***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 18 *****
==============================================================
Ongoing debate.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 5 Jun 16 at 04:10
|
|
Pension age will go up to 85 as there will be no migrant workers left to do all the jobs the Brits won't do.
|
>> Pension age will go up to 85 as there will be no migrant workers left
>> to do all the jobs the Brits won't do.
>>
Surely there will be plenty of unemployed from all the firms who have relocated to Europe.
While we are on the Fantasy Forecasting game, will the BBC start a Britvision Song Contest, in which we will be the only entrant? Will we win?
|
I didn't pay much attention at the time, but I presume when Scottish Independence was being discussed there was a similar war of words with rewards and penalties being discussed.
Does anybody know of anywhere that has reviewed those statements with hindsight?
|
>> Does anybody know of anywhere that has reviewed those statements with hindsight?
>>
Don't know of a source for a full or wide ranging review of the promises from either side.
But there has been significant press comment on the actual state the economy in Scotland would have been in if the vote had gone the other way, especially given the drop in the price of oli.
Similarly much has been made from the leave side of every "broken promise" by the UK government although people's recollection of what was promised seems to vary a little.
It may be interesting to see what the next few years brings and how long the "see, we told you this would happen" comments go on.
|
Thanks, I shall have to hunt about.
Still, off to drink and eat too much with the EU guy now. And I'm feeling controversial.
|
>> Will we win?
Going by the quality of some of our entries, I doubt we could even be sure of winning that one.
|
|
Actually, the Eurovision Song Contest has poke all to do with the EU. The organiser is the European Broadcasting Union, and that was set up in February 1950, which depending on how one views the EU, was before that was even formed.
|
|
Ah but that was a cunning German plan to lull us all into a false sense of security !
|
>> Actually, the Eurovision Song Contest has poke all to do with the EU.
>>
Hasn't stopped a lot of other things being included in the "debate" :-)
|
|
As Australia is in the Eurovision political competition the EU must be a plan for world domination. :-)
|
All the crumbly Outies here are remarkably quiet on today's media fixation with the anticipated crash in pension values following a Brexit.
Hmm. La la la, not listening?
|
|
Pensions have gradually been eroded over the last few years, and we are "IN" at the moment, so the so-called expected crash is once again just plain scaremongering.
|
|
Dev, you're an Outie and you're here; availability in this case is a qualification. What's the Out side's agreed position on the post-exit agreement the UK will negotiate with what's left of the EU?
|
>> What's the Out side's agreed position on the post-exit agreement the UK will negotiate with what's left of the EU?
I have no Idea what the U.K will negotiate, but that won't matter, it's not going to happen because Cameron and his big bank cronies will ensure that we remain in. This referendum is simply to fool the people that they have had a say, and whatever happens it'll be our fault not theirs!
|
"Hmm. La la la, not listening?"
Well, no, actually. I was down at our local concert hall, along with all the other crumblies, listening to 'The Dixie Strollers'.
Keeps us out of mischief, y'know.
BTW - don't you ever do any work?
;-)
|
>> BTW - don't you ever do any work?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
Smiley noted. Multiple screens, HW. Us digified Generation Xers are quite good multitaskers, and mainly have p1ss boring jobs performed entirely staring at screens, shifting pixels. So having one eye on this place livens the day up a bit.
|
Word of warning to the pixel shifters - do take care of your wrists properly (no, not like that!!).
I expect I've been "in computers" longer than many here and just been diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome which is compression of nerves in the wrist. Most likely cause, in my case, is from not using proper support when using keyboards and taking sensible breaks.
It's very early days for me, just occasional tingling ion the fingers, and I need a second round of tests to prove it but my symptoms tick all the boxes.
|
Just to put your mind at rest, HW, I'm at home now, but still online to work whilst I cook chicken korma for the children.
That's modern work, sadly. 9-5 is dead. And I'm not talking SAABs. Yet.
|
"Just to put your mind at rest, HW,"
Just to put your mind at rest, Alano, I've just got back from a concert featuring the Aurora Orchestra - who played Beethoven's 5th from memory. Quite remarkable - especially at the end when the 4th movement (Allegro) was repeated as an encore with the musicians dispersed throughout the auditorium. It was genuinely 'surround' sound.
Yes - thanks goodness my weekends are no longer governed by Mill's Periods or the preparation of conference papers. 9-5? ....... on a Sunday if I was lucky!
I was under the impression that modern work practices, thanks to the EU, were making things much easier.
|
Another muddled analysis, Rog. It relies on rate of growth of exports, and since the UK has always had a high level of exports to the EU, it's hardly surprising if nations outside, starting from a lower base, can increase theirs faster. Civitas starts its clock from the start of the Single Market in 1993. How much do you suppose China's exports have grown since then?
What ultimately matters is total quantity rather than growth. Do you really think that making it harder for the UK to trade with Europe will increase that faster than the status quo?
And while you're here, how about having a go at the 'what will Out actually do' question?
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Fri 27 May 16 at 14:39
|
Shouldn't have mentioned China as it's not an OECD country. But Korea is, and I bet if you corrected for its export growth since 1993, the rest of the picture becomes indistinguishable.
