Brexit
- Thread starter ruffrecords
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
Hehe, who cares about Yorkshire tea. There's still Earl Grey, uargh 
Brexit's coming up it seems (latest opinion polls). Well, get ready for the magic 10%. Not sure though how that translates:
A - 10% drop of the pound's purchasing power?
B - 10% price increase on any import from the EU to UK?
C - 10% price increase on exports from UK to the EU?
D - 10% less UK products sold in the EU?
E - 10% price drop of UK goods sold to EU countries?
F - 10% cut in UK production and service industry wages?
G - 10% increase in UK unemplyoment (on average)?
(Multiple answers possible.)
Brexit's coming up it seems (latest opinion polls). Well, get ready for the magic 10%. Not sure though how that translates:
A - 10% drop of the pound's purchasing power?
B - 10% price increase on any import from the EU to UK?
C - 10% price increase on exports from UK to the EU?
D - 10% less UK products sold in the EU?
E - 10% price drop of UK goods sold to EU countries?
F - 10% cut in UK production and service industry wages?
G - 10% increase in UK unemplyoment (on average)?
(Multiple answers possible.)
An interesting thing about BREXIT is the divergence between opinion polls and the betting line. Generally betting odds reflect polls where people put money on the line so tend to be more accurate. Another reason to suspect the polls is that voter turnout appears to be a major factor for this and distorted polls could encourage or discourage groups of voters to come out. I am not calling "funny business" (I'm not a big conspiracy guy), but watching this with interest.
A BREXIT vote to withdraw could have larger impact on motivating others to do the same.
JR
A BREXIT vote to withdraw could have larger impact on motivating others to do the same.
JR
micaddict
Well-known member
Business as usual?
ruffrecords
Well-known member
Script said:Hehe, who cares about Yorkshire tea. There's still Earl Grey, uargh
Brexit's coming up it seems (latest opinion polls). Well, get ready for the magic 10%. Not sure though how that translates:
A - 10% drop of the pound's purchasing power?
B - 10% price increase on any import from the EU to UK?
C - 10% price increase on exports from UK to the EU?
D - 10% less UK products sold in the EU?
E - 10% price drop of UK goods sold to EU countries?
F - 10% cut in UK production and service industry wages?
G - 10% increase in UK unemplyoment (on average)?
(Multiple answers possible.)
And 10 Billion Pounds in the bank that we won't have to pay the EU every year.
Cheers
Ian
Script said:Hehe, who cares about Yorkshire tea. There's still Earl Grey, uargh
Brexit's coming up it seems (latest opinion polls). Well, get ready for the magic 10%. Not sure though how that translates:
A - 10% drop of the pound's purchasing power?
B - 10% price increase on any import from the EU to UK?
C - 10% price increase on exports from UK to the EU?
D - 10% less UK products sold in the EU?
E - 10% price drop of UK goods sold to EU countries?
F - 10% cut in UK production and service industry wages?
G - 10% increase in UK unemplyoment (on average)?
(Multiple answers possible.)
there are also 10% of less rules from EU on internal UK markets
10% of less rules from EU on small and medium UK companies so they became more competitive on internal market and extra UK markets.
10% of less rules for UK citizens
10% stronger internal UK markets.
10% more of UK products for UK citizens.
10% of less EU problems inside.
10% of less people that told you as you must do or not.
There is a reson why Morocco, Egypt, China, Japan...etc...sell their products in EU markets without problems and better than EU companies ;D ?
I don't see them having much problems with EU market. ;D ;D
I think that long term, Great Britain will no longer exist after Brexit. Scotland will break away and rejoin the EU. Northern Ireland may see itself better off in a united Ireland so it will be just England and Wales. We may be forced to give up Gibraltar too.
I blame the EU for much of this, there have been too many EU politicians out to make a name for themselves by making the EU as big as possible. This has all happened at much too fast a pace and it has been too much for so many people to take. The immigration crisis has been the final nail in the coffin. If they had just left it as the Common Market, we would not be in this situation now. It is tragic that they will probably tackle these issues after the UK has left, but were too stupid/pigheaded to sort out the problem beforehand.
However I look at it, I see Farage, Gove and Boris as buffoons and total dick heads, I just don't trust their judgement. I am sick to my stomach to see my home country self destruct.
DaveP
I blame the EU for much of this, there have been too many EU politicians out to make a name for themselves by making the EU as big as possible. This has all happened at much too fast a pace and it has been too much for so many people to take. The immigration crisis has been the final nail in the coffin. If they had just left it as the Common Market, we would not be in this situation now. It is tragic that they will probably tackle these issues after the UK has left, but were too stupid/pigheaded to sort out the problem beforehand.
