The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50

NEoldiron

If this isn't reason enough to show how disastrous the Brexit vote was, I don't know what is:
Supermarket chain Morrisons has increased the cost of a jar of Marmite by 12.5%, ;weep ;weep

(Because the pound has lost nearly a fifth of its value since the UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum in June. It is the world's worst-performing currency on the global money markets this year.)

And we're still in the EU.

Expat_Hammer

NEoldiron said:

If this isn't reason enough to show how disastrous the Brexit vote was, I don't know what is:
Supermarket chain Morrisons has increased the cost of a jar of Marmite by 12.5%, ;weep ;weep

That's because Unilever are a bunch of profiteering thieving expletives.

Tesco banned Marmite sales because of the price hike after discovering that the product is produced in THIS country using British ingredients. Funny enough, Unilever (blame it on Brexit ;biggrin ) backed down................ More fool Morrisons ;lol

Oh, and this was about two weeks ago.

NEoldiron said:

(Because the pound has lost nearly a fifth of its value since the UK voted to leave the EU in a referendum in June. It is the world's worst-performing currency on the global money markets this year.)

And we're still in the EU.

Maybe that's the problem and normality will be restored once we leave the crooks club ;biggrin

NEoldiron

Try taking a irony pill Expat ;wink

Expat_Hammer

Nah, Guinness if much better for anemia ;lol

IronHerb

I thought that gave you amnesia....oh anemia

;yercoat

NEoldiron

Gotta give you that one ;ok ;lol

MrsGrey

I'd vote for Marmite to be official post-Brexit currency ;wahoo

Expat_Hammer

I'd vote for free Marmite for everyone ;ok

NEoldiron

You've gotta love it -

or

hate it ;lol

PrestonHammer

They could give Marmite away and I'd still not be taking it.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

NEoldiron said:

Madcap you posted this link

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/oct/27/uk-gdp-growth-figures-brexit-impact-economy-business-live

The point is the pre-referendum forecast was 0.7%.
But you and many others are forgetting that we're still in the EU, so who knows what it will be like when Brexit is actually effected.

Yes it was - Pre-referendum. However given the raised eyebrows and surprise it was 0.5 showed that many 'experts' though growth would be much lower if any at all, one before the figures were announced the other day (on a sky news programme) thought we would be lucky if it was 0.0%.....

AdMeus_CaputFilius

NEoldiron said:

Onme'ead, apology accepted ;ok

Regarding the link you posted, you omitted the little bit about the potential loss of tax revenue from banking:

"Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Tom Brake said that if the UK pursued a "hard Brexit" then it would "threaten the £65bn the UK financial services industry pays in taxes each year".
He added: "The Conservative government must explain how it will make up this funding shortfall if the UK leaves the single market.""

No, I did not. I simply posted the link to show how biased some of the reporting is at the moment. Everything in that article is speculation but the headline is inferring it is a forgone conclusion that the finance and banking sectors are already on the move and all that income is lost already.

As for Tom's comment - how many more times does it have to be said, the Government is not pushing for a hard brexit and only mentions it when they are quizzed by the Media or in response to other peoples comments. The only people talking up a hard brexit are certain sections of the EU, the SNP, Lib Dems, Labour - in fact anyone who wants it to be a disaster so they can say - Told you so.

There has to be a plan for hard brexit in case we are forced that way, but it is not, as far as I understand, the approach is to negotiate the best deal we can get for the UK.

claretandbluesky

The reason people began to talk about a hard brexit was that TM stated that immigration would be placed at the top of the agenda as that is what the public had voted for. However EU state that the four freedoms are non negotiable and if you wish for free trade you must allow free movement. Now if this is true hard brexit will be necessary. Unless she believes the EU will compromise the very foundations that the idea is built on because they fear losing free trade with ourselves over that.

I am not a trained negotiator but even I could do the job for the EU as they are in such a strong position.

Simply be friendly until article 50 triggered then keep saying four freedoms come as one until we either give in and look stupid or hold out and move to world trade tariffs. On their side they now have tariffs when dealing with one member of the previous group of 28, a nuisance but liveable. We however have tariffs with all the other 27, they also have the added bonus of our financial sector being picked off and the natural re-directing of any business that went in our direction to fellow EU members, not to mention a massive advertising bill board with what happens to a country that leaves the EU. Oh and they lose the member who was a pain in the backside all the time, preventing closer union and out of the Euro anyhow, butbwho held vetos and opt outs.

Seems a win win for them, either we go soft and lose voice, veto and more credibility than would have seemed possible, or go hard with the above scenario, the irony is we will have control of our own immigration but no longer be attractive to immigrants.

IronHerb

C&B, you're forgetting the £12b(?) the EU will need to find that was the net contribution paid by the UK. Not quite so win-win imo.

Tomw85

It has also been stated that if the tariffs are the way it goes then the EU will be hit with a much higher bill than we are as we have a deficite when it comes to exporting/importing to the EU.

