Brexit - the negative thread

[Griff9of13]

No because the majority of those that voted in June voted FOR Brexit

The electorate decided the direction the country should go in (out of the EU), the politicians should now decide the details for leaving.

Even if it drags the country down the toilet?

This is what worries me; no cost is too great and all common sense is forgotten for some brexit fanatics.

[JohnM]

I thought you'd agreed to respect the peoples decision to leave?

[RidingPie]

I'm curious. Since brexit means brexit, would the brexiteers be happy with the Norwegian option, which clearly would fulfill brexit meaning brexit and the mandate of the people?

[gingerjon]

I'm curious. Since brexit means brexit, would the brexiteers be happy with the Norwegian option, which clearly would fulfill brexit meaning brexit and the mandate of the people?

 

EFTA means Brexit.

[Griff9of13]

I thought you'd agreed to respect the peoples decision to leave?

Principally yes; but I have already explained my personal caveats.

[Saint Toppy]

Even if it drags the country down the toilet?

This is what worries me; no cost is too great and all common sense is forgotten for some brexit fanatics.

You, like everybody else (including the so called experts) have absolutely no idea how things will pan out post-Brexit.

 

Pretty much everyone on both sides accepts that there will be some short term pain as the markets react to the uncertainty leading up to Brexit day (the pain predicted by many experts post 23 June has so far failed to materialise). The opinions for after Brexit day differ wildly depending on whether you were a remainer or a Brexiteer. Neither side can say with any degree of certainly what will happen, whether our economy will flourish or whether it will stagnate. Your claims of the country 'going down the toilet' are no more valid than some of the Brexiteer's claims of a 'land of fortune'.

Neither side has any facts or real data to base their guesswork on as we've never been in a situation like this before.

 

So far the only thing that's been decided (by the electorate) is that Britain should leave the EU.

[Griff9of13]

You, like everybody else (including the so called experts) have absolutely no idea how things will pan out post-Brexit.

Pretty much everyone on both sides accepts that there will be some short term pain as the markets react to the uncertainty leading up to Brexit day (the pain predicted by many experts post 23 June has so far failed to materialise). The opinions for after Brexit day differ wildly depending on whether you were a remainer or a Brexiteer. Neither side can say with any degree of certainly what will happen, whether our economy will flourish or whether it will stagnate. Your claims of the country 'going down the toilet' are no more valid than some of the Brexiteer's claims of a 'land of fortune'.

Neither side has any facts or real data to base their guesswork on as we've never been in a situation like this before.

So far the only thing that's been decided (by the electorate) is that Britain should leave the EU.

I claimed nothing of the sort, merely posing the question "if".

I've started, often, that I am very happy to be proved wrong and hope when if brexit happens and that it's a roaring success. But as you say we are in the world of unknown, therefore if it looks like it's going be disaster would you prefer us pull the plug or charge on regardless perusing the "brexit at any cost" theme?

[Griff9of13]

Taking of possible brexit outcomes, what could possibly go wrong with a man of this calibre leading the way? ‘Get thee behind me, Satan!’ How David Davis mocked a major EU foe

[shrek]

Taking of possible brexit outcomes, what could possibly go wrong with a man of this calibre leading the way? ‘Get thee behind me, Satan!’ How David Davis mocked a major EU foe

Ah well not to worry, at least his advance negotiations ahead of triggering Article 50 are going well...............

 

 

Michel Barnier Verified account ‏@MichelBarnier

This morning courtesy visit from @daviddavismp at his request. No negotiation without notification. My work is now focused on EU27. #Brexit.

[Griff9of13]

Whitehall can’t cope with legal nightmare of Brexit, say experts

[JohnM]

A real negative. When we leave we wont be able to poke fun at the French Trades Unions  ( Au Bulot = At Work; CGT = General Confederation of Labour)

 

[Saint Toppy]

But as you say we are in the world of unknown, therefore if it looks like it's going be disaster would you prefer us pull the plug or charge on regardless perusing the "brexit at any cost" theme?

How do you judge what 'looks like a disaster' ? or even define what is a disaster ?

Your definition of a disaster is someone else's definition of a success or an opportunity. You may think leaving the single market is a disaster while others don't. Same with free movement of people, you may think losing it is a disaster, others may not.

Is losing access to the single market but gaining the ability to trade globally without restriction a disaster ?

You may feel going through 2-3 years of having a weaker economy is a disaster regardless of what may be gained further down the track, others see that as a trade off with short term pain for long term gain.

 

That's the problem with going into something new, nobody knows the exact outcome. There's always risk, but its how you manage that risk. Staying in the EU was obviously the lowest risk because there were more known's than unknowns but the majority who voted decided they wanted something different, they decided they wanted to take that higher risk of leaving.

That's the path the electorate voted for, so that's the path we should take as a country. Its now up to the politicians to manage those risks and ensure our path out of the EU and beyond is as smooth as possible.

 

May seemed to hint yesterday that they were favouring some sort of transitional arrangement to lessen any potential impacts and reduce risks leading up to and post brexit day. Whether we can achieve that, or how successful it would be, who knows, but its something the government feels would be beneficial to us over the next few years.

[RidingPie]

How do you judge what 'looks like a disaster' ? or even define what is a disaster ?

 

 

That's a good question and maybe we should agree some things which, if Brexit led to any of these, I'd class it as bad, more than one, then its a disaster.

 

1. A reduction in the standard of living
2. More public debt
3. A longer period of austerity
4. Higher levels of public taxation (to cover other losses to the public purse)
5. Higher unemployment
6. Further pressure on wages (i.e. we have general inflation but wages don't increase to match)
7. The value of sterling tanking internationally
8. A huge hike in interest rates (I'll accept a small hike, say anything more than an increase of about 2%)
9. Higher levels of recorded poverty in the country
10. Businesses leaving or failing to reinvest in the UK

That's my list. Does anyone think I've missed any?

[Saint Toppy]

That's a good question and maybe we should agree some things which, if Brexit led to any of these, I'd class it as bad, more than one, then its a disaster.

 

1. A reduction in the standard of living
2. More public debt
3. A longer period of austerity
4. Higher levels of public taxation (to cover other losses to the public purse)
5. Higher unemployment
6. Further pressure on wages (i.e. we have general inflation but wages don't increase to match)
7. The value of sterling tanking internationally
8. A huge hike in interest rates (I'll accept a small hike, say anything more than an increase of about 2%)
9. Higher levels of recorded poverty in the country
10. Businesses leaving or failing to reinvest in the UK

That's my list. Does anyone think I've missed any?

Over what period do you measure any of those things though, 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years ?

Its inevitable that some of those will occur in the next few years, even most Brexiteers accept that and how do you assess whether Brexit is the cause of each of them ?

 

What happens globally will have just as much influence on those things and they shouldn't be measured in isolation. They need to be measured in comparison to say the other major nations both in and outside the EU. I think some of Trump's policies could arguably have a far greater impact over the next few years.

 

Also pretty much all of those items you've listed have occurred during our time in the EU. We've seen rocketing interest rates, periods of rising unemployment, companies leaving the UK to move somewhere cheaper to do business (India, Poland etc.). Pretty much everyone except the hard right wanted a longer period of austerity in return less pain and greater investment. Sterling was widely regarded as being over-valued anyway so has the referendum actually shifted it back down to more like its natural level anyway ?

 

There's no true measure as each item means a different thing to everybody. A fall in the value of sterling is seen as a good thing if your predominantly an exporter but is seen as a bad thing if your say a frequent traveller oversees. Similar with interest rates, a big increase is seen as bad for anyone with a big mortgage (and not on a fixed rate) but is seen as a good thing for people with savings.

 

The success or failure of Brexit is purely down to perception and people's own personal circumstances

[RidingPie]

Good grief you're trying to avoid being nailed down on a point even though I was quite specific. No time limit, if it is directly attributable to brexit it counts. Obviously the further from triggering article 50, or actual separation it will be difficult to attribute directly but that's what we have experts in these fields for.

 

Secondly you suggest that "There's no true measure as each item means a different thing to everybody". Utter nonsense! All the items I have chosen are easily measurable, and are in fact measure by the government at the moment.

 

You also use the strawman that "pretty much all of those items you've listed have occurred during our time in the EU". Well that's why I added the "directly attributable to brexit" clause. If there's a financial crash caused by a Trump, it doesn't count. I was pretty specific. (this is the same sort of argument climate change deniers use with lines like "but we've had other warm periods as well", ignoring known causes).

 

Also the measuring against other countries argument. Also a strawman covered by the "directly attributable to brexit" clause.

 

We can use the same rules to create a list that we'd consider would make Brexit a success after we've agreed on these!

[Saint Toppy]

Good grief you're trying to avoid being nailed down on a point even though I was quite specific. No time limit, if it is directly attributable to brexit it counts. Obviously the further from triggering article 50, or actual separation it will be difficult to attribute directly but that's what we have experts in these fields for.

 

Secondly you suggest that "There's no true measure as each item means a different thing to everybody". Utter nonsense! All the items I have chosen are easily measurable, and are in fact measure by the government at the moment.

 

You also use the strawman that "pretty much all of those items you've listed have occurred during our time in the EU". Well that's why I added the "directly attributable to brexit" clause. If there's a financial crash caused by a Trump, it doesn't count. I was pretty specific. (this is the same sort of argument climate change deniers use with lines like "but we've had other warm periods as well", ignoring known causes).

 

Also the measuring against other countries argument. Also a strawman covered by the "directly attributable to brexit" clause.

 

We can use the same rules to create a list that we'd consider would make Brexit a success after we've agreed on these!

The point I was making was that you can't attribute any of those measures just to Brexit. Other things happen globally that will affect them as by the fact that they've all happened during our time within the EU. Brexit will just be one of many factors that will affect all those things on your list and you can't use them purely as a basis for judging whether Brexit is a success or a failure. None of them can be directly attributable to Brexit without analysing other global events and even then its going to be near impossible to apportion blame.

 

Also how can you prove that those things wouldn't have happened if we'd remained in the EU ?

So if interest rates go up significantly after we Brexit then its Brexit's fault. Who's fault would it have been if rates went up if we'd stayed in (as has happened in the past) ?

 

Yes you can measure all of those things but its near impossible to attribute them to just 1 single event in isolation. And just because there's a change as I said previously it isn't necessarily a bad change for everyone.

 

How are you going to get agreement on your list anyway, everyone has a different perspective ? And timeframe is important.

If there's a rise in unemployment or an increase in interest rates in the next few years then some consider that to be a price worth paying for the long term potential in say 5 or 10 years time when we've been able to sign our own trade agreements with other countries around the world.

At what point in the future do you then judge whether Brexit has been a success or a failure, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years 50 years ? 

[RidingPie]

I strongly disagree! I know the brexit side don't like to think that experts know anything, but if events are attributed to brexit, and explained as such by experts (people in their field who have studied for many years on the subject of discussion) in the field I'll accept this as evidence.

 

The time thing is still a strawman as the expert will take that in to account, and an event 2 years down the road will be easier to attribute to it that an event 50 years down the road. That's why we have experts though!

 

You trust experts in a field, or you don't. I trust experts. I trust experts to design my car to provide the best protection they can to my family. I trust experts who create the heating system in my home to keep my family comfortable. I trust experts in medicine to heal those I love and help us make better choices for a longer more healthy life, and yes! I trust experts in the economy to predict and monitor our breathtakingly complex finance system. Experts in all fields DO get things wrong sometimes, but you know what? They're a darn sight better in their predictions that we are!

 

Are their any of my criteria you would actually disagree with though?

[Saint Toppy]

I strongly disagree! I know the brexit side don't like to think that experts know anything, but if events are attributed to brexit, and explained as such by experts (people in their field who have studied for many years on the subject of discussion) in the field I'll accept this as evidence.

 

The time thing is still a strawman as the expert will take that in to account, and an event 2 years down the road will be easier to attribute to it that an event 50 years down the road. That's why we have experts though!

 

You trust experts in a field, or you don't. I trust experts. I trust experts to design my car to provide the best protection they can to my family. I trust experts who create the heating system in my home to keep my family comfortable. I trust experts in medicine to heal those I love and help us make better choices for a longer more healthy life, and yes! I trust experts in the economy to predict and monitor our breathtakingly complex finance system. Experts in all fields DO get things wrong sometimes, but you know what? They're a darn sight better in their predictions that we are!

 

Are their any of my criteria you would actually disagree with though?

The problem with experts is where there's no nationally agreed criteria for Brexit (as there is for car safety, medicines etc.) the experts opinions differ wildly according to their own beliefs and perceptions.

I'm not saying that 'experts' don't know anything just that one experts opinion may be different from another and neither can conclusively prove that their opinion is right and another persons is wrong. What one expert directly attributes a measurable to Brexit another may not, its all subjective.

 

There are probably dozens, if not hundreds of individual but interlinked events that will occur that will contribute to changes in any of your suggested measurables. Unemployment may go up and yes Brexit may be a factor but without analysing every single persons individual circumstances who's added to the unemployment figures then its impossible to directly attribute Brexit alone as being the cause of unemployment rising. One expert will attribute it while another wont.

You can have as many measures as you want but they're meaningless without understanding all the individual causes that contribute to the changes.

[RidingPie]

The problem with experts is where there's no nationally agreed criteria for Brexit (as there is for car safety, medicines etc.) the experts opinions differ wildly according to their own beliefs and perceptions.

I'm not saying that 'experts' don't know anything just that one experts opinion may be different from another and neither can conclusively prove that their opinion is right and another persons is wrong. What one expert directly attributes a measurable to Brexit another may not, its all subjective.

 

There are probably dozens, if not hundreds of individual but interlinked events that will occur that will contribute to changes in any of your suggested measurables. Unemployment may go up and yes Brexit may be a factor but without analysing every single persons individual circumstances who's added to the unemployment figures then its impossible to directly attribute Brexit alone as being the cause of unemployment rising. One expert will attribute it while another wont.

You can have as many measures as you want but they're meaningless without understanding all the individual causes that contribute to the changes.

 

The criteria for brexit success and failure is what we're discussing though. I've listed 10 easily measurable things which you keep trying to find ways out of agreeing to. These aren't the little things, these are the big things. I'm prepared for a few things to have a margin (hence I said interest rates going up by about 2% won't count). If the experts say that many of those things have got measurably worse because of brexit then that counts. Likewise if things get measurably better and experts attribute that to brexit that counts the other way!

 

Please, lets discuss the list! Which things on it do you think shouldn't be?

 

It just seems to me that most of the remainers, are prepared and in fact will be overjoyed if we're wrong and brexit is a success and fulfills all the Utopian promises (£350 million extra a week for the NHS, reduce immigration, economy unaffected etc) whilst the brexiters won't even discuss the criteria for what would show brexit up to have been a bad idea!

[Griff9of13]

Good grief you're trying to avoid being nailed down on a point even though I was quite specific. No time limit, if it is directly attributable to brexit it counts. Obviously the further from triggering article 50, or actual separation it will be difficult to attribute directly but that's what we have experts in these fields for.

Secondly you suggest that "There's no true measure as each item means a different thing to everybody". Utter nonsense! All the items I have chosen are easily measurable, and are in fact measure by the government at the moment.

You also use the strawman that "pretty much all of those items you've listed have occurred during our time in the EU". Well that's why I added the "directly attributable to brexit" clause. If there's a financial crash caused by a Trump, it doesn't count. I was pretty specific. (this is the same sort of argument climate change deniers use with lines like "but we've had other warm periods as well", ignoring known causes).

Also the measuring against other countries argument. Also a strawman covered by the "directly attributable to brexit" clause.

We can use the same rules to create a list that we'd consider would make Brexit a success after we've agreed on these!

If this was a business trying to decide whether to make such a fundamental change that is pretty much what they would do. There would be a prolonged period to conduct a feasibility study where all possible scenarios would be explored before reaching a conclusion based on a predefined set of measures. Only after all this had been done and the findings published would the decision be put to the key decision makers. There would also be a back out plan should things go wrong.

Unfortunately none of this has been done to arrive at brexit - the stay/leave decision being made blind or based purely on emotion.

[Wiltshire Rhino]

That's a good question and maybe we should agree some things which, if Brexit led to any of these, I'd class it as bad, more than one, then its a disaster.

• A reduction in the standard of living
• More public debt
• A longer period of austerity
• Higher levels of public taxation (to cover other losses to the public purse)
• Higher unemployment
• Further pressure on wages (i.e. we have general inflation but wages don't increase to match)
• The value of sterling tanking internationally
• A huge hike in interest rates (I'll accept a small hike, say anything more than an increase of about 2%)
• Higher levels of recorded poverty in the country
• Businesses leaving or failing to reinvest in the UK

That's my list. Does anyone think I've missed any?

These all happened when we were in the EU. These could have happened if we'd voted to stay in the EU. These could happen as we've voted to leave the EU. These things happen...

[RidingPie]

These all happened when we were in the EU. These could have happened if we'd voted to stay in the EU. These could happen as we've voted to leave the EU. These things happen...

 

Please read the previous 6 comments on the thread paying particularly attention to those mentioning "attributed to brexit by experts"

[Saint Toppy]

The criteria for brexit success and failure is what we're discussing though. I've listed 10 easily measurable things which you keep trying to find ways out of agreeing to. These aren't the little things, these are the big things. I'm prepared for a few things to have a margin (hence I said interest rates going up by about 2% won't count). If the experts say that many of those things have got measurably worse because of brexit then that counts. Likewise if things get measurably better and experts attribute that to brexit that counts the other way!

 

Please, lets discuss the list! Which things on it do you think shouldn't be?

 

It just seems to me that most of the remainers, are prepared and in fact will be overjoyed if we're wrong and brexit is a success and fulfills all the Utopian promises (£350 million extra a week for the NHS, reduce immigration, economy unaffected etc) whilst the brexiters won't even discuss the criteria for what would show brexit up to have been a bad idea!

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of your measures, you can have 10, 20, 100 factors, what I'm saying is its impossible to directly attribute Brexit in isolation to any of them. Brexit may contribute to a rise in unemployment, rises in interest rates, changes in standards of living etc. but it most certainly wont be the only factor.

So just using these 'measures' (however many you have) is pointless if done in isolation. The world just isn't that black and white and trying to hang changes in circumstances purely on 1 event such as Brexit is impossible as there are too many other variables to consider.

In effect all these 'measures' your proposing aren't actual measures, they're just indicators as to the overall state of the country and the economy. 

 

You can't define success or failure because your definition will be different to someone elses (including between experts). Even if you manage to attribute something directly to Brexit (say a rise in unemployment) that doesn't necessarily mean Brexit is a failure because the trade off may be a drop in the number of EU Nationals coming to live in the UK. You might view it as a failure but someone who sees foreign nationals as a higher priority may view this as a success.

 

If our economy shrinks by say 5% over the next 3 years will you automatically say Brexit has been a failure ? What if in return for having a smaller economy we gain full control over our borders, would you still view Brexit as a failure - that depends on whats important to you.

What if we don't have a free trade agreement with the EU - would you see that as a failure ? if we don't have EU free trade but then sign agreements with other major trading nations globally, would you still see Brexit as a failure ? again its down to your point of view.

 

You can create your list and put on there as many factors as you like, but with no agreed baseline for any of them and no agreed way of attributing Brexit in Isolation then they're all a bit pointless as far as I'm concerned.

What you and one expert will see as a failure, myself and another expert may well see as a success.

[gingerjon]

Please read the previous 6 comments on the thread paying particularly attention to those mentioning "attributed to brexit by experts"

 

It's been a tactic by leave sympathisers since virtually day one to go "Well, these things happen anyway so, y'know ..."

 

Fatalism par excellence.

[RidingPie]

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with any of your measures, you can have 10, 20, 100 factors, what I'm saying is its impossible to directly attribute Brexit in isolation to any of them. Brexit may contribute to a rise in unemployment, rises in interest rates, changes in standards of living etc. but it most certainly wont be the only factor.

So just using these 'measures' (however many you have) is pointless if done in isolation. The world just isn't that black and white and trying to hang changes in circumstances purely on 1 event such as Brexit is impossible as there are too many other variables to consider.

In effect all these 'measures' your proposing aren't actual measures, they're just indicators as to the overall state of the country and the economy. 

 

You can't define success or failure because your definition will be different to someone elses (including between experts). Even if you manage to attribute something directly to Brexit (say a rise in unemployment) that doesn't necessarily mean Brexit is a failure because the trade off may be a drop in the number of EU Nationals coming to live in the UK. You might view it as a failure but someone who sees foreign nationals as a higher priority may view this as a success.

 

If our economy shrinks by say 5% over the next 3 years will you automatically say Brexit has been a failure ? What if in return for having a smaller economy we gain full control over our borders, would you still view Brexit as a failure - that depends on whats important to you.

What if we don't have a free trade agreement with the EU - would you see that as a failure ? if we don't have EU free trade but then sign agreements with other major trading nations globally, would you still see Brexit as a failure ? again its down to your point of view.

 

You can create your list and put on there as many factors as you like, but with no agreed baseline for any of them and no agreed way of attributing Brexit in Isolation then they're all a bit pointless as far as I'm concerned.

What you and one expert will see as a failure, myself and another expert may well see as a success.

 

Or in other words you will never admit you were wrong however obvious it is, but those of us on the remain side will have to if we are!

 

Fairly typical leave attitude along with this one!

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-debate-tweet_uk_5834351fe4b09025ba337e46?utm_hp_ref=uk