Not CNN.
pound http://www.xe.com/currencyconverter/convert/?From=GBP&To=EUR
I know in- and export regulations and tax laws countries outside EU. And yes EU and other countries protect their internal market by an import duty tax.
Example: China solar panels import tax 11,8% when shipped into the EU. Old value http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-13-1190_en.htm
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/03/brexit-endangers-londons-status-as-a-financial-hub.html
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ecb/tasks/stability/tasks/html/index.en.html
http://europa.eu/about-eu/funding-grants/index_en.htm
Picbuster

 

At this moment on time, you are quoting pure speculation.

The pound is going to fluctuate until the situation clarifies, note that it increased immediately before the referendum (I suspect a large injection in anticipation of a remain result), then dropped, but within one week rose back again, and the UK economy is the second largest in the EU and can weather some instability.

You are assuming that the UK will not have access to the common market, you are not in a position to have an informed opinion on that.

I would remind you that the UK is still a full member of the EU even during the two year period for exit negotiations.

I repeat my earlier comments, adding that you and your sources are only considering the worst possible scenarios excluding all others, and therefore highly unrealistic.

 

So just think -- now China will be able to sell their panels to the UK without that protectionist import tax. Hence an expanded market opportunity.

As usual, the sky-is-falling crowd over exaggerate the calamity. The vote itself, it passed, was supposed to send world markets into a tailspin from which they might never recover. Instead, the markets had a dip of a few percent (markets, in general, like neither uncertainty nor change) and within a week they pretty much recovered. The world economy managed to get by without the EU for quite a while and it will survive the UK exiting. It will survive if Scotland and Ireland break off from the UK. It will survive if other countries split from the EU. It will survive if the EU itself goes down the toilet.

 

I would remind you that the UK is still a full member of the EU even during the two year period for exit negotiations.

And it will be a full member for the for the ten years or so that it threatens to invoke article 50.

 

And it will be a full member for the for the ten years or so that it threatens to invoke article 50.

Haha, you have a point but somehow I don't think it will extend to years, however, there is a real concern that the House of Lords may try to block the Government from activating article 50.

 

One Direction star hoped to provide UK government some direction on Brexit.

http://www.standard.co.uk/showbiz/c...f-lords-to-attend-brexit-debate-a3289706.html

 

however, there is a real concern that the House of Lords may try to block the Government from activating article 50.

The people of the UK, albeit by a small majority, have voted for Exit.
If the UNELECTED, Non representative, House of Lords block the EU exit program there will be Civil disorder on the streets of the UK.!

E
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/democracy

EDIT:
I would also suggest that the Remain voters should be concerned if the EU Exit is blocked by the Govt or the House of Lords, as this will mean any future Referendum's will be meaningless.
We are supposed to be a Democratic country.???

 

The people of the UK, albeit by a small majority, have voted for Exit.
If the UNELECTED, Non representative, House of Lords block the EU exit program there will be Civil disorder on the streets of the UK.!

E

Hi Eric, I agree, I don’t think the government would dare not to abide by the result of the referendum.

I was watching the House of Lords live and the attitude of quite a lot of them was disgraceful, many said the result was only advisory and not binding. One said “we have seen what college politics can do now let the men sort this mess out”

It is not helped by the likes of Tony Blair meddling, in an interview he said that as time goes by and the government look at the alternatives public opinion may change and we should take that into account. In other words there is time yet to turn this around.

I was also watching the EU parliament live and there was quite a number of representatives demanding reform of the EU, less federalism and more nationalism, and some demanded Junker stand down.

 

I don't understand the thinking going on here. Everyone thinks the economy has something to do with this.

According to CNN's Christiane Amanpoue, it's the British people's racism that caused the Brexit.

According to her, white conservatives used racist fear mongering to get this passed.

Many academics thinks she is the pinnacle of modern journalism. She was trained and educated years ago.

Imagine what academia is giving us now.

AH yes, science and academia will save us all.

We must listen to the smart people. After all, the politicians do.

See how smart they are.

 

The answer depends critically what one meant by "racism". Without a common and clear definition, you cannot have a constructive discussion.

 

Lol she might be at the pinnacle of her profession but to support her point of view in that interview she cherry picked three people, who had severely biased and crude narrow views, that certainly do not represent the views of over 1.7 million voters at all, but rather supported her take on the result.
In one debate prior to the vote, a university professor, who supposedly have high moral and principles, said that she was voting to remain because she was not confident that her university would get the funding from the UK that they currently get from the EU, so in effect her principles can be bought for the highest bidder - shameful really.
Similarly one news channel televised one man who said he was not convinced his out vote was the right choice, and on that basis concluded that many if not most of the leave voters regretted their choice - utter nonsense.
The media have been completely out of control for a long time, they are no longer capable of simply reporting the facts in an unbiased way, but have to dramatize and exaggerate everything.
Prior to the vote I desperately wanted to hear some sound arguments from both sides, but what did we get, the remain campaign tried to convince us of financial doom and ruin would be an immediate result just because they said so , and the leave campaign was mostly about uncontrolled immigration.
Neither were in anyway convincing, nor did they touch on the reasons why I voted to leave, it definitely had nothing to do with racism, and I would vote the same way again.

 

"Without a common and clear definition, you cannot have a constructive discussion."

Ya think? We used to be taught common and clear definitions, Who changed the definitions?

Nuanced academia, changes the definition during the conversation. If only the common man was nuanced, we wouldn't have this problem, cause we could follow the definition change thru the conversation. When is the last time you heard or saw a constructive conservation?

They fear a honest discussion. They know they are wrong. They must deceive to stay relevant.

un-define the standards of everything and make responsibility (and hence accountability) collective. This makes the individual criminal blameless and given special civil rights.

First step.......change definitions........which dissolves standards.......removes personal accountability.

Criminal and immoral acts are motivated by an unjust society, not the individual.

Academic Utopia.

 

@ericgibbs said: ↑
The people of the UK, albeit by a small majority, have voted for Exit.
If the UNELECTED, Non representative, House of Lords block the EU exit program there will be Civil disorder on the streets of the UK
The Parliament Act of 1911 permanently removed , with a few exceptions, the power of the House of Lords to veto any bill sent to them by the House of Commons. I expect that Parliament will approve the results of the referendum, but I don't see any problem with the House of Lords as the Prime Minister can , as then, threaten to swamp the House of Lords by creating more life peers.

 

I use a simple definition of "racist": anyone who uses race in his or her decision making is a racist.

If I hate you because of your race, I'm a racist. If I like you because of your race, I'm a racist too.

With that, you will find lots of racists or racism in unexpected places,

 

With that, you will find lots of racists or racism in unexpected places...

For example...

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-eu-referendum-petition-latest-a7128306.html

The Government has rejected a call for a second referendum on European Union membership in a petition that was signed by more than 4.1 million people following the Brexit vote.

It was the most-signed Government petition since the process was introduced in 2011.

However in an official reply, the Foreign Office said 33 million people had had their say and “the decision must be respected”.
...
The Foreign Office said: “The EU Referendum Act received Royal Assent in December 2015. The Act was scrutinised and debated in Parliament during its passage and agreed by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Act set out the terms under which the referendum would take place, including provisions for setting the date, franchise and the question that would appear on the ballot paper. The Act did not set a threshold for the result or for minimum turnout.

“As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House of Commons on 27 June, the referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-it-means-economy-pounds-ounces-a7216711.html

Warwick Cairns, from the British Weights and Measures Association, has called for there to be a restoration of freedom of choice.

'In 2000, to comply with European legislation, the Government made it a criminal act for a greengrocer to sell a pound of bananas,” Mr Cairns told the Daily Telegraph.

'We thought this was outrageous then, we think it outrageous now. And with our exit from the EU, the legal basis of compulsory metrication will be repealed. It's now time to restore freedom of choice.'

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-it-means-economy-pounds-ounces-a7216711.html

While I hope that no one is stupid enough to switch back to the English system of weights and measures, I absolutely agree that they should be free to do so.

I don't have a problem with a government saying that it will only mark roads with measures, such as speed limits and such, in System X.

I don't have a problem with a government saying that any cars sold in that country have to be able to display speed in System X (but I would have a problem if they mandated that cars could not also display speed in other systems, too).

I don't have a problem with a government saying that they will only purchase cars that only display speed in System X (and no other system).

Similarly, I wouldn't have a problem with a government saying that it will only certify scales that read in kilograms (because it will only maintain reference masses in kilogram units). But to then tell grocers that they can't use a scale that reads in both kilograms and pounds or that, taking it even further, that it will be a criminal act to sell items priced in units of pounds? That's beyond reasonableness and it simply way too heavy handed, reflecting the attitude that government is the ruler of the peons.

 

What's interesting is that if you look at the comments on the article, they almost all focus on the relative worth of metric and imperial -- which is totally and completely beside the point. The issue is to what degree the government should FORCE people to use one system over the other. If the government were FORCING people to switch to imperial, then all of these people would be screaming bloody hell about how it is wrong for the government to do that. As usual, most people don't mind the heavy hand of government as long as it is doing what THEY want.

 

Having used Imperial for a very long time, prior to Metrication, I was pleased when in the 70's the UK went Metric.

Mathematical calculations using Imperial units was an absolute nightmare.