EU referendum

[BlueHammer85]

Maybe inners and outers should lobby governments to get to grips with the infrastructure rather than blame immigration. Year on year too few houses are built down in Kent to meet demand. Problem is infrastructure improvements requires spending but nobody want to pay tax to fund them - housing requires space and whilst everybody wants houses they would rather they weren't built near them and whilst new houses would be welcomed in one way on the other hand meeting demand would mean a marked slow down in house price growth or even a drop in house values and nobody in Kent would have the balls to accept that for the good of the country.

This argument is turning more into a cliche. Is there no limit at all on numbers that would make you stop blaming the infrastructure ? we don't have an infinity amount of space to build more roads and houses.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Deluded vs sensible.

In case you forget where socialism leads...

Where is that photo? Socialism like rampant capitalism have both failed. However for me the key traits of a social democracy such as universal healthcare, universal education etc are key plans and key tenets of the most civilised countries and liveable countries the world has ever seen. I could show you pictures of some of the most destroyed parts of our planet , poisoned deserts and claim that represents the right and capitalism - I don't think that would be fair either. I have always liked for liveability countries like Scandinavia , Canada who have a great deal of the elements of socialism but mixed with capitalism and see that balance as most desirable. The move to be more like America and to move away from all kids being born with a chance of healthcare and a good education is sad and wrong in my view

 

[EalingBlue2]

And yet the PM - who is by your reckoning clearl evil - is campaigning to stay in. Hmmmmm.

I don't think he is evil, I just think he has little experience or empathy for what many millions of his countrymen go through and therefore doesn't know enough to care. He will also almost certainly be voting in for very different reasons to me

 

[EalingBlue2]

We do know that not once in modern history has it worked taking numerous countries with different cultures languages religions and pace of life and making them into one big state doesnt work. We know full well that when this has been tried it has ended badly and usually with blood being spilt. I personally would rather risk some financial hardships than my kids having to life through a soviet union style break up 10 20 years down the line.......and that is exactly where the EU is headed.

What exactly are Germany, the U.K., etc other than different countries with different needs brought together to become a big state then? Same with France, Spain, Indonesia, China and most of the world as that was how the world has grown and Become what it is today

I know you say modern history but assume by that you mean the USSR and very modern history.

 

[EalingBlue2]

I completely disagree. If the In campaign are allowed to postulate about all of the possible negatives of leaving, surely the Out campaign are allowed to postulate as to the potential negatives of staying? I've said all along that this is a once in a generation vote and thus we need to vote not on our current relationship with the EU, but on the trajectory our current relationship with the EU is on. I don't have the stats to hand, but have read that we are the nation that disagrees with the EU decision most often - do we really have that much in common with other EU states?

On that trajectory, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to suggest that Turkey will be joining the EU in the near future which will open up a land border between the EU and the likes of Syria and Iraq. Our economy is also outperforming most in the EU, so we can expect to pay more into the coffers in the future given that the amount each member pays in is dependent on how well its economy is doing. TTIP will also come into play. Within 5 years the huge number of migrants from the Middle East and North Africa and even into Pakistan will be granted citizenship in the EU states that they have 'sought refuge' in, allowing them freedom of movement across any EU state and rendering Cameron's agreement to hand pick a few from refugee camps as useless. With that will come yet more strain on our already extremely stretched resources in housing, schools, hospitals and land.

England has a population density of 419 people per square kilometre. In Germany that is 228, Poland 130, France 105 and Spain 94. To be as crowded as we are, Germany would need another 69m people, Poland 86m, France 197m and Spain 161m! Do people really not care that we live on top of one another (check out any new build housing estate) or that our greenbelt (which IMO is pretty unique and defines our country) is being eaten away to provide accommodation for people we do not necessarily need to be in this country?

A more speculative person may suggest that the EU would like to stretch its tendrils further east into the likes of Syria under the pretence of saving it from war and yet absorbing it under Western control that frankly doesn't suit the country. He might suggest that the EU would take an In vote as a sign that the UK are ready for ever closer union and will push again for us to take the Euro just as those bastions of predictive genius the IMF urged us to do. They may even take that further and create the superstate they are striving for with member countries losing all sovereignty. These aren't things that I think will happen immediately, but they definitely have to be considered as possibilities to happen before we'd be allowed another vote on EU membership.

