EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

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.

The difference is, Leave won. When are Leave going to deliver their promises? Or are they going to dodge responsibility as they've done so far?

[Pannonian]

And BTW, when you make claims, can you source them, as opposed to "I've heard it", which might as well mean "I've just made it up"? I've posted the 350m/week bus and the Turkey in the EU poster here before. Here are some of the Leave campaigners on the Norwegian option.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

[Gilrandir]

The difference is, Leave won. When are Leave going to deliver their promises? Or are they going to dodge responsibility as they've done so far?

Just vote them out at next elections.

[Furunculus]

The difference is, Leave won. When are Leave going to deliver their promises? Or are they going to dodge responsibility as they've done so far?

There is no difference.

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

I watched it said in one of the big tv debates.

[Pannonian]

There is no difference.

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

I watched it said in one of the big tv debates.

There is no bloody difference between winning and losing? Is that your answer to the winning Leave campaign abandoning all its promises? Typical of Leave and not taking responsibility for what they say.

[Pannonian]

Just vote them out at next elections.

The Brexit minister said that Parliament (the sovereign Parliament that Brexit was supposed to take back from the EU) only gets a vote after the deed is done. The supposed opposition leader has ruled out a second referendum. So there will be no election of that kind in my lifetime. The deed is done, and the form of its implementation will be decided by a small cabinet. Not even Parliament will get a say.

[Furunculus]

There is no bloody difference between winning and losing? Is that your answer to the winning Leave campaign abandoning all its promises? Typical of Leave and not taking responsibility for what they say.

We're talking about campaign lies. They were lies, during the campaign. Told by both sides.

Typical of Remain, to shift the argument when you're losing.

[Montmorency]

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.

There is no difference.

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

I watched it said in one of the big tv debates.

Is "oz points" a reference to the Australian system?

I can't find anything, so I have to ask whether the claim by Remain was that Leave wanted more immigration through a points system, or that a points system would lead to more immigration than Leave appeared to want?

If it it's the latter, then it may be a credit to Remain and a demerit to Leave.

[Beskar]

Only thing I can think of was when there was talk of free trade talks with India and I discussed was wanting freedom of movement as a condition, similar demands were expected by other nations, so as a consequence if UK signed up to those, it would mean great migration, especially if it was India for example.

[Pannonian]

Only thing I can think of was when there was talk of free trade talks with India and I discussed was wanting freedom of movement as a condition, similar demands were expected by other nations, so as a consequence if UK signed up to those, it would mean great migration, especially if it was India for example.

One irony that I found was, in the aftermath of Brexit and it becoming clear that we were lacking friends, one of those we touted around was Turkey. Whose precondition for free trade would, of course, mean free movement between Turkey and the UK. That after the Leave poster suggesting that Turkey would soon join the EU and their Muslims unbound by the free movement requirements of Brussels. One thing that's been consistent from the Leavers, and seen again on this page and last, is the unwillingness to own responsibility for their promises, preferring instead to use tu quoque arguments. I suppose that's an improvement on the arguments they used during the campaign, which was to outright lie whilst dismissing expert opinions (since proven accurate) as "Project Fear".

[Pannonian]

We're talking about campaign lies. They were lies, during the campaign. Told by both sides.

Typical of Remain, to shift the argument when you're losing.

Remain aren't losing. Remain have lost. Leave have won. It's up to Leave to keep their promises, as they are in power and get to decide what happens. Are you going to hold the Leave campaign to their promises?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Remain aren't losing. Remain have lost. Leave have won. It's up to Leave to keep their promises, as they are in power and get to decide what happens. Are you going to hold the Leave campaign to their promises?

Ideally we should all of hold our elected representatives to their campaign promises....we do not live in an ideal world, so I doubt you will get the sweeping response of "But didn't you say that..." for which you are hoping.

[Pannonian]

Ideally we should all of hold our elected representatives to their campaign promises....we do not live in an ideal world, so I doubt you will get the sweeping response of "But didn't you say that..." for which you are hoping.

In the UK, if an elected government deems itself unable to carry through its manifesto with its Commons mandate, they traditionally call an election to get a new mandate, or try to form a workable coalition. Failing that, the status quo persists until the next election, when there will perforce be a new mandate of some sort for someone.

[Gilrandir]

The Brexit minister said that Parliament (the sovereign Parliament that Brexit was supposed to take back from the EU) only gets a vote after the deed is done. The supposed opposition leader has ruled out a second referendum. So there will be no election of that kind in my lifetime. The deed is done, and the form of its implementation will be decided by a small cabinet. Not even Parliament will get a say.

You said once you believed in democracy. Brexit was democracy in action. Now you have to lump it.

And in the post I responded to you clamored not for a new referendum, but for the responsibility of Leave politicians. When those who promoted Leave are out of parliament you should consider it a justice done to them according to the rules of democracy.

[Furunculus]

Remain aren't losing. Remain have lost. Leave have won. It's up to Leave to keep their promises, as they are in power and get to decide what happens. Are you going to hold the Leave campaign to their promises?

I want you to try really hard to let the following message penetrate that skull of yours:

Both sides lied. Both sides played fast and lose with the truth. Both sides speculated on the future (mendaciously - to support their cause).

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

Remain - Nasty neoliberals running leave actually want MORE immigration (as this is the consequence of a points system).
Clegg - I see the EU in ten years time as being more or less the same as it is now (so no need to worry about ever-closer-union)

There were many more, on both sides, and all were designed to appeal to a particular marginal demographic.

Funnily enough, the £350m for the NHS was only made explicitly, once, the rest of the time it was couched in much more general terms as an example of what the money could be spent on. Guess which individual instance bitter remainers have fixated upon ever since...
Do you think the NHS pledge was made to grab my tribe? Right-of-Centre classical liberals whose concern was constitutional impingements on fundamental sovereignty?
No, it was made to grab your tribe, who've made the NHS a secular religion.
Do you think the Immigration pledge was made to grab my tribe? Right-of-Centre classical liberals whose concern at best was 7% of the worlds population occupying 50% of british immigration, necessitating us actively penalising countries to which we recognise a much closer affinity.
No, it was made to grab your tribe, who hoover up the working class vote that feel most threatened by unlimited migration.

It was a cross party campaign. It was a cross society campaign. There was no sane expectation that it must be seen as a single combined mandate to be enacted by ONE coherent political tribe that happens to be in power at the time.

I understand you are bitter, but you should be bitter at the following points:
1. Why was it impossible to put forward a POSITIVE message in favour of staying in the EU?
2. Why was the weak link voters on your own side, and why could they not be reassured by Remain?

[Furunculus]

Is "oz points" a reference to the Australian system?

I can't find anything, so I have to ask whether the claim by Remain was that Leave wanted more immigration through a points system, or that a points system would lead to more immigration than Leave appeared to want?

If it it's the latter, then it may be a credit to Remain and a demerit to Leave.

Apologies, it is always difficult to find spoken content via google. If I chose to watch about six hours of the bigger debates I could probably track it down.

No, it was explicitly said that Leave wanted MORE immigration. It was said as a 'clever' dig at Tory Leavers from a Labour Remainer, as an example of the Tories-as-heartless-neoliberals trope (wanting cheap labour for their satanic mills).
It was said on national TV in the weeks before the referendum, to an audience of millions.
It was a lie.

[Beskar]

1. Why was it impossible to put forward a POSITIVE message in favour of staying in the EU?

That is easy, it was an argument for status quo.

It was a case of "We have all this, but if we leave, we are screwed" versus "the EU is the evil, leave now to rake in billions from the imaginary money tree". The latter promised getting something, versus an argument saying things will get worse for people who feel at their worst. If you feel like you go nothing to lose, then someone saying you will lose things will not work,

By comparison, in the Scottish referendum, Westiminister were trying to bribe Scottish voters, so there was more incentive for the remain.

[Pannonian]

I want you to try really hard to let the following message penetrate that skull of yours:

Both sides lied. Both sides played fast and lose with the truth. Both sides speculated on the future (mendaciously - to support their cause).

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

Remain - Nasty neoliberals running leave actually want MORE immigration (as this is the consequence of a points system).
Clegg - I see the EU in ten years time as being more or less the same as it is now (so no need to worry about ever-closer-union)

There were many more, on both sides, and all were designed to appeal to a particular marginal demographic.

Funnily enough, the £350m for the NHS was only made explicitly, once, the rest of the time it was couched in much more general terms as an example of what the money could be spent on. Guess which individual instance bitter remainers have fixated upon ever since...
Do you think the NHS pledge was made to grab my tribe? Right-of-Centre classical liberals whose concern was constitutional impingements on fundamental sovereignty?
No, it was made to grab your tribe, who've made the NHS a secular religion.
Do you think the Immigration pledge was made to grab my tribe? Right-of-Centre classical liberals whose concern at best was 7% of the worlds population occupying 50% of british immigration, necessitating us actively penalising countries to which we recognise a much closer affinity.
No, it was made to grab your tribe, who hoover up the working class vote that feel most threatened by unlimited migration.

It was a cross party campaign. It was a cross society campaign. There was no sane expectation that it must be seen as a single combined mandate to be enacted by ONE coherent political tribe that happens to be in power at the time.

I understand you are bitter, but you should be bitter at the following points:
1. Why was it impossible to put forward a POSITIVE message in favour of staying in the EU?
2. Why was the weak link voters on your own side, and why could they not be reassured by Remain?

And I'll try hard to get this message to penetrate the skull of yours also.

1. Leave won.
2. It is therefore incumbent on Leave to implement their promises.

If you win an election, you get to enjoy the fruits of your won election, by implementing what you've promised to do. If you don't want to be held responsible for your promises, stand down, hold another election, and let others take over who will be responsible for their promises.

[Furunculus]

That is easy, it was an argument for status quo.

It was a case of "We have all this, but if we leave, we are screwed" versus "the EU is the evil, leave now to rake in billions from the imaginary money tree". The latter promised getting something, versus an argument saying things will get worse for people who feel at their worst. If you feel like you go nothing to lose, then someone saying you will lose things will not work,

By comparison, in the Scottish referendum, Westiminister were trying to bribe Scottish voters, so there was more incentive for the remain.

That is not true, as I have attempted to demonstrate with links describing changes in vote weight and the consequence for areas of fundamental economic sovereignty.

It is also not true as Ivan Rogers understood the necessity of the renegotiation:
https://www.politico.eu/article/ivan-rogers-david-cameron-speech-transcript-brexit-referendum/

It is also not a positive message. A positive message would have extolled the necessity of ever-closer-union, and the joys of our shared EUropean destiny with a single social contract. Seems to me that Remain figured that message wouldn't sell tho...

There was NO positive case sold by Remain. Why was this not possible?

[Furunculus]

And I'll try hard to get this message to penetrate the skull of yours also.

1. Leave won.
2. It is therefore incumbent on Leave to implement their promises.

If you win an election, you get to enjoy the fruits of your won election, by implementing what you've promised to do. If you don't want to be held responsible for your promises, stand down, hold another election, and let others take over who will be responsible for their promises.

There isn't a 'Leave' government.
There is a Tory gov't, which actually campaigned to Remain.
And it is willing to to enact the result of the referendum.
Do we somehow expect more of it, to somehow take responsibility for every promise made by one side of a cross-party single issue campaign?

-----------------------------------------------


p.s. has anyone in this discussion actually read All Out War or Craig Olivers account, or read Ivan Rogers lecture before I linked it above? It gets a little depressing having to cover the same ground so fruitlessly time and time again.

[Pannonian]

There isn't a 'Leave' government.
There is a Tory gov't, which actually campaigned to Remain.
And it is willing to to enact the result of the referendum.
Do we somehow expect more of it, to somehow take responsibility for every promise made by one side of a cross-party single issue campaign?

-----------------------------------------------


p.s. has anyone in this discussion actually read All Out War or Craig Olivers account, or read Ivan Rogers lecture before I linked it above? It gets a little depressing having to cover the same ground so fruitlessly time and time again.

Is this your way to deflect responsibility from what your side promised after your side won? We're not really responsible for what we've said and what we're doing.

[Pannonian]

The Leavers remind me of the the case of Gaius Gracchus and Marcus Livius Drusus. Promise the sky to win the election, then disclaim said promises after election is won.

[Furunculus]

Is this your way to deflect responsibility from what your side promised after your side won? We're not really responsible for what we've said and what we're doing.

the government can be held to account for its actions (or inactions), every five years, i recommend you take up that opportunity.

anything else is absurd... like expecting a remain win to guarantee me the status quo.

[rory_20_uk]

Neither leave nor remain can promise anything since in both cases the EU has a dominant role to play - increased integration was undertaken by the EU without the consent of any people - the only referendums that were undertaken were all "no" until there were tweaks to the rules to get a narrow yes. Leaving the EU won't give the deal they gave South Korea and Canada. Why? Because the EU doesn't want to.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Neither leave nor remain can promise anything since in both cases the EU has a dominant role to play - increased integration was undertaken by the EU without the consent of any people - the only referendums that were undertaken were all "no" until there were tweaks to the rules to get a narrow yes. Leaving the EU won't give the deal they gave South Korea and Canada. Why? Because the EU doesn't want to.

I'm just glad noone is blaming the EU for that since it would be like blaming the factory for not selling everything at cost price.

[rory_20_uk]

A factory that demands payment in advance to discuss goods it might then sell. Cost price? Hilarious! Although they have deals with other countries on terms they refuse to offer. And what does the EU make, exactly?

~:smoking:

[Husar]

A factory that demands payment in advance to discuss goods it might then sell. Cost price? Hilarious! Although they have deals with other countries on terms they refuse to offer. And what does the EU make, exactly?

~:smoking:

It sells access to a market and some forms of standardization. A bit like your ISP. What payment in advance? You don't have to pay for the exit negotiations in advance. At best you have to discuss outstanding payments. If you want to refuse to fulfill any contractual obligations, perhaps you're just a bad customer. I remember that Brexiteers wanted to rpoudly make the world more competitive again, so now the EU is behaving competitively and suddenly it's so unfair because it's bigger and wants concessions from a smaller partner. Then again the size of the EU was never accepted as a competitive advantage or a reason to stay in it, was it? :rolleyes: Hilarious indeed. :laugh4:

[Gilrandir]

And what does the EU make, exactly?


So far it makes you feel sorry you have started this leave thing.

[Pannonian]

And the customs border will be between the island of Ireland and the island of Britain, rendering Northern Ireland better integrated with the Republic than with Britain. Sturgeon has asked the pertinent question of why Northern Ireland gets this preferential treatment but not Scotland, which also voted Remain. Also London, which was even stronger Remain than Northern Ireland.

[Pannonian]

The DUP leader has rejected any difference between Northern Ireland and Britain, while the SNP leader, the mayor of London and the Welsh government have said that they expect the offer made to Northern Ireland to be made available to their regions too.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

And the customs border will be between the island of Ireland and the island of Britain, rendering Northern Ireland better integrated with the Republic than with Britain. Sturgeon has asked the pertinent question of why Northern Ireland gets this preferential treatment but not Scotland, which also voted Remain. Also London, which was even stronger Remain than Northern Ireland.

London is stuck. They are surrounded by country mice who voted "go" and the country mice control all of your food.

[Pannonian]

London is stuck. They are surrounded by country mice who voted "go" and the country mice control all of your food.

London has the Thames. And Heathrow and the other airports (making it either the busiest or the second busiest air-served city in the world, depending on your measure). And a fair chunk of the commuter belt is Remain, or only narrowly Leave. The Leave strongholds are up north (eg. London is closer to Calais than to Grimsby).

[Beskar]

It looks like they actually tried to go with the solution I proposed for the problem.

As for Wales, Scotland, and London, they are not geographically in the same situation, that is why the option is not available to them as we will have to make a hard border between them and rest of England. The idea is to remove a hard border from Southern and Northern Ireland.

[Pannonian]

It looks like they actually tried to go with the solution I proposed for the problem.

As for Wales, Scotland, and London, they are not geographically in the same situation, that is why the option is not available to them as we will have to make a hard border between them and rest of England. The idea is to remove a hard border from Southern and Northern Ireland.

Let London and its hinterland secede from England. Our tax money has been supporting them for long enough. If the 350m for the NHS isn't going to appear from the UK government, let's at least save that amount by cutting the freeloaders loose.

[Furunculus]

Let London and its hinterland secede from England. Our tax money has been supporting them for long enough. If the 350m for the NHS isn't going to appear from the UK government, let's at least save that amount by cutting the freeloaders loose.

Where is your solidarity for the common northern prole, comrade?

Are you one of those urban Liberal socialist types?

[Pannonian]

Where is your solidarity for the common northern prole, comrade?

Are you one of those urban Liberal socialist types?

Feck the Brexiters. London voted overwhelmingly Remain, yet are expected to pay to cushion the crapshow that the north have voted for.

[Montmorency]

Let London and its hinterland secede from England. Our tax money has been supporting them for long enough. If the 350m for the NHS isn't going to appear from the UK government, let's at least save that amount by cutting the freeloaders loose.

You think the City financiers would replicate the NHS and other services for the common Londoner?

:wink:

[Pannonian]

You think the City financiers would replicate the NHS and other services for the common Londoner?

:wink:

Their taxes will. And in any case, as long as our money is denied to the rest of the country that voted Leave, I'm content.

[Beskar]

Let London and its hinterland secede from England. Our tax money has been supporting them for long enough. If the 350m for the NHS isn't going to appear from the UK government, let's at least save that amount by cutting the freeloaders loose.

Well, I am currently living outside of the UK, so feel free to dismantle the rest of the Empire once and for all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, I am currently living outside of the UK, so feel free to dismantle the Empire once and for all.

You lot dismantled the Empire a good chalk back (smoother than many would have expected of such a process to be fair).

Pan' is talking about dismantling the UK. I don't suppose there are any forts named "Sumter" near the Thames in greater London?

[Pannonian]

You lot dismantled the Empire a good chalk back (smoother than many would have expected of such a process to be fair).

Pan' is talking about dismantling the UK. I don't suppose there are any forts named "Sumter" near the Thames in greater London?

May was suggesting dismantling the UK yesterday. That was why the DUP vetoed the deal. Breaking off Northern Ireland from Britain is a natural consequence of Brexit, as warned by David Cameron before the vote (cf. 15th June 2016 speech). And with the offer to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London have consequently queried their status, as I've cited above.

[Furunculus]

if the only way the UK can survive is with the comfort blanket of EU 'security' then perhaps it is time to let the union fall apart.

I rather suspect, however:

1. That it is not, and we can shuffle along fine in congress for some time to come.

2. That signing up to “regulatory alignment” but only if there are “no other agreed solutions” and only in areas which support “north-south cooperation”, is some way short of cutting NI adrift.

[Pannonian]

if the only way the UK can survive is with the comfort blanket of EU 'security' then perhaps it is time to let the union fall apart.

I rather suspect, however:

1. That it is not, and we can shuffle along fine in congress for some time to come.

2. That signing up to “regulatory alignment” but only if there are “no other agreed solutions” and only in areas which support “north-south cooperation”, is some way short of cutting NI adrift.

I'm sure May will feel reassured by your reassurances. However, her direct words with Arlene Foster and subsequent actions indicate she believes the situation to be otherwise from how you state it.

[rory_20_uk]

I'm sure May will feel reassured by your reassurances. However, her direct words with Arlene Foster and subsequent actions indicate she believes the situation to be otherwise from how you state it.

Could it be that *gasp* May is playing politics and looking to blame the DUP for everything if there is no deal? Blame the one party that the UK, Southern Ireland and the EU dislikes intensely?

The more time that passes, the more likely WTO seems on the cards. I wonder how many years 50 billion would help soften the blow to industry?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Could it be that *gasp* May is playing politics and looking to blame the DUP for everything if there is no deal? Blame the one party that the UK, Southern Ireland and the EU dislikes intensely?

The more time that passes, the more likely WTO seems on the cards. I wonder how many years 50 billion would help soften the blow to industry?

~:smoking:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

[Greyblades]

Could it be that *gasp* May is playing politics and looking to blame the DUP for everything if there is no deal? Blame the one party that the UK, Southern Ireland and the EU dislikes intensely?

The more time that passes, the more likely WTO seems on the cards. I wonder how many years 50 billion would help soften the blow to industry?

~:smoking:
I hope its that, and not that may is so stupid she thinks putting the northern irish on the other side of the uk's border controls would be a good idea.

[Beskar]

I hope its that, and not that may is so stupid she thinks putting the northern irish on the other side of the uk's border controls would be a good idea.

Actually it is a pretty good idea if the goal is to have unrestricted border access between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland. It places the border controls around the island opposed to on it.

A solution would be to have an EEA type agreement then this won't become an issue anyway due to being in the single market.

Another idea would be to grant them independence which solves the Irish issue all together as far as the UK government is concerned if they insist on this path. Nirexit.

[Greyblades]

A very poor idea, with so much agonizing over fears brexit would restart the troubles; I'd think making it a certainty by reuniting would have such a proposition removed from the remainers playbook, yet here we are.

[rory_20_uk]

I hope its that, and not that may is so stupid she thinks putting the northern irish on the other side of the uk's border controls would be a good idea.

I doubt it is. A mix of ignorance / incompetence and desperation has led to delusion that the DUP would secretly love to rejoin Southern Ireland.


Actually it is a pretty good idea if the goal is to have unrestricted border access between Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland. It places the border controls around the island opposed to on it.

A solution would be to have an EEA type agreement then this won't become an issue anyway due to being in the single market.

Another idea would be to grant them independence which solves the Irish issue all together as far as the UK government is concerned if they insist on this path. Nirexit.

I doubt anyone in Northern Ireland wants Independence. They love the subsidies that the UK gives - not even the EU would lavish that amount of money on them: one lot want to be part of Southern Ireland and the other lot want to be part of the UK. Lucky, lucky us...

AN EEA type agreement - unlike NAFTA or the TTP - would require to pay a vast sum of money and obey all the rules set by the EU. Better look into joining NAFTA frankly - make it the North Atlantic Trade Agreement.

Sadly time travel is not possible - I think that the troops should never have been sent over when the Troubles kicked off. Leave them to kill each other as opposed to British soldiers - if you want, get the UN to send some Bluehats to get shot at.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

And so the minister in charge of Brexit admits that he hasn't handed over detailed reports because he hasn't commissioned any, because he doesn't believe in having them. There are quotes from him stating that there were reports of the kind, in "excruciating detail". The speaker has indicated that there are grounds for action against the minister, if the select committee gives him the go ahead.

[Beskar]

Apparently 25% who voted for Leave had their decision highly influenced by that bus. Whilst the Brexhiteers say people should have recognised it as a lie, telling the remoaners to shut up, the fact a large percentage saw it as a campaign promise they believed in meant that it's current exposure of being an open lie puts the mandate in doubt and if it was known before the vote, remain would have easily won on this fact alone (never mind the distastors since).

[rory_20_uk]

That should be good enough reason to get them to rescind their right to vote - to be swayed by a promise which at best could only be accomplished at the end of negotiations 2 years with a party who has repeatedly said the UK can not be better off outside of their gang - hence is clearly not a certainty.

~:smoking:

[HopAlongBunny]

Oh my.
Votes being influenced by a lie.
~;)

It's all getting a little more real:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/brexit-britain-eu-reach-deal-divorce-terms-171208081006783.html

I guess they forgot to say that the money to reboot the NHS is actually the alimony this divorce is going to cost...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That should be good enough reason to get them to rescind their right to vote - to be swayed by a promise which at best could only be accomplished at the end of negotiations 2 years with a party who has repeatedly said the UK can not be better off outside of their gang - hence is clearly not a certainty.

~:smoking:

Didn't Churchill cover this with his "best argument against democracy?"

[Pannonian]

Didn't Churchill cover this with his "best argument against democracy?"

Back in the day politicians were a tad less cavalier with their promises, and they held themselves responsible for their promises and actions. Hence after his Gallipoli disaster, Churchill atoned by stepping down and taking up a position as a front line officer (Lt.Col). If the Brexiters had the same mentality, they'd have exiled themselves long ago after their manifest failures.

[Husar]

Back in the day politicians were a tad less cavalier with their promises, and they held themselves responsible for their promises and actions. Hence after his Gallipoli disaster, Churchill atoned by stepping down and taking up a position as a front line officer (Lt.Col). If the Brexiters had the same mentality, they'd have exiled themselves long ago after their manifest failures.

Wiki (German version, English appears less detailed) says he did ask to be made marine minister (or first lor of the marine or what it was called) again in March 1916 but parliament only laughed at him. Then he went to the front in May 1916. It does not sound entirely like he took responsibility, apparently he also stepped down in the first place under heavy pressure.

While I would agree that such qualities are desirable, I'm not sure he's the best example. :sweatdrop:

[Pannonian]

Wiki (German version, English appears less detailed) says he did ask to be made marine minister (or first lor of the marine or what it was called) again in March 1916 but parliament only laughed at him. Then he went to the front in May 1916. It does not sound entirely like he took responsibility, apparently he also stepped down in the first place under heavy pressure.

While I would agree that such qualities are desirable, I'm not sure he's the best example. :sweatdrop:

Well, he went to the front, which is more than most of the current lot would do.

[rory_20_uk]

At the front, how close does a Lt Col get?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

At the front, how close does a Lt Col get?

~:smoking:

AFAIK Lt.Cols were supposed to be able to see enemy lines with the naked eye. Brigadier-generals were encouraged to get forward too, but there was less expectation as was the case with Lt.Cols. Major-generals were the first rank who were supposed to be somewhat in the rear.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

AFAIK Lt.Cols were supposed to be able to see enemy lines with the naked eye. Brigadier-generals were encouraged to get forward too, but there was less expectation as was the case with Lt.Cols. Major-generals were the first rank who were supposed to be somewhat in the rear.

Battalion and Regimental HQs were generally well set up dugouts integral with the third trench line. While significantly less likely to get waxed by artillery -- only the largest shells and only with a very lucky direct vertical hit could wipe out a headquarters -- it would be hard to label it as safe. Moreover, officers who didn't at least periodically show up in the front trench would get a bad rep I imagine. Never heard that WC was considered a chairwarmer type from what I have read. Never heard of anyone who doubted his physical courage.

[Beskar]

Didn't Churchill cover this with his "best argument against democracy?"

This caller called Steve gave his reasons for voting Leave: http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obriens-response-to-racist-brexit-voter/

Worth a watch/listen.

[Pannonian]

This caller called Steve gave his reasons for voting Leave: http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obriens-response-to-racist-brexit-voter/

Worth a watch/listen.

The poster of Turkey's accession to the EU and the 350m/week for the NHS were significant factors in the campaign. Both were lies.

[Furunculus]

, the fact a large percentage saw it as a campaign promise they believed in meant that it's current exposure of being an open lie puts the mandate in doubt and if it was known before the vote, remain would have easily won on this fact alone (never mind the distastors since).

No, it really doesn't put the mandate in doubt.


That.you wish it to be so does not make it true.

[Beskar]

No, it really doesn't put the mandate in doubt.
That.you wish it to be so does not make it true.

My wish would be that it wasn't hogwash and Brexit would mean this hypothetical utopia a lot of Brexiteers claim it would be as I would selfishly benefit from this decision. However, even though I wish this, as you say, it does not make it true.

[rory_20_uk]

My wish would be that it wasn't hogwash and Brexit would mean this hypothetical utopia a lot of Brexiteers claim it would be as I would selfishly benefit from this decision. However, even though I wish this, as you say, it does not make it true.

