EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[fowler9]

I once shared a hotel breakfast with a Downing Street insider, and when he told me what he did I told him UK party politics had proved itself incapable of delivering on its promise of a fair society. He admitted that governing a country of 60m people was essentially impossible, and in a roundabout way said the important thing was to give the appearance of being in control.

While I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, I don't believe the EU have a better idea based on scale alone, and suspect it's the size of the illusion that's the difference. A conspiracy theorist imagines the world to be in the control of a shadowy elite (The Illuminati, World Bankers, Bilderberg, the EU, the "Government"). I think no one is in charge and the sooner people catch on to the idea the less we'll rely on "them" to sort things out.

Totally agree.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In other news, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse have been sighted making their way down Euston Road. One of them was heard to say "fnaarh, pwaah, whiffy whaffwhaff bumblescrump" as he passed.

Reminds me of the words immortalised in the Jack Rosenthal film...

"P'tang, Yang, Kipperbang"...

 

[Moonshot]

Are you aware of criticisms of their tax avoidance? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20560359

In which case they should be penalised if found to be illegal. Of course government policy is to reduce rates of corparation tax to attract business to these shores......,maybe it will eventually be set at zero so as there is no tax to avoid in the first place?

 

[bramling]

Isnt it true that absolutely anyone can actually go and buy a house ? Of course this would be subject to funds available, but the fact remains that there are no laws in this country that actually prohibit anyone from buying a house.

As you say, the issue is house price inflation - particularly in London and the South East.

We've gone from a situation where a typical suburban semi has gone from around £200k in the 1990s to anything around £1million today. Whichever way one looks at it, this requires quite a hefty income to be able to afford, whereas in the 1990s could be affordable on relatively modest incomes. Then there is the added issue that those already on the ladder see their investment accruing in value, whilst those not on the ladder (either renting or living with parents) just see their savings lose real value with low interest rates and increasing inflation. The alternative is to move further away from London, which is exactly what is happening, but eventually these more outlying areas will suffer the same effect, meanwhile placing massive strain on the transport system. Railways at capacity a familiar story?

No matter how charitable one tries to be, it's hard not to conclude that the millions of EU citizens living in London has contributed to this problem.

Building more houses does not solve the transport problem, and I've yet to see anyone come up with a realistic solution to that. Stripping out seats from train carriages and squeezing every inch out of capacity only takes things so far. Roads are already a nightmare in parts of the south-east, with the "rush hour" now extending from about 0630 to 1000 in the worst areas.

 

[fowler9]

Amazing how many people on this website quote The Daily Mail when they have a political axe to grind. Yet how many of these have ever read it for a period of time?

It sounds just like the old adage...."I don't like Guinness, but I've never tried it"..

I read it every day because my dad buys it (But doesn't read it, bizarre). It really is a rag. It frequently twists stories in the most extreme way possible without actually telling lies. It will take extreme out lying situations and use them as examples of what is the norm, benefits claimants, single mums, immigrants etc. etc. etc. By frequently I mean daily, in fact it is quite comical.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I read it every day because my dad buys it (But doesn't read it, bizarre). It really is a rag. It frequently twists stories in the most extreme way possible without actually telling lies. It will take extreme out lying situations and use them as examples of what is the norm, benefits claimants, single mums, immigrants etc. etc. etc. By frequently I mean daily, in fact it is quite comical.

As one of our resident "Scouse Brigade", you will note that it was not the Daily Mail who made those disgraceful post-Hillsborough newspaper headlines.

As has been said, it has the second highest daily circulation figure.

 

[fowler9]

As one of our resident "Scouse Brigade", you will note that it was not the Daily Mail who made those disgraceful post-Hillsborough newspaper headlines.

Indeed. You did however ask how many people who bring up the Daily Mail when talking about politics actually read it so I answered.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Building more houses does not solve the transport problem, and I've yet to see anyone come up with a realistic solution to that. Stripping out seats from train carriages and squeezing every inch out of capacity only takes things so far. Roads are already a nightmare in parts of the south-east, with the "rush hour" now extending from about 0630 to 1000 in the worst areas.

The far bigger worry is what is bound to occur when these houses are built on flood plains.

 

[Moonshot]

As you say, the issue is house price inflation - particularly in London and the South East.

We've gone from a situation where a typical suburban semi has gone from around £200k in the 1990s to anything around £1million today. Whichever way one looks at it, this requires quite a hefty income to be able to afford, whereas in the 1990s could be affordable on relatively modest incomes. Then there is the added issue that those already on the ladder see their investment accruing in value, whilst those not on the ladder (either renting or living with parents) just see their savings lose real value with low interest rates and increasing inflation. The alternative is to move further away from London, which is exactly what is happening, but eventually these more outlying areas will suffer the same effect, meanwhile placing massive strain on the transport system. Railways at capacity a familiar story?

No matter how charitable one tries to be, it's hard not to conclude that the millions of EU citizens living in London has contributed to this problem.

Building more houses does not solve the transport problem, and I've yet to see anyone come up with a realistic solution to that. Stripping out seats from train carriages and squeezing every inch out of capacity only takes things so far. Roads are already a nightmare in parts of the south-east, with the "rush hour" now extending from about 0630 to 1000 in the worst areas.

