Here is a post on this topic which I wrote a few months ago: "Concerning the "Godwin's Law" point about bringing Hitler into a debate, may I repeat points I have made before. Mentioning the Nazis is not banned as such; there is nothing wrong with discussing the similarities and differences between current events and the events of the 1930s, provided such discussions are rooted in facts. And there is nothing wrong with drawing well-informed comparisons between the policies and actions of present-day political movements and those of the Nazi era, as far as it goes. However dismissing individuals as being Hitler, as a term of vague abuse, or accusing others of being fascists, without any justification, does nothing to advance debate. It serves only to expose the shallowness of the speaker's analysis. Hence Mike Godwin's famous eponymous law. Further, just because Hitler said or did something does not automatically make it wrong; although he was one of history's greatest liars he occasionally spoke the truth, and although most of his actions led to utter catastrophe and mass deaths he occasionally did something effectively." If you wish to contradict anything I said, please feel free. Go ahead. I would like to hear what is, in your opinion, a correct application of Godwin.
Exports don't look too shabby after brexit. http://www.cityam.com/267157/british-manufacturing-order-books-highest-almost-30-years
It's a positive spin on an overall bad picture of the economy. At the moment it's looking bad in almost every area other than the Exports sector which only counts for about 10% of the economy anyhow. It even has all the relevent information or links in the article. This area is up because sterling has dropped so far it makes our shizzle cheap! The real value of our income has dropped for the last three months running for the first time since 2014. Apart from the effects of further instability the knock on effects of Brexit were expected to start really hitting home around the beginning of this year since most big companies hedge against drops in the value of sterling to keep themselves insulated for the following 9mths or so.
"After Brexit"? Since Brexit is supposed to take place in March 2019, the consequences which will follow that event will not start to become factual for another two years from now. All we have seen so far is the anticipated or forecast consequences in terms of uncertainty, risks, and respective likelihoods of good or bad outcomes. The risks of an extremely severe catastrophe remain substantial, sadly, whilst the hopes of effective damage limitation are small (but a bit larger after the recent election result). The interesting question is how much damage to the UK economy will eventually result. Estimates vary from a best case scenario of 10% loss of GDP to a worst case of 30%. On balance I would go with a guess of 20% damage by the end of 5 years.
I'm not entirely convinced. The IMF said about a year ago that they expected a growth for the established markets albeit a slower and smaller one, this is in line with most economies. Their two biggest fears were not Brexit but the slow down in China and the incoming(now in place) American administration The trouble is even the IMF are guessing, different papers granted but here jan 17 2017 in the telegraph said the imf says brexit economy fears unfounded http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...itains-economic-prospects-brexit-fears-prove/ Guardian 19th April 2017 saying that Brexit's unpredicatble outcome poses risk to global stability https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/19/brexit-global-stability-imf-us-debt-china cnbc on 16th of this month , Lagarde warns against crash brexit http://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/16/imfs-lagarde-warns-the-uk-against-crash-brexit.html What we do know is that the imf, cbi, cameron and osborne as well as many others who financially benefited, all jumped on project fear and almost everything they promised if we voted leave, has not happened. We are experiencing slower growth as are most first world economies but that was predicted before the brexit vote even took place. In truth project fear is still going on but more against our government during negotiations and not against the U.K. residents who have already had their vote so nothing to gain by fear. Like the brexit vote, nothing is anything until the final day
I would put good money on us remaining in the single market. Its the only viable option that will not bankrupt the Nation. Rumours are that even some Brexit Tories are beginning to see that too.
You and rumours duke are like fin and his tories at westminster. You shouldn't be confusing the wants of the minority with the desire of the majority. The eu have made it quite clear, all 4 pillars or none and we have made it democratically clear, no, we are leaving.
i need to let you in to a little secret noob. the torys have been in power for 7years in Westminster. so who should we discus when talking uk policy? and funnily enough headed by Cameron for 6 of those 7years. the same Cameron that regularly quoted the cbi, the imf, the obr among other organizations you like to wield in the other thread you dont understand. your such a hypocrite noob.
Yep and the snp have been in charge of Scotland for 10 years, your point? Alllllleluyah, finally got you to say the UK word instead of pretending only Scotland existed, ukukukukukukuk go on, you know you love it You knob, read that post again,I listed the imf 3 times to highlight within a few months they were reported as saying 3 different things, I do wish they had English to Scottish on your laptop translator rather than just nunge I have my moments, but not in this forum, now back into your indi 2 box young finial, this is UK politics
Ah yes, the "we won't do it because it would be a catastrophe" argument. Sadly that argument holds no water at all; we may well do it notwithstanding it will obviously be a catastrophe.
Remaining in the single market with no financial cost (free access) would surely mean accepting the free movement of people would it not? So unless I've missed something, having one without the other has never been an option. We cannot cherry pick said Mr Juncker on multiple occasions That would then leave two choices, either stay in the EU entirely, or pay for 'free access' to the single market, the latter is a contradiction in terms. It'll be very interesting this next few months that's for sure
Very hard to keep up with your thought processes. I thought big business was the enemy, stealing food out of the mouths of the poor, but now you're in favour of them buying political influence, as long as its influence you approve of? No wonder you're such a fan of the EU, you'd fit right in.
I ought not to be astonished at how badly some folk have been affected by drinking the EU Kool-Aid .... but I am. Truly astonished. I am minded of sheep, bleating and clamouring to be let back into their pens where they are safe. Ah well.
I known it for years. Remainers are suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. Combined with Munchhausen Syndrome-by-proxy which compels them to inflict suffering on other people. Political euthanasia is the only solution. Thankfully that treatment is now underway.
i'm minded loz of a group of people that have benefited greatly from successive TORY and labour (blairite) governments centralizing government, wealth, and high earning jobs that have followed from those EU ports and hubs now moaning that the consequences of that centralizing has made their life's a weebity difficult because there is nowhere to get their car out of 3rd on a weekday. those that have promoted and now voted for heir own self interest because they can afford a bit of pruning in their area. a united (for the 100,000 times noob) kingdom my ass.
Personally i think its highly unlikely the EU will allow us to pay for access to the single market unless it includes free movement of people.
