Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Takhisis]

The fact that it hasn't started people demonstrating might suggest, despite what many bitter Remain voters keep insisting, that the Leave voters (for the most part) really weren't voting based on the "promises" of Farage/Johnson/et al. After all, if 17 million people had just voted with the specific intent of getting £350 million per week for the NHS (for example) then there probably would have been demonstrations by now.

Then what were they voting for? (I already fear that he answer will not reëstablish my trust in the British electorate).

David Cameron has resigned as MP.

So there will be a bye election.

*takes off sunglasses* YEEEAAAAHHHH!

The topic of brexit came up briefly, and their comment was 'we've existed for 1000 years before the EU, i'm sure we will be fine'.

I'm sure the Native Americans had a similar argument when Europeans came over.

English settlers, to be more precise.

 

[Kozmos]

Well we can't forget the Conquistadors and other fine young bucks.

 

[Takhisis]

Oh, no, in that case they were actually expecting the fellas.

 

[Akka]

English settlers, to be more precise.

No wonder they are wary of immigrants now

 

[bathsheba666]

Had a great visit with some brits on vacation at a local bar Saturday night (there was a band, seating was limited, so they were gracious to invite us to sit with them).

The topic of brexit came up briefly, and their comment was 'we've existed for 1000 years before the EU, i'm sure we will be fine'.

I found that logic hard to argue with.

I guess they missed the small detail about britain being an economic basket case before we joined.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sure the Native Americans had a similar argument when Europeans came over.

That really makes no sense what-so-ever.

I guess they missed the small detail about britain being an economic basket case before we joined.

Well, while it did help halt the UKs economic slide, there's no way to tell if the UK wouldn't have recovered from that regardless, or whether the UK would have better (or worse off) today by not joining the EU like it did in 1973.

Honestly, the early 70's weren't a fun time economically for a lot of nations.

I was merely giving a purely anecdotal reference. I didn't offer it up as anything but that.

 

[Takhisis]

Which type of ‘fun’ do you mean, Mobby?

 

[Ajidica]

Well, while it did help halt the UKs economic slide, there's no way to tell if the UK wouldn't have recovered from that regardless, or whether the UK would have better (or worse off) today by not joining the EU like it did in 1973.

The UK probably would have been worse off if they hadn't joined the EEC/EU. Remember that their economy was in such a free-fall they were forced to ask the IM for a bailout in '76 and in the early 70's the UK was forced to implement a three day week because the government was just that broke. The UK export industry was similarly falling to bits in the face of competition from modernized German, French, and Japanese factories. The City of London was still a center of the world economy but even that was looking a bit sketchy with how the pound was doing. Joining the EEC made it easier to peg the pound to the vastly more stable mark and benefit from the CAP and, you know, be part of the wealthiest market on the planet.

 

[Camikaze]

Had a great visit with some brits on vacation at a local bar Saturday night (there was a band, seating was limited, so they were gracious to invite us to sit with them).

The topic of brexit came up briefly, and their comment was 'we've existed for 1000 years before the EU, i'm sure we will be fine'.

I found that logic hard to argue with.

That logic certainly is hard to argue with, in the sense that arguments following loose logic can often be difficult to counter. The statement "we existed for 1000 years before the EU" does not logically give rise to a conclusion that "therefore I'm sure we will be fine". There can only be a logical link between that premise and that conclusion, if it's assumed that nothing has changed over the course of 1000 years. Similarly, there is no sound logic in an 80 year old who has developed arrhythmia saying, "I've survived 80 years without a pacemaker, I'm sure I'll be fine"; the 80 years of arrhythmia-free existence has no bearing on the capacity to continuing existing.

 

[FriendlyFire]

The UK probably would have been worse off if they hadn't joined the EEC/EU. Remember that their economy was in such a free-fall they were forced to ask the IM for a bailout in '76 and in the early 70's the UK was forced to implement a three day week because the government was just that broke. The UK export industry was similarly falling to bits in the face of competition from modernized German, French, and Japanese factories. The City of London was still a center of the world economy but even that was looking a bit sketchy with how the pound was doing. Joining the EEC made it easier to peg the pound to the vastly more stable mark and benefit from the CAP and, you know, be part of the wealthiest market on the planet.

How dare you use Facts
I think deep down the only issue is immigration issue, and the UK could easily get other EU countries together to form an anti immigration block to pass laws against massive influx of Refugees that would be satisfactory to most of the EU. Hardly seems worth the economic damage when the EU is already moving to tighten immigration.

