A very good article explaining the potential scenarios for what will happen after Brexit. It is well written and informative. You may not agree with the author's bias (which he lays out up front), but he does walk through the potential outcomes very well.
I am obviously not a UK citizen, and the EU is far from perfect, but as Lindon Baines Johnson (a man who helped to kill his predecessor, but that's another story) once said "better to have people inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."
I think it should also be pointed out that all developed countries benefit greatly from cheap labor, be they immigrants or ones based overseas.
A good analysis and highlights the problem for the Brexit lobby. If Cameron was fighting for Brexit he would have to tell us how he intended to create new trading relations. E.G Would it be Free Trade or Single Market alliances?
As it is, the "opposition" is not a united political party able to put forward a cohesive policy on which voters could take a view. Instead we just have speculation about the options, discordant voices and single issue campaigners. Although we should leave, i think we will remain in because the real issues are unlikely to be exposed to the analysis and boring debate required.
The article, for obvious reasons does not outline the advantages of the various options, for example Free Trade agreements benefit consumers rather than big business by reducing consumer prices by eliminating single market tariffs.
Pro EU supporters are fully aware that what is good for workers is not the same as what is good for business. In a similar vein, I wish people would wake up to the fact that when big business says "we" are better off in the EU, "we" is big business and probably thousands of their workers they would dump in an instant if it suited them, rather than the millions of UK consumers.
A very good article explaining the potential scenarios for what will happen after Brexit. It is well written and informative. You may not agree with the author's bias (which he lays out up front), but he does walk through the potential outcomes very well.
I am obviously not a UK citizen, and the EU is far from perfect, but as Lindon Baines Johnson (a man who helped to kill his predecessor, but that's another story) once said "better to have people inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."
I think it should also be pointed out that all developed countries benefit greatly from cheap labor, be they immigrants or ones based overseas.
A good analysis and highlights the problem for the Brexit lobby. If Cameron was fighting for Brexit he would have to tell us how he intended to create new trading relations. E.G Would it be Free Trade or Single Market alliances?
As it is, the "opposition" is not a united political party able to put forward a cohesive policy on which voters could take a view. Instead we just have speculation about the options, discordant voices and single issue campaigners. Although we should leave, i think we will remain in because the real issues are unlikely to be exposed to the analysis and boring debate required.
The article, for obvious reasons does not outline the advantages of the various options, for example Free Trade agreements benefit consumers rather than big business by reducing consumer prices by eliminating single market tariffs.
Pro EU supporters are fully aware that what is good for workers is not the same as what is good for business. In a similar vein, I wish people would wake up to the fact that when big business says "we" are better off in the EU, "we" is big business and probably thousands of their workers they would dump in an instant if it suited them, rather than the millions of UK consumers.
Everyone, including me, with an opinion has their own agenda.
But I would just like to say that free trade is an issue pushed most heavily by bigger producers/economies. When a country is persuaded (e.g. By the IMF or World Bank) to allow free trade it quite often leads to the decimation of local businesses. Yes, the consumer pays less (at least for now), but the hand of big business is strengthened.
Does anyone really think the EU would do anything that would damage their tourist trade. The Spanish economy for one would suffer massively. We on the other hand still attract people from all over the world .
Huge swathes of the EU have no tourist trade. Tourists come from all over the world to Spain, not just the UK. If they sent back all the retired UK ex-pats draining their health system it would save them a huge amount of money...
Health tourism is always shouted down as a myth in the UK but strangely it's a different story when we look abroad. The Spanish would also miss out on the pensioners spending their Sterling pensions and Sterling housing equity over there which might make them think twice.
They are not tourists, they are residents and as citizens (subjects) of an EU country they are entitled to health care under reciprocal agreements. If this goes west, many will be forced to return to the UK.
I agree that Spain (and Portugal) benefit somewhat from the spending power of the pensioners, but a lot of them don't pay their tax in the countries they live in, and it could be said they (we) drive up the cost of housing in certain areas, pricing the locals out of the market...
I'm sure some Spanish would see them as long term tourists but I take your point. BTW with regards to housing I thought Spain had a big over supply of property hanging over from the mid 2000's property boom? Are they really causing supply issues for locals?
