|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Who will lead us now?
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you believe that the recession will be the natural outcome of Brexit, or is Brexit simply a convenient excuse for something that the Tory party wanted to happen anyway?
One doesn't obviate the other , but it was always highly likely that an consequence of a vote for Brexit would be a recession (but we were told to ignore our brains and listen to our hearts, so).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I must admit, I was surprised that some rather middle class areas voted for Brexit. You'd think they had too much to lose. Those with less to lose might not feel quite so regretful, though.
Certainly, if the UK alone experiences a recession then I'm sure the other European countries will relish the experience. But it would be churlish of them to criticise us if our misfortune is their opportunity....
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Do you believe that the recession will be the natural outcome of Brexit, or is Brexit simply a convenient excuse for something that the Tory party wanted to happen anyway?
The natural outcome of Brexit.
As a party of business people, financiers, making money and profit, most Conservatives are unlikely to want a recession for its own sake.
The belief that cutting ourselves loose from Europe, as advocated by Mrs Leadsom, will make everybody rich and prosperous was, and remains, seriously delusional.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I have a relative who works in the City, something to do with trading Eurobonds, whatever, my eyes glaze over...Anyway, it's been good to him. He says that to continue this lucrative trade if we lose the euro "financial passport", his employer will have to open a subsidiary in Paris, or Frankfurt maybe. So he and many of his colleagues will relocate, and earn and spend their large salaries elsewhere. Also the (large) profits will be taxed elsewhere. He reckons that the cumulative effect of this move and others like it will mean a lost to the exchequer several times greater than the gain from no longer paying subs to the EU.
I'm sure there are dozens of stories like this being told throughout the financial services industry and beyond, and the total effect may well be devastating. It will take a while to take effect, and will depend on what sort of Brexit we end up with, but some sort of recession is now inevitable. Nothing I hear from David Davis indicates to me that he has a clue what to do about the risks of Brexit, and he may not even be aware of many of them. I can only hope he's getting good advice and listens to it.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Enoch: quote:
The belief that cutting ourselves loose from Europe, as advocated by Mrs Leadsom, will make everybody rich and prosperous was, and remains, seriously delusional.
I doubt they're worried about *everybody*, although there's a first time for everything.
The business people who were for Brexit were keen to get rid of those pesky EU regulations (on workers' rights, environmental standards, product safety...) which are burying them in red tape and preventing them from exercising their godlike powers of entrepreneurship to Save the Economy, create millions of new jobs and give free jam to everyone.
Actually, yes... delusional is the word.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Let's look on the bright side - Boris might be a useful person to have at the FO to deal with President Trump.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
...but, but, .. there is a free-trade deal in the offing with Australia, apparently ... perhaps. Let's not worry that Oz is like 15,000 km away or the population is like 7% of the EU's or that a free-trade agreement is not the same as a customs union. What matters is that Austalia is larger by area than the whole the EU! So that makes up for everything and then some. ... No?
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
...but, but, .. there is a free-trade deal in the offing with Australia, apparently ... perhaps.
Australian exports about £5bn to the UK, and imports about £7bn from the UK, so in real terms is a fairly small amount from a UK perspective. As Australia is a smaller economy in percentage terms these figures are more important to them.
Of course it's easy to get a free-trade deal if you just say 'yes' to everything.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Chris Stiles wrote: quote:
Of course it's easy to get a free-trade deal if you just say 'yes' to everything.
- a thought that has crossed my mind more than once recently. Usually just after somebody says how easy it will be to strike trade deals in short order now we have decided to part company with the EU.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by molopata:
...but, but, .. there is a free-trade deal in the offing with Australia, apparently ... perhaps.
Australian exports about £5bn to the UK, and imports about £7bn from the UK, so in real terms is a fairly small amount from a UK perspective. As Australia is a smaller economy in percentage terms these figures are more important to them.
Of course it's easy to get a free-trade deal if you just say 'yes' to everything.
And small in Aust terms. In 2014-15, Aust exports to Japan were $46.5 bn. The figures for China and the US are even higher.
Then of course is the reliability of the UK as a trading partner. When the decision there was to go off with a new European girlfriend 40 years ago, there was very substantial damage to Tasmania and to our friends across the Tasman. It has now decided to dump the EU and seeks to come back to older relationships. We're well justified in asking how long this mood will last.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
I well remember as a teenager being both aghast and ashamed that we could dump the Commonwealth in the way we did.
I still feel that.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I note that the new PM, in being asked during the Trident debate whether she was personally prepared to "authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men, women and children?'"
Said "Yes" smiled, and went on to try to score a party political point.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
100,000? Is there something wrong with your nukes?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
They're quite small, 8 times of the power of the Hiroshima bomb, and the deployed sub can only carry 4 - which require a day or more's notice to fire, and are part manufactured and part serviced in the ISA.
But apparently, this is vital to our defence and will stop a country the size of Russia from attacking us ....
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They're quite small, 8 times of the power of the Hiroshima bomb, and the deployed sub can only carry 4 - which require a day or more's notice to fire, and are part manufactured and part serviced in the ISA.
But apparently, this is vital to our defence and will stop a country the size of Russia from attacking us ....
What, however, is a better, improved alternative? what deterrent, what piece of equipment or system, would provide a real, practical, workable convincing, and more importantly improved, deterrent?
I do not of course know the answer, so I definitely support the retention of Britain's nuclear deterrent.
My granddaughters and their future families will be living through this century and they should be able to look forward to a life without world wars.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
If the deterrent is not independent of the US, which it isn't, it is entirely futile. Also, strategic planning that involves committing a massive crime of humanity is not acceptable to me.
The alternative is a high quality conventional defence force and high quality diplomacy. And probably, covert investment in sabotage. After all, most missiles have computer operated guidance systems.
[ 19. July 2016, 06:55: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They're quite small, 8 times of the power of the Hiroshima bomb, and the deployed sub can only carry 4 - which require a day or more's notice to fire, and are part manufactured and part serviced in the ISA.
But apparently, this is vital to our defence and will stop a country the size of Russia from attacking us ....
I read that our subs will carry 8 missiles, but could carry more, and that each missile will have 3 warheads, but could contain more, and that they are thought to have 7 to 30 times the power of Little Boy.
A launch could, if targeted at Russian cities, and if all the warheads arrived and detonated, kill millions, perhaps a few tens of millions.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
They're quite small, 8 times of the power of the Hiroshima bomb, and the deployed sub can only carry 4 - which require a day or more's notice to fire, and are part manufactured and part serviced in the ISA.
But apparently, this is vital to our defence and will stop a country the size of Russia from attacking us ....
I read that our subs will carry 8 missiles, but could carry more, and that each missile will have 3 warheads, but could contain more, and that they are thought to have 7 to 30 times the power of Little Boy.
A launch could, if targeted at Russian cities, and if all the warheads arrived and detonated, kill millions, perhaps a few tens of millions.
Just to be clear on the numbers, we've unilaterally decided that they will only carry 8, each with 3 warheads. However, they were built, and until recently did, carry a full war load of 12 missiles, each with 12 warheads - meaning each boat could deal with 144 targets.
The missile bodies are manufactured in the USA, the warheads are built in the UK to UK design.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
quote:
However, they were built, and until recently did, carry a full war load of 12 missiles, each with 12 warheads - meaning each boat could deal with 144 targets.
A gross of death - something rather English about that.
Which reminds me - I wonder if a post-Brexit Mrs May will be reclaiming our right to measure the energy released by each warhead in terms of Btu?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