For almost half a century Britain has benefited from a greater openness to world markets, which has fostered greater economic dynamism. Economists have demonstrated that the main cause of that change was membership of the EU, which brought with it gains from trade, foreign direct investment, competition and innovation.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/202a60c0-cfd8-11e5-831d-09f7778e7377.html#axzz4K6f95iM5

 

[Agent327]

How dare you use Facts
I think deep down the only issue is immigration issue, and the UK could easily get other EU countries together to form an anti immigration block to pass laws against massive influx of Refugees that would be satisfactory to most of the EU.

I don't quite see that happening, for various reasons.

Hardly seems worth the economic damage when the EU is already moving to tighten immigration.

Contrary to popular opinion in some circles immigration into the EU isn't that easy, actually. That's not because of 'toight EU immigration rules', but rather because of immigration laws in the individual countries. None of which has or will have significant impact on a 'massive influx influx of refugees', since refugees fall under a different set of laws than simply immigration. But even in these cases, there's no such thing as a perceived EU leniency, but rather the fact that there are plenty of areas in the world producing such refugees that's of importance. The real problem is that anti-immigration laws (dubious in themselves) don't tackle in any way the refugee problem, the causes of which lie outside of the EU, and can only be addressed there.

In short, even if 'immigration' was a factor in the UK's leaving, it's not likely that the referendum will have a significant impact on that - contrary to what the Leave campaign advocated.

 

[MobBoss]

That logic certainly is hard to argue with, in the sense that arguments following loose logic can often be difficult to counter. The statement "we existed for 1000 years before the EU" does not logically give rise to a conclusion that "therefore I'm sure we will be fine". There can only be a logical link between that premise and that conclusion, if it's assumed that nothing has changed over the course of 1000 years. Similarly, there is no sound logic in an 80 year old who has developed arrhythmia saying, "I've survived 80 years without a pacemaker, I'm sure I'll be fine"; the 80 years of arrhythmia-free existence has no bearing on the capacity to continuing existing.

Well, in one case, the limits of human life are pretty well established. The longevity of nation-states is another. I don't see Britain being invaded and conquered anytime soon, do you?

 

[Agent327]

Sometimes states simply collapse. (Mind you, I'm not saying the UK is about to, just giving an example.)

 

[Kyriakos]

Well, you could vote for Owen Smith as Labour leader. He wants to cancel the referendum. Given he is set to lose by Massive majority, it is a bit interesting that he doesn't care to make this statement as well, for it clearly is not an all in move so as to hope to be elected.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, in one case, the limits of human life are pretty well established. The longevity of nation-states is another. I don't see Britain being invaded and conquered anytime soon, do you?

The point isn't that the life of a nation-state is directly analogous to the life of a natural person. It's that you can only directly draw conclusions about future results from past results, if the circumstances are the same. Thus, we can only draw the conclusion that the UK will survive the years 2020-2030 from the fact that they survived the years 1820-1830, if we assume that circumstances in those two periods are the same. Therefore, there would only be a rational inference about the UK's continued survival from the UK's past survival, if it were assumed that the circumstances through which the UK in the past survived, were the same as the circumstances in which it is now seeking to survive. (And of course, even then, chance survival in the past is no safe indicator of the same result being repeated on a second flip of the coin).

I'd also note that reliance upon an argument as to the survival of England for 1000 years does not bode well for the prospects of the United Kingdom, which has only existed for a minority of that period.

I guess the more fundamental point may be that setting the bar at 'survival' is pretty low. I mean, I guess I'd agree that the UK isn't likely to descend into a nuclear wasteland, but that's not a particularly strong measure of success (and in any case, the past survival of the UK is irrelevant to the likelihood of such a non-survival scenario eventuating).

 

[Silurian]

Had a great visit with some brits on vacation at a local bar Saturday night (there was a band, seating was limited, so they were gracious to invite us to sit with them).

The topic of brexit came up briefly, and their comment was 'we've existed for 1000 years before the EU, i'm sure we will be fine'.

I found that logic hard to argue with.

I voted remain but believe we will be fine.

We will be richer in ten years than we are now just not as rich as we would have been.

The government has still not decided what Brexit means Brexit means, how will the negotitions etc go; so after ten years is we may see some benefit or more likely have a small restriction on growth.

From BBC

The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) has slashed its growth forecast for the UK in the light of the Brexit vote.

It now expects the UK to grow 1.8% this year, down from its March estimate of 2.2%, and by 1% in 2017 compared with its original forecast of 2.3%.

Uncertainty surrounding the UK's negotiations over its EU exit would "dampen growth prospects", it said, while consumer spending would weaken.

It said the UK "would skirt with", but avoid, a recession.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37334933

 

[Arakhor]

I don't see Britain being invaded and conquered anytime soon, do you?

I don't either, but extreme views on immigration and religious demographics have often suggested that we are being invaded right now.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Remember that their economy was in such a free-fall

WRONG: The UK economy had a problem with industrial relations and
with inflation, but it was certainly not in free fall prior to joining the EEC.

Pre EEC UK growth 1950-1972 was much higher than post EEC 1973-to date.

And up until the UK joined the EEC, the UK enjoyed a balanced government budget
AND a balanced foreign exchange account (with no overall long term deficits).

And ever since the joining the EEC, the UK has had a foreign exchange account deficit
and since re-signing to the EU the UK has also had a massive government deficit.

they were forced to ask the IM for a bailout in '76

That (1976) was three years after the UK joined the EEC, and arose from a reluctance
to let the currency depreciate due to a misplaced belief in fixing exchange rates.

and in the early 70's the UK was forced to implement a three day week because the government was just that broke

.

WRONG: The three day week was the consequence of an electric power shortage
in the UK resulting from a political motivated strike in the coal mining industry,
and that had absolutely nothing to do with the UK government finances.

The UK export industry was similarly falling to bits in the face of competition
from modernized German, French, and Japanese factories.

The UK export industry was cerainly losing its share of world trade, but as world trade
was growing as fast, UK exporting was surviving in 1972; and the greater strength of
continental competition was why joining the EEC at start of 1973 was so damaging.

The pro EEC caompaign then promised that joining the EEC would result in a jump
in UK exports to the UK and prosperity. What happened was the exact reverse.

The modernized and well run German, French, and Italian factories were able to
export far more into the UK, with the resultant loss of UK jobs; compare the
UK unemployment (before EEC 1972 = 876 thousand via in EEC 1982 = 3.119 million).

The City of London was still a center of the world economy but even
that was looking a bit sketchy with how the pound was doing. Joining the EEC
made it easier to peg the pound to the vastly more stable mark

The attempt to peg the pound to the mark resulted in the John Major recession
and the conservative party losing the 1997 election to Labour led by Tony Blair.

In a sense that was a rerun of trying to peg to the dollar and Labour led by Jim
Callaghan losing to the conservatives led by Margaret Thatcher in 1979; and a
precursor to the current debacle of the fixed currency Euro regime the UK escaped.

The City of London is now in many respects a lame duck being propped up by
hundreds of £ billions of loans called quantitative easing and ridiculously low
interests rates from the Bank of England which result in economic distortion.

Well, while it did help halt the UKs economic slide, there's no way to tell if the UK wouldn't have recovered from that regardless, or whether the UK would have better (or worse off) today by not joining the EU like it did in 1973.

A lot of posters here in this thread were not around in 1972, and many of them
seem to have unknowingly absorbed Remainer misinformation and propaganda.

How else would the Remain campaign have got as much as 48% of the vote?

 

[EnglishEdward]

I'd also note that reliance upon an argument as to the survival of England for 1000 years does not bode well for the prospects of the United Kingdom, which has only existed for a minority of that period.

I am inclined to agree that the UK will probably not survive for a thouand years,
and certainly not in its current form.

If for no other reason that the southern irish have opted for modernity
and to not let the Roman Catholic chutch or hatred of England rule them,
so there is grounds for hope for an amicable reconciliation in that island.

Perhaps we should debate whether the multi-national EU will last longer
than the multi-national Austro-Hungarian empire and in what form.

IIRC it's already changed its name and boundaries four times in about my life.

 

[bathsheba666]

That really makes no sense what-so-ever.

Well, while it did help halt the UKs economic slide, there's no way to tell if the UK wouldn't have recovered from that regardless, or whether the UK would have better (or worse off) today by not joining the EU like it did in 1973.

Honestly, the early 70's weren't a fun time economically for a lot of nations.

I was merely giving a purely anecdotal reference. I didn't offer it up as anything but that.

I wasn't criticizing your quoting, I was commenting on their memory - selective or otherwise - who knows ?

One thing that bothers me is that, amongst all the other generalisations, this country normally conducts itself in a kind of squalid pragmatism, while here it appears that swivel eyed idealogues have frothed about some kind of liberty, and somehow absorbed an unholy alliance of the bigoted, disaffected, and uninformed and persuaded them over the cliff.

As this will exacerbate, rather than relieve, the poverty underlying the protest, the omens are not good.

If a country is ever going to give itself up to collective hysteria, it is a shame it can't be around something worthwhile. The electorate appears to believe that the NHS is safe in the governments hands, whose cherished beliefs bear no responsibility for poverty or the crash. Another 3 items, and the hatter will no doubt approve.

I feel plain dirty living in this country at present.