The referendum was completely muddled, information wise. You had both sides saying things may or may not happen, it was all supposition. It was up to both sides to state their cases in a clear fashion and they both failed horribly at it.
I don't think this is something that can be refuted. I seen that Tim Farron interview on TV about the theft of democracy, and despite being a bit pedantic, he is spot on. It was a vote to leave the EU, it didn't ask how we were going to go about it. That should be decided by parliament, not a party who seems to be drifting into UKIP territory and a vested interest in themselves.
Grumpy David wrote:My original post remains accurate: We were told by both sides that Brexit meant leaving the single market. So it's no surprise that is what we get.
Then why have people (on both sides) been talking about whether it would be "hard" or "soft" Brexit before, during and after the referendum?
I fully accept your claim that both sides claimed that it would be "hard" but you are ignoring the fact that both sides also claimed it would be "soft".
Rocsteady wrote:In your case nothing really changed did it, HGVs went beside your house when you moved in and they still do.
Also a little different from making your life in a country for a decade before getting chucked out.
They were there but by law were not allowed to be, illegal immigrants perhaps. My point was that the government can make changes and there is very little you can do about it.
Errkal wrote:Your point about budget is conveniently forgetting that we get rebate and things from that budget.
It was that price for free market access only then you would have a point, as it is not you don't.
Lamont's point already factors in the rebate and receiving money back.
The UK's contribution to the EU budget, after the rebate was applied, was an estimated £12.9 billion in 2015. The UK received total public sector receipts from the EU budget of £4.4 billion, making an estimated net contribution of £8.5 billion in 2015
Being net contributors to the budget does mean we effectively pay for access. And the money we get back isn't necessarily what we would choose to use it for if the choice was ours to make.
It's funny that after Teresa May's speech on Tuesday everyone said that it was good to have more clarity what Brexit might look like. But the very same people are also claiming that it was always clear that Brexit meant leaving the Single Market.
Errkal wrote:Your point about budget is conveniently forgetting that we get rebate and things from that budget.
It was that price for free market access only then you would have a point, as it is not you don't.
Lamont's point already factors in the rebate and receiving money back.
The UK's contribution to the EU budget, after the rebate was applied, was an estimated £12.9 billion in 2015. The UK received total public sector receipts from the EU budget of £4.4 billion, making an estimated net contribution of £8.5 billion in 2015
Being net contributors to the budget does mean we effectively pay for access. And the money we get back isn't necessarily what we would choose to use it for if the choice was ours to make.
We also pay for everything else that comes from membership on top of trade, like healthcare through the EU when on holiday, being able to just go on holiday etc.
Personally I think it is a good thing to be able to get healthcare when elsewhere as well as free trade.
There's a similar article in the Guardian this morning.
This is my massive fear right now. We are unilaterally heading off down a disastrous path and somehow we are allowing blind optimism to convince ourselves that all is going to be well. I think people have been drawn into a false sense it will be all OK just because the falling pound has meant exports have been more attractive for 6 months, forgetting the fact that we've yet to trigger Article 50 and the full economic impact of doing so will only become apparent in the years after that.
We seem to think that since we are net importers with Europe, they won't want to lose all that money and bend over backwards for us. But they are willing to face short term pain in order to maintain the EU and also conscious that there may well be parts of our economy, such as banking, to hive off onto the continent. We need to wake up very quickly and recognise how weak our hand truly is.
But what about the areas such as Cornwall who are basically dependant on EU funding (yet voted leave and then remanded that this important to their economy cash be secured by the government)?
Errkal wrote:Your point about budget is conveniently forgetting that we get rebate and things from that budget.
It was that price for free market access only then you would have a point, as it is not you don't.
Lamont's point already factors in the rebate and receiving money back.
The UK's contribution to the EU budget, after the rebate was applied, was an estimated £12.9 billion in 2015. The UK received total public sector receipts from the EU budget of £4.4 billion, making an estimated net contribution of £8.5 billion in 2015
Being net contributors to the budget does mean we effectively pay for access. And the money we get back isn't necessarily what we would choose to use it for if the choice was ours to make.
With an estimated Government (central and local) budget of £771 billion, that £8.5 billion will certainly make a massive difference.
Except of course with tariffs instead of single market access, businesses will now have to pay for that access to the European market, hampering their profits and lowering the tax haul. I wonder how much of that £8.5billion saving will be left over.
Errkal wrote:Your point about budget is conveniently forgetting that we get rebate and things from that budget.
It was that price for free market access only then you would have a point, as it is not you don't.
Lamont's point already factors in the rebate and receiving money back.
The UK's contribution to the EU budget, after the rebate was applied, was an estimated £12.9 billion in 2015. The UK received total public sector receipts from the EU budget of £4.4 billion, making an estimated net contribution of £8.5 billion in 2015
Being net contributors to the budget does mean we effectively pay for access. And the money we get back isn't necessarily what we would choose to use it for if the choice was ours to make.
With an estimated Government (central and local) budget of £771 billion, that £8.5 billion will certainly make a massive difference.
Except of course with tariffs instead of single market access, businesses will now have to pay for that access to the European market, hampering their profits and lowering the tax haul. I wonder how much of that £8.5billion saving will be left over.
Additionally, where the cost of tariffs will be on the products they will cost more to consumers who will buy fewer of them reducing income.
Yeah we pay for the tariff equivalent or whatever from our taxes but it is paid for, I can't see people "just accepting" the price has gone up by 8% or whatever and living with it. See Marmite gate for details.
Benzin wrote:But what about the areas such as Cornwall who are basically dependant on EU funding (yet voted leave and then remanded that this important to their economy cash be secured by the government)?
They can strawberry float off. Actions have consequences.
Benzin wrote:But what about the areas such as Cornwall who are basically dependant on EU funding (yet voted leave and then remanded that this important to their economy cash be secured by the government)?
They can strawberry float off. Actions have consequences.
Well some are benefiting from Brexit hasn't happened yet...
Guardian wrote:The Brexit vote and the slump in sterling that followed the referendum has delivered a big boost to sales at luxury label Burberry – powered by overseas shoppers who have flocked to the UK to stock up on branded goods.
The classic British label, famous for its beige check design, said sales in the UK surged by 40% in the final three months of 2016, boosted by strong demand for goods such as its buckle bags, which start at around £500 for a mini leather version and climb to £8000 for an alligator version.
In central London, there was little sign of a mad scramble for these bags or any other Burberry merchandise outside the brand’s Regent Street store. But a surge in luxury spending will never be as obvious as queuers battling for a Black Friday TV. The marbled flagship store of Britain’s biggest luxury brand probably has at least four immaculately black-clad assistants for every shopper – but they insist they’ve been rushed off their feet.
While Burberry’s formal statement to the City was coy about who exactly was behind the 40% uplift in UK sales, staff at its Regent Street store were far more forthcoming: it was all down to Chinese shoppers, they said.
One reckons that about 70% of shoppers visiting the brand’s flagship outlet are now tourists from Chi-Nah, a big surge in the last year. That’s partly down to visa changes which now enable tourists to make multiple visits over two years – previously it was just six months. But its mostly down to the near 20% plunge in the value of the pound, which has brought bargain-hunters to upmarket British stores.
Burberry is clearly catering for the lucrative Chinese market, with Mandarin-speaking shop assistants and windows touting “Give the gift of Burberry this Lunar New Year” aimed at tourists holidaying ahead of the Chinese new year on 28 January.
One young Chinese tourist visiting with his parents said: “We’re on holiday but we’re taking a look at Burberry because it’s cheaper here than at home. We might buy.”
Steve and Tuba Hancock, visiting from Australia, say they’ve been taking a look at the handbags because of the bargains on offer: “In Sydney they’re something like $1000, whereas here they’re more like $700 or even $500,” says Steve. “It’s cheaper in England, plus we can get a tax refund when we leave the country,” adds Tuba.