As a matter of interest do you feel that remaining in will not cause an absolute disaster in the medium and long term? Do you feel we are better off not making our own rules and decisions as a nation?

Rules have never been made in the interest of a nation and never will be, rules will be made for a subset of certain areas of the country and always will be. Individuals and communities have interests not nations and the more we globalise and localise at the same time the better . More power to local areas and to much bigger federations at the same time. The nation state is an idea suited to 150 years ago and to a world that went with globalisation and digitisation

 

[EalingBlue2]

Honest serious question - I keep hearing the phrase sovereignty and that we have surrendered it or risk surrendering it - how would you as someone who appears to be in the out camp define it and what do win stand to recover by leaving?

The very fact the word sovereignty is used which is based on power to an unelected monarch and maintaining that power says a lot as even if the meaning has changed the implication is clear

 

[Chippy_boy]

Where is that photo? Socialism like rampant capitalism have both failed. However for me the key traits of a social democracy such as universal healthcare, universal education etc are key plans and key tenets of the most civilised countries and liveable countries the world has ever seen. I could show you pictures of some of the most destroyed parts of our planet , poisoned deserts and claim that represents the right and capitalism - I don't think that would be fair either. I have always liked for liveability countries like Scandinavia , Canada who have a great deal of the elements of socialism but mixed with capitalism and see that balance as most desirable. The move to be more like America and to move away from all kids being born with a chance of healthcare and a good education is sad and wrong in my view

Agree with all of the above, with one very important caveat. In concentrating on the very important aspects that you describe - healthcare, education, welfare etc - its very important, no, it's *necessary* to constantly remember that the state can only spend what it can afford, no matter how tough the choices may be. Spending more than you can afford, funded by persistent borrowing or heavy taxation is the road to ruin. Too many times, more left wing governments have forgotten this with disasterous consequences. To have excellent public services, you need an excellent, vibrant, competitive, efficient economy. Or you need to discover a diamond mine or vast oil reserves! Other than that, the economy pays and if the economy is hobbled with high taxation, it can't compete effectively, can't grow and can't pay. Wealth and growth first, then excellent public services. Not the other way around.

And by the way, it's Russia. But photos of Poland, or Yugoslavia, or East Germany or North Korea or anywhere else that had a socialist government would have yielded similir depressing photos. But I take your point, rampant uncontrolled capitalism isn't great either and the Favelas in Rio are not exactly civilised, for example.

I'd like to think we have a reasonable balance in this country, contrary to what many of the lefties seem to think. We're not America are we.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Maybe you should go down and take a look. Is there someone who could lend you the money for a ticket and put you on the train?

Kent is a classic case in point for the misinformation.

Kent was back 50+ years ago a wealthy holiday destination. Air travel came made it cheap to go to Spain to Greece etc so people especially from London started travelling abroad (as many on this site do) this crippled and closed businesses as happened to Blackpool. Poor empty areas, boarded up B and B's then became a place where immigrants or the poor could go . Then the same locals who went on holiday to Greece themselves rather than blaming free market economics decided to blame immigration for the decline of places like Margate. But it's all about economic decline and is no different to what happened in the Rhonnda or mill towns of Lancy.

 

[EalingBlue2]

Agree with all of the above, with one very important caveat. In concentrating on the very important aspects that you describe - healthcare, education, welfare etc - its very important, no, it's *necessary* to constantly remember that the state can only spend what it can afford, no matter how tough the choices may be. Spending more than you can afford, funded by persistent borrowing or heavy taxation is the road to ruin. Too many times, more left wing governments have forgotten this with disasterous consequences. To have excellent public services, you need an excellent, vibrant, competitive, efficient economy. Or you need to discover a diamond mine or vast oil reserves! Other than that, the economy pays and if the economy is hobbled with high taxation, it can't compete effectively, can't grow and can't pay. Wealth and growth first, then excellent public services. Not the other way around.

And by the way, it's Russia. But photos of Poland, or Yugoslavia, or East Germany or North Korea or anywhere else that had a socialist government would have yielded similir depressing photos. But I take your point, rampant uncontrolled capitalism isn't great either and the Favelas in Rio are not exactly civilised, for example.

I'd like to think we have a reasonable balance in this country, contrary to what many of the lefties seem to think. We're not America are we.