What would be the effect on all of the above if Brexit led to a mass exodus of Finance jobs to Europe?

 

[bramling]

What would be the effect on all of the above if Brexit led to a mass exodus of Finance jobs to Europe?

Assuming all other things remain equal, small reduction in demand for housing in London area, so perhaps small reduction in house prices? But that assumes all other things remain equal, which is a major assumption.

 

[Moonshot]

Assuming all other things remain equal, small reduction in demand for housing in London area, so perhaps small reduction in house prices? But that assumes all other things remain equal, which is a major assumption.

Or big risk to put it another way

London and the South East is a major contributor to the tax revenues of this country. It would seem to me that the next 2 years is going to see some very intelligent discussion between a lot of intelligent people who have a grasp of the deep lying issues that could surface. As I slight side note, its worth noting that Article 50 did not actually exist as an act until a few years ago.....as somebody had the foresight ( Lord Kerr of Kinlochard ) to press for its inclusion.

 

[furnessvale]

Or for the leave voters desperately looking at what they had been told to vote by that kind and caring Murdoch & whoever runs the Daily Mail

Indeed, we will never know. Probably best discounted from the equation just like those who didn't bother voting are best left out rather than claimed by one side or the other.

 

[bramling]

Or big risk to put it another way

Yes, you're right.

However, remain wasn't a risk-free option either. Personally I'd rather the risks were managed by our elected government, rather than a remote EU which is driven by ideology and the priorities of the EU rather than of Britain.

 

[AlterEgo]

As one of our resident "Scouse Brigade", you will note that it was not the Daily Mail who made those disgraceful post-Hillsborough newspaper headlines.

As has been said, it has the second highest daily circulation figure.

What's your point? It's read by lots of people and it didn't slur the Hillsborough dead. So what?

 

[Moonshot]

Yes, you're right.

However, remain wasn't a risk-free option either. Personally I'd rather the risks were managed by our elected government, rather than a remote EU which is driven by ideology and the priorities of the EU rather than of Britain.

Agreed......

I was rather suprised to discover that Article 50 could actually be revoked up to the end of the 2 year period. There may be life left yet in the Remain Dog !!

 

[najaB]

I was rather suprised to discover that Article 50 could actually be revoked up to the end of the 2 year period.

That is far from clear.

 

[fowler9]

Looking at things over recent months I have studied lots of stuff from remainers which seems to have consisted of various parts of the economy saying they can't see how leaving is going to be any better with lots of arguments regarding freedom of movement, possible costs of doing business etc. etc. Admittedly this is all very negative and possibly "Project Fear", but they had figures. All I have seen from Brexiters is "Don't call us racist or stupid, we won, get over it and get behind your country, we have no plan". I have seen no actual positive figures on the table from them. Whilst I appreciate the "Have a go" attitude and I have made some mad choices in my own life not knowing what the outcome would be, this isn't like choosing Bulgaria for a holiday for a change instead of Spain.

 

[Carlisle]

All I have seen from Brexiters is "Don't call us racist or stupid, we won, get over it and get behind your country, we have no plan". I have seen no actual positive figures on the table from them. Whilst I appreciate the "Have a go" attitude and I have made some mad choices in my own life not knowing what the outcome would be, this isn't like choosing Bulgaria for a holiday for a change instead of Spain.

If thats proved factual it hints that for a significant number it was a lot to do with border controls and not too much else

 

[furnessvale]

Agreed......

I was rather suprised to discover that Article 50 could actually be revoked up to the end of the 2 year period. There may be life left yet in the Remain Dog !!

Do you think the EU would allow a revocation without extracting a price?

End of the rebate, Shengen, accepting the Euro? God knows the tottering edifice certainly needs as much UK cash as it can get its hands on.

 

[Moonshot]

If thats proved factual it hints that for a significant number it was a lot to do with border controls and not too much else

Border controls which actually already exist.

 

[Dave1987]

Well I am encouraged that lots of legal people believe that this is not necessarily the end and that even at the end of the two year period we may still remain. We all have seen that if a decision they make is likely to cost them politically Mrs Mays Government will U-turn extremely quickly. Just look at the whole NI increase saga. If at the end of the two year period there is going to be no deal with a massive crash back to WTO rules with all the resulting tariffs I think she will U-turn when companies start announcing plant closures and job relocation's out of the country. Many many large employers have said they will make decisions on the futures of their businesses based on the deal negotiated. The EU have already stated that the deal the UK gets will not be anywhere near as good as it would be from being a member of the EU. So when the job losses start to stack up expect a U-turn....

 

[bavvo]

If thats proved factual it hints that for a significant number it was a lot to do with border controls and not too much else

I thought the brexit crowd were mostly evenly divided between those who thought the EU was forcing us to have bent bananas and those who thought the EU weren't allowing us to have bent bananas.

 

[dgl]

I thought the brexit crowd were mostly evenly divided between those who thought the EU was forcing us to have bent bananas and those who thought the EU weren't allowing us to have bent bananas.

when it turns out it was consumers who wanted perfect fruit/veg and the supermarkets were just giving them what they wanted.