However I look at it, I see Farage, Gove and Boris as buffoons and total dick heads, I just don't trust their judgement. I am sick to my stomach to see my home country self destruct.
DaveP
Matt Nolan
Well-known member
Well, as I said, I was half joking. But I did also say that "MQ" should be in there and that would (or should!) cover the things you state above.mattiasNYC said:Matt Nolan said:I'm half joking when I say this, but I do wonder if this might be a great idea:Script said:- hard approach: and/or make voting mandatory for all people (vote or get fined
Voting is mandatory and it is included with an IQ test and some kind of MQ test (Morality Quotient). Votes are weighted according to the IQ and MQ results and added together to get the final result!
Well, IQ is certainly a valuable resource, but I would argue that there are things that are more important:
- Knowledge
- Compassion / Empathy
- Honesty
etc
So you can have pretty smart people that are egocentric and egotistic and will make decisions mostly in their own favor, and you can have smart people that while having intelligence lack knowledge on a lot of relevant topics because they just don't care about them. And conversely you can have compassionate educated people with an IQ "below par", and I would argue that they would make the better decisions.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that the masses will make worse decisions - in general, over time - for the masses, than a smaller elite with high-IQ or in possession of expert skills.
In my semi-joke world, the IQ weighting would not be linear. We wouldn't give more weight to the people who are better at passing IQ tests. We would just down-weight a little the folks who struggle to reason properly. The MQ part should be a much stronger part of the weighting algorithm.
To (roughly) quote Frank Zappa - "scientists say the most abundent element in the universe is Hydrogen. I disagree. I think the most abundent element in the universe it stupidity". He also said something along the lines of "don't underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers"
I really fear we are about to do something really stupid!
R.I.P. Jo Cox.
Sorry, I had to google her name in the news. It wasn't on my daily news platter when I posted before.
Absolutely dreadful!
If there's any meaning in her death, I hope it's that people in Britain realize that the entire debate/issue has been heated up with way too much emotion and misleading information. Any attempt at boiling things down to easily memorizable phrases (or numbers) is not doing justice to reality. It's way more complicated.
Sorry, I had to google her name in the news. It wasn't on my daily news platter when I posted before.
Absolutely dreadful!
If there's any meaning in her death, I hope it's that people in Britain realize that the entire debate/issue has been heated up with way too much emotion and misleading information. Any attempt at boiling things down to easily memorizable phrases (or numbers) is not doing justice to reality. It's way more complicated.
rob_gould
Well-known member
Script said:
This is an excellent point, and I think one of the weaknesses of trying to argue the case for 'remain'.
People love the idea of an easy choice, with simple reasons behind that choice. Hence, it's easy for people to decide to vote leave when they can sum up their choice in a single sentence, or even word!
"Immigration!- the country is flooded with foreigners taking our jobs because of free movement of people within the EU!"
"£10 billion per week extra in the bank if Britain leaves the EU!"
Both of the above points are easily disproved of course, but the more interesting point is that there isn't a single sentence reason for remaining in the EU. It's a series of carefully nuanced and balanced arguments that are arrived at by doing a lot or research and a lot of reading. And frankly, the average UK citizen cannot be bothered.
Also, many (most?) in the remain camp certainly of people that I know are happy to admit that there are major flaws in how certain parts of the EU work, and can agree that Britain's relationship with the EU potentially ought to change. What I don't hear on the part of leave voters is any admission whatsoever that the EU contributes anything positive . Again, 'single sentence' judgements which don't reflect the reality of a hugely complex situation.
ruffrecords
Well-known member
DaveP said:
And I don't see anything better when I look at Cameron, Osborne ,Corbin et al. The bottom line is the EU is broken and there is no way to fix it from inside.
Cheers
Ian
Matt Nolan
Well-known member
Yes, the EU is broken and needs to change. With respect though, do you really believe there is no way to fix it from the inside (and, by inference, that it must be fixed from the outside)?ruffrecords said:
thermionic
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,671
Nick Clegg: 'Boris is Donald Trump with a thesaurus'
It's funny, but profound - in that Boris doesn't have any more content than Trump. He's never shown an interest in EU issues up until now, yet has suddenly become evangelical for Brexit.
Vote leave, get Boris for PM - a man as devoid of integrity as he is of substance.
It's funny, but profound - in that Boris doesn't have any more content than Trump. He's never shown an interest in EU issues up until now, yet has suddenly become evangelical for Brexit.
