You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Hilarious because they say no one told them. You mean you don't read any other paper or commentary
Hmm. The link says independent, but it felt like I was on Buzzfeed.
All's fair in love and war. And make no mistake, this is civil war.
I100 is a like that bit the reader comments are first class...
almost as if STW had written it, this place could be the next mash if we tried
I just came across this comment on the Mail online comments section, where it was talking about Farage telling us we were all ready heading for a recession.
"Nigel Farage has the happiest and most uplifting smile in politics. So glad his dream has finally come to fruition for us all. The sensible among us voted leave knowing the country would take a short term knock, but eventually would be Great Britain again."
WTF?!
but eventually would be Great Britain again.
TBH it is hard to tell, some places call it United Kingdon, others Great Britain, sometimes it's England... honestly filling out online forms is hard work I wish it was just one of those...
The only positive point I can see in the disaster is that we won't be paying millions into the fraud and corruption of the EU and the farce of the monthly move from Brussels to Strasbourg.
The only positive point I can see in the disaster is that we won't be paying millions into the fraud and corruption of the EU and the farce of the monthly move from Brussels to Strasbourg.
Really?
If we remain in the EEA we'll be paying them MORE money won't we? No rebate anymore.
Err, no.
All off the top of my head, from reading it this week, so figures may be out, but not by a great deal.
We pay something like £350M a week to the EU.
We then get a percentage of that back as our rebate due to us saying we're paying too much a few years back (Thatcher years?).Actually, our fee is £350, but we only pay £280m ish.
Then we get money back to support EU funded projects and subsidies in the UK, or rather, the EU pays for projects / subsidies in this Country.
After taking our rebates and projects into account, we actually pay around £150M a week to the EU.
That is used for running the EU (compared to our Parliament, it is very expensively run), and giving grants/subsidies/aid to other Countries, mostly Southern and Eastern Europe.
The other Northern Europe Countries pay pretty much the same proportionally as us.
If we leave, the EU has a lot less money to spend on support for the weaker Countries.
I think we can justify this, as we are the biggest foreign aid donor in the EU - around £12bn a year is spent aiding other Countries (obviously totally separate to EU fees, which also help other Countries)
We're going to be around £250M a week better off immediately, or when we actually do leave. Of course, EU funded projects in the UK will end, so the Government may well want to carry on funding such projects (which I'd be sure they would).
Even if we carried on the same level of funding for local projects as the EU has done, we'd be £150m a week better off.
The counter argument is that we will be losing trade. That isnt definite, I dont think we will have too much of a problem with trade in the future. Many others will do, but there are no clear facts yet, so it is only speculation.
Hmm. The link says independent, but it felt like I was on Buzzfeed.
Yeah it's a damn shame that the Indy is now a glorified Buzzfeed clone. Back in the day it was a great paper, but nobody actually bought it...
Even if we carried on the same level of funding for local projects as the EU has done, we'd be £150m a week better off.The counter argument is that we will be losing trade. That isnt definite, I dont think we will have too much of a problem with trade in the future. Many others will do, but there are no clear facts yet, so it is only speculation.
Speculation but every other nation who is in the EEA arrangement for free trade pays for the privilege. It's going to come close to that figure, which is a shame as we will need that for the extra interest payments on our bonds now we don't have a AAA credit rating and to fund any shortfall from a weaker pound.
Of course, EU funded projects in the UK will end, so the Government may well want to carry on funding such projects (which I'd be sure they would).
Brilliant! 😆
You've not met the right-wing of the Tory party before?
Brilliant!
You've not met the right-wing of the Tory party before?
So if the people don't like the way the Tory govt allocates cash they can vote them out in 2020. Democracy.
So if the people don't like the way the Tory govt allocates cash they can vote them out in 2020. Democracy.
100%, most people seemed to like how the cash was handed out though, it also implies there will be cash to handout. Reduced growth, high inflation, lower credit rating - that cash is getting spent a lot of times already
That doesn't look like an Independent link. I'm a subscriber to the online edition and I use its official website too. I haven't seen that article on either.
I'm quite liking the paid for version.
The there's Liverpool's favourite paper.
so the Government may well want to carry on funding such projects (which I'd be sure they would)
Given the number of councils who have already requested confirmations of this in writing, I don't think many people share your optimism...
and as has been said elsewhere (when pressed with slightly tricky questions),the Leave lot were not actually in a position to make those sort of promises... Why did you believe them!!
the Government may well want to carry on funding such projects (which I'd be sure they would).
[img] 
[/img]
The counter argument is that we will be losing trade. That isnt definite, I dont think we will have too much of a problem with trade in the . 4.4 bn a we
So The next 2 years of uncertainty and no external investment arent a worry?
Just 0.5% reduction in our GDP negates out EU payment
Considering 45% of our trade ,4.4 bn a week is with the EU, I don't think we'll have too much trouble doing that, how much has it taken out of our economy so far !
Nothing will change and we won't leave. Osborne has just said that Cameron won't trigger Clause 50 but will leave it to the new PM. Nobody is going to have the balls to do it, so Cameron has out-manouevered Boris and Gove.
I think another light is just going on and someone else is starting to think 'Oops!'
So what next? A general election based around Brexit stance? A vote in parliament that might fail to pass due the obviously dire economic cost?
[i]That is used for running the EU (compared to our Parliament, it is very expensively run)[/i]
reference?
EU employs 23000 civil servants. UK has 430,000.
EU employs 23000 civil servants. UK has 430,000.
But still, we've only got a couple of dozen with the skills and experience to negotiate international trade deals. We'll need hundreds. Oops.
My parents have the Mail and the Sunday before the referendum the editorial urged people to vote Stay as Britain could be greater in Europe.
It surprised me.
Mail on Sunday went with 'remain', Daily Mail went with leave. Two different editorial teams, presumably MoS City editor refused outright to come up with a leave-favouring puff piece.
or the owners wanted to hedge their bets...
Apparently the MoS team don't like the DM team so will quite often run pieces that deliberately conflict with the message that the DM has been pushing.
Apparently the MoS team don't like the DM team so will quite often run pieces that deliberately conflict with the message that the DM has been pushing.
An insider said. 😆
Surely no one in real life would use The Sun newspaper as his or her political guide?
I just came across this comment on the Mail online comments section, where it was talking about Farage telling us we were all ready heading for a recession."Nigel Farage has the happiest and most uplifting smile in politics. So glad his dream has finally come to fruition for us all. The sensible among us voted leave knowing the country would take a short term knock, but eventually would be Great Britain again."
WTF?!
Looks like jamby has been at work ...
but eventually would be Great [s]Britain[/s] England again."
Brilliant! You managed to type that with a straight face, well done!Surely no one in real life would use The Sun newspaper as his or her political guide?
"the Government may well want to carry on funding such projects (which I'd be sure they would)."
That is the current plan if you read the government's own papers on Brexit planning. I haven't read the House of Lord's papers yet.
GNSS is typical example. We need PRS for our military and for future road toll infrastructure, and CS for future precision farming and similar. 20%+ of the European GNSS technology was designed and developed by British Engineers. Walking away is not an option.
Sun readers should stick to voting for the best dancer, performing dog or which celeb they want to move out of the experiment house. Their newspaper doesn't inform them about anything else.
The Top article on Indy100 fleshes out the thinking in the posts above...
[b]While panic ensues, one person’s musings in the comments section of the Guardian has an interesting hypothesis on these complications:[/b]
[i]If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.
Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.
With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.
How?
Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.
And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legislation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.
The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.
The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?
Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?
Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-manoeuvred and check-mated.
If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.
The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.
When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.
All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.[/i]
[b]
The comment, which was picked up on Twitter, has been shared thousands of times.[/b]
Interesting that. Reinforces what I was thinking when Cameron resigned - was he resigning, as the media said, because he lost? or more likely because of what leaving the EU would involve as prime minister.
We're going to be around £250M a week better off immediately, or when we actually do leave.
Except we've already lost more money per week than we would save. Our debt repayments are going up.
Publicly held shares in RBS have lost £1.9 billion in value since last Thursday.
sorry that was an old figure. RBS shares down a third now - £8 billion loss to the tax payer.
sorry that was an old figure. RBS shares down a third now - £8 billion loss to the tax payer.
But we have got back our sovereignty; that has to be worth a few billion doesn't it 😯
Ah the Daily Mail. You might think that just a couple of weeks after the Jo Cox murder that it might be just a little insensitive to photoshop an MP into a coffin and call on his party to "kill" him, but no:
[img] 
[/img]
No one knows if we'll be better off financially if we progress with Article 50 – lots of People are looking at the ‘Norway model’ – they pay around €526m a year to be a EEA member, about €10.12m a week – a lot less than the £350m a week we pay in – but of course if you factor the rebate and money spent in the UK it’s £163m a week.
But people are missing just how tiny Norway is compared to the UK.
We have a population of 64m so that works out as £2.55 per person, per week.
Norway has a population of 5m, so their contribution is €2.02 per person, per week.
So in theory, all things being equal – we might drop our contributions to €2.02 per person, per week (£1.84) £129m per week – saving £34m a week, but we lose any vote or veto power within the EU – The EU can’t pass laws that affect us directly, but they can pass laws that affect us indirectly because we’ll no lower have any control over our biggest trade partner.
To be a member of the EEA we have to agree to free movement of workers within our borders, but we lose veto power over new members (Turkey who Brexiters all seem to be shitting themselves over).
It doesn’t have any bearing over refuges or migrants arriving in trucks and boats, because that wasn’t legal before.
We’ll have to rely on Westminster to spend its economic stimulus budget in places that need it (typically places that voted out) and not in the already wealthy parts (they voted in) which going on past form is unlikely – the Tories at least will fund tax cuts for the top 10% and fund infrastructure for London and the South East or try to keep their promises with the deficit.
Most painfully though, that £34m a week won’t exist – we’ve lost BILLIONS already, and no amount of Spitfires over the white cliffs will fix that.
Oh and the punch-line? France and Germany have to agree for us to be EEA members, the very countries fighting to keep the EU alive – are they going to make it easy on us, to make it look attractive to other nations?
At least someone came out of this not looking a complete moron
[url= http://indy100.independent.co.uk/article/nick-clegg-predicted-the-future-with-stunning-accuracy--b1e60RgHREb ]#MysticClegg[/url]
It doesn’t have any bearing over refuges or migrants arriving in trucks and boats, because that wasn’t legal before.
and they won't be stopped at the French side of the channel either, because France will shortly tell us to take our border police back to our side. Sangatte-on-Thames, anyone?
EU employs 23000 civil servants. UK has 430,000.
Not all civil servants have anything to do with running parliament. In fact most don't.
A neat summary of what all the Brexit papers are saying now...
http://infacts.org/brexit-press-changed-tune-straight-vote/
I think as suggested in another thread the Murdoch press will be moving to plan B shortly... It does being to look like it's not all gone according to plan doesn't it
At least they've got a plan B. So far her majesty's government seemingly don't even have a plan A.
If the government and also the VL were private companies heads would be rolling.
Has Murdoch lost much money?
Losing 'our' triple A credit rating probably means that increases to national debt interest payments will wipe out most of 'our' EU savings. Apparently.
Losing 'our' triple A credit rating probably means that increases to national debt interest payments will wipe out most of 'our' EU savings. Apparently.
The radio was saying that a 0.5% drop in GDP would more than wipe out the saving. We seem to be well beyond that