It depends on if we get the benefits of it. You are right though.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-divorce-bill/An upfront figure of €60 billion had been circulating in Brussels. But more recent reports that the EU view of what to ask the UK to pay for is hardening have led Alex Barker of the Financial Times to calculate an upfront demand of between €91-113 billion.
Mr Barker thinks this would come down to roughly €55-75 billion net as Britain received money back. Other researchers have given ranges of €16-22 billion and €25-65 billion.
But I almost think it could be more than that
Barca84
Full Member
Obviously it's wrongly since the world evidences far greater depths of poverty on far greater scales than are found here - this isn't even up for question. It also isn't a difficult or elitist observation to make that the most vulnerable are often the least informed and that the least informed are often the most likely to make a mistake. Obviously your beef here is that you think Paul is undermining the dignity of the poor by calling them stupid and that the decision of those of them who voted to leave ought to be treated with at least understanding, if not respect. The truth is that you can do all this and still conclude that their decision was folly.
The only relevant measure of poverty for anyone living in the UK is one taken against a UK income median. Period. This is the accepted method and underpins the Child Poverty Act for example. We do not measure child poverty in this country against the living conditions of a child in Africa for and nor should we as poverty is relative, we live in a fully developed and wealthy economy, and poverty is measured accordingly. My beef here, as you put it, is when people trot out these tired and frankly insulting old chestnuts of how people should be thankful they're not in the bloody Congo. It is designed to belittle and demean and to silence.
As for this idea that the most vulnerable are more likely to make wrong decisions based on a lack of information this attitude is sneering and ill informed in itself. You wrongly equate vulnerability with a lack of information (I suspect your definition of "information" here is simply the facts as you see them) Notwithstanding I'll point out that some of the most vulnerable people I have worked with have been the most informed and educated and had a far greater insight into their condition, and their circumstances, than any professional engaged in providing services to them. Besides condemning this as a sweepingly vague generalisation I would also strongly refute it as exactly what you claim it isn't - an elitist observation. It appears a manifestation of this narrative that those in poverty are so because, well, they're a bit dim really and what they need are the well informed to make their decisions for them. I'd suggest that even most of the very vulnerable are largely and adequately informed by the very existence of their daily lives, not the observations of those passing through or from afar, and that bar removal of their right to make decisions under rigorous process of the Mental Capacity Act they are in the best position to judge what is right for themselves.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
@Barca84 - you obviously still haven't got the point. No-one is saying that they should be thankful they are not in Africa. The point is that you said they can't fall any further - they can.
You seem to be making the assumption that all poor people voted Brexit , I doubt that. There are people from all walks of life who voted Brexit and people from all walks of life who voted remain and if you want me to have empathy for people who shot themselves in the foot, no I don't have any empathy but that doesn't mean I want the Uk to collapse either, it's just a logical conclusion.
You seem to be making the assumption that all poor people voted Brexit , I doubt that. There are people from all walks of life who voted Brexit and people from all walks of life who voted remain and if you want me to have empathy for people who shot themselves in the foot, no I don't have any empathy but that doesn't mean I want the Uk to collapse either, it's just a logical conclusion.
@Barca84 - you obviously still haven't got the point. No-one is saying that they should be thankful they are not in Africa. The point is that you said they can't fall any further - they can.
You seem to be making the assumption that all poor people voted Brexit , I doubt that. There are people from all walks of life who voted Brexit and people from all walks of life who voted remain and if you want me to have empathy for people who shot themselves in the foot, no I don't have any empathy but that doesn't mean I want the Uk to collapse either, it's just a logical conclusion.
I believe that @Barca84 is talking about the sentiment that you hit rock bottom, some people with good reason are convinced that they have nothing to lose because from their POV they have nothing or lost everything they could have cared about. In Africa the POV is different, rock bottom is different.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
I believe that @Barca84 is talking about the sentiment that you hit rock bottom, some people with good reason are convinced that they have nothing to lose because from their POV they have nothing or lost everything they could have cared about. In Africa the POV is different, rock bottom is different.
I get his point that they may think they have reached rock bottom, my point is that they haven't.