Again out of the hundreds of countries in the world only 28 have free access to the single market, yet all the other countries are still doing fine, in fact better than the EU given it's growth over the last few years. I really don't understand the panic that leaving will mean the end of us. Yes there will be a few hardships initially and a few prices may increase, but once everything settles down at least we will be free to determine our own future without having to worry about what 27 other countries want.

To me that is worth the risk of the impact of leaving. I still want to see immigration, but we have control over it. I still want to see us trade world wide, we can agree deals without needing 27 others to also agree. To me that is not the UK being small minded, but not wanting to be restricted by what started out as a free trade block but then went fully political.

Dodger58

The other aspect of making our own deals with the rest of the world is that we may chose to have free trade with others, reducing the costs of import from them and hence resulting in lower prices for the consumer than we currently have.

That will have the likely impact of reducing further the attractiveness of Eu goods. I don't know the details, but suspect we currently have to pay duty on wines from Australia, South Africa, South America and the US. So it may have unfortunate consequences for the EU wine growers too.

Tomw85

I have seen it said that our food bill may go down rather than up as we will have access to markets that had tariffs on them to protect the EU products that we import. The £ won't stay low forever although it may not reach the same levels again as before but there are so many things that affect its value. For example apparently America are making the $ strong to deal with any dip following the election there.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

So the secret is out at last - I know a bit about these as I deal with courier companies that import and export a lot, but now the hand has been shown. There are already some in place with some countries we trade with outside the EU, so there is no reason we cannot expand on the use of customs unions, I have a feeling that we were restricted a bit by our membership of the EU. I do come across it when checking all the documentation of goods/shipments and it seems to work well - using this we can actually negotiate on trade deals without considering the other three key pillars or the EU (particularly the free movement of people), so there is a mechanism in place (if chosen to be used) which can be used to maintain the free trade (or at lease low tariffs if we have to have them). If the EU chooses not to do so, well it will not reflect well on them.

See the deal with EU/Canada has been signed then .......

MrsGrey

IronHerb said:

C&B, you're forgetting the £12b(?) the EU will need to find that was the net contribution paid by the UK. Not quite so win-win imo.

Or £8.5bn ish?

Anyway, it may be that a large chunk of that will be offered up for a sweetheart deal on tariffs.

The more details that are put out in the public domain (always allowing for media distortion), the more I think - what was the point.

claretandbluesky

When I reflect on the problems ahead, I think the best negotiation which can take place is a pre negotiation which should be best for both sides.

We negotiate a deal to leave the EU and have an pre deal agreement signed by all members that until an agreement is reached we remain a full member, be that 2 years or 5 years, upon an agreement being finalised we put the agreement to a second referendum. The reason for this being it is an actual deal rather than a promise of what it will be like as the leave camp won the first one on. May cannot really refuse this as she has already said she would put the deal to parliament once agreed, of course that would be pointless if through article 50 there is no way back should parliament reject it.

That should suit the UK as it has the opportunity to properly explore the issue in a pragmatic way, it should also suit the EU as it also has a seamless exit. Were I them I would ask for a clause that should we vote to stay we are liable for a sum representing the cost to the EU of negotiation, this will run into a large sum but our fault for playing party politics in the first place.

It also means we are actually in a position to leave once the referendum is decided, unlike now, And most importantly every single voter will know exactly what they are voting for.

deehammer

The democratic will of the people cannot be pushed aside! They are fed up with being told that they didn't know what they voted for. They did know and still do!
Parliament voted for the referendum but some are now trying to change the outcome by any means they can.
The voters have made their choice so another referendum will not change their minds and is showing disrespect for democracy!
.

claretandbluesky

I think it would depend on the state of things come the vote, at present Sterling has lost a huge chink of it's value, the triple AAA rating held onto for life itself after the financial crisis went the day after the vote, should inflation begin to take hold as well and should unemployment start to rise then I feel it would only be natural to vote on the situation as it is found at the time.

Had these things above happened due to anything else the nation would be calling for the head of the Govt that oversaw it and possibly caused it, but because there is an investment in the referendum 'win' for many there is great tolerance. I feel once, or if, it begins to bite into peoples households then it may focus the mind differently.

There has to be a line over which every leave voter would change their mind, for instance if for an exaggerated example sterling lost 50% of it's value, and unemployment rose to 20%, inflation at 15 % and the NHS funding and benefits were slashed due to poor tax receipts, surely most would change their mind, as it is not really arguable that curbing immigration numbers by say 50% is equitable to the above. Now that is an exaggerated scenario of course but there must be a point in which all would change their mind, no one would surely admit they would tolerate absolutely anything that may come simply to leave the EU, so it may just be a case of how bad or not it may get.

I am also not sure many people actually respect democracy anyway as for many it is seen a way to convince the populous that it chose something so that it accepts it. The idea of democracy is that the people choose, but they choose according to information given, so who provides the information controls the democracy. This applies throughout all elections but none more so than the last referendum. I feel certain had the Mail and the Sun shaped their narrative differently the result would have been different.

NEoldiron

Claretandblue, your last few posts ;clap ;clap ;ok

Tomw85

Claret and Blue, I can see what you are saying and to a point I agree. However my vote was cast with the understanding that things would most likely get worse before they then hopefully get better.

What has been frustrating for people that voted out is that those that voted remain seem set on proving just how bad everything is in the hope that it will change those that voted to leaves mind. By remainers trying to prove the negatives they are possibly adding to the issues, without yet waiting to see what exit deal we can secure.

From my own personal point of view I would accept things getting a lot worse yet. FTSE 100 goes down, this doesn't really affect me day to day.
Sterling goes down, a few things get a bit more expensive but on the whole my day to day life doesn't change.
GDP goes down (it is actually up) oh well, these are just numbers on a chart to the average person who voted.
Unemployment goes up, this one I admit would be bad and I hope doesn't happen and hasn't happened yet.

Most people feel so detached about government figures, but what they can see is how their own local area is changing, and if it is for the worse then I can understand them wanting to change that.

claretandbluesky

I agree Tomw, the money figures wont worry too many, it's unemployment, interest rates and inflation that matter to most of us. Like you I couldn't really care less about the FTSE but I have a job, which I need keep, a mortgage which I need be able to afford and shopping I need pay for, so if these things rise that matters a lot.

One of the most damaging things about close call referendum is the divisive nature of it, as seen in the Scottish Independence vote also, this division I feel makes people dig in far deeper than is rational for their chosen side. I recall Boris the day after the vote making the point that it was close and an awful lot of people also voted to stay, were that the tone and narrative continued with it may have been more helpful, sadly Theresa has played to the home crowd and had a go at anyone who wants to bring the referendum and it's consequences into question, something there are many grounds to do in my view. All of this sets a divisive tone and so both sides dig in, the leavers want to claim victory at all costs quite possibly, whilst the remainers revel in their more immediately pragmatic and intellectual prognosis to be proven correct, sometimes at all costs. On this point I have spoken to leavers who would willingly sacrifice everything to get their win, and remainers who would happily see the nation taken back to the 70's to be able to say I told you so...... usually the thing found in common between these two people is nothing to lose, either they are insulated from it through wealth, or have nothing anyway and so if everyone has nothing what does it matter also. Sadly we can be sure that the politicians will mostly fall into the former of these two categories.

My hope is that in or out we retain enough pragmatism to put the national interest first, if we can get a deal that works, that could make it a good move then have a go, but if it is blatantly clear we cannot, that the nation will be set back by such a move, that we have the courage to re-consider our course and not act like it is set in stone and that democracy ended in June, and that that vote will forever trump all conditions no matter how they evolve.

NEoldiron

Claretandblue, the last paragraph ;clap ;clap ;clap

Tomw85

C&B, again I find myself agreeing with a lot of what you have said, even though we fall into the opposite sides on this. Although I think that what Teresa May is trying to do is strengthen our starting position for the negotiations that are to come with the EU. I feel that we are in a bit of a catch 22 at the moment with the vocal minority of both sides of the vote doing their best to push their cause.

If both remainers and leavers all looked to approach it together then there may be less of the digging it trying to prove one side right or wrong, which in my opinion is impossible to do as we will never be able to compare what would have happened to what is now going to happen.

I would like to see more of the approach that Boris outlined after the vote, as I consider myself as a moderate leave voter and also fully appreciate that there were 48% of people that wanted to stay that we need to reconnect with too. However remainers were quick to jump on that saying that the leavers are trying to go back on their word so the hard stance was adopted by Teresa May.

I would be the first to say that we may need to re evaluate if things really do get bad, however I do not believe that will happen as we are a major economy and there is a whole wide world out there that we can trade with. Also worst case we need to pay tariffs for access to the EU market, reports state that will make us 12b from the EU and cost us 6b so a net gain.

My fear is that remainers will do their best to see the country fail and that leavers will accept that to get the victory they think they won. What I think will happen though is that a middle ground will be found (and there will need to be compromises on both sides) and that actually we can make it work and still have a successful country and economy.

Yeoldhammer

Not sure about a second referendum. You can't vote to leave then hold a new vote based on what is negotiated. The moment the EU hear about a possible second referendum they just drop all negotiating and say nope, you throw away your bargaining power from the off.

Otherwise why not have an EU referendum every 5 years if the EU does not change what so ever.

MrsGrey

Not sure you can trigger article 50, then later decide (for whatever reason referendum, change of govt with different mandate, whatever) to not leave.

I don't think there's any mechanism to 'untrigger' as it were.

OutcastLondoner

Completely deny you ever triggered it and blame any confusion on the Daily Mail misquoting you.