Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The idea that we'll get better trading terms after we leave is ridiculous, regardless of the balance of trade. The best possible post Brexit outcome would be to retain much of our preferential access to the single market, which would mean continuing contributions to the eU budget and abiding by most Eu regulations. So in other words, things would remain much as they are now, eccept we would have no influence over Eu policies and no voting rights. Any better deal would put the eus own members at a competitive disadvantage and reward (thereby encouraging further) exits. It's not going to happen.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Percentage often hides the real numbers

> >

> > What is the actual amount in pounds shillings

> and

> > pence

> >

> > 8% of a billion, for example us a lot more than

> 44% of ten thousand, therefore don't quote

> > percentages but real monetary terms ..

> >

> > There are lies, damn lies and statistics

>

> Quite often I'd agree, but in this case the

> percentages are the more pertinent as they show

> the effect on each economy.

>

> Put it this way, if trade between the UK and the

> EU stopped tomorrow, which economy would be far,

> far more effected?



Ireland's


There's not an EU economy as a single entity Loz your comparison is meaningless

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

...

>

> So much of what has been raised in the debate has

> nowt to do with the EU and is dependent on

> domestic politics. The main reason the last lot

> delivered anything on the environment was due to

> the Lib Dems, now they have gone.....

> ...


Environmental protection is (rightly so) quite high up on EU agenda:


http://ec.europa.eu/environment/basics/home_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/implementation_en.htm



Then you get the likes of Farage:


Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > Percentage often hides the real numbers

> >

> > What is the actual amount in pounds shillings

> and

> > pence

> >

> > 8% of a billion, for example us a lot more than

> 44% of ten thousand, therefore don't quote

> > percentages but real monetary terms ..

> >

> > There are lies, damn lies and statistics

>

> Quite often I'd agree, but in this case the

> percentages are the more pertinent as they show

> the effect on each economy.

>

> Put it this way, if trade between the UK and the

> EU stopped tomorrow, which economy would be far,

> far more effected?


Taken from the governments own website, www.uktradeinfo.com


"EU Exports for March 2016 were ?12.0 billion. This was an increase of ?0.6 billion (5.7 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of ?0.1 billion (0.6 per cent) compared with March 2015.


EU Imports for March 2016 were ?20.2 billion. This was an increase of ?0.8 billion (4.1 per cent) compared with last month, and a rise of ?0.1 billion (0.5 per cent) compared with March 2015.


In EU trade the UK was a net importer this month, with imports exceeding exports by ?8.2 billion.


The proportion of total exports to the EU was 48 per cent in March 2016. Over the past 18 months, this has ranged from 38 per cent to 48 per cent. The proportion of total imports from the EU was 51 per cent in March 2016. Over the same period, this has ranged between 51 per cent and 55 per cent."



Therefore as mentioned bandishing a percentages for a larger body (the EU) compared with a smaller body (the UK) isn't a valid statistic 🤔


Nice try but no cigar Loz (not even an imported EU one ! )

I m not English but have been living in this country long enough to understand that leaving Europe will be plenty of risks for You and none of this risks are worth taking...

It might be better for You or not but why taking the risks??

One above the others: Do You realise if the LEAVE campaign wins You might have Boris as a prime minister??

Hope You realise that and the consequences...:)

pato Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I m not English but have been living in this

> country long enough to understand that leaving

> Europe will be plenty of risks for You and none of

> this risks are worth taking...

> It might be better for You or not but why taking

> the risks??

> One above the others: Do You realise if the LEAVE

> campaign wins You might have Boris as a prime

> minister??

> Hope You realise that and the consequences...:)


pato, this has nothing to do with risks. This is purely about Nationalistic sentiments and nostalgia/delusions of glorious days of empire. You know ...."Ruuuuule Brittania, tra la la la la"

TheArtfulDogger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> Therefore as mentioned bandishing a percentages for a larger body (the EU) compared with a smaller

> body (the UK) isn't a valid statistic

>

> Nice try but no cigar Loz (not even an imported EU one ! )


For reasons explained, of course it is meaningful. In fact, hard numbers in this case are meaningless as it won't show effect.


Think of it this way. Two people lose ?100,000 each in a failed business venture. One is an average person with a mortgage and a few quid in the bank, the other is Bill Gates. Does the hard monetary figure really explain the actual effect on each person, or would a percentage of their total worth be far more illuminating?


It's the same here - the monetary figures you are quoting don't show the effect on each economy. Your figures are, essentially, meaningless. And that's a quality, British built meaningless!

pato Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I m not English but have been living in this country long enough to understand that leaving

> Europe will be plenty of risks for You and none of this risks are worth taking...

>

> It might be better for You or not but why taking the risks??


Or, more succinctly put...


file.php?20,file=221379

Getting very sick of some media outlets and people on social media implying that leaning towards voting to leave automatically means you're a racist or xenophobe. Because seemingly there couldn't possibly be any other reason that might be a valid consideration for such a huge economic, political, and social decision.


The level of ignorance required for this viewpoint is only eclipsed by the racists themselves.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Getting very sick of some media outlets and people

> on social media implying that leaning towards

> voting to leave automatically means you're a

> racist or xenophobe. Because seemingly there

> couldn't possibly be any other reason that might

> be a valid consideration for such a huge economic,

> political, and social decision.

> ...


Actually you summed it up. The only reasons to leave the EU are racist and xenophobic. The delusion that by virtue of being English you are better than everyone else and Europe and the rest of the world will crawl to you on their knees begging to be invited to your birthday party. The delusion that your kids and grandkids will have more opportunities growing up on this island (well, part of one after Scotland and Wales secede) instead of part of a 500 million strong and culturally and economically diverse continent.


Other reasons do exist, such as being a total troglodyte who doesn't like European constraints such as environmental policies whose long term sustainability a free market or local short term gains don't guarantee.

DulwichFox Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Being in the E.U is like a bird inside an egg..

>

> You need to crack that shell and find out was is

> on the outside..

>

> Get out.. Take control.. Have some say..

>

> DulwichFox


Bring on the glorious 12th, where we get to shoot the first birds of the season

I haven't heard a convincing economic argument for Brexit. The idea that we'll get a better deal following a vote to leave, (that all 27 member states will agree to our re-entering the single market, with full access, but exempted from the regulations which govern it) really does strike me as deluded.


On immigration there are some more reasoned arguments (although I disagree with them). It is self-evident that free movement goes hand in hand with membership of a single market and if you think this a bad thing then maybe one could consider the economic pain worth it, to restrict movement in and out of Europe.


Of course this completely negates the benefits UK citizens get from free movement, the fact that 1.2 million people born in the UK live in other EU countries and that we all have the opportunity to travel and work anywhere within the EU. But again, I can see that some might consider this worth losing if they feel strongly enough about immigration in.


Personally though, I take issue with the whole premise that immigration is a problem. The view that immigration is straining public services seems to ignore the fact that the NHS is kept afloat by immigrant labour (by doctors and nurses from overseas), and that, as a net contributor to the economy, helps fund public services in the first place. The truth is that the level of public service provision is a matter of public policy. Moves to cut immigration and pull out of the single market are very unlikely to lead to better public services in my opinion. Neither is it plausible that Gove and Boris are truly advocating investing heavily in the public sector with or without Brexit, which just makes their claims on the topic incredibly cynical.


But even if you are ?anti immigration?, it is by no means a given that post-Brexit, immigration levels will come down significantly. The claim often made, that it is the EU which is preventing immigration coming down to the 'tens of thousands' is not true. The majority of immigration to the UK comes from outside the EU (which is entirely within our control) and is itself in the hundreds of thousands.


Personally, I just haven?t heard an argument which convinces me we will benefit from ?Brexit?.

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I haven't heard a convincing economic argument for

> Brexit.


I dont think that's an unreasonable comment, both sides have made a shambles of presenting a competent economic argument. For what it's worth, as a Leaver, my own thoughts on economics are this....


Having plenty of time on my hands, I've read the 90 page PwC report on the economic impact, and the IMF report as well. My simple takeaway is that the longer term economic impact is negligible and within the margin of forecasting error. All reports I've seen say GDP will be somewhere between 0.5% and 3% worse by ~2030 under a brexit scenario. On a 15 year forecast, in my view, these numbers are less than rounding errors with so many variables. Yes, some areas of the economy will suffer, and others will do better, but the overall impact to my mind is a wash. Also, I do concede that the shorter term uncertainty means there will likely be a slow down, possibly even a recession, in the immediate few years after brexit, from which we will recover and accelerate back towards the pre-brexit growth path in the ensuing years. Im making this decision based on the long term/once in a generation argument, hence the economic impact of brexit I dont think is a key differentiator to my decision.


Also, having the ability to be able to better forecast population and demographics, will hopefully mean that our economlic forecasts can improve in accuracy themselves...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...