Barca84
Full Member
@Barca84 - you obviously still haven't got the point. No-one is saying that they should be thankful they are not in Africa. The point is that you said they can't fall any further - they can.
You seem to be making the assumption that all poor people voted Brexit , I doubt that. There are people from all walks of life who voted Brexit and people from all walks of life who voted remain and if you want me to have empathy for people who shot themselves in the foot, no I don't have any empathy but that doesn't mean I want the Uk to collapse either, it's just a logical conclusion.
You were the one who brought up the Africa comparison Paul so you're being no more then disingenuous here. For what purpose other than to state that those in poverty can fall further I've no idea but it's bogus whatever the reason. And I've made no assumptions that "all poor people voted Brexit" Quite the opposite, stating only that the economic divide has played it's part, and it's there in b&w in my previous posts which at this point I cant be arsed to requote.
I think it's helpful to get past the "Brexit voter is stupid" narrative because, well, it's a bit stupid really isn't it? And until we do and get to some sort of genuine understanding of the complexities of the Brexit vote and the difficult questions it's posed the country will remain divided. But I've no interest in a debate where posts are disregarded or misquoted a mere handful of posts later nor, to be honest, with someone who doesn't have the ability, or desire, to empathise with a large section of society who thinks differently than yourself and someone who does, as evidenced throughout this thread, view them largely with contempt
Barca84
Full Member
I get his point that they may think they have reached rock bottom, my point is that they haven't.
..........
Brexit is going to cost around £100bn. Probably more, but we'll start with that figure.
That's £1500 for every man, woman and child in the UK. Note the children aspect.
How many would have voted Leave if they had to personally pay that. A £6k bill for a family of four.
Are we being asked to pay anything that we wouldn't have had to pay if remaining? I honestly don't know, but if we are, then what and why?
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
You were the one who brought up the Africa comparison Paul so you're being no more then disingenuous here. For what purpose other than to state that those in poverty can fall further I've no idea but it's bogus whatever the reason. And I've made no assumptions that "all poor people voted Brexit" Quite the opposite, stating only that the economic divide has played it's part, and it's there in b&w in my previous posts which at this point I cant be arsed to requote.
I think it's helpful to get past the "Brexit voter is stupid" narrative because, well, it's a bit stupid really isn't it? And until we do and get to some sort of genuine understanding of the complexities of the Brexit vote and the difficult questions it's posed the country will remain divided. But I've no interest in a debate where posts are disregarded or misquoted a mere handful of posts later nor, to be honest, with someone who doesn't have the ability, or desire, to empathise with a large section of society who thinks differently than yourself and someone who does, as evidenced throughout this thread, view them largely with contempt
The reason I brought up Africa was to prove there is further to fall which is what I said in my first post on the subject but it continues to be disregarded , not to say they should be lucky that they are not as poor as Africans.
This discussion started about the economics of the vote, if somebody thinks the Uk will be economically better off by voting Brexit then yes I think they are stupid.
But economics was not the only reason for the vote. Xenophobia, sovereignty and nationalism played a much bigger part which is not touched on in this particular discussion.
Nope, but it all comes down to whether we are paying for a club we will no longer be in.Are we being asked to pay anything that we wouldn't have had to pay if remaining? I honestly don't know, but if we are, then what and why?
The most important document on the financial side of Brexit is the “position paper” of 12 June 2017. This should be read carefully. The annexes are especially important — here the EU has set out the heads of what will be affected by departure. There are no figures. There is, however, reference to methodologies and principles. The EU is saying, in essence, agree what needs to be covered and they will be covered, and whatever figure comes out at the end, will be the amount to pay. This way of working out an overall settlement amount has its attractions, and looks reasonable and fair. But it seems to horrify the UK.
As the FT reports elsewhere: “The point is a reminder of the EU’s demand that the two sides devise a methodology for working out the UK’s obligations, rather than discussing total sums. The UK has resisted that approach, fearing that agreeing to the wrong methodology might leave the UK exposed to an unexpectedly vast bill.” The scene is not difficult to imagine: ministers sitting there and staring, paralysed in terror of making a judgment call. One can understand why saying “no legal liability” ever more loudly seems a better option. Part of the UK’s problem is that it has done very little of its own work on the financial side of Brexit. Whether this was because of complacency (“no legal liabilities say our lawyers!”) or of lack of capacity, the EU has been able set the terms of this element of the process.
I think this is the best analysis of it
https://www.ft.com/content/69296fe6-51be-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb?mhq5j=e4The net figures are considerably lower — €60.2bn, according to the commission figures. Those calculations exclude the European Investment Bank. The sums in effect make good the EU’s 2014-2020 long-term budget, reducing the need for other countries to increase their contributions or face lower payments. They also include pension promises and other long-term EU liabilities (in total worth €83bn) that the bloc wants the UK to honour.
But whilst we've been part of the EU, we get the benefits of EU membership. Membership of the EU single market, including the export services we provide (pretty much the only area other than defence where we export more than we import). Without that, what are we paying for?
Nope, but it all comes down to whether we are paying for a club we will no longer be in.
I think this is the best analysis of it
https://www.ft.com/content/69296fe6-51be-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb?mhq5j=e4
But whilst we've been part of the EU, we get the benefits of EU membership. Membership of the EU single market, including the export services we provide (pretty much the only area other than defence where we export more than we import). Without that, what are we paying for?
Thanks. So the EU, quite understandably, will be asking the UK to pay for the budget the UK has already agreed to, until 2020. I would imagine the UK will respond by saying ok, so long as the spending side for those projects etc in the UK will continue until 2020, and in order to pay it we will need access to the single market to continue until 2020, the 'transitional agreement' the UK government has said it wants?
I'm just speculating, but that's my point really, everyone is just speculating at the moment, we don't know what the EU will ask for, or what rationale they will put forward to justify it, or what the UK will ask for (or get) in return.
I'm just thinking that before people use the Brexit payment to justify their opinions maybe they'd be better waiting until we actually know what the payment and conditions will be?
I do think the EU is holding the highest cards mind, but we live in hope. (Some of us).
I think you and Silva have got it right. It's not something I've been thinking about as most leavers want a quick exit. Still, hopefully common sense prevails!so long as the spending side for those projects etc in the UK will continue until 2020, and in order to pay it we will need access to the single market to continue until 2020, the 'transitional agreement' the UK government has said it wants?
Ekkie Thump
Full Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,361
- Supports
- Leeds United
The only relevant measure of poverty for anyone living in the UK is one taken against a UK income median. Period. This is the accepted method and underpins the Child Poverty Act for example. We do not measure child poverty in this country against the living conditions of a child in Africa for and nor should we as poverty is relative, we live in a fully developed and wealthy economy, and poverty is measured accordingly. My beef here, as you put it, is when people trot out these tired and frankly insulting old chestnuts of how people should be thankful they're not in the bloody Congo. It is designed to belittle and demean and to silence.
It is designed to do neither. I am not denying the existence of a great deal of poverty in this country, nor do I in the slightest amount believe that somehow this society is equal or that many millions aren't desperate or that they haven't been shafted for generations. The notion that things can't get worse is the thing I am objecting to. Not that they should be thankful they aren't in the bloody congo, but that it isn't necessarily in people's best interests to inadvertently go in that direction. Your insinuation that asserting things can get worse means I and others don't wish for them to get better or that desperate people should somehow be grateful is a shameful distortion of the position I hold. My position is that Europe is, has and will continue to be a fig leaf for this country's problems and that the inequality you and I both fervently resent finds its nexus in this countries institutions, administrations and policies. The axe you grind is aiming for the wrong neck.
As for this idea that the most vulnerable are more likely to make wrong decisions based on a lack of information this attitude is sneering and ill informed in itself. You wrongly equate vulnerability with a lack of information (I suspect your definition of "information" here is simply the facts as you see them) Notwithstanding I'll point out that some of the most vulnerable people I have worked with have been the most informed and educated and had a far greater insight into their condition, and their circumstances, than any professional engaged in providing services to them. Besides condemning this as a sweepingly vague generalisation I would also strongly refute it as exactly what you claim it isn't - an elitist observation. It appears a manifestation of this narrative that those in poverty are so because, well, they're a bit dim really and what they need are the well informed to make their decisions for them. I'd suggest that even most of the very vulnerable are largely and adequately informed by the very existence of their daily lives, not the observations of those passing through or from afar, and that bar removal of their right to make decisions under rigorous process of the Mental Capacity Act they are in the best position to judge what is right for themselves.
Here's your problem. You are entirely unwilling to grant reasonableness to your interlocutor and instead bring to the table a vast array of preconceived notions about who they are and how they arrive at their decisions. You then ironically accuse them of the self same thing with regards to vulnerable people.
Education, time, space and access to resources and information is severely lacking in impoverished communities. In no way does this society provide an equitable portion to each. This is part of what being impoverished actually means. Being uninformed does not equate to people being a bit dim, it equates to having a lack of information and a lack of access to it. This is a terrible thing. In no way is it sneering to point it out, it's complacent and alarming to pretend the problem isn't there. I know exactly what having barely enough to get by on an exhausting 40 hour week in a two bed flat with 4 kids actually means. Where I can't afford a computer, the local library's shut down and where the primary nagging pressing concern is a never ending line of rent, food, shoes.
Last edited:
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
But that's like seeing someone in Somalia that truly has nothing and telling him he can still sink further because people in the congo have less than him.The reason I brought up Africa was to prove there is further to fall which is what I said in my first post on the subject but it continues to be disregarded
It depends on if we get the benefits of it. You are right though.
Here you have the official position of the EU:
2. This single financial settlement should be based on the principle that the United Kingdom must
honour its share of the financing of all the obligations undertaken while it was a member of the
Union. The United Kingdom obligations should be fixed as a percentage of the EU obligations
calculated at the date of withdrawal in accordance with a methodology to be agreed in the first
phase of the negotiations.
3. On this basis, the United Kingdom should continue to benefit from all programmes as before the
withdrawal until their closure under the condition that it respects the applicable Union legal
rules.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
But that's like seeing someone in Somalia that truly has nothing and telling him he can still sink further because people in the congo have less than him.
But according to him everyone who earns below the median wage, ie 50% of the population is in poverty, it's meaningless whereas if the average wage is £10k higher than Spain for example, the people in Spain are much poorer than the UK but this is precisely what you are saying, the standard of living is higher in the UK than maybe in Spain so they are not as poor as they think they are.
The "having absolutely nothing" does not quite have the same meaning. If the food they are buying after Brexit is 20% more expensive then they have 20% less than absolutely nothing
I was also accused of calling everyone who is poor "a bit dim", then I pointed out that not all poor people voted Brexit. Odd.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
I dont think thats his stance at all.But according to him everyone who earns below the median wage, ie 50% of the population is in poverty, it's meaningless whereas if the average wage is £10k higher than Spain for example, the people in Spain are much poorer than the UK but this is precisely what you are saying, the standard of living is higher in the UK than maybe in Spain so they are not as poor as they think they are.
The "having absolutely nothing" does not quite have the same meaning. If the food they are buying after Brexit is 20% more expensive then they have 20% less than absolutely nothing
I was also accused of calling everyone who is poor "a bit dim", then I pointed out that not all poor people voted Brexit. Odd.
Would you not say that remainers who voted for Cameron are perhaps dimmer than any exit voter?
Thing is, there are direct benefits, and indirect benefits.Here you have the official position of the EU:
I expect we'll get farming subsidies back, but we certainly won't get access to the Single Market, if we've left the Single Market.
Thing is, there are direct benefits, and indirect benefits.
I expect we'll get farming subsidies back, but we certainly won't get access to the Single Market, if we've left the Single Market.
If you want access to the market until 2020, you will have it. The problem is that your politicians sold an immediate exit.
Would you not say that remainers who voted for Cameron are perhaps dimmer than any exit voter?
If they feel as strongly about Brexit as many on here then they are the dimmest of the lot.
If you want access to the market until 2020, you will have it. The problem is that your politicians sold an immediate exit.
We don't know what transitional arrangement the uk will be asking for yet, neither do we know what the EU will agree to, or what it will cost, so how you can be so sure of what's going to happen I don't know.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
I dont think thats his stance at all.
Would you not say that remainers who voted for Cameron are perhaps dimmer than any exit voter?
You mean in him granting a referendum, many people even including Farage, May etc didn't think there was much danger that the people would vote to leave.
The same could be asked about the last election, Corbyn was obviously anti-EU and May changed from pro-EU to anti-EU in a year.
Not a lot of choice in the last one.
I wasn't even following UK politics in the first part of this decade until alarm bells started ringing that they may be daft enough to do the unthinkable and they did!
Anyone who votes for their own downfall is dim.
We don't know what transitional arrangement the uk will be asking for yet, neither do we know what the EU will agree to, or what it will cost, so how you can be so sure of what's going to happen I don't know.
Which is why I used the word "if".
If you want access to the market until 2020, you will have it. The problem is that your politicians sold an immediate exit.
Which is why I used the word "if".
So all we have to do is ask? Well I'm glad that's settled. All this speculation was starting to annoy me.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
That's such a lame excuse tho mate, you know it too. They need to put their hands up and show us who they are, they have no right to complain whatsoever.You mean in him granting a referendum, many people even including Farage, May etc didn't think there was much danger that the people would vote to leave.
So all we have to do is ask? Well I'm glad that's settled. All this speculation was starting to annoy me.
It's in fact one way to do it, since you can ask for an extension of the negotiation period. But what I meant is that if you really want to be in the single market until 2020(basically the end of the current budget), you have the possibility to negotiate for it and make the concessions needed.
It's in fact one way to do it, since you can ask for an extension of the negotiation period. But what I meant is that if you really want to be in the single market until 2020(basically the end of the current budget), you have the possibility to negotiate for it and make the concessions needed.
In that case I agree with what you meant, although in actuality we simply don't know yet.
Barca84
Full Member
The reason I brought up Africa was to prove there is further to fall which is what I said in my first post on the subject but it continues to be disregarded , not to say they should be lucky that they are not as poor as Africans.
This discussion started about the economics of the vote, if somebody thinks the Uk will be economically better off by voting Brexit then yes I think they are stupid.
But economics was not the only reason for the vote. Xenophobia, sovereignty and nationalism played a much bigger part which is not touched on in this particular discussion.
I rest my case.
It is designed to do neither. I am not denying the existence of a great deal of poverty in this country, nor do I in the slightest amount believe that somehow this society is equal or that many millions aren't desperate or that they haven't been shafted for generations. The notion that things can't get worse is the thing I am objecting to. Not that they should be thankful they aren't in the bloody congo, but that it isn't necessarily in people's best interests to inadvertently go in that direction. Your insinuation that asserting things can get worse means I and others don't wish for them to get better or that desperate people should somehow be grateful is a shameful distortion of the position I hold. My position is that Europe is, has and will continue to be a fig leaf for this country's problems and that the inequality you and I both fervently resent finds its nexus in this countries institutions, administrations and policies. The axe you grind is aiming for the wrong neck.
Here's your problem. You are entirely unwilling to grant reasonableness to your interlocutor and instead bring to the table a vast array of preconceived notions about who they are and how they arrive at their decisions. You then ironically accuse them of the self same thing with regards to vulnerable people.
Education, time, space and access to resources and information is severely lacking in impoverished communities. In no way does this society provide an equitable portion to each. This is part of what being impoverished actually means. Being uninformed does not equate to people being a bit dim, it equates to having a lack of information and a lack of access to it. This is a terrible thing. In no way is it sneering to point it out, it's complacent and alarming to pretend the problem isn't there. I know exactly what having barely enough to get by on an exhausting 40 hour week in a two bed flat with 4 kids actually means. Where I can't afford a computer, the local library's shut down and where the primary nagging pressing concern is a never ending line of rent, food, shoes.
A cursory trawl through Paul's posting in this thread reveals nothing less than a barely concealed contempt for a section of our society and it is he that I am addressing primarily. His latest charming example..
Anyone who votes for their own downfall is dim.
Ergo he is not of course. What he can't seemingly comprehend is that nobody has willingly voted for their downfall in regards to Brexit whether he thinks they have or not. The uninformed are dim and deserving of nothing but what they get. So let's lose the bolded hyperbole.
You're right of course about what's lacking in many communities. I know this well as I have spent my working life in them and I'm not pretending anything regarding what problems do or do not exist. I have seen adults object to the building of new educational facilities for their children because this was seen as a threat. Some people might struggle to comprehend this whilst others might realise why. So there's no pretence from me but rather the notion, going back to my original contribution here, that people can be perfectly well informed by their circumstances and act accordingly. Certainly informed enough to make a perfectly valid decision, as valid as anybody elses, in a binary vote such as Brexit. You might not like it, you might speculate they are wrong, but speculation is what it is and to dismiss that choice as an uninformed one as opposed to those who voted otherwise has become a well worn and rather elitist refrain. That's an arrogant stance for me even as a remainer. As far as the Brexit vote goes I would prefer to respect the choices made by others and to understand them as opposed to dismissing them as mere uninformed folly.
You're right of course about what's lacking in many communities. I know this well as I have spent my working life in them and I'm not pretending anything regarding what problems do or do not exist. I have seen adults object to the building of new educational facilities for their children because this was seen as a threat. Some people might struggle to comprehend this whilst others might realise why. So there's no pretence from me but rather the notion, going back to my original contribution here, that people can be perfectly well informed by their circumstances and act accordingly. Certainly informed enough to make a perfectly valid decision, as valid as anybody elses, in a binary vote such as Brexit. You might not like it, you might speculate they are wrong, but speculation is what it is and to dismiss that choice as an uninformed one as opposed to those who voted otherwise has become a well worn and rather elitist refrain. That's an arrogant stance for me even as a remainer. As far as the Brexit vote goes I would prefer to respect the choices made by others and to understand them as opposed to dismissing them as mere uninformed folly.
It is either uninformed or stupid for christs sake. You can understand why someone made an irrational choice and even sympathize with that choice without giving that choice the legitimacy of supposedly being 'informed'. How was it informed? They like everyone else were told by the vast majority of experts and economists that Brexit would be hugely economically damaging especially for the poorest in society. Either they didn't hear that advice (in which case they weren't informed) or they heard it and chose to disregard it due to their own life experiences in which case they made a stupid decision which will damage their lives even further.
So because someone is suffering at the bottom of society (something I have enormous sympathy for) that means that any choice they make has to be respected even if it's a choice to make their own (and everyone else's) lives harder as a result? I don't think so. You can have empathy for people and still think they made a stupid decision. It would be more condescending to act like they can't be accused of stupidity just because they're poor. You may have noticed we've applied that 'stupid' tag equally across all stratas of Brexiteer society and wealth.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
I rest my case.
A cursory trawl through Paul's posting in this thread reveals nothing less than a barely concealed contempt for a section of our society and it is he that I am addressing primarily. His latest charming example..
Ergo he is not of course. What he can't seemingly comprehend is that nobody has willingly voted for their downfall in regards to Brexit whether he thinks they have or not. The uninformed are dim and deserving of nothing but what they get. So let's lose the bolded hyperbole.
You're right of course about what's lacking in many communities. I know this well as I have spent my working life in them and I'm not pretending anything regarding what problems do or do not exist. I have seen adults object to the building of new educational facilities for their children because this was seen as a threat. Some people might struggle to comprehend this whilst others might realise why. So there's no pretence from me but rather the notion, going back to my original contribution here, that people can be perfectly well informed by their circumstances and act accordingly. Certainly informed enough to make a perfectly valid decision, as valid as anybody elses, in a binary vote such as Brexit. You might not like it, you might speculate they are wrong, but speculation is what it is and to dismiss that choice as an uninformed one as opposed to those who voted otherwise has become a well worn and rather elitist refrain. That's an arrogant stance for me even as a remainer. As far as the Brexit vote goes I would prefer to respect the choices made by others and to understand them as opposed to dismissing them as mere uninformed folly.