The UK will suffer for quite a few years - mainly as it is the political wish of the EU for that to be so. If people could just leave the Project and treat it like it was the EEC then who would pay for all the EU jobs? The healthcare? The pensions? Stop the rot as quickly as possible - punish anyone that tries to leave.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The UK will suffer for quite a few years - mainly as it is the political wish of the EU for that to be so. If people could just leave the Project and treat it like it was the EEC then who would pay for all the EU jobs? The healthcare? The pensions? Stop the rot as quickly as possible - punish anyone that tries to leave.

~:smoking:

You mean who would pay for useless skivers like Nigel Farage? Never in the European Parliament except to rail at how they're a useless waste of money, yet he's unwilling to give up a penny of the pension due to him as an MEP. At least Eurocrats believe in what they do. Brexiters are hypocrites.

[rory_20_uk]

You mean who would pay for useless skivers like Nigel Farage? Never in the European Parliament except to rail at how they're a useless waste of money, yet he's unwilling to give up a penny of the pension due to him as an MEP. At least Eurocrats believe in what they do. Brexiters are hypocrites.

I think there are more jobs than just his... The EMA (foe example) was supposed to do the work for regulating all medicines, and therefore the country agencies could be reduced. Did this happen? Of course not! They hired more staff to interface with the EMA which then had to hire more staff to talk to all the individual agencies.

And is he alone? The IRA haven't taken up their seats in the UK parliament for years yet take the full salary and allowance. The entire Northern Ireland assembly hasn't sat in months, and every single person still draws their salary.

So... if he were to do the non-work that all the others do, he'd be completely justified in the high salary and pension that he and all the other MEPs voted themselves? Do they believe in what they do, or believe in a large salary, a cushy job with almost no oversight, massive pension and staff allowance? Apparently you can read all their minds.

You are equally blinkered as those you place into the same homogeneous group.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I think there are more jobs than just his... The EMA (foe example) was supposed to do the work for regulating all medicines, and therefore the country agencies could be reduced. Did this happen? Of course not! They hired more staff to interface with the EMA which then had to hire more staff to talk to all the individual agencies.

And is he alone? The IRA haven't taken up their seats in the UK parliament for years yet take the full salary and allowance. The entire Northern Ireland assembly hasn't sat in months, and every single person still draws their salary.

So... if he were to do the non-work that all the others do, he'd be completely justified in the high salary and pension that he and all the other MEPs voted themselves? Do they believe in what they do, or believe in a large salary, a cushy job with almost no oversight, massive pension and staff allowance? Apparently you can read all their minds.

You are equally blinkered as those you place into the same homogeneous group.

~:smoking:

And where have I ever defended Sinn Fein's stance?

[Fragony]

You mean who would pay for useless skivers like Nigel Farage? Never in the European Parliament except to rail at how they're a useless waste of money, yet he's unwilling to give up a penny of the pension due to him as an MEP. At least Eurocrats believe in what they do. Brexiters are hypocrites.

They should get the same as others, what is hypocritical about that. Should they give up everything because they don't agree with the eurocrites? That would make crowdfunding much more important than it ought to be, but they will get it regardless when cut off. I wish that was done really

What you wish for is not liking the EU to be suicidal, do you?

[rory_20_uk]

And where have I ever defended Sinn Fein's stance?

And where did I say you did defend it? I said he was not alone - perhaps calling out all parasites would have been seen as more balanced as opposed to focusing on one that fits your narrative.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

They should get the same as others, what is hypocritical about that. Should they give up everything because they don't agree with the eurocrites? That would make crowdfunding much more important than it ought to be, but they will get it regardless when cut off. I wish that was done really

What you wish for is not liking the EU to be suicidal, do you?

I don't claim every benefit that I'm entitled to. If Farage does indeed believe so strongly in what he preaches, he should practice what he preaches, and have as little to do with the EU as possible. Instead, he leeches it for everything he can. I despise hypocrites like him.

[Pannonian]

And where did I say you did defend it? I said he was not alone - perhaps calling out all parasites would have been seen as more balanced as opposed to focusing on one that fits your narrative.

~:smoking:

I despise hypocrites, not people who act as they preach. I respect politicians who put in the hard work that their office puts them in a position to make use of. Hence my respect of local councillors of all colours.

[Kralizec]

No, it really doesn't put the mandate in doubt.


That.you wish it to be so does not make it true.

The referendum was not binding, so by definition it is not a mandate...

[rory_20_uk]

I despise hypocrites, not people who act as they preach. I respect politicians who put in the hard work that their office puts them in a position to make use of. Hence my respect of local councillors of all colours.

Yes, they generally do what they do because they believe in what they do and get little in return.

What I am most amazed at is that Farage and all the others gets a £70k A YEAR pension for doing a job for a decade or so. Those that stay longer will be getting a six figure salary for decades of retirement - if they decide that sitting around is too much trouble.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Yes, they generally do what they do because they believe in what they do and get little in return.

What I am most amazed at is that Farage and all the others gets a £70k A YEAR pension for doing a job for a decade or so. Those that stay longer will be getting a six figure salary for decades of retirement - if they decide that sitting around is too much trouble.

~:smoking:

And it still only gets them the mediocre managers on the job market at best. According to capitalist principles, those monetary incentives need to be doubled at least in order to attract the brightest minds and greatest talents.

[Pannonian]

And it still only gets them the mediocre managers on the job market at best. According to capitalist principles, those monetary incentives need to be doubled at least in order to attract the brightest minds and greatest talents.

The brightest minds should be sitting in the Lords without being threatened every so often with dissolution by the Commons. Democracy guards against tyranny. As is clear by the Brexit negotiations, it does not guard against idiocy. The will of the people cannot make the sun rise in the west and set in the east, even if the people do will it so.

[Furunculus]

The referendum was not binding, so by definition it is not a mandate...

that is a witty aside, but it doesn't really answer my response to beskar's original assertion.

[rory_20_uk]

And it still only gets them the mediocre managers on the job market at best. According to capitalist principles, those monetary incentives need to be doubled at least in order to attract the brightest minds and greatest talents.

Or to attract the pure mercenaries to get to do such pointless jobs requires this amount of money - those who want to spend their lives doing something useful go elsewhere: money is not the only driver for some people, but these jobs offer nothing else.

I shudder to think of the brightest minds and greatest talents wasted in this way. Capitalist principles would be to scrap the waste and reinvest the money in productive activities.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

I shudder to think of the brightest minds and greatest talents wasted in this way. Capitalist principles would be to scrap the waste and reinvest the money in productive activities.

Replace all the fake democratic governments (down to city levels) with direct corporate rule?

[rory_20_uk]

Replace all the fake democratic governments (down to city levels) with direct corporate rule?

:strawman3:

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Replace all the fake democratic governments (down to city levels) with direct corporate rule?

Have you been watching Continuum again?

You do have the City of London (https://youtu.be/LrObZ_HZZUc) where guilds and companies have the vote. You then got descriptions of the USA as being a Corporatocracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy).

[Gilrandir]

Democracy guards against tyranny.

It doesn't. As the Hitler case showed, a democratically elected person may eventually become a tyrant.

[rory_20_uk]

It doesn't. As the Hitler case showed, a democratically elected person may eventually become a tyrant.

The West has a fetish about Democracy as if having it suddenly cures all ills. There are many other things required first such as a functioning legal system and "moderate" voters - otherwise the 90% might vote for the 10% to be killed such as is happening in Burma. We seem surprised that when the West's darling gets the power she always wanted she does the job as she and the voters want, and does not become some wonderful tolerant person.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The West has a fetish about Democracy as if having it suddenly cures all ills. There are many other things required first such as a functioning legal system and "moderate" voters - otherwise the 90% might vote for the 10% to be killed such as is happening in Burma. We seem surprised that when the West's darling gets the power she always wanted she does the job as she and the voters want, and does not become some wonderful tolerant person.

~:smoking:

And 52% might vote for the country to be scuppered for a generation, citing arguments that are provably false, and dismissing the advice of experts.

"I think this country has had enough of experts."
Michael Gove, currently cabinet minister.

[Pannonian]

And the next stage of the talks will be in March at the earliest, because David Davis said that the previous set of agreements may be changed if the UK sees fit. Goodness knows what other countries make of the UK's trustworthiness, when it think it can unilaterally change multilateral agreements.

[rory_20_uk]

And 52% might vote for the country to be scuppered for a generation, citing arguments that are provably false, and dismissing the advice of experts.

Yes, such a shame we can't continue the shift from the EEC to being a Federal State without a bothersome vote... And the economic argument is rather like threatening a partner who wishes to leave that they will be destitute.

Y'know it is rather strange how not so long ago we were oh so proud about standing up to tyranny whatever the cost... and now oh so upset that leaving one might have economic implications.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

And 52% might vote for the country to be scuppered for a generation, citing arguments that are provably false, and dismissing the advice of experts.

"I think this country has had enough of experts."
Michael Gove, currently cabinet minister.

The advice of experts are readily taken if they chime with what you think. Otherwise you will find other experts who will say the opposite, and you will believe them.

[Pannonian]

Yes, such a shame we can't continue the shift from the EEC to being a Federal State without a bothersome vote... And the economic argument is rather like threatening a partner who wishes to leave that they will be destitute.

Y'know it is rather strange how not so long ago we were oh so proud about standing up to tyranny whatever the cost... and now oh so upset that leaving one might have economic implications.

~:smoking:

What's the tyranny that we're standing up to? What is it that we're fighting for by drinking the kool aid?

BTW, are you at all concerned by Davis's impact assessments?

[Furunculus]

And the next stage of the talks will be in March at the earliest, because David Davis said that the previous set of agreements may be changed if the UK sees fit.

cobblers, it has far more to do with the lack of a german coalition before then.

the EC itself described the agreement in similar terms.

[rory_20_uk]

What's the tyranny that we're standing up to? What is it that we're fighting for by drinking the kool aid?

BTW, are you at all concerned by Davis's impact assessments?

We don't need to stand up to it, we just need to move away from it. It is the way the EU Regulations get added straight to UK law. How their courts can overturn the UK courts if they choose.

I am capable of having a view on a subject and at the same time not agree with how the process has been undertaken. No sides have covered themselves in glory - the EU has set its demands and appears to view progress on "negotiation" how quickly the UK agrees with all the demands. The UK side appears to either be playing a very canny game or has no real clue what they want / think is realistic. Of course what they want is to leave with a full open access - who wouldn't? Of course that is not possible since the EU would not exist if people could have a free trade deal without the overheads.

My personal view has been related to the reduction / increasing removal of sovereignty of the UK to a relatively remove bureaucracy that mainly answers to other parts of itself. Not immigrants who in the main are more law abiding and productive than the locals. As you've probably gleaned I'd want a NAFTA / NATO situation covering both commercial and military treaties. But who would pay for all the supranational bureaucrats?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

We don't need to stand up to it, we just need to move away from it. It is the way the EU Regulations get added straight to UK law. How their courts can overturn the UK courts if they choose.

I am capable of having a view on a subject and at the same time not agree with how the process has been undertaken. No sides have covered themselves in glory - the EU has set its demands and appears to view progress on "negotiation" how quickly the UK agrees with all the demands. The UK side appears to either be playing a very canny game or has no real clue what they want / think is realistic. Of course what they want is to leave with a full open access - who wouldn't? Of course that is not possible since the EU would not exist if people could have a free trade deal without the overheads.

My personal view has been related to the reduction / increasing removal of sovereignty of the UK to a relatively remove bureaucracy that mainly answers to other parts of itself. Not immigrants who in the main are more law abiding and productive than the locals. As you've probably gleaned I'd want a NAFTA / NATO situation covering both commercial and military treaties. But who would pay for all the supranational bureaucrats?

~:smoking:

Are you in favour of a customs union with the EU?

[rory_20_uk]

Are you in favour of a customs union with the EU?

I would be delighted to have the sort of Free Trade arrangement that is the case in NAFTA / TPP or the deals with South Korea and Canada. The whole concept of low tariffs to facilitate trade between partners.

The Customs Union enforces that all parties need to also set the same tariffs on all parties outside of the Customs Union - which is how it differs from a Free Trade Agreement. And is probably why apart from the EU most countries with large economies are not part of one since it radically hobbles what they can do.

So the short answer is "Probably not" since it would force the UK to not be able to enter into other trade agreements without the EU's consent. I would wish for the UK to be able to have an agreement with the EU and other countries as the UK sees fit. Y'know, be an independent sovereign state.

Unless of course the UK has a Veto on decisions that the Customs Union makes - else the UK is again being dictated to by a foreign power.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

I would be delighted to have the sort of Free Trade arrangement that is the case in NAFTA / TPP or the deals with South Korea and Canada. The whole concept of low tariffs to facilitate trade between partners.

The Customs Union enforces that all parties need to also set the same tariffs on all parties outside of the Customs Union - which is how it differs from a Free Trade Agreement. And is probably why apart from the EU most countries with large economies are not part of one since it radically hobbles what they can do.

So the short answer is "Probably not" since it would force the UK to not be able to enter into other trade agreements without the EU's consent. I would wish for the UK to be able to have an agreement with the EU and other countries as the UK sees fit. Y'know, be an independent sovereign state.

Unless of course the UK has a Veto on decisions that the Customs Union makes - else the UK is again being dictated to by a foreign power.

~:smoking:

It's a binary question. Do you want the UK to be in a customs union with the EU? Legally there's no fudging the question. It's either yes, or it's no.

[rory_20_uk]

It's a binary question. Do you want the UK to be in a customs union with the EU? Legally there's no fudging the question. It's either yes, or it's no.

If it is a binary question, then no - offer a free trade agreement and look to do the same with other countries around the world.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

If it is a binary question, then no - offer a free trade agreement and look to do the same with other countries around the world.

~:smoking:

You moaned about all the extra bureaucrats we have to pay for. Leaving the customs union means replicating all the red tape that being inside the EU renders unnecessary. Ahead of implementing Brexit, the government has been recruiting bureaucrats en masse for this purpose, the last I heard having recruited 1000 or so at 100k a pop. The estimated figure for post-Brexit requirements is somewhere between 5000-10000 extra bureaucrats to deal with the work that a UK outside the EU throws up.

Then of course there's the single market. May has agreed to replicate all the regulations that the EU passes post-Brexit, except of course the post-Brexit UK no longer has a say. Because lack of regulations doesn't mean a sudden freedom from bureaucracy. The market that the UK caters to is far closer to the EU's demands than to the demands of, let's pick an example, the US. Removing regulations doesn't mean UK traders/farmers/manufacturers, etc. no longer have to comply with them. It means they'll no longer be able to trade with the EU, and if the US has its way, it means opening the market to products that the British public deem unacceptable, as they're used to EU standards. And when we go the route agreed to by May, we'll need more bureaucracy to replicate the standards that we've always been to and have taken for granted, since we'll need to show that we do indeed do exactly as we're currently doing.

[rory_20_uk]

You moaned about all the extra bureaucrats we have to pay for. Leaving the customs union means replicating all the red tape that being inside the EU renders unnecessary. Ahead of implementing Brexit, the government has been recruiting bureaucrats en masse for this purpose, the last I heard having recruited 1000 or so at 100k a pop. The estimated figure for post-Brexit requirements is somewhere between 5000-10000 extra bureaucrats to deal with the work that a UK outside the EU throws up.

Then of course there's the single market. May has agreed to replicate all the regulations that the EU passes post-Brexit, except of course the post-Brexit UK no longer has a say. Because lack of regulations doesn't mean a sudden freedom from bureaucracy. The market that the UK caters to is far closer to the EU's demands than to the demands of, let's pick an example, the US. Removing regulations doesn't mean UK traders/farmers/manufacturers, etc. no longer have to comply with them. It means they'll no longer be able to trade with the EU, and if the US has its way, it means opening the market to products that the British public deem unacceptable, as they're used to EU standards. And when we go the route agreed to by May, we'll need more bureaucracy to replicate the standards that we've always been to and have taken for granted, since we'll need to show that we do indeed do exactly as we're currently doing.

If the aim is purely to reduce customs jobs, we could just reduce it to 0% from everyone - problem solved! Perhaps there is more to this than purely the relationship with the EU... the rest of the world, for example?

There is no need for these if the EU agreed to a Free Trade deal so it is the EU which imposing this requirement, not the UK.

The single market again is not the entire world. China manages to trade with the EU without being a member and has very different standards for itself. And in the UK we managed to have regulations on products without the EU - you make it sound that the EU underlies modern civilization! In NAFTA the USA, Canada and Mexico all have different standards and yet they manage to have free trade.

Both these requirements have been imposed by the EU, not by the UK. I fail to see why just because they have made the hurdles to leave then suddenly staying in suddenly is the "better" option.

I understand that you believe that the EU is the answer to all of life's ills and every price we pay to be a member is perfectly acceptable. But to list their demands on leaving is somehow imposed by the UK is delusional.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

If the aim is purely to reduce customs jobs, we could just reduce it to 0% from everyone - problem solved! Perhaps there is more to this than purely the relationship with the EU... the rest of the world, for example?

There is no need for these if the EU agreed to a Free Trade deal so it is the EU which imposing this requirement, not the UK.

The single market again is not the entire world. China manages to trade with the EU without being a member and has very different standards for itself. And in the UK we managed to have regulations on products without the EU - you make it sound that the EU underlies modern civilization! In NAFTA the USA, Canada and Mexico all have different standards and yet they manage to have free trade.

Both these requirements have been imposed by the EU, not by the UK. I fail to see why just because they have made the hurdles to leave then suddenly staying in suddenly is the "better" option.

I understand that you believe that the EU is the answer to all of life's ills and every price we pay to be a member is perfectly acceptable. But to list their demands on leaving is somehow imposed by the UK is delusional.

~:smoking:

I see EU membership as the status quo which I have no great desire to deviate from. I see the extrication from EU membership is as painful as was predicted by nearly all experts on the matter. You see the pain too, except that you blame the EU for it.

[Beskar]

"You can't have your cake and eat it too"

or in this case, you cannot be both within EU and outside of the EU at the same time.

[Pannonian]

"You can't have your cake and eat it too"

or in this case, you cannot be both within EU and outside of the EU at the same time.

In this case, spitting on the cake and moaning about it being spoilt by someone's spittle.

On the wonderful world of deregulation, and how China manages free trade with the EU despite having different standards. There is this SAR (Special Administrative Region) in China called Hong Kong. For historical reasons, it has near-UK levels of regulation for goods on its markets, unlike the much more loosely regulated (in practice) mainland Chinese markets. And for this reason, comparable goods are considerably more expensive in Hong Kong than in mainland China. And every mainland Chinese who can afford it will shop in Hong Kong rather than on the mainland. Because Hong Kong is more highly regulated, and thus its goods are more trustworthy. Related to this, there is a healthy import trade from Australia to China, again because the former is more highly regulated than the latter.

The EU is one of the most highly and trustworthily regulated markets in the world. We currently benefit from the regulations, and the cost is spread across the EU, rather than is borne solely by the UK. The government has finally recognised that dropping these regulations is suicide, and has agreed to implement all of them. Except that we will no longer have a say in what they are, and the cost will be borne solely by ourselves. Add extra if we drop out of the customs union as well, as tariffs will be incurred every time parts cross our border.

And oh yeah, as for lack of free trade deals being the fault of the EU alone. The EU agreed on our synchronisation of regulations and all the other substantial parts of the SM/CU, to facilitate free movement of goods and people (yup, we've dropped the objection to free movement of labour). And there are objections from other countries, not the EU, that we're getting a better deal than they have. So rory, do you want to point fingers at China, the US, etc.?

[Beskar]

Brexit bill: Government loses key vote after Tory rebellion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192

The government has been narrowly defeated in a key vote on its Brexit bill after a rebellion by 11 Tory MPs.

In a blow to Prime Minister Theresa May, MPs voted to give Parliament a legal guarantee of a vote on the final Brexit deal struck with Brussels.

The government had argued this would jeopardise its chances of delivering a smooth departure from the EU.

Despite a last-minute attempt to offer concessions to rebels, an amendment to the bill was backed by 309 to 305.

Ministers said the "minor setback" would not prevent the UK leaving the EU in 2019.

[Furunculus]

The government has finally recognised that dropping these regulations is suicide, and has agreed to implement all of them.

Except that we will no longer have a say in what they are, and the cost will be borne solely by ourselves.

All of them? i really didn't get that impression reading the wording of the final agreement!

If you'd read flexcit you realise that much of what is product standards is determined not by the eu, but by international standards groups to which the eu is a participant.


Brexit bill: Government loses key vote after Tory rebellion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42346192

Parliament is a wonderful beast.

[rory_20_uk]

Loving the theory. Really good...

Small flaw: almost all the goods they sell to the rest of the world don't come from Hong Kong. But lovely theory. The whole previous British Protectorate. China also wants their milk from New Zealand. I've no idea why they would trust them since they've nothing to do with the EU!

Who is objecting? Which countries are desperate to get into a Customs Union with the EU?

So... before the EU, people really were worried about German / French / UK products? Or is it that countries with a history of making good stuff joined together. But again - lovely theory.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Loving the theory. Really good...

Small flaw: almost all the goods they sell to the rest of the world don't come from Hong Kong. But lovely theory. The whole previous British Protectorate. China also wants their milk from New Zealand. I've no idea why they would trust them since they've nothing to do with the EU!

Who is objecting? Which countries are desperate to get into a Customs Union with the EU?

So... before the EU, people really were worried about German / French / UK products? Or is it that countries with a history of making good stuff joined together. But again - lovely theory.

~:smoking:

So you're missing the point that regulations are actually regarded as a good thing by the Chinese, whom you want to emulate by freeing the UK from the EU's regulations. And it's not just products manufactured in Hong Kong: all goods available for sale in Hong Kong are automatically regarded as superior, simply because the UK-derived regulations mean standards are applied more rigorously than on the mainland. Goods that may pass the muster in mainland China may not pass the muster in Hong Kong. However, goods that pass muster in Hong Kong will almost certainly be good enough for mainland customers. Similarly, goods that are available in the local western markets (that is Australia and New Zealand) will similarly be good enough for mainland Chinese, compared with their local markets.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So you're missing the point that regulations are actually regarded as a good thing by the Chinese, whom you want to emulate by freeing the UK from the EU's regulations. And it's not just products manufactured in Hong Kong: all goods available for sale in Hong Kong are automatically regarded as superior, simply because the UK-derived regulations mean standards are applied more rigorously than on the mainland. Goods that may pass the muster in mainland China may not pass the muster in Hong Kong. However, goods that pass muster in Hong Kong will almost certainly be good enough for mainland customers. Similarly, goods that are available in the local western markets (that is Australia and New Zealand) will similarly be good enough for mainland Chinese, compared with their local markets.

To be fair Pan-man, I believe he is asserting that the UK's own standards are good enough without needing to kowtow to the EU, not that you should emulate the 'Russian roulette' approach to product safety existing in the PRC.

[Pannonian]

To be fair Pan-man, I believe he is asserting that the UK's own standards are good enough without needing to kowtow to the EU, not that you should emulate the 'Russian roulette' approach to product safety existing in the PRC.

That doesn't fit with the intention of wanting a trade deal with the US though, which usually begins with wanting food regulations to be changed closer to that of the US (thus making it easier for US farmers to export to the new market). UK's customary standards are far closer to the EU's demands than the US's. And if the UK agrees to these changed standards, then it means standards in the UK can no longer be assumed by the EU to be equivalent of the EU's. So the UK will need extra certification to prove that its goods are safe for use in the EU, its biggest market. Which we currently enjoy, without the extra red tape. And no, this isn't some imaginary Russian roulette. It's something that has already been raised by ministers.

[Furunculus]

To be fair Pan-man, I believe he is asserting that the UK's own standards are good enough without needing to kowtow to the EU, not that you should emulate the 'Russian roulette' approach to product safety existing in the PRC.

it might also have something to do with the eu's desire to wield product standards as a form of economic protectionism.

these nations have form, they are of more protectionist bent than the UK, and while it has been more common to brand the customs unions as a tariff barrier, this is doing the eu a disservice in failing to recognise the ingenious way they use non-tariff barriers.

[Pannonian]

it might also have something to do with the eu's desire to wield product standards as a form of economic protectionism.

these nations have form, they are of more protectionist bent than the UK, and while it has been more common to brand the customs unions as a tariff barrier, this is doing the eu a disservice in failing to recognise the ingenious way they use non-tariff barriers.

Would you like more Bombardiers?

[Montmorency]

it might also have something to do with the eu's desire to wield product standards as a form of economic protectionism.

these nations have form, they are of more protectionist bent than the UK, and while it has been more common to brand the customs unions as a tariff barrier, this is doing the eu a disservice in failing to recognise the ingenious way they use non-tariff barriers.

Could you expand on this? Every big country uses product standards this way, and indeed a product standard is by definition a barrier (if it's mandatory, noting that many standards are not materially limiting from market access).

For example, in the early days of NAFTA Mexico tried limiting imports of US high fructose corn syrup on the basis of safety, health, and quality standards, but ultimately because HFCS is subsidized by the US government and competes with Mexican cane sugar. A few years later, Mexico tried outright taxing food products containing HFCS. In both these episodes, the WTO ruled against Mexico (https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/journals/corn_sweeteners.pdf).

Meanwhile, the US has many extant sanitary/quality standards buffering its own agricultural and animal product industries.

[Husar]

Could you expand on this? Every big country uses product standards this way, and indeed a product standard is by definition a barrier (if it's mandatory, noting that many standards are not materially limiting from market access).

For example, in the early days of NAFTA Mexico tried limiting imports of US high fructose corn syrup on the basis of safety, health, and quality standards, but ultimately because HFCS is subsidized by the US government and competes with Mexican cane sugar. A few years later, Mexico tried outright taxing food products containing HFCS. In both these episodes, the WTO ruled against Mexico (https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/journals/corn_sweeteners.pdf).

Meanwhile, the US has many extant sanitary/quality standards buffering its own agricultural and animal product industries.

Is it only a minor issue here that HFCS is actually very bad for peoples' health because due to its cheapness it gets added to almost every food product and overloads their bodies with cheap sugar?
It's funny to call it economic protectionism when people don't want to eat every unhealthy thing a billionaire-owned industry wants to throw at them. It's easy to say they should just buy organic instead, when that costs four times as much and isn't affordable for everyone. :dizzy2::wall::whip::duel:

[Gilrandir]

Will it matter now?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-second-referendum-latest-poll-remain-ten-points-leave-bmg-a8114406.html

[Furunculus]

Could you expand on this? Every big country uses product standards this way, and indeed a product standard is by definition a barrier (if it's mandatory, noting that many standards are not materially limiting from market access).

For example, in the early days of NAFTA Mexico tried limiting imports of US high fructose corn syrup on the basis of safety, health, and quality standards, but ultimately because HFCS is subsidized by the US government and competes with Mexican cane sugar. A few years later, Mexico tried outright taxing food products containing HFCS. In both these episodes, the WTO ruled against Mexico (https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/journals/corn_sweeteners.pdf).

Meanwhile, the US has many extant sanitary/quality standards buffering its own agricultural and animal product industries.

Sorry, is it somehow controversial to note that the eu as a bloc is more protectionist, and less open to the consequences of free-trade, than britain?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/06/britain-must-ditch-its-protectionist-eu-trade-agreement/
http://patrickminford.net/wp/E2016_1.pdf

[Pannonian]

Sorry, is it somehow controversial to note that the eu as a bloc is more protectionist, and less open to the consequences of free-trade, than britain?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/06/britain-must-ditch-its-protectionist-eu-trade-agreement/
http://patrickminford.net/wp/E2016_1.pdf

What else would you like 300% tariffs on?