There are something like 200, 000 empty properties left over from the construction boom, and the recession caused property to plummet. However, I believe places like the Costa Del Sol stayed fairly boyant due to demand. Demanding the return of Gibraltar is standard in Spain. My wife wants independance for Catalunya, but also wants Gibraltar returned to a country she doesn't want to be part of herself. If you lot vote gor a Brexit, I will cosole myself with the possibility of being deported to South London at the same time our favourite Belgians are being pushed onto a Dover-Calais ferry.
Just to add that as of a few minutes ago the £ has seen the biggest drop in its value today (2%) since the financial meltdown in 2008. This is due to the fact, apparently, that Boris has joined the OUT campaign and markets are worried that this is the way the UK will vote, what we don't need is a weak £.
I'm happy to expose my ignorance here, but essentially the low pound I would see as relatively good (though I'm happy to be corrected!). It is only a factor if you are changing money. So as of today, exports from the UK are cheaper and more attractive. Tourists changing money to go abroad will suffer, but given how strong the pound is, they still get good value. I'm sure there is a downside, there always is, but I'll leave the economists to fill in the details I've missed.
I'm out , the EU is a gravy train for expense claiming politicians, I never voted to be in it in the first place.
The same could be said for all parliaments/assemblies.
If you want an example of gravy train, take a look at MLAs in Northern Ireland. I wouldn't trust most of them to tie their shoe-laces, but boy can they put their snouts in the trough.
Actually, if any of you had the delights of Norn Ireland politics to contend with, you'd probably beg for a federal Europe.
One has to make a decision based on the hairstyles of the various protagonists . You can dismiss any view expressed by a shock haired " it's all about me " public school buffoon ( Johnson ) ,a Lego clip on haired Bossy Scots Woman ( Sturgeon ) , a Brilcremed public school slime ( Rees Mogg) , a dreary spam headed public school dullard ( Duncan Smith) a silver topped Class Nazi ( Fallon ) ,a Simpson's cartoon extra maniac ( Farage) or a Mr Creosote sense of entitlement but no sense of duty Brillo pad head ( Salmond ) .Cameron has the best hair style of all and while he may have had some very worrying developing monkey's bum on the back of his bonce moments in Brussels he is at least the acceptable face of an Elitist front bench .Back him and stay in !
chat on Radio4 tonight about the psychology of voting .. if the Brit teams are doing OK at the Euros, that will help the 'stay in' vote .. conversely, if the teams are doing badly .. ?
chat on Radio4 tonight about the psychology of voting .. if the Brit teams are doing OK at the Euros, that will help the 'stay in' vote .. conversely, if the teams are doing badly .. ?
Stay tuned, next week they're looking at the zodiac signs
I'm out , the EU is a gravy train for expense claiming politicians, I never voted to be in it in the first place.
The same could be said for all parliaments/assemblies.
If you want an example of gravy train, take a look at MLAs in Northern Ireland. I wouldn't trust most of them to tie their shoe-laces, but boy can they put their snouts in the trough.
Actually, if any of you had the delights of Norn Ireland politics to contend with, you'd probably beg for a federal Europe.
Just saying...
I watched the question time in Belfast... From the outside looking in, it wasn't a great meeting of minds I'll be totally honest
A very good article explaining the potential scenarios for what will happen after Brexit. It is well written and informative. You may not agree with the author's bias (which he lays out up front), but he does walk through the potential outcomes very well.
I am obviously not a UK citizen, and the EU is far from perfect, but as Lindon Baines Johnson (a man who helped to kill his predecessor, but that's another story) once said "better to have people inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."
I think it should also be pointed out that all developed countries benefit greatly from cheap labor, be they immigrants or ones based overseas.
A good analysis and highlights the problem for the Brexit lobby. If Cameron was fighting for Brexit he would have to tell us how he intended to create new trading relations. E.G Would it be Free Trade or Single Market alliances?
As it is, the "opposition" is not a united political party able to put forward a cohesive policy on which voters could take a view. Instead we just have speculation about the options, discordant voices and single issue campaigners. Although we should leave, i think we will remain in because the real issues are unlikely to be exposed to the analysis and boring debate required.
The article, for obvious reasons does not outline the advantages of the various options, for example Free Trade agreements benefit consumers rather than big business by reducing consumer prices by eliminating single market tariffs.
Pro EU supporters are fully aware that what is good for workers is not the same as what is good for business. In a similar vein, I wish people would wake up to the fact that when big business says "we" are better off in the EU, "we" is big business and probably thousands of their workers they would dump in an instant if it suited them, rather than the millions of UK consumers.
I'm very impressed by the level of discourse on here.
Can I suggest that, to be fair to those who want out (and knowing who some of those individuals are, I feel a bit slimy writing that), I don't think anyone quite knows what "out" looks like right now. I mentioned on another thread, in response to someone claiming "this is our only chance to get out" that you are voting on 20 years of precedence here, not 200.
Looking at both this, and the Scottish referendum a few months ago, all sides are guessing to a certain extent. I'm just about young enough to remember the early days of the EU, and one thing that was commendable was that there seemed to be a spirit of "it's not perfect but we're trying." I think stances have hardened in the last ten years, and obviously particularly in the last five or so. But, as a citizen of the world, I still think it an important experiment in countries of varying cultures, citizenry, and economic status working together, sometimes painfully, for a larger good.
Also, I really wished I changed dollars in to pounds today, cheers Boris! I have some old UK bank account from Uni but for the life of me can't find the card. Oh well.
I like to think of us, the UK as world leaders. If we vote out, I can almost guarantee that at least 3-4 other EU countries will follow within 18-24 months of us. They are watching the UK with great interest as we could provide them with the perfect get out clause.
If we stay in, we will be loathed by the rest of the EU for being 'different'. We are already held in such low regard, receiving special treatment will not gain us any respect. Other countries will go out of their way to make the UK's membership of the EU hellish. Why do we find ourselves in this position anyway? We shouldn't actually be at this point? We didn't vote to be where we are today.
"We are already held in such low regard" yet they gave us a special deal to make us "different" ? Completely contradictory.
Special deal ??? They're laughing at Cameron and the UK over this botched negotiation. They are happy to play along when he has achieved so little.
I like to think of us, the UK as world leaders. If we vote out, I can almost guarantee that at least 3-4 other EU countries will follow within 18-24 months of us. They are watching the UK with great interest as we could provide them with the perfect get out clause.
I don't agree there are 3-4 other countries looking to exit anyway but they will be worried about contagion. Which is why the EU will be doing us no favours whatsoever if we vote out. It'll be the most drawn out, messy, painful divorce in history that will take far longer than a couple of years. That's not a reason in and of itself not to vote out but it is a unavoidable consequence.
Whilst we spend years unpicking ourselves from the EU, redrafting domestic legislation, negotiating fresh trade agreements, fighting off another push for Scottish independence and all the rest the EU will be a far more attractive proposition for foreign investment and boy would they be putting the boot in whilst we are packing up our stuff. Just as I'd want our government to do if the situations were reversed.
Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all drawn up plans to hold similar referendums. But the UK will give them a helpful insight. Not a rumour, guess or prediction but fact.
I'm happy to expose my ignorance here, but essentially the low pound I would see as relatively good (though I'm happy to be corrected!). It is only a factor if you are changing money. So as of today, exports from the UK are cheaper and more attractive. Tourists changing money to go abroad will suffer, but given how strong the pound is, they still get good value. I'm sure there is a downside, there always is, but I'll leave the economists to fill in the details I've missed.
But conversely, imports are now more expensive, so unless we're exporting stuff that we've grown/dug up ourselves (or intangible stuff like services), we're going to have to pay more to import the raw materials to make the stuff we export in the first place. And if it lasts for long enough, then that's going to counteract the benefits we've been seeing from the low oil price, so even stuff we've grown/dug up ourselves is going to become more expensive to produce if it needs energy to convert it into the final product.
I like to think of us, the UK as world leaders. If we vote out, I can almost guarantee that at least 3-4 other EU countries will follow within 18-24 months of us. They are watching the UK with great interest as we could provide them with the perfect get out clause.
I don't agree there are 3-4 other countries looking to exit anyway but they will be worried about contagion. Which is why the EU will be doing us no favours whatsoever if we vote out. It'll be the most drawn out, messy, painful divorce in history that will take far longer than a couple of years. That's not a reason in and of itself not to vote out but it is a unavoidable consequence.
Whilst we spend years unpicking ourselves from the EU, redrafting domestic legislation, negotiating fresh trade agreements, fighting off another push for Scottish independence and all the rest the EU will be a far more attractive proposition for foreign investment and boy would they be putting the boot in whilst we are packing up our stuff. Just as I'd want our government to do if the situations were reversed.
Sweden, Denmark and Holland have all drawn up plans to hold similar referendums. But the UK will give them a helpful insight. Not a rumour, guess or prediction but fact.
Well its a fact that Im finding difficult to bring up on a Google search so can you help us with a source?
Does anyone really think the EU would do anything that would damage their tourist trade. The Spanish economy for one would suffer massively. We on the other hand still attract people from all over the world .
Huge swathes of the EU have no tourist trade. Tourists come from all over the world to Spain, not just the UK. If they sent back all the retired UK ex-pats draining their health system it would save them a huge amount of money...
Health tourism is always shouted down as a myth in the UK but strangely it's a different story when we look abroad. The Spanish would also miss out on the pensioners spending their Sterling pensions and Sterling housing equity over there which might make them think twice.
They are not tourists, they are residents and as citizens (subjects) of an EU country they are entitled to health care under reciprocal agreements. If this goes west, many will be forced to return to the UK.
I agree that Spain (and Portugal) benefit somewhat from the spending power of the pensioners, but a lot of them don't pay their tax in the countries they live in, and it could be said they (we) drive up the cost of housing in certain areas, pricing the locals out of the market...
I'm sure some Spanish would see them as long term tourists but I take your point. BTW with regards to housing I thought Spain had a big over supply of property hanging over from the mid 2000's property boom? Are they really causing supply issues for locals?
There are something like 200, 000 empty properties left over from the construction boom, and the recession caused property to plummet. However, I believe places like the Costa Del Sol stayed fairly boyant due to demand. Demanding the return of Gibraltar is standard in Spain. My wife wants independance for Catalunya, but also wants Gibraltar returned to a country she doesn't want to be part of herself. If you lot vote gor a Brexit, I will cosole myself with the possibility of being deported to South London at the same time our favourite Belgians are being pushed onto a Dover-Calais ferry.
Just to add that as of a few minutes ago the £ has seen the biggest drop in its value today (2%) since the financial meltdown in 2008. This is due to the fact, apparently, that Boris has joined the OUT campaign and markets are worried that this is the way the UK will vote, what we don't need is a weak £.
I'm happy to expose my ignorance here, but essentially the low pound I would see as relatively good (though I'm happy to be corrected!). It is only a factor if you are changing money. So as of today, exports from the UK are cheaper and more attractive. Tourists changing money to go abroad will suffer, but given how strong the pound is, they still get good value. I'm sure there is a downside, there always is, but I'll leave the economists to fill in the details I've missed.
Hi @ken_shabby the weakness in the pound does make exports cheaper that is true, but imports become dearer and as the £ has fallen against the $ (as well as the Euro), and Oil is traded in $'s, the cost of oil will increase for the UK,which knocks on to petrol, fuel,transport and food for example. The biggest fall since 2008 is worrying on what was effectviely Day 1 of the referendum debate for real, a 2% drop on one day is unheard of in recent times. It will be interesting to see what happens today, further falls would be a worry, I hope they at least stabilise.
I like to think of us, the UK as world leaders. If we vote out, I can almost guarantee that at least 3-4 other EU countries will follow within 18-24 months of us. They are watching the UK with great interest as we could provide them with the perfect get out clause.
If we stay in, we will be loathed by the rest of the EU for being 'different'. We are already held in such low regard, receiving special treatment will not gain us any respect. Other countries will go out of their way to make the UK's membership of the EU hellish. Why do we find ourselves in this position anyway? We shouldn't actually be at this point? We didn't vote to be where we are today.
"We are already held in such low regard" yet they gave us a special deal to make us "different" ? Completely contradictory.
Special deal ??? They're laughing at Cameron and the UK over this botched negotiation. They are happy to play along when he has achieved so little.
I don't think anyone is laughing at Cameron, well perhaps me, but that's only because I'm a horrible, nasty so and so - in fairness, it's nothing to do with his EU negotiations, it's all down to him.
The problem for Cameron is that he had promised the UK that he would achieve a deal within a very short time period. Change in the EU, partly because it is not the Federal behemoth that people imagine, takes time. In order to have a new relationship, the EU needs to agree a treaty and, with 28 countries all fighting their own corners, this can be quite a convoluted process.
Even if the wording for a new treaty had been agreed speedily, it would have to be agreed by the Member States; and can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if, for example, the voters in Ireland had blocked it in a referendum?
Truthfully speaking, within the timescale that Cameron had set himself, what he achieved was as good as he could have got, and really was an acceptance that the UK could use the maximum leeway available within the current rules. How well the UK makes use of this is, of course, a great unknown, as is the outcome of the referendum.
Boris has just broken cover and will campaign for the Tory leadership UK to leave the EU!
Boris's Dad has just said on BBC Breakfast that he is fighting to stay in as a part of the Environmentalists for Europe campaign group. That, however well written his son's article in the Telegraph was, it left out completely so many important issues. So his daddy has seen straight through him then.
At some point in the debate a Lifer will doubtless write that the Americans (Obama or Kerry) are "interfering" in our referendum by providing their opinions.
I would like to remind all Lifers that Mr B. Johnson, the Hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, is a US citizen.
So we have the preposterous situation where the Out campaign is dominated by an American, and an old git who lives in France (Lawson), yet up to 2m British citizens are denied a say in a referendum which hugely affects their lives because they have not registered to vote in the UK for 15 years and currently live abroad.
If people haven't bothered to vote in 15 years then that's their own fault
Sorry, I meant a slightly different thing, but did not make myself clear. I refer of course to citizens who have not been continuously resident in the UK for 15 years, and so have voted by post.
I don't know of any other European country which deprives its citizens of the right to vote in this way, just because they have the temerity not to live there. After all (as in my case) they may still pay UK income tax, qualify for a UK state pension, have a UK property, have family in the UK whose welfare they are responsible for, have a UK bank account, keep savings in the UK, consume UK media, write to their MP, travel home regularly to see their football team...yet they are not allowed to vote? On the Today programme Michael Fallon said "Every UK citizen has the right to decide". No Mr Fallon, your government deprived up to 2 million citizens of this right.
So British Citizens living abroad are not allowed to vote is this correct?
Does anyone really think the EU would do anything that would damage their tourist trade. The Spanish economy for one would suffer massively. We on the other hand still attract people from all over the world .
Huge swathes of the EU have no tourist trade. Tourists come from all over the world to Spain, not just the UK. If they sent back all the retired UK ex-pats draining their health system it would save them a huge amount of money...
Health tourism is always shouted down as a myth in the UK but strangely it's a different story when we look abroad. The Spanish would also miss out on the pensioners spending their Sterling pensions and Sterling housing equity over there which might make them think twice.
They are not tourists, they are residents and as citizens (subjects) of an EU country they are entitled to health care under reciprocal agreements. If this goes west, many will be forced to return to the UK.
I agree that Spain (and Portugal) benefit somewhat from the spending power of the pensioners, but a lot of them don't pay their tax in the countries they live in, and it could be said they (we) drive up the cost of housing in certain areas, pricing the locals out of the market...
I'm sure some Spanish would see them as long term tourists but I take your point. BTW with regards to housing I thought Spain had a big over supply of property hanging over from the mid 2000's property boom? Are they really causing supply issues for locals?
There are something like 200, 000 empty properties left over from the construction boom, and the recession caused property to plummet. However, I believe places like the Costa Del Sol stayed fairly boyant due to demand. Demanding the return of Gibraltar is standard in Spain. My wife wants independance for Catalunya, but also wants Gibraltar returned to a country she doesn't want to be part of herself. If you lot vote gor a Brexit, I will cosole myself with the possibility of being deported to South London at the same time our favourite Belgians are being pushed onto a Dover-Calais ferry.
Just to add that as of a few minutes ago the £ has seen the biggest drop in its value today (2%) since the financial meltdown in 2008. This is due to the fact, apparently, that Boris has joined the OUT campaign and markets are worried that this is the way the UK will vote, what we don't need is a weak £.
I'm happy to expose my ignorance here, but essentially the low pound I would see as relatively good (though I'm happy to be corrected!). It is only a factor if you are changing money. So as of today, exports from the UK are cheaper and more attractive. Tourists changing money to go abroad will suffer, but given how strong the pound is, they still get good value. I'm sure there is a downside, there always is, but I'll leave the economists to fill in the details I've missed.
Hi @ken_shabby the weakness in the pound does make exports cheaper that is true, but imports become dearer and as the £ has fallen against the $ (as well as the Euro), and Oil is traded in $'s, the cost of oil will increase for the UK,which knocks on to petrol, fuel,transport and food for example. The biggest fall since 2008 is worrying on what was effectviely Day 1 of the referendum debate for real, a 2% drop on one day is unheard of in recent times. It will be interesting to see what happens today, further falls would be a worry, I hope they at least stabilise.
I'm a little bemused by the rapid fall in the £. It all smacks a bit of headless chickens (traders are famous for that kind of behaviour aren't they?)and I think it will sneak its way back up.
Why am I bemused? Well, I assume it's a reaction to an increased possibility of Brexit? But if we leave the EU, the economy is likely to come under increasing pressure, so interest rates will have to increase. When interest rates go up, the £ goes up as it's more attractive compared with other currencies lower interest rates. So, logic would dictate that the £ should have strengthened. But then, what's logic got to do with anything?
Not sure how I feel in this, there is obviously some entitlement for the years contributed taxes but these people have chosen to move for a better life elsewhere.
Should they then have the right decide on a country that no longer reside in
Not sure how I feel in this, there is obviously some entitlement for the years contributed taxes but these people have chosen to move for a better life elsewhere.
Should they then have the right decide on a country that no longer reside in
Yes. Many of them will still have very strong ties to the UK. Some will have important financial assets here and will be getting a pension from the UK. So why should they be disenfranchised? In fact, if Cameron had any sense, he'd ensure they got a vote as it could easily swing the deal.
I have many ex pat friends living Dubai and Australia and the reason they do so is because its a better life for them.
So why should they then decide what better for me as UK resident?
I think I lean more to your side on this issue, but can see both sides.
Even given that, Dubai/Australia is one thing, but I think there's a stronger case for British citizens living in the rest of the EU having a vote on this issue.
There were lots of people in Scotland who thought that Scottish people living in the rest of the UK should have had a vote in their referendum.
So why should they then decide what better for me as UK resident?
So, someone on a one-year secondment from a UK employer to their, say, Frankfurt branch, shouldn't get a say? Why should they be treated differently from UK diplomats working in the EU or Army personnel serving in Germany?
So why should they then decide what better for me as UK resident?
So, someone on a one-year secondment from a UK employer to their, say, Frankfurt branch, shouldn't get a say?
Of course they should and I don't claim that its not a difficult situation or to know what the cut off point of having lived abroad when your right to vote in UK should stop 5,8 or 10
I don't expect to be eligible to vote on this issue, but I expect people to respect my opinion on it
Unfortunately, as in so many ways with the world of politics, it's a bit like casual sex; there's precious little respect for you after you've been well and truly....
Nicola Sturgeon is supporting remain in, but the Scots could vote tactically to leave as this would help them achieve a second referendum on Independence . Simplistic I know but possible .
Comments
As it is, the "opposition" is not a united political party able to put forward a cohesive policy on which voters could take a view. Instead we just have speculation about the options, discordant voices and single issue campaigners. Although we should leave, i think we will remain in because the real issues are unlikely to be exposed to the analysis and boring debate required.
