Brexit

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Alas you haven't stated why England wants to hold on to Scotland...

Jeremy:

As to the latter question, I think the answer is sentiment.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

" Just to recap, for those who understandably find this confusing: Britain’s foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, campaigned for Brexit but was suspected of wobbling privately towards remain. The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, campaigned for remain but was suspected of wobbling privately towards leave.

We know that was just for internal purposes, getting a better position in the party.

And our prime minister was presumably either faking it in front of the Goldman Sachs faithful, or is faking it now when she insists that hard Brexit will be a rip-roaring success, or is secretly in two minds about the most totemic issue of the day – but dammit, the British people ordered a burger, and that’s what they’ll get.

Maybe it's not black and white, and since the die has been cast, PM May is right on both counts. The Brexit doesn't promise much good (e.g. look at the exchange rate and the trade deficit), but now that a 'majority vote' has decided, a prolonged uncertainty about how things will play out (a process that will take longer than the expected 2 years after article 50 is triggered), is very bad for investors as well. While against, she now has accepted the job to implement the chosen direction.

And we wonder why people don’t trust politicians.

Trusting politicians is naive at best. Trusting on the outcome of a poorly designed referendum is even worse. There is an important role set aside for investigative journalism.

Referenda are unfit for solving questions that have complex/conflicting effects. For major decisions, a very high turnout threshold would be the minimum requirement, but it's best reserved for simple yes/no answerable issues with a clear understanding of the consequences (thus simple and clear cut issues). Otherwise, why even elect educated representatives if the ill-informed people have to take the decisions.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...Otherwise, why even elect educated representatives if the ill-informed people have to take the decisions.

Because neither education nor information drive people, self-interests and emotions do. Otherwise, no educated and well informed person would marry. Ever. And Brexit is like a divorce 

[stamper]

Are the people who wish population reduction contemplating suicide themselves, and commit suicide as an example to others to follow suit?

[jfirneno]

Referenda are unfit for solving questions that have complex/conflicting effects. For major decisions, a very high turnout threshold would be the minimum requirement, but it's best reserved for simple yes/no answerable issues with a clear understanding of the consequences (thus simple and clear cut issues). Otherwise, why even elect educated representatives if the ill-informed people have to take the decisions.

It was really a simple binary decision.  They named a song after it, "Should I stay or should I go?"  People voted based on their overall feeling about EU membership.  And the Remain camp had endless support from politicians (foreign and domestic), entertainers, journalists and the Media in general.  Sounds like they voted for what they wanted.
And the same ill-informed people elect those educated representatives so you're still at the mercy of "the people."   It sounds like the thing that is the problem for you is democracy.

[stamper]

Britain had a .5% increase in their GDP since the vote to leave the EU three months ago.  That's a positive sign.GDP

Wait for a year and then see what happens after the break. Britain hasn't left yet so too early for rejoicing.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It was really a simple binary decision.

Yes, the choice was binary, but the conflicting effects are almost impossible to fathom and therefore the instrument of a referendum is (in such a case) flawed.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  the conflicting effects are almost impossible to fathom...

A.k.a. "life."

And yet every day, every one of us, individually or collectively, in business or private lives, make decisions based on imperfect and incomplete information.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Are the people who wish population reduction contemplating suicide themselves, and commit suicide as an example to others to follow suit?

Your question was about wishing. I wish a Bentley for birthday. Ain't gonna happen either.

[Nick Walker]

Are the people who wish population reduction contemplating suicide themselves, and commit suicide as an example to others to follow suit?

In answer to your earlier question, yes a smaller population would be a blessing, especially south of Scotland. Unlike England, but like France and my travels in Scotland I have been blessed with far less people to trip over.

I hope Brexit will reduce the number of people from other EU countries wanting to come south of Scotland to seek work. In the South of England so much land has/is being ripped up for more and more additional housing. In addition undue pressure on local services, schools, NHS, etc.