[Montmorency]

Sorry, is it somehow controversial to note that the eu as a bloc is more protectionist, and less open to the consequences of free-trade, than britain?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/06/britain-must-ditch-its-protectionist-eu-trade-agreement/
http://patrickminford.net/wp/E2016_1.pdf

That doesn't address my question. Is there something special the EU does with safety/quality/sanitary/technical regulations as applied to items of external origin, something out of line with what countries in general tend to do?


What else would you like 300% tariffs on?

At some point, stop raising issues your interlocutors just don't care about.

[Pannonian]

That doesn't address my question. Is there something special the EU does with safety/quality/sanitary/technical regulations as applied to items of external origin, something out of line with what countries in general tend to do?

At some point, stop raising issues your interlocutors just don't care about.

Just because he doesn't care about it, doesn't mean the issues won't exist. For all he complains about the EU being a protectionist bloc, in the short time since the referendum, it's the US, supposedly the closest to us in thinking, and the model of neoliberal theorists, who have imposed ultra-protectionist measures to hurt us. And it's not just an unintentional side effect either; the tariff was originally set at 220%, then after the PM informed the US president of how this was hurting UK businesses, it was upped to 300%. Both the EU and the US are protectionist. Would Furunculus prefer we were without the support of anyone and at the mercy of any major economic bloc that wishes to screw us over? Because, from recent experience, this is what will happen.

[Greyblades]

What else would you like 300% tariffs on?

American beef perhaps?

[Furunculus]

That doesn't address my question. Is there something special the EU does with safety/quality/sanitary/technical regulations as applied to items of external origin, something out of line with what countries in general tend to do?

At some point, stop raising issues your interlocutors just don't care about.

I'm not concerned by 'countries in general'. It is not a matter of some particular thing, just a general case of more than I might wish for my country due to the inevitable requirement to meet every nations pet protection among a group generally less free-market oriented than the UK.

It is not that I don't care about bombardier (i do), or that i hold america to be a beacon of free trade (i don't), simply that a particular trade dispute does not have much bearing on the merit or demerit of leaving the EU.Particularly not, when I don't value highly the ability for collective retaliation.

[Fragony]

Wow, the ultra-undemocratic EU wants to strip Poland of their voting rights. Nobody ever voted for you you are appointed by shady mechanisms.

[Beskar]

Wow, the ultra-undemocratic EU wants to strip Poland of their voting rights. Nobody ever voted for you you are appointed by shady mechanisms.

From this one in June, it is in response to Poland threatening to remove separation of powers and breaking EU law.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/19/poland-may-lose-eu-voting-rights-over-judicial-independence

[rory_20_uk]

Poland has signed up to the EU oversight. And they are as a consequence no longer have full sovereignty. Or supra-national checks and balances when the innate ones fail - I think people would be a lot more worried if this was Germany who had at the same time decided to spend over 2% of GDP on their Military...

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Poland has signed up to the EU oversight. And they are as a consequence no longer have full sovereignty. Or supra-national checks and balances when the innate ones fail - I think people would be a lot more worried if this was Germany who had at the same time decided to spend over 2% of GDP on their Military...

~:smoking:

Aren't we subject to a whole host of treaties and conventions that mean we no longer have full sovereignty? I can think of Geneva and Hague off the top of my head.

[rory_20_uk]

Aren't we subject to a whole host of treaties and conventions that mean we no longer have full sovereignty? I can think of Geneva and Hague off the top of my head.

We joined. We can leave. Not really the same with Poland

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

We joined. We can leave. Not really the same with Poland

~:smoking:

On a more concrete note, how are the EU threatening Poland's sovereignty? What measures are they taking?

[Husar]

From this one in June, it is in response to Poland threatening to remove separation of powers and breaking EU law.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/19/poland-may-lose-eu-voting-rights-over-judicial-independence

Well, it's obviously not fair, the EU should say it promotes human rights and still let every country elect Nazi parties.
I'm sure the ECHR could find a good slogan for the entrances of death camps "sovereignty would save you" or so...


We joined. We can leave. Not really the same with Poland

This is a weird comment coming from a country currently in the process of leaving the EU.

[Fragony]

bzzzzzt #nuts

[rory_20_uk]

This is a weird comment coming from a country currently in the process of leaving the EU.

It will take 2 years. Plus a transition plan. Plus many, many penalties.

Compare that to leaving the others - or America pulling out of the TPP or the Paris accord. There are different types of involvement. As I have repeatedly said, I would be more than happy with a EEC-like free trade agreement where again parties are able to give notice they are leaving and that is about it.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

It will take 2 years. Plus a transition plan. Plus many, many penalties.

Compare that to leaving the others - or America pulling out of the TPP or the Paris accord. There are different types of involvement. As I have repeatedly said, I would be more than happy with a EEC-like free trade agreement where again parties are able to give notice they are leaving and that is about it.

~:smoking:

You cannot have the same level of cooperation and efficiency in a loose treaty.
IMO the EU offers a lot of advantages that a mere trade partnership does not, I do not want what you want, so you leaving entirely may indeed be the best solution.

[Gilrandir]

Well, it's obviously not fair, the EU should say it promotes human rights and still let every country elect Nazi parties.


You mean like Austria?

[Husar]

You mean like Austria?

Yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/921894.stm


Mr Fischer said that while the Austrian Government was legitimate, it should not be taken for granted that a party which had politically exploited hostility toward foreigners should participate in government in a united Europe.

That's from 2000, we will see what happens now. Their right wing party is not the majority partner in the new government coalition though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/921894.stm



That's from 2000, we will see what happens now. Their right wing party is not the majority partner in the new government coalition though.


I am assuming all worries about Anschluss can be set aside.

[Beskar]

Moving from the rather nice looking Burgundy passports to an ugly Blue, because Blue is "More British"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42443253

That's Brexhit for you.

[Husar]

Moving from the rather nice looking Burgundy passports to an ugly Blue, because Blue is "More British"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42443253

That's Brexhit for you.

Wasn't it the British red coats vs the French in blue? :dizzy2:

[Greyblades]

The classic redcoats fought the french when they were still monarchists, so it would be redcoats vs whitecoats, by the time the french went blue the british uniform were becoming more akin to tunics than coats. Plus no redcoat would be seen dead in burgundy after all half the point was to hide the blood!

Blue is the colour of the Navy, of which we have a more cultural attachment to than the army and gold on blue is honestly a pretty nice combo, though I do think silver would be better.

[Fragony]

Unepected, ukip supports a new referendum to settle it once and for all. That's pretty brave and I really respect that. Prepare to cry pro-remainers

[Pannonian]

Unepected, ukip supports a new referendum to settle it once and for all. That's pretty brave and I really respect that. Prepare to cry pro-remainers

Do you really hate the British that much that you must gloat at our loss?

[rory_20_uk]

Unepected, ukip supports a new referendum to settle it once and for all. That's pretty brave and I really respect that. Prepare to cry pro-remainers

Settle once and for all? Like the Scottish referendum to leave where as soon as the SNP lost they started talking about when to have the next one?

If we have a second referendum and for the sake of argument it has a similar turn out and goes the other way. Do we then need a third one to decide? How long would this process take? Do discussions with the EU pause or continue?

Farage must be thinking he's not been in the newspapers for a few weeks. For better or worse, the UK has made worse decisions.

~:smoking:

[Gilrandir]

If we have a second referendum and for the sake of argument it has a similar turn out and goes the other way. Do we then need a third one to decide?

As in NBA and NHL playoffs you will need four wins to secure the overall victory.

[Fragony]

Do you really hate the British that much that you must gloat at our loss?

For you I will call an ambulance, for eurocrats I won't, seeya

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Repeated referenda have had such a 'clarifying' effect in Quebec and Puerto Rico as well....

[Beskar]

Unepected, ukip supports a new referendum to settle it once and for all. That's pretty brave and I really respect that. Prepare to cry pro-remainers

LOL.

This would be the biggest disaster for Brexit campaign in the history of mankind. No bus is going to save them now. It is all a pack of lies and the country knows. The result will be an landslide victory for remain and will sink the Conservative government. Hell, just look at Furunculus and Pannanions arguments where Furunculus says "Well, Brexit doesn't need to be accountable for their promises, they won." this would really blow smoke up that trumpet.

Also, it is not UKIP, as they are whining big time about it and see it as a betrayal from their ex-furher, Clueless Farange, who is currently spending his time in the USA as a Fox News Employee sniffing Trumps and now having a bounty on his head by UKIP to be silenced. It is the Liberal Democrats which are waving their flags in praise of Farange's comments, the Pro-EU party.

Detachment from reality is well and truly astounding.

[Pannonian]

Repeated referenda have had such a 'clarifying' effect in Quebec and Puerto Rico as well....

The sitting PM called a general election earlier this year to clarify and strengthen her position for the forthcoming Brexit talks. She started with a small majority, and finished with a minority. What is this clarity and what does it indicate? NB. my arguments earlier in this thread where Brexiters argued that the Leave campaign were not obliged to be responsible for their promises. IIRC you commented on that.

[Fragony]

They won a fair game if the people choose to remain, nothing can and should be done if the Brits want to remain, another referendum is a good idea. I am pretty sure what the outcome will be but I have a history of being wrong. I already admitted Pan's could have been right the whole time

edit, was at Beskie

[Husar]

I am pretty sure what the outcome will be but I have a history of being wrong. I already admitted Pan's could have been right the whole time

You've done this a few times now, and it's a really weird way of not really saying anything. :sweatdrop:
It's hard to say though how a referendum would go. Beskar seems to think that a lot more would vote remain, but perhaps he underestimates how many might blame and want to "punish"/leave even more the EU for not kissing Britain's arse, falling over backwards and giving it everything it wants for nothing in return. It doesn't have to be logical for people to want it... :sweatdrop:

[rory_20_uk]

You've done this a few times now, and it's a really weird way of not really saying anything. :sweatdrop:
It's hard to say though how a referendum would go. Beskar seems to think that a lot more would vote remain, but perhaps he underestimates how many might blame and want to "punish"/leave even more the EU for not kissing Britain's arse, falling over backwards and giving it everything it wants for nothing in return. It doesn't have to be logical for people to want it... :sweatdrop:

Odd way of phrasing wanting to return to what existed pre-EU. Kissing the UK's arse? I think not.

I think that a vote would strongly go for "remain". Buyers remorse if you like. I do wonder what the turn out would be. Remainers probably would be out in force, those for an exit would be reduced.

Although the head of the EU have previously said that to return would not return to what was, but to a more diminished position - probably an even greater Danegeld where we can pay for free trade. It would be interesting that we then would have the options of returning to something we do not know or to leave to something we do not know. What "influence" we supposedly had has gone whatever happens for probably decades.

Things would be slightly better if we'd had a single transferable vote in the first place to reflect it is not as simple as yes / no but many nuances in terms of what outcomes people would accept.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Odd way of phrasing wanting to return to what existed pre-EU. Kissing the UK's arse? I think not.

I think that a vote would strongly go for "remain". Buyers remorse if you like. I do wonder what the turn out would be. Remainers probably would be out in force, those for an exit would be reduced.

Although the head of the EU have previously said that to return would not return to what was, but to a more diminished position - probably an even greater Danegeld where we can pay for free trade. It would be interesting that we then would have the options of returning to something we do not know or to leave to something we do not know. What "influence" we supposedly had has gone whatever happens for probably decades.

Things would be slightly better if we'd had a single transferable vote in the first place to reflect it is not as simple as yes / no but many nuances in terms of what outcomes people would accept.

~:smoking:

Within this thread you have PFH arguing for a Norway option and Furunculus arguing for a neoliberal paradise. Both Leavers, yet arguing very, very different visions. Remain was the only campaign with a consistent manifesto, since their manifesto was reality as can be double checked by anyone wishing to research the subject. Hence I feel that if Leave wish to push their democratic mandate argument, they should be equally responsible for their campaign promises. Yet Furunculus has denied that the Leave campaign's promises should be upheld, arguing instead for a vision that even the likes of Farage played down during the campaign.

[rory_20_uk]

Within this thread you have PFH arguing for a Norway option and Furunculus arguing for a neoliberal paradise. Both Leavers, yet arguing very, very different visions. Remain was the only campaign with a consistent manifesto, since their manifesto was reality as can be double checked by anyone wishing to research the subject. Hence I feel that if Leave wish to push their democratic mandate argument, they should be equally responsible for their campaign promises. Yet Furunculus has denied that the Leave campaign's promises should be upheld, arguing instead for a vision that even the likes of Farage played down during the campaign.

Yes there are different groups who want to leave. Hardly surprising. Some probably are the xenophobe racists that the remain campaign accused them of (is that a campaign promise that has to be kept?) I imagine most are not.

There might be very different remainers. Some might be people who would become a Chinese vassal for a better standard of living, others that are Pan-Europeans, others who perceive voting leave as a racist act.

The remainers both have stated the UK will basically implode outside of the EU and have little to say about what the future of the EU will be - there have already been a series of steps for control to be centralised over the last years. Invariably treaties that require no need for the populace to vote. Double checking research on an economic future... guesses of people who already have their own view - when have economic forecasts ever been wrong??!?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Yes there are different groups who want to leave. Hardly surprising. Some probably are the xenophobe racists that the remain campaign accused them of (is that a campaign promise that has to be kept?) I imagine most are not.

There might be very different remainers. Some might be people who would become a Chinese vassal for a better standard of living, others that are Pan-Europeans, others who perceive voting leave as a racist act.

The remainers both have stated the UK will basically implode outside of the EU and have little to say about what the future of the EU will be - there have already been a series of steps for control to be centralised over the last years. Invariably treaties that require no need for the populace to vote. Double checking research on an economic future... guesses of people who already have their own view - when have economic forecasts ever been wrong??!?

~:smoking:

But there is indisputably a Remain manifesto, that being the reality of the EU we live in. What is the Leave manifesto? What promises should the Leave campaign be held to? Or are you also of the opinion that the Leave campaign's promises should not be seen as a manifesto that the winning party is held to by the opposition? If you want to hold the losing party's promises up for examination, but ignore the winning party's promises, may I ask, who gets to put their ideas into action?

[rory_20_uk]

But there is indisputably a Remain manifesto, that being the reality of the EU we live in. What is the Leave manifesto? What promises should the Leave campaign be held to? Or are you also of the opinion that the Leave campaign's promises should not be seen as a manifesto that the winning party is held to by the opposition? If you want to hold the losing party's promises up for examination, but ignore the winning party's promises, may I ask, who gets to put their ideas into action?

If you're asking me to defend any facet of the current democratic process I'm afraid I can't. For me personally the main facet is regarding the loss of sovereignty and from that perspective leaving was quite simple and most of the drivel the campaign spouted on either side was irrelevant to me. Leaving repatriates powers to the UK and the UK courts.

When exactly did a politician follow what their manifesto lays out? I didn't expect that either campaign would be any more honest than they are in any other campaign.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

You've done this a few times now, and it's a really weird way of not really saying anything. :sweatdrop:
It's hard to say though how a referendum would go. Beskar seems to think that a lot more would vote remain, but perhaps he underestimates how many might blame and want to "punish"/leave even more the EU for not kissing Britain's arse, falling over backwards and giving it everything it wants for nothing in return. It doesn't have to be logical for people to want it... :sweatdrop:

What's so hard about it I see the EU as a hostile takeover of nation-states. I am not alone in thaf the former eastblock that used to live under Soviet rule are becomming really suspicious

[Pannonian]

If you're asking me to defend any facet of the current democratic process I'm afraid I can't. For me personally the main facet is regarding the loss of sovereignty and from that perspective leaving was quite simple and most of the drivel the campaign spouted on either side was irrelevant to me. Leaving repatriates powers to the UK and the UK courts.

When exactly did a politician follow what their manifesto lays out? I didn't expect that either campaign would be any more honest than they are in any other campaign.

~:smoking:

If you want to talk about sovereignty and how it's important, then you should at least understand that in the British governmental system, there is HM government and HM opposition that seeks to hold the government to its promises.

[rory_20_uk]

If you want to talk about sovereignty and how it's important, then you should at least understand that in the British governmental system, there is HM government and HM opposition that seeks to hold the government to its promises.

You might like to have a look at the flaws in first past the post system of democracies if you truly believe that is a particularly insightful comment.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

You might like to have a look at the flaws in first past the post system of democracies if you truly believe that is a particularly insightful comment.

~:smoking:

It wouldn't be particularly insightful in normal circumstances, where there is HM government and HM opposition. But in the case of the Leave campaign, Leavers want freedom to do whatever they want without the responsibility of being held to account by an opposition, with all opposition being referred to the democratic mandate argument. If there is a second referendum, watch as Leavers play the democratic mandate argument for all it's worth, with the corollary that anyone who opposes them is anti-democratic and treasonous. It's not extrapolation either, as that argument has already been used by the pro-Brexit press, accusing judges of treason for ruling that Parliament is sovereign, and accusing MPs who voted against May of being anti-democratic.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Elections and referenda are different things. The latter are great for taking one issue on and getting a sense of the populace. The losers sometimes try a keep doing referenda till we get a result they like. This is silly.

Elections are never single issue events even if one issue is clearly salient. If the anti-brexit crowd can elect enough MPs who will vote to repudiate the exit vote, pay whatever penalty the EU wishes to extract to secure your return to the fold, and then vote to make it happen then that will happen. They're politicians. Give them enough of a mandate that it is obvious that return must be part of the agenda and they'll do it. They'll want to keep their jobs.

[Furunculus]

LOL. This would be the biggest disaster for Brexit campaign in the history of mankind.

Hell, just look at Furunculus and Pannanions arguments where Furunculus says "Well, Brexit doesn't need to be accountable for their promises, they won." this would really blow smoke up that trumpet.

LOL. I'll take that bet. Imagine the campaign: Medicines agency = gone, Banking agency = gone, Rebate = gone, PESCO = Happening, EU fiscal convergence = Happening, Schengen opt-out = Up for discussion, Charter of fundamental rights opt-out = Up for discussion, Law and justice opt-out = Up for discussion. Guy Verhofstadt would be Leave 2.0's best friend. So appealing!

Wrong. Inaccurate. And frankly a ill misconception of my opinion: I said both lied, big lies and little. Further, I said that the Take Back Control line with the subtext of £350m was defendable. I'd also argue that 95% of the campaign the £350m + NHS was talking about spending (some unspecified portion of) the cash on the NHS. There was a small instance where the wording was explicit, about spending the (whole) ammount on the NHS, and if it got beyond 5% of the electorate it was because Remain trumpeted it from the rooftops. Clegg lied about where he thought the EU would be in ten years time, Remain debaters lied about Leave wanting more immigration because that was the consequence of an Ozzie points system. They all lied, left right and centre. And they were all members of temporary cross party single issue campaigns, none of whom could claim to dicate government policy post-result.

[Furunculus]

Within this thread you have PFH arguing for a Norway option and Furunculus arguing for a neoliberal paradise. Both Leavers, yet arguing very, very different visions.

Wrong. Inaccurate. And frankly a ill misconception of my opinion: In actual fact I argued for this:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053766140&viewfull=1#post2053766140



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. ;)
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053766231&viewfull=1#post2053766231


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.

Not a neoliberal paradise, just roughly what canada and australia spend.

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053767849&viewfull=1#post2053767849

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

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. ;)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS&p=2053767879&viewfull=1#post2053767879


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?

Can we conduct this debate within the realms of reality please, not your fantasy imagination of a brexit ogre?


Remain was the only campaign with a consistent manifesto, since their manifesto was reality as can be double checked by anyone wishing to research the subject. Hence I feel that if Leave wish to push their democratic mandate argument, they should be equally responsible for their campaign promises. Yet Furunculus has denied that the Leave campaign's promises should be upheld, arguing instead for a vision that even the likes of Farage played down during the campaign.

Remain could not even tell us what they wanted! Or why it was a good idea to be in the club. All we got was why it would be terrible to leave. Don't give me any nonsense about a united Remain mind-set on eu membership.
Every bit as divided between; the federalists (10-15%), the just about right (if we pretend this position is sustainable), and the really not very fond (but terrified by project fear).

[Pannonian]

Remain could even tell us what they wanted! Or why it was a good idea to be in the club. All we got was why it would be terrible to leave. Don't give me any nonsense about a united Remain mind-set on eu membership.
Every bit as divided between the federalists, the just about right (if we pretend this position is sustainable, and the really not very fond but terrified of leaving.


From today we're banning hidden charges for paying with your credit or debit card - a move that will help millions of people avoid rip-off fees when spending their hard-earned money.

Theresa May official account, 13th January 2018
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/status/952108358668038146


Thank goodness we're out of the EU and able to implement common sense legislation like this, freed from the bureaucratic constraints of the EU. This will be to the credit of the British Conservative government.

[Furunculus]

What link is there between the two quotes? Non-sequiter, much...

[Pannonian]

What link is there between the two quotes? Non-sequiter, much...

You mean EU legislation that the UK government believes is sufficiently beneficial to be worth stealing the credit for is irrelevant to your quote? Then again, that was the MO of the Leave campaign throughout, blaming the EU for things that the UK government was doing badly, whilst claiming credit for things that the EU does that the UK government does not.

[Husar]

Non-sequiter, much...

*Non sequitur

Don't try to britainize latin now. :stare:

[a completely inoffensive name]

So when's the next referendum to take back everything at the last minute?

[Gilrandir]

*Non sequitur

Don't try to britainize latin now. :stare:

The Latins latinized Britain, why can't the Empire strike back?

[Furunculus]

The Latins latinized Britain, why can't the Empire strike back?

tacitus had something to say on that score.

[Fragony]

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/experts-appointed-high-level-group-fake-news-and-online-disinformation
brrrrrr, increasingly scary, 1984 is so eighties

[Pannonian]

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/experts-appointed-high-level-group-fake-news-and-online-disinformation
brrrrrr, increasingly scary, 1984 is so eighties

Do you get your news from St Petersburg?

[Fragony]

Do you get your news from St Petersburg?

did you miss the ec.europa.eu?

[Husar]

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/experts-appointed-high-level-group-fake-news-and-online-disinformation
brrrrrr, increasingly scary, 1984 is so eighties

Of course it is scary for people who believe in fake news...
That's why they want to do something against fake news in the first place. :dizzy2:

It would be scary not to do anything about the constant stream of misinformation out there because that just makes the number of people who believe in it grow. Whether this group can come up with good recommendations remains to be seen, but the organizations they come from seem quite varied. There are private and public media organizations as well as non-profit groups and universities involved.

I'm not worried about the appearance that fake news are not included. :creep:

[Fragony]

You are really bad at reading between the lines, this means censorship of free press Hussie

The EU is becomming it's true form and nobody sees it

[Pannonian]

did you miss the ec.europa.eu?

I didn't miss it. I'm referring to the St Petersburg News Conglomerate, aka Putinfacts. Your friendly funders of Brexit and Trump.

[Husar]

You are really bad at reading between the lines, this means censorship of free press Hussie

Or you're the one making up lines that aren't there. It's a group that is meant to think about what can and should be done about fake news. It gives recommendations. Censorship is when they recommend censoring things and the EU commission actually does censor things. So far we are not there. You have to tell me why you think the free press in this group is going to want to censor itself and how that would be any worse from it doing that to itself without being in that group. :dizzy2:

It seems quite similar to this, but maybe the Netherlands are also a dictatorship: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/ceslink/en/escs-in-member-states/netherlands-ser

[Fragony]

Or you're the one making up lines that aren't there. It's a group that is meant to think about what can and should be done about fake news. It gives recommendations. Censorship is when they recommend censoring things and the EU commission actually does censor things. So far we are not there. You have to tell me why you think the free press in this group is going to want to censor itself and how that would be any worse from it doing that to itself without being in that group. :dizzy2:

It seems quite similar to this, but maybe the Netherlands are also a dictatorship: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/ceslink/en/escs-in-member-states/netherlands-ser

As I said

[Husar]

As I said

If all your reading between the lines for the past five years had been correct, you should already be in a labor camp in Cantabria by now.
You can't even explain what exactly you read between the lines or why, it's about as substantial as me claiming that Pannonian were Count Dracula because I read that between his lines. :rolleyes:

[Fragony]

If all your reading between the lines for the past five years had been correct, you should already be in a labor camp in Cantabria by now.
You can't even explain what exactly you read between the lines or why, it's about as substantial as me claiming that Pannonian were Count Dracula because I read that between his lines. :rolleyes:

labour camp, hey you are the spelling-nazi kindly allow me.What it says is that the EU gets to decide what is news and what's not. And that is freaky

[Kralizec]

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/experts-appointed-high-level-group-fake-news-and-online-disinformation
brrrrrr, increasingly scary, 1984 is so eighties

Do you think there should be any response to fake news? And by that, I mean false information being spread deliberately on social media and the internet. Not actual news that is uncomftable to some.

Many people think there should be a response of some sort, including a majority in our parliament. I'd understand (a little) if you disagree with them. What I don't understand is why the EU is worse for simply agreeing.

10-15 years ago I wouldn't have seen the point of such a workgroup, let alone a campaign. A huge part of the problem is that facebook and google have made it possible to make a profit on spreading deliberate fantasies posing as news.

[Montmorency]

Do you think there should be any response to fake news? And by that, I mean false information being spread deliberately on social media and the internet. Not actual news that is uncomftable to some.

Many people think there should be a response of some sort, including a majority in our parliament. I'd understand (a little) if you disagree with them. What I don't understand is why the EU is worse for simply agreeing.

10-15 years ago I wouldn't have seen the point of such a workgroup, let alone a campaign. A huge part of the problem is that facebook and google have made it possible to make a profit on spreading deliberate fantasies posing as news.

On one hand, this can be used to suppress small outfits and independent journalists in favor of the established media conglomerates; muckraking and alternative ideological premises would find it harder to reach an audience.

On the other hand, marginal sites and publications have been susceptible to direct Russian subversion (by their very small size and reliance on independent writers and contractors).

Maybe the relationship between what the big players and the small players want hasn't even changed. Nationalize Facebook and Google's functions and apply constitutional speech standards? :shrug:

[Fragony]

We already have a word for fake news: bullshit. If people can't figure it out no Orwellian commsion is going to make them see it. The EU simply doesn't want any news that doesn't support the EU and that's really bad. It's censorship pure and simple.

[Husar]

labour camp, hey you are the spelling-nazi kindly allow me.

http://grammarist.com/spelling/labor-labour/

There is no difference in meaning between labor and labour. Labor is the preferred spelling in American English, and labour is preferred throughout the rest of the English-speaking world.

:rolleyes:


What it says is that the EU gets to decide what is news and what's not. And that is freaky

It says the EU got a bunch of advisors to think about what can be done about deliberate misinformation that can come e.g. from other countries trying to turn our politics in their favor. If the EU just wanted to control the news, they could just save the money for advisors and pay it out to themselves in bonuses or something. The reason they got advisors from so many organizationsis most likely they they want to find good solutions to a delicate matter.
It is still possible that they end up getting bad solutions, but you're jumping the gun here based on your own opinion about the EU. Would be quite ironic indeed if your opinion about the EU came from actual fake news, but that's impossible to say since you never mention where you get your info from. That spelling correction above was definitely "fake news" though. ~;p

[HopAlongBunny]

The EU, America, and pretty much any nation/nation state needs to defend itself from a disinformation campaign.
It is a tool of war; where war does not exist it is a form of aggression which may or may not be used as a prelude to war.
Yes, everybody engages in it to some extent; it does not follow from that, that no defence is permitted.

[Pannonian]

http://grammarist.com/spelling/labor-labour/


:rolleyes:



It says the EU got a bunch of advisors to think about what can be done about deliberate misinformation that can come e.g. from other countries trying to turn our politics in their favor. If the EU just wanted to control the news, they could just save the money for advisors and pay it out to themselves in bonuses or something. The reason they got advisors from so many organizationsis most likely they they want to find good solutions to a delicate matter.
It is still possible that they end up getting bad solutions, but you're jumping the gun here based on your own opinion about the EU. Would be quite ironic indeed if your opinion about the EU came from actual fake news, but that's impossible to say since you never mention where you get your info from. That spelling correction above was definitely "fake news" though. ~;p

It probably traces back to St Petersburg.

[Pannonian]

Do you think there should be any response to fake news? And by that, I mean false information being spread deliberately on social media and the internet. Not actual news that is uncomftable to some.

Many people think there should be a response of some sort, including a majority in our parliament. I'd understand (a little) if you disagree with them. What I don't understand is why the EU is worse for simply agreeing.

10-15 years ago I wouldn't have seen the point of such a workgroup, let alone a campaign. A huge part of the problem is that facebook and google have made it possible to make a profit on spreading deliberate fantasies posing as news.

Like that fiercely patriotic pro-Brexit British twitter account with hundreds of thousands of similarly patriotic followers. That started life as a pro-Russian twatter during the Crimea crisis. Putin has found a relatively cheap way of destabilising the west, and is being supported by supposedly libertarian anti-EU westerners who parrot their arguments.

[rory_20_uk]

Maybe the relationship between what the big players and the small players want hasn't even changed. Nationalize Facebook and Google's functions and apply constitutional speech standards? :shrug:

Simpler to designate them broadcasters. Certainly in the UK they've been fighting this tooth and claw since they'd be responsible for content.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Simpler to designate them broadcasters. Certainly in the UK they've been fighting this tooth and claw since they'd be responsible for content.

~:smoking:

I'd like all non-local media, and all London media, to be subject to the scrutiny that the BBC does. The BBC is routinely accused of bias in both directions and threatened with shut down, but they are far, far better than every other outlet.

[rory_20_uk]

The BBC does do a good job, and tries for balance. One thing that they do routinely get wrong (IMHO) is conflating balance with equal air time. They had a piece on vaccines and had both a "pro" and an "anti" spokesperson present. The balance should if anything be in line with the current evidence - so in this case not 50:50 but something closer to 95:5 if not 99:1 else the BBC does sometimes give an unfair platform to the insane fringes in the name of "fairness".

I've heard on feedback on the BBC state that they view if they get a broadly equal of demands to shut them down from both sides on an issue then they're probably doing it right.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The BBC does do a good job, and tries for balance. One thing that they do routinely get wrong (IMHO) is conflating balance with equal air time. They had a piece on vaccines and had both a "pro" and an "anti" spokesperson present. The balance should if anything be in line with the current evidence - so in this case not 50:50 but something closer to 95:5 if not 99:1 else the BBC does sometimes give an unfair platform to the insane fringes in the name of "fairness".

I've heard on feedback on the BBC state that they view if they get a broadly equal of demands to shut them down from both sides on an issue then they're probably doing it right.

~:smoking:

The BBC, and all credible UK media, should use David Attenborough as the benchmark for journalism. Not just Attenborough the naturalist, but Attenborough the head of BBC 2, who upheld the tradition of looking to educate and inform as well as entertain.

[Fragony]

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/economist-explains-8?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/

Hardy a friend

[Husar]

https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2018/01/economist-explains-8?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/ed/

Hardy a friend

What are you trying to say with that? Who is hardly a friend and what does that tell us?

[Fragony]

What are you trying to say with that? Who is hardly a friend and what does that tell us?

The economist is hardly a friend of team-Brexit. Not trying to tell anything other than that UK seems to be doing fine at the moment

[Pannonian]

What are you trying to say with that? Who is hardly a friend and what does that tell us?

It tells us that the BofE predicted bad things would happen in the short term unless measures were taken, so those measures were taken, and bad things were put off for long enough for the government to formulate a longer term approach so as to clarify matters for business. Unfortunately, while those measures were taken that may well damage Britain's economy in the longer term (which was considered acceptable to stave off immediate disaster), the government hasn't taken the window of grace to usefully formulate a longer term approach.

NB. on just about every measure of economic success, the UK ranks bottom of the major-major-ish economies. Despite the BofE's cash injection which won't happen again.

[rory_20_uk]

The EU has decided to add further demands - including anyone from the EU has indefinite leave to remain. Oh, and should pay into the EU budget on an ongoing basis. If that sounds like extortion... it isn't because...uh.

I find it... interesting that whilst loudly demanding the UK states what they want, the EU when told refuses (unsurprisingly) and then from time to time adds in further things that they could have done a year ago. Almost like it is a strategy to up the ante by demonstrating there's no longer the time to adequately prepare for no-deal and as a consequence demanding more for a deal of sorts.

Cuba's economy has also done really badly. A lot due to internal mismanagement - but the USA has also prevented effective trade which has had a massive effect. The effect of the EU on the UK is of course less, but the EU is not going to do anything to help the UK deal with the uncertainly.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

The EU has decided to add further demands - including anyone from the EU has indefinite leave to remain. Oh, and should pay into the EU budget on an ongoing basis. If that sounds like extortion... it isn't because...uh.

I find it... interesting that whilst loudly demanding the UK states what they want, the EU when told refuses (unsurprisingly) and then from time to time adds in further things that they could have done a year ago. Almost like it is a strategy to up the ante by demonstrating there's no longer the time to adequately prepare for no-deal and as a consequence demanding more for a deal of sorts.

Cuba's economy has also done really badly. A lot due to internal mismanagement - but the USA has also prevented effective trade which has had a massive effect. The effect of the EU on the UK is of course less, but the EU is not going to do anything to help the UK deal with the uncertainly.

~:smoking

Any reason why they should?

[rory_20_uk]

None.

But then they can drop the crap about wanting a reasonable outcome and just be honest and say they only have one concern and that is preserving the EU against all threats - the largest of which is countries leaving: everyone has to see the "value" of doing business through the EU and not without the EU. The more that leave obviously the calculation would change. So if anyone dares to leave, ensure that their deal is as bad as humanly possible, with as many demands on their money and oversight of their rules as humanly possible. As you say - and why not? They are there to survive, not be "nice" or "fair".

I expected such an approach of ratcheting up the demands whilst blaming everything on the UK - including being inadequately prepared although how on earth they were supposed to prepare for the constant changes to the goalposts who knows.

There are even claims about how on earth would air traffic control work after the UK leaves the EU - as if there was no process prior to the EU in existence!

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Any reason why they should?

Because if a net-payer leaves the other net payers will have to cough it up to pay Juncker's booze-bill and the childless Merkel's emotional instabilty, making the EU even more unpopular

[Pannonian]

None.

But then they can drop the crap about wanting a reasonable outcome and just be honest and say they only have one concern and that is preserving the EU against all threats - the largest of which is countries leaving: everyone has to see the "value" of doing business through the EU and not without the EU. The more that leave obviously the calculation would change. So if anyone dares to leave, ensure that their deal is as bad as humanly possible, with as many demands on their money and oversight of their rules as humanly possible. As you say - and why not? They are there to survive, not be "nice" or "fair".

I expected such an approach of ratcheting up the demands whilst blaming everything on the UK - including being inadequately prepared although how on earth they were supposed to prepare for the constant changes to the goalposts who knows.

There are even claims about how on earth would air traffic control work after the UK leaves the EU - as if there was no process prior to the EU in existence!

~:smoking:

When we've left, all the major trading blocs will be looking to screw us over. The EU less than the others, as their market has more in common with ours than the others. But we'll be screwed by them all, as the Remain campaign said would happen. If you're outraged by the EU's actions, I assume you'll be even more outraged by the Americans and Chinese.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Because if a net-payer leaves the other net payers will have to cough it up to pay Juncker's booze-bill and the childless Merkel's emotional instabilty, making the EU even more unpopular

You do realize that Ad hominem jibes do not constitute substantive argumentation?

[rory_20_uk]

When we've left, all the major trading blocs will be looking to screw us over. The EU less than the others, as their market has more in common with ours than the others. But we'll be screwed by them all, as the Remain campaign said would happen. If you're outraged by the EU's actions, I assume you'll be even more outraged by the Americans and Chinese.

Trading blocks generally do one thing - tariff-free trade of agreed products. Many countries and blocs are welcoming to new members. Y'know, such as the South Korea trade agreement with the EU, or the Canada with the EU and so on and so forth.

The Chinese use WTO rules. We pay them nothing to trade. I do not believe there is currently an arrangement with the USA. Could you enlighten me on the "outrage" I should be having? I've got over the 13 states leaving and Hong Kong was given back over 20 years ago.

I do not imagine there will be a gold carpet rolled out for us to join the TPP / NAFTA etc but given that economies have pretty much always benefited from reducing tariffs it is likely we will manage to have bilateral and multilateral trade agreements without needing to pay for their civil service and so on.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

You do realize that Ad hominem jibes do not constitute substantive argumentation?

Oh common, everybody knows Juncker is an alcoholic and Merkel's shoulders are so cramped that it looks that she hanged in the wardrope all day. With her dumb expression on what some call a face. But that freakshow has power over me.

Just look at it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU <- that has power over us

[Husar]

Oh common, everybody knows Juncker is an alcoholic and Merkel's shoulders are so cramped that it looks that she hanged in the wardrope all day. With her dumb expression on what some call a face. But that freakshow has power over me.

Just look at it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPgiI46FCDU <- that has power over us

Shallow criticism. When it comes to refugees you demand more european values and with Juncker you criticize that he embodies them...

[Pannonian]

Trading blocks generally do one thing - tariff-free trade of agreed products. Many countries and blocs are welcoming to new members. Y'know, such as the South Korea trade agreement with the EU, or the Canada with the EU and so on and so forth.

The Chinese use WTO rules. We pay them nothing to trade. I do not believe there is currently an arrangement with the USA. Could you enlighten me on the "outrage" I should be having? I've got over the 13 states leaving and Hong Kong was given back over 20 years ago.

I do not imagine there will be a gold carpet rolled out for us to join the TPP / NAFTA etc but given that economies have pretty much always benefited from reducing tariffs it is likely we will manage to have bilateral and multilateral trade agreements without needing to pay for their civil service and so on.

~:smoking:

The US usually begins with normalising agricultural standards. In our case, this means us moving towards their accepted standards, when our standards are more European. There is no chance the US will adjust their standards to meet ours, as we're far smaller. Gove has already raised this issue.

China has explicitly set a goal of being the most technologically advanced country in the world in 20 years time. One of their methods of attaining that is tech stealing, requiring investors to share their tech. That's one of the few areas where we currently have an edge. If China require that of any trade deal, are we going to refuse? NB. we're much smaller than they are.

In the US case, we've already seen them throw their weight around over Bombardier. We were tangentially involved but significantly affected, and when we raised the damage it was causing to us, the US promptly further raised their tariffs so as to do even more damage to us. Are they going to be any kinder and more generous to us in the future?

Edit: Oooh, missed the bit in bold. Are you aware that we need an estimated 10,000 staff to deal with the changed customs arrangements post-Brexit, of which we've recruited around 1000 so far at 100k a pop? And that even 10k extra staff won't be enough to patrol the borders, so we're looking for volunteers, and you can imagine what kind of person will volunteer for that.

[Fragony]

Shallow criticism. When it comes to refugees you demand more european values and with Juncker you criticize that he embodies them...

I demand an absolute stop of immigration and regional aid as best as possible, quite something different. These immigrants of which only a handfull are refugees ought to be Merkel's problem and of nobody else, schaf it

I actually sheltered a Syrian gay, don't think of me as heartless, I just do that. Would Merkel do that?

[Gilrandir]

I actually sheltered a Syrian gay, don't think of me as heartless, I just do that. Would Merkel do that?

She did, eventually. She sheltered hundreds of thousands.

[Fragony]

She did, eventually. She sheltered hundreds of thousands.

She never sheltered anyone herself, I did, why, he was scared of the people there, refugees ya sure. Real refugees leave their problems behind, real refugees don't bring it with them. By now that plumb eastblock farmhorse with her dumb smile and empty eyes and cramped shoulders realised that she das nich schaft and wants to spread the little children of her barren womb over Europe because she can't build a city the size of Berlin for them. Merkel should just get a small dog and peanut-butter and let it lick like Lassie, and don't bother us with her emotional problems.

[Pannonian]

She never sheltered anyone herself, I did, why, he was scared of the people there, refugees ya sure. Real refugees leave their problems behind, real refugees don't bring it with them. By now that plumb eastblock farmhorse with her dumb smile and empty eyes and cramped shoulders realised that she das nich schaft and wants to spread the little children of her barren womb over Europe because she can't build a city the size of Berlin for them. Merkel should just get a small dog and peanut-butter and let it lick like Lassie, and don't bother us with her emotional problems.

Constructive debate at its finest.

[Fragony]

Constructive debate at its finest.

If it weren't for me that guy would be dead, want to have a constructive debate with death? What are you going to say to it, just curious

[Gilrandir]

She never sheltered anyone herself, I did, why, he was scared of the people there, refugees ya sure.

It was her responsibility to admit them or not, she made her choice. If people hadn't been satisfied with this choice, they wouldn't have elected her again.

[Fragony]

It was her responsibility to admit them or not, she made her choice. If people hadn't been satisfied with this choice, they wouldn't have elected her again.

Sure, but it should also be their problem because of it, not ours. Merkel got a million baby's and she should care for them herself.

edit, total genius, just create another country outside the EU, just create an island. Geenstijl (Dutch blog) is crazy enough to just do it, they have done some crazy things before, nothing really surprises me anymore with these guys

[Pannonian]

If it weren't for me that guy would be dead, want to have a constructive debate with death? What are you going to say to it, just curious

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Merkel. When you wax poetic about a person, it's usually Merkel.

[Gilrandir]

Sure, but it should also be their problem because of it, not ours.


She was/is responsible for her country only. If other countries can't resist her overruling mind, it is the problem of their leaders. And again, if, for example, the Dutch weren't satisfied with their government bowing down to Merkel, they could have elected others. But they didn't.

[Fragony]

She was/is responsible for her country only. If other countries can't resist her overruling mind, it is the problem of their leaders. And again, if, for example, the Dutch weren't satisfied with their government bowing down to Merkel, they could have elected others. But they didn't.

They did, but nobody wants to work with them, they are persona no grata in the way of things. They kinda owe that to themselve. The second-biggest party here is downright anti-EU, as am I, but I am much more moderate with other things, contrary to what some think here of me I don't dislike muslims at all, I just dispise the multicultural left. Things are going to change though there is a new kid in town and he's going to eat up a lot of votes, especially with the higher-educated 30 40'ish libertarian crowd. They are not a friend of the eurocrats.

@Pan's, np. But Merkel simply is the EU, Germany is a very powerful country and Merkel calls the shots. All the rest except France just pretend to have something to say. It's because of the people Merkel let in that I had to help this guy out, where he lived wasn't safe anymore he got serious deaththeats every day. So I helped him, no problem. Never heard from him again I hope he's ok.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sorry, I thought you were talking about Merkel. When you wax poetic about a person, it's usually Merkel.

Merkel is Fragony's MUSE?

[Pannonian]

The Brexit department's own assessments say that, in a best case scenario with absolutely everything going as planned and everyone bowing down to the UK, the UK will be 2% worse off than the status quo. In the list of likely scenarios, this goes up to 8% worse off. Nearly every sector will be affected adversely. NB. This is the DExEU's own assessments.

[Fragony]

It are the eurocrats that should be worried

[rory_20_uk]

The Brexit department's own assessments say that, in a best case scenario with absolutely everything going as planned and everyone bowing down to the UK, the UK will be 2% worse off than the status quo. In the list of likely scenarios, this goes up to 8% worse off. Nearly every sector will be affected adversely. NB. This is the DExEU's own assessments.

Good thing we live in a Sovereign state and not a PLC which has to optimise return to shareholders.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Good thing we live in a Sovereign state and not a PLC which has to optimise return to shareholders.

~:smoking:

Good thing that effective incomes will go down as the money people have will be able to buy less, and low margin sectors like local markets won't be able to maintain themselves. Still, as a professional in the health sector, you probably won't have noticed this as you pontificate about sovereignty.

[rory_20_uk]

Good thing that effective incomes will go down as the money people have will be able to buy less, and low margin sectors like local markets won't be able to maintain themselves. Still, as a professional in the health sector, you probably won't have noticed this as you pontificate about sovereignty.

Yes, a professional in the health sector. Which is shorthand for working hard at school, getting good grades for the ability to attend a bastard hard degree course for 6 years (with 4 weeks holiday for 3 years) and at the end of it get a crappy job at a crappy hospital. No silver spoon. No trust fund. No Special School Tie. A hellish existence for over a decade. But that is behind me.

So now, no I've not noticed it in the slightest. Doubt I will - partly as I never have enough spare time to go to the local markets. I might be wrong of course but then the work I do is not some quack curing the pox in the local slum. I left that distasteful work since I dislike it and thought rather than pasting my demands on Facebook how I wanted everything to change I'd apply for a job I wanted to do. That also turned out to have large issues so I started my own company - I did something to better my situation and I now get paid for it. If this stops I won't be retained. No union, no strike, no mass protest on social media. I'll have to find another contract.

In a Democracy, I am allowed to have a view. We currently have freedom of movement. Those who are concerned their money will go down are free to go and live elsewhere. The Nordics are renowned for large Welfare state.

Odd how this will cause the implosion of the UK as we know it and yet we'd still be one of the wealthiest countries in the world - a higher per-capita GDP than many countries in the EU who seem to manage.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

"This new analysis suggests that there could be opportunity for the UK in agreeing trade deals with non-EU countries and deregulating in areas such as the environment, product standards, and employment law."

Effectively turning us into the mainland China to Europe's Hong Kong, where they have stringent standards on environment, product standards and employment law. And every Chinese who can afford it prefers shopping in Hong Kong as they can rely on the guaranteed higher standards, unlike the dangerously loosely enforced standards in China. The upper few percentiles won't notice the difference of course, as they can afford to buy from anywhere in the world. But for those Chinese who are restricted to their local markets, they have to put up with lethally adulterated baby food, toxic environments, explosively dangerous storage, and goodness knows what else.

Fortunately, I live in a UK that has been living by EU/EEC standards all my life, so I've not yet had to face these problems. Buying locally is a choice rather than a restriction. But I have been buying from local markets and local traders wherever possible for at least a decade, and while there have been changes (eg. a lower catering for fish), fruit and vegetables, the foundations of any local market, have been noticeably reducing in quality and quantity over the past year, as the stallholders have been able to afford lesser variety in produce. So there are fewer varieties of stuff from around the world, and stuff that may previously have not been displayed due to imperfections are now sold at full price in lesser quantities. And in addition to that, there have been more empty spaces in the market as they decide the money made is not worth the effort of setting out a stall.

But then, of course, this doesn't touch you, as you've deservedly done well for yourself.

[rory_20_uk]

Gosh yes, before the EEC / EU came along the toffs were hunting poor people, life expectancy was 45 years with lead and cadmium added to food since we had no standards on anything. We are so lucky that the EU was able to save us from our barbarism. If we were to leave we'd have smelting plants opened in Birmingham, have the poor dissected to sell their organs... :rolleyes:

China. Not Australia, New Zealand, or Canada which would be much better examples of similar countries and what they do. But they might not quite support your "view" / fantasy.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Gosh yes, before the EEC / EU came along the toffs were hunting poor people, life expectancy was 45 years with lead and cadmium added to food since we had no standards on anything. We are so lucky that the EU was able to save us from our barbarism. If we were to leave we'd have smelting plants opened in Birmingham, have the poor dissected to sell their organs... :rolleyes:

China. Not Australia, New Zealand, or Canada which would be much better examples of similar countries and what they do. But they might not quite support your "view" / fantasy.

~:smoking:

Deregulation of the above is the hard Brexiteers' Big Idea. What kind of UK do you envisage with all the above deregulated as per their dream? NB. Mainland Chinese buy from Australia and New Zealand too, because their markets are more regulated than in China, and thus guarantee good quality. What advantages does deregulation give us that you'd like to see in the UK?

[rory_20_uk]

Deregulation of the above is the hard Brexiteers' Big Idea. What kind of UK do you envisage with all the above deregulated as per their dream? NB. Mainland Chinese buy from Australia and New Zealand too, because their markets are more regulated than in China, and thus guarantee good quality. What advantages does deregulation give us that you'd like to see in the UK?

Deregulation? I'm interested in return of sovereignty to the UK courts.

Given the self-evident fact that past a point de-regulation would cause a massive loss of business I doubt that anyone wants to undertake this.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Deregulation? I'm interested in return of sovereignty to the UK courts.

Given the self-evident fact that past a point de-regulation would cause a massive loss of business I doubt that anyone wants to undertake this.

~:smoking:

What kind of sovereignty in UK courts are you talking about? Are you talking about the ECJ?

[rory_20_uk]

Yes - the UK Supreme Court should be the last recourse for laws governing the UK. And Regulations should not be imposed from abroad (I'm not thrilled about Directives but at least they are UK laws).

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Yes - the UK Supreme Court should be the last recourse for laws governing the UK. And Regulations should not be imposed from abroad (I'm not thrilled about Directives but at least they are UK laws).

~:smoking:

New analysis shows UK rarely taken to European Court (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/news/latest/new-analysis-shows-uk-rarely-taken-european-court)


8th December 2017
The UK rarely ends up in the European Court of Justice (ECJ), and when it does it wins its cases more often than most European Union (EU) member states, a new report finds.

Who’s afraid of the ECJ? (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/IfG_Brexit_ECJ_v10FINAL%20web.pdf), published today by the independent Institute for Government (IfG), charts the UK’s experience at the ECJ compared to the 14 other longest standing members of the EU.

Reality Check: What is the European Court of Justice? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40630322)


So what? I thought we could do a trade deal with the EU without direct ECJ involvement.
Yes, we can. That's because trade deals usually have their own inbuilt dispute procedures.

But any company from the US or Japan or anywhere else that wants to sell its product in the European single market has to comply with all EU regulations, and with all ECJ rulings about any of those regulations.

If foreign companies don't comply, they can't operate in the EU. The same applies in reverse, of course, to European companies that want to sell their products elsewhere.

So foreign companies can't escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ?
Not if they want to operate in the single market, no. They are not immune from EU law. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Take Google for example, which was fined a record 2.4bn euro by the European Commission in June for abusing its dominance of the search engine market.

If Google wanted to appeal, it would have to make its case before the European Court of Justice.

[Pannonian]

It's like the immigration issue, where a huge noise is made about immigrants who don't integrate, yet the areas that make the biggest noise are the areas with the fewest immigrants. Britain gets the least hassle from the ECJ, but it's Britain who makes the biggest noise about the ECJ's intrusion into its affairs.

I'm still looking into this line: "The ECJ has tended to support British efforts to extend the remit of the single market.", which suggests that the ECJ has actually been effectively a British tool in EU affairs.

[Pannonian]

And yet more leading Brexit figures are getting EU citizenships to escape the mess they've created. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[rory_20_uk]

New analysis shows UK rarely taken to European Court (https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/news/latest/new-analysis-shows-uk-rarely-taken-european-court)

Reality Check: What is the European Court of Justice? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40630322)

And? That is the same facile argument that if a law were passed that the police can keep my DNA / fingerprints / iris scan and share it with other countries it doesn't really matter since they so rarely do it.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

It's like the immigration issue, where a huge noise is made about immigrants who don't integrate, yet the areas that make the biggest noise are the areas with the fewest immigrants. Britain gets the least hassle from the ECJ, but it's Britain who makes the biggest noise about the ECJ's intrusion into its affairs.

I'm still looking into this line: "The ECJ has tended to support British efforts to extend the remit of the single market.", which suggests that the ECJ has actually been effectively a British tool in EU affairs.

Maybe they want to keep it like that? Can you blame them? Most outspoken pro-immigration-folks are also nimby's

[Pannonian]

And? That is the same facile argument that if a law were passed that the police can keep my DNA / fingerprints / iris scan and share it with other countries it doesn't really matter since they so rarely do it.

~:smoking:

Did you miss the bit in the BBC article I linked to, that explains the details surrounding the ECJ? If we're outside the EU, we'll lose the benefits of being inside the EU, and we'll still be subject to the rules of EU law, as long as we're looking to deal with the EU. What will happen is we'll set up a different and unique relationship, with a different and unique name, that will practically be the same as being bound by the ECJ's rulings on EU law. Will you protest when that happens? Because you'll have lost the rest of us the benefits of living inside the EU in exchange for little or no change on the subject of your choice.

[rory_20_uk]

Did you miss the bit in the BBC article I linked to, that explains the details surrounding the ECJ? If we're outside the EU, we'll lose the benefits of being inside the EU, and we'll still be subject to the rules of EU law, as long as we're looking to deal with the EU. What will happen is we'll set up a different and unique relationship, with a different and unique name, that will practically be the same as being bound by the ECJ's rulings on EU law. Will you protest when that happens? Because you'll have lost the rest of us the benefits of living inside the EU in exchange for little or no change on the subject of your choice.

So... best to go along with a bullying and coercive entity? Or look elsewhere for those who will treat us as equals?

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So... best to go along with a bullying and coercive entity? Or look elsewhere for those who will treat us as equals?

~:smoking:


So what? I thought we could do a trade deal with the EU without direct ECJ involvement.
Yes, we can. That's because trade deals usually have their own inbuilt dispute procedures.

But any company from the US or Japan or anywhere else that wants to sell its product in the European single market has to comply with all EU regulations, and with all ECJ rulings about any of those regulations.

If foreign companies don't comply, they can't operate in the EU. The same applies in reverse, of course, to European companies that want to sell their products elsewhere.

So foreign companies can't escape the jurisdiction of the ECJ?
Not if they want to operate in the single market, no. They are not immune from EU law. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Take Google for example, which was fined a record 2.4bn euro by the European Commission in June for abusing its dominance of the search engine market.

If Google wanted to appeal, it would have to make its case before the European Court of Justice.

Are you telling all those who trade with the EU to stop because it offends your sensibilities? NB. Around 50% of all our trade is with the EU.

[rory_20_uk]

Are you telling all those who trade with the EU to stop because it offends your sensibilities? NB. Around 50% of all our trade is with the EU.

[Sigh]

The situation is completely created by the EU. They are the ones imposing the rules, and it is they blocking trade. I am sure the UK would be happy for trade to continue.
Not all trade will stop. No deal = WTO rules which has unhelpful tariffs of c. 4% on goods.European businesses that trade would also rather not have tariffs. So who wants them? Oh, that's right - EU politicians.
Yes, 50% of trade is with the EU. Probably well past the point we should have diversified - as we were before the EU fetish started.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Are you telling all those who trade with the EU to stop because it offends your sensibilities? NB. Around 50% of all our trade is with the EU.

And will remain to be, you aren't going to be closed of that's an alarmist's anxiety. It will be more expensive that's all

[Husar]

So... best to go along with a bullying and coercive entity? Or look elsewhere for those who will treat us as equals?

Who would that be? At best a country with the same market potential, same potential in exports, same cultural traits, etc. A bigger country will usually make more demands and a smaller country usually gets dominated by the bigger one. That's the whole reason I'm for the EU, because it has more power than your tiny country on its own or even my tiny country on its own. And as long as power is the only decisive factor in human interaction on a national level, more power is better.
It's not bullying, it's competition. One argument for Brexit was that we'd all be better off with more capitalist competition. Now that you get it, don't call it bullying or you're just a whining loser.

[rory_20_uk]

Who would that be? At best a country with the same market potential, same potential in exports, same cultural traits, etc. A bigger country will usually make more demands and a smaller country usually gets dominated by the bigger one. That's the whole reason I'