Brexit thread - what happens next

Status
Not open for further replies.
willems said:
I sadly bought in to a housing company in february. they were going great until brexit.
Click to expand...

My investments are not that direct, banks who have a lot of property related debts. Got them on the downturn from the last Crash and were starting to show a profit until Brexit. I did however manage to offload RBS for a small profit.
 
platypus said:
And to go back to the particular commodity to which you're alluding; it was the UK government that voted against EU making moves to penalise lesser duty to stop the Chinese dumping steel, wasn't it.

So remind me who's acting in our best interests here?

What exactly does our MPs being "more accountable" (in your words, not mine) mean in regards to this? Do you think post-EU they're suddenly going to change their minds and work to protect the UK steel industry? They're as accountable then as they were now. People didn't vote them out when they acted against UK Steel interests, why would they do so now?

Unless you think it's because they can no longer pretend it's the big bad EUs fault?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's exactly my point. That little snake Javid was telling everyone it's up to the EU to police trade with China, which is correct. Then we find out that it's the British government who are blocking the EU from taking any punitive action on China (presumably because Osborne was busy sucking up to the Chinese). When that became public Javid had to cancel his jolly to Australia with his daughter and answer some questions and do his job. Would the UK have been so reticent to properly police trade if the minister would have had to stand up at the despatch box and explain to the House why we're letting the Chinese kill off the British Steel industry? People can use their own judgement on that one.

Clear lines of responsibility matter, by obfuscating those lines you create hiding places for ministers and officials, which is to everyone'ss detriment. The above is one example where the minister didn't get away with it, how many others are there where they did?
 
scorza said:
Yes, that's exactly my point. That little snake Javid was telling everyone it's up to the EU to police trade with China, which is correct. Then we find out that it's the British government who are blocking the EU from taking any punitive action on China (presumably because Osborne was busy sucking up to the Chinese). When that became public Javid had to cancel his jolly to Australia with his daughter and answer some questions and do his job. Would the UK have been so reticent to properly police trade if the minister would have had to stand up at the despatch box and explain to the House why we're letting the Chinese kill off the British Steel industry? People can use their own judgement on that one.
Click to expand...
It's a good point and well made; shame you couldn't just have written this in the first place instead of all the allegorical nonsense.

Though I do appreciate the irony of you defending the EU :p.
 
platypus said:
It's a good point and well made; shame you couldn't just have written this in the first place instead of all the allegorical nonsense.

Though I do appreciate the irony of you defending the EU :p.
Click to expand...

The greater irony being that 'killing off the British industry and farming' is precisely one of the proposed Brexit plans on the table. Not quite full-on Minford or Hannan's Norway/Swiss/Singapore via ETIP cross, but close enough. And yes, this does mean that we may be seeing a Brexit minister standing up at the despatch box to explain said plan. The probability of its viability is low, and yet, anticipating car crashes and u-turns, I look forward to it at least making one pass of the Commons!
 
platypus said:
It's a good point and well made; shame you couldn't just have written this in the first place instead of all the allegorical nonsense.

Though I do appreciate the irony of you defending the EU :p.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware I was defending the EU. Having a go at a British politician isn't the same thing as defending the EU.
 
b0redj0rd said:
Another that springs to mind is blame being laid at the feet of the EU for (some) flooding seen in the UK last winter because of regulations about when/where we are allowed to dredge.
Click to expand...

Restrictions don't automatically mean the flooding was down to them. There's still design to be done and plenty of opportunities to come up with proper solution.
Sometimes it's purely down to developer/ money. For example I design bridges for living and as part of a new development we're designing couple of footbridges, one of them below a flood level of that area. We raised it several times that in case of flood that bridge will be unusable but developer is flat out refusing to raise it a meter or so as then they'd need to amend footpaths leading to it and it would be "too expensive".
 
Interesting article in the Guardian today about how long Brexit could take, how underprepared the UK is for it administratively and how the government is struggling to pull together the team of negotiators and consultants that it needs. Looks like the costs are likely to spiral:

"Some estimates suggest “full Brexit” may take 10 years and involve up to 10,000 people, not only in the new and other so-called “hot” departments such as foreign, home, environment and business, but across the civil service nationally, at an administrative cost of close to £5bn."

So that's £5bn we won't be spending on the NHS, affordable housing or anything else. Should make a sizeable number of negotiators, lawyers, consultants, economists and bureaucrats very rich though. What a surprise.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/22/brexit-means-brexit-when-is-big-question
 
Considering how many times Ive read about 'stimulus' and QE and the benefits of spending money, increasing debt then this is relatively sensible diversion to government and its not a beaurcatic invention but the demand of voters and tax payers so maybe the customer is always right.
Its a cost which may occur anyway, if we can be forced to leave the ERM precursor to the Euro and receive no help (partly because UK is so large) then I consider it feasible that UK could have been forced into these circumstances we chose anyway. ie. its better to jump then be pushed
 
From an economic perspective I think that Brexit is definitely going to strengthen the UK in the long run. It will allow for a far more agile country which will adapt far better to changing needs.

I do not believe the Euro currency in its current incarnation is sustainable and I think it'll be Italy that'll break it.
 
Cern said:
Interesting article in the Guardian today about how long Brexit could take, how underprepared the UK is for it administratively and how the government is struggling to pull together the team of negotiators and consultants that it needs. Looks like the costs are likely to spiral:

"Some estimates suggest “full Brexit” may take 10 years and involve up to 10,000 people, not only in the new and other so-called “hot” departments such as foreign, home, environment and business, but across the civil service nationally, at an administrative cost of close to £5bn."

So that's £5bn we won't be spending on the NHS, affordable housing or anything else. Should make a sizeable number of negotiators, lawyers, consultants, economists and bureaucrats very rich though. What a surprise.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/aug/22/brexit-means-brexit-when-is-big-question
Click to expand...

Thats only 3.5 months EU fees :D
 
Cern said:
Interesting article in the Guardian today about how long Brexit could take, how underprepared the UK is for it administratively and how the government is struggling to pull together the team of negotiators and consultants that it needs. Looks like the costs are likely to spiral:
Click to expand...

But that's probably based on "facts" and "experts".

The Daily Express reports that "Brexit doom-mongers" are increasingly admitting that Britain can boom outside the European Union.

It says that, judging from a survey of the financial industry, some of the most die-hard City pessimists appear to be eating their words as the economy shows no sign of the collapse many had forecast.

Such optimism is in stark contrast to a report in the Financial Times.

It says infrastructure spending has declined sharply since the vote to leave the EU, putting pressure on Prime Minister Theresa May to press ahead with pledges for new road, rail, energy, broadband and flood defence projects.
 
n111ck said:
Thats only 3.5 months EU fees :D
Click to expand...

Like many Leavers, your maths needs some work.

In 2015 the UK's net annual contribution to the EU was around £8.5bn. So £5bn is around 7 months contributions. Seems rather a lot to be spending on administration costs (albeit spread over time) when one of the stated objectives of leaving was to recover EU contributions to spend on the NHS and other such things.

And this is just government administration costs. Lots of businesses will also incur administration costs adapting to Brexit because of the changes to legislation, regulation and taxation etc.
 
Problem is, EU costs can only really rise can they (definitely will now, gotta love putting even more pressure on the Germans)?

You can't really use numbers like our rebate/fee if in a decade its twice the amount, perhaps on useful things like a viable border force, though admittedly we suck at that with our three lonely ships that May thought was enough.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom