| The Comments |
Snapshots of currency values
2008 £1 =1.04 euro
2009 £1 = 1.14 euro
2010 £1 = 1.10 euro
2011 £1 = 1.11 euro
2012 £1 = 1.13 euro
2013 £1 = 1.16 euro
All this happened without Brexit and whilst we were part of the "great" EU. Everyone needs to realise we are leaving the corrupt, disfunctional EU. Remainers you have lost, the same way that people like me lost when we joined, but instead of doom and gloom and talking the country down, we worked and got on with it.
2
Like
|
Why pick the great crash as a starting point? When the UK hit a banking crisis with sub prime mortgages, banks almost going to the wall (Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and so on). Very easy to show an improvement from a very bad period for the UK currency. Also hardly a EU problem when UK banks were shown to be less than the steady hand we always thought they were. US and UK suffered most.
For the previous years the figures were 1999 at 1.51, 2000 at 1.57, and then 1.47 for several years up until 2007.
Then came the banking crisis and your figures until you suddenly stop when the pound averaged at 1.37 in 2015. Easy to make figures fit whatever you are trying to say but please don't be economical with them.
2
Like
|
Until the power of the people in the most democratic way possible got fed up with the waste and corruption and being told by big business how bad it would be to leave to EU because we as businesses could not carry on ripping you all off as normal.
Congratulations to the Great British public for seeing through the BS.
4
Like
|
In many ways the British have become used to prosperity over the last forty years. Asset and income values rising on an annual basis has become an expectation. They have failed to make the vital connection between prosperity and free trade within the single market. They have also failed to see that immigration from Europe contributes to that prosperity by driving down labour costs both in the private and public sectors
I argue the relevant question worth debating now is how does the country sustain that prosperity now it has chosen isolation from the source of its wealth. The single market and free trade.
The British people in voting for Brexit have chosen a form of popular nationalism over financial security, solidarity with Europe and assured prosperity. That is their democratic right and I have no issue with it.
This popular nationalism originates from the political right and it is not only Britain where it's gaining ground. The US has its own waves in the form of Trump. It usually gathers pace when countries collectively face serious threats to their security either real or simply exploited by extremists posing as reasonable men. The great recession and 911 all contributed to that.
Reasonableness and tolerance now seem to be dismissed as a form of weakness in the forefront of a political shift in the world. In part it is caused by fear, insecurity but also disillusionment with the established political status quo. We saw many ugly examples of it during the referendum campaign.
We can even see examples of it on this forum. Brexiteers believe they have won something, triumphed over an evil empire.
What needs to happen now is the political elite currently in power put aside their prejudice and dislike of all things European. Notwithstanding the vote result they need to take pragmatic decisions which will not tip the country over the economic abyss. Nothing meaningful has actually happened yet which is why the economic impact so far has been small. However after the big choices are made, unless they are a reasonable compromise, tipping point will quickly come.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
5
Like
|
Jarvi :
2008 £1 =1.04 euro = 172 ptas
2009 £1 = 1.14 euro = 190 ptas
2013 £1 = 1.16 euro = 193 ptas
Just for interest.
Before the introduction of the Euro on 1st Jan 02, 200 ptas to the £ was the ‘normal’ rate.
I came to live in Spain in about 1987. At one time between then and 2002 the pound dropped to 165 ptas to £1, so equivalent to about 1 euro to the pound.
When the euro was introduced as currency on 1st Jan 2002, there were about 274 ptas to the pound that was 1.65 euros on 1st JAn 2002,
1.20 euros to £1 is equivalent to 200 to pound..
Todays rate of 1.176 € to £1 is equivalent to 195 ptas, so for those who have been here a while, not bad really
0
Like
|
I know all that John. I was trying to point out to the doom and gloom remainers that all things bad are not due to Brexit, althought they would like to think that they are.....
3
Like
|
What a lot of rhubarb Micky.
Britain has been the beacon for free trade in the past and will be again now we are leaving the EU which is a block to free trade. The whole reason why the EU cannot negociate trade deals is because of it's barriers to external trade. Do you really want a low wage economy? What we want is a high skill, high wage efficient economy not a sweat shop.
The UK can forge ahead without the dead weight of EU legislation and barriers to trade. With the EU we will offer them free trade, some of the more stupid countries are the ones arguing against. I do not believe the sensible countries, led by Germany, will allow them to cut off their noses..................................