I don't know what case you are resting, those people can be poorer and will be because of Brexit so there is further to fall, not that they will be living in a mud hut and drinking water from a puddle in the road.
In the binary vote that was Brexit, in which possible context would anyone be better off economically by voting Brexit, it's not speculation , it's guaranteed that the UK will be worse off and when the country is worse off the people who are the poorest will lose the most. Maybe I'm arrogant here, well if and when I'm wrong please let me know and when these people are better off in a few years time because they voted Brexit I'll congratulate them.
Being a remainer and sticking ones head in the sand hoping that some miracle will happen is not going to change anything, living in cloud cuckoo land is not going to make it better, the way things are going the pound will be under €1.10/£1 by the end of the week - then some bright spark will say that helps with UK exports forgetting that the UK imports more than it exports and thus you are worse off, why oh why oh why.
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
I bloody hope so, off to the UK soonthe pound will be under €1.10/£1 by the end of the week
horsechoker
The Caf's Ezza.
Can anyone give me a sensible estimate of how much prices of goods and services will rise in the UK over the next 3-4 months? The pound is super low right now which makes it attractive to spend money in the UK for me as things are cheaper than Scandinavia and I'm getting more pound for my kroner.
Can anyone give me a sensible estimate of how much prices of goods and services will rise in the UK over the next 3-4 months? The pound is super low right now which makes it attractive to spend money in the UK for me as things are cheaper than Scandinavia and I'm getting more pound for my kroner.
Anyone that could do that would soon be a billionaire horsey. I would have thought the exchange rate would be at least as important to you as UK inflation, and the pound could go up or down according to Brexit Talks news, US and EU interest rates, or domestic inflation, as if that is much more than expected then interest rates will rise, and the pound with them.
Many on here will scream 'the pound will fall for certain', but the holders of billions and billions of pounds are better judges, and they would have sold more if they were as certain themselves.
Virgil
Full Member
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2013
- Messages
- 471
It is either uninformed or stupid for christs sake. You can understand why someone made an irrational choice and even sympathize with that choice without giving that choice the legitimacy of supposedly being 'informed'. How was it informed? They like everyone else were told by the vast majority of experts and economists that Brexit would be hugely economically damaging especially for the poorest in society. Either they didn't hear that advice (in which case they weren't informed) or they heard it and chose to disregard it due to their own life experiences in which case they made a stupid decision which will damage their lives even further.
So because someone is suffering at the bottom of society (something I have enormous sympathy for) that means that any choice they make has to be respected even if it's a choice to make their own (and everyone else's) lives harder as a result? I don't think so. You can have empathy for people and still think they made a stupid decision. It would be more condescending to act like they can't be accused of stupidity just because they're poor. You may have noticed we've applied that 'stupid' tag equally across all stratas of Brexiteer society and wealth.
It really is views such as this that make me despair. When are the majority who favoured remain going to realise that the major reason for rejection was not that people were uninformed. In large part it was the the issue of non belief. The majority of the country (of those that voted) simply did not believe that the experts and the politicians were telling the truth whichever side they were on. It was not simply disbelieving the 350 million per week on the side of the bus. The elite establishment of all colours had taken the public for granted for too long and a backlash was almost inevitable. And was it any wonder.
Not confining myself simply to Brexit lets examine some of the spouting of the informed and the so called experts.
In the late 80's Mr Major advocated we joined the ERM. Of course he and his treasury experts knew it was in our best interests. Then of course we have Mr Blair and his 'weapons of mass destruction'. The experts got that right and made the world a safer place. Lets move on to Mr Blairs pledge of 2005 to give the country a vote on EU membership if there was a significant change in the constitution. Ah but the Lisbon Treaty did not count did it. Fast forward to 2010 and Mr Cleggs pledge that tuition fees need not be increased. Then Mr Osborne telling the country that if there was a vote to exit the EU disaster would immediately befall the country. Interest rates would rise, house prices collapse and within weeks there would be the need for an emergency budget. I must have been asleep or on holiday when those events happened. And lets not forget the world economic collapse of 2010 when virtually every world leader and economist were patting themselves on the backs for the wonderful global capitalist market they had facilitated.
