[Politics] Brexit

[One Love]

you mention facts with hyperbole and not looking at other information. £/$ dropped around 10-12% between Jun 2015 and Jun 2016, do you remember the impending doom that caused? did you notice it? combined, its 20-25% in 18months, not a great story but there are upsides (helps exports) and the underlying cause is low interest rates. Brexit is a short term catalyst for speculators and traders to abuse.

We had them before.

The underlying cause is negativity and uncertainty on the future of the economy after Brexit.

 

[Diego Napier]

I'm minded of a small boy (or girl) in a playground, negociating with the big boys over who will get to eat his/her lunch that mummy made them.

Get yer spell checker on, Grammar Skool Boy!

 

[Captain Sensible]

Just a quick question, I remember a while back hearing about how overpriced the pound was, it was a point raised prior to the referendum (see here and even back when Cable was business secretary).

Assuming this is the case is the current drop something which was always going to happen and the vote was merely a trigger or do folk think that this has made it worse?

GBP was slightly overpriced against the Euro at that time but about right vrs the USD. Now we have a very weak £ on all fronts. You have to remember this is just the start of Brexit. It's starting to bite, how hard the bite will be we'll have to wait and see but a troubling 5 years or so are ahead.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

So therefore, by definition, more than half DID vote to leave. Therefore the decision is to leave. It's really that simple.

There was plenty of comment after the referendum (and some before) that it was a badly defined referendum because it is very, very rare to have a vote on such a fundamental change on a straight 50/50 basis. It would much more commonly need to be 60/40 or similar in favour if the change.

 

[portslade seagull]

There was plenty of comment after the referendum (and some before) that it was a badly defined referendum because it is very, very rare to have a vote on such a fundamental change on a straight 50/50 basis. It would much more commonly need to be 60/40 or similar in favour if the change.

Commonly for whom the remainers who still can't accept they lost. It was a straightforward vote put by the government which ended up as a NO. Move on

 

[jakarta]

There was plenty of comment after the referendum (and some before) that it was a badly defined referendum because it is very, very rare to have a vote on such a fundamental change on a straight 50/50 basis. It would much more commonly need to be 60/40 or similar in favour if the change.

Why so reasonable? Why not 70/30 or 80/20?

Some people on this Board have a clear problem with the concept of democracy.

 

[beorhthelm]

There was plenty of comment after the referendum (and some before) that it was a badly defined referendum because it is very, very rare to have a vote on such a fundamental change on a straight 50/50 basis. It would much more commonly need to be 60/40 or similar in favor if the change.

it was defined as it was because the government thought they would easily win, in any case the Electoral Reform Society setting the actual question and parliament setting the terms of the referendum. I'm aware of cases where legislation has higher thresholds, do you know of any referendums that do as im pretty sure 50% is the standard in public votes whatever the subject?

 

[ManOfSussex]

The British Retail Consortium are today warning prices in the shops could rise substantially if we default to WTO rules.

http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-warning-on-food-and-fashion-prices-10612152

(Link on this from Sky News, as the BBC website appears to upset some people and other outlets are a bit slow in reporting this for whatever reason.)

 

[beorhthelm]

The British Retail Consortium are today warning prices in the shops could rise substantially if we default to WTO rules

its true, if we don't have any other deal and we apply import tariffs, then in about 2-2&half years prices could rise. stock up on Chilean wine and overseas meat just in case.

 

[jakarta]

its true, if we don't have any other deal and we apply import tariffs, then in about 2-2&half years prices could rise. stock up on Chilean wine and overseas meat just in case.

Or on the other hand see how cheap Australian, New Zealand and South African wine becomes!

 

[vegster]

I am not an economist so this is not a loaded question; why will they suffer disproportionately?

Golly! Not an economist? I thought everyone on here was an economist?. Can't you see that people on minimum wages would suffer more from sharp price rises in food, energy and other goods? Those are people who can't expect a 10% wage rise when it all goes up... they are told they are lucky to have a job and that times are hard so... tough.
Anyway,at this rate you will soon find out how disproportionate it will be.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Commonly for whom the remainers who still can't accept they lost. It was a straightforward vote put by the government which ended up as a NO. Move on

My comment was a straightforward statement of fact following comments from a number of constitutional experts both in the UK and abroad. It was not a wailing and a gnashing of teeth and an "if only we had needed a 60% majority....".

So stop crowing, particularly when it is not appropriate to crow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

it was defined as it was because the government thought they would easily win, in any case the Electoral Reform Society setting the actual question and parliament setting the terms of the referendum. I'm aware of cases where legislation has higher thresholds, do you know of any referendums that do as im pretty sure 50% is the standard in public votes whatever the subject?

I do not remember specific examples, but there was a professor of Constitutional law from, I think, Leeds University on the radio a couple of days after June 23rd saying 60% was the norm and quoting a number of examples. I also heard the same from an American on Newsnight.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Why so reasonable? Why not 70/30 or 80/20?

Some people on this Board have a clear problem with the concept of democracy.

My post was a straightforward statement of fact, nothing more, nothing less. Not a comment that whoever set it up got it wrong, not an "if only" sort of comment.

But plenty of people on here seem to have a problem with "facts".

 

[smeg]

Oooh what a bitter little kraut loser you are!Do you ever spend any time on football threads,other than ripping the 1901 to bits?I expect you must do sometime,given you seem to be stuck permanently to the internet What's up,your Deutsche Bank shares gone tits up?

Wow

 

[Theatre of Trees]

it was defined as it was because the government thought they would easily win, in any case the Electoral Reform Society setting the actual question and parliament setting the terms of the referendum. I'm aware of cases where legislation has higher thresholds, do you know of any referendums that do as im pretty sure 50% is the standard in public votes whatever the subject?

Scottish independence referendum in 1979 had an amendment which stipulated that over 40% of the registered voters had to vote in the affirmative for the Act to become law. Despite 'yes' winning 52%-48% at the polls the 52% only accounted for 33% of registered voters in Scotland.

If the same rule had been applied in 2016, No would have won.

 

[Bwian]

you mention facts with hyperbole and not looking at other information. £/$ dropped around 10-12% between Jun 2015 and Jun 2016, do you remember the impending doom that caused? did you notice it? combined, its 20-25% in 18months, not a great story but there are upsides (helps exports) and the underlying cause is low interest rates. Brexit is a short term catalyst for speculators and traders to abuse.

That would be great if we had a manufacturing economy. Isn't 80% of the GB economy service based now?

 

[The Birdman]

Labour will make it difficult for the Tories as they are trying to get Teresa May to show all her cards upfront.
I was someone who voted to stay but now we are goinging out we should let them negotiate to try and get the best deal that's right for Britain and that means the legal rights of European workers in the uk are the same as British workers working and living in Europe.

 

[El Presidente]

Scottish independence referendum in 1979 had an amendment which stipulated that over 40% of the registered voters had to vote in the affirmative for the Act to become law. Despite 'yes' winning 52%-48% at the polls the 52% only accounted for 33% of registered voters in Scotland.

If the same rule had been applied in 2016, No would have won.

But the rule didn't apply in 2016.

I'm a firm remain supporter, but the public wants what the public gets, and that's an EU exit. The argument put forward that there was (and is) overwhelming evidence that Brexit would lead to lower economic growth, higher prices, less choice and lower pensions wasn't enough compared to the reasons why people wanted to leave in terms of their concerns over migration and democratic deficit.

Instead of moaning about the racists and idiots who voted to leave, they together don't come to 17 million. So take a look at the others who wanted out, who have seen no benefits to globalisation, free trade, free movement, and then see why they rejected the arguments for remain.

 

[Diego Napier]

That would be great if we had a manufacturing economy. Isn't 80% of the GB economy service based now?

Yep, manufacturing accounts for only 10% of the UK economy.