- 15 Sep 2017 03:06
#14843688
Hilarious.
First you say "less than 40% of UK citizens voted to leave". Let me remind you that a turnout of 72% is very good for a referendum. Then you say 65% approval of the electorate is required to "prevent division". In such a case only 25% of UK citizens could have decided to remain. How the hell would that "prevent division" or make the decision more legitimate? You're revealing your extreme bias.
You do not exactly excel in modesty and intelligence here.
And Remainers predicted doomsday.
I won't claim that independent trade deals will make up for the potential lack of access to the EU's single market, but you cannot claim the opposite either, certainly not at this point. We have to wait and see, and even then it's difficult to prove empirically. As Kaiser already mentioned, the effect of todays trade agreements, be it with the EU or anybody else, are rather small because free trade has pretty much been achieved already (WTO etc.).
The UK was hit hard by the financial crisis and it strongly devalued the pound against the euro in 2008/2009. Moreover, in 1993 the UK gave up the peg to the ECU (de facto DM, see ERM (European exchange rate mechanism)) alongside Italy (unlike Italy it didn't join the Eurozone afterwards).
So no, historical evidence suggests that the UK would not be a good fit for the Eurozone.
Are you suggesting the UK cannot guarantee a high standard of its products?
I get it, what EU-fanboys are saying is that "might makes right", because we both know the EU wouldn't refuse a deal to "uphold its principles" (namely to enforce free movement on its neighbors, unless that neighbor is Turkey/Ukraine) if it were smaller than the UK or equal to it. That's ok if you believe in those "principles", what annoys me is the hypocrisy.
Ridiculous comparison. Don't even go there.
B0ycey wrote:But to put things into context, as pointed out by a fellow PoFoer, less than 40% of UK citizens actually voted to leave the EU. So despite what was occuring and all the fear-mongering taking place about being flooded with refugees, it still didn't result in what I call a decisive madate to make an important decision to leave (something like leaving the EU in my opinion requires at least 65% of the electorate to prevent division).
Hilarious.
First you say "less than 40% of UK citizens voted to leave". Let me remind you that a turnout of 72% is very good for a referendum. Then you say 65% approval of the electorate is required to "prevent division". In such a case only 25% of UK citizens could have decided to remain. How the hell would that "prevent division" or make the decision more legitimate? You're revealing your extreme bias.
B0ycey wrote:So arrogance and stupidity resulted in this gamble going wrong.
You do not exactly excel in modesty and intelligence here.
B0ycey wrote:Brexiteers promised everything, but as shown since, will not be able to fulfil such promises.
And Remainers predicted doomsday.
B0ycey wrote:So to your point about new trade deals with the rest of the world to compensate for the single market, I can't see how anything could be better (or replace it).
I won't claim that independent trade deals will make up for the potential lack of access to the EU's single market, but you cannot claim the opposite either, certainly not at this point. We have to wait and see, and even then it's difficult to prove empirically. As Kaiser already mentioned, the effect of todays trade agreements, be it with the EU or anybody else, are rather small because free trade has pretty much been achieved already (WTO etc.).
B0ycey wrote:The Euro would have suited the UK actually, the same way Germany benefits from it today.
The UK was hit hard by the financial crisis and it strongly devalued the pound against the euro in 2008/2009. Moreover, in 1993 the UK gave up the peg to the ECU (de facto DM, see ERM (European exchange rate mechanism)) alongside Italy (unlike Italy it didn't join the Eurozone afterwards).
So no, historical evidence suggests that the UK would not be a good fit for the Eurozone.
B0ycey wrote:Strict legislation brings in high standards within products. I assume you want good quality of goods?
Are you suggesting the UK cannot guarantee a high standard of its products?
B0ycey wrote:The EU can't make it attractive to leave. Why would they do a deal that gives the UK everything without any burden?
I get it, what EU-fanboys are saying is that "might makes right", because we both know the EU wouldn't refuse a deal to "uphold its principles" (namely to enforce free movement on its neighbors, unless that neighbor is Turkey/Ukraine) if it were smaller than the UK or equal to it. That's ok if you believe in those "principles", what annoys me is the hypocrisy.
B0ycey wrote:They are a prime example to show the importance of the single market. There is Ukraine and there is Poland.
Ridiculous comparison. Don't even go there.