Now of course the remain agenda in respect of Brexit has altered to 'ah you wait and see' we are all doomed in the future. But what has altered to make anyone who voted to leave the EU to believe they have made the wrong decision. Well domestic prices are rising most will say. Yes they are but thats nothing new and anyhow according to the official opposition party in this country isn't the real reason for the squeeze on public and individual expenditure down to that nasty 'austerity' programme. If only the reigns were relaxed we would all be so much better off......nothing at all to do with Brexit.
Yes it may well be that those who voted to leave turn out to be misinformed but at present the jury is still out and unfortunately it might, just might, be that those who voted to remain turn out to be the misinformed. I doubt it but it could happen. After all stranger world events than that have happened that the great and the good failed to predict correctly.
It really is views such as this that make me despair. When are the majority who favoured remain going to realise that the major reason for rejection was not that people were uninformed. In large part it was the the issue of non belief. The majority of the country (of those that voted) simply did not believe that the experts and the politicians were telling the truth whichever side they were on. It was not simply disbelieving the 350 million per week on the side of the bus. The elite establishment of all colours had taken the public for granted for too long and a backlash was almost inevitable. And was it any wonder.
Not confining myself simply to Brexit lets examine some of the spouting of the informed and the so called experts.
In the late 80's Mr Major advocated we joined the ERM. Of course he and his treasury experts knew it was in our best interests. Then of course we have Mr Blair and his 'weapons of mass destruction'. The experts got that right and made the world a safer place. Lets move on to Mr Blairs pledge of 2005 to give the country a vote on EU membership if there was a significant change in the constitution. Ah but the Lisbon Treaty did not count did it. Fast forward to 2010 and Mr Cleggs pledge that tuition fees need not be increased. Then Mr Osborne telling the country that if there was a vote to exit the EU disaster would immediately befall the country. Interest rates would rise, house prices collapse and within weeks there would be the need for an emergency budget. I must have been asleep or on holiday when those events happened. And lets not forget the world economic collapse of 2010 when virtually every world leader and economist were patting themselves on the backs for the wonderful global capitalist market they had facilitated.
Sorry but this is nonsensical. You're basically saying that because politicians got things wrong in the past, that no-one should feel any kind of requirement to listen to experts. Ok lets not, lets just make up shit as we go along. Right and now we have Donald fecking Trump in the white house and we're about to leave a hugely successful trading group that we rely on for our economic stability. Yeah, great job!
Yes it may well be that those who voted to leave turn out to be misinformed but at present the jury is still out and unfortunately it might, just might, be that those who voted to remain turn out to be the misinformed. I doubt it but it could happen. After all stranger world events than that have happened that the great and the good failed to predict correctly.
No. The reason I can say that with such absolute certainty, is because there is simply no reasonable outcome where supposed economic benefits of this madness somehow outweigh the economic costs. At a time where our government have been starving the NHS, education services, care services, police and god knows what else of funding, we're now going to have to find tens of billions of additional pounds while simultaneously lowering our GDP. Even the Brexit politicians have pretty much all pivoted to a position of 'well one day we can recover, and we'll be free!' and such bollocks.
Britain is seriously fecked. Even if we reversed article 50 it would still cost us huge amounts of money.
The pound will rise or fall or stay the same.Can anyone give me a sensible estimate of how much prices of goods and services will rise in the UK over the next 3-4 months? The pound is super low right now which makes it attractive to spend money in the UK for me as things are cheaper than Scandinavia and I'm getting more pound for my kroner.
horsechoker
The Caf's Ezza.
Paul the Wolf
Former Score Predictions Comp Organiser (now out)
I bloody hope so, off to the UK soon
You'll be pleased to know it has actually happened before the end of the week.
Next up, inflation through the roof, put interests rate up and then people can't afford to repay the interest on their loans, brilliantly thought out
Stanley Road
Renaissance Man
Thatchers Britain
Share: