EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

A haven of positivity compared to the predictions of a total crash of absolute doom of the stock market, recovered the same day. Your economy is still growing. Never said it wouldn't tickle a bit, just pretty minimal compared to a zombie-apocalypse or a nuclear-winter. So far so right, now wait for the actual Brexit no? If you are right that cottage must be pretty cheap

If everything's hunkydory over here, when are you coming over to live in the ex-EU UK? You've been telling us it's all going to be fine, and it'll be better than living inside the EU. Your country's inside the EU, mine is outside. So when are you coming over to share that utopia?

[Fragony]

If everything's hunkydory over here, when are you coming over to live in the ex-EU UK? You've been telling us it's all going to be fine, and it'll be better than living inside the EU. Your country's inside the EU, mine is outside. So when are you coming over to share that utopia?

I can't, I'm too occupied with complaining about trivial things like becomming a province in an ever-closing costly undemocratic superstate

[Gilrandir]

They need an answer for a simple question: why the fuck do I exist.

Errm... Didn't your parents tell you? A tip: one word in your question is the answer.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pannonian:

I have wondered why you have not taken to labelling them Brexiteers, since you think the whole Exit effort is a bit of a Mickey Mouse operation anyway...

[Pannonian]

Pannonian:

I have wondered why you have not taken to labelling them Brexiteers, since you think the whole Exit effort is a bit of a Mickey Mouse operation anyway...

I sometimes do. I keep track of what's happening on the subject, and just about every promise made by the Brexit side has been abandoned by its campaigners as they know reality works otherwise, yet their supporters keep repeating the mantra to pro-Remainers, "You lost. Get over it." I suspect if they win a referendum proclaiming that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it, they would proclaim that the democratic will needs to be respected and the Earth and Sun need to work accordingly. And Frag will reassure us Brits, from the safety of Dutchland, that adopting this new scientific paradigm will work out well for Britain in the long run.

[Beskar]

To be fair to Frags, he would probably lose his entire collection of historical African tribal artefacts if he crossed the channel due to our anti-knife laws. I cannot remember where he posted the pictures, but it was actually rather impressive from what I recall.


Pannonian: I have wondered why you have not taken to labelling them Brexiteers, since you think the whole Exit effort is a bit of a Mickey Mouse operation anyway...

I just find it personally amusing they would call themselves that, considering the French origins they are mimicking.

[HopAlongBunny]

The Brexiteers
Is this a tragedy or a comedy?
Who do we get for the headline roles?
Most importantly, when does the musical hit the stage?

[Fragony]

I sometimes do. I keep track of what's happening on the subject, and just about every promise made by the Brexit side has been abandoned by its campaigners as they know reality works otherwise, yet their supporters keep repeating the mantra to pro-Remainers, "You lost. Get over it." I suspect if they win a referendum proclaiming that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it, they would proclaim that the democratic will needs to be respected and the Earth and Sun need to work accordingly. And Frag will reassure us Brits, from the safety of Dutchland, that adopting this new scientific paradigm will work out well for Britain in the long run.

I am not exactly alone in that, more than enough non-scared specialists, they are just less vocal and get less airtime if at all. You don't get any further than inviting me to move to the UK and see for myself.

Beskar, yeah they are pretty neat. My photobucket-account died, I'll make some new pics

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Brexiteers
Is this a tragedy or a comedy?
Who do we get for the headline roles?
Most importantly, when does the musical hit the stage?

Whether Brexit ends up working or not in real life, we definitely have to stage this as a period farce. We need three Brexiteers and a young chap from the country to stumble into each on his trip to London to make his fortune. We will also need a fetching lass to play the landlady's wife, preferably with well developed....page three attributes.

[Pannonian]

I am not exactly alone in that, more than enough non-scared specialists, they are just less vocal and get less airtime if at all. You don't get any further than inviting me to move to the UK and see for myself.

Beskar, yeah they are pretty neat. My photobucket-account died, I'll make some new pics

Less vocal and less airtime? The Brexit party is represented by around 90% of MPs in the Commons, as whipped by their leaders. No more needs to be said about the Tories. But the Labour party is led by a lifelong Eurosceptic who's led his party on the road he's always taken, against the EU and its predecessors (he was against the EEC).

[Husar]

a fetching lass to play the landlady's wife

I see you want to give this quite a modern spin.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I see you want to give this quite a modern spin.

But of course! Same sex is all the rage in the arts these days. lol

[HopAlongBunny]

The period farce would work :)
Showing my age, Mel Brooks could certainly do this justice; alas Madeline Khan is out as the "fetching beauty"
Colbert as the young chap from the country would work; he's kinda old but has the chops and sensibility.
So all we need is a present day Gene Wilder, Marty Feldman and Dom DeLuise to round out the troupe.

[Beskar]

Well, you do have Boris and Nigel as two prominent roles. David Cameron as the Cardinal. Theresa May as Lady De Winter?

This show would be a horror story.

[HopAlongBunny]

OMG! What have I been thinking!?
The Brexit Horror Picture Show

It's...it's all so obvious now


https://youtu.be/l3Boz0O1SqM

Trump as the "wild and untamed thing"?

[Fragony]

Less vocal and less airtime? The Brexit party is represented by around 90% of MPs in the Commons, as whipped by their leaders. No more needs to be said about the Tories. But the Labour party is led by a lifelong Eurosceptic who's led his party on the road he's always taken, against the EU and its predecessors (he was against the EEC).

So? That's democracy is at, not in MSM aka as satalites of Brexitfears (just made that one up)

[Pannonian]

So? That's democracy is at, not in MSM aka as satalites of Brexitfears (just made that one up)

And all the reassurances here of how Brexit will be fine for the UK come from a Dutchman. Are you going to partake of the delights of Brexit, BTW? Come over here, register as a UK citizen and give up your Dutch/EU citizenship, and you too can live outside the EU. And then the hypocrisy may not stink as much.

[Fragony]

And all the reassurances here of how Brexit will be fine for the UK come from a Dutchman. Are you going to partake of the delights of Brexit, BTW? Come over here, register as a UK citizen and give up your Dutch/EU citizenship, and you too can live outside the EU. And then the hypocrisy may not stink as much.

Nah, no need to say the exact same thing ad nausuem. Not coming, I don't like England, it's a naturally depressing place I don't want to live there. Because of that, not because of a brexit.

[Pannonian]

Nah, no need to say the exact same thing ad nausuem. Not coming, I don't like England, it's a naturally depressing place I don't want to live there. Because of that, not because of a brexit.

Such wonderful support for Brexit, from someone who never intended to have to face the consequences, which are for his inferiors, while he theorises from the safety of the EU. Reminds me of :daisy:s like Nigel Farage, who has a career in the US to retreat to, while he pontificates on how Brexit will be wonderful for Britain.

[Fragony]

Such wonderful support for Brexit, from someone who never intended to have to face the consequences, which are for his inferiors, while he theorises from the safety of the EU. Reminds me of :daisy:s like Nigel Farage, who has a career in the US to retreat to, while he pontificates on how Brexit will be wonderful for Britain.

My inferiors? Far from it. I would love a Nexit consequences be damned, but it just isn't realistic because the Netherlands is just too small, the resentment is high but the water too cold, we would need a partner like the UK. The Neherlands is really important for Germany's industry they will only hurt themselves really if they ask tarrifs because raw materials come through here, only Rotterdam can do that. Everybody in the trenches will tell you that the Dutch in general agree with the Brittish but obey the Germans. We can be your gate to Europe. EU must first fall of course. Far fetched, ofcourse. Possible? Why not. Northsea Union (minus France) for the win.

[Husar]

we would need a partner like the UK.

The NEU (Not the European Union)?

[Fragony]

The NEU (Not the European Union)?

Yes. Let's face it the EU is not going to survive in it's current form, it was never going to work. Time to take a very big loss of trillions of euro's that are never going to be payed back anyway. Brexit is a good start.

[Gilrandir]

I don't like England, it's a naturally depressing place I don't want to live there.
It is because, unlike in the Netherlands, the things that would make it less depressive are forbidden in the UK.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is because, unlike in the Netherlands, the things that would make it less depressive are forbidden in the UK.

Oh come on Gil,' everybody knows that the weather on the balmy South shores of the North sea is always cheerful compared to dreary old England off to the Northwest. :rolleyes3:

[Beskar]

Yes. Let's face it the EU is not going to survive in it's current form, it was never going to work. Time to take a very big loss of trillions of euro's that are never going to be payed back anyway. Brexit is a good start.

You say that, but at the same time you dislike the fix of a more integrated United States of Europe. Embrace your ever closer union, one which will become democratic as the vested interest of the nation state is eroded away. :whip:

[Pannonian]

We're 7 months into the 24 before the deadline is up, and we're nowhere near agreeing a start to negotiations, as we can't even describe in detail what our desired end state is, let alone the process towards achieving it. No deal is the nightmare scenario that every trade and industry spokesperson warned about last June, yet this is increasingly the most likely scenario at the end of those 24 months. And the Brexiters are still wedded to the dogma that what is bad for the EU must be good for the UK, and are doing all they can to hurt the EU, without considering consequences for the UK.

The 48% are warning that it is a bad idea to drink the Kool Aid. The 52% are saying, the will of the people must be respected, we must all drink the Kool Aid. Frag, an enthusiastic evangelist for the faith from outside the camp, says that there may be some initial pain, but it will all be worth it in the end. I enquire whether he'll be joining us in drinking said Kool Aid. He replies, heavens no, he doesn't even like the taste.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU has been clear: give loads of money because a pinkie promise is binding, sort out the Irish border and then, and only then will talks on a future trade deal be discussed - after the EU has sewn up everything they want... I'm not entirely sure how this is negotiation.

The EU is a political project, and so the UK has to suffer. Else others might join the heresy. Hell, Catalonia is getting jumpy and must see leaving as economic suicide, not a win-win.

With the "negotiations" there are only two likely outcomes - the UK capitulates, and we "leave" the EU but continue to follow all the rules, pay all the subs or we have a nasty hard exit with the EU doing all it can to ensure it is as painful for as long as possible so all other waverers realise the penalties of leaving the cult.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The EU has been clear: give loads of money because a pinkie promise is binding, sort out the Irish border and then, and only then will talks on a future trade deal be discussed - after the EU has sewn up everything they want... I'm not entirely sure how this is negotiation.

The EU is a political project, and so the UK has to suffer. Else others might join the heresy. Hell, Catalonia is getting jumpy and must see leaving as economic suicide, not a win-win.

With the "negotiations" there are only two likely outcomes - the UK capitulates, and we "leave" the EU but continue to follow all the rules, pay all the subs or we have a nasty hard exit with the EU doing all it can to ensure it is as painful for as long as possible so all other waverers realise the penalties of leaving the cult.

~:smoking:

And yet the EU has been more conciliatory than the alternatives, such as North America, with the US and Canada promising to block proposed tariff splits agreed by the EU and UK. Ireland has also offered a solution to the NI-RoI border, with a soft land border, and all customs checks to take place only when trade enters mainland Britain. Has the UK suggested anything similarly concrete?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The EU has been clear: give loads of money because a pinkie promise is binding, sort out the Irish border and then, and only then will talks on a future trade deal be discussed - after the EU has sewn up everything they want... I'm not entirely sure how this is negotiation.

The EU is a political project, and so the UK has to suffer. Else others might join the heresy. Hell, Catalonia is getting jumpy and must see leaving as economic suicide, not a win-win.

With the "negotiations" there are only two likely outcomes - the UK capitulates, and we "leave" the EU but continue to follow all the rules, pay all the subs or we have a nasty hard exit with the EU doing all it can to ensure it is as painful for as long as possible so all other waverers realise the penalties of leaving the cult.

~:smoking:

Several possibilities (list not exhaustive).

1. England agrees to the preconditions. This signifies that they can be hammered hard on all points as they are not capable of overcoming the EU's power.

2. England does not agree to the money but works out a sidebar with Erin to deal with that border issue via local agreement. England will have to absorb this level of standoff for some time though some second channel meetings will occur. Then the real negotiations will begin which will themselves be arduous.

3. England and the EU remain in this lockdown mode until such time as internal shifts in one of the parties make negotiations more necessary. That side will then have to make more concessions than planned. The EU believes this favors them, at least following May's electoral debacle, as they view the likely weakness will appear in England first, not in the EU.

4. England repudiates the deal and reverts to pre EEC modus operandi. This will hurt like a [insert your favorite metaphor here]. Eventually, trade will re-establish and will do so on terms reasonably favorable to England, however it will only do so once England has demonstrated a willingness to absorb the economic pain thereby engendered for several years.


Essentially, both sides are going for old school "see who blinks" diplomacy rather than anything win-win or nuanced. Keep holding out until one side demonstrates some degree of weakness and then force concessions.

[Pannonian]

Several possibilities (list not exhaustive).

1. England agrees to the preconditions. This signifies that they can be hammered hard on all points as they are not capable of overcoming the EU's power.

2. England does not agree to the money but works out a sidebar with Erin to deal with that border issue via local agreement. England will have to absorb this level of standoff for some time though some second channel meetings will occur. Then the real negotiations will begin which will themselves be arduous.

3. England and the EU remain in this lockdown mode until such time as internal shifts in one of the parties make negotiations more necessary. That side will then have to make more concessions than planned. The EU believes this favors them, at least following May's electoral debacle, as they view the likely weakness will appear in England first, not in the EU.

4. England repudiates the deal and reverts to pre EEC modus operandi. This will hurt like a [insert your favorite metaphor here]. Eventually, trade will re-establish and will do so on terms reasonably favorable to England, however it will only do so once England has demonstrated a willingness to absorb the economic pain thereby engendered for several years.


Essentially, both sides are going for old school "see who blinks" diplomacy rather than anything win-win or nuanced. Keep holding out until one side demonstrates some degree of weakness and then force concessions.

It's a bit worse than that. Most of our international agreements are via the EU, and once we leave the EU without any agreements, which looks increasingly likely to be the case, we revert to a state of no agreements with other countries. The EU is willing to fudge some things for convenience's sake, but the US has already shown that it sees this as an opportunity to screw the UK over for concessions elsewhere, and unlike the EU, the US isn't inconvenienced if the ex-EU UK turns out to be a basket case. And that's the US we're talking about. China will be considerably worse and more predatory. The EU are the only major trading bloc who will offer us any concessions whatsoever without significant concessions on our part (see the RoI's customs border offer).

[Gilrandir]

Several possibilities (list not exhaustive).

1. England agrees...

2. England does not agree...

3. England and the EU....

4. England repudiates....



I wonder what Scotland will say.

[Husar]

The EU has been clear: give loads of money because a pinkie promise is binding, sort out the Irish border and then, and only then will talks on a future trade deal be discussed - after the EU has sewn up everything they want... I'm not entirely sure how this is negotiation.

The EU is a political project, and so the UK has to suffer. Else others might join the heresy. Hell, Catalonia is getting jumpy and must see leaving as economic suicide, not a win-win.

With the "negotiations" there are only two likely outcomes - the UK capitulates, and we "leave" the EU but continue to follow all the rules, pay all the subs or we have a nasty hard exit with the EU doing all it can to ensure it is as painful for as long as possible so all other waverers realise the penalties of leaving the cult.

~:smoking:

First there was a lot of talking about how important Mighty Britain is and how it can easily outcompete the EU, now it's just whining about how the EU is just a mean cult because it doesn't just bend over backwards.
Grow up!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It's a bit worse than that. Most of our international agreements are via the EU, and once we leave the EU without any agreements, which looks increasingly likely to be the case, we revert to a state of no agreements with other countries. The EU is willing to fudge some things for convenience's sake, but the US has already shown that it sees this as an opportunity to screw the UK over for concessions elsewhere, and unlike the EU, the US isn't inconvenienced if the ex-EU UK turns out to be a basket case. And that's the US we're talking about. China will be considerably worse and more predatory. The EU are the only major trading bloc who will offer us any concessions whatsoever without significant concessions on our part (see the RoI's customs border offer).

Yes, well, our current CinC, in addition to being an asshat, is fond of deal-making and negotiations and very much plays them old school. He will try to extract concessions from weakness every time, and while intelligent is not (from what I have seen) much of a "long-term" thinker. UK should go public on him about how Trump is holding their feet to the fire even after trying to take some personal credit for Brexit (ludicrous as both his election and Brexit are symptomatic of the disgruntled mood of the respective electorates with the status quo ante, not any kind of coattails thing, but US Presidents trend towards narcissism so....) and not 'deal fairly.' Since the American public loves your accents for the most part and since Trump likes to appear to be a good deal maker, you can probably leverage him that way and get a more reasonable trade interaction across the pond.

[Pannonian]

Yes, well, our current CinC, in addition to being an asshat, is fond of deal-making and negotiations and very much plays them old school. He will try to extract concessions from weakness every time, and while intelligent is not (from what I have seen) much of a "long-term" thinker. UK should go public on him about how Trump is holding their feet to the fire even after trying to take some personal credit for Brexit (ludicrous as both his election and Brexit are symptomatic of the disgruntled mood of the respective electorates with the status quo ante, not any kind of coattails thing, but US Presidents trend towards narcissism so....) and not 'deal fairly.' Since the American public loves your accents for the most part and since Trump likes to appear to be a good deal maker, you can probably leverage him that way and get a more reasonable trade interaction across the pond.

Didn't the American public elect Trump for "America first", which he's duly implementing wrt the UK? Also, the UK ruling elite, including the right wing media barons, are willing to see the US screw the UK over without seeing any contradiction in their belief that being anti-EU is the patriotic stance. The whole of the UK's political language is geared towards being anti-EU, but the exact same moves from the US don't register with most of the public. See the accusations from rory above, who should be part of the educated professional class, but who expresses politics in that way: patriotism is anti-EU, not pro-UK. So the likes of Farage will take US dollars for screwing the UK over for American gain, yet is able to pose as the anti-EU patriot.

In other news, 120 MPs have demanded that David Davis, the minister in charge of Brexit, publish the impact studies that he'd commissioned for the likely effects of Brexit. One leaked study looks at agriculture, with 3 possible scenarios, one that results positively for British farmers, two with extremely bad to exceptionally bad results for British farmers, with the note that the positive result is extremely unlikely.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Didn't the American public elect Trump for "America first", which he's duly implementing wrt the UK?... .

Yes, but we're sentimental about you lot in a way that we are not with those who do not share our language. To a Trumpeteer, "America First" is more about curbing the illegals from our South, protecting US jobs from Chinese and Asian efforts to undercut every price bid, and (for some) not wasting aid dollars simply to line the pockets of various kleptocrats, etc. The latter is less well understood by the typical Trumpeteer, since they basically want all foreign aid ceased immediately and some would vote to defund the UN or even withdraw therefrom.

But, they don't really consciously see the UK as a problem. Ironically, current conditions make it easier for Trump to squeeze you than any number of more problematic 'partners.'

[rory_20_uk]

First there was a lot of talking about how important Mighty Britain is and how it can easily outcompete the EU, now it's just whining about how the EU is just a mean cult because it doesn't just bend over backwards.
Grow up!

You on something? Care to substantiate this verbal diarrhoea?

Get a grip!

~:smoking:

[Husar]

You on something? Care to substantiate this verbal diarrhoea?

Of course not, should be quite clear.
Before Brexit there was all this talk about how Britain would be better off with immigration controls, how it could keep its money and how it's important enough to make trade great again on its own. And of course how terrible and only detrimental the EU is anyway. And now that Britain is supposed to deliver for a treaty, Britain is mostly whining about how unfair and nasty the EU is and how it's going to ruin Britain on purpose.

The question here is what did you expect? If you keep insulting your wife and then file for a divorce, would you expect her to skip the lawyer and give you 75%? Do you live in the same universe? And why does the country that kept arguing how competition is better anyway now whine when the EU acts in a competitive manner and turns out to be quite powerful? It's just pathetic...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wonder what Scotland will say.

They had their say. They voted 'No.'

[Pannonian]

They had their say. They voted 'No.'

London voted no too. But we'll have to live with the idiocy of Brexit, voted for by people who want to cut immigration. Despite immigration levels being inversely proportional to the strength of the Brexit vote: the whiter the population and the lower the immigration level experienced, the more they want to cut immigration.

[Beskar]

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

[Husar]

They had their say. They voted 'No.'

Apparently they can vote again whenever they like, I heard it's called self-determination and allows them to just vote to leave whenever they feel like it.

[Beskar]

Apparently they can vote again whenever they like, I heard it's called self-determination and allows them to just vote to leave whenever they feel like it.

I like the notion of "You choose, you said no, live with it." and you are sat there thinking "Well, I said yes... not my choice at all".

[Gilrandir]

The question here is what did you expect? If you keep insulting your wife and then file for a divorce, would you expect her to skip the lawyer and give you 75%? Do you live in the same universe? And why does the country that kept arguing how competition is better anyway now whine when the EU acts in a competitive manner and turns out to be quite powerful? It's just pathetic...


Now I'm getting positively nervous. This question seems to be bothering you so much that I think I have guessed your real identity:
19927
Agent J?

[Pannonian]

Apparently they can vote again whenever they like, I heard it's called self-determination and allows them to just vote to leave whenever they feel like it.

The question is, are people allowed to change their mind when additional information comes in? The No vote in Scotland's independence referendum was based on economic arguments, and Brexit apart (and Scotland won't be allowed to make a separate decision from the UK), the information was largely correct. The Leave vote in the Brexit referendum was based on promises which the government and even the campaigners agree cannot be kept, other than the action of leaving the EU. Reducing immigration is not practically possible, the 350m/wk promise was repudiated by Farage the day after the referendum, Davis has rejected requests to reveal the studies commissioned to review the likely effects of Brexit, etc. Other than the action of leaving the EU, not a single promise made by the Leave campaign is being held to account, with the campaigners themselves admitting they were fantasies.

[Husar]

Now I'm getting positively nervous. This question seems to be bothering you so much that I think I have guessed your real identity:
19927
Agent J?

I'm afraid I did not watch this movie that is based on my life.
And yes, it's an important question because in his universe it appears to be normal to tell other people you hate them, want nothing to do with them anymore and then expect them to bend over backwards to comfort you as you leave them to rot. :dizzy2:


The question is, are people allowed to change their mind when additional information comes in? The No vote in Scotland's independence referendum was based on economic arguments, and Brexit apart (and Scotland won't be allowed to make a separate decision from the UK), the information was largely correct. The Leave vote in the Brexit referendum was based on promises which the government and even the campaigners agree cannot be kept, other than the action of leaving the EU. Reducing immigration is not practically possible, the 350m/wk promise was repudiated by Farage the day after the referendum, Davis has rejected requests to reveal the studies commissioned to review the likely effects of Brexit, etc. Other than the action of leaving the EU, not a single promise made by the Leave campaign is being held to account, with the campaigners themselves admitting they were fantasies.

Of course they are not allowed to change their minds. That would be like science and science is just a scam anyway.
They do however have the right to leave Britain any day based on a (new) gut feeling.

This is also true for London of course. It was conquered by Wessex at some point, doesn't want to pay so much in taxes for the other British regions and has its own distinct culture from them, it should really have a referendum to become its own nation.

[Gilrandir]

I'm afraid I did not watch this movie that is based on my life.
And yes, it's an important question because in his universe it appears to be normal to tell other people you hate them, want nothing to do with them anymore and then expect them to bend over backwards to comfort you as you leave them to rot. :dizzy2:


You don't seem to be that exasperated by Fragony who essentially expresses the same attitude.

[Husar]

You don't seem to be that exasperated by Fragony who essentially expresses the same attitude.

You really seem desperate to push some red button. Is it fun for you to open Pandora's box?
I've argued enough with him, last time I did he wanted to leave this place for good.
Did you forget that or do you want a repetition? :inquisitive:

[Gilrandir]

You really seem desperate to push some red button. Is it fun for you to open Pandora's box?
I've argued enough with him, last time I did he wanted to leave this place for good.
Did you forget that or do you want a repetition? :inquisitive:

Just some observations with no intention to ignite any conflict on these truly peaceful and hospitable boards.

[Husar]

Just some observations with no intention to ignite any conflict on these truly peaceful and hospitable boards.

Then peace shall be with you, visitor. :bow:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

London voted no too. But we'll have to live with the idiocy of Brexit, voted for by people who want to cut immigration. Despite immigration levels being inversely proportional to the strength of the Brexit vote: the whiter the population and the lower the immigration level experienced, the more they want to cut immigration.

I was actually referencing Scotland's own referendum.

I have seen the polling maps that noted the Brexit vote was Scotland and the cities being outvoted by the rest of the countryside.

[Pannonian]

New figures show Britain £500bn poorer than thought (http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/britain/new-figures-show-britain-500bn-poorer-than-thought-36230217.html)


Britain is £490bn (€550bn) poorer than thought and no longer has any reserve of net foreign assets to help protect against any damage to the economy from Brexit.

The revision to the national accounts in the Office of National Statistic's (ONS) so-called Blue Book means that the UK's net international investment position has collapsed from a surplus of £469bn to a net deficit of £22bn - equivalent to a quarter of GDP.

The revised figures show the country owns far fewer international assets and owes far more to foreign investors than previously thought.

"Half a trillion pounds has gone missing," said Mark Capleton, the UK rates strategist at Bank of America.
The effective writedown in the value of "UK plc" could make it harder to defend sterling and the British debt markets against a run on the pound after Britain leaves the European Union.

It comes as the Brexit talks in Brussels reach a crucial stage.
Treasury officials are already braced for "gloomy" OECD forecasts which are due to give its two-yearly update on the state of the UK economy today.

The ONS overestimated how many financial assets Britons own overseas and foreign investment in the UK.
Company profits were lower than forecast, and a large amount of supposed assets held by firms were in fact disguised forms of lending to UK households.

The revision is disturbing given that foreign direct investment into Britain has collapsed, plummeting from a net £120bn in the first half of last year to a net outflow of £25bn this year.
The apparent resilience of these flows shortly after the Brexit referendum was an illusion, since the funds had already been committed earlier.

At what point will Leavers recognise that their decision has monumentally buggered up the British economy?

[Greyblades]

The revision to the national accounts in the Office of National Statistic's (ONS) so-called Blue Book means that the UK's net international investment position has collapsed from a surplus of £469bn to a net deficit of £22bn - equivalent to a quarter of GDP.

The revised figures show the country owns far fewer international assets and owes far more to foreign investors than previously thought.


I dont understand this, why would a reduction in owned assets increase our debt? Surely the debt is unaffected.

[HopAlongBunny]

Britain's best choice is pretty clear.
Join Canada. Britain would get NAFTA, which might cushion the shock of leaving the EU. No hard choices to make really as we share much of the same public infrastructure already.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nafta-britain-canada-1.4353341

The idea seems to have started as a lark, but when you think about it, it really makes sense.

[Pannonian]

Britain's best choice is pretty clear.
Join Canada. Britain would get NAFTA, which might cushion the shock of leaving the EU. No hard choices to make really as we share much of the same public infrastructure already.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/nafta-britain-canada-1.4353341

The idea seems to have started as a lark, but when you think about it, it really makes sense.

"Donald Trump is threatening again to terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to his ultimatums."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Donald Trump is threatening again to terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement if Canada and Mexico don’t agree to his ultimatums."

And unthinkingly or not, dropping nafta would be supported by Trump voters. A reasonable deal with Canada would replace it though. Most trumpeteers deplore the trade/econ problems from our Southern neighbor far more.

[HopAlongBunny]

The pain will go both ways if Trump blows up NAFTA.
Canada will of course be hurt to a greater degree, but it will not go well in the U.S.
At present, Trump's demands amount to little more than an attempt at blackmail.
"Tough bargaining", sure but usually one makes demands that might even be met.

A nice overview of the deal, the issues and process:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trump-nafta-canada-mexico-trudeau/article33715250/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

[Seamus Fermanagh]

QUOTE=HopAlongBunny;2053764552]The pain will go both ways if Trump blows up NAFTA.
Canada will of course be hurt to a greater degree, but it will not go well in the U.S.
At present, Trump's demands amount to little more than an attempt at blackmail.
"Tough bargaining", sure but usually one makes demands that might even be met.

A nice overview of the deal, the issues and process:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trump-nafta-canada-mexico-trudeau/article33715250/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&[/QUOTE]

This kind of move is classic, old-school "I'm gonna make you blink first" bargaining.


Next, you need to prepare for your counterpart’s hard-bargaining tactics. To do so, you first will have to be able to identify them. In their book Beyond Winning: Negotiating to Create Value in Deals and Disputes, Robert Mnookin, Scott Peppet, and Andrew Tulumello offer advice to avoid being caught off-guard by hard bargainers. The better prepared we are for hard-bargaining strategies in negotiation, the better able we will be to defuse them.

Here is a list of the 10 hardball tactics in negotiation to watch out for from the authors of Beyond Winning:
1. Extreme demands followed up by small, slow concessions. Perhaps the most common of all hard-bargaining tactics, this one protects dealmakers from making concessions too quickly. However, it can keep parties from making a deal and unnecessarily drag out business negotiations. To head off this tactic, have a clear sense of your own goals, best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA), and bottom line – and don’t be rattled by an aggressive opponent.

The folks at the NP have made academic and consulting careers on countering this tactic alone.

And The Donald simply loves to play hard-nosed/I'm tougher than you are/I can fool you negotiation games. He even wrote of a tactic in the art of the deal based on not washing your hands just after going to the bathroom before a meeting. The idea being that you would know that you'd just been handling your junk and that your handshake with the other folks meant that you were getting one over on them. You would thus be psyched to do a better, more powerful and dominating performance in the deal.

He apparently adores bargaining head=games and dirty tricks.

[Beskar]

The pain will go both ways if Trump blows up NAFTA.
Canada will of course be hurt to a greater degree, but it will not go well in the U.S.
At present, Trump's demands amount to little more than an attempt at blackmail.
"Tough bargaining", sure but usually one makes demands that might even be met.

A nice overview of the deal, the issues and process:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trump-nafta-canada-mexico-trudeau/article33715250/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

Population of the UK is double that of Canada. If the UK joined, its regions would become states and former UK territories would control 2/3 of your parliament. Not a good outcome for Canada by any means. However, the UK-brexiteers believe they can make the commonwealth into a quasi-EU controlled by London, sort of re-igniting the Empire sort of thing.

[Fragony]

QUOTE=HopAlongBunny;2053764552]The pain will go both ways if Trump blows up NAFTA.
Canada will of course be hurt to a greater degree, but it will not go well in the U.S.
At present, Trump's demands amount to little more than an attempt at blackmail.
"Tough bargaining", sure but usually one makes demands that might even be met.

A nice overview of the deal, the issues and process:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trump-nafta-canada-mexico-trudeau/article33715250/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

This kind of move is classic, old-school "I'm gonna make you blink first" bargaining.




The folks at the NP have made academic and consulting careers on countering this tactic alone.

And The Donald simply loves to play hard-nosed/I'm tougher than you are/I can fool you negotiation games. He even wrote of a tactic in the art of the deal based on not washing your hands just after going to the bathroom before a meeting. The idea being that you would know that you'd just been handling your junk and that your handshake with the other folks meant that you were getting one over on them. You would thus be psyched to do a better, more powerful and dominating performance in the deal.

He apparently adores bargaining head=games and dirty tricks.[/QUOTE]

Don't clean your nails, you barely made it on time after all

[CrossLOPER]

He even wrote of a tactic in the art of the deal based on not washing your hands just after going to the bathroom before a meeting. The idea being that you would know that you'd just been handling your junk and that your handshake with the other folks meant that you were getting one over on them.

Is this actually in there? This is something 4chan's /r9k/ loners would suggest.

[Husar]

http://www.snopes.com/trump-no-wash-trick/


This passage does not appear anywhere in Donald Trump’s The Art of the Deal. We searched the text of that book for the phrase “‘no-wash’ trick,” as well as more colorful offerings such as “handling your junk” and “touched my schlong,” and came up empty-handed each time.

Leftist propaganda fake news. :no:

Never forget though that many people you will meet in life will not have washed their hands when they touch you either way.

https://www.livescience.com/37326-bathroom-hand-washing-habits.html


After using the bathroom, 95 percent of people fail to wash their hands long enough to kill harmful bacteria, a new study finds.

Researchers also found that only two in three people use soap, while one in 10 skips the sink altogether, and men get much lower marks for hand hygiene than women.

Of course researchers also found that kids playing in the dirt on farms develop fewer allergies, but I guess one could still be expected to at least wash the worst stuff off one's hands after going to the loo. Having sterile hands all day might be a bit much. When was the last time you sterilized your keyboard? :sweatdrop:

[Fragony]

Is this actually in there? This is something 4chan's /r9k/ loners would suggest.

Made a mistake quoting SF's post, that doesn't come from me, forgot to fix it my bad. Wouldn't surprise me if the Donald's mind works like that, the guy needs to be psyched-up it seems. Could work, pheronomes and all that, or just knowing you are giving a dirty hand

[Husar]

Made a mistake quoting SF's post, that doesn't come from me, forgot to fix it my bad. Wouldn't surprise me if the Donald's mind works like that, the guy needs to be psyched-up it seems. Could work, pheronomes and all that, or just knowing you are giving a dirty hand

I also wouldn't have put it entirely past him, but if you check my post above you may find that it is likely a fake but also not a reason to rejoice. :sweatdrop:

[Montmorency]

http://www.snopes.com/trump-no-wash-trick/



Leftist propaganda fake news. :no:

Never forget though that many people you will meet in life will not have washed their hands when they touch you either way.

https://www.livescience.com/37326-bathroom-hand-washing-habits.html



Of course researchers also found that kids playing in the dirt on farms develop fewer allergies, but I guess one could still be expected to at least wash the worst stuff off one's hands after going to the loo. Having sterile hands all day might be a bit much. When was the last time you sterilized your keyboard? :sweatdrop:

I believe I wash my hands more thoroughly than most (at public restrooms), and I would be reprimanded at a hospital for inadequate washing - or maybe not (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/nyregion/hospitals-struggle-to-get-workers-to-wash-their-hands.html). How well and frequently do you wash your hands at home? I already have some anxiety about offending people by shaking with sweaty hands, but a lack of sterility is no problem at all. It's hand-to-hand, not hand-to-face (of which latter is a separate issue, but it's definitely weirded me out for a long time, how can you hold a handrail then wipe at your face?!?).

[Fragony]

I believe I wash my hands more thoroughly than most (at public restrooms), and I would be reprimanded at a hospital for inadequate washing - or maybe not (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/nyregion/hospitals-struggle-to-get-workers-to-wash-their-hands.html). How well and frequently do you wash your hands at home? I already have some anxiety about offending people by shaking with sweaty hands, but a lack of sterility is no problem at all. It's hand-to-hand, not hand-to-face (of which latter is a separate issue, but it's definitely weirded me out for a long time, how can you hold a handrail then wipe at your face?!?).

If you don't think too much you won't get anxious and won't have sweaty hands.

[HopAlongBunny]

... its regions would become states and former UK territories would control 2/3 of your parliament.

Sad to say, but such an outcome would likely thrill some people. The Daughters of the Empire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Order_Daughters_of_the_Empire) would almost certainly hold a tea :)

[Furunculus]

The Leave vote in the Brexit referendum was based on promises which the government and even the campaigners agree cannot be kept, other than the action of leaving the EU. Reducing immigration is not practically possible, the 350m/wk promise was repudiated by Farage the day after the referendum,

Erm, not all of us care about immigration.
In fact the ashcroft exit polls confirmed that it was not the most significant motivation by a long shot.
Nor too do all of us give a damn about the £350m/year promise for the NHS.

Some of us (me included), simply believed it was a poor form of governance. One that demonstrated its rank inadequacy in the renegotiation when belgium et-al demanded the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to britain.

And that if we really want to get down into the weeds of the economic argument, where remainers complain about lost growth, then i'll whine about the 10% of GDP lost in the last generation as a result of GDP growth being suppressed by 0.4% year on year, as the post social-chapter labour government pursued a european economic/regulatory model and spent 5% more GDP than it needed to on government services. Compound growth (or the lack thereof) is a bitch!

[Pannonian]

Erm, not all of us care about immigration.
In fact the ashcroft exit polls confirmed that not the most significant motivation by a long shot.

Not all of us give a damn about the £350m/year promise for the NHS.

Some of us (me included), simply believed it was a poor form of governance.

And that if we really want to get down into the weeds of the economic argument, where remainers whine about lost growth, then i'll whine about the 10% of GDP lost in the last generation as a result of GDP growth being suppressed by 0.4% year on year, as the post social-chapter labour government pursued a european economic/regulatory model and spent 5% more GDP than it needed to on government services.

Where do you get this figure from? How is the necessary level of government services defined?

[Furunculus]

Where do you get this figure from? How is the necessary level of government services defined?

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Tax-Growth-PDF.pdf

They talk about 1.0% over 'the long term' for a 10% fall, rather than 0.4% over 'a generation' for a 5% fall, but p0tato/patato.

[Pannonian]

https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Tax-Growth-PDF.pdf

They talk about 1.0% over 'the long term' for a 10% fall, rather than 0.4% over 'a generation' for a 5% fall, but p0tato/patato.

Erm, how economically and politically credible is the IEA? I've spoken before about my contempt for the neoliberal economic theorists who advocated hardcore adoption of their theories in Yeltsin's Russia while they lived a continent and an ocean away. From what I can see, the IEA is one of these very same neolib think tanks. Does it talk about the social impact of their economic analyses? Because that was what did for Yeltsin's Russia.

[Husar]

It seems to be more on the neoliberal side:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs

right wing think tank [...] it promotes free market economics [...] The arguably most influential think tank in British history... benefited from the close alignment of IEA's neoliberal agenda with corporate interests and the priorities of the Thatcher government.[3]

And if you look at these pages, it is even worse:

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs
http://tobaccotactics.org/index.php/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs

Apparently they believe the markets will fix climate change better than governments:
https://www.desmogblog.com/institute-economic-affairs

“Government intervention in the name of energy sustainability is the major threat to real energy sustainability and the provision of affordable, reliable energy to growing economies worldwide. Free-market structures and the wealth generated by markets help communities to best adapt to climate change.” [5]

And according to this German page, they are climate sceptics and support the Brexit:
https://lobbypedia.de/wiki/Institute_of_Economic_Affairs

Das IEA vertritt klimaskeptische Positionen und befürwortet den Brexit.

They also have a Facebook page where they rant against government influence:
https://www.facebook.com/ieauk/
And a Vimeo channel:
https://vimeo.com/user4316837/videos

And they hate traffic lights and think personal cars should be the kings of traffic:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/traffic-lights-are-damaging-the-economy-institute-of-economic-affairs-says-a6832546.html


The said cycling infrastructure, such as advanced stop lines at traffic lights; 20 mph zones in urban areas; and bus priority lanes have "unfortunate" affects on other road users.

Their view on smoking, alcohol and obesity is very financially-optimistic:
https://www.west-info.eu/cigarettes-are-a-benefit-only-for-the-state/smoking-and-the-public-purse/


• We estimate a net saving of £14.7 billon per annum at current rates of
consumption, with the costs smokers incur significantly outweighed by
the sum of tobacco duty paid and old-age expenditures avoided due to
premature mortality.
• The government spends £3.6 billion treating smoking-attributable
diseases on the NHS and up to £1 billion collecting cigarette butts
and extinguishing smoking-related house fires. But these costs are
covered more than four times over by early death savings and tobacco
duty revenue.
[...]
• This paper is the final instalment of a three-part series looking at three
lifestyle factors that are said to be a drain on taxpayers. The first two
papers looked at alcohol and obesity respectively. The former incurs a
gross cost which is amply offset by alcohol duty revenues. The latter
incurs an annual net cost of up to £2.5 billion. The current paper finds
that smoking results in a net saving of £19.8 billion. Taken together,
Britain’s public finances would be £22.8 billion worse off if there were
no drinking, smoking or obesity.

That's just going by the search results, leaving out some links about their offspring organizations in Africa etc.
Now we can wonder and discuss what this says about their reliability when they predict the impact of the Brexit.
Either way they seem to be very much in favor of the market and of the government making more money, regardless of silly hindrances like dead people.

[Pannonian]

What I do know about Thatcher's neoliberal advisers, IEA presumably foremost amongst them, is that even she, the most famously neoliberal of UK PMs, considered some of their ideas to be no-gos. She took ideas from them, and moved towards their direction, but the overall picture wasn't their remit. That was the responsibility of government. Government takes the well being of the populace into account when considering the impact of policy ideas. The neoliberal think tanks, infamously, did not, and when their ideas were given full rein in Russia, led to revulsion against the government that implemented them, and turning to Putin as a reaction.

Thus I ask if these analyses take social impact into account. "Necessary level of government services" is a rather subjective measure, as if the neolibs had their way, the NHS would be done away with entirely, and replaced with a US-style healthcare system. Going by their measure, any government spending on health is unnecessary. Same with pensions, child benefits, housing benefits, and all the other social stuff.

[Montmorency]

Neoliberals are to Adam Smith what the CCCP was to Karl Marx?

[Pannonian]

Looking into it, the IEA does indeed want to do away with the NHS. So all spending in that area is categorised as unnecessary spending on government services. Pensions too. Child benefits...

[Husar]

The neoliberal think tanks, infamously, did not, and when their ideas were given full rein in Russia, led to revulsion against the government that implemented them, and turning to Putin as a reaction.

You may also want to check out Chile and the "Chicago boys". It's often cited as a wealthy example of a well-developed South American country, but some 90% or so of that is owned by only four families while mining corporations buy peoples' drinking water literally out of the local area water towers since they need insane amounts of water to scam the government out of the taxes they owe (they use the water to hide the metal content of their exports, then claim it is lower than it actually is and the government privatized/outsourced toll duties and checks to the same private security firms that guard the mines...).

Either way, if the IEA is as libertarian and pro-Brexit as it sounds, Brexit looks to be great, for rich people in Britain.

[Pannonian]

You may also want to check out Chile and the "Chicago boys". It's often cited as a wealthy example of a well-developed South American country, but some 90% or so of that is owned by only four families while mining corporations buy peoples' drinking water literally out of the local area water towers since they need insane amounts of water to scam the government out of the taxes they owe (they use the water to hide the metal content of their exports, then claim it is lower than it actually is and the government privatized/outsourced toll duties and checks to the same private security firms that guard the mines...).

Either way, if the IEA is as libertarian and pro-Brexit as it sounds, Brexit looks to be great, for rich people in Britain.

And to show that the IEA's ideas aren't just theories being peddled by distant think tanks, the Commons voted to delay one of its brainchilds tonight. Except that the government has insisted that the vote is only advisory, and it is under no obligation to follow the wishes of the Commons vote.

Wasn't one of the supposedly principled arguments for Brexit that the EU was undemocratic, and that Parliament should be sovereign? Would votes of no confidence in the government also be taken as advisory, with the government under no obligation to follow the wishes of such a Commons vote? Does the IEA count for more than a majority Commons vote?

[Furunculus]

It seems to be more on the neoliberal side:

[blah]

And they hate traffic lights and think personal cars should be the kings of traffic:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/traffic-lights-are-damaging-the-economy-institute-of-economic-affairs-says-a6832546.html

[some other stuff]

Either way they seem to be very much in favor of the market and of the government making more money, regardless of silly hindrances like dead people.

What, you don't like my 'experts'?
What a positively leaver'ish attitude.

Which is the short way of saying; nice attempt to play the man and not the ball, but the essential finding is not new, you just don't like it: growth will be faster with less spending.

This is the political economy, i'm not obliged to justify my support for the measure any more than you are your political compass.


Erm, how economically and politically credible is the IEA? I've spoken before about my contempt for the neoliberal economic theorists who advocated hardcore adoption of their theories in Yeltsin's Russia while they lived a continent and an ocean away. From what I can see, the IEA is one of these very same neolib think tanks. Does it talk about the social impact of their economic analyses? Because that was what did for Yeltsin's Russia.


How economically and political credible is any political thinktank in this country?
Progress..., any of the others?

This objection doesn't amount to anything, other than a dislikeof what it says. I've spoken before about my contempt for the eu enthusiasts who advanced hardcore adoption of eu integration even while soft-pedalling the effects of their work. In using ever-closer-union, it was essentially gerrymandering a statist leftward drift that the electorate would not countenance to the ballot box.

But so what, you're not obliged to care about or support my views on this.

[Pannonian]

What, you don't like my 'experts'?
What a positively leaver'ish attitude.

Which is the short way of saying; nice attempt to play the man and not the ball, but the essential finding is not new, you just don't like it: growth will be faster with less spending.

You got an overall picture from neoliberal theorists. Not even Maggie Thatcher got her overall picture from neoliberal theorists. And she certainly didn't form her social policies based entirely on an overall picture from neoliberal theorists, as you're suggesting. That was a bit too loony even for her.

[Pannonian]

How economically and political credible is any political thinktank in this country?
Progress..., any of the others?

This objection doesn't amount to anything, other than a dislikeof what it says. I've spoken before about my contempt for the eu enthusiasts who advanced hardcore adoption of eu integration even while soft-pedalling the effects of their work. In using ever-closer-union, it was essentially gerrymandering a statist leftward drift that the electorate would not countenance to the ballot box.

But so what, you're not obliged to care about or support my views on this.

Your measure was this.


spent 5% more GDP than it needed to on government services. Compound growth (or the lack thereof) is a bitch!

This measure does not just measure government spending. It also judges said level of government spending to be more than needed for services. So we look at what the studiers deem to be needed government services. They consistently deem the NHS to be unnecessary government spending that should cease. And pensions. And child benefits. Housing benefits. And every other kind of benefit. And as Husar has found, they deem even traffic lights to be unneeded government spending that we can do without, as it adversely affects economic performance. And as your second sentence above shows, not only do you take your word for what they deem to be unneeded government spending, you also take their word on economic performance given their recommended level of government spending. Does this mean you support the abolition of traffic lights too? Let those pesky kids take their chances when crossing the road from the bus stop to school. Road accidents are natural wastage, and those whose parents don't drive them all the way inside the school gates aren't likely to be of economic use anyway.

[Husar]

What, you don't like my 'experts'?
What a positively leaver'ish attitude.

Which is the short way of saying; nice attempt to play the man and not the ball, but the essential finding is not new, you just don't like it: growth will be faster with less spending.

This is the political economy, i'm not obliged to justify my support for the measure any more than you are your political compass.

That's ridiculous.
You cut out the part where I say the actual merit of their calculations cannot necessarily be directly derived from my findings (though Pannonian just provided an idea of how it can be done), which I obviously don't like, and then call me biased because I don't like them...
I was being entirely fair towards their numbers, Pannonian asked how trustworthy they (the people who came up with the numbers) are and I gave my opinion on that based on what I found.

You're being a hypocrite in that if you dismiss my opinion due to my bias, but take their position for granted despite their bias towards a Brexit. At least I don't hide my bias like they do their Exxon Mobile donations...
Besides, it's not like you're the neutral one here either way.

[Furunculus]

Your measure was this.



This measure does not just measure government spending. It also judges said level of government spending to be more than needed for services. So we look at what the studiers deem to be needed government services. They consistently deem the NHS to be unnecessary government spending that should cease. And pensions. And child benefits. Housing benefits. And every other kind of benefit. And as Husar has found, they deem even traffic lights to be unneeded government spending that we can do without, as it adversely affects economic performance. And as your second sentence above shows, not only do you take your word for what they deem to be unneeded government spending, you also take their word on economic performance given their recommended level of government spending. Does this mean you support the abolition of traffic lights too? Let those pesky kids take their chances when crossing the road from the bus stop to school. Road accidents are natural wastage, and those whose parents don't drive them all the way inside the school gates aren't likely to be of economic use anyway.

The IEA hasn't just sprung this out of a hat.
There has been research going back many years suggesting that increased government spending results in reduced economic growth potential. And they worked to the same rough metrix: 1% spending = 0.1% growth.
If you disagree, demonstrate why it is wrong rather than obsessing about neo-liberals.
As to who decides what is an appropriate level of government spending: Me, you, every other UK voter.
Think we should spend more, fine, but i'm in no way obliged (morally or otherwise), to support that contention.

That aside, I am surprised that you chose to focus on an aside rather than my direct response to something you said:


Erm, not all of us care about immigration.
In fact the ashcroft exit polls confirmed that it was not the most significant motivation by a long shot.
Nor too do all of us give a damn about the £350m/year promise for the NHS.

Some of us (me included), simply believed it was a poor form of governance. One that demonstrated its rank inadequacy in the renegotiation when belgium et-al demanded the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to britain.


Which is after all the topic of this discussion, and one i'd be happy to continue...

[Furunculus]

That's ridiculous.
You cut out the part where I say the actual merit of their calculations cannot necessarily be directly derived from my findings (though Pannonian just provided an idea of how it can be done), which I obviously don't like, and then call me biased because I don't like them...
I was being entirely fair towards their numbers, Pannonian asked how trustworthy they (the people who came up with the numbers) are and I gave my opinion on that based on what I found.

You're being a hypocrite in that if you dismiss my opinion due to my bias, but take their position for granted despite their bias towards a Brexit. At least I don't hide my bias like they do their Exxon Mobile donations...
Besides, it's not like you're the neutral one here either way.

How generous of you to provide that proviso after all the text slating the source.
Newsflash, i'm not frightened by the terms neo-liberal or right-wing, if they have something to say that we don't like then attack the premise not the vendor.

That is in no way hypocritical; you haven't come within a country mile of attempting to rebut the premise, i merely noted in public that deficit.

Again, we're obsessing about an aside; i'd far rather challenge the notion implicit in the original quoted comment that leavers were thick working class racists at deaths door. Something that had appeared to be unchallenged at this point.

It's a little deeper than closet racism:
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

Brexit - a middle class affair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQlFcMpO3Uk

Leavers far more concerned with sovereignty than immigation AND security:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Discuss...

[Husar]

That is in no way hypocritical; you haven't come within a country mile of attempting to rebut the premise, i merely noted in public that deficit.

I didn't set out to rebut anything. :dizzy2:

Pannonian asked for the trustworthiness of the institute and that's what I replied to.
I'm not really interested in proving anything about the impact of Brexit on Britain because that's like, your problem now.

[Pannonian]

How generous of you to provide that proviso after all the text slating the source.
Newsflash, i'm not frightened by the terms neo-liberal or right-wing, if they have something to say that we don't like then attack the premise not the vendor.

That is in no way hypocritical; you haven't come within a country mile of attempting to rebut the premise, i merely noted in public that deficit.

Again, we're obsessing about an aside; i'd far rather challenge the notion implicit in the original quoted comment that leavers were thick working class racists at deaths door. Something that had appeared to be unchallenged at this point.

It's a little deeper than closet racism:
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/10/when-and-why-nationalism-beats-globalism/

Brexit - a middle class affair:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQlFcMpO3Uk

Leavers far more concerned with sovereignty than immigation AND security:
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/

Discuss...

Does sovereignty mean doing what the House of Commons says the government should do? Or has that been invalidated by the Great Repeal Bill?

[Gilrandir]

Government takes the well being of the populace into account when considering the impact of policy ideas. The neoliberal think tanks, infamously, did not, and when their ideas were given full rein in Russia, led to revulsion against the government that implemented them, and turning to Putin as a reaction.


I'm afraid you simplify the reasons why Russians have turned to Putin. It was not just a reaction which you describe. Many other factors weighed in.

[Pannonian]

I'm afraid you simplify the reasons why Russians have turned to Putin. It was not just a reaction which you describe. Many other factors weighed in.

The screwed up state of Yeltsin's Russia was a big factor behind them turning, in a big way, towards nationalism. Putin's career has been a promise that the outside world won't be allowed to :daisy: around with Russia any more, but Russia will once again :daisy: with the outside world.

[Gilrandir]

The screwed up state of Yeltsin's Russia was a big factor behind them turning, in a big way, towards nationalism. Putin's career has been a promise that the outside world won't be allowed to :daisy: around with Russia any more, but Russia will once again :daisy: with the outside world.

When Putin took over he continued to make overtures to the West. It was gradually that Russia turned the way it did having grown fat on expensive oil. What put Putin on the throne is his stance on the Chechen war, the general fear of terroristic attacks within Russia (after the ones purpotedly organized by FSB) and him being younger and contrastingly virile in comparison to senile alcoholic Yeltsin.

[Pannonian]

Another leaked Treasury document from the studies on Brexit's impact that David Davis, the minister in charge of Brexit, is trying to suppress. The list of analyses range from very bad to catastrophic. They start with losing all the benefits of being an EU member, with an estimated loss to the average household of over £5k. They go into detail for each sector of industry and trade, with the effects starting bad (over a quarter of farms currently making a profit will turn into loss makers after Brexit), but long terms will turn even worse as we lose the benefit of being part of the largest trading bloc in the world, with competitors proven to be predatory and only reversed by the EU's clout.

[Furunculus]

Does sovereignty mean doing what the House of Commons says the government should do? Or has that been invalidated by the Great Repeal Bill?

Yes. And parliament will improve the repeal bill, this is the normal give and take process that parliament has always operated by.

[Pannonian]

Yes. And parliament will improve the repeal bill, this is the normal give and take process that parliament has always operated by.

So should the government ignore the vote on Universal Credit (the brainchild of your beloved IEA) until the Great Repeal Bill can be perfected? The Commons has voted on UC and passed the opposition vote unanimously. The government says it is purely advisory and is under no obligation to act on it. Will every other Commons vote that goes against it also be seen as purely advisory and ignorable by the government? Should we just dissolve Parliament until it's time for the next General Election, as it has no power or sovereignty anyway?

[Furunculus]

i'm not sure i understand the problem; parliament has procedure and precedent. this was just another example of that.

does anything more need to be said?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/18/theresa-may-rules-out-pause-in-introducing-universal-credit

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So should the government ignore the vote on Universal Credit (the brainchild of your beloved IEA) until the Great Repeal Bill can be perfected? The Commons has voted on UC and passed the opposition vote unanimously. The government says it is purely advisory and is under no obligation to act on it. Will every other Commons vote that goes against it also be seen as purely advisory and ignorable by the government? Should we just dissolve Parliament until it's time for the next General Election, as it has no power or sovereignty anyway?

[Charles Windsor slowly rubbed his hands together...savoring the imminent irrelevance of the commons and the return of sovereignty to...the Sovereign. {queue in appropriate low key triumphal music here, gradually swelling volume}]

[Fragony]

Game set match for the UK it seems

[Pannonian]

Game set match for the UK it seems

Have you told Theresa May that? She could do with some cheering up.

[Fragony]

Have you told Theresa May that? She could do with some cheering up.

Well send her the good news I'd say, she gets her trading negotiations. But she already knows that

Don't take my word for it, ask Bernier

[Pannonian]

Well send her the good news I'd say, she gets her trading negotiations. But she already knows that

Don't take my word for it, ask Bernier


The EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has warned that Britain can expect a trade deal little better than the one the EU struck with Canada – and even that would take years to negotiate, despite Theresa May’s claims to the contrary over Britain’s future after Brexit.

Barnier said he could envision a short transition period being agreed between the EU and the UK before March 2019 to ease the UK’s exit from the bloc, but it would require the British government accepting the continuation of EU law and the jurisdiction of the European court of justice.

A future trade deal, however, would have to be negotiated over “several years” and “will be very different” from the status quo, Barnier told a group of European newspapers.

“If we reach an agreement on the orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom, such a [transition] period, both short and framed, is possible,” he said. “To my mind, it makes sense that it covers the financial period, so until 2020. It would leave us more time to prepare for the future relationship.

“But I insist on one point: such a period would be possible only if it is framed by the maintenance of all of the regulatory architecture and European supervision, including jurisdictional. It would maintain the economic status quo and all obligations of the UK.”

“From the moment the UK told us that it wants out of the single market and the customs union, we will have to work on a model that is closer to the agreement signed with Canada.

“The single market is a set of rules and standards and is a shared jurisdiction. Its integrity is non-negotiable, as is the autonomy of decisions of the 27. Either you’re in or you’re out.”

The deal struck between the EU and Canada, known as the the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), lifts 98% of tariffs on imports between the two parties, and was a significant move towards freer trade.

It does not, however, significantly reduce non-tariff barriers for trade and traditional rules-of-origin regulations would apply for the UK’s exports to the EU, under such a deal.

If the non-EU import content of a UK export was too high, for example, there would be a loss of duty-free access for particular sensitive industrial goods, notably cars. A lack of regulatory harmonisation for medicines, automobiles and aircraft equipment would also require products being checked at the border.

A deal similar to CETA would furthermore offer little to the UK’s vital financial services sector post-Brexit, when businesses located in the City will lose their automatic right to offer their services across the EU.