Michael Burrage has been banging this drum for years. Try googling him and see how highly he's rated outside the Out lobby, who have only adopted him because he's saying what they want to hear, not because he's right.
|
I apologise in advance if today's stream of consciousness disappoints Pat, whose kind word cheered me this morning. I have no idea what I am going to say, but I'm pretty sure it won't have a conclusion. Other opinions are available:)
>> Another muddled analysis, Rog. It relies on rate of growth of exports, and since the
>> UK has always had a high level of exports to the EU, it's hardly surprising
>> if nations outside, starting from a lower base, can increase theirs faster. Civitas starts its
>> clock from the start of the Single Market in 1993. How much do you suppose
>> China's exports have grown since then?
I'd say partial, rather than muddled, like most of the 'analysis' produced unfortunately. The proportion of UK exports that go to the EU has fallen more or less continually, despite the growth of the EU itself. But I agree that it is not straightforward, perhaps impossible, to draw a conclusion from that - other markets (including China) have also become proportionately bigger markets for the UK, so we might have expected non-EU exports to grow at the same or a higher rate.
>> What ultimately matters is total quantity rather than growth. Do you really think that making
>> it harder for the UK to trade with Europe will increase that faster than the
>> status quo?No.
Agreed again. But it clearly wouldn't kill trade either. Strongly to imply, as Remain does, that 3 million jobs could be lost if we left the EU is a poor show - would your business fold its tents if we left? Or would a lower value of sterling help your business?
>> And while you're here, how about having a go at the 'what will Out actually
>> do' question?
That's a straw man I think; the idea that no sensible argument can be made for Brexit unless the plan for what happens thereafter can be stated is IMO a false premise. The government, perhaps deliberately, has not given any indication AFAIK of what its plans would be in the event of a Leave vote, and the Leave lobby can't therefore predict or model it even supposing that would be possible. For that matter, for Remain to try and portray its Armageddon predictions as fact based on carrying on as we do now is an insult to the intelligence of the electorate, low as it might be.
What we should assume is that businesses and a sensible government will make the best of the outcome, whichever it is. A sensible approach would try to look at the effects on the trading and economic environment, the opportunities that would arise, and the ones that would be lost. I incline to think that things could take a turn for the worse in the short term and that broadly that will be recovered as business adapt to different conditions that longer term, the value of being independent of EU policy would present advantages at least partly because the EU itself has serious problems which have been aired at length here. But as has been said, to 'calculate' this on the economics with any confidence seems impossible.
I don't give much credence to the "buying power" arguments for the EU. The scale and cooperative advantages of the EU are tempered, visibly hampered at times, by disagreements between members and progress is often glacial (as with the stalled TTIP, which I am actually quite happy about!).
For all that, and although I think that the long term future of the EU itself is in doubt, I think it is very evenly balanced.
So is the outcome important? Possibly. The government invites us to see this as an 'barbell' decision, one with no middle ground. I'm not convinced by that - I think many arrangements (if we choose, and subject of course to some balancing concessions) could be replicated as a non-member. I think the longer term economic impact is impossible to predict, but that the UK would have more freedom of action outside the EU, which would provide opportunities that to a greater or lesser degree will offset some of the disadvantages of leaving, but can anyone quantify that now? I don't think so.
But let's say is is a barbell. What we should then consider is
- which option leads to least bad worst case (i.e. limits the downside risk)
- for both options, how much freedom of choice and action we are likely to have (to mitigate those risks, and to exploit opportunities not yet apparent).
Tossing aside all the disputed predictions, my present instinct is that this is a bad time to rock the boat. One big choice we will retain, should we stay in, is the option to leave later. That's a bit too nuclear to trump the practical and tactical options we would have if we left, but I don't think this will go away if there is a narrow remain vote.
The next leader of the Conservative party will presumably be a Brexiter if the vote is Leave. I also think that could be the case if it is Remain - otherwise the party will find it very difficult to unite. Stand by for Boris?
Here endeth today's ramble, although I don't suppose anybody is still reading. Oh how I envy those who are certain they are right:)
|
Much to the relief of some here, I have decided to stop initially posting Brexiteer stuff here.
This is not because I have wavered in my support for the UK leaving the E.U., but it seems to me that all of us here are firmly entrenched in our differing views and have pretty well decided on our voting intentions.
This ongoing discussion has caused more ill feeling and public spats among forum members than enough and while I agree that we are all entitled to our opinion on this vital matter, perhaps it's time to cool it a bit in the interests of member harmony.
I and all the members of my family whose opinion I know, WILL be voting LEAVE on the 23rd. June, so I'll let it rest there. :-)
|
I am listening to a talk from Alan Johnson MP.
He says it all in my opinion.We can't go back Roger but vote the way you want.
|
>> more ill feeling and public spats among forum members<<
When the debate first started this forum had some good posts and excellent alternative points of view, when it was impossible to get them elsewhere.
Sadly, as you say Roger, it didn't last for long before the sarcasm and personal insults crept in and now there is only one persons views I consider, and that is Manatee, who has posted sensibly and impartially with facts I needed from the start.
For me, and many others, as soon as a person starts mud slinging and exaggerating, their views become worthless and that's how so many people feel about both the Leave and Remain campaign in the media every day....what a waste of time.
Closer to home I have a theory that more than a few forum members will trot off to the polling station and cast their vote, before returning to the forum and saying they have voted to Remain......but will have actually have voted to Leave:)
Pat
|
> > Closer to home I have a theory that more than a few forum members will
>> trot off to the polling station and cast their vote, before returning to the forum
>> and saying they have voted to Remain......but will have actually have voted to Leave:)
Interesting why do you think that?
|
>> Interesting why do you think that?
That is interesting because I think exactly the opposite will happen ( just as it did in Scotland )
It's a bit like the person who complains about their job and working conditions and threatens to walk out ( but only when the boss is out of earshot ) or the person who claims to be unhappy in their marriage and is ( if anyone can be bothered to listen ) always saying they are on the point of leaving but in the end sticks with what they know.
I have done business with and in the EU or whatever it has been called at the time all my working life and like a not quite perfect job, or a not quite perfect marriage, it has its upsides and its downs but in the end it's what we've got, and I'll be voting remain, without fail.
As I said somewhere back in volume whatever of this tome, rather we all stay in the big tent peeing out than sit in our own little one with everyone else peeing in.
;-)
|
|
I'm not sure, I think in the scottish vote people who wanted to remain didn't change their mind, they just kept their intentions to themselves. They had no voice on fb twitter, the media etc. So perhaps it looked like people changed their minds. But who knows?
|
>>>>
>> Interesting why do you think that?
>>
Probably for the same reason I think the same. In Scotland a lot of the "Better together" believers kept quiet because of the abuse they were getting for airing their views. Although it isn't as intense in this debate, you only have to read here or on other forums to see it is the remain side who are guilty of that, with their "Racist", "Little Englanders", "Nutcases" jibes.
Among my peers the leaves have the lead, though I am well aware that is in no way a representative sample and I have no idea which way the vote will go. Forget the polls, they are far from infallible as they have proved many a time.
|
My feelings exactly RO' R, and thanks Manatee:)
Pat
|
|
I think pat said changing their mind but i guess it's a similar thought. Are grown ups on here so intimidated that they can't say they wish to vote out?
|
>>Are grown ups on here so intimidated that they can't say they wish to vote out?
>>
>>
Not scared, just bored.
Don't agree with someone on immigration or think multi culturalism is not all it's cracked up to be? RACIST!
Think the UK can thrive outside of the EU? LITTLE ENGLANDER!
Think Farage and IDS make some very intelligent points? SWIVEL EYED LOON!
It doe get rather tedious, especially coming from the experts who in many cases were predicting doom and disaster if we didn't adopt the Euro or if we refused to join the ERM.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Mon 30 May 16 at 18:14
|
>>
>> Sadly, as you say Roger, it didn't last for long before the sarcasm and personal
>> insults crept in
....
>> For me, and many others, as soon as a person starts mud slinging and exaggerating,
>> their views become worthless and that's how so many people feel about both the Leave
>> and Remain campaign in the media every day....what a waste of time.
Unfortunately that is how some people seem to view debates - on here, as well as elsewhere - if someone disagrees with them, instead of using logic and debate to refute their argument, they resort to sarcasm, insults and condescension.
|
|
This debate may still provide intellectual interest but it seems to me that the outcome is now certain. The Leavers have mounted a very poor campaign and with insufficient time left to catch up they are bound to lose.
|
I think that result was inevitable from the start.
I think my punt on "remain" is safe.
|
I don't think the polls are reliable, but the bookies now have Remain between 5 and 7 to 1 on, and Leave at 7/2-4/1 against. About 40% of punters' money is on Leave.
A more important decision for me, in terms of immediate consequences, than how to vote is whether to sell down some retirement investments that could be clobbered by a Leave vote and stick the money into say the US index to benefit from any hit on sterling. I think it will be staying where it is.
Even I have a small vested interest, so no surprise that wealthy business leaders and politicians are keen to tell us how to vote:)
|
|
Yeah I wondered the same re pensions investments but more whether I should just move them into cash until the vote is over. I don't see the £ can get a lot more worse against the $ though and if the vote is to remain and sterling improves then being in US holdings could be a bad move...
|
>>I don't see the £ can get
>> a lot more worse against the $ though and if the vote is to remain
>> and sterling improves then being in US holdings could be a bad move...
OK as part of a balanced diet I think. If there is a rising tide it should lift most boats.
|
|
Short term, if we exit, the pound will fall. But that is a foregone conclusion since the financial markets always down rate change. Longer term, who knows since the issue is not as clear cut as the innies would have you believe.
|
>> Short term, if we exit, the pound will fall.
They don't like uncertainty either, so some of that could be in the price. If the odds continue to move towards remain, sterling could strengthen ahead of the vote. It's strengthened by 3 cents the last two weeks so that might already be happening, allowing that there are a few other moving parts!
Experience suggests that the less I mess around the better my returns are*, so as long as I am diversified I leave well alone as a rule.
*this is not surprising. Full time investment managers know a lot more, get information before I do, and spend far more time on it. Some of them would still have done better with a pin.
|
>> I don't think the polls are reliable, but the bookies now have Remain between 5
>> and 7 to 1 on, and Leave at 7/2-4/1 against. About 40% of punters' money
>> is on Leave.
I've seen similar odds, very interesting that it's at total odds with the polls, which seem to think it's neck and neck.
|
>> >>
>> I've seen similar odds, very interesting that it's at total odds with the polls, which
>> seem to think it's neck and neck.
>>
Bookmakers set their odds to reflect the betting in order not to get taken to the cleaners, not what they think will be the outcome.
|
>> Bookmakers set their odds to reflect the betting in order not to get taken to
>> the cleaners, not what they think will be the outcome.
Good point, the weight of money reflects what the punters think - the fact that supposedly 40% of the money staked is on Leave doesn't tell us what odds were offered when those bets were put on, or what the split of bets being taken now is. At 4/1 Leave, perhaps they are taking a lot of money on Remain just now.
It would be interesting to see the books.
|
Can't disagree but their prices indicate that significantly more money has been taken on remain than leave. The theory of making a market is quite complex but involves over-round so whichever wins they make some money. That's sometimes a bit distorted (e.g. Grand National, which is a lottery anyway) and doesn't always work out for them but on balance they will always win and, in something like this, usually be right.
About the over-round - www.bettingmarket.com/overround.htm
|
>> Can't disagree but their prices indicate that significantly more money has been taken on remain than leave.
>>
Depends on how the average punter represents opinion in general. Gamblers will be looking at the polls to calculate the likelihood of a return.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 31 May 16 at 11:35
|
I suppose it also depends how many punters/how much cash is required to move the odds.
At a tangent I used to know a bookie in London who was in a tote rigging ring. This was by betting on the Tote, before the tote pool included off-course betting (in the Tote shops, and a handful of bookies who offered tote returns) - so the winning payout was determined solely by on-course money in the pool. They used to send a few people to poorly attended race meetings at places like Cartmel and Carlisle, and they'd place a few hundred pounds on unlikely winners in races where there were were near-certainties (i.e. heavy odds-on at SP). This would distort the Tote odds so that the favourites were a much longer price than they deserved. They would then place large bets in tote shops on the favourites and get a much much higher return. They made quite reasonable money and were never caught.
|
Caught? Is there anything illegal in that? If they were betting at the published odds and not seeking to influence the outcome of the actual races, what offence would they have committed?
The dodgy bit might be making the favourite a certain enough certainty. Suppose it took £500 on the outsiders to shift the odds on the favourite to 1:3 they'd still need to stake £3,000 on that for a net gain of £500 - if it won. I don't bet, but if a third of my favourites lost, I'd be £10,000 down over 12 races - assuming none of my outsiders accidentally won at 20:1. I'd need 11 winners out of 12 to make £2,000 - while risking £42,000. So it's hard to see the model making money unless something was happening to remove the uncertainty.
|
Must admit because of the clandestine way they used to operate I am pretty sure it was not legal, though I see your point.
Again, I don't know the ins and outs of exactly how profitable it was but I do know for sure they made reasonable money at it, and I know they were doing it for a few years. I can see there is some risk there but there was also insider info floating around at the time which may have helped. The stables know when a horse is or isn't well within itself. I certainly was tipped a few, and also told that certain fancied horses "wouldn't be trying" so maybe they were using a combination of methods. It is factual though, not anecdotal!
|
Look up the Dagenham Tote rigging of 1964.
It was ruled legal, but the bookies refused to pay out.
The riggers used 120 stooges to hog the Tote windows at Dagenham dogs, putting presumably modest amounts on a couple of no-hopers and preventing genuine punters getting their money on the likely winners. Because only the on-track pool is used to determine the odds, and other people couldn't get their bets on, the "favourite's" odds lengthened considerably.
The winning bets have to be made outside the pool, with bookies who offer Tote 'odds'.
For a simple example, imagine that the on course pool was £1000 but only £100 was on the "favourite" - the payout would then be at 9 to 1 in round numbers. It would be no good placing the real bets on track as (a) it would move the odds and (b) you'd only be getting your own money back. But having caused the tote divi to be at 9:1 on course, a £10,000 bet with an off course, non-pool, bookie offering Tote odds would net £90,000 profit, less the bets in the relatively small on course pool.
I think it was a lot more complicated than that, and used forecasts, but that was the idea AAUI. I'm actually fairly clueless with betting which is one reason I don't do it.
|
|
Excellent, Manatee, thank you. A question of leverage, then - or a weakness in the system in that it allowed a small and easily manipulated sample to determine the odds for everyone.
|
|
Thanks that's put it clearly. Being an (ex) gambler I think I'd presumed some knowledge which hadn't come across in my post. The point at the time was that shops offered Tote returns but any bets did not go into the pool which determined the payout. I vaguely recall that once it was all joined up, if you wanted to bet at Tote prices you could not place your bet within 5 minutes of the race start, to stop last minute surges of cash which with the poorer comms at the time would not have made it into the tote pool.
|
Found a more detailed account of the Dagenham rigging here
www.greyhoundracinghistory.co.uk/1964.pdf
Arguably one of the most infamous moments in greyhound racing history took place in June. Something odd had happened at Dagenham on June 30th during the 4.05pm race that left bookmakers owing millions. The incident that would be labelled as ‘operation sandpaper’ or the ‘Dagenham coup’ hit the headlines around the world and went like this. John Turner a 37 year old Londoner approached a bookmaker Leslie Carey who controlled 20 shops and hatched a plan that was funded by Carey. They selected a race where he felt two greyhounds had no chance of
winning and they recruited 170 people who would be paid to help them. Some were tasked to bet the other four greyhounds in the remaining twelve combination bets at off course betting shops. The bets were placed shortly before the race and dividends were paid out at track odds. They would then hog phone lines into the track to stop the off course bookmakers from phoning the track to lay off the bets. The job of the others was to monopolise the 31 tote windows at the Dagenham track, betting over 11,000 times on the two outsiders which in turn would produce massively better odds for the combinations.
The result was Buckwheat 2-1 followed by Handsome Lass 9-2, the combination odds of 9,217-1 showed one winning ticket that Turner held but this was repeated over 300 times by his helpers at off course shops.
Five bookmaking firms, Ladbrokes, Coral, William Hill, Jack Swift and Arthur Stanley sued Dagenham Stadium for failing to operate their tote properly and Turner for procuring odds by unlawful means. They refused to pay out and waited for the result of legal proceedings.
To WdB's point, there was a risk that the two "useless" dogs would come first and second which would have resulted in a substantial loss - hence the careful selection of a race with two 'duds' in it.
The Ottawa Citizen provided further detail in a report in 1966:
goo.gl/9PlrKg
The bookies sued the dog track for failing to procure that the Tote was operated properly. The judge found for the track, but also said that the off-course bookies should return the stakes, or pay out if they felt morally bound (presumed to be for the possible benefit of innocent punters).
Because every combination of the 1-2 forecast was laid at the track on the Tote for small stakes to establish the divi, the mastermind had a winning Tote ticket (effective odds over 9000:1) which the judge said should be paid out.
|
Bookmakers set their odds to reflect the betting in order not to get taken to
>> the cleaners, not what they think will be the outcome.
>>
Partially but the chance of an outcome also enters into it.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Tue 31 May 16 at 11:24
|
Opinion polls do not have the best track record, but this one might show the result is not the foregone conclusion many believe -
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/31/uk-voters-leaning-towards-brexit-guardian-poll-reveals
|
|
Outies will assume a victory is assured, and go back to the pub with a surprisingly morose Nigel, leaving the Innies to scrape home. Nigel will by then have scarpered to an offshore haven with EU cash, in accordance with his master-plan. In the event UKIP faced loss of purpose and extinction as a party, and, most importantly, major loss of revenue from the hand that fed him….
|
>> Opinion polls do not have the best track record, but this one might show the
>> result is not the foregone conclusion many believe
it does look that from the polls, it looks to be pretty tight. There was a trend tracker of the polls. Neither side has ever had more than a couple of % in front. I think the poll companies have changed how they work it all out. Turnout they think will be 60-62%. I suppose we'll all find out soon enough.
|
For those that are strongly in favour of either in or out, have you thought much, if anything, if your 'side' loses?
Will it have any impact at all on you, personal professional or just disappointment?
|
We are pensioners I can't see much difference on the in or out vote for us.Daughter is a nurse she is voting in. One of our lads who lives in London is more inclined to vote out.The other lad who lives near us is voting out.
Not disappointment just surprised if Britain votes to go out the E.U.
|
Leaving would short term ( who knows long term ) be disastrous for me commercially. The £ would weaken and a substantial amount of what we do is export to the EU. Anything which adds complications ( possibly extra tariffs? ) or any degree of customer uncertainty to that would be immediately detrimental.
The very fact that the matter is under review and subject to a referendum is already harming customer confidence. The sooner the whole sorry matter is over with and we can move on the better.
Excellent documentary last night on BBC 2 which although presented in a carefully balanced and unbiased way completely confirmed my unshaken view that Brexit would be commercial madness.
|
I'm sure you know you're business and you're right, but why would a weakening GBP hurt you? Your customers will need fewer Euros to buy your stuff.
I assume you buy from outside the UK so your purchases would be dearer, dependent on the rate of those currencies - the flight from the pound will presumably be into Euro and USD.
Tariffs are another question.
But do you actually import here? Do you need to? In a former life I used to issue or pay out on letters of credit for a wool merchant - generally, the goods never touched the UK. He bought in Australia, Argentina etc and sold in Italy and France mainly. Contracts were usually in USD on both sides and profits converted to sterling would have been higher with a lower pound.
|
We buy in US dollars and sell in £ and €. Our European hub warehouse is in the UK so short of moving that to an EU location ( that would be good for UK jobs eh? ) we would have to cope with setting up new and potentially unique supply arrangements with 28 countries.
The current system may be cranky and flawed but it works. As we crawl slowly but noticeably back from the brink of the recent economic tribulations why the hell would we want to deliberately weaken ourselves?
|
Not arguing with you, just interested. I guess merchanting, which is common with more or less fungible commodities, is irrelevant/impractical if you are wholesaling manufactured goods in smaller quantities than you are buying.
I was out last night but I'm downloading the Laura Kuenssberg programme, which I assume is the one you saw.
|
|
Excellent programme, anyone who as any doubts should watch it.
|
|
"Has" ( spellchecker fail )
|
|
I doubt for a single minute whether it will change anyone's views. The leave supporters will simply latch on to those supporting their views like Tim Martin from Wetherspoons. I have yet to meet anyone who has changed their initial opinion in this debate.
|
|
I didn't realise I was a fence sitter but I started as a Remainer, then floated across to the Leave camp a few weeks back but am now back with Remain. The movement in both directions was attributable in quite a large part to discussion here, thanks folks :-) I am now much more firmly Remain than I was at first and I don't see that anything can now persuade me otherwise. It does happen.
|
Slightly different picture here because I don't sell stuff so much as services. Those services are costed and priced in a variety of currencies, but we count our revenue in USD, so any instability in currency markets makes it very difficult to predict what a contract will be worth over, typically, five years. The uncertainty over the referendum has depressed the pound, and an Out vote would depress it further, which would hurt us as we have some big contracts in the UK and their dollar value would fall.
More personally, an Out vote would hurt my employment prospects, as freedom of travel and trade is a big part of the reason for us to use the UK as our major base in Europe. Without that ease of access, I'd see our Paris and Frankfurt offices becoming more important as centres of business. Other employers with similarly international customer bases would think similarly.
But it's not just self-interest, as I hope I've explained previously. It's more that I want the UK to stay connected and not to turn in on itself. So vote Remain and put this question to bed for another 40 years!
|
Remainers = driven by self interest alone.
Leavers = wider vision of the future of the UK.
|
I have no conscience at all in voting in a way that best serves that which affects and concerns me. Sort of the point of having a vote isn't it?
And, the best future interests of the UK are not the exclusive concern of the "leavers" some of us believe those are far more secured by remaining.
Unless or until anyone can show me a convincing business plan for how the UK would operate and prosper in isolation I'll stick with what we've got. All I've seen so far is a bunch of career politicians blustering about how bananas would be somehow better with no wider agenda than an attempt to raise their personal profiles. Self interest personified in most cases.
Anyway, I thought you had decided to hold your tongue?
;-)
|
Ho ho. You can read, can you Rog? Humph and I were answering a specific question.
Anyway, weren't you going to spare us your input?
|
I was a bit of a fence sitter, but there's been a shortage of info from the leave campaign so I'm leaning towards remain.
On being affected post leave, not a huge amount tbh. Those that we often support saleswise would be happy with a fall in the £, large amounts of their sales are outside the eu. So pr
|
>> Ho ho. You can read, can you Rog? Humph and I were answering a specific
>> question.
>>
>> Anyway, weren't you going to spare us your input?
>>
Much to the relief of some here, I have decided to stop initially posting Brexiteer stuff here.
|
Is that what might be described as a Faragean turn?
;-)
|
>>Remainers = driven by self interest alone.
Leavers = wider vision of the future of the UK.
Only too true IMO. Bird on the wireless earlier says she'll be voting to remain in the European superstate purely for selfish reasons, being that she owns a 'full Engerlish breakfast joint in in Spain but, if she still lived in London, she'd most likely vote to get out of the over-bureaucratised EU, like I have just done (postal vote)
A mod removed the double post
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 1 Jun 16 at 11:31
|
Serious question... If we Brexit how would this affect my 6 weeks in Spain next winter? Four weeks in Moraira with a week either side in Finestrat. And the price of ski holidays?
Last winter Spain was dirt cheap and my calculations were that by closing down the house and moving abroad, even after the cost of flights & shared accommodation, my savings on food, booze & heating more than compensated.
|
|
Possible the pound might lose a bit against the Euro although my hunch would be both currencies would slide against the US dollar. Even if we vote to leave it would be several years until the deed is actually done
|
|
...which will give the markets all that time for jitters about what's to come. A Remain vote now, on the other hand, closes the book.
|
>> Remainers = driven by self interest alone.
>> Leavers = wider vision of the future of the UK.
You allow your fear of everything foreign, your resentment of the same, your bitterness over getting your a*** kicked in a foreigner housing market and your desperate wish to run to an imaginary world where you think you might have some [limited] relevance to overshadow everything.
I don't believe you care about the country any more than anyone else does, that's just a convenient post to align yourself with in an attempt to grant yourself some kind of perceived legitimacy.
|
|
It's about loyalty, NoFM. Rog has it - apparently - and we - apparently - don't.
|
There are various potential advantages and disadvantages of any outcome, and little certainty about any of it.
But one certainty is how much I will enjoy laughing in Roger's face if the result is to remain.
|
|
Rather unpleasant and unnecessary comment don't you think?
|
|
Well, I wouldn't agree on the "unnecessary".
|
|
But on reflection, I take your point.
|
>>Remainers = driven by self interest alone.
>>Leavers = wider vision of the future of the UK.
Not necessarily - 50 years outside the EU I expect the UK to be a relatively meaningless island state, or will be a part-player in some other federalised group of nations - remain IMO has the best interests in our future integration with the rWorld.
In fact, within 10 years of Brexit I expect the UK will be Scotland + rUK.
|
I wish someone would credibly quantify this "wider vision" or is it just going be the use of a magnifying glass on the economic results to make things look bigger?
Come on then let's have the business plan. Numbers, forecasts and projections please.
Or is it all, as many ( most? ) suspect, a complete and utter ball of chalk?
|
It all depends on which one of them you ask, Humph. They're still spouting the unarguably wrong £350m a week line, then independently listing the things it might buy one of - NHS spending, VAT reductions, new roads - and collectively suggesting we can have them all.
Either they know this is wrong but say it anyway - in which case they're dishonest - or they simply don't get it. Either way, they're a shambles and not to be trusted or listened to.
|
>> It all depends on which one of them you ask, Humph. They're still spouting the
>> unarguably wrong £350m a week line, then independently listing the things it might buy one
>> of - NHS spending, VAT reductions, new roads - and collectively suggesting we can have
>> them all.
>>
>>
Of course all the figures trotted out by Cameron and Osborne are accurate to the penny. Shame we don't still have halfpennies and farthings, they could be even more exact.
|
>> all the figures trotted out by Cameron and Osborne are accurate to the penny.
I don't think any figures trotted out by anyone are any more than accurate than any other figure from anywhere else.
Any detail is just a guess.
Some of them are rather more obviously and/or provably wrong though.
|
You miss the point, RR. The Remain side's position is clear: remain. It's for the Outies to articulate what's so wrong with the status quo that we should throw it all away; and it's also for the Outies to tell us what they would put in its place. Yet when they try to do either they start arguing amongst themselves and fall in a heap.
Single Market, yes or no? Free movement, yes or no? How much does membership cost, how much do we get back? How will this (the net is about 2% of government spending, by the way) compensate for the loss of national income if we sever our agreements with the largest free trade bloc on earth? The Outies have no answers, and yet you plan to vote for them, based on what? Gut feeling? Really?
|
>> You miss the point, RR. The Remain side's position is clear: remain.
And the Outies position is clear. Out.
>>It's for the
>> Outies to articulate what's so wrong with the status quo that we should throw it
>> all away; and it's also for the Outies to tell us what they would put
>> in its place. Yet when they try to do either they start arguing amongst themselves
>> and fall in a heap.
>>
>> Single Market, yes or no? Free movement, yes or no? How much does membership cost,
>> how much do we get back? How will this (the net is about 2% of
>> government spending, by the way) compensate for the loss of national income if we sever
>> our agreements with the largest free trade bloc on earth?
>>The Outies have no answers,
>> and yet you plan to vote for them, based on what? Gut feeling? Really?
It is irrelevant that there is no agreement, another straw man argument.Do all the Remainers agree on anything except remaining? The point is freedom of many possible actions, dependent on (among other things) the many conversations that would follow a Leave vote.
Not gut feeling, but certainly preference for a greater degree of self-determination and a government we can chuck out at the UK level. Currently the UK is part of a flawed project, and there is little we can do to put it right. I might not subscribe to a Leave vote now, but I have no difficulty understanding the position, figures or no figures.
|
>> Of course all the figures trotted out by Cameron and Osborne are accurate to the
>> penny. Shame we don't still have halfpennies and farthings, they could be even more exact.
There are of course margins for error and interpretation in any of the numbers. The £350 million figure though is pretty close to an outright lie. It ignores not only our receipts from EU but also Mrs Thatcher's rebate which, AIUI, never leaves our shores.
|
|
Correct, Bromp. 'Discount' would be a better word than 'rebate', as we make our payment net of it. This was made clear to the Outies before they revealed their bus, but they went ahead with £350m on the side anyway. 'Outright lie' is not too strong a term.
|
>>Come on then let's have the business plan. Numbers, forecasts and projections please.
>>Or is it all, as many ( most? ) suspect, a complete and utter ball of chalk?
Which vision are you talking about, the Remain one?
Visions don't have numbers, they are visions.
In fact I'm surprised that Leave is now putting forth "plans". I don't know how they can credibly do that as they are not a government, and this is not a general election that will put them in power.
That is just one aspect of how assymetric and basically flawed this referendum process is.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a vision of UK outside the EU, but that is all it can really be at this stage.
Better the devil you know, for people who need a spreadsheet to make a decision to do anything else. I say that as somebody who has written a lot of spreadsheets to make or inform a lot of decisions! The important bit of course is the assumptions that go into them - and those are largely unknowns for the Brexit proposal. I don't believe the £4,300 business for a second, but it would be just as difficult to disprove as to prove it.
On the 'barbell' principle, the option with the best worst case outcome is probably Remain. Unfortunately it is also the one with the fewest opportunities to act independently to mitigate a bad outcome.
Nevertheless I am currently minded, if it interests you, that
"The EU is inefficient, subverts democracy, broken and getting worse, and has an objective of political union which would be to the long term detriment of the UK but on balance the UK should remain a member for now".
My reasons for that are the timing, the short term risks, and my belief that the political union will not happen for the majority of members for a long time, or at all, unless things change a great deal. The EU as it currently exists is going backwards, and given the fracture lines in it and the stresses of the eurozone and migration, may well break up anyway. Neither do I want to see a break up of the union - I like Scotland too much.
I suspect that many if not most Remainers have the view that the EU is seriously dysfunctional.
Incidentally, the tone of the government's campaign and, frankly, that of the Remain lobby generally has not done anything to persuade me to adopt this view.
My experience in general is that people are not persuaded to change their minds by being insulted and talked down to or worse, and the approach of actually ridiculing Leavers may well be a factor in the swing in the polls.
If the result is a Leave vote, then the Government propagandists who insulted our intelligence with their fear campaign and the people who called Leavers stupid, bigoted, small minded Little Englanders must take a lot of the blame, or the credit, depending on your point of view.
|
Good post Manatee.
Pretty much sums up what I feel, all "Facts" and "Figures" from either side are no more than cobblers, no one can have any idea. It is all down to how you view things long term. Some think it will be an advantage to remain part of a united Europe, others like me think the EU cannot succeed in the long term and we are better off out.
|
>>we are better off out...
OK, back that up with some facts please. What exactly, would be better? Unfortunately, facts and figures are pertinent to this debate however much you want to ignore them.
