Why Do We Give Parasites The Vote?
Society & Culture1 min ago
Is The Uk Heading Towards A Partial Return To The E/U.
Senior members of Sunak's Govt are reportedly planning to move Britain into a Swiss Style agreement with The E.U. Govt sources have suggested that pursuing frictionless trade means moving towards an agreement. .... Is this the start of rejoining the E.U..
Answers
Hymie It's so much worse than that. Remainers had one goal...to remain in the EU. But there are so many different kinds of Leaver. You had those who wants to opt for a soft Brexit, those who wanted a hard Brexit, those who wanted a combination of the two (
14:42 Sun 20th Nov 2022
Looks like the idea has been kicked into touch anyway (at least for today). The Tories would be quite foolish to jeopardise the few votes they are likely to garner at the next election and to even consider an arrangement with the EU that makes the UK subservient again will certainly do that.
https:/
https:/
//Any suggestions how they were supposed to do that?//
In the same way as businesses react to any other potential threat – by making plans to deal with it. It’s for directors and managers to manage those threats. There was five years notice that Brexit was going to happen. It didn’t creep up by surprise. Many businesses spent too much time wailing about how they would be unable to cope instead of devising ways how they could. Many politicians exacerbated this mood by continually suggesting that either Brexit would not happen (and doing their best to make sure it didn’t) or suggesting that the UK would remain as some sort of vassal state or “associate member.” Businesses should have ignored these politicians (as they should whenever making their plans) and planned for a proper exit from the EU.
There are always different views. Here’s a couple of papers (from the same source) which support mine. They are both quite in depth so I’ve only replicated the conclusions. But they are worth a read if you want to examine the issues properly rather than simply repeat mantra.
Firstly, one which concludes that the UK’s membership of the EU did not particularly help the country’s economic growth (dated 2nd November 2022):
https:/
“We can conclude that there is no evidence that joining the EU improved the rate of economic growth in the UK. Growth in the UK, as elsewhere, is constrained by technology, skills and investment. None of these have been better than the USA and hence the USA experience puts a ceiling on potential long-term growth in the UK, as it does in the EU6. The irony is that the UK joined the EEC just as the EU6 catch-up was ending. The UK thus joined on a false prospectus that accession would accelerate growth. Also ironic is the fact that the previously slow growing Commonwealth markets have actually expanded faster than the EU over the long period since 1973. If the performance of the EU had been better, and the Commonwealth worse, the UK may have felt less temptation to leave, but this was not the case."
Now one which concludes that Brexit has not done much harm to the economy (13th October 2022):
https:/
“Eighteen months after the UK left the EU customs union and single market, apocalyptic predictions about the negative impact of Brexit have proved illusory. Nevertheless, there have been many attempts to show that Brexit is damaging, or has damaged, the UK economy. These attempts are based on flawed analyses, often featuring tortuous attempts to twist the available data to fit a pre-conceived anti-Brexit narrative.
A careful reading of the evidence shows that while there is little evidence yet that Brexit is doing much to help the UK economy, neither is there evidence of much harm. This is significant because it was generally agreed, even by Brexiteers, that there would be initial difficulties.”
Of course you can tear these opinions apart, but they do provide evidence that the notion that Brexit has been “disastrous” cannot be unconditionally stated as if it was fact. Yes, some businesses and individuals have experienced some difficulties. But that was always going to be so. But overall, “disastrous” is not an appropriate description.
The first report is equally interesting. It has always been somewhat a “given” that the EU was good for the UK economically (and hence Brexit was bad). This is also debunked.
In the same way as businesses react to any other potential threat – by making plans to deal with it. It’s for directors and managers to manage those threats. There was five years notice that Brexit was going to happen. It didn’t creep up by surprise. Many businesses spent too much time wailing about how they would be unable to cope instead of devising ways how they could. Many politicians exacerbated this mood by continually suggesting that either Brexit would not happen (and doing their best to make sure it didn’t) or suggesting that the UK would remain as some sort of vassal state or “associate member.” Businesses should have ignored these politicians (as they should whenever making their plans) and planned for a proper exit from the EU.
There are always different views. Here’s a couple of papers (from the same source) which support mine. They are both quite in depth so I’ve only replicated the conclusions. But they are worth a read if you want to examine the issues properly rather than simply repeat mantra.
Firstly, one which concludes that the UK’s membership of the EU did not particularly help the country’s economic growth (dated 2nd November 2022):
https:/
“We can conclude that there is no evidence that joining the EU improved the rate of economic growth in the UK. Growth in the UK, as elsewhere, is constrained by technology, skills and investment. None of these have been better than the USA and hence the USA experience puts a ceiling on potential long-term growth in the UK, as it does in the EU6. The irony is that the UK joined the EEC just as the EU6 catch-up was ending. The UK thus joined on a false prospectus that accession would accelerate growth. Also ironic is the fact that the previously slow growing Commonwealth markets have actually expanded faster than the EU over the long period since 1973. If the performance of the EU had been better, and the Commonwealth worse, the UK may have felt less temptation to leave, but this was not the case."
Now one which concludes that Brexit has not done much harm to the economy (13th October 2022):
https:/
“Eighteen months after the UK left the EU customs union and single market, apocalyptic predictions about the negative impact of Brexit have proved illusory. Nevertheless, there have been many attempts to show that Brexit is damaging, or has damaged, the UK economy. These attempts are based on flawed analyses, often featuring tortuous attempts to twist the available data to fit a pre-conceived anti-Brexit narrative.
A careful reading of the evidence shows that while there is little evidence yet that Brexit is doing much to help the UK economy, neither is there evidence of much harm. This is significant because it was generally agreed, even by Brexiteers, that there would be initial difficulties.”
Of course you can tear these opinions apart, but they do provide evidence that the notion that Brexit has been “disastrous” cannot be unconditionally stated as if it was fact. Yes, some businesses and individuals have experienced some difficulties. But that was always going to be so. But overall, “disastrous” is not an appropriate description.
The first report is equally interesting. It has always been somewhat a “given” that the EU was good for the UK economically (and hence Brexit was bad). This is also debunked.
//it is not strictly speaking true to say that businesses had five years notice to adapt to brexit because the actual details of our departure were only confirmed years later//
They should have assumed we would be leaving with no deal - i.e. planned for the worst case scenario. Then they would have been pleasantly surprised. Instead they hoped for the best - that we would not leave at all - egged on by devious politicians who believed the result of the referendum could be reversed.
They should have assumed we would be leaving with no deal - i.e. planned for the worst case scenario. Then they would have been pleasantly surprised. Instead they hoped for the best - that we would not leave at all - egged on by devious politicians who believed the result of the referendum could be reversed.
//And the Brexiteers weren't devious at all!//
What, you mean by trying to have the result of the referendum acted upon?
Contrast that to the reaction of people like Sir Vince Cable, whose first words soon after the result was declared were "No matter. We can have this decision reversed" and whose party later went on to include, in its manifesto, a pledge to revoke Article 50 which the Commons had earlier passed by a majority of five to one.
These are the people to whom business leaders should have paid no heed. They and their co-conspirators (from all parties) simply sewed confusion and angst across the country at a time by which the country should have left the EU. They confounded and obstructed Parliament by continually refusing to agree to any proposal for our withdrawal that was put to them (many of those proposals, ironically, far "softer" than the eventual outcome). Much of the blame for the so-called "hard" Brexit that resulted (which in actual fact was near enough, but not quite, simply Brexit) lies with them and for that I am eternally grateful.
What, you mean by trying to have the result of the referendum acted upon?
Contrast that to the reaction of people like Sir Vince Cable, whose first words soon after the result was declared were "No matter. We can have this decision reversed" and whose party later went on to include, in its manifesto, a pledge to revoke Article 50 which the Commons had earlier passed by a majority of five to one.
These are the people to whom business leaders should have paid no heed. They and their co-conspirators (from all parties) simply sewed confusion and angst across the country at a time by which the country should have left the EU. They confounded and obstructed Parliament by continually refusing to agree to any proposal for our withdrawal that was put to them (many of those proposals, ironically, far "softer" than the eventual outcome). Much of the blame for the so-called "hard" Brexit that resulted (which in actual fact was near enough, but not quite, simply Brexit) lies with them and for that I am eternally grateful.
//No, devious before the referendum (which was only advisory anyway).//
Advisory or not, the Commons voted to trigger A50. You asked what businesses should have done to prepare for Brexit. I suggested they should prepare for "the worst" and explained that many businesses were taken in by the continued obstruction to enacting Brexit, especially when the Commons had voted in favour of it. But no matter. All politicians are devious, especially when telling the electorate what they might or might not do in the future. Anybody who cast their vote in the referendum based on what politicians told them was foolish.
Advisory or not, the Commons voted to trigger A50. You asked what businesses should have done to prepare for Brexit. I suggested they should prepare for "the worst" and explained that many businesses were taken in by the continued obstruction to enacting Brexit, especially when the Commons had voted in favour of it. But no matter. All politicians are devious, especially when telling the electorate what they might or might not do in the future. Anybody who cast their vote in the referendum based on what politicians told them was foolish.
NJ,
IMHO a more competent govt would have driven the agenda and explored the different kinds of Brexit available to inform the electorate. Then maybe another vote. Unfortunately Cameron (who had been over-complacent) lost interest and left a vacuum later filled by career opportunists.
I'm far from an expert on small businesses but many owners claim the extensive changes required were beyond their control. It's very glib to say they should have done this or that.
IMHO a more competent govt would have driven the agenda and explored the different kinds of Brexit available to inform the electorate. Then maybe another vote. Unfortunately Cameron (who had been over-complacent) lost interest and left a vacuum later filled by career opportunists.
I'm far from an expert on small businesses but many owners claim the extensive changes required were beyond their control. It's very glib to say they should have done this or that.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.