are far too social security minded. They draw a guaranteed salary and pension and cannot conceive of the real world which is nothing like that.

The entire economy relies on a few who have the vision to take the risk. They see singapore and think "that could be us". Ask Dyson. I would hate to live with a remoaner. They see the problem in everything and the opportunity in nothing. They are such miserable people!

Oh no.
Another 6 months of Hugh Edwards asking Laura Kuenssberg "What is your take on the latest developments Laura" and off she goes on her biased remoaner sympathetic ramblings. She needs sacking along with those other two biased remoaner presenters, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitliss.

Where are Sue Lawley and Selina Scott when you need them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Llani Boy

Oh no.
Another 6 months of Hugh Edwards asking Laura Kuenssberg "What is your take on the latest developments Laura" and off she goes on her biased remoaner sympathetic ramblings. She needs sacking along with those other two biased remoaner presenters, Fiona Bruce and Emily Maitliss.

Where are Sue Lawley and Selina Scott when you need them?

---

I wonder who is the most biased BBC remoaner journalist. Personally I'd plump for its Europe Editor Katya Adler, who is based in Brussels. She really has gone native. Its not that much of a surprise since she used to host numerous events for the European Commission.

The BBC seems to have abandoned any pretence at impartiality on Brexit as demonstrated by its repeated remain heavy guest composition on Question Time and other programmes. It was good to see Charles Moore call it out on last week's Question Time when yet again he was the only panellist who had voted to leave.

Confirmation bias is a fascinating subject. Those who want to see brexit as a cost, happily accept any view that confirms their preconception. They readily buy into project fear. In this case read the article and you see such as the IMF quoted or in this case rating agency Standard and Poors.

That is the VERY SAME Standard and Poors that rated junk investments in sub prime property as A+ grade bank collateral directly causing the explosion of toxic assets in 2007. SP are responsible for crashing banks. Why should I listen to them?

Or The same IMF that missed 2007 coming completely. The property bubble got no mention in their reports of the previous years. The same Bank of England that was asleep at the wheel in the UK during the same period.
Carney has now thankfully given up on project fear. He too was discredited.

Meanwhile a blind man on a running horse could see 2007 coming. Just as it is in Australia and China in property now. I can point at videos in 2005 that explained exactly what would happen why and when accurate to a month! Some of us did well out of predicting it!

These commentators such as ratings agencies are all discredited. Why does anyone listen to them? Answer: because they agree with an apriori assumption. It is called confirmation bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

Like you I don't believe it.

Mostly because we have still managed to stay slightly above the EU trend growth.

I have seen a constant stream of forecasts since before the referendum, all relating to Brexit, and the forecasts have been wrong, all too pessimistic.

I do not doubt that some investment decisions have been held back. These decisions will still have to be made and as I worked for a relatively large German owned international company for a number of years I'm pretty sure they would just sit on their hands until they have clarity, unless there is a real pressing need for them to make an urgent decision.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Muddy Retriever

I wonder who is the most biased BBC remoaner journalist. Personally I'd plump for its Europe Editor Katya Adler, who is based in Brussels. She really has gone native. Its not that much of a surprise since she used to host numerous events for the European Commission.

The BBC seems to have abandoned any pretence at impartiality on Brexit as demonstrated by its repeated remain heavy guest composition on Question Time and other programmes. It was good to see Charles Moore call it out on last week's Question Time when yet again he was the only panellist who had voted to leave.

---

Adam Boulton - does "All Out Politics" at 9:00am every morning on Sky News - totally blatant to the extent it's could almost be classed as comedy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oracle

The independent is a remoaners rag, that just sees what it wants to see.

---

That as maybe, but this wasn't an Independent-led story. The findings were also reported by other media outlets if you care to google it.

But I largely agree, yes Brexit has and will cost. But it's probably not 66bn. And yes, long-term there may be an argument for going through the pain we are currently self-inflicting.

Again it comes back to what you think will happen in the long-term. You, like many Brexiteers seem very certain of the future. I'm yet to be convinced, but perhaps another 100 pages of discussion and you'll win me round. :)