No need to go into detail, just cover GDP, unemployment, growth, interest rates etc...
|
That's what is confusing me...there are no facts. Lots of supposition.
From a personal, selfish point of view if interest rates were to rise, lots, I would be quite pleased. I'm fed up with earning chuff all on my savings! But im sure there's a downside to that which would affect me.
|
>> >>
>> OK, back that up with some facts please. What exactly, would be better? Unfortunately, facts
>> and figures are pertinent to this debate however much you want to ignore them.
>>
>> No need to go into detail, just cover GDP, unemployment, growth, interest rates etc...
>>
Perhaps you could start by giving us some of those facts if we stay in and the EU falls apart - which I believe is more likely than not.
|
|
Why does the stay campaign have to produce figures to say how we'll be better off etc? Won't it largely be the status quo. I think the leave campaign is totally lacking in hard facts and figures.
|
I thought there was more or less a consensus a dozen or more volumes back that the kind of "facts" being demanded here would not be available or worth much, and it would come down to principles, beliefs and gut feeling?
If it was possible to spreadsheet this to a conclusion credibly, somebody might have done it by now.
|
So, very simply, why should anyone vote for change if the outcome of that change is so unknown?
|
>> So, very simply, why should anyone vote for change if the outcome of that change
>> is so unknown?
Change will happen anyway. Staying in the EU doesn't mean everything stays the same.
|
I get that, what I don't get is why no one will come off the fence and clarify what is supposed to be better about Brexit. Feelings and visions are all very well, but what exactly are the tangible advantages foreseen?
|
>> So, very simply, why should anyone vote for change if the outcome of that change
>> is so unknown?
>>
They wouldn't if they were being sensible; regrettably, sense seems to be one thing chronically lacking from both sides of the debate.
For the record, my vote will be to remain. I started that way for fairly simple reasons; I work for a Dutch company, with whom I intend to stay until retirement, and I'm also a firm believer in the maxim that change can only come from within. I'm also unconvinced by the argument that life would be better outside the EEC. Final nail in the coffin was Boris trying to play the pensioner card by suggesting that VAT on domestic fuel would be abolished, and that we had no control over VAT because it's completely run by Brussels. Cobblers.
The Brexit campaign seems to hinge on a notion that Britannia will rule the waves once again once we leave, that Britain will blossom free of European interference and that all in the garden will be lovely. I don't think so for one minute; those civil servants (AKA "the establishment") who so assiduously gold-plate every piece of European legislation will simply do the same with all the purely British legislation, and cock things up even more. They, not the EU, are the real enemy within.
|
Absolutely. Just for a moment imagine that we were all shareholders in a company called UK Ltd. and the management proposed that they were going to just wing it for the next 40 years. No strategy, no business plan, no forecasts, no clue as to how they plan to run things, just that they weren't going to do it with their current trading relationships in place. It'll be alright on the night chaps, no need to have all those boring numbers to worry about eh?
Well, I'll not be investing in that thank you.
|
>> Absolutely. Just for a moment imagine that we were all shareholders in a company called
>> UK Ltd.
Or
UK Ltd has been taken down a path by the management that you as a shareholder are deeply uncomfortable with... and there's more to come... and you'll eventually be swallowed up by a company abroad that knows not what you do and cares even less.
So you know you've got a basically decent company, you know the trading conditions ... and know that in time you'll be well able to re-negotiate with the world (and Europe).. and there's no reason why you cannot continue to be successful.
So, now's the time to call it quits and move in the direction you'd like it to...not what someone else decrees.
|
>> So, now's the time to call it quits and move in the direction you'd like
>> it to...not what someone else decrees.
>>
And you think that will change just because there's no EU interference?
We're no longer big enough, and we burned our Commonwealth bridges a long time ago. Leaving not only vastly increases the size of the pond we swim in but also decreases the size of our particular fish; and removes some of the safeguards we have against hostile predators.
|
|
Ah so, you don't actually know what would be "better" then? There's a surprise.
|
>> Ah so, you don't actually know what would be "better" then? There's a surprise.
Wanting facts and figures, is wanting something you can't have, there aren't any.
The reality is though, that an 'out' vote would still have the UK exist, we'd initially carry on as the 5th most successful economy in the world, so even if we went a bit backwards, (which we might not to any great extent) we are still going to be right up there, even if we dropped to 7th or 8th or whatever.
There are plenty of places in the world for us to do business with, inc Europe who aren't going to want to cut us off, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
The advantages are this country making its own decisions... and to me that's most important... along with not being comfortable with the current set up that includes: excessive waste, bureaucracy and accounts not signed off for decades.
You don't have to like it or agree with it...but that's the way some people think...and they are perfectly entitled to do so... (without the labels that Manatee so eloquently mentioned in his post).
|
So you don't know either then?
Great.
|
>> So you don't know either then?
No, I don't, why would I?.... No one does.
All you can do is make an educated guess.
For me the vote was:
1, Continue as we are on what I deem a downward slope towards the US of E and all the negatives that go with that.
2, Leave the EU behind and re-negotiate a trade deal like the Common Market we signed up for originally.... and all the negatives that will go with that.
Lesser of the evils and all that.
|
>> Good post Manatee.
Very good post Manatee
|
EU IN/OUT Referendum Thursday 23/06/16 - Vol 16 - No FM2R