Vote leave, get Boris for PM - a man as devoid of integrity as he is of substance.
If Britain leaves the EU now, and they sure would be leaving for good, could it be that they leave for entirely wrong reasons...?
If the entire Brexit thing is just a way of telling the British national government that it is actually their politics that are 'broken' and that they should finally start making better politics for their own people, I'd say it might have been somewhat successful already. It might even have repurcussions across the entire EU. But to vote for 'leave' because of dissatisfaction with a national government sure borders on the plain silly.
Granted, the 'leave' campaign sure knows how to channel diffuse dissatisfaction, frustration and anger (wrt all sorts of things: illegal immigration?, overragulation from the EU?, maybe add unemployment?, the entire financial system?, wealth distribution?) and amalgamate all that into a vision of a better, glorious, prosperous and, above all, self-determined future -- a vision that is sure pulling a cart or two.
I too think that a loud bang of some sort is needed (not only in the UK, for that matter) so that things change, but I'm not sure Britain exiting the EU is the right kind of bang (for the UK, I mean). As for 'taking matters into your own hands', after leaving the EU, I really don't see the British public will have a bigger say in British national politics than they have now. Actually, I'm convinced that several post-exit governments will have no choice but implement a series of highly unpopular policies, not getting tired of reminding the population condescendingly that it was them after all who (in)directly voted for it.
Gove projecting they 'could' use former money going into the EU to subsidise the steel industry... that was only a case in point, so add fishing industry, sugar industry, car industry, Yorkshire tea industry etc etc etc... now that's gonna work for sure. I seriously doubt the noble motifs of litany-spewing people like Gove (not that Cameron is an honourable nobleman in my books at all). But why doesn't Gove simply tell his kin to go learn about fish farming? Tell the sugar industry workers to produce biogas etc etc.
Take that Swiss editor in the 'Brexit -- the movie'. In recent years he has turned into a right-leaning waffler. Even worse, by former 'working class' standards, he'd qualify as quasi right-wing populist. Google the other people in that flick and anyone tell me, is that not some political (or in this case maybe also affluent) group of people trying to seize power? -- (That's the conspiracy devil in me speaking.)
Finally, not sure how much and for what prices Marocco and Egypt export into the EU. I guess they still qualify as low-wage countries.
As for Japan, I seriously advise to not copy their financial and, even less, their employment system. Apart from it being rather static and strictly hierarchical with very little upward movement and next to no sideway movement (applies to permanent employees only), Japan has managed to drive almost 40% of the entire working population into irregular employment, most of them via dispatch companies (often short-term work), but also many part-timers, all next to a horrendously high number of people (some even with permanent contracts!) in what sure is the low-wage sector. What these people get: well, below taxable income and no unemployment support and no retirement plan (neither public, corporate or private). I don't see how this could possibly be a role model for anyone.
If the entire Brexit thing is just a way of telling the British national government that it is actually their politics that are 'broken' and that they should finally start making better politics for their own people, I'd say it might have been somewhat successful already. It might even have repurcussions across the entire EU. But to vote for 'leave' because of dissatisfaction with a national government sure borders on the plain silly.
Granted, the 'leave' campaign sure knows how to channel diffuse dissatisfaction, frustration and anger (wrt all sorts of things: illegal immigration?, overragulation from the EU?, maybe add unemployment?, the entire financial system?, wealth distribution?) and amalgamate all that into a vision of a better, glorious, prosperous and, above all, self-determined future -- a vision that is sure pulling a cart or two.
I too think that a loud bang of some sort is needed (not only in the UK, for that matter) so that things change, but I'm not sure Britain exiting the EU is the right kind of bang (for the UK, I mean). As for 'taking matters into your own hands', after leaving the EU, I really don't see the British public will have a bigger say in British national politics than they have now. Actually, I'm convinced that several post-exit governments will have no choice but implement a series of highly unpopular policies, not getting tired of reminding the population condescendingly that it was them after all who (in)directly voted for it.
Gove projecting they 'could' use former money going into the EU to subsidise the steel industry... that was only a case in point, so add fishing industry, sugar industry, car industry, Yorkshire tea industry etc etc etc... now that's gonna work for sure. I seriously doubt the noble motifs of litany-spewing people like Gove (not that Cameron is an honourable nobleman in my books at all). But why doesn't Gove simply tell his kin to go learn about fish farming? Tell the sugar industry workers to produce biogas etc etc.
Take that Swiss editor in the 'Brexit -- the movie'. In recent years he has turned into a right-leaning waffler. Even worse, by former 'working class' standards, he'd qualify as quasi right-wing populist. Google the other people in that flick and anyone tell me, is that not some political (or in this case maybe also affluent) group of people trying to seize power? -- (That's the conspiracy devil in me speaking.)
Finally, not sure how much and for what prices Marocco and Egypt export into the EU. I guess they still qualify as low-wage countries.
As for Japan, I seriously advise to not copy their financial and, even less, their employment system. Apart from it being rather static and strictly hierarchical with very little upward movement and next to no sideway movement (applies to permanent employees only), Japan has managed to drive almost 40% of the entire working population into irregular employment, most of them via dispatch companies (often short-term work), but also many part-timers, all next to a horrendously high number of people (some even with permanent contracts!) in what sure is the low-wage sector. What these people get: well, below taxable income and no unemployment support and no retirement plan (neither public, corporate or private). I don't see how this could possibly be a role model for anyone.
Script,
You have a good insight into the UK, but I think the truth is nearer to this:-
Since WW2 successive governments have encouraged immigration to keep wages low, this was reasonably tolerated because the immigrants spoke English and attempted to integrate. In the 90's the labour government started to use the phrase "Multiculturalism" which was meant to celebrate diversity but became, in effect, a licence not to integrate. This was particularly evident amongst Muslims who lived in closed communities within tribal societies still linked strongly to Pakistan. The integration of muslim women in particular was made more difficult because they are covered up and strictly controlled.
Dodgy muslim clerics who were kicked out of their own countries found a haven in the UK in these societies and spread their mayhem largely un-noticed for years until 9/11. When we tried to expel them we found we could not because of the Human rights Act, the European Court and fears they might be tortured. The feeling that we could not control our own borders started around this time. The liberal politics of the time shut down debate on immigration by labelling people who did as racists or bigots.
There have been several instances of south asian gangs targeting young girls from broken homes for sex and this has caused great resentment. If you add to that acid attacks and "Honour Killings" for marrying outside the tribe and mosques built in previously Christian towns you start to see the roots of an immigration/integration problem.
On top of this there has been immigration from Poland and the Baltic states and population growth due to immigrants having larger families, resulting in English children being in a minority in several areas. Britain is a small country with a big population, a housing shortage and an NHS and education system under pressure, strict control of immigration is therefore the main issue in the Brexit debate. If the EU had given David Cameron an immediate moratorium on further immigration it might have saved the day, but as it, they have cut the feet from under him with their intransigence and shot themselves in the foot in the process. The fact that the EU failed to appreciate the seriousness of the situation, just emphasises the remoteness of the EU.
The Jihad with IS has brought the whole issue to the boil, leading to suspicion of Muslims as a "fifth column" within British society. The camps of economic migrants at Calais trying to get to the UK by any means has made matters worse. The final straw was probably the EU letting in hundreds of thousands of refugees with Jihadists intermingled and just recently the immigrants intercepted in the channel in rubber boats. The surge in the "Leave " polls started around then.
From this you can see that we may well be leaving for the wrong reasons as the problem did not start with EU immigration, but the present EU policies are seen as making worse a problem that started elsewhere at an earlier time.
DaveP
ruffrecords
Well-known member
Matt Nolan said:
I am sure there are ways to fix it from within - the question is how much pain will it involve.
I don't think it can be fixed from outside. I don't think it can be fixed in my lifetime.
Cheers
Ian
If the British public don't think it can be fixed, then by definition they will be correct.
Surely the politicians are arguing that both ways would be wonderful.
JR
Surely the politicians are arguing that both ways would be wonderful.
JR
ruffrecords
Well-known member
JohnRoberts said:
That's the stupid thing about this campaign; both sides argue the negatives of the other - there are no positives.
Cheers
Ian
sahib
Well-known member
micaddict said:
Absolutely certainly. NOTHING WILL CHANGE.
The remain campaign keeps banging on this issue that we somehow have to re-negotiate all these trade deals. Could be true but so do the EC. I have driven Wolkswagen and Audi all my life. I'd like to see German government telling Audi that they can't sell me their cars anymore. Or French government telling their farmers that they have to suspend their export until they negotiate a deal with us. We've seen how French reacts to things like that. They don't mess around. As once one newspaper columnist wrote, they would drag that official off his chair, burn his office down to the ground and then hang him from the Eiffel Tower.
Actually, not stupid... That's why there is so much mud slinging and fear mongering around political contests. People typically vote against candidates out of dislike for or fear of certain candidates.ruffrecords said:
A BREXIT vote is similar... fear of what will happen it they leave, or don't.
JR
