Britain Sets Date for EU Referendum -- Brexit

[overthere]

You can replace imports a hell of a lot easier than you can replace exports. If they impose punitive tariffs on trade with the UK then the British will do the same.

But the actual amount of British imports from the EU exceeds their exports to them. And the countries it has the most trade with are also the most influential, ie, the Germans.

Tariffs on trade for non members are part and parcel of the EU. It is the main purpose of the organization: to provide a huge and protected common market.

Yes, I understand the direction and amount of the trade now. That is not the point or question. The questions are : where will the EU seek to replace the imports now coming from the UK? The answer is: mainly from within the EU. The second question is how and where does the UK send those exports to now? The answer is: unknown and very uncertain.

The trade dis[parity has benefited the UK, and was a reason for remaining. Now that is lost and there is no replacement in the foreseeable future.

[Wilber]

I don't agree that this decision was made in anger. A lot of Britons had the rare opportunity to express themselves directly on an issue that resonated with large numbers, on both sides. I think they made the wrong choice, but I respect their reasons for making their individual choices, and their right to make it.

Anger and emotion, drummed up by a bunch of used carpet salesmen with what have turned out to be largely lies. It was not a decision driven by logic or reality. I also respect a person's right to make a decision but that doesn't mean I have to respect the decision itself or the reasons for making it.

Edited July 2, 2016 by Wilber

[bush_cheney2004]

Anger and emotion, drummed up by a bunch of used carpet salesmen with what have turned out to be largely lies. It was not a decision driven by logic or reality. I also respect a person's right to make a decision but that doesn't mean I have to respect the decision itself or the reasons for making it.

So what would have been your opinion of the decision and process if the Remain supporters had prevailed ? Is their "logic or reality" superior even though identical methods were used to sway voters ?

[Wilber]

So what would have been your opinion of the decision and process if the Remain supporters had prevailed ? Is their "logic or reality" superior even though identical methods were used to sway voters ?

We'll never know because all the crap now hitting the fan wouldn't be.

[bush_cheney2004]

We'll never know because all the crap now hitting the fan wouldn't be.

Perhaps just a different kind of crap would be hitting the fan.

[Icebound]

The Nordic countries managed to have both balanced budgets and social welfare program for most of the last fifty years.

The Canadian problem is we want to have our cake and eat it too. We want all the programs but none of the costs. So we get the programs and borrow the money to put it on our kids heads.

I'm not suggesting there should be no social welfare programs. I'm suggesting that we should decide what we need and then pay for it. A lot of countries in Europe do the same as we do, "generously" gift people with programs and services they don't have to pay for by borrowing, which is why their economies are in such a mess. If you continue to run up bills then eventually you face a time when you have no choice but to impose austerity. Of course, by then people like Trudeau are usually retired and don't have to deal with the mess.

Well, sure:.... exactly.... You have to PAY for it, and the Nordics do. Up to 25% VAT on some items.

Try setting the GST in Canada to 25% and lets hear the uproar.

...

[Wilber]

Taxation as a percentage GDP. Norway 44%. Denmark 49%. Sweden 46%. Finland 44%. UK 39%. Canada 32%. Rounded off to the nearest whole number.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Wilber

[jacee]

Taxation as a percentage GDP. Norway 44%. Denmark 49%. Sweden 46%. Finland 44%. UK 39%. Canada 32%. Rounded off to the nearest whole number.

Ah so that's how Norway does it!

And I'll bet the rich pay more taxes too.

.

[Argus]

Well, sure:.... exactly.... You have to PAY for it, and the Nordics do. Up to 25% VAT on some items.

Try setting the GST in Canada to 25% and lets hear the uproar.

Yes, well, the problem is that PAYing for it in Canada doesn't necessarily mean you get it.

We pay about the same for health care as the French and Nordic countries, but we get a substantially inferior health care system. The Ontario government introduced health care premiums and spent a lot more on health. Paul Martin and Stephen Harper poured billions more into health care. The system has not improved at all because no one has the balls to address the systemic inefficiencies or make sweeping changes.

I'd be willing to pay higher taxes if it meant we had the same health care system as the French, a reasonably capable military, and roads that weren't filled with potholes and patches.

Edited July 3, 2016 by Argus

[Wilber]

France 45%. Germany 41%. US 27%.

I tend to agree with Argus when it comes to health care. We can't seem to learn from other successful public systems and make the changes we need to.

[-TSS-]

If someone is going to lose his job it seems to be Juncker. This is a disaster for the EU and Brexit gives a reason or an excuse to get rid of Juncker whose alcoholic-problem is a thinly veiled secret and he has embarassed himself many times in public.

