Is Britain about to leave the EU?

[Manfred Belheim]

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

Well I don't know about anyone else, but my motivation was obviously to lumber lots and lots of young middle class people with the extra burden of having to fill in a form to get a visa, rather than just having automatic travel rights. Which is, apparently, the biggest restriction in freedom since the abolition of slavery.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The electorate appears to believe that the NHS is safe in the governments hands

What are you basing that on? I'd probably agree with you, but I'd guess not for the reasons you're basing it on.

 

[Arakhor]

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?

I really wonder if you're for real sometimes, especially when you scream blue murder about having any Leave motive generalised and then make ridiculous comments like that.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I really wonder if you're for real sometimes, especially when you scream blue murder about having any Leave motive generalised and then make ridiculous comments like that.

While I agree with you that that's a ridiculous generalisation it is, to be fair, exactly the same generalisation that has been made about Leave voters many, many more times in this thread.

 

[Verbose]

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 that works just great, if the only frame of reference is the UK compared to itself. (Given this Brexit-thing I guess that might be how the UK will view everything henceforth?)

The UK pre-WWII was the richest country in Europe. The GDP per capita was about twice that of France. In the post-war period the UK effectively lost out on what the French have called "le trente gloriouese", the glorius thirty years of meteoric economic growth. So while the UK possibly did better 1950-72 than later, compared to most of western Europe it was doing poorly.

It's how the French, and a bunch of others, caught up and overtook the UK. Which was why the UK when it joined the EEC was the third poorest country in the club.

1961-72 the UK had an average annual GDP growth of 2,82%. France in the same period averaged 5,63%.

Even if the UK did better in the period than it did later, it tells you exactly nothing about how well others were doing. The relative but drastic UK decline is what prompted it to seek entry in the EEC.

Even the famous UK rebate is an atavistic trait of a piece of justifiable charity the UK got when it was actually poor relative the other members. And then it has stayed, because of the UK was happy to take the charity when it was poor, but just as happy to accept it as a privilege, refusing to relinquish it, once it made good again.

 

[AdrienIer]

Honestly les trentes glorieuses were not as glorious as their name implies. It's easy to have economic growth when you're rebuilding an underdevelopped, half destroyed country with German and American money. The UK was not as underdevelopped, or as destroyed as we were, and received less money AFAIK

 

[MobBoss]

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

Well, that's easily answered. Are your immigrants coming to embrace your culture or change it?

 

[EnglishEdward]

Verbose and AdrienIer


I agree French and German growth rates from 1950 to 1972 were better than the UK.

But my point remains the UK economy was not in free fall prior to UK joining the EEC.

 

[Verbose]

Honestly les trentes glorieuses were not as glorious as their name implies. It's easy to have economic growth when you're rebuilding an underdevelopped, half destroyed country with German and American money. The UK was not as underdevelopped, or as destroyed as we were, and received less money AFAIK

The matter was UK economic performance in the period.

If all France did was to retake lost ground up to the level of economic affluence it had relative the UK pre-war — then, no, it wouldn't be particulary noteworthy.

That's not what happened though. France retook lost ground, and then just kept on acceleraring, overtaking the UK. For the first time in like forever... It didn't just grow faster from a lower starting point. It continued to grow at a higher pace, even when eventually richer.

I see no reason for the French to pan the French post-war economic miracle? Especially if a current British attitude can be to deny the British economy in the same period had any actual problems? Both attitudes combined will make western European post-war economic history downright incomprehensible.

 

[Verbose]

Verbose and AdrienIer


I agree French and German growth rates from 1950 to 1972 were better than the UK.

But my point remains the UK economy was not in free fall prior to UK joining the EEC.

Steady decline had enough British knickers in a bunch to make that fairly immaterial. Somehow the UK needed to break its curve. The EEC turned out to be the means to do that.

 

[AdrienIer]

The matter was UK economic performance in the period.

If all France did was to retake lost ground up to the level of economic affluence it had relative the UK pre-war — then, no, it wouldn't be particulary noteworthy.

That's not what happened though. France retook lost ground, and then just kept on acceleraring, overtaking the UK. For the first time in like forever...

When I say that we were underdevelopped I meant that we had a lot of unused potential before the war, moreso than the UK. The influx of money helped us get closer to that potential than before the war. The UK didn't have that possibility. Generally, having more population and land leads to having a greater GDP

 

[FriendlyFire]

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).

See this is the problem with the Leavers.
The UK never joined the EZ and thus set its own monatary policies as well as labour policies.

If the Leavers are promising economic boom, this will likely be tested out in the "real world" very soon. Though going back to 1973 sounds like a recipe for disaster.

The EU was good for Britain

The UK used to be the sick man of Europe. Its annual growth in prosperity improved from bottom of the league among the G7 leading economies before it joined the European Economic Community to top spot in the 43 years after 1973.

Economists from the Leave side would point out that the absolute growth rates were lower after 1973 than before and that the main reason for Britain’s improved performance was Margaret Thatcher’s reforms, not EU membership.

Splitting correlation from causation is difficult. All countries’ growth slowed after the postwar surge petered out. But, given the dramatic improvement in Britain’s position, it is nearly impossible to argue that the EU stood in the way of Britain pulling up its socks

https://www.ft.com/content/0260242c-370b-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8ee7

 

[EnglishEdward]

See this is the problem with the Leavers.