Staff say regular shoppers are also contributing to Burberry’s soaring UK sales. There are more personal shopping assistants to advise on wardrobe updates and special touches such as in-store monogramming for small items such as wallets and purses, which have contributed to a double-digit uplift in spend from returning customers.
The cheapest item on offer is a £14 nail varnish and the most frequently bought items are “charms” for fixing to handbags or keys, including tiny teddies for £150 and sequinned hearts for £105.
Burberry’s trademark trenchcoat is about £1,500, but shoppers looking for something a bit more upmarket need an appointment to view the most expensive item on sale, a £28,000 alligator trench coat which is held in a safe behind the scenes, along with a matching handbag. Staff say they sold several over Christmas.
Down the road in the Bond Street store the alligator trenches are out of stock, but they have one left in python – a snip at £10,500, especially if you’re buying in dollars.
Elsewhere around the globe Burberry is doing better, after a difficult period last year. Revenue over the three months rose 4% on an underlying basis, when stripping out the impact of currency fluctuations, to £735m. Like-for-like sales across all regions rose 3%.
Sales fell in the US and were weak in continental Europe, but the company did not provide specific figures. Business picked up in France and there was low single-digit growth in Asia Pacific, with improvement in mainland China and Hong Kong.
George Salmon, analyst at Hargreaves Lansdown, said: “Plenty of customers are jumping on planes to the UK to take advantage of the extra buying power sterling’s weakness gives them. All in all, there are plenty of encouraging signs for the group just now.”
Benzin wrote:But what about the areas such as Cornwall who are basically dependant on EU funding (yet voted leave and then remanded that this important to their economy cash be secured by the government)?
They're basically going to be relying on a more right-leaning Conservative government to keep up the funding, likely through a time of economic turmoil. Basically they can probably kiss a lot of it goodbye. I expect a similar outcome here in Northern Ireland. We'll probably be told we have to weather the storm together or some gooseberry fool.
Blue Eyes wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/19/breixt-talks-wil-get-very-nasty-says-former-british-ambassador-to-eu-politics-live
Oh, strawberry float you Corbyn.
Lets hope they tell him to shove it vote with their consistency or the UK's best interest.
Blue Eyes wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/19/breixt-talks-wil-get-very-nasty-says-former-british-ambassador-to-eu-politics-live
Oh, strawberry float you Corbyn.
Lets hope they tell him to shove it vote with their consistency or the UK's best interest.
Its a bit of an odd one because 70% of Labour constituencies voted Leave, but importantly 67% of Labour voters voted to Remain.
The problem is it is the oppositions job to oppose, and the only time he does a good job on that is at PMQs.
Blue Eyes wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/19/breixt-talks-wil-get-very-nasty-says-former-british-ambassador-to-eu-politics-live
Oh, strawberry float you Corbyn.
Lets hope they tell him to shove it vote with their consistency or the UK's best interest.
Its a bit of an odd one because 70% of Labour constituencies voted Leave, but importantly 67% of Labour voters voted to Remain.
The problem is it is the oppositions job to oppose, and the only time he does a good job on that is at PMQs.
It is their job to oppose but only on policy they are opposed to, they dont just have to say "NO" to everything. However, I don't understand how you can stand for helping those less fortunate and say leaving is a good idea.
Blue Eyes wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/jan/19/breixt-talks-wil-get-very-nasty-says-former-british-ambassador-to-eu-politics-live
Oh, strawberry float you Corbyn.
He is such a useless strawberry floating banana split.
My MP supported Remain and her constituency overwhelmingly supported Remain and her party supporters overwhelmingly support Remain but because of Corbyn she will be forced to vote to trigger Article 50?
If this happens then there is no question of where my vote is going at the next election. The only possible thing that might make me vote Labour is that my MP seems a decent sort, if she is told to vote for Article 50 and goes along with it then she can strawberry float off.