Barnier said of the negotiations over the future that they would be highly complex and would take many years before they could be put to the national parliaments for ratification.

He said: “The two phases are difficult. The second will be very different and will last several years. It is truly unique because instead of promoting regulatory convergence, it will aim to frame a difference. It will involve risks, including about its political ratification, making all the more necessary transparency around these topics.”

Barnier’s comments appeared to contradict the prime minister’s claims in the House of Commons on Monday that the details of a future trade deal would be settled before the UK left the bloc. May has insisted this will be necessary to allow the implementation in changes to customs controls, for example, in the two years directly after March 2019.

The prime minister had suggested in her Florence speech in September that a deal between the UK and the EU would be far more advanced than that struck with Canada, claiming that such a deal “compared with what exists between Britain and the EU today would represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit neither of our economies”.

May added in her speech in Italy: “Not only that, it would start from the false premise that there is no pre-existing regulatory relationship between us. And precedent suggests that it could take years to negotiate. We can do so much better than this.”

However, Barnier appeared to offer the British government little hope of such an advance on the Canadian deal being possible, although he acknowledged his team was working on the details of an exit treaty.

He said: “The strategic interest of our continent is to partner with this very large country with a permanent seat on the United Nations security council. But this is not a reason to undermine the single market.”

Of a no-deal scenario, Barnier said: “We do not want it at all, but we do not exclude any option. Such a scenario would cause us problems, and much larger [ones] in the UK.

“I will give you some examples. In London, to leave the Euratom treaty without an agreement would mean immediate problems for the import of nuclear material, whether for nuclear power plants or hospitals.

“That would mean leaving the single European sky agreement, and no longer being able to mutually recognise pilot qualifications or get take off or landing clearance. And what would happen to the food products imported into the United Kingdom? There would immediately be customs controls, perhaps taxes. That’s why I want a deal.”



https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/23/uk-likely-to-end-up-with-canadian-style-deal-warns-michel-barnier


The non-political parts of UK's government back the EU's version of reality.

[Fragony]

Having to followv EU jursdiction for trading? zas if that was ever possible to not to they are basicly saying nothing, You should be happy right now. The brexit has been accepted as a given and almost nothing is really comming into your way except limitations you already (mostly) have. It's time for you to take a relieved breath of air because you were obviously very worried, not unscatched but hardly broken no?

[Husar]

Having to followv EU jursdiction for trading? zas if that was ever possible to not to they are basicly saying nothing, You should be happy right now. The brexit has been accepted as a given and almost nothing is really comming into your way except limitations you already (mostly) have. It's time for you to take a relieved breath of air because you were obviously very worried, not unscatched but hardly broken no?

This sounds like a wonderful poem from Dreamland. Unfortunately the UK hasn't left this mortal coil for higher spheres yet and is still working within the confines of reality. Maybe they should elect someone who is a "dealmaker"? :laugh4:

[Pannonian]

This sounds like a wonderful poem from Dreamland. Unfortunately the UK hasn't left this mortal coil for higher spheres yet and is still working within the confines of reality. Maybe they should elect someone who is a "dealmaker"? :laugh4:

The civil service, business organisations, basically everyone charged with dealing with reality as opposed to what they wish reality were, are saying different things to what Frag is saying. And Frag says it's all to the good, whilst maintaining there is no chance whatsoever of him actually coming over here to live outside the EU. What was that I keep saying about Anglo-American neoliberals in the 90s and their hold on Yeltsin's Russia?

[Fragony]

Can't you see good news when you see it? You must be of Russian heritage with fatalism like that

[Husar]

Good news would be "UK drops special rebate in return for end of Brexit process to stay in EU, want to be good friends again."

The only thing I see here is that the Brexit talks are still not really going anywhere, just one guy involved thinks there are several possibilities that aren't really new or especially likely or good for Britain in any way.

[Fragony]

Good news would be a soft Brexit

[Husar]

Good news would be a soft Brexit

No.

[Pannonian]

Can't you see good news when you see it? You must be of Russian heritage with fatalism like that

I trust experts like the civil service, business organisations, and others with expertise in the relevant fields. None of them have anything good to say about Brexit. And now a Tory MP has told universities and other institutions to support Brexit or else. Well, something of the sort. He actually asked them which side they are on, hint hint.

[Fragony]

No.

All options left open we will see

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I trust experts like the civil service, business organisations, and others with expertise in the relevant fields. None of them have anything good to say about Brexit. And now a Tory MP has told universities and other institutions to support Brexit or else. Well, something of the sort. He actually asked them which side they are on, hint hint.

If your academics are anything like the bulk of my colleagues, that Tory MP will not enjoy the answer to his question.

[Pannonian]

All options left open we will see

Actually. no. May ruled out most of the components of soft Brexit before the talks started.


If your academics are anything like the bulk of my colleagues, that Tory MP will not enjoy the answer to his question.

Chris Patten (former Tory chairman credited with winning the 1992 election) couldn't believe his ears when he first heard of it, imagining it to be a Corbynite attempt to smear the Tory party. After double checking the veracity, he called it "Leninism"; the list would allow the government to identify opponents of Brexit, and you can work out the follow on from there.

[Pannonian]

As other academics joined the condemnation, it also emerged that Mr Heaton-Harris may have breached EU law with his attempts to find out what universities are teaching about Brexit.

A group of students studying for master’s degrees in Politics and the Political Economy of Europe at the London School of Economics (LSE) have written to the MP accusing him of violating the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes statements on academic freedom.

In a letter seen by The Independent, they say: “Since the United Kingdom is still a Member State of the EU, you are obliged as a working politician to respect and follow the European Union treaties. It is stated in Article 13 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights that ‘the arts and scientific research shall be free of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected’.

“Your action by asking academics to provide information of the teaching and researching of Brexit issues is in breach of this article as you are inputting political pressure which undermines our ability as autonomous institutions, academics and students to exercise our right to freedom of education, which is increasing our academic vulnerability and legally breaching not only the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights bit also the UNESCO declaration of 1997 [on academic freedom].”

They add: “We sincerely hope that you will reconsider your action in monitoring university teaching in European Affairs, and will leave students and academics to express and exercise their right and freedom to education."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/chris-heaton-harris-brexit-academics-list-tory-mp-conservative-university-vice-chancellor-david-a8017631.html

Thank goodness we shall be rid of such tyrannical EU laws when we leave, and sovereign British MPs will be free to sanction educational institutes that do not support Brexit as all good patriotic Britons should.

[Pannonian]

Britain extricating itself from the European Union will be “incomparably more complex” than the first moon landing, an academic study has found.

Roland Alter, a professor at Heilbronn University in Germany who specialises in risk assessment, said he had been inspired to carry out his analysis after comments by the Brexit secretary, David Davis, that he was “running a set of projects that make the Nasa moonshot look quite simple”.

But after analysing the two situations Alter said he concluded that Davis’s analogy “missed the point”. “Both project moonshot and project Brexit are in their own way extremely complex projects. The key difference is that the USA was aware of the complexity of its undertaking.”

The paper, to be published in the journal of the German Society for Project Management early next year, analyses the comparative complexity of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU and Nasa’s first moon landing using a risk assessment model developed by the Canadian government in 2007 to determine the risk and complexity of public sector projects.
...
The crucial difference between the two projects, according to Alter, was that the Nasa mission had a definable “landing zone”, namely the moon. In terms of complexity, its challenges had lain mainly in developing and applying new technologies.

“The situation in Great Britain is completely different in this respect,” his paper concludes. “The project was authorised by a referendum phrased in general terms and does not have a clearly defined ‘landing zone’.”

Alter, who previously worked as a strategist for Siemens, also teaches a course on catastrophically managed projects, which includes modules on Berlin’s much-delayed new airport, the over-budget Scottish parliament at Holyrood, Airbus’s ill-fated A400M Atlas aircraft and the Iraq war. “Brexit is not part of the course yet, but it’s a hot contender for the top spot,” Alter said.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/24/brexit-more-complex-than-first-moon-landing-says-academic-study


The City of London has warned that businesses will start activating Brexit contingency plans unless there is a transitional deal by the end of 2017, as Philip Hammond tried to calm fears that a final agreement may not be reached for another year.

Catherine McGuinness, the most senior policy official at the City of London Corporation – the local authority for the Square Mile – told the chancellor on Wednesday that time was running out a deal to ease the UK’s exit from the EU.

In a letter to Hammond before next month’s budget, McGuinness said the UK was facing a “historically defining moment” and warned that the timetable for business to prepare for transition was “tightening very rapidly”.

“We must have agreement with the EU on transition before the end of 2017,” she added.

Hammond was unable to guarantee that there would be any substantial progress on transitional arrangements with the EU by Christmas, a key demand of five major business lobby groups earlier this week.

But he moved to reassure businesses that the UK was seeking to pin down some principles of the Brexit transition period as soon as possible, after Theresa May signalled that signing off the final arrangements could take another year.

The prime minister delighted Eurosceptics when she told the Commons on Monday that there would be no transitional deal until the UK had settled its final relationship with the EU, which would not happen until next summer at the earliest and possibly not at all.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/24/principles-of-brexit-transition-will-be-agreed-soon-chancellor-says

[Fragony]

What is it with people confusing the EU with Europe

[Pannonian]

What do the Brexiters think of the Tory MP who sent a letter to the vice chancellors of all the universities and colleges in the UK, asking for a list of lecturers who lecture about Brexit?

[Fragony]

What do the Brexiters think of the Tory MP who sent a letter to the vice chancellors of all the universities and colleges in the UK, asking for a list of lecturers who lecture about Brexit?

Crossing boundaries

[Pannonian]

"Czechoslovakia doesn't currently have a government."
David Davis, former Europe minister, currently Minister in charge of Brexit.

[Gilrandir]

"Czechoslovakia doesn't currently have a government."
David Davis, former Europe minister, currently Minister in charge of Brexit.

He is perfectly right. I don't see how this is wrong.

[Husar]

At least in Germany that is not true. We do not have a new coalition government, but that doesn't mean we are "ungoverned" in the sense that there is noone to decide about things anymore. Usually the president asks the old government to fulfill that function until a new government is formed. In other words, don't worry, there is an uninterrupted Merkel.

Do other countries just helplessly shut down for months?

[Pannonian]

At least in Germany that is not true. We do not have a new coalition government, but that doesn't mean we are "ungoverned" in the sense that there is noone to decide about things anymore. Usually the president asks the old government to fulfill that function until a new government is formed. In other words, don't worry, there is an uninterrupted Merkel.

Do other countries just helplessly shut down for months?

Aside from the fact that Czechoslovakia has not existed since 1993, the UK's civil service is supposed to carry government through any political hiatus. The problem is that the civil service has been telling the political taskmasters that they're demanding the impossible, but the politicians have continued to insist that the impossible is what the people want and will get, and there is no political will to find a solution within the realms of possibility. And by possible, I mean without utterly wrecking the UK's economy. This leaves one possible solution, which is the one the politicians are pushing for, which is to have the hardest, most self-destructive Brexit possible. Barnier has suggested the Canada model, but that's too accommodating for the drivers of Brexit, who want the no deal route and subsequent abrogation of all agreements related to the EU.

What kind of Brexit do the Brexiters here favour? Would no deal be acceptable?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What do the Brexiters think of the Tory MP who sent a letter to the vice chancellors of all the universities and colleges in the UK, asking for a list of lecturers who lecture about Brexit?

In my country, the Congress critter who attempted such a thing would be refused, politely at first and then insultingly if the effort continued. The effort would likely generate protests and media events wherein virtually all faculty and administration members -- including the conservatives like myself -- would decry the effort as contemptible and unconstitutional.

In England, you lack our written Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the tradition of freedom of speech is powerful and of long standing. I suspect a similar result would occur if the effort was taken seriously. I am not sure if the effort actually breaks laws laid down by act of Parliament. Though I thought that freedom of speech etc. had been promulgated by Parliament and not simply left up to the mos maiorum.


I am inclined toward the state as the key political unit and prefer limiting federal oversight or supra-state oversight and control. I am, therefore, inclined to favor Brexit despite the difficulties that will be engendered in the short term economically (which were horribly glossed over prior to the vote as you have noted). To be fair, I don't have to live under the result, so my opinion can remain more ideologically driven than practical with little cost to self. That might skew my being in favor, I will acknowledge.

[Pannonian]

In my country, the Congress critter who attempted such a thing would be refused, politely at first and then insultingly if the effort continued. The effort would likely generate protests and media events wherein virtually all faculty and administration members -- including the conservatives like myself -- would decry the effort as contemptible and unconstitutional.

In England, you lack our written Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the tradition of freedom of speech is powerful and of long standing. I suspect a similar result would occur if the effort was taken seriously. I am not sure if the effort actually breaks laws laid down by act of Parliament. Though I thought that freedom of speech etc. had been promulgated by Parliament and not simply left up to the mos maiorum.


I am inclined toward the state as the key political unit and prefer limiting federal oversight or supra-state oversight and control. I am, therefore, inclined to favor Brexit despite the difficulties that will be engendered in the short term economically (which were horribly glossed over prior to the vote as you have noted). To be fair, I don't have to live under the result, so my opinion can remain more ideologically driven than practical with little cost to self. That might skew my being in favor, I will acknowledge.

Talking of constitution and such, David Davis, the minister in charge, said earlier that Parliament will only get to vote after the UK had left. Which begs the question of what Parliament has to vote on if the act is already irreversibly done, and the further question of what point there is of a Parliament that exists only to rubber stamp the government's decision after the fact. The government driving Brexit is, in other words, removing the equivalent of your lawmakers, and replacing it with the equivalent of your Electoral College. And there is no equivalent of a Senate either, as the government has threatened the Lords with dissolution if they obstruct Brexit.

So, has the US ever had an executive that has sidelined the other branches like the current UK government has done?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Talking of constitution and such, David Davis, the minister in charge, said earlier that Parliament will only get to vote after the UK had left. Which begs the question of what Parliament has to vote on if the act is already irreversibly done, and the further question of what point there is of a Parliament that exists only to rubber stamp the government's decision after the fact. The government driving Brexit is, in other words, removing the equivalent of your lawmakers, and replacing it with the equivalent of your Electoral College. And there is no equivalent of a Senate either, as the government has threatened the Lords with dissolution if they obstruct Brexit.

So, has the US ever had an executive that has sidelined the other branches like the current UK government has done?

To some extent, that tendency is exactly what US conservatives decry. The POTUS is expected to generate the budget even though that is officially ascribed to the HoR by the Constitution; POTUS regularly concludes negotiated agreements with foreign governments without signing a treaty which must be reviewed and confirmed by the Senate; Presidential executive orders are used to trump state laws or alter policy, sometimes in direct contradiction of a duly passed law. Some degree of sidelining happens regardless, but we have been concentrating too much extra-constitution power in the Presidency for far too long. A current POTUS has all of the governance duties of a Prime Minister AND the PR duties of a British Monarch. Not enough hours in the day for either job really, much less both. To be fair, Congress often worsens this trend by abrogating power (and the attendant responsibility) to the Presidency. Recall their giving G.W. Bush to power to wage war as he saw fit without returning to Congress for approval during the stretch after 9-11-01.

Historically, Lincoln more or less ignored Congress during the ACW. He suspended habeus corpus by Presidential Order, then ignored the SCOTUS when they ruled he could not and that only Congress could. He used military forces to close down certain newspapers without providing evidence that they were spying for the enemy or actively seditious. The federal government imprisoned thousands for opposing the war, virtually none of them with due process of law. Congress, admittedly, after the departure of many during the secessions, was not a powerhouse.

[Pannonian]

To some extent, that tendency is exactly what US conservatives decry. The POTUS is expected to generate the budget even though that is officially ascribed to the HoR by the Constitution; POTUS regularly concludes negotiated agreements with foreign governments without signing a treaty which must be reviewed and confirmed by the Senate; Presidential executive orders are used to trump state laws or alter policy, sometimes in direct contradiction of a duly passed law. Some degree of sidelining happens regardless, but we have been concentrating too much extra-constitution power in the Presidency for far too long. A current POTUS has all of the governance duties of a Prime Minister AND the PR duties of a British Monarch. Not enough hours in the day for either job really, much less both. To be fair, Congress often worsens this trend by abrogating power (and the attendant responsibility) to the Presidency. Recall their giving G.W. Bush to power to wage war as he saw fit without returning to Congress for approval during the stretch after 9-11-01.

Historically, Lincoln more or less ignored Congress during the ACW. He suspended habeus corpus by Presidential Order, then ignored the SCOTUS when they ruled he could not and that only Congress could. He used military forces to close down certain newspapers without providing evidence that they were spying for the enemy or actively seditious. The federal government imprisoned thousands for opposing the war, virtually none of them with due process of law. Congress, admittedly, after the departure of many during the secessions, was not a powerhouse.

During peacetime?

[Montmorency]

During peacetime?

America doesn't do "peacetime".

[Furunculus]

And by possible, I mean without utterly wrecking the UK's economy.

What kind of Brexit do the Brexiters here favour? Would no deal be acceptable?
that is an interesting notion you have right there. any compelling evidence to justify that adamantine certainty?

1. Cameron's deal, but with the ever-closer-union exemption not limited to britain. #thanksbelgium
2. Norway, without the flanking social and environmental policies. #itsjustamarket
3. Ukraine DCFTA with compliance moved to efta, rather than direct ECJ jurisdiction. #notinterestedinfederalism
4. If none of this is possible, slash tax and regulation and suck the life out of Eurozone growth potential. #friendsorelse

In order of preference. ;)

[Pannonian]

that is an interesting notion you have right there. any compelling evidence to justify that adamantine certainty?

1. Cameron's deal, but with the ever-closer-union exemption not limited to britain. #thanksbelgium
2. Norway, without the flanking social and environmental policies. #itsjustamarket
3. Ukraine DCFTA with compliance moved to efta, rather than direct ECJ jurisdiction. #notinterestedinfederalism
4. If none of this is possible, slash tax and regulation and suck the life out of Eurozone growth potential. #friendsorelse

In order of preference. ;)

The first three being ruled out to varying degrees by May's red lines, and she's a moderate by Brexit standards, I have to ask you about the fourth. How does it benefit us? Or is it meant only to damage the Eurozone, and accompanying damage to us is an acceptable price to pay for hurting the Euros?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

America doesn't do "peacetime".

Sadly, not for the foreseeable future anyway. The War on Terror is something of a "tarbaby," even while individual successes continue.

[Pannonian]

Sadly, not for the foreseeable future anyway. The War on Terror is something of a "tarbaby," even while individual successes continue.

The current state isn't exactly war footing though. Civilians continue to live their lives as if nothing has changed while the professionals do their stuff on the other side of the world. War footing, the kind that generally sees an expansion of the executive's powers, is changing society to serve the purpose of war. Britain was the first to do it in WWII and did it more thoroughly than any other country, so that state of affairs is not alien to us. The current status is nowhere near that. Yet the current government, without even a Commons majority after an election it called, has attempted greater centralisation of powers than any other peacetime government that I know of.