The article, for obvious reasons does not outline the advantages of the various options, for example Free Trade agreements benefit consumers rather than big business by reducing consumer prices by eliminating single market tariffs.
Pro EU supporters are fully aware that what is good for workers is not the same as what is good for business. In a similar vein, I wish people would wake up to the fact that when big business says "we" are better off in the EU, "we" is big business and probably thousands of their workers they would dump in an instant if it suited them, rather than the millions of UK consumers.
But I would just like to say that free trade is an issue pushed most heavily by bigger producers/economies. When a country is persuaded (e.g. By the IMF or World Bank) to allow free trade it quite often leads to the decimation of local businesses. Yes, the consumer pays less (at least for now), but the hand of big business is strengthened.
Demanding the return of Gibraltar is standard in Spain. My wife wants independance for Catalunya, but also wants Gibraltar returned to a country she doesn't want to be part of herself.
If you lot vote gor a Brexit, I will cosole myself with the possibility of being deported to South London at the same time our favourite Belgians are being pushed onto a Dover-Calais ferry. I'm happy to expose my ignorance here, but essentially the low pound I would see as relatively good (though I'm happy to be corrected!). It is only a factor if you are changing money. So as of today, exports from the UK are cheaper and more attractive. Tourists changing money to go abroad will suffer, but given how strong the pound is, they still get good value.
I'm sure there is a downside, there always is, but I'll leave the economists to fill in the details I've missed.
If you want an example of gravy train, take a look at MLAs in Northern Ireland. I wouldn't trust most of them to tie their shoe-laces, but boy can they put their snouts in the trough.
Actually, if any of you had the delights of Norn Ireland politics to contend with, you'd probably beg for a federal Europe.
Just saying...
Can I suggest that, to be fair to those who want out (and knowing who some of those individuals are, I feel a bit slimy writing that), I don't think anyone quite knows what "out" looks like right now. I mentioned on another thread, in response to someone claiming "this is our only chance to get out" that you are voting on 20 years of precedence here, not 200.
Looking at both this, and the Scottish referendum a few months ago, all sides are guessing to a certain extent. I'm just about young enough to remember the early days of the EU, and one thing that was commendable was that there seemed to be a spirit of "it's not perfect but we're trying." I think stances have hardened in the last ten years, and obviously particularly in the last five or so. But, as a citizen of the world, I still think it an important experiment in countries of varying cultures, citizenry, and economic status working together, sometimes painfully, for a larger good.
Also, I really wished I changed dollars in to pounds today, cheers Boris! I have some old UK bank account from Uni but for the life of me can't find the card. Oh well.
The problem for Cameron is that he had promised the UK that he would achieve a deal within a very short time period. Change in the EU, partly because it is not the Federal behemoth that people imagine, takes time. In order to have a new relationship, the EU needs to agree a treaty and, with 28 countries all fighting their own corners, this can be quite a convoluted process.
Even if the wording for a new treaty had been agreed speedily, it would have to be agreed by the Member States; and can you imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth if, for example, the voters in Ireland had blocked it in a referendum?
Truthfully speaking, within the timescale that Cameron had set himself, what he achieved was as good as he could have got, and really was an acceptance that the UK could use the maximum leeway available within the current rules. How well the UK makes use of this is, of course, a great unknown, as is the outcome of the referendum.
Why am I bemused? Well, I assume it's a reaction to an increased possibility of Brexit? But if we leave the EU, the economy is likely to come under increasing pressure, so interest rates will have to increase. When interest rates go up, the £ goes up as it's more attractive compared with other currencies lower interest rates. So, logic would dictate that the £ should have strengthened. But then, what's logic got to do with anything?
Not sure how I feel in this, there is obviously some entitlement for the years contributed taxes but these people have chosen to move for a better life elsewhere.
Should they then have the right decide on a country that no longer reside in
So why should they then decide what better for me as UK resident?
Even given that, Dubai/Australia is one thing, but I think there's a stronger case for British citizens living in the rest of the EU having a vote on this issue.
There were lots of people in Scotland who thought that Scottish people living in the rest of the UK should have had a vote in their referendum.