Brexit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

It was aimed at you, but I see what you're saying now.

It's interesting how different people see different things in data.
https://tradingeconomics.com/europea...gdp-per-capita
If you set it to "max" it shows the EU GDP per capita since the early 60s. To me it shows a steady unchanging rate of growth up to about 2007 then a sharp decline followed by a return to a similar rate of growth. Where's the slowing you see post-Maastricht?

---

The figures are in £s as opposed to %.

A £100 increase in the 70s was a lot more significant than a £100 now. If the graph was % per year it would be steeper at the front end and flatten off over time.

GDP figures are a bit of a blunt tool anyway. My household GDP is lower than it was 10 years ago, but my quality of life is better :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witton Park

The figures are in £s as opposed to %.

A £100 increase in the 70s was a lot more significant than a £100 now. If the graph was % per year it would be steeper at the front end and flatten off over time.

GDP figures are a bit of a blunt tool anyway. My household GDP is lower than it was 10 years ago, but my quality of life is better :)

---

That's a good point. But it still doesn't support your point about Maastricht.

And yes, perhaps we should be looking at quality of life. Certainly unemployment is bad for QoL, which comes back to Oracle's oft-repeated rant about the Euro.

Back to my point about why this isn't a problem for the US, many people have answered "because they have political union, one central bank etc". So perhaps greater EU powers would be the way to go. Discuss.

What do they know indeed. Provably nothing.
I cannot help but notice that these are the very same economists and IMF that missed the coming of 2007 completely, (so how good are they really) they predicted armageddon if we did not join the euro. And I cannot help but notice the WTO itself (and the ex chief) sees no major problem with a WTO brexit although clearly it would have been better if the ideological zealots in the EU had agreed to negotiate at all, specifically a zero tariff continuation. But since they have refused negotiation at least we keep the 39 billion becasue of eu unreasonable behaviour. If no deal happens it is 100 percent EU fault.

I have to ask why any right thinking person, would want association with an organisation called the EU so clearly intent on doing us (and others) harm, that prefers a provably a failed ideaology to pragmatic reason, that has routinely insulted our country and us, and is attempting to annexe a part of our land.
I dont laugh: I despair of the lack of life experience of those who think demanding we do not no deal, has anything other than damaged our cause which is the reason for offer of a bad deal. In fact all who will not accept no deal now, are accepting a humiliation of the worst of both world, as a puppet with no power to control our destiny, all the disadvantages of membership, none of the advantages.

The objective reality is the refusal of EU to negotiate and the irrational support of corbynistas so the imminent threat of Corbyn and Mcdonnel to destroying all ourg businesses has had far more impact on negative decisions on investment in the UK ,and the fact of some leaving, than anything to do with brexit itself which could have been amicable and beneficial for both. Had EU negoitated in good faith..
As someone with a substantial stake in such a business, I know all are planning "corbyn proofing" many planning moving company domicile abroad, but they would never dare to say so because of momentum. It has certainly killed several investment decisions I know of, and no doubt has caused the motor industry second thoughts because of a return to the seventies as promised by Corbyn. It will no doubt be blamed on brexit.

In summary: sure, it would have been better with a deal from good faith negotiation. But EU have decided to damage both sides by not negotiating. So an EU that always behaves like that is not a club anyone should want to be a part of..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

I can’t help but laugh (ironically) at all the expert opinions coming from some of the pro-Brexit zealots on here as to why economically leaving the EU is best. Virtually every economist in the U.K., most major businesses, the CBI, the Bank of England and the IMF disagree with them though. But hey what do they know eh?

This from the IMF - UK’s economic outlook in six charts https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles...-in-six-charts - sums things up pretty accurately and pretty expertly I think but Witton maybe you have six charts of your own, gleaned from some ultra right wing think tank conspiracy theory web page, that knows better?

---

Quote:

---

as a puppet with no power to control our destiny, all the disadvantages of membership, none of the advantages.

---

Well, if there was a clear instruction from the vote as to what the future relationship should look like...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stolly

The essence of the FT article by the way was that the outlook and motivations of leave vs remain voters was leave voted for cultural and anti immigration reasons whilst remain voted for economic reasons. So arguments since from either side never really have any traction with the opposing view. And hence why never the Twain shall meet.

Also a lot of the leave voters being retired were not, in their minds, directly effected by the economy in any event. That too with the referendum taking place right at the height of a massive refugee crisis, heightening peoples concerns right at the wrong time over immigration

All the same the article goes on to say that a second referendum is absolutely the best next step before any Brexit gets finalised due to the growing stats and polls that say that remain would comfortably win this time. In other words the “will of the people” might well be different now and, in pushing through Brexit based on the will of the people nearly three years ago, the government would quite probably be going against “the will of the people” 😊

---

Stolly you have such a short memory and expect us to have the same. The real reason you oppose Brexit is because you're afraid of war. It's on this forum from some years ago. You didn't vote Remain for essentially economic reasons as you imply, you voted Remain because of fear.

And since you've jumped on Wheeze's silly idea of having to have a bigger majority in a referendum of this importance I'd like to ask you a question. If this country leaves the European Union and in say ten years time has another vote on rejoining would you approve of say a 60% in favour of that for it to be enacted? So if 41% wanted to stay out and 59% wanted to rejoin we'd stay out. Would you be for that Stoll?

Some good contributions 'The Oracle.' Refreshing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CL

You didn't vote Remain for essentially economic reasons as you imply, you voted Remain because of fear.....

---

Thanks for mansplaining why I voted remain CL. Who’d of thought you knew me so well 🙄

True hurts. But be good to be out after all the scaremongering.

Truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noel

Back to my point about why this isn't a problem for the US, many people have answered "because they have political union, one central bank etc". So perhaps greater EU powers would be the way to go. Discuss.

---

It does have a central bank already but yes in order to stand any chance of succeeding there would need to be a political union with some common taxation and spending. Ultimately they would need to create a federal Europe. The problem is the people don't want it, eurosceptism is on the rise across Europe.

I think it is why political union wasn't put in place before monetary union. The EU knew the people wouldn't wear it so they introduced the euro first. That way people would have eventually have to accept a federal Europe as the only way to save the common currency.