[Pannonian]

In my country, the Congress critter who attempted such a thing would be refused, politely at first and then insultingly if the effort continued. The effort would likely generate protests and media events wherein virtually all faculty and administration members -- including the conservatives like myself -- would decry the effort as contemptible and unconstitutional.

In England, you lack our written Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the tradition of freedom of speech is powerful and of long standing. I suspect a similar result would occur if the effort was taken seriously. I am not sure if the effort actually breaks laws laid down by act of Parliament. Though I thought that freedom of speech etc. had been promulgated by Parliament and not simply left up to the mos maiorum.


I am inclined toward the state as the key political unit and prefer limiting federal oversight or supra-state oversight and control. I am, therefore, inclined to favor Brexit despite the difficulties that will be engendered in the short term economically (which were horribly glossed over prior to the vote as you have noted). To be fair, I don't have to live under the result, so my opinion can remain more ideologically driven than practical with little cost to self. That might skew my being in favor, I will acknowledge.

And now one of the biggest selling newspapers in the country has backed the MP.


Our Remainer universities: As an MP provokes a storm by asking what students are being taught about leaving the EU, the extent of anti-Brexit bias and the academics who push Remain propaganda are laid bare

[Montmorency]

The first three being ruled out to varying degrees by May's red lines, and she's a moderate by Brexit standards, I have to ask you about the fourth. How does it benefit us? Or is it meant only to damage the Eurozone, and accompanying damage to us is an acceptable price to pay for hurting the Euros?

Isn't it the "race to the bottom"? If you're dedicated enough to it, eventually you can get the textile sweatshops to relocate from Ho Chi Minh City to Birmingham.


War footing, the kind that generally sees an expansion of the executive's powers, is changing society to serve the purpose of war.

Oh, it's happened. The absence of rationing or drastic lifestyle changes is likely essential to the insidious creep.

[Pannonian]

Isn't it the "race to the bottom"? If you're dedicated enough to it, eventually you can get the textile sweatshops to relocate from Ho Chi Minh City to Birmingham.


Funnily enough, Hong Kong, that beacon of free market capitalism that was the last jewel in Britain's colonial crown, is currently undergoing something of an economic boom because of all the regulations the British left in place, requiring all goods and products to pass rigorous safety standards. This means everything that can be bought in Hong Kong is trustworthy as far as safety and health is concerned, and the Chinese market next door, or at least those wealthy enough to be able to shop there, flock to Hong Kong as they can't trust their own goods and produce.

A shining tribute to rigorous deregulation> Or at least common disregard of lax regulations. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Tianjin_explosions)

[Furunculus]

The first three being ruled out to varying degrees by May's red lines, and she's a moderate by Brexit standards,

I have to ask you about the fourth. How does it benefit us? Or is it meant only to damage the Eurozone, and accompanying damage to us is an acceptable price to pay for hurting the Euros?

Nothing is off the table. We don't know where we're going to end up yet. It could be any one of the above, even including #1 with a lag into the 2020's.

The fourth isn't optimal, but it might be necessary depending on how much we need to be seen to be punished pour encourager les autres. Average GDP spend in the EUrozone is ~45%, with a generally higher tolerance for regulation. We're drifting down to ~40% of GDP, and could easily drop another five down to 35%, just like Canada, Australia, the US. Social and employment regulation could easily increment further down by a similar 'percentage'. Being the 'giant singapore of europe' doesn't mean actually mirroring singapore itself, just mirroring its relative position vis-a-vis other advanced east asian economies. Good regulation is good, I would never for a second dispute that. Having this disparity in tax and regulation would - other factors notwithstanding - boost GDP growth 1% over the trend norm (2.6% pre-brexit - 1.6% post brexit), and would happily accommodate the trade difficulty created by an intransigent EU. On the other hand; the eurozone has stagnating growth, despite negative interest rates, 55 billion euro's of QE/month, and still has 9% unemployment. This while they receive more than 50% of FDI via London, and yet they tell us they're willing to make trade in services harder (inc financial), well be my guest. That is very brave, Minister! I don't want this, but i'm willing to do it.I appreciate why a left-wing person might not be delighted at the prospect though...

[Pannonian]

Nothing is off the table. We don't know where we're going to end up yet. It could be any one of the above, even including #1 with a lag into the 2020's.

The fourth isn't optimal, but it might be necessary depending on how much we need to be seen to be punished pour encourager les autres. Average GDP spend in the EUrozone is ~45%, with a generally higher tolerance for regulation. We're drifting down to ~40% of GDP, and could easily drop another five down to 35%, just like Canada, Australia, the US. Social and employment regulation could easily increment further down by a similar 'percentage'. Being the 'giant singapore of europe' doesn't mean actually mirroring singapore itself, just mirroring its relative position vis-a-vis other advanced east asian economies. Good regulation is good, I would never for a second dispute that. Having this disparity in tax and regulation would - other factors notwithstanding - boost GDP growth 1% over the trend norm (2.6% pre-brexit - 1.6% post brexit), and would happily accommodate the trade difficulty created by an intransigent EU. On the other hand; the eurozone has stagnating growth, despite negative interest rates, 55 billion euro's of QE/month, and still has 9% unemployment. This while they receive more than 50% of FDI via London, and yet they tell us they're willing to make trade in services (inc finacnial harder), well be my guest. That is very brave, Minister! I don't want this, but i'm willing to do it.I appreciate why a left-wing person might not be delighted at the prospect though...

About the growth rate of 1.6%: were there any measures by the BofE over the last year to try and keep growth up, that won't be repeated? Also, what is the current inflation rate?

[Pannonian]

And the Mail has published photos of vice chancellors and professors who oppose Brexit. What do Brexiters think of this? Are university staff public figures?

[Furunculus]

About the growth rate of 1.6%: were there any measures by the BofE over the last year to try and keep growth up, that won't be repeated? Also, what is the current inflation rate?

And the Mail has published photos of vice chancellors and professors who oppose Brexit. What do Brexiters think of this? Are university staff public figures?
I wouldn't go too deep into the figures, i banged out some approximates moments before i bundled the monster into the car on my way to work. The 1% difference is vis-a-vis the continental norm given the potential difference in spend between a UK on 35% of GDP and the Eurozone on 45%. The putative bump in UK growth from dropping down from 40% of GDP would be plus 0.5% in growth. UK trend growth in the last fifty years has dropped from roughly 3.5% to roughly 2.5%, with brexit putting a further immediate dent in confidence (and thus growth). The response in tax and regulatory terms would bump that back up. There is always a response, it's just a case of whether people like that response. As to inflation, i'm not sure what you're leading at?

Re: Chris Heaton-Harris, or whatever his name is: It was a stupid question for a brexit politican to ask, and I don't read the Mail. Not too fussed what University's have to say. If they feel they aren't bound in this instance by the the FOI then fine.

[Pannonian]

I wouldn't go too deep into the figures, i banged out some approximates moments before i bundled the monster into the car on my way to work. The 1% difference is vis-a-vis the continental norm given the potential difference in spend between a UK on 35% of GDP and the Eurozone on 45%. The putative bump in UK growth from dropping down from 40% of GDP would be plus 0.5% in growth. UK trend growth in the last fifty years has dropped from roughly 3.5% to roughly 2.5%, with brexit putting a further immediate dent in confidence (and thus growth). The response in tax and regulatory terms would bump that back up. There is always a response, it's just a case of whether people like that response. As to inflation, i'm not sure what you're leading at?

Re: Chris Heaton-Harris, or whatever his name is: It was a stupid question for a brexit politican to ask, and I don't read the Mail. Not too fussed what University's have to say. If they feel they aren't bound in this instance by the the FOI then fine.

I'm not sure how deregulation would bump growth back up, given that it was lack of regulation in the financial services in the US that brought about the crash in the first place.

On Heaton-Harris: he wrote to the universities in his capacity as an MP, not in a private capacity, and his extra-constituency job is Tory whip. Not one of the ministerial departments that may have an interest in information, but a bully boy. And in case you want to argue that a letter has no meaning, I refer you to Comedy Connections: Yes, Minister, where Anthony Jay recounts an incident where the collected members of IR wined and dined him, followed by his source, the former cabinet secretary, explaining that this meant they were keeping an eye on him and by extension his sources. As the Mail demonstrated, the Brexit politicians and the media are coordinating their efforts to intimidate opponents of Brexit, currently through naming, and probably followed by withdrawal of funding. UKIP have already pointed to an imbalance of opinions on the subject among academics, and requesting that it should be corrected. And no, UKIP do not count as fringe, considering we're heading for the most extreme position on their principal topic, a position that not even Farage was arguing for in the referendum campaign.

[Furunculus]

I'm not sure how deregulation would bump growth back up, given that it was lack of regulation in the financial services in the US that brought about the crash in the first place.

On Heaton-Harris: he wrote to the universities in his capacity as an MP, not in a private capacity, and his extra-constituency job is Tory whip. Not one of the ministerial departments that may have an interest in information, but a bully boy. And in case you want to argue that a letter has no meaning, I refer you to Comedy Connections: Yes, Minister, where Anthony Jay recounts an incident where the collected members of IR wined and dined him, followed by his source, the former cabinet secretary, explaining that this meant they were keeping an eye on him and by extension his sources. As the Mail demonstrated, the Brexit politicians and the media are coordinating their efforts to intimidate opponents of Brexit, currently through naming, and probably followed by withdrawal of funding. UKIP have already pointed to an imbalance of opinions on the subject among academics, and requesting that it should be corrected. And no, UKIP do not count as fringe, considering we're heading for the most extreme position on their principal topic, a position that not even Farage was arguing for in the referendum campaign.
Depends on the regulation. I have an adam smithian fond regard for good regulation to properly manage free markets, but costly social and employment regulation is guff. Cutting guff is valuable for exactly the reason the iea paper says it is.

Was the request itself outside the scope of what the foi act permits?
Was the request in an of itself an abuse of power in some legally sanctioned format?
Any thing else is guff, other than to note it was a foolish move politically, and any political price he pays for such foolishness is his own fault.

[John Smith]

UKIP have already pointed to an imbalance of opinions on the subject among academics, and requesting that it should be corrected. And no, UKIP do not count as fringe, considering we're heading for the most extreme position on their principal topic, a position that not even Farage was arguing for in the referendum campaign.

They don't exist. They rejoined the Tories last election.

[Pannonian]

And the government is arguing that Parliament should not have access to studies that were commissioned to examine the likely effects of Brexit. Didn't Brexiters argue that Brexit was all about returning sovereignty to Parliament? And this follows on from the Minister stating that Parliament will not get to vote on the deal until after Britain have left.

Oh, and there's an investigation over the funding of the Brexit campaign. With Farage chums with Assange, and (Aaron) Banks having access to funds considerably greater than he should have given the failures of his businesses, let's see where the money trail leads.

[Beskar]

"Britain would be booming if it wasn't for Brexit"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/05/britain-would-booming-wasnt-brexit-mark-carney-says/

[Pannonian]

U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said it was vital that a Brexit deal between Britain and the European Union would be in the commercial interests of the United States and London should not to give in to the EU’s “highly protectionist” trade stance.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-usa-ross/vital-that-uks-brexit-deal-is-in-u-s-interests-says-commerce-chief-ross-idUSKBN1D61WF?il=0

Thus says someone whose government recently imposed 300% tariffs on certain British made products. It's pretty clear that any agreement between the UK and US will be exceedingly lopsided without the EU to back the UK. Exactly as I and other Remainers said would be the case, with us bending over for every economic giant as we're cut adrift from the EU.

[Pannonian]

Grimsby have asked the UK government to exempt it from Brexit, as the economic consequences would be hugely negative across a wide range of fields. NB. the town voted 70% for Leave in the 2016 referendum.

[Beskar]

Grimsby have asked the UK government to exempt it from Brexit, as the economic consequences would be hugely negative across a wide range of fields. NB. the town voted 70% for Leave in the 2016 referendum.

With all the false promises and Russian propaganda, people simply drank the cool-aid.

I mean, have you seen how trustworthy these two characters look?
https://i.imgur.com/BnNdSJM.jpg

[Pannonian]

In my country, the Congress critter who attempted such a thing would be refused, politely at first and then insultingly if the effort continued. The effort would likely generate protests and media events wherein virtually all faculty and administration members -- including the conservatives like myself -- would decry the effort as contemptible and unconstitutional.

In England, you lack our written Constitution and Bill of Rights, but the tradition of freedom of speech is powerful and of long standing. I suspect a similar result would occur if the effort was taken seriously. I am not sure if the effort actually breaks laws laid down by act of Parliament. Though I thought that freedom of speech etc. had been promulgated by Parliament and not simply left up to the mos maiorum.

I am inclined toward the state as the key political unit and prefer limiting federal oversight or supra-state oversight and control. I am, therefore, inclined to favor Brexit despite the difficulties that will be engendered in the short term economically (which were horribly glossed over prior to the vote as you have noted). To be fair, I don't have to live under the result, so my opinion can remain more ideologically driven than practical with little cost to self. That might skew my being in favor, I will acknowledge.

As a conservative, I wonder what you make of the people of Grimsby, who voted overwhelmingly for Leave, yet who are now asking to be exempt from the consequences of their vote. Is the fundamental basis of conservatism the primacy of the state over the supra-state, or is it the assumption of personal responsibility for personal decisions?

[Furunculus]

Does a conservative have a different view point than a liberal/progressive on the concepts of personal responsibility / collective punishment?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As a conservative, I wonder what you make of the people of Grimsby, who voted overwhelmingly for Leave, yet who are now asking to be exempt from the consequences of their vote. Is the fundamental basis of conservatism the primacy of the state over the supra-state, or is it the assumption of personal responsibility for personal decisions?

For American conservatism, the assumption of personal responsibility for personal decisions is integral to the concept of governance at the lowest practicable level. It should NOT be an either or.

Your derision of Grimsby for trying to -- pardon the regionalist/ethnic slur -- "welsh" on the bet is fully justified. You vote in favor of "A," end up getting "A," and then find you do not want "A" after all -- I believe reversing yourself would require the consumption of a lot of crow, and you are very much stuck with it until the decision is reversed. Exempted from it? Poppycock.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Does a conservative have a different view point than a liberal/progressive on the concepts of personal responsibility / collective punishment?

It is collective responsibility only to the extent that the individual agreed to the social contract wherein their vote was part of the larger polity. It is not collective responsibility in the sense of being punished for someone else's actions, rather that all the individuals in that political collective agreed to abide by the decision of the vote in question and thereby freely participated in the 'collection' of responsibility.

[rory_20_uk]

Grimsby have asked the UK government to exempt it from Brexit, as the economic consequences would be hugely negative across a wide range of fields. NB. the town voted 70% for Leave in the 2016 referendum.

So, people want less political oversight abroad, and yet keep the economics. What would such a fantasy look like? Oh yes, the EEC.

~:smoking:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So, people want less political oversight abroad, and yet keep the economics. What would such a fantasy look like? Oh yes, the EEC.

~:smoking:

Which the Brits supported emphatically as I recall. I don't remember hearing too many folks bitching about the evils of "one market."

[rory_20_uk]

Which the Brits supported emphatically as I recall. I don't remember hearing too many folks bitching about the evils of "one market."


indeed.

And so something that people enthusiastically wanted has been added to until we end up where we are: people are offered two choices that they don't want and no recourse to have what they did want.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

If the argument against Communism is that it just doesn't work due to human nature, then the argument against the EEC would be that it just doesn't work since it was obviously politically instable due to, eh, human nature. We just can't have either of these fantasies just because we want to. And just that someone at one point managed to make it work for a short time does not disprove that it always slips into failure due to the inherent instabilities. :creep:

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zollverein So that's one more concept we can scrap.

[rory_20_uk]

A multilateral trade deal is inherently unstable, or politicians wanted more with no nasty oversight or fallback for people - Cortez burning the ships...

A monetary union without political union is inherently unstable and was probably designed to fail and need to be saved by moving into a new stable state.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

indeed.

And so something that people enthusiastically wanted has been added to until we end up where we are: people are offered two choices that they don't want and no recourse to have what they did want.

~:smoking:

There is the Blair solution, which is to remain in the EU, but have the UK government put in place all the controls that it had access to all along, but chose not to use. There are a hell of a lot of things that the EU is blamed for, but which is actually the domain and decision of the Westminster government. What would you say to that solution?

[Pannonian]

A multilateral trade deal is inherently unstable, or politicians wanted more with no nasty oversight or fallback for people - Cortez burning the ships...

A monetary union without political union is inherently unstable and was probably designed to fail and need to be saved by moving into a new stable state.

~:smoking:

We're not in the monetary union. Or the Schengen area either. Nor do EU nationals have freedom of movement within the UK. Nor is Turkey joining the EU. Nor are the NHS getting 350 million p/w top up. That's 4 arguments off the top of my head that the Leave campaign used, which were false.

[rory_20_uk]

We're not in the monetary union. Or the Schengen area either. Nor do EU nationals have freedom of movement within the UK. Nor is Turkey joining the EU. Nor are the NHS getting 350 million p/w top up. That's 4 arguments off the top of my head that the Leave campaign used, which were false.

The Leave campaign lied - wow breaking story... :dizzy2:

Oh of course you're not in the monetary union. It is just everyone has to eventually join the Euro. And now the ECB has Euro Bonds to support currencies. And the EU is talking about oversight of government budgets. And they're talking about having a EU Finance Director. Financial integration? Oh no...!

Oh, and the EU would like to set up supra-national Diplomatic stations. Another thing that could be useful. Alongside the EU integrated armed forces. Like NATO - but more... EU

Not sure how Turkey not joining the EU is relevant. Neither is Russia. Or China. Or the USA. And?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The Leave campaign lied - wow breaking story... :dizzy2:

Oh of course you're not in the monetary union. It is just everyone has to eventually join the Euro. And now the ECB has Euro Bonds to support currencies. And the EU is talking about oversight of government budgets. And they're talking about having a EU Finance Director. Financial integration? Oh no...!

Oh, and the EU would like to set up supra-national Diplomatic stations. Another thing that could be useful. Alongside the EU integrated armed forces. Like NATO - but more... EU

Not sure how Turkey not joining the EU is relevant. Neither is Russia. Or China. Or the USA. And?

~:smoking:

From the official Leave campaign:
Countries set to join the EU - Turkey: Population 76.0 million (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-vote-leave-accused-of-fanning-the-flames-of-division-after-publishing-controversial-a7067701.html)

And AFAIK the UK was nowhere near deciding to ditch the GBP for the euro when it voted Leave last year. How was monetary union and its possibility/necessity with political union relevant to the UK's position in the EU?

[Furunculus]

There is the Blair solution, which is to remain in the EU, but have the UK government put in place all the controls that it had access to all along, but chose not to use. There are a hell of a lot of things that the EU is blamed for, but which is actually the domain and decision of the Westminster government. What would you say to that solution?

not for the first time (and probably not the last either), i'll make the point that the advance of QMV at the same time our post-lisbon vote weight has diminished, when the ECB has stated it intends to caucus eurozone decision making using the tools of the EBU, means that fundamental sovereignty for euro-outs is a myth.

knackering our ability to reliably form a blocking minority (by limiting the exemption from ever-closer-union to britain only) was simply the icing on the cake.

no place for us in the party any more.

[Pannonian]

not for the first time (and probably not the last either), i'll make the point that the advance of QMV at the same time our post-lisbon vote weight has diminished, when the ECB has stated it intends to caucus eurozone decision making using the tools of the EBU, means that fundamental sovereignty for euro-outs is a myth.

knackering our ability to reliably form a blocking minority by limiting the exemption from ever-closer-union to britain only was simply the icing on the cake.

no place for us in the party any more.

So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?

[Montmorency]

not for the first time (and probably not the last either), i'll make the point that the advance of QMV at the same time our post-lisbon vote weight has diminished, when the ECB has stated it intends to caucus eurozone decision making using the tools of the EBU, means that fundamental sovereignty for euro-outs is a myth.

knackering our ability to reliably form a blocking minority by limiting the exemption from ever-closer-union to britain only was simply the icing on the cake.

no place for us in the party any more.

So is less voting power itself the loss of sovereignty (it's not), or another "slippery slope"?

[Furunculus]

So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?
Because that decision making encompasses far more than the mechanics of regulating a common currency, it bleeds across into the single market, and includes distinctly non-market social and fiscal regulation:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/PDFs/EBAsafeguards.pdf


the EBA is a perfect illustration of the potential economic benefits of a ‘single rulebook’ for financial services pitted against the potential drawbacks for the UK of loss of control over a key economic sector. Clearly, the EBA can benefit the City of London and the UK economy by stamping out protectionist or diverging implementation of EU financial services regulation, and drafting sharp technical standards. But if that does not happen, the
UK is hugely exposed to unwanted financial rules. Crucially, the proposed banking union set up – and the eurozone crisis – increases the risk of the latter happening.

The eurozone already has a majority at the EBA in those instances where simple majority applies. With the help of a few countries it could also quite easily muster a majority under the current QMV rules. From 2014, the eurozone will also gain a permanent qualified majority of the votes within the EBA (mirroring the voting system in the Council of Ministers) – although until 2017 the current rules would apply for a vote if one EU member state requests it. Regardless of the system, it is clear that, if the voting weights are kept unchanged, every time the eurozone votes as a bloc, the eurozone’s decision will likely become the EBA’s
decision. This could cover decisions on technical standards, restrictions on financial activities (which may, in future, include short-selling), the size of the EBA’s budget and key appointments, for example. This is critical for two key reasons:

De jure incentives to take common position: This incentive is reinforced by the way the Commission’s ECB/EBA Regulations are currently drafted. For example:

• The ECB Regulation envisions the ECB acting as a coordinator of eurozone national supervisors, with the view for them to take a common position. The ECB has already dropped hints that it intends to actively discourage dissenting opinions amongst eurozone national supervisors.

• Through a eurozone caucus, some member states will indirectly boost their influence as their voting weight amongst eurozone countries is proportionally much greater than in the EU-27 (EU-28 with Croatia). This is particularly true of the larger eurozone member states.

• The safeguards proposed by the European Commission (see Section 5 below) leave the eurozone with the upper hand. Given that the 17 eurozone countries already constitute a simple majority, these countries would only need to seek the support of three ‘outs’ – whereas non-euro countries would need at least four countries.

De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.De facto incentives to take a common euro position: To avoid banks free-riding on taxpayers in creditor countries, the ECB, Germany and others could well insist on putting into place perfectly harmonised eurozone regulations before moving to financial backstops. This could include single-target capital requirements, rules on leverage or bonuses – and could even spill over to market access issues. In turn, this would heavily shape decisions at the EBA, as the eurozone is unlikely to accept an uneven playing field within EU financial services as a whole.

Taken together, the EBA structure will therefore significantly shift the balance of power in favour of the eurozone, at the expense of the UK and other ‘outs’.


So is less voting power itself the loss of sovereignty (it's not), or another "slippery slope"?

Considering the vote power in isolation is pointless.

This isn’t about law, it’s about politics and power. Political integration isn’t a matter of pointy-headed constitutional tinkering, it’s Gladstone’s “power of the purse”: On whom do we tax and how punitively, and whom shall we deem the beneficiary of this largesse. A century after Gladstone I’d say we entered a new era where we live with the “power of the pettifogger”: Which activities to deem less moral and seek to regulate, and which behaviour do we choose to elevate above others. If you are harmonising taxation/spending, and social regulation, then you are engaging in political integration.

That is not acceptable.

[Furunculus]

Again, I would draw your attention to what I said on the 25th of this month:


1. Cameron's deal, but with the ever-closer-union exemption not limited to britain. #thanksbelgium
2. Norway, without the flanking social and environmental policies. #itsjustamarket
3. Ukraine DCFTA with compliance moved to efta, rather than direct ECJ jurisdiction. #notinterestedinfederalism
4. If none of this is possible, slash tax and regulation and suck the life out of Eurozone growth potential. #friendsorelse

in order of preference

Shoot belgium in the face in January 2016, and I would have been content to accept #1 (Cameron's deal).
Get rid of the flanking policies in #2 and I'm happy to remain a-la Norway. keep the single-market option focused on market regulation.

I'm in no way to be considered the extremist here, even if it was far more fun for everyone to focus on #4. ;)

[Husar]

If you are harmonising taxation/spending, and social regulation, then you are engaging in political integration.

That is not acceptable.

Why is that not acceptable?
To me it seems like potentially a good step towards limiting neoliberal dreams.

Let me guess: You consider the stuff found in the Panama and Paradise Papers a good thing?

[Pannonian]

Because that decision making encompasses far more than the mechanics of regulating a common currency, it bleeds across into the single market, and includes distinctly non-market social and fiscal regulation:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/PDFs/EBAsafeguards.pdf

Considering the vote power in isolation is pointless.

This isn’t about law, it’s about politics and power. Political integration isn’t a matter of pointy-headed constitutional tinkering, it’s Gladstone’s “power of the purse”: On whom do we tax and how punitively, and whom shall we deem the beneficiary of this largesse. A century after Gladstone I’d say we entered a new era where we live with the “power of the pettifogger”: Which activities to deem less moral and seek to regulate, and which behaviour do we choose to elevate above others. If you are harmonising taxation/spending, and social regulation, then you are engaging in political integration.

That is not acceptable.

Ideologues apart, and you certainly qualify as one, the vast majority of Leavers complained either about foreigners being here, or government spending being unable to cope with the foreigners here. The chief of the official Leave campaign admitted that the 350 million p/w was the tipping point that won the referendum for his side, which has since been disclaimed by the Brexiters via lawyer-speak about promises, manifestos, and how they're not responsible for what they've promised as it's not a proper election, etc.


We send the EU £350 million a week
let's fund the NHS instead
Vote Leave

Let's give our NHS the £350 million the EU takes every week
Vote Leave

Vote Leave camp abandon £350m-a-week NHS vow in Change Britain plans (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-nhs-350m-a-week-eu-change-britain-gisela-stuart-referendum-bus-a7236706.html)

Is it democracy if you're allowed to lie and make promises that you have no intention of keeping in order to win elections? Is it democracy to not honour promises made during the campaign? When the enacted result no longer resembles the campaign promises, how valid is the result?

[Pannonian]

Why is that not acceptable?
To me it seems like potentially a good step towards limiting neoliberal dreams.

Let me guess: You consider the stuff found in the Panama and Paradise Papers a good thing?

The Anti Tax Avoidance Directive (https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/business/company-tax/anti-tax-avoidance-package/anti-tax-avoidance-directive_en)


On 28 January 2016 the Commission presented its proposal for an Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive as part of the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package. On 20 June 2016 the Council adopted the Directive (EU) 2016/1164 laying down rules against tax avoidance practices that directly affect the functioning of the internal market.
In order to provide for a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures the Commission presented its proposalSearch for available translations of the preceding link••• on 25th October 2016, to complement the existing rule on hybrid mismatches. The rule on hybrid mismatches aims to prevent companies from exploiting national mismatches to avoid taxation.

In addition to the proposal the Commission also published its Staff Working DocumentSearch for available translations of the preceding link•••.

The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive contains five legally-binding anti-abuse measures, which all Member States should apply against common forms of aggressive tax planning.

Member States should apply these measures as from 1 January 2019.

It creates a minimum level of protection against corporate tax avoidance throughout the EU, while ensuring a fairer and more stable environment for businesses.

One wonders how much money Furunculus has stashed in these tax havens or complicated Lewis Hamilton-style schemes.

[Husar]

One wonders how much money Furunculus has stashed in these tax havens or complicated Lewis Hamilton-style schemes.

I think quite a few poor and middle class people support these neoliberal schemes because they believe their hard work will inevitably get them there. And when they retire without ever having gotten there, they still support it because why should the lazy children have it any better? :sweatdrop:

[Furunculus]

Why is that not acceptable?
To me it seems like potentially a good step towards limiting neoliberal dreams.

Let me guess: You consider the stuff found in the Panama and Paradise Papers a good thing?

I believe I have already told you that I don't fear the word "neoliberal".
Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy to find a compromise with social democracy, but that is because I'm a reasonable man.

[Husar]

I believe I have already told you that I don't fear the word "neoliberal".
Don't get me wrong, I'm perfectly happy to find a compromise with social democracy, but that is because I'm a reasonable man.

There's no reason to fear the word, it's just a morally reprehensible ideology. ~;)

[Furunculus]

Ideologues apart, and you certainly qualify as one, the vast majority of Leavers complained either about foreigners being here, or government spending being unable to cope with the foreigners here. The chief of the official Leave campaign admitted that the 350 million p/w was the tipping point that won the referendum for his side, which has since been disclaimed by the Brexiters via lawyer-speak about promises, manifestos, and how they're not responsible for what they've promised as it's not a proper election, etc.
ideaology - noun
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ideologue - noun
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

If you believe in a program of public policy to enhance social-democracy you are an ideologue following an ideology. If you believe in EU membership you are an idealogue following an ideology. If you are a german ordoliberal, or a french dirigiste, then guess what; you are an ideologue following an ideology.

Unless you are a pure utilitarian whose only thought on implementing public policy is technocratic managerialism, then you are an ideologue following an ideology!

If... you choose to focus on the second part of sentence defining an ideologue (something which I would separately class as "doctrinaire"), then I would refute any suggestion that that is something that would or should apply to me. What evidence have you for it? My chosen preferences in outcomes from the eu renegotiation? How so?


Vote Leave camp abandon £350m-a-week NHS vow in Change Britain plans (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-nhs-350m-a-week-eu-change-britain-gisela-stuart-referendum-bus-a7236706.html)

Is it democracy if you're allowed to lie and make promises that you have no intention of keeping in order to win elections? Is it democracy to not honour promises made during the campaign? When the enacted result no longer resembles the campaign promises, how valid is the result?

Remember this started with me answering your question as to why eurozone regulation matters to euro-outs:

"So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?"

There is a lot of detail there to be teased at, refuted, or otherwise disliked, why breeze past it. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053767847&viewfull=1#post2053767847)

How did you fail to address that answer, and slide so smoothly into this distraction? It feels.... kinda like evasion.

[Furunculus]

One wonders how much money Furunculus has stashed in these tax havens or complicated Lewis Hamilton-style schemes.
lol, i'm a basic rate taxpayer that works in the public sector in a poor part of the country.

[Furunculus]

There's no reason to fear the word, it's just a morally reprehensible ideology. ~;)

^ Perfect example of why Britain is leaving. ^ ~;)

[Husar]

^ Perfect example of why Britain is leaving. ^ ~;)

And the one reason I don't mind Britain leaving.
You can enjoy your trickle up economics without us.

[Montmorency]

Because that decision making encompasses far more than the mechanics of regulating a common currency, it bleeds across into the single market, and includes distinctly non-market social and fiscal regulation:

http://archive.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/PDFs/EBAsafeguards.pdf

Considering the vote power in isolation is pointless.

This isn’t about law, it’s about politics and power. Political integration isn’t a matter of pointy-headed constitutional tinkering, it’s Gladstone’s “power of the purse”: On whom do we tax and how punitively, and whom shall we deem the beneficiary of this largesse. A century after Gladstone I’d say we entered a new era where we live with the “power of the pettifogger”: Which activities to deem less moral and seek to regulate, and which behaviour do we choose to elevate above others. If you are harmonising taxation/spending, and social regulation, then you are engaging in political integration.

That is not acceptable.

Furunculus, I struggle to see your position if it doesn't demand that the UK either control or destroy the EU, not merely exist outside of it.

As the EU is more single economy than market (but not single political unit), and economies need central controls to manage them, you feel the UK's sovereignty is threatened by mere adjacency to the EU's supranational institutions - meaning the only options are for the EU to be dismantled, the UK to dominate Europe in or out of the EU, or for the UK to "surrender its sovereignty" to some other comity.

And the third option needs minding because, even if your position on the bigger picture of UK sovereignty with respect to the EU were correct, the old adage about both rich and poor being equally enjoined from sleeping under a bridge analogizes and makes a mockery of your sovereignty.

If this is where your beliefs must lead you (and I don't see how you can avoid it), then you should be extremely pessimistic about Brexit as it will not prove either restorative or protective of UK sovereignty.

[Pannonian]

ideaology - noun
a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.
ideologue - noun
an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic.

If you believe in a program of public policy to enhance social-democracy you are an ideologue following an ideology. If you believe in EU membership you are an idealogue following an ideology. If you are a german ordoliberal, or a french dirigiste, then guess what; you are an ideologue following an ideology.

Unless you are a pure utilitarian whose only thought on implementing public policy is technocratic managerialism, then you are an ideologue following an ideology!

If... you choose to focus on the second part of sentence defining an ideologue (something which I would separately class as "doctrinaire"), then I would refute any suggestion that that is something that would or should apply to me. What evidence have you for it? My chosen preferences in outcomes from the eu renegotiation? How so?

Remember this started with me answering your question as to why eurozone regulation matters to euro-outs:

"So how did that force us into the eurozone? If we were never required to join the eurozone, why would it matter to us what they did in it?"

There is a lot of detail there to be teased at, refuted, or otherwise disliked, why breeze past it. (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053767847&viewfull=1#post2053767847)

How did you fail to address that answer, and slide so smoothly into this distraction? It feels.... kinda like evasion.

Me, I'm just someone without aspirations to higher political theory, who wants tomorrow to be largely like today, and thus dislike revolution of any kind, which Brexit is. I do my best for myself and my community, holding responsibilities to me more important than rights, and thus my old school socialism fits in well with pre-Thatcher conservatives and Tories. Nonetheless I'm happy for others to have rights even if I don't personally benefit from them, and resent having them taken away without a clear argument for what they'll be replaced with. Can you explain what my benefits within the EU are going to be replaced with?

[Furunculus]

Furunculus, I struggle to see your position if it doesn't demand that the UK either control or destroy the EU, not merely exist outside of it.

Why, I'm not talking about product standards, the thing the Single Market is actually supposed to be about? I talk only of tax-n-spend, and social legislation. I see no reason why such an antagonistic dualism must exist.


As the EU is more single economy than market (but not single political unit), and economies need central controls to manage them, you feel the UK's sovereignty is threatened by mere adjacency to the EU's supranational institutions - meaning the only options are for the EU to be dismantled, the UK to dominate Europe in or out of the EU, or for the UK to "surrender its sovereignty" to some other comity.

No, I clearly stated that the EU has within its power the ability to caucus consensus of eurozone nations, in matters decided by QMV. It has it its disposal tools including the EBU, and it is has never been shy of judicial activism in extending the reach of single market remit into areas of social policy (such as the working time directive), and tax policy (such as the financial transactions tax).
This is the heart of the matter; the EU view is that the single market is an emergent ‘gift’ of ever-closer-union, not a virtuous goal in its own right.


And the third option needs minding because, even if your position on the bigger picture of UK sovereignty with respect to the EU were correct, the old adage about both rich and poor being equally enjoined from sleeping under a bridge analogizes and makes a mockery of your sovereignty.

You'll have to expand on that one soemwhat further, as I'm failing to see your point vis-a-vis:
3. Ukraine DCFTA with compliance moved to efta, rather than direct ECJ jurisdiction. #notinterestedinfederalism


If this is where your beliefs must lead you (and I don't see how you can avoid it), then you should be extremely pessimistic about Brexit as it will not prove either restorative or protective of UK sovereignty.
As noted above, I think your reaching this dismal conclusion because you misunderstand my position. I make the point about tax-n-spend and social legislation/regulation as being innapropriate topics for the EU to deal with (for us).

[Furunculus]

Me, I'm just someone without aspirations to higher political theory, who wants tomorrow to be largely like today, and thus dislike revolution of any kind, which Brexit is. I do my best for myself and my community, holding responsibilities to me more important than rights, and thus my old school socialism fits in well with pre-Thatcher conservatives and Tories. Nonetheless I'm happy for others to have rights even if I don't personally benefit from them, and resent having them taken away without a clear argument for what they'll be replaced with. Can you explain what my benefits within the EU are going to be replaced with?

Guess what, I'm just a old-school classical liberal who was likewise happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But they didn't lie, eu integration has crept along pace by pace, until it was no longer possible to ignore it. Frankly, I blame Labour for this whole mess for signing up to the social chapter after Major got us an opt out.

Surely this is all a bit theoretical, Mr Furunculus? Isn’t it just fluff around the margins of society, not really amounting to much of real consequence? Well, it might seem that way. If you inhabit the end of the political spectrum that believes we need more social justice, more social democracy, and a more ‘modern’ FP, then the drift to the continental model seems both natural and virtuous. After all, we agree to compromise on our divergent aims and expectations all the time, notably every five years. However, if you inhabit the other end of the political spectrum that desires more individual autonomy, less collectivist governance, and to act abroad where we have the means to do good, then this quiet drift appears to be tacit gerrymandering to achieve an outcome that we would not mandate at the ballot box.

As to what you'll be getting as a Brexit bonus, that is rather in the hands of our neighbours over the channel.
If we can get a decent trade deal that includes both goods and services, then the quid-pro-quo will no doubt include Britain remaining a social democracy, spending ~40% of GDP on a significant welfare state.
If we can't get anything decent, well! Tighten your seatbelt, because we're going for a ride: We'll drift out of being a social democracy and into a market economy, with spending down to 35% of GDP and regulation similarly trimmed. That is how we'll compete in the face of limited access.

Hey, i'm happy for you to have that social democracy, after all I'm a reasonable chap who's willing to compromise to get along. Fingers crossed, eh?

[Husar]

No, I clearly stated that the EU has within its power the ability to caucus consensus of eurozone nations, in matters decided by QMV. It has it its disposal tools including the EBU, and it is has never been shy of judicial activism in extending the reach of single market remit into areas of social policy (such as the working time directive), and tax policy (such as the financial transactions tax).
This is the heart of the matter; the EU view is that the single market is an emergent ‘gift’ of ever-closer-union, not a virtuous goal in its own right.

I would say the single market is a virtuous goal in itself because it is much easier to control politically. The political control over the market requires some degree of political union however, so this follows the market quite naturally, or is inherent as I said before. If you leave the market entirely uncontrolled, there is no big gain in the single market for 99% of the constituents of the EU.

Freedom of movement is one part of the completely uncontrolled one market. And also the reason wages go down because people from low wage countries undercut the higher wages elsewhere. Without political union, this can be used as a competitive edge by some countries or others can try to lower the living standards of their own people in an attempt to compete. See "Agenda 2010" in Germany for example. All this has brought so far were poverty wars, resentment between different poor people and misery, but perhaps that's exactly what you find to be a noble goal?

[Pannonian]

Guess what, I'm just a old-school classical liberal who was likewise happy to let sleeping dogs lie. But they didn't lie, eu integration has crept along pace by pace, until it was no longer possible to ignore it. Frankly, I blame Labour for this whole mess for signing up to the social chapter after Major got us an opt out.

Surely this is all a bit theoretical, Mr Furunculus? Isn’t it just fluff around the margins of society, not really amounting to much of real consequence? Well, it might seem that way. If you inhabit the end of the political spectrum that believes we need more social justice, more social democracy, and a more ‘modern’ FP, then the drift to the continental model seems both natural and virtuous. After all, we agree to compromise on our divergent aims and expectations all the time, notably every five years. However, if you inhabit the other end of the political spectrum that desires more individual autonomy, less collectivist governance, and to act abroad where we have the means to do good, then this quiet drift appears to be tacit gerrymandering to achieve an outcome that we would not mandate at the ballot box.

As to what you'll be getting as a Brexit bonus, that is rather in the hands of our neighbours over the channel.
If we can get a decent trade deal that includes both goods and services, then the quid-pro-quo will no doubt include Britain remaining a social democracy, spending ~40% of GDP on a significant welfare state.
If we can't get anything decent, well! Tighten your seatbelt, because we're going for a ride: We'll drift out of being a social democracy and into a market economy, with spending down to 35% of GDP and regulation similarly trimmed. That is how we'll compete in the face of limited access.

Hey, i'm happy for you to have that social democracy, after all I'm a reasonable chap who's willing to compromise to get along. Fingers crossed, eh?

Will the NHS be getting the 350 million p/w that was promised by the Leave campaign?

[Furunculus]

Will the NHS be getting the 350 million p/w that was promised by the Leave campaign?

Who knows, who cares.
I didn't believe it, I didn't care for the idea anyway.
I voted for my own reasons, and remain quite content with them.
Remember my preferred option one - if anything i'm disappointed in the EU for making a hash of the renegotiation.
If anything, I consider [you] to be the extremeists in finding nothing objectionable in Belgium's actions during the renegotiation.
It tipped me from being someone who could vote to remain into being someone who could not.

[Furunculus]

I would say the single market is a virtuous goal in itself because it is much easier to control politically.

That is not an attitude that is apparent in my reading of EU politics in the last twenty years.

[Pannonian]

Who knows, who cares.
I didn't believe it, I didn't care for the idea anyway.
I voted for my own reasons, and remain quite content with them.
Remember my preferred option one - if anything i'm disappointed in the EU for making a hash of the renegotiation.
If anything, I consider [you] to be the extremeists in finding nothing objectionable in Belgium's actions during the renegotiation.
It tipped me from being someone who could vote to remain into being someone who could not.

So manifesto promises hold no water?

[Furunculus]

So manifesto promises hold no water?

Let us not pretend some false equivalence between a fptp. General election to elect a government, and a cross party referendum to ask a single non binding question.

[Pannonian]

Let us not pretend some false equivalence between a fptp. General election to elect a government, and a cross party referendum to ask a single non binding question.

And there is that lawyer-speak I talked about, relieving Brexit supporters from responsibility for promises made by their side.


2. ‘The official bill of EU membership is £350 million per week – let’s spend our money on our priorities like the NHS instead.’ (Sometimes we said ‘we send the EU £350m’ to provoke people into argument. This worked much better than I thought it would. There is no single definitive figure because there are different sets of official figures but the Treasury gross figure is slightly more than £350m of which we get back roughly half, though some of this is spent in absurd ways like subsidies for very rich landowners to do stupid things.)

Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. Even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way (see below).

NB. Dominic Cummings was director of the Leave campaign.

Immigration and the 350 million p/w for the NHS were the decisive factors. Are the implementers of Brexit going to deliver these promises? If they don't matter, does that mean all bets are off in future elections?

[Greyblades]

Let us not pretend some false equivalence between a fptp. General election to elect a government, and a cross party referendum to ask a single non binding question.

I wouldnt get your hopes up for an epiphany, he's been clinging to that equivalence for 16 months now.

[Furunculus]

And there is that lawyer-speak I talked about, relieving Brexit supporters from responsibility for promises made by their side.



NB. Dominic Cummings was director of the Leave campaign.

Immigration and the 350 million p/w for the NHS were the decisive factors. Are the implementers of Brexit going to deliver these promises? If they don't matter, does that mean all bets are off in future elections?

I know who Dominic Cummings is. I've read about him for eighteen months, ive read his blog for the last year, and I've just finished All Out War by shipman. I can only conclude that he is a singularly talented focused and driven individual, and I'm glad he was on the leave side.

I'm a right wing liberal, I don't care about immigration or labours secular religion, I'm not sure how many other ways I have got left to say I couldn't give a stuff about the £350m for the NHS. That didn't speak to me or my constituency, but as a labour voter I can understand you feel peeved he duped your constituency. It must hurt.

[Pannonian]

I know who Dominic Cummings is. I've read about him for eighteen months, ive read his blog for the last year, and I've just finished All Out War by shipman. I can only conclude that he is a singularly talented focused and driven individual, and I'm glad he was on the leave side.

I'm a right wing liberal, I don't care about immigration or labours secular religion, I'm not sure how many other ways I have got left to say I couldn't give a stuff about the £350m for the NHS. That didn't speak to me or my constituency, but as a left leaning voter I can understand you feel peeved he duped your constituency. It must hurt.

What about immigration, the other point he mentioned above? Are the implementers of Brexit going to keep that promise and bring down immigration? Surely that's a right wing issue, if ever anything is.

And what do you think of Cummings's view that Brexit as currently executed is going to be a disaster?

[Furunculus]

What about immigration, the other point he mentioned above? Are the implementers of Brexit going to keep that promise and bring down immigration? Surely that's a right wing issue, if ever anything is.

And what do you think of Cummings's view that Brexit as currently executed is going to be a disaster?

You have to decide whether right wing means florid ex colenels from the shires with questionable views about Brown people, or evil neoliberals who care for nothing but cheap labour to supply their 21st century satanic Mills...
Maybe that caricature helps you forget it was the Labour working class (and the non voting working class that Labour claims to speak on behalf of) that the immigration message was tailored for.

Cummings may be right, but which party is offering a better alternative?

[Husar]

That is not an attitude that is apparent in my understanding of EU politics in the last twenty years.

I didn't say it was, for the last nine years the EU was too busy fixing the wonderful effects of neoliberalism and related greed-based ideologies like an enormous market crash and people fleeing from poverty and war. ~;)

The idea to have an EU-wide tax on income rather than profit was such a step though. Only happened (could happen?) after Britain left though.
Well, the idea being discussed happened, it's not nowhere near a law AFAIK. Maybe they're just waiting for lobbyists to convince them not to do it, maybe it will actually happen. :sweatdrop:

[Pannonian]

You have to decide whether right wing means florid ex colenels from the shires with questionable views about Brown people, or evil neoliberals who care for nothing but cheap labour to supply their 21st century satanic Mills...

Maybe that caricature helps you forget it was the Labour working class (and the non voting working class that Labour claims to speak on behalf of) that the immigration message was tailored for.

And yet again avoiding responsibility for keeping campaign promises. Given that Cummings cites immigration and the NHS promise as the two main factors in winning the Leave campaign, and you push both as the domain of Labour voters, Labour must have one hell of a massive constituency. And yet we have a Tory government.

BTW, what do you think of this?


But such faith in the current administration’s ability to haggle effectively seems complacent. The far-sharper Cummings was not nearly so sanguine. On May and Davis, he predicts that “schoolchildren will shake their heads in disbelief that such characters could have had leading roles in government.” In the event of a total Brexit disaster, there could even be an investigation into why it occurred—and civil servants are already scurrying to cover themselves. Officials are drafting their emails with a half an eye on “the inevitable inquiry,” Cummings said—“and the history books.”

[Furunculus]

And yet again avoiding responsibility for keeping campaign promises. Given that Cummings cites immigration and the NHS promise as the two main factors in winning the Leave campaign, and you push both as the domain of Labour voters, Labour must have one hell of a massive constituency. And yet we have a Tory government.

BTW, what do you think of this?
I don't have to take responsibility for anything, all sides lied. Remain stated that Leave wanted MORE immigration (that is the right-wing-as-evil-neoliberals trope in case you missed it), they also invented glorious nonsense on the economic calamity pending a leave vote.
More importantly, the labour and non-voters were necessary to get Leave over the line. The Conservative/Liberal side was already in the bag. Again, Ashcroft polls, read them

Cummings may be right, but which party is offering a better alternative?

p.s. have you read All Out War? absolutely fascinating!

[Pannonian]

And a Tory MP currently advocating a no deal Brexit has advised his clients, in his second job as a financial adviser, that the UK's economy has gone downhill since the referendum result, and they should refrain from investing in the UK. What do the Brexit supporters think of this?

[Greyblades]

Professionalism combined with a lack of faith may will get a good deal? As said he's a no deal better than a bad deal man and I cant exactly fault him for expecting a bad deal considering the only reason Theresa may still has a job is entirely down to fear of the alternative.

I dont think he would have a job for long if he lied to his clients.

[Furunculus]

And a Tory MP currently advocating a no deal Brexit has advised his clients, in his second job as a financial adviser, that the UK's economy has gone downhill since the referendum result, and they should refrain from investing in the UK. What do the Brexit supporters think of this?

Is he offering good financial advice?

[Pannonian]

Is he offering good financial advice?

So no comments on the financial advice he's offering versus the job he's doing as an MP?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Will the NHS be getting the 350 million p/w that was promised by the Leave campaign?

Just after Mexico pays for the USA's new border fence.

[Beskar]

Just after Mexico pays for the USA's new border fence.

Sounds about right.

Unfortunately, I know people where the 350million moved to the NHS was a big selling point for them.


I dont think he would have a job for long if he lied to his clients.

You do hit a point on the head... he will still have his job as MP after lying to the electorate.

[Furunculus]

That, as always, is for his electorate to decide.

[Pannonian]

That, as always, is for his electorate to decide.

No questioning the ethics of an MP who recognises that Brexit is damaging the economy and advises his clients to avoid the UK, yet who is pushing for the most damaging form of Brexit? Is there a tipping point for you?

[Husar]

Sounds legit. Maybe he got elected to promote Brexit no matter what and he's honest to his clients, too, when he tells them he's going to ruin the country. :clown:

[Furunculus]

No questioning the ethics of an MP who recognises that Brexit is damaging the economy and advises his clients to avoid the UK, yet who is pushing for the most damaging form of Brexit? Is there a tipping point for you?

yes. blair signing up to the social chapter. then, belgium demanding that even if britain got an exemption from ever closer union it must apply to no-one else.

[Pannonian]

yes. blair signing up to the social chapter. then, belgium demanding that even if britain got an exemption from ever closer union it must apply to no-one else.

So Belgium grandstanding on something that doesn't affect the UK was a tipping point for you, but economic disaster, corrupt Brexiters and Russian influence in UK politics aren't a tipping point? Are there any tipping points that might convince you that Brexit is a bad idea?

[Furunculus]

So Belgium grandstanding on something that doesn't affect the UK was a tipping point for you, but economic disaster, corrupt Brexiters and Russian influence in UK politics aren't a tipping point? Are there any tipping points that might convince you that Brexit is a bad idea?

You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention.

Belgium's act DOES affect the uk.

You have been labouring under the misapprehension that this whole brexit thing was an accident; the consequence of poor dialogue and badly calibrated decision making. In short, that a yes/no decision was a balance-of-probablities tactical decision seeking optimal economic outcomes. That this is a matter trade balances, calibration of welfare policies, complexity of customs arrangements, and that if the debate had better focused on these matters we’d have arrived at a more optimal decision.

It wasn’t. Rather, it is a moral strategic question of who you want to be, and whether your current path will achieve this.
And the renegotiation failed on those same terms; in finding tactical compromises that had no relevance to the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

Juncker’s warning in Sept on the necessity (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/853481/Juncker-European-Union-state-of-union-eurozone-compulsory) of eurozone accession, just as with Belgium in January 2016, was a stark warning to that blocking minority on who paid their wages. That’s a shame for them, because they quietly enjoyed us taking the flak for contentious positions they benefit from later (such as the 48hr working week exemption). It was an instructive lesson for Britain, that whatever the words say the project will march on and your friends won’t be able to help. That’s a shame for us, because it sufficiently preserved the fundamental sovereignty necessary to allow our continued membership.

"Economic disaster", pah! Nothing I have seen about this institution says that it is fit for anything but the good times and short term. It has nothing of the flexibility and adaptability that is the sine quo non of long term success in dealing with change.

How can you call it mere "grand-standing", it was the rigid enforcement of integrationist discipline on nations too small to argue for their own liberty. Can you not see how this attitude is crashingly disappointing in someone who likes to brand themself as a 'progressive'?

[Pannonian]

You. Are. Not. Paying. Attention.

Belgium's act DOES affect the uk.

You have been labouring under the misapprehension that this whole brexit thing was an accident; the consequence of poor dialogue and badly calibrated decision making. In short, that a yes/no decision was a balance-of-probablities tactical decision seeking optimal economic outcomes. That this is a matter trade balances, calibration of welfare policies, complexity of customs arrangements, and that if the debate had better focused on these matters we’d have arrived at a more optimal decision.

It wasn’t. Rather, it is a moral strategic question of who you want to be, and whether your current path will achieve this.
And the renegotiation failed on those same terms; in finding tactical compromises that had no relevance to the strategic problem. An exemption from ever closer union doesn’t achieve anything useful in this context.
Britain’s ability to maintain its ‘special status’ has changed. Originally it depended on the power of veto. With the arrival of QMV it has depended on its ability to gather a blocking minority of euro outs. With the Lisbon vote-weight changes that came into effect in 2014 the eurozone nations alone have a qualified majority, and that matters because the ECB will caucus a ‘consensus’ opinion of its members. So the last great gambit was the renegotiation, at the end of which Belgium et-al insisted that the exemption from ever-closer-union must apply only to Britain.

Juncker’s warning in Sept on the necessity (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/853481/Juncker-European-Union-state-of-union-eurozone-compulsory) of eurozone accession, just as with Belgium in January 2016, was a stark warning to that blocking minority on who paid their wages. That’s a shame for them, because they quietly enjoyed us taking the flak for contentious positions they benefit from later (such as the 48hr working week exemption). It was an instructive lesson for Britain, that whatever the words say the project will march on and your friends won’t be able to help. That’s a shame for us, because it sufficiently preserved the fundamental sovereignty necessary to allow our continued membership.

"Economic disaster", pah! Nothing I have seen about this institution says that it is fit for anything but the good times and short term. It has nothing of the flexibility and adaptability that is the sine quo non of long term success in dealing with change.

How can you call it mere "grand-standing", it was the rigid enforcement of integrationist discipline on nations too small to argue for their own liberty. Can you not see how this attitude is crashingly disappointing in someone who likes to brand themself as a 'progressive'?

If the evidence contradicts your argument, would you change your mind?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

If the evidence contradicts your argument, would you change your mind?

Furunculus, yes. Others not so much.

[Furunculus]

If the evidence contradicts your argument, would you change your mind?

I have changed my mind on all sorts of strongly held opinions. This would be no different.

[Pannonian]

I have changed my mind on all sorts of strongly held opinions. This would be no different.

If the UK is nobly standing against the oppression of smaller countries implicit in Belgium's statement, then surely there would be other countries who will be following us, or at least inclined to. Or at least who will sympathise with us. Are there any other EU members of that bent? Let me point you to Greece, surely the poster boy for a Eurozone member who had done badly from being in the Eurozone, and were treated shabbily by EU institutions. Are they currently pro or anti the EU over there? Let me point you to another EU member, Malta, as small as it gets, and with historical British links. What do they think of the EU and Brexit? Are there any other EU members that fit your hypothesis?

[Furunculus]

I make no claim that they want to leave, only that many of the nordic and accession periphery fight to preserve their independence from ever closer union, in foreign policy, in monetary and economic union, in justice and home affairs, and in border controls.

The major difference between them and ourselves being:
They are small nations used to being receivers of geopolitics, not makers.
more interested in their identity as Europeans.
more dependent on their European neighbours for trade (yes, even the mighty German export machine).
Often using a legal system more sympathetic to EU legal norms (napoleonic)
often using a political system more sympathetic to EU political norms (consensual)

Not just a noble ambition, also a simple matter of power and politics, using our common interest to shape geopolitics in favour of Britain s opinion.

[Pannonian]

I make no claim that they want to leave, only that many of the nordic and accession periphery fight to preserve their independence from ever closer union, in foreign policy, in monetary and economic union, in justice and home affairs, and in border controls.

The major difference between them and ourselves being:
They are small nations used to being receivers of geopolitics, not makers.
more interested in their identity as Europeans.
more dependent on their European neighbours for trade (yes, even the mighty German export machine).
Often using a legal system more sympathetic to EU legal norms (napoleonic)
often using a political system more sympathetic to EU political norms (consensual)

Not just a noble ambition, also a simple matter of power and politics, using our common interest to shape geopolitics in favour of Britain s opinion.

Britain hasn't looked to Scandinavia for geopolitics since the battle of Stamford Bridge. The last time Scandinavia shaped geopolitics was when Charles XII invaded Russia. How on earth is a closer relationship with Scandinavia going to replace the benefits we got from being in the EU? A large part of foreign interest is because we were an English speaking member of the EU. With that status gone, are they going to be interested because we're an English speaking member of a pan North Sea group? Hell, most of the Scandinavian countries already qualify, and they have existing infrastructure to deal with these international relationships, which we don't.

[Furunculus]

Britain hasn't looked to Scandinavia for geopolitics since the battle of Stamford Bridge. The last time Scandinavia shaped geopolitics was when Charles XII invaded Russia. How on earth is a closer relationship with Scandinavia going to replace the benefits we got from being in the EU? A large part of foreign interest is because we were an English speaking member of the EU. With that status gone, are they going to be interested because we're an English speaking member of a pan North Sea group? Hell, most of the Scandinavian countries already qualify, and they have existing infrastructure to deal with these international relationships, which we don't.

Possibly I was unclear, perils of tapping a quick message on a phone.

The Nordic countries are often a vehicle for [our] ambitions in european policy, due to shared interests. not that they are a significant geopolitical actor we wish to influence in their own right.

[Pannonian]

Possibly I was unclear, perils of tapping a quick message on a phone.

The Nordic countries are often a vehicle for [our] ambitions in european policy, due to shared interests. not that they are a significant geopolitical actor we wish to influence in their own right.

And in case you've missed the history, we share far more common interests with mainland Europe over the last 1000 years, since Stamford Bridge put an end to Nordic interests in England.

And in other news, Grimsby wants to declare itself a free port, technically leaving the UK, so that barriers between the UK and EU post-Brexit will not apply to it. Any tariffs and such barriers will only come into effect once goods leave Grimsby and enter the rUK. Quoth one fish market worker, "We want things to stay as they are." Meanwhile, London and Scotland, 60% Remain in the referendum and contributing a far more than average share of the UK's tax money, won't get this privilege and will have to take whatever the Leavers give them.

[rory_20_uk]

We can have common interests without being in the same political bloc.

Grimsby want to be a Free Port? They don't mind the import fees they'll get on services from the rest of the UK such as water and electricity.

Or they would like to be a Tax Haven that gets the best of both? Can I declare my house a free Zone since that would suit me?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

A Tory MP speaking against Brexit has received death threats after a newspaper lists her and 14 other MPs as mutineers. NB. A Labour MP was killed over this issue last year.

[Furunculus]

And in case you've missed the history, we share far more common interests with mainland Europe over the last 1000 years, since Stamford Bridge put an end to Nordic interests in England.

And in other news, Grimsby wants to declare itself a free port, technically leaving the UK, so that barriers between the UK and EU post-Brexit will not apply to it. Any tariffs and such barriers will only come into effect once goods leave Grimsby and enter the rUK. Quoth one fish market worker, "We want things to stay as they are." Meanwhile, London and Scotland, 60% Remain in the referendum and contributing a far more than average share of the UK's tax money, won't get this privilege and will have to take whatever the Leavers give them.

that is a non sequitur.

good for grimsby. are they a labour seat?

[Pannonian]

The US imposes prohibitive tariffs on goods from the UK. The EU supports the UK in the trade dispute, with the backing of an even larger market than the US. I can't wait for March 2019 when Brussels stops interfering in British affairs.

[rory_20_uk]

The US imposes prohibitive tariffs on goods from the UK. The EU supports the UK in the trade dispute, with the backing of an even larger market than the US. I can't wait for March 2019 when Brussels stops interfering in British affairs.

The USA declares war on the EU. The UK remains out of it. Too far fetched? The UK is dragged into a tariff dispute between the EU and the USA.

Why is the USA breaking WTO rules?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The USA declares war on the EU. The UK remains out of it. Too far fetched? The UK is dragged into a tariff dispute between the EU and the USA.

Why is the USA breaking WTO rules?

~:smoking:

Because they can, and the UK cannot retaliate as the UK is much, much weaker than the US.

[rory_20_uk]

Because they can, and the UK cannot retaliate as the UK is much, much weaker than the US.

When have they done this? To any country?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

When have they done this? To any country?

~:smoking:

Bombardier? 300% tariffs to clear the market for Boeing and other US companies?

[rory_20_uk]

That wasn't breaking WTO rules since the issue is illegal government support. I hardly see the EU jumping in to help if a member illegally supports their company.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

That wasn't breaking WTO rules since the issue is illegal government support. I hardly see the EU jumping in to help if a member illegally supports their company.

~:smoking:

"Brussels sides with UK in Bombardier tariff row"

[Husar]

What illegal government support? If government subsidies were illegal, every country that gives any corporation an effective tax rate below 10% should be boycotted. We'd basically end international trade entirely I guess.

I can see how it's terrible when it does actually ruin the economy of other countries, such as subsidized cheap EU food ruining African economies. But in this case even Delta said that Boeing wasn't even competing with Bombardier since Boing has absolutely not competing airplane in that class. So the argument that Bombardier was hurting an American company makes no sense. It sounds more like the subsidies benefit Delta since they get the planes cheaper. :dizzy2:

[Pannonian]

What illegal government support? If government subsidies were illegal, every country that gives any corporation an effective tax rate below 10% should be boycotted. We'd basically end international trade entirely I guess.

I can see how it's terrible when it does actually ruin the economy of other countries, such as subsidized cheap EU food ruining African economies. But in this case even Delta said that Boeing wasn't even competing with Bombardier since Boing has absolutely not competing airplane in that class. So the argument that Bombardier was hurting an American company makes no sense. It sounds more like the subsidies benefit Delta since they get the planes cheaper. :dizzy2:

More to the point, there is the mentality that the UK is the absolute polar opposite of the EU, and thus anything that hurts the EU must be good for the UK, and thus leading to the Brexiteers' strategy of aiming to hurt the EU as much as possible, even if hurts the UK much more. Corollary to this is the disbelief that anything good coming out of the EU can be good for the UK. And thus the EU backing the UK, who is after all still a full member at this point, is alien to Brexiteers.


A continuing refrain of the Brexiteers is that Britain has always lost out to
the rest of Europe in negotiations. This derives partly from the way successive
governments have portrayed the EU as a battleground in which there is room only
for victory or defeat. It is also explained by the tendency of politicians to
blame “Europe” for everything – often to divert attention from their own
shortcomings.

In fact, the UK has led Europe in a remarkable way, and has rarely failed to
gain its major objectives. However the process is one of debate and argument,
proof and counter-argument, rather than demanding that the rest of EU should
immediately see the sense in our position and give way without question. It is
this assumption of always being right that has bedevilled our relationships with
our neighbours.

[Fragony]

Talking about shortcommings, 48 billion euro is missing. The eurocrats don't know where it is. Somewhere in Greece

[Husar]

Talking about shortcommings, 48 billion euro is missing. The eurocrats don't know where it is. Somewhere in Greece

Do you have a source? I can't seem to find one.

[Fragony]

Do you have a source? I can't seem to find one.

Wait a few hours and you will. It's 45 by the way not 48

[Beskar]

If they campaigned with the slogan "Brexit means Brex:daisy:" it would have been more accurate.

[Beskar]

Now the Tories voted against retaining human rights enshrining the right to freedom of expression, freedom from slavery, etc and jeopardising legalisation in this area massively.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-charter-fundamental-rights-commons-uk-eu-defeat-a8068326.html

It is effectively the equal of Republican held congress and Senate repealing the Bill of Rights.

[rory_20_uk]

Now the Tories voted against retaining human rights enshrining the right to freedom of expression, freedom from slavery, etc and jeopardising legalisation in this area massively.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-charter-fundamental-rights-commons-uk-eu-defeat-a8068326.html

It is effectively the equal of Republican held congress and Senate repealing the Bill of Rights.

OH MY GOD WE'LL START ENSLAVING PEOPLE OUT OF THE EU!!! Or not.

There are lots of potential downsides with Brexit - most likely because there will be no agreement with both Spain and Ireland having a vote on whatever agreement is reached, and until that is returning Northern Ireland and Gibraltar there's not much reason for them not putting the boot in.

The Independent also said we'd be cut off from the world - as though the UK can not even contact other countries without the EU. The hysteria is getting rather far fetched.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Sometimes you wake up and there is something you don't recognise next to you, this time it's a EU army, how did that get here I wasn't that drunk but there it is and it's not leaving after an awkward cup of coffee

[Pannonian]

Sometimes you wake up and there is something you don't recognise next to you, this time it's a EU army, how did that get here I wasn't that drunk but there it is and it's not leaving after an awkward cup of coffee

I don't recognise Brexit Britain as the Britain I grew up in. But then you probably didn't mean that, and you wouldn't care even then. Still, bully for Holland to pick up some of the spoils that the UK will be deprived of. Are you going to be materially benefiting from Brexit in this manner, at our expense?

[Fragony]

I don't recognise Brexit Britain as the Britain I grew up in. But then you probably didn't mean that, and you wouldn't care even then. Still, bully for Holland to pick up some of the spoils that the UK will be deprived of. Are you going to be materially benefiting from Brexit in this manner, at our expense?

lok who dou think I am, rich or anything close to it. I'm not you think too highly of me. No I am not benefiting at your expense, it's not you I want to get hurt

[Pannonian]

lok who dou think I am, rich or anything close to it. I'm not you think too highly of me. No I am not benefiting at your expense, it's not you I want to get hurt

Oh well, at least you need never worry about a European Army of the kind you're talking about, as Britain will certainly veto it, or at least obstruct it. All EU members have this theoretical power, but the UK is a particularly influential member with differing views, so Holland need never fear being isolated, as Britain will always be around to support a different position within the EU.

[Fragony]

Oh well, at least you need never worry about a European Army of the kind you're talking about, as Britain will certainly veto it, or at least obstruct it. All EU members have this theoretical power, but the UK is a particularly influential member with differing views, so Holland need never fear being isolated, as Britain will always be around to support a different position within the EU.

It already happened, just a few hours ago. Very silently you didn't notice it

[Husar]

It already happened, just a few hours ago. Very silently you didn't notice it

Is this some secret info again like the one about some millions that I would surely hear about a bit later and then never heard of again?

[Fragony]

Is this some secret info again like the one about some millions that I would surely hear about a bit later and then never heard of again?

You didn't hear about these billions? Not my fault. No that's not secret info. It also isn't my fault that the EU-army deal went uncovered, your quality media not mine

[Pannonian]

It already happened, just a few hours ago. Very silently you didn't notice it

Try standing up, or the point will continue to go over your head. If your beloved Brexit hadn't happened, Britain could have done something about it. Now that Britain is out, don't expect to find any other Eurosceptics in the EU. Pro-EU feeling has strengthened considerably in the EU27 since the Brexit debacle.

[Fragony]

What I want isn't happening, the UK might be out but I don't think there is a way back, the euro leaves us no choice but accepting what could be the biggest threat to nation-states ever. Think of nation-states what you want but I am among those that consider nationalism a good thing. The eurocrats settled for going faster faster faster until there is simply no return. If you are out remains to be seen right now.

[Husar]

You didn't hear about these billions? Not my fault. No that's not secret info. It also isn't my fault that the EU-army deal went uncovered, your quality media not mine

I can't even find anything about what you said when I look for "eu 45 billion" in Google so perhaps you get your fake news from the dark web?

The closest I coud find was from 2014 about lost revenue in 2012: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-loses-hundreds-of-billions-in-missing-vat-revenues/

The only recent news is not about missing money but potential gains: http://www.businessinsider.de/theresa-may-doubling-britains-brexit-divorce-bill-40-billion-2017-11?op=1&r=US&IR=T

So if you can't or won't substantiate anything, it seems fake to me. It's also really weird and bad form to withhold your sources. You must either be afraid they're obvious fake news or think they give you some unique advantage that you selfishly want only for yourself. :rolleyes:

[Fragony]

Not my fault that you can't find it, questions have been in parlements everywhere also in Germany, nope not fake news it's gone bye bye billions

[Pannonian]

I can't even find anything about what you said when I look for "eu 45 billion" in Google so perhaps you get your fake news from the dark web?

The closest I coud find was from 2014 about lost revenue in 2012: https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-loses-hundreds-of-billions-in-missing-vat-revenues/

The only recent news is not about missing money but potential gains: http://www.businessinsider.de/theresa-may-doubling-britains-brexit-divorce-bill-40-billion-2017-11?op=1&r=US&IR=T

So if you can't or won't substantiate anything, it seems fake to me. It's also really weird and bad form to withhold your sources. You must either be afraid they're obvious fake news or think they give you some unique advantage that you selfishly want only for yourself. :rolleyes:

Have you tried Russia Today?

[Husar]

Not my fault that you can't find it, questions have been in parlements everywhere also in Germany, nope not fake news it's gone bye bye billions

Or perhaps the info you gave was not precise enough to find it.

You mentioned 45 billion, that they're lost and that they vanished in Greece. no matter how I combine these, I can't find anything on search engines. You know, these things that search every major and many smaller websites for such keywords. So either you provided the wrong keywords or there is nothing to find or "they" are hiding the information on purpose. Perhaps your well-informed friends do not want me to know?

[Pannonian]

Or perhaps the info you gave was not precise enough to find it.

You mentioned 45 billion, that they're lost and that they vanished in Greece. no matter how I combine these, I can't find anything on search engines. You know, these things that search every major and many smaller websites for such keywords. So either you provided the wrong keywords or there is nothing to find or "they" are hiding the information on purpose. Perhaps your well-informed friends do not want me to know?

I'm sure his special friends in St Petersburg have access to lots of information that you and I are not privy to.

[Fragony]

That's not on me that you can't find it, I am not bullshittiting you and you will know I'm not once you look better. The money isn't really gone you see, Germany couldn't recapitalise their risky banks directly so Greece was used as a proxy, And they are so very screwed.

[Husar]

Talking about shortcommings, 48 billion euro is missing. The eurocrats don't know where it is. Somewhere in Greece


Or perhaps the info you gave was not precise enough to find it.


That's not on me that you can't find it, I am not bullshittiting you and you will know I'm not once you look better. The money isn't really gone you see, Germany couldn't recapitalise their risky banks directly so Greece was used as a proxy, And they are so very screwed.

:rolleyes:

[Gilrandir]

You mentioned 45 billion, that they're lost and that they vanished in Greece. no matter how I combine these, I can't find anything on search engines.

That's because Germany is not blessed to have legal drugs.

[Furunculus]

Now the Tories voted against retaining human rights enshrining the right to freedom of expression, freedom from slavery, etc and jeopardising legalisation in this area massively.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-charter-fundamental-rights-commons-uk-eu-defeat-a8068326.html

It is effectively the equal of Republican held congress and Senate repealing the Bill of Rights.

Fake news. The EU charter of fundamental rights is quite separate from the European convention on human rights, which is brought into legal effect by the human right act and equalities act.

Dominic grieve was persuaded that nothing substantive would be lost, does someone of greater authority think otherwise?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Fake news. The EU charter of fundamental rights is quite separate from the European convention on human rights, which is brought into legal effect by the human right act and equalities act.

Dominic grieve was persuaded that nothing substantive would be lost, does someone of greater authority think otherwise?

Seems to me to have been a good bit of political theater by Corbyn. He risked nada, and got to twit the tories a bit.

[rory_20_uk]

Seems to me to have been a good bit of political theater by Corbyn. He risked nada, and got to twit the tories a bit.

He's based his entire career on this - yapping from the backbenches about how everything is wrong, happy in the knowledge that no one will ask him to demonstrate what he wants works. Why stop now?

He constantly points out the obvious - yes, there is income disparity, things are really difficult for those at the base and the rich have ways of diverting elsewhere. A 14 year old with attitude can spout that. What can be done about this without "solving" income inequality by making everyone universally poor? I have no idea, since the tax code makes it so easy for all profitable activities to occur elsewhere... Wiping out tax havens in Europe might be a start - get France and Germany to invade Monaco and Lichenstein...? But then US states such as Denver do pretty much the same thing, so most would move - which is easy given they do nothing anyway.

I've been wondering how much I'd need to make before such a scheme as to me revenue-neutral. Sadly the answer appears to be at least £200k a year excess income.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Since France provides Monaco's entire military protection, an invasion might not even be necessary.

But what might help with the tax evasion would be something like a global contract similar to the Paris agreement where all countriesagree on certain minimum taxes that cannot be lowered in any way through special deals etc.
There are however still two problems:
1. Aside from threats of invasion, small countries have no incentive to join as they can get along fine by taxing global corporations at half a percent or so.
2. If the minimum is too low, and some larger countries have to try and go above it still in order to cover expenses, the smaller countries may get an enormous excess tax income while the larger ones still struggle to find a "sweet spot" that works for them...

On the other hand, if the minimum is high enough, tax evasion may become more expensive than just paying the taxes properly right away, and the end of evasion schemes may make up for the loss incurred by a lower percentage in some countries. Of course, countries like Panama, Monaco, etc. would lose some income as they suddenly lose almost the only thing that made them relevant. Of course the argument could be made that what makes them relevant causes endless griefd elsewhere (and they won't be invaded as a result ~;) ), so...

[Montmorency]

Global regime of collection and distribution of corporate tax.

:creep:

[Pannonian]

He's based his entire career on this - yapping from the backbenches about how everything is wrong, happy in the knowledge that no one will ask him to demonstrate what he wants works. Why stop now?

He constantly points out the obvious - yes, there is income disparity, things are really difficult for those at the base and the rich have ways of diverting elsewhere. A 14 year old with attitude can spout that. What can be done about this without "solving" income inequality by making everyone universally poor? I have no idea, since the tax code makes it so easy for all profitable activities to occur elsewhere... Wiping out tax havens in Europe might be a start - get France and Germany to invade Monaco and Lichenstein...? But then US states such as Denver do pretty much the same thing, so most would move - which is easy given they do nothing anyway.

I've been wondering how much I'd need to make before such a scheme as to me revenue-neutral. Sadly the answer appears to be at least £200k a year excess income.

~:smoking:

Wasn't this the MO of the Leave campaign though? Make all kinds of claims based on little to no truth. Then once their vote was won, disclaim all responsibility for it. Farage disclaimed the 350m per week promise the morning after the referendum, while Leavers have been trying to distance themselves from it by claiming it wasn't really a promise. The warnings that Turkey and its many Muslims were about to join the EU were disclaimed by saying that it's not what the main campaign said. Anything else the Leave campaign promised has also been disclaimed by saying that they're not the government who have to implement their decision, the government just has to and it's not their responsibility how it turns out. Also see the Norway option that PFH thought was the most likely result of the referendum, which Farage among others also promised, which has been ruled out on the UK's side. Or the many great trade deals that other countries are now guaranteeing will not happen as envisaged by the Leavers. How much do the Leave campaign's promises matter?

[Furunculus]

Wasn't this the MO of the Leave campaign though? Make all kinds of claims based on little to no truth. Then once their vote was won, disclaim all responsibility for it. Farage disclaimed the 350m per week promise the morning after the referendum, while Leavers have been trying to distance themselves from it by claiming it wasn't really a promise. The warnings that Turkey and its many Muslims were about to join the EU were disclaimed by saying that it's not what the main campaign said. Anything else the Leave campaign promised has also been disclaimed by saying that they're not the government who have to implement their decision, the government just has to and it's not their responsibility how it turns out. Also see the Norway option that PFH thought was the most likely result of the referendum, which Farage among others also promised, which has been ruled out on the UK's side. Or the many great trade deals that other countries are now guaranteeing will not happen as envisaged by the Leavers. How much do the Leave campaign's promises matter?

Remain claimed that Leave wanted MORE immigration because they want an oz points system. Where does that leave us? Nowhere.

[Pannonian]

Remain claimed that Leave wanted MORE immigration because they want an oz points system. Where does that leave us? Nowhere.

You wot? It was plain throughout the campaign that Leave tended towards Farage's xenophobic line, hence his claim that Turkey ere about to join the EU.

[Furunculus]

You wot? It was plain throughout the campaign that Leave tended towards Farage's xenophobic line, hence his claim that Turkey ere about to join the EU.

I heard it myself.

Face it, you've got a glass house too, so throwing stones is not an activity you can engage in without consequence.