Some unfotunate people in the UK still struggle to pay for food and/or keep a roof over their head, others have the luxury to queue up at an Apple store to replace last year’s iPhone (as much as I appreciate good design and technology I have never understood why people would want to queue for the release of a gadget).

I am not ant-capitalist but how many people do we need to cram into a country to boost the economy just to aspire/own an iphone?

[MarkJohnson]

..and therefore the instrument of a referendum is (in such a case) flawed.

As they say, "garbage in, garbage out".

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

A.k.a. "life."

Not really. The consequences of some decisions are too hard to envision for an individual to allow an informed decision. Hence most people do not take such a decision, and a small minority (possibly with an entirely different agenda) gets to decide.

And yet every day, every one of us, individually or collectively, in business or private lives, make decisions based on imperfect and incomplete information.

That is already something completely different. 'Every one' did not cast their vote. And most everyday decisions do not have as far-reaching consequences as the economic future of a nation (with all various effects on parts of society) and especially on future generations.

Look e.g. at the state of 'our' environment. No something to be proud of. Apparently your 'every one' makes bad decisions, many of which are hard to repair once 'common sense' (with gradually progressing insight) eventually sinks in, long after the absolute initial emotional yes/no decision has been taken.

Turning sharp corners at full speed tends to wear out your tyres, if not worse. It's usually more effective in the longer term to use good technique, practice, and experience to gradually adjust the course (thus with a more predictable/favorable outcome). Abrupt changes cause avoidable friction and wear.

Cheers,
Bart

[Nick Walker]

Wait for a year and then see what happens after the break. Britain hasn't left yet so too early for rejoicing.

I don't see Brexit as doom and gloom.

Like most previous economic upheavals in history, some people will be no more than slightly worse off, some slightly better off, winners and losers.  With regard to the economy, has the quality of my life, or for that case the majority of the UK's population been substantially affected by numerous changes of Gov over past decades, I can't say that I have noticed too much of a difference.

There again we have always tightened our belts accordingly and never borrowed money (other than mortgage) to meet the most important bills; food, a roof over our head and warmth during the colder months. If it means no toys, holidays, etc , etc that's what happens. I neither doubt that my day to day living will be adversely affected (food, roof and warmth) by us leaving the EU superstate. I will still see myself as European - I have a great deal of respect for the people that I have met during my work which has taken me to many European countries.

[Manoli]

Britain had a .5% increase in their GDP since the vote to leave the EU three months ago.  That's a positive sign.

GB had its 15th consecutive rise in GDP, almost matching Germany, when they're still part pf the single market, still part of the EU and with a much much lower currency - conditions that won't necessarily pertain in the medium term. So, no, it's a sign of nothing.

And before someone points out that Nissan has committed to the UK, that has only come after direct talks with the prime minister, no less,  and where 'guarantees of compensation for Brexit-related costs' were obtained. A 'result' that has prompted Jaguar Land Rover to move to secure similar compensation if faced with higher trade tariffs as a result of Brexit.

A subsidised automotive industry, in plain English.

[jfirneno]

Yes, the choice was binary, but the conflicting effects are almost impossible to fathom and therefore the instrument of a referendum is (in such a case) flawed.
Cheers,
Bart

In the real world there are always conflicting effects and all human institutions are approximations or as you said flawed.  What you seem to be excited by is a technocratic bureaucracy that will make all our decisions for us.  Something tells me that might turn out to be the thing about the EU that these people are voting to leave.

[Rob C]

I see it as a disaster (Brexit) both economically and from the point of view of those who had aspired to travel to Europe and spend time working there, possibly even settle there, and had studied various languages to that end. Yes, before Britain was in the EEC, you could still apply for jobs, and if you were exceptional in some way, perhaps get one. That's a far different cry to having the choice of going because you feel like it or want to start a business there, perhaps. A right is a right, and no longer having it is a loss, in any translation.

Just today a letter arrived from the bank telling me that my interest (they still have a sense of humur, bless 'em) is cut to 0.05 %, gross.

Since May, my state pension has dropped by € 71; that equates with seven lunches (pre-tip) at my usual, cheap watering holes. So that's nice, isn't it! As our amazing once-PM Harold Wilson famously remarked when presiding over a terrible fall in the value of the pound: "the pound in your pocket is still worth a pound!" Indeed, it is, until you try to spend it. Similar logic prevails in some quarters today, I'm afraid.

I think that voting should be compulsory for all elections and events such as a referendum. That way, the majority will indeed have spoken, for better or for worse. But even then, I think that 51% is too low a line. We need something definitive, not just the 50-50 equivalent of the toss of a coin!

Rob C

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi Rob,

That is an interesting point to discuss…

Best regards
Erik

We need something definitive, not just the 50-50 equivalent of the toss of a coin!

Rob C

[Alan Klein]

Wait for a year and then see what happens after the break. Britain hasn't left yet so too early for rejoicing.

None of us can predict the future.  You're making an assumption that the EU will stay hail and hearty.  What if other countries pull a Brexit or people just get tired of subsidizing other dead-beat countries.  Then the EU may be reduced to a trading zone where each country has their economic sovereignty restored.  Kind of what Britain is doing right now.  If that happens, Britain's Exit as the first may put them at the lead of countries with the best economies. 

Countries are like companies.  Those that are willing to be entrepreneurial and take chances seem to create the best and newest products.  Socialism not only makes people dependent on others and less creative and therefore less wealthy.  Socialist countries act the same way.   With similar results.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Jeremy – this is  pure spin, verging on propaganda.

The Wallonian vote is a hiccup, not a terminal end. The Canadian trade agreement will be finalised, as will the TTIP but, as the UK is about to find out, trade agreements take time.

Yes, of course it will - indeed, I gather it already has. I was merely using it as an example of the idiocies that the EU can inflict. Trade trumps all.

Your quotation from what is obviously a rabidly left-wing site, that appears to consider Corbyn a dangerous fascist, proves nothing and is wholly irrelevant. I'm not sure what point, if any, you are actually trying to make.

" Just to recap, for those who understandably find this confusing: Britain’s foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, campaigned for Brexit but was suspected of wobbling privately towards remain. The leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, campaigned for remain but was suspected of wobbling privately towards leave. And our prime minister was presumably either faking it in front of the Goldman Sachs faithful, or is faking it now when she insists that hard Brexit will be a rip-roaring success, or is secretly in two minds about the most totemic issue of the day – but dammit, the British people ordered a burger, and that’s what they’ll get. And we wonder why people don’t trust politicians."

and from the ultra Brexit 'Telegraph'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/26/remainers-seem-to-think-its-a-scandal-that-theresa-may-listened/

I'm still not sure what point you're trying to make. Johnson considered the issue to be balanced. He thought about it, carefully. He wrote articles both for and against, in an attempt to clarify points in his own mind, and he decided in favour of Leave. What on earth is wrong with that?

Harris's article about May is along the same lines. She campaigned, weakly, for Remain. The public voted for Leave, so she's going to do what an elected politician ought to do, and work to ensure that the best outcome is obtained, given the will of the people.

Only journalists think that issues are black and white.

Jeremy

[Jeremy Roussak]

Stating that the Scottish economy isn't viable and it wasn't ever viable is absurd. The UK economy is a lot less viable than the Scottish economy which is in danger of going under when the UK economy inevitably crashes. There is only £14 billion of debt in the Scotland economy  Alas you haven't stated why England wants to hold on to Scotland whilst wanting a divorce from Europe.

Robert, I'll have a bet with you. Second, third, fourth referendum or no referendum, and for whatever reason, Scotland will be part of the United Kingdom in 20 years' time.

And as Slobodan has observed, I did indicate why; and I didn't say I shared it.

Jeremy