 

[miami]

when it turns out it was consumers who wanted perfect fruit/veg and the supermarkets were just giving them what they wanted.

Yes, it's a labelling thing. If you want to buy a box of bendy bananas, then you buy class 2. If you want to guarantee that the bananas are straight, buy class 1. It's a labelling thing.

They could have called these 'class red' and 'class blue'.

This is one of the top 5 regulations that the telegraph is looking forward to burning:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ing-britain-brexit-set-country-free-shackles/

Five EU directives we'll be glad to see the back of

In 1994, the European Commission drew up regulation 2257/94, which stated that bananas in general should as a minimum be “free from malformation or abnormal curvature of the fingers”. Under the regulation, “extra” class bananas must be “free from defects”, while class 1 bananas can have “slight defects of shape” and class 2 bananas are allowed to have “defects of shape”. The regulation was repeatedly highlighted by Boris Johnson during the EU referendum campaign.

Other regulations to get rid of

EU working time directive

The directive guarantees employment terms such as a maximum 48-hour week and four weeks of paid holiday per year, as well as rules on hours of rest for shift workers.

Yeay


They also want to kill Great Crested Newts (protected since 1981, I blame the EU :roll, bring back 100W light bulbs which cost a fortune and bring back inefficient pre-dyson vacuums (which again cost a fortune). They also want to turn back the tide of renewable energy, making us more reliant on overseas fuel suppliers. Very trumpesque.

That's it, the 5 layers of red tape that are killing us. The fact they mention 6 is neither here nor there.

 

[najaB]

They also want to kill Great Crested Newts (protected since 1981, I blame the EU :roll, bring back 100W light bulbs which cost a fortune and bring back inefficient pre-dyson vacuums (which again cost a fortune). They also want to turn back the tide of renewable energy, making us more reliant on overseas fuel suppliers. Very trumpesque.

How dare those sneaky Eurocrats try to save us money! And saving the natural environment?!

 

[Moonshot]

Well I am encouraged that lots of legal people believe that this is not necessarily the end and that even at the end of the two year period we may still remain. We all have seen that if a decision they make is likely to cost them politically Mrs Mays Government will U-turn extremely quickly. Just look at the whole NI increase saga. If at the end of the two year period there is going to be no deal with a massive crash back to WTO rules with all the resulting tariffs I think she will U-turn when companies start announcing plant closures and job relocation's out of the country. Many many large employers have said they will make decisions on the futures of their businesses based on the deal negotiated. The EU have already stated that the deal the UK gets will not be anywhere near as good as it would be from being a member of the EU. So when the job losses start to stack up expect a U-turn....

Indeed......though I suspect that levels of corporation tax may well be reduced as a sweetner to contra potential tariffs. I also note today that Lloyds of London are opening up a subsidary office in Brussels.....clearly some are looking ahead now.

Will also watch how FTSE 100 performs.....as at 11am today , it stands at 7370.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Rags like the DM and posh rags like the DT have endlessly harped on about the ridiculousness of EU regulations, not seeing that in many cases there are perfectly valid reasons for them and there is no reason that an independent UK might not have brought these rules in by themselves.

You see this a lot in arguments about DDA on trains, people saying that in 2019 we will be able to ignore the EU directives and not scrap the Pacers, 150s etc. Ignoring the fact that we are condemning people with disabilities to difficult train travel.

 

[Moonshot]

Rags like the DM and posh rags like the DT have endlessly harped on about the ridiculousness of EU regulations, not seeing that in many cases there are perfectly valid reasons for them and there is no reason that an independent UK might not have brought these rules in by themselves.

You see this a lot in arguments about DDA on trains, people saying that in 2019 we will be able to ignore the EU directives and not scrap the Pacers, 150s etc. Ignoring the fact that we are condemning people with disabilities to difficult train travel.

This is a very valid point, and indeed was also brought up in a Select Committe session about the potential effect of a Leave vote. It was estimated that some 90% of what you might call EU law will actually end up as UK law anyway. Irrespective of which version of law we get, the common sense approach to Pacers is that they are no longer fit for purpose and need scrapping, which is actually happening.

 

[northwichcat]

It was estimated that some 90% of what you might call EU law will actually end up as UK law anyway. Irrespective of which version of law we get, the common sense approach to Pacers is that they are no longer fit for purpose and need scrapping, which is actually happening.

It wasn't the EU who came up with the 31st December 2019 deadline that was a Westminister government, at the time led by John Major who decided that was adequate time to either replace or refurbish all the rolling stock which was introduced in the 1980s.

 

[Moonshot]

It wasn't the EU who came up with the 31st December 2019 deadline that was a Westminister government, at the time led by John Major who decided that was adequate time to either replace or refurbish all the rolling stock which was introduced in the 1980s.

Which just re inforces the point......its a commercial decision and the right one. It just so happens that in the background , there are directives or laws which basically state that trains have to be a lot more accessible to wheelchairs etc than they are now. So designing replacement trains that do exactly what is required by those regs makes perfect sense. If Brexit had not happened at all, they would still be getting replaced.