Some great data, discussions and analysis in here. I also agree with some of the suggestions that the EU would do better serving as a trading bloc with easy movement across borders and to scrap the EUR and the bureaucracy.
I have been thinking a lot about the current situation and actually thought of a way that the UK could create a large advantage out of this scenario - albeit using pretty dirty tactics - but nothing politicians aren't dirty enough to do anyway. If I were in charge, I'd be out there trying to secure trade agreements and deals with the US/Canada/New Zealand/Australia - with whom we share similar principles, values and a long history of co-operation.
I would also really start putting the works on China and India in particular. I'd look at investing in infrastructure projects in India and also try and offer our consultation for key areas we are strong in such as engineering, social projects or financial markets. I would put aside funding to help push London dealers to expand their RMB dealing operations and look to get London cemented as a key INR dealer too.
Meanwhile, we can go about business as usual, ignoring the Brexit idea and just delaying it as long as possible. It is up to us to trigger it and we can use the threat of triggering article 50 to essentially hold the EU to ransom. If we don't manage to make any trade agreements, we can just call Brexit off. If we do, we can then take our leveraged position to the EU and re-negotiate, preferably at a time when instability is high in the region.
I know this sounds like pretty dirty scheming and is a little harsh on other EU members, but right now this in my mind is the only possible way to save face and actually achieve anything, whilst opening up the possibility of making reforms across the EU not just for the UK but for all members, particularly the PIIGS who are struggling under the weight of debt.
The only other option is to scrap the Brexit vote in the courts and go back to business as usual. We would keep all our current benefits (rebates, passport etc) but would lose credibility. There would also likely be some sort of flare-up over the accusation of a breakdown of democracy.
Just a thought anyway...
The following 3 users say Thank You to CobblersAwls for this post:
I lived in London for 10 years, and still have a chunk of change over there. I wanted them to stay in purely for selfish reasons. But long term I think leaving is the right decision.
Most things today are so short term orientated. eg companies doing things which will influence this years bonus for the CEO/mgmt, and not longer term strategic decisions. To go forward you often have to take some steps back. There will be a pretty decent period of pain - which I think many people only just now realize will happen - hence the sudden regret that seems to be floating around.
The old people had the majority. They are protected by pensions so unlikely to feel any real pain - and didn't have to factor that into their decisions. Any current shortfall is unlikely to affect them. I think they used their experience wisely. My 4 year old says he knows everything and is always right - I wonder at which age group that actually becomes true?
@CobblersAwls made some great points - England need to think differently. Their context has now changed, so trying to do the same things but just out of the EU isn't smart. The Eu wants free movement, and the english people don't. Any deals including free movement would likely swiftly end the term of the political party that made the agreement. The EU is not the only country out there so England need to think globally. And the EU will be harsh on the england, they want to make it as difficult as possible for them, to create a disincentive for other countries to leave. The EU will be the hardest nut to crack in terms of a trade deal.
While the politicians sort themselves, and a plan out, I don't see Article 50 being triggered anytime soon. And as CobblersAwls points out it - they have more options than just the predictable.
The following 4 users say Thank You to sixtyseven for this post:
But you can do the ground work - and agree deals in principal. If it's proving more difficult than they hope they have the option of putting their tail between their legs and going cap in hand to the EU.
The following 2 users say Thank You to sixtyseven for this post:
Favorite Futures: One with less collective narcissism and 25th century
Posts: 2,651 since May 2014
Thanks: 5,184 given,
Forum Reputation: Legendary
England is from Mars, Belgium is from Venus
Hopefully there will new less predictable options
Considering so many lies and misrepresentations were told it will only get worse. The UK parties have been able to blame Europe for anything that was convenient "the EU(missus) won't let me do xyz" and the basic nature has not changed.
If this was marriage guidance I'd imagine the question habitual scapegoating needs considering. Especially on the 100th anniversary of the Somme when nobody seems to remember why the EEC was founded.
Of course this could never happen again. Almost certainly?
Over the couple of months of the battle(s) 485,000 British and French casualties and 630,000 German.
A German officer wrote,
Somme. The whole history of the world cannot contain a more ghastly word.
— Friedrich Steinbrecher
Now looking at this chart as a trader.. Am I sure what happens next?
The following 5 users say Thank You to Rory for this post:
"It’s worth nothing that in areas like Bradford and Barnsley, people are far more likely to log into Facebook than they are to look for information in trusted news outlets. They don’t seek out explainers in The Economist to find out what level of freedom of movement might be grated by associate membership of the EU."
“I found out all my information from actual people on Facebook. I’m not listening to rich politicians like David Cameron who like the EU and have never actually lived in an area where immigration causes problems.”
"The working class in Britain have been let down by their government. They’ve been let down, not by the number of immigrants let into the country, but by the lack of information provided on one of the most important votes of their life."
So what is she advocating? A new British law that forces the first post on every bodies Facebook page to be a government informational post?
Unfortunately you can't teach people who don't want to learn.
The following 2 users say Thank You to SMCJB for this post:
I believe what she's trying to say - or what I read into it anyway - is that while it may be true that there is a portion of the community that are not fans of critical thinking (for whatever reason) - this time around it was even harder to extract valuable data in order to make a decision. Why? Because of the gross misrepresentation, from both politicians and media, of the facts.
I think we all agree that in this election both camps distorted the facts way above what they should have, and the most obvious impact is that the distortion gave people the wrong impression.
If some people started saying "Britain has voted to leave the EU, now it's time for any non-British person to pack up and leave" is because the way the immigration issue was debated. Nobody said the sensible thing, i.e. that any EU citizen that has established their roots in the UK for, say, 10+ years is obviously not going to be deported en-masse. Or that the rights of people that historically immigrated into the UK from the various British Colonies under the Commonwealth (e.g. people from India, Pakistan, Trinidad, etc.) had nothing to do with this referendum.
And the reason nobody said that was, it was not convenient to say it during the campaign. But it became obvious the day after the vote when people started clarifying it.
The same goes for trade: when the Leave camp said that the UK could have the best of both worlds by leaving the EU and setting up trade agreements with anyone and everyone, they did not say that the EU might make this hard. Why? It wasn't convenient.
Nor did anyone provide a timetable or even mentioned Article 50 pre-referendum: again it wasn't convenient.
Bottom line, I agree with you: if someone doesn't want to learn or does not spend time in collecting the facts, too bad.
But this time I believe the facts available were
a) distorted/exaggerated/obfuscated by claims made for political purposes
b) too many to weigh in a balanced way and
c) too complex to be easily digested by the average voter
The following 3 users say Thank You to xplorer for this post: