General / Off-Topic UK Only - POLL - How would you now vote if casting your vote again for the referendum?

[Talarin]

Population?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

From the Mail:

Today Mr Fox revealed he had held 'very fruitful' talks with the Canadian trade minister, who said on Friday that her country were keen for Britain to piggyback on the landmark deal it has just signed with the EU even after Brexit takes effect.

He told the Sunday Times he is 'scoping about a dozen free-trade deals outside the EU to be ready for when we leave', adding: 'We can make Britain a beacon for open trade.'

Revealing a number of countries had already been in contact about striking free trade deals, Mr Fox said: 'We've already had a number of countries saying: we'd love to do a trade deal with the world's fifth-biggest economy without having to deal with the other 27 members of the EU.'

The willingness of leading players from the world's most powerful economies to open trade talks defies countless warnings from pro-EU campaigners before last months' referendum that Britain would struggle to strike free trade deals if we cut ties from Brussels.

In a further sign of the potential for Britain to strike lucrative free trade deals once it leaves the EU, a leading US Senator has tabled a bill calling on President Obama to maintain all existing trade deals with Britain and immediately strike a new deal with the UK once it cuts ties with Brussels.

Republican Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas condemned Mr Obama for telling the UK it would be at 'the back of the queue' for new trade deals if it left the EU during the campaign.

He now wants the President to commit to retaining the 'special relationship' with the UK to help it 'chart its own path in the world'.

Guardian has an interesting opinion piece also: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/17/brexit-means-big-government-hard-truth-leave-voters

Economists for Brexit, a 13-strong group who championed the UK quitting the EU, want British voters to embrace the anxiety that comes with flexible working and rates of pay that go up and down in line with the demand for their services, as determined by global capitalism.

Of course their message is more optimistic and is about developing high-skilled jobs. And they are not such principled free marketeers they can’t find room to offset their call for unfettered free trade with a bit of government subsidy directed at hard-pressed parts of the economy, particularly manufacturing and agriculture. Infrastructure spending with borrowed money is also allowed.

But it is noticeable that the US-style green card entry system they propose would shift the balance towards high-skilled workers without necessarily cutting the numbers. As the Tory MEP Daniel Hannan said a day after the vote, a points system to determine who can work in the UK and who can’t would not on its own prevent the population growing by 1 million every three years, mostly through immigration.

 

[FuzzySpider]

Economists for Brexit, a 13-strong group who championed the UK quitting the EU, want British voters to embrace the anxiety that comes with flexible working and rates of pay that go up and down in line with the demand for their services, as determined by global capitalism.

In other words; embrace less job security and lower pay.

 

[Becks]

we'd love to do a trade deal with the world's fifth-biggest economy without having to deal with the other 27 members of the EU.

There's a simple reason for that.

When negotiating a free trade deal the rule of thumb is: "The bigger partner determines the conditions."

But in this situation the economy of the UK depends on those new deals. They have to act fast to minimize the damage, thus the UK is in a weaker position to negotiate. The conditions the UK will get from those countries won't be nearly as good as the deals the UK could get with the economic power of the EU in its back.

It's also funny how he doesn't mention which countries offered those deals and how important they are for the UKs economy. You could make a deal with Ruanda, sure, but that wouldn't even have an effect.


And the worlds most powerful economies want to open trade talks? Like China who ridiculed the UK for not having enough personell? Or the US which moved the UK to the back of the queue? Or India who wants better conditions now?

Even with those trade deals with those countries, the UK needs one with the EU in the first place, not only since the EU is its biggest trade partner but also because the UK depends massively on EU imports.

 

[Sunleader]

Fifty-seven per cent of Britons are opposed to holding a second referendum on their country's membership to the European Union ---- Here is confirmation that manifestation in London for a second referendum, was not representative of the population ----- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...esa-may-general-election-voters-a7140721.html

Ehm Mate.
No Offense.

But an Article of an Newspaper Calling itself "The Independent"

Is doing a Poll with this Sheet.

Notice the Wording Pls.

Option 1.

There Should be a Second Referendum on Britains membership of the EU ONCE A DEAL WITH THE EU HAS BEEN REACHED

Option 2.

There Should not be a Second Referendum ONCE A DEAL WITH THE EU HAS BEEN REACHED


I love these Importand little Details which Corrupt Media uses to Manipulate Opinions......




Edit:
For those not Realizing the Fallacy.
But any UK Citizen who made even the Slightest Effort to Inform himself. Knows that Negotiations and thus a Deal will ONLY be done AFTER Article 50 has been Invoked.
And once Article 50 has been Invoked there is no Turning Back. So an Referendum at this Point is Meaningless because UK is Out. A Referendum cannot change this because UK Government at this Point no longer has any Power over this.


And here is an Importand thing.

The Idea that the UK could Hold another Referendum when they got a Deal at their Hands. Is an Advertising of the LEAVE Campaign. Which Basicly Claim if they Vote Leave they could get a Good Deal and if they dont they could just Call the whole thing Off and get some Nice further Exceptions from the EU for Staying.
And Sorry but this doesnt Work. Nor is it in any Way Related to the London Movement.

 

[Talarin]

I'd never really noted this Economists for Brexit lot before, so had a look through their website. It's worth a look - if only for a counter-point to much of what's been written elsewhere. I can't really contrast their claims against those of HM Treasury and others, but they give the economic model used to predict post-Brexit impacts a bit of a savaging on grounds that I know have at least an element of truth.

http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/

@Becks - so has the narrative moved on from "you won't be able to get a deal" to "you'll only be able to get poor deals"? Because that's actually quite a shifting of the goalposts.

 

[Becks]

@Becks - so has the narrative moved on from "you won't be able to get a deal" to "you'll only be able to get poor deals"? Because that's actually quite a shifting of the goalposts.

I haven't said once in all the threads that the UK won't be able to get deals.

 

[FuzzySpider]

I'd never really noted this Economists for Brexit lot before, so had a look through their website. It's worth a look - if only for a counter-point to much of what's been written elsewhere. I can't really contrast their claims against those of HM Treasury and others, but they give the economic model used to predict post-Brexit impacts a bit of a savaging on grounds that I know have at least an element of truth.

http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/

The site is a joke. And a bad one. Just taking one section of one of their pamphlets reveals much:

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...sts+for+Brexit+-+The+Economy+after+Brexit.pdf

Four areas of regulation can be highlighted.

First, European governments have been more emphatic than the global average about the dangers of global warming (Robinson, 2008). The EU has therefore adopted the renewables agenda with greater zeal than most of the world’s nations and forced member states to replace low-cost by high-cost energy sources. Coal-fired power stations have been closed down, offshore wind farms built and so on. In an article in theFinancial Times in January 2014, Lakshi Mittal, the Indian entrepreneur with interests in steel and heavy industry in many countries, warned that EU’s energy policies had undermined the competitiveness of its manufacturing industries. The recent problems of Tata Steel bear this out.

Second, the EU has pressed for social legislation (such as the 2003 Working Time Directive and the 2004 Gender Equality Directive) that adds to companies’ costs and reduces employment. Open Europe, a think tank that regards itself as neutral in the referendum debate, estimated in 2011 that EU social legislation by itself made the UK worse off by £15 billion, about 1 per cent of national output (Booth et al, 2011).

Third, control over financial regulation passed from UK authorities to EU bodies connected to the Commission as a result of the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Since then, several new interferences – including the cap on bankers’ bonuses and an outright attack on financial derivatives businesses – have damaged the City of London and reduced its growth. For 40 years to 2008, the City had been the most dynamic and successful part of the UK economy.

Finally, literally thousands of regulations to ban substances and manage processes have emanated from EU institutions since 1973 - and particularly since the drive for “the single market” began in 1992. They have affected activities that range from fine art auctions to herbal medicines, and have disturbed established and profitable businesses. Often the only aim has been to impose on the UK a standard already existing in France or Germany, even though the UK had previously been happy with its own arrangements (Congdon, 2013).

First - Good on Europe! The dangers of global warming is possibly the biggest issue we face in our time, and efforts to get to grips with it need are a point in favour to any sane observer. I know the anti-intellectualist and anti-science lobby disagree, but they should be ignored at all costs.

Second - Whilst I do admittedly sympathise with legislation brought in to protect employee rights, there is absolutely no citation or any studies which show this has led to a fall in employment. Indeed giving people more time off not only increases employee productivity and happiness, but reinforces the "social contract". Giving women proper maternity rights creates further opportunities in the workplace. And making sure employers can't simply fire pregnant women means job security - which in turn leads to more consumer confidence which is vital for the greater economy.The writer of this (Congdon) is no CIPD qualified and does not have a Masters Degree in HR, my girlfriend does, and the word she used to describe this objection was a word that I can't type here without getting the moderators angry. Suffice to say, on this issue he is devoid of either honesty or intelligence.

Third - There is no word to describe this other than "idiotic". This is seriously idiotic. To claim that a cap on bankers bonuses (a 200% bonus cap! Not mentioned in this propaganda pamphlet) is an "outright attack" on our financial sector is so stupid I can't find words to describe it. Furthermore, to imply that our financial sector is harmed by being in Europe is at odds with the reality - which is that the worlds financial markets see us as the gateway to Europe because of our inclusion in the EU along with our financial independence.

Finally - ok, now they've got a point. The fact that EU regulations mean we can't pollute our water supplies, can't use lead in pipes, can't use neonicotinoids even though they wipe out bee populations, is a sticking point. I personally would love for a radioactive dumping ground to be next to my home. I can't wait for Mr Congdon to volunteer his back yard be used to dispose of asbestos as soon as we leave the EU, as I am sure he will.

Keep away from that site - it is a worse joke than Boris Johnson.

Talarin with respect you don't appear to understand international trade. Here is the ex-head of the WTO (World Trade Organization).

<span style="font-family: sans-serif">[video=youtube;Z6LVNpfES8k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6LVNpfES8k[/video]

Even if getting rid of those regulations gives us some amazing economy (which it won't) it still won't matter.

 

[beelbeebub]

They had a very poor analysis of the costs of low paid immigrant workers vs the tax take.

It assumed the low paid single immigrant worker earned minimum wage and worked only37.5hrs a week.

I apportioned the cost of the NHS to the average single immigrant worker on a simple pro rata basis, rather than taking in to account the fact that immigrant workers tend to use the NHS less than, say a 70 year old UK citizen.

It assumed a family of 4 immigrants only had one working member who worked minimum wage for 37.5hrs a week.

It assumed the make up, of single vs family immigrants was the same as the UK population, when it is more probable to be weighted towards the single and double working couples.

It made no account of VAT, fuel, duty, council tax and the other non income taxes.

Now I'm not going to argue the result one way or another, but the methodology was poor.

 

[Talarin]

I haven't said once in all the threads that the UK won't be able to get deals.

My apologies - I thought you had. I was incorrect.

First - Good on Europe! The dangers of global warming is possibly the biggest issue we face in our time, and efforts to get to grips with it need are a point in favour to any sane observer. I know the anti-intellectualist and anti-science lobby disagree, but they should be ignored at all costs.

Nonsense. Even the most fevered dreams of the anti-industrial movement don't rate potential outcomes from emissions to be a problem of the scale required to meet the path set out. Certainly the IPCC doesn't. Mark Carney recently spoke in Canada and identified $5tn to $7tn of investment required per annum to meet the global infrastructure requirements of current commitments, and that ignores the problems previously discussed in that Renewables can't work without other reliable sources of power gen. See: the FP.

If things are as clear cut as you say, then by all means prove me wrong with some empirical science that demonstrates that level of cost, or even two thirds of it. I'm sure IPCC AR5 (the most recent aggregation of the science of man-made climate change) will have something for you.

You're entitled to your opinion, but to disparage those that disagree with you in such a way is beyond farcical.

Your second and third points: I tend to agree with you - although as I said when I made the original comment, I have no way to gauge the competing claims made. One set of economists say one thing, another say another. The reality is likely to be a mix of all things.

Point four: We've touched on this element earlier in the thread. Is all EU legislation positive for the UK? Probably not. Is all EU legislation bad for the UK? Probably not. So, meh.

Re: Understanding international trade - I don't claim to. But the view does appear to be that some sort of deal will be done, the question is how much will the UK have to give up. Assuming that free movement is a red line for both parties, then integration into the EU single market isn't going to happen. But that's not the end of the world imo.

They had a very poor analysis of the costs of low paid immigrant workers vs the tax take...

You've examined some of their claims in more detail than I, so I'll take your word for it. What I did do is have a quick skim through was the Powerpoint presentation of their headline position and much of it made sense to me, at least on the surface. (But, not checked much at all - it was just a reference off the back of the Guardian article I linked to.)

 

[FuzzySpider]

Re: Understanding international trade - I don't claim to. But the view does appear to be that some sort of deal will be done, the question is how much will the UK have to give up. Assuming that free movement is a red line for both parties, then integration into the EU single market isn't going to happen. But that's not the end of the world imo.

Not the end of the world, just the end of the UK economy. We'll end up like Russia after the collapse of communism. Do you remember that? People were eating their pets to get by.

Let me explain this. This is the philosophy of economics.

Some time, during the last week, a cow has died. Not a metaphorical cow or some hypothetical cow. But a real cow. It was killed, its corpse was chopped up, the various parts of its body were dismembered and processed, and then the pieces of this cow were shipped to various destinations.

This cow died for London. But it wasn't the only cow, there were others. How many cows, every single day, die for London? How many butchers operate, each day, for this city? How many steaks are made? How much meat for burgers are shipped to fast food outlets? How many ribs are taken to fancy restaurants all over London? How much leather is needed? How many tonnes of the left-overs are then ground up and processed to make dogfood and catfood eaten by Londons pet population? How many liters of milk are extracted from other cows? How many are pasturised, skimmed, semi skimmed? How much plastic is produced and turned into cartons for the movement of this milk?

Think about the logistics of this, the complexities and the infrastructure, people, and organization required.

And I'm only talking about cows and a city.

How much wheat has needed to be grown for the city? How much of that converted into flour and then into bread? How much of that milk is going to be used for chocolate? And how much fruit is the city going to consume? How many bananas from Africa are required? How much coffee from Brazil?

Think about the water that needs to be pumped in London each day. How many gallons do you think? It needs to be chemically treated, kept a constant pressure, and be available for everything in the city. And then it needs to be... taken out. How many gallons of human waste are moved out of the city each day? That'll all end up in a treatment plant somewhere, and will also need to be chemically processed.

All of this requires energy. How many Kwh are going to be required? How much oil is going to need to be refined and processed and taken to the capital to run everyones cars? And what about the trucks and deliveries of food we've talked of?

And what about our infrastructure? How many bricks and how much concrete will the city need to repair buildings? How many trains are required? How many surgical procedures will occur in the city today? How much medical equipment will it need and how many doctors?

A city isn't just a bunch of houses with people living and working there, it's an entire process which is ongoing and needs constant nourishment in all kinds of forms.

We're talking one city. Our economy is like a gigantic real time strategy game, only with millions of lives in the balance. And our economy has grown for the past 60 years, not 43, to be enmeshed with that of Europe, because our cities and towns have needed all things, from milk to metal, in order to function.

Rather than just wood, stone, and gold as resources there are so many different things we need to run an economy no one person on earth could even name half of them. It's a constant and ever changing process which is finely balanced and delicate. As I said before, it's an ecosystem. And like any ecosystem massive change will cause a mass extinction. A few years ago a few American businesses (egged on by the lack of regulation that UKIP seem to want us to adopt) took a gamble and bought out weak debt bonds - they nearly collapsed the world economy.

Now, think about all of that, but imagine that half of what is supplying this city either stops or becomes far more expensive. Literally overnight. And it's not even that simple.

Some stuff will stay the same, or even become a little cheaper. But some things (such as furniture) you won't see any of compared to before. Certain drugs, medical equipment, citrus fruits, coffee, and tea? We can't get that ourselves, we have to go to others. And we'll have to work to get it.

But wait, it gets worse.

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/

In terms of value, we import a third more than we export. Our trade balance is negative to the tune of 191 billion US dollars. We can not be a self-sufficent economy. We simply can't increase our output by a third overnight and achieve balance. Serious pain is to come.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/17/brexit-impact-horrible-uk-economy-richard-buxton

Take a look at this video. Don't listen to his words, but look at the mans general demeanour. This is one of our most successful economists.

[video=youtube;mMPugIKwY1s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMPugIKwY1s[/video]

He is devastated. Any economist worth his salt knows what has happened is dreadful - if we try to roll back on a lifetimes worth of economic growth we're trying to return to some impossible bygone era where things just didn't work as they do today.

 

[beelbeebub]

Population?

Yes could be that, although 5 billion people is pretty hard to do.

There's also the issue that a huge population is no good if they have no money to buy stuff off us.

The richest billion people are in the EU, US, Canada, Australia and a few oil states (including Norway). The average (and I can't remember if it's GDP or wage, so lets assume it's wage which is the best case) per capita of the commonwealth is around $3500 per year. That's including Canada, Australia and NZ. Take them away and it falls. That's less than 10% that of the UK.

Nigeria has around 3x the population of Spain (a poorly performing EU nation), yet imports only $50bn a year compared to Spain's $340bn. The UK exports $20bn to Spain, yet only $2bn to Nigeria. Even if we became the #1 country of originwe'd still be exporting less (around $15bn) than to Spain. In fact if our exports to Spain dropped by 10% we'd need to double our exports to Nigeria to compensate.

The point is the two best markets for the stuff we make are the US and the EU and in the EU we're in a very strong position as we can set the technical standards and market revs. Trying to make up any disruption to our EU trade from other sources is going to be tough.

 

[Talarin]

Not the end of the world, just the end of the UK economy. We'll end up like Russia after the collapse of communism. Do you remember that? People were eating their pets to get by.

You really are taken with hyperbole, aren't you?

The worst case scenario is that we fail to make any sort of trade agreement with the EU and the rest of the world. Open Europe (which seems to have been the most even-handed in it's assessments to me) estimated that the UK economy would be -2.2% worse off in 2030 than would otherwise be the case under these circumstances - which are overall pretty unlikely. And that also assumes that the EU will be a static entity - even more unlikely. It might grow, it might stagnate and it also might go into recession.

Other institutions predicted varying other levels of hit ranging up to -10% in 2030 (IMF, National Institute of Economics, PwC, HM Treasury) but (as I mentioned earlier) there is a very valid criticism of the models, in that they didn't model any change in trade with the rest of the world. Those Economists for Brexit guys say that the same models showing economic disaster would have been misapplied in other historic circumstances which we have data for (but I've no idea if that's true or not - but on searching around I've not found any challenge to that statement).

Shorter term, obviously we're going to suffer for exactly the reasons you state. Lack of confidence, lack of foreign investment, detangling or reorganising the ties we have with the Eurozone. No one knows how bad it's going to get, but ironically the more pessimistic people get the worse it will be (as it drives confidence out of the markets). As plans become firmer that uncertainty lifts.

It's absolutely not the "end of the world" that you're predicting and I can't see any rational reason for getting so hysterical about it over the longer term of the piece. We may be worse off, true. But if your only reason for staying in the EU was because it made some of us richer, then you probably can't comprehend the non-economic reasons why people might have voted the way they did.

I asked this question earlier (can't remember if it was this thread or not): Would you tell the people of Scotland that they shouldn't have independence? By the reasoning of what you've said, they and no other country should ever seek separation from a larger economic or political union.

Important note - there were risks to remaining in the EU too. With GB having a separate currency to the majority of the remainder of the EU, we are vulnerable to shifts in exchange rate no matter whether we're in the trading bloc or not - so the point about exchange rates affecting import prices is almost irrelevant. Even now, with the initial shockwaves of Brexit still being felt by economies across the zone, GBP vs. Euro has held up surprisingly well. if the Eurozone continues to suffer the relative economic malaise it's been in then our ability to respond from within the EU to that depression is more limited than in a Brexit scenario. Just some food for thought...

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Yes could be that, although 5 billion people is pretty hard to do.

There's also the issue that a huge population is no good if they have no money to buy stuff off us.

The richest billion people are in the EU, US, Canada, Australia and a few oil states (including Norway). The average (and I can't remember if it's GDP or wage, so lets assume it's wage which is the best case) per capita of the commonwealth is around $3500 per year. That's including Canada, Australia and NZ. Take them away and it falls. That's less than 10% that of the UK.

Nigeria has around 3x the population of Spain (a poorly performing EU nation), yet imports only $50bn a year compared to Spain's $340bn. The UK exports $20bn to Spain, yet only $2bn to Nigeria. Even if we became the #1 country of originwe'd still be exporting less (around $15bn) than to Spain. In fact if our exports to Spain dropped by 10% we'd need to double our exports to Nigeria to compensate.

The point is the two best markets for the stuff we make are the US and the EU and in the EU we're in a very strong position as we can set the technical standards and market revs. Trying to make up any disruption to our EU trade from other sources is going to be tough.

Yep. Fair point, well made although I'll point out that the vast majority of developing nations are outwith the EU - so that's most of the trade growth. I was wondering the same about population within the EU after I made that post - how many of those 500m people do we actually trade (or want to trade) with? (Hypothetical question - not expecting any sort of answer).

 

[FuzzySpider]

The point is the two best markets for the stuff we make are the US and the EU and in the EU we're in a very strong position as we can set the technical standards and market revs. Trying to make up any disruption to our EU trade from other sources is going to be tough.

You might like to see this;

http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/gbr/#Destinations

Imagine ripping out the purple blocks...

You really are taken with hyperbole, aren't you?

No. The economy will have to be completely restructured. That isn't hyperbole, it's fact.

Such a restructure is going create major upheaval.

 

[Trinity Star]

Not the end of the world, just the end of the UK economy. We'll end up like Russia after the collapse of communism. Do you remember that? People were eating their pets to get by.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMPugIKwY1s

He is devastated. Any economist worth his salt knows what has happened is dreadful - if we try to roll back on a lifetimes worth of economic growth we're trying to return to some impossible bygone era where things just didn't work as they do today.

I don't like the result so just keep getting the peasants to vote until I get the result I want.

 

[Becks]

I don't like the result so just keep getting the peasants to vote until I get the result I want.

FuzzySpider asked nowhere in his post for a second referendum.

 

[Adept]

I've got a question for you non-UK Europeans;

How is the UK in the eyes of the general European populace right now as far as you can tell? How would we as a country best go about restoring international good will, if it has been somewhat lost in this tragedy?

It is a really hard question (and I'm late with my reply).

The UK's special snowflake better-than-johnny-foreigner attitude has always been exasperating. The rest of the EU have put up with Thatcher's handbagging and the feeling that the UK wants all the perks and none of the costs or responsibilities.

On top of that you have done this, and now will behave like a cat that made a fuss about getting out but when the door is open will not actually go outside.

The best would be for the UK to "grow up" and forego the frankly unfair membership fee rebate which has gotten added to payments of the rest of us. Also trying to game the financial system to benefit the City while undermining structures that would help the Euro work ahould stop.

I dunno. Pull the trigger on article 50 and become like Norway? Go it alone and become a warning example about nationalist hubris? Apologise for the sillyness and start healing the wounds of the relentless anti EU disinformation campaign of the last 40 years?

I don't know. There may not be any good answers to be had :/

 

[beelbeebub]

Yep. Fair point, well made although I'll point out that the vast majority of developing nations are outwith the EU - so that's most of the trade growth. I was wondering the same about population within the EU after I made that post - how many of those 500m people do we actually trade (or want to trade) with? (Hypothetical question - not expecting any sort of answer).

Going to assume "outwith" is a typo/autocorrect but not sure what you mean.

Our to EU export destinations are
Germany
The Netherlands
Switzerland
France
Ireland
Belgium & Luxembourg
Spain
Italy

USA and China are our big others

Our imports are from pretty much the same people.

We export more to Belgium, $22bn than we do to the entirety of the African continent.

The GDP of the entirety of Africa is less than France.

To use an analogy, right now we have a stall in the prime spot of one of the richest shopping centres in the world. yes the shopping centre puts some restrictions on the quality of our goods and how much we pay our staff, holidays etch, but we have a seat on the management board so have a say in those rules.

We're going to give that up for a smaller stall and no say in the running of things, and hope to make it up by selling stuff through our other shops in large but poor shopping centres.

 

[Talarin]

Going to assume "outwith" is a typo/autocorrect but not sure what you mean.

...

We export more to Belgium, $22bn than we do to the entirety of the African continent.

The GDP of the entirety of Africa is less than France.

To use an analogy, right now we have a stall in the prime spot of one of the richest shopping centres in the world. yes the shopping centre puts some restrictions on the quality of our goods and how much we pay our staff, holidays etch, but we have a seat on the management board so have a say in those rules.

We're going to give that up for a smaller stall and no say in the running of things, and hope to make it up by selling stuff through our other shops in large but poor shopping centres.

Yeah, but that's not always going to be true.

To continue the shopping centre analogy, we've taken a punt to refocus our attention on those poorer shopping centres whilst retaining a concession stall in the single largest shopping centre in the world because we figure there's more potential growth in those less desirable ones right now - and the sum of what we might be able to achieve could well be higher than if we'd stayed put. We might be right, we might be wrong - but we've undeniably being doing less and less business in the Euro-centre over the last few years, whilst our transactions in the other sites have increased.

Our advisers tell us the Euro-centre will grow by 1.7% pa for the next few years (estimate to be downgraded because of our exit from the facility), whilst emerging markets will grow by nearly 5%, with the best hitting nearly 7% (IMF Forecast, Jan 2016). In the time period we're considering (decades) those emerging and developing markets will likely catch-up to the largest shopping centre in the world, but with the added bonus of additional footfall (population).

Much of the risk in this scenario involves how much business we can continue to drive through our concession store, but it is absolutely in everyone's interests in get to a deal of some sort.

So, from a purely economic sense - in this analogy it's a sensible strategy, barring unquantified short term costs and loss of business from moving ourselves to our new sites.

 

[Becks]

Our advisers tell us the Euro-centre will grow by 1.7% pa for the next few years (estimate to be downgraded because of our exit from the facility), whilst emerging markets will grow by nearly 5%, with the best hitting nearly 7% (IMF Forecast, Jan 2016). In the time period we're considering (decades) those emerging and developing markets will likely catch-up to the largest shopping centre in the world, but with the added bonus of additional footfall (population).

That makes sense when you look at the relative numbers yeah. If you look at the absolute numbers you will see that the 1,7% growth of the EU is far far more than the 7% growth of the ermerging markets.

 

[Adept]

@Becks - I think the fear that some people have is that their children are going to be living under Sharia Law in the future or something like that.

I have met an Englishman who believed this some ~4 years back at the University campus in Turku. What struck me was that he was utterly 100% serious and terrified. He was sure that the West faced an existential crisis and some kind of reverse Crusade was happening. Not with armies, but somehow the muslim hordes were coming and implementing Sharia law.

It is bizarre, but it is also the kind of deep and consuming fear that can make normal people do monstrous things. I don't know which bunch has managed to push this bogeyman so successfully in England, but they have a lot to answer for. The man I spoke with may well end up doing very bad things, but he is a victim as well. Somebody has turned him into a brainwashed weapon

The weirdest thing is the Muslim world is weak. There is anger and frustration there, but it is not some all conquering horde but a bunch of people where the vast majority get dealt very bad cards. We should he helping them, not terrified of them.

There will be no Sharia law in the West. The real danger is eroding our own values due to these fears. When we treat muslims as dangerous savages and deny their human rights and dignity we are eroding those very values we are so proud of.

I'm not proud of anybody's pale skin. I'm proud of our liberal democracies, human rights and tolerance.