[Big Guy]

First Johnson and now Farage have bailed out of politics. First it was "Follow me taking the our Nation out of the EU". So they throw a wrench into the British motor then decide to bail to let others worry about it and/or try to fix it.

They sure played the Brexit side for a bunch of dopes. They led the "Leave" side lemmings to the edge of the precipice and when they started to fall, these two leaders took off in the other direction.

Hey JT - see what happens when you have referendums.

[BC_chick]

First Johnson and now Farage have bailed out of politics. First it was "Follow me taking the our Nation out of the EU". So they throw a wrench into the British motor then decide to bail to let others worry about it and/or try to fix it.

They sure played the Brexit side for a bunch of dopes. They led the "Leave" side lemmings to the edge of the precipice and when they started to fall, these two leaders took off in the other direction.

Johnson wasn't a surprise. From day one there were numerous articles about how he wouldn't want to lead Britain to its demise. But Farage! Oh my, I laughed my butt off when I saw that today.

I still feel really bad for the 48%, but this debacle is turning out way more entertaining than I'd imagined.

[Wilber]

Farage quiting as UKIP leader but keeps MEP seat. Britain to lower corporation tax to encourage business to stay. That's sticking it to the elites.

[taxme]

So there is no plan other than don't worry be happy.

The losers have yet to be determined

I told you that you need to chill out. All will be ok. If you keep listening to the lying mainstream media all the time, they will continue to get your knickers all wet. Relax.

[taxme]

Oh, they will definetaly do what is right for them.

The globalist elite banksters rule and run the world. They dictate the markets, not the little peons like you and me. You need to do a lot more reading and get your facts right for a change. The elites are in a panic and that can only be good for you and me.

[Wilber]

Your so called elites are planning for their future, peons like you can only wait and see what they are left with.

[?Impact]

Yes, well, the problem is that PAYing for it in Canada doesn't necessarily mean you get it.

We pay about the same for health care as the French and Nordic countries, but we get a substantially inferior health care system. The Ontario government introduced health care premiums and spent a lot more on health. Paul Martin and Stephen Harper poured billions more into health care. The system has not improved at all because no one has the balls to address the systemic inefficiencies or make sweeping changes.

I'd be willing to pay higher taxes if it meant we had the same health care system as the French, a reasonably capable military, and roads that weren't filled with potholes and patches.

Health care spending

Canada 10.4% of GDP

France 11.5% of GDP

Total government revenue

Canada 32.2% of GDP

France 44.6% of GDP

In both cases France is substantially higher than Canada.

All nordic countries have substantially higher government revenue than Canada, but it is true that Norway and Finland do have lower health care spending. Note that government spending on higher education indirectly offsets health care spending, I know that makes a big difference in the case of France but I haven't looked closely at the nordic countries. The other high cost to health care in Canada is our geography.

Edited July 4, 2016 by ?Impact

[Argus]

Health care spending

Canada 10.4% of GDP

France 11.5% of GDP

Health care spending per capita in $US

Canada 4429

France 4124

Looks comparable to me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita

[SpankyMcFarland]

Brexit effects continue:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2016/jul/05/mark-carney-to-outline-bank-of-englands-brexit-stability-moves-business-live

And more troubles in the Eurozone, this time in Italy:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/27/italy-eyes-40bn-bank-rescue-as-first-brexit-domino-falls/

[SpankyMcFarland]

I'd be willing to pay higher taxes if it meant we had the same health care system as the French, a reasonably capable military, and roads that weren't filled with potholes and patches.

I imagine roads are more difficult to maintain in Canada than in France, given our climate and population density.

[Wilber]

I imagine roads are more difficult to maintain in Canada than in France, given our climate and population density.

Canada will always be an expensive country in which to build and maintain infrastructure.

[-TSS-]

Britain opposed appointing Juncker as the chairman of the commission because they feared that as a hyper-federalist he would carry out policies which would eventually lead to a conflict with Britain, which has always been inherently eurosceptic as a nation. Those fears seem to have been vindicated now.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Britain opposed appointing Juncker as the chairman of the commission because they feared that as a hyper-federalist he would carry out policies which would eventually lead to a conflict with Britain, which has always been inherently eurosceptic as a nation. Those fears seem to have been vindicated now.

There are some other issues with Mr. Juncker:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3625257/EU-chief-Jean-Claude-Juncker-appears-drunk-bizarre-video-hopping-foot-foot-slapping-leaders.html

[-TSS-]

Yes, his drinking problem has been a major embarassment within the EU-circles. That's why they probably try to ditch him soon as Brexit gives a perfectly valid reason to do so. If an internationla organisation loses one of its strongest members under one person's chairmanship one can not consider that chairmanship as a success.