We aren't but it won't take too long of Jeremy hunt it Michael gove to change that . Yes we have to spend what we can afford but that does mean people contributing and putting health and education ahead of car brand and new DVD player and retirement above rampant consumption and people need to realise they have to sacrifice too.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It's nigh on impossible to suggest that a police force stop enforcing a law or two though. If it's the status quo then it's much easier to ignore them (as France do) but how exactly do you think we'd go about getting a change in that area. It'd require people/places to break the law and hope the police turn a blind eye, putting them at risk of fines.

I think all of your reasons are economical and I think the economic outlook the government are forecasting is wildly unrealistic. Yes, it might change things a little bit but it's not all going to collapse. The vast majority of business is done in the UK market which shouldn't be altered at all by an exit.

On those companies, why did Ford move a plant from the UK (in the EU) to Turkey (not)? Why are they here and not somewhere much cheaper to set up in Eastern Europe? We aren't a diminutive little country - we have one of the highest economies in the world, many international trade partners and a good rep on standard of work.

I understand several of the arguments for the EU but repeating government bluster ad nauseam gets my goat.

I think we've flogged the "let's flaunt the EU rules" debate to death haven't we. Let's move on. All I was saying is that if we weren't so anal and a bit more "Laissez-Faire", the more stupid rules about maximum ladder heights and what have you wouldn't be so infuriating because we wouldn't be so hell bent on complying with them. Anyway, let's move on.

As far as I am concerned, I am not repeating any government rhetoric, because I haven't read it! Previous ramblings on here are my own thoughts.

I take your point that we are an advanced country that businesses may wish to invest in, of course. And our English speaking is a huge advantage for Chinese businesses and many others where the the management teams may speak Chinese and some English, but bugger all French or German, say.

So of course not every single business that's invested here would up sticks and clear off if we were leave the EU. But equally, it's *impossible* to rationally argue that none of them would. Inevitably some would and I don't see how that exodus - however big or small - would be miraculously replaced by other businesses suddenly wanting to move here, faced with the golden opportunity of NOT being able to sell into Europe so easily. Inevitably, there'd be a loss of jobs. I don't know how anyone could reasonably argue otherwise.

In time, having left the EU, it's very possible we may be better off. But we would do well to think on two aspects to that sentence.

(1) "in time". How long? 10 years? 20 year? 3 years? In my estimation it's 10 to 20 years before the negative impacts on our economy could be outweighed. Others may have a different view, but people might want to think on it.

(2) "We may be better off". We may. But we may not. What makes everyone think that the UK government and politicians are inherently superior in their ability to run an economy than say the German ones? People seem to have forgotten that the UK was "the sick man of Europe" when it joined the EU. We'd suffered from terrible productivity (we still do), strikes, high unemployment, high interest rates (20%+). We were in a right old mess, but people have forgotten that. Leaving the EU is no guarantee at all that we can run things better.

 

[Chippy_boy]

We aren't but it won't take too long of Jeremy hunt it Michael gove to change that . Yes we have to spend what we can afford but that does mean people contributing and putting health and education ahead of car brand and new DVD player and retirement above rampant consumption and people need to realise they have to sacrifice too.

I agree with you that the rampant credit-fueled, import-led, consumption we've experienced is a bad thing overall, although it has it's uses in propping up a stalled economy for a while. But regardless, the nation is hooked on it. You see all the time kids in the street without twopence to rub together, carrying a £600 iPhone 6+. Changing the nation's attitude to prudence, saving and everything else is a gargantuan task and what does NOT work is simply raising taxes and taking more money off people. High taxation = uncompetitive economy, slow growth, less money for governments to spend on welfare in the medium term. It's a short term fix that is not sustainable.

 

[CityStu]

I think we've flogged the "let's flaunt the EU rules" debate to death haven't we. Let's move on. All I was saying is that if we weren't so anal and a bit more "Laissez-Faire", the more stupid rules about maximum ladder heights and what have you wouldn't be so infuriating because we wouldn't be so hell bent on complying with them. Anyway, let's move on.

As far as I am concerned, I am not repeating any government rhetoric, because I haven't read it! Previous ramblings on here are my own thoughts.

I take your point that we are an advanced country that businesses may wish to invest in, of course. And our English speaking is a huge advantage for Chinese businesses and many others where the the management teams may speak Chinese and some English, but bugger all French or German, say.

So of course not every single business that's invested here would up sticks and clear off if we were leave the EU. But equally, it's *impossible* to rationally argue that none of them would. Inevitably some would and I don't see how that exodus - however big or small - would be miraculously replaced by other businesses suddenly wanting to move here, faced with the golden opportunity of NOT being able to sell into Europe so easily. Inevitably, there'd be a loss of jobs. I don't know how anyone could reasonably argue otherwise.

In time, having left the EU, it's very possible we may be better off. But we would do well to think on two aspects to that sentence.

(1) "in time". How long? 10 years? 20 year? 3 years? In my estimation it's 10 to 20 years before the negative impacts on our economy could be outweighed. Others may have a different view, but people might want to think on it.

(2) "We may be better off". We may. But we may not. What makes everyone think that the UK government and politicians are inherently superior in their ability to run an economy than say the German ones? People seem to have forgotten that the UK was "the sick man of Europe" when it joined the EU. We'd suffered from terrible productivity (we still do), strikes, high unemployment, high interest rates (20%+). We were in a right old mess, but people have forgotten that. Leaving the EU is no guarantee at all that we can run things better.

I don't believe that a drop in trade to the EU would necessarily equate to a total drop in trade. I'd instead presume that much of that EU slack would be taken up by increases in internal and RoW trade, the latter of which the EU makes incredibly difficult. RoW countries have to jump through hoops to make their products meet EU legislation and then are often asked to pay a premium for the privilege of trading with the EU. If we were independent we could relax the legislation on products and make trade more affordable for other countries.

As an example, suppose it's currently cheapest to buy wine from France at £5 because Chilean wine is £4.50 a bottle but has a 20% tariff attached to trade, making the bottle 40p more expensive than the French one to the consumer. Outside the EU we could only charge Chile a 5% tariff making their wine £4.72 in shops and French wine becomes 28p more expensive (assuming we'd still have free trade with the EU - that figure could rise). You could also suppose that there is South African wine costing £4 a bottle that doesn't meet EU regulations so it isn't available. Outside the EU we could relax those regulations (within reason obviously - we don't want to compromise on safety) and have far cheaper products become available to us.

I'm only 24 now so I'd treat even a long term gain as a result, but I don't think its in the best interest of either party for it to take decades to get a working agreement. Both sides will want to buy and sell to the other.

 

[hgblue]

I don't believe that a drop in trade to the EU would necessarily equate to a total drop in trade. I'd instead presume that much of that EU slack would be taken up by increases in internal and RoW trade, the latter of which the EU makes incredibly difficult. RoW countries have to jump through hoops to make their products meet EU legislation and then are often asked to pay a premium for the privilege of trading with the EU. If we were independent we could relax the legislation on products and make trade more affordable for other countries.

As an example, suppose it's currently cheapest to buy wine from France at £5 because Chilean wine is £4.50 a bottle but has a 20% tariff attached to trade, making the bottle 40p more expensive than the French one to the consumer. Outside the EU we could only charge Chile a 5% tariff making their wine £4.72 in shops and French wine becomes 28p more expensive (assuming we'd still have free trade with the EU - that figure could rise). You could also suppose that there is South African wine costing £4 a bottle that doesn't meet EU regulations so it isn't available. Outside the EU we could relax those regulations (within reason obviously - we don't want to compromise on safety) and have far cheaper products become available to us.

I'm only 24 now so I'd treat even a long term gain as a result, but I don't think its in the best interest of either party for it to take decades to get a working agreement. Both sides will want to buy and sell to the other.

It amazes me that people believe there will be some sort of trade war between the EU and UK post exit. Do people understand how many brand new German cars were sold in the UK last year? French wine and cheese? The Eurozone is in crisis and people think they are going to chop their noses off to spite their faces in order to 'teach us a lesson'? Just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I don't believe that a drop in trade to the EU would necessarily equate to a total drop in trade. I'd instead presume that much of that EU slack would be taken up by increases in internal and RoW trade, the latter of which the EU makes incredibly difficult. RoW countries have to jump through hoops to make their products meet EU legislation and then are often asked to pay a premium for the privilege of trading with the EU. If we were independent we could relax the legislation on products and make trade more affordable for other countries.

As an example, suppose it's currently cheapest to buy wine from France at £5 because Chilean wine is £4.50 a bottle but has a 20% tariff attached to trade, making the bottle 40p more expensive than the French one to the consumer. Outside the EU we could only charge Chile a 5% tariff making their wine £4.72 in shops and French wine becomes 28p more expensive (assuming we'd still have free trade with the EU - that figure could rise). You could also suppose that there is South African wine costing £4 a bottle that doesn't meet EU regulations so it isn't available. Outside the EU we could relax those regulations (within reason obviously - we don't want to compromise on safety) and have far cheaper products become available to us.

I'm only 24 now so I'd treat even a long term gain as a result, but I don't think its in the best interest of either party for it to take decades to get a working agreement. Both sides will want to buy and sell to the other.

It's not our imports that should concern anybody, it's our exports. Our exports are what pay for our imports and since the value of finished goods is higher than that of raw materials, being able to buy raw materials cheap is inadequate consolation if you can't sell so many of your expensive finished goods. If our ability to export is impaired, our economy is impaired. (Of course we can and do run a trade deficit but this is bad for the economy in the long run.)

So our ability to continue to export goods *and services* to the EU is key and you are right that we will want an agreement asap, as perhaps will Germany. But on what terms? Access to the European Economic Area means signing up to free movement of labour, working time directive and everything else that we flatly will not want to do. And the majority of EU states will not want us to have access to the EEA without signing up to the those terms because allowing that would hurt their domestic businesses having to compete with UK firms on an unfair and unequal basis.

So whilst the UK might want to agree a trade deal with Europe very quickly, what you see in reality is an impasse with neither side prepared to concede what the other side is asking. These negotiations are very likely going to take a long, long time. Canada started negotiations in 2009 and their deal is still not in place. Some say, ah yes but it will be easier for us since we are already more aligned and compliant with the necessary rules. Well maybe, but maybe not. If nations such as the French decide to dig their heels in and flatly refuse a deal without us signing up to ALL of the legislation we are so desperate to avoid, it could take even longer than it has done for Canada.

 

[Chippy_boy]

It amazes me that people believe there will be some sort of trade war between the EU and UK post exit. Do people understand how many brand new German cars were sold in the UK last year? French wine and cheese? The Eurozone is in crisis and people think they are going to chop their noses off to spite their faces in order to 'teach us a lesson'? Just doesn't make sense to me.

People say "yes but the EU exports more to us than we do to them" and whilst this is true it completely misses two key facts. 1. there's 27 other states and the vast majority of them don't export much to us at all, and they would all have to agree as well. And 2, each member state only has the UK market to "lose". We have our entire EU export market to lose. We are inherently in a very weak negotiating position. We need the EU far more than any individual EU country needs us.

And it's not a matter of a trade war, which implies all sorts of hostiility. It's simply a matter of how difficult (or not) will it be to reach a trade agreement?

 

[CityStu]

It's not our imports that should concern anybody, it's our exports. Our exports are what pay for our imports and since the value of finished goods is higher than that of raw materials, being able to buy raw materials cheap is inadequate consolation if you can't sell so many of your expensive finished goods. If our ability to export is impaired, our economy is impaired. (Of course we can and do run a trade deficit but this is bad for the economy in the long run.)

So our ability to continue to export goods *and services* to the EU is key and you are right that we will want an agreement asap, as perhaps will Germany. But on what terms? Access to the European Economic Area means signing up to free movement of labour, working time directive and everything else that we flatly will not want to do. And the majority of EU states will not want us to have access to the EEA without signing up to the those terms because allowing that would hurt their domestic businesses having to compete with UK firms on an unfair and unequal basis.

So whilst the UK might want to agree a trade deal with Europe very quickly, what you see in reality is an impass with neither side prepared to concede what the other side is asking. These negotiations are very likely going to take a long, long time. Canada started negotiations in 2009 and their deal is still not in place. Some say, ah yes but it will be easier for us since we are already more aligned and compliant with the necessary rules. Well maybe, but maybe not. If nations such as the French decide to dig their heels in and flatly refuse a deal without us signing up to ALL of the legislation we are so desperate to avoid, it could take even longer than it has done for Canada.

If the EU want to make life difficult then I'm sure we'll start exporting more of our goods and services to our other friends around the world - English speaking nations, former Commonwealth states and more. As I said earlier, that's much easier outside the EU because we can negotiate a deal that works for our 2 countries (rather than them vs. 28) and relax legislation that can otherwise hamper trade. Of course, importing and exporting is often reciprocal so if we start selling a lot of financial services into Japan, for example, maybe Japanese cars become more affordable/suitable to UK drivers. With that in mind, the EU are in no position to try and stretch out negotiations as, outside of it, we'll have a whole world of trade open to us that wasn't before.

In short, we're too big a market for the EU to simply ignore or make life difficult for out of spite. Yes, it's the bigger nations that we import more from, but it's also them that pull the strings in the EU. If Estonia dig their heels in when Germany's eager for a deal, Germany can make Estonia's life very difficult.

 

[blueonblue]

Now, having got that trivia out of the way, what are my "piss poor" reasons for staying in, pray? Seems to be very logical indeed that our not being able to freely export to the EU is very far from a piss poor reason.

.

Except we are not able to "Freely export to the EU" now are we ?, we have to pay a membership fee that adds up to £9-£12 billion quid net depending what figures you believe ( The last full year numbers available ( 2014) put our balance of payment deficit with the EU institutions at £12.3 billion )
Nor is that the end of the costs of our "Free trade", the cost of EU regulation & red tape alone is put at "Up to 7% of GDP" by the treasury, or £4,638 per household to put it in context.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I'll reply to CityStu and blueonblue in one go if you don't mind...

Stu, of course we can find other markets and I am sure we would do. But I think it helps to think of things less at a macro economic level and more at a practical, down to earth level. Suppose you are a small candle manufacturing business based in Wolverhampton, employing 80 people and selling 30% of your goods to Holland, the rest to the UK. If suddenly your goods in Holland become more expensive perhaps your stockist says sorry I am not going to be selling them any more and 30% of your revenue is gone. Being told "by the Outers, never mind you can now sell to Japan" is not a lot of help when laying off 20 of your staff.

Finding new markets for goods and services is not something the government can magic up, it's down to individual businesses to do and it takes time. And that's assuming the trading terms at a macro-economic level are already in place to allow it. Before then, you can't even start.

And blueoblue, of course there's huge burden dealing with the EU now, and we put up with it for the benefits we get. But the reason for many outers to be outers is to get away from these burdens. If you are suggesting that we should just leave and then immediately agree to all of the terms that we are currently burdened by, then I understand that position and I think it's a reasonable one. We'd have access to the markets as we do now, still be obliged to have open borders, still be bound by EU employment and social welfare regulations and still subject to the supremecy of the European Court of Human Rights and much else. But at least we'd be "out" and could make our own way in the world. I get that. Is that what you are saying?

But whether you are or not, do you think that's what most of the Outers want? I don't. I think most Outers would be mortified if the vision of Out was still being ruled by the EU to the extent I describe. And unfortunately, that's the very real prospect if we want to be able to trade with it from outside the EU. And if we don't want that, negotiations on a trade deal would be very difficult and take forever.

 

[CityStu]

Stu, of course we can find other markets and I am sure we would do. But I think it helps to think of things less at a macro economic level and more at a practical, down to earth level. Suppose you are a small candle manufacturing business based in Wolverhampton, employing 80 people and selling 30% of your goods to Holland, the rest to the UK. If suddenly your goods in Holland become more expensive perhaps your stockist says sorry I am not going to be selling them any more and 30% of your revenue is gone. Being told "by the Outers, never mind you can now sell to Japan" is not a lot of help when laying off 20 of your staff.

Not necessarily Japan, but maybe Norway, Iceland or Switzerland? All a similar distance to Holland and all will be just as easy to trade with if we're out. And what about the UK candle stockists who get 30% of their candles from Holland? Likewise, the Dutch candles become more expensive and the Wolverhampton company is in a good place to pick up that slack.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Incidentally, people may assume from my endless defending of an "inny" position that I am necessarily going to vote in. You may be surprised that this is not the case. I am genuinely undecided and I think there's huge risk and pain associated with both options.

I may well vote out, but I'd like to think that if I do, I'll be prepared for what we are letting ourselves in for. Some people would be in for a terrible shock I think.