Not debating the issue, just personalising it. Well I can do that too.

The vote Leavers were the majority, so perhaps I should say there is a problem with
Remainers. They had no agreed plan to (i) solve the crisis with Greece and the Euro,
(ii) the immigrant/refugee crisis in the Med or (iii) to raise EU growth or (iv) defeat
terrorism. And they seemed rather divided between those (a) who believed in ever
closer union, (b) who wanted the UK to stay in the EU but veto closer union and
other initiatives and (c) who merely believed the authority figure led scare campaign.

Suggestions in this thread that the 52% who voted Leave were emotional,
xenophobic and had no valid reasons for voting Leave etc, are irrational.

The UK never joined the EZ and thus set its own monatary policies.

While I'd like to attribute the rightmost chart of higher UK growth as due to our
(actually Gordon Brown's) wisdom in option out of the Euro, in all honesty, the
graph is spurious merely reflecting a massive rise of credit/debt and asset price
inflation in the UK arising from quantitative easing that the Euro Zone has not matched.

This is in much the same way that the so called economic growth before the
sub-prime CDO futures crash in 2008 was spurious, result of an accounting trick.

If the Leavers are promising economic boom, this will likely be tested out in the "real world" very soon.

This is not what I promise. The real growth is in Asia not the UK or Europe.

Though going back to 1973 sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Not being suggested due to amongst other things a lack of a Tardis.


How is it in Australia? Are you joining China in an economic union?

 

[Traitorfish]

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.

David Hume, the great English philosopher, observed that the sun rising today does not offer any firm evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow.

The English do not hold with philosophy.

 

[Arakhor]

Well, that's easily answered. Are your immigrants coming to embrace your culture or change it?

Given that some Poles who have been living and paying taxes here for years voted to Leave in the referendum over fear of immigration (or whatever else), I think they've adapted to our culture quite well.

 

[Traitorfish]

I mean, it's not like the Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Afro-Caribbeans, Jews, Italian, Irish, Huguenots, Normans, Dane, Anglo-Saxons, Romans, Celts or Beaker People ever had an appreciable impact on British culture, language or basic social-political structure. Why should we extend special liberties to these Europeans?

 

[Cheetah]

Most of those brought their cultural influence through violence though, and installed themselves as masters over the existing inhabitants of the island... I'm not sure how "change for change's sake" is a good argument?

 

[Traitorfish]

Most of those brought their cultural influence through violence though, and installed themselves as masters over the existing inhabitants of the island...

If I see any Romanian longships on the horizon, I'll be sure to take that into account.

I'm not sure how "change for change's sake" is a good argument?

It's not an argument, it's just a thing that happens whether you like it or not.

 

[Takhisis]

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?

‘Britain’ indeed, but, let's see, it's not as if the polity that today is the UK + various nearby island tax havens + vestigial empire hasn't come and gone or suffered major changes. Quite often, for the first 400 years after William's conquest, England was the tail end of the Norman and Angevin Kingdoms whose rulers mostly fought over their French and Dutch possessions, while the Welsh, Irish and Scots were conquered and lost several times -in fact, the Kings of England spoke French for centuries.
Then England lost Calais, acquired colonies in the Americas, started depending on the Asian trade, took Malaya, Hong Kong, large chunks of Africa including Egypt and Nigeria, had them occupied by Germans and other (bully to the lie about no invader setting foot on English/British soil since 1066), and meanwhile became ‘Britain’ (the Scots had reclaimed Orkney and Shetland and so on from the Norse mostly on their own), lost the American colonies (US and eventually Canada), lost Africa, lost Hong Kong, lost Ireland, managed to alienate the Scots… frankly, England/Britain is in quite the downturn, over the last few generations.

In that 1000 years, England has been only England (sans French colonies, etc.) for… 100 years, maybe? What do we count the Lordship (eventually Kingdom) of Ireland as?

Also, for an absolute monarchy to have to import sovereigns from abroad every now and then doesn't bode well for it.

Well I don't know about anyone else, but my motivation was obviously to lumber lots and lots of young middle class people with the extra burden of having to fill in a form to get a visa, rather than just having automatic travel rights. Which is, apparently, the biggest restriction in freedom since the abolition of slavery.

You sound like a Communist from Eastern Europe.

The English do not hold with philosophy.

Plotinusmon, I choose YOU!

 

[Old Hippy]

Not debating the issue, just personalising it. Well I can do that too.

The vote Leavers were the majority, so perhaps I should say there is a problem with
Remainers. They had no agreed plan to (i) solve the crisis with Greece and the Euro,
(ii) the immigrant/refugee crisis in the Med or (iii) to raise EU growth or (iv) defeat
terrorism. And they seemed rather divided between those (a) who believed in ever
closer union, (b) who wanted the UK to stay in the EU but veto closer union and
other initiatives and (c) who merely believed the authority figure led scare campaign.

Suggestions in this thread that the 52% who voted Leave were emotional,
xenophobic and had no valid reasons for voting Leave etc, are irrational.

suggestions that in a 52/48% majority that 4/5% of voters were not swayed by being emotional, xenophobic and had no valid reason for voting leave etc. are not irrational when immigration about taking back Britain was prominent in the campaigns its more irrational to think people were not influenced by the campaigns.