The British people have voted for democracy, freedom from corruption and free trade.
Far right? The biggest votes for Brexit were in the labour heartlands.
Is there any reasonableness or tolerence in the post I am replying to?
We have won our democracy and freedom back. I do not think anyone called the EU an evil empire but it did show: disdain for democracy, corruption and self rightous beaurocracy. We will be well free of it.
We will now be free to make sound pragmatic decisions about our future. If the EU sinks we will have left the ship.
As I said I believe in the people of the UK. We have regained our future and it is up to us.
This message was last edited by tteedd on 26/08/2016.
This message was last edited by tteedd on 26/08/2016.
6
Like
|
First Hurdle over no debate
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/theresa-may-will-trigger-brexit-negotiations-without-commons-vote/ar-BBw69ln?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=UP97DHP
I for one am very optomistic over the future of the UK its people are unique and unite when adversity faces it, we are very talanted head and shoulders above any other nation we will fulfill our Global ambitions of that I am sure.
So excited about the future, I havent missed Spain in the slightest took my dog a walk along the coastal path this morning thinking how lucky I am ,you should all do the same COME HOME to BLIGHTY and have a wonderful future like me not worrying about exchange rates etc STOP KIDDING yourselves you are leading a better life I have tried both and I know which is the best.
Love Hugh xx
_______________________
Done the Spain thing Happier in the UK
3
Like
|
Jarvi. I was supporting your view, i.e. that the exchange rate is not all that different from what it was pre euro.
Since the referendum the pound has fallen by just less than 9% on today’s rates , and as it was at par in 2008, long before BREXIT, not that bad.
This message was last edited by johnzx on 27/08/2016.
1
Like
|
The house of commons voted for the referendum. Implicit in this is that they will implement the decision of the will of the people. Why should May seek any further authorisation, she has it straight from the electorate.
There is no reason to hold a parliamentary vote or a new referendum the people have spoken.
With this in mind I cannot fathom the new leadership candidate for Labour. His policies (such as they are) are as far left as Corbyn and he wants to stop Brexit when most of his membership voted for it! He must be the means to oust Corbyn before another vote for someone with stature before the next election. At least Corbyn has a large number of supporters, Smith will be in danger of loosing industrial England and Wales to go with Scotland.
2
Like
|
Labour voters may have voted for Brexit, but it was the far right that was pushing it forward, and lying through their teeth to win the referendum. If you cannot see the danger in that, then you are very naive.
And actually, I don't believe for one moment all those voters were voting for Brexit. They wanted a) to kick the Tory government, b) to kick out immigrants. I cannot imagine how disappointed many of them will be when they realise that they may stop EU immigration, only to increase numbers getting in from the subcontinent (the 'commonwealth') - who many see as a much greater threat to social cohesion than the Poles!!
There is a difference between a narrow vote in favour of the status quo (had it been a stay vote), and a narrow vote that overturns 40 years of partnership - and changes everything for everyone who lives in the UK. I think it perfectly reasonable that that decision, based on lies, should be tested again.
4
Like
|
You still do not get it.
The electorate got fed up with being told what was good for them.
So you are doing it again 'the people were wrong - re run the vote'
............................................................
Now you may not see it that way but the distortions and undemocratic use of government resources was all on the 'in' side of the campaign.
By far the biggest lie was that the economy would be destroyed.
..............................................................
Politicians tell lies - tell me something new.
The next step is not accepting the will of the people at an election.
Send in the military?
2
Like
|
Doesn't partnership suggest equal shares and contributions.
How exactly will the EU replace the contributions made for years by a prosperous UK to EU coffers much of it which had been wasted by non elected EU Commissioners who make changes, PS name a few, without any democratic decisions being sanctioned?
What is this with the right wing BS, most Labour areas voted in numbers to leave and politicians on both sides lie, they always do.
Thank god the Great British public saw through it this time.
Democracy means, whoever wins gets to carry out the will of the people, get over it.
2
Like
|
Well actually, democracy as it is established in the UK means having an elected body acting in a responsible way for the benefit of the country. Referendums don't really contribute anything to the democratic process, and just give a snap shot of opinion at any given time. Of course it should have had a fail safe built in, e.g. to effect change you need at least 55% of the vote, or whatever. But there have been plenty of referendums in westerns democracies, and they are not legally binding. I guess that is why we remainers aren't going away!!
3
Like
|
In a true democracy every citizen would have a vote in each issue. As it is not practical, and most do not have time to study every issue, we have a representitive democracy where we elect MPs to represent us.
However some issues should still be put to the electorate and indeed technology will make this easier to do as time goes by.
We would elect very few governents if they had to have the support of 55% of the electorate.
A referendum is the most pure test of the will of the electorate, is the nearest we can get to true democracy, and has to be respected.
Of course not if your name is Mugabe or Putin (or perhaps even J Delors).
Yes I know that Eire and Denmark were sent back to have another referendum until the unelected functionaries in Brussels got what they wanted but there is nothing at all democratic in that.
1
Like
|
Referendums are a very insecure way to govern a country. That is why most democratic countries have an elected parliament. Parliament in the UK is sovereign. That means the will of parliament supersedes all other executive choice or decision making.
Brexit or rather article 50 should be ratified by parliament. It’s too greater an issue to leave it to one plebiscite where the decision was skewed by lies, dam lies and a dislike of foreigners.
Imagine for a moment that a referendum was held on the issue of hanging people for murder. I suspect some of the same people who voted for Brexit would vote for that as well.
Working class labour voters are quite capable of right wing political tendencies on subjects that carry emotional baggage. A decision such as this where a nation’s economic and social future entirely depends requires the scrutiny of an elected parliament.
Brexiteers are against it because they know it carries a high risk that parliament would vote remain which legally would be a sovereign binding decision..
Remember the referendum vote was none binding and 48.1% of the population voted to remain and 28% abstained by not voting at all. In the interests of democracy parliament must have the final say.
“The logic of saying the prime minister can trigger article 50 without first setting out to parliament the terms and basis upon which her government seeks to negotiate – indeed, without even indicating the red lines she will seek to protect – would be to diminish parliament and assume the arrogant powers of a Tudor monarch,” he said.
“Parliament cannot be sidelined from the greatest constitutional change our country has debated in 40 years.”
Shadow Trade secretary.
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 28/08/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
2
Like
|
The referendum was agreed by Parliament. It was left to the people to decide, we have decided. It does not need to be ratified by Parliament, you are just hoping it will be overturned or stuck in the system for years, or until something drastic happens that can be blamed on Brexit.
"Imagine for a moment that a referendum was held on the issue of hanging people for murder. I suspect some of the same people who voted for Brexit would vote for that as well."
Why? There isn't going to be a referendum on hanging as it wouldn't be passed by MPs to the general public to have a say. I bet you wouldn't be complaining if the referendum had gone your way. Start supporting our country and let's get on with it together.
1
Like
|
The hanging example was merely a point I was making about referendums being a terrible and risky way to govern.
Clemet Attllee and Margaret Thatcher both said this about referendums. “‘I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism.’ implying that referendums were a totally unknown and alien device to British politics.
Legally, Parliament at any point in future could reverse legislation approved by referendum, because the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means no parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing legislation. However, I accept reversing legislation approved by referendum now would be unprecedented.
If a general election happened before 2020 a united opposition made up of Labour. Liberal and Europhile Tories could win the day on a platform of reversing the result.
The Lib Dems have already said they will be campaigning on such this issue. I expect a revitalized Labour Party to do the same, especially if Corbyn goes.
If as expected all the negative economic consequences of leaving the EU are present in British life by 2020, I anticipate this Brexit supporting government to be defeated.
Britain’s membership of the EU is not over. No government can afford to ignore almost half of the populations view especially since constituency voting is very different to referendums. A different result may well result. Im looking forward to it and may well return to the UK to fight for it..
This message was last edited by Mickyfinn on 28/08/2016.
_______________________
Time is the school in which we learn
Time is the fire in which we burn.
Delmore Schwartz.
3
Like
|
The problem is, that when something happens that seems to be Brexit related, the Brexiteers just shout - would have happened anyway. I believe the Bank of England's intervention, and the ditching of the deficit targets to be some of those drastic things that are already with us. And we have the autumn statement to look forward to as well.
2
Like
|
The people that do knot live in the UK should knot have a say or a vote on how the UK run ,as you don't live their and have took up permanent residence in another country why should you get a say on the day to day running of a country that you know nothing about.l also understand that ex UK residents that are residing in other parts of the EU can vote in that countries affairs as well ,how do you work that one out .
This message was last edited by windtalker on 28/08/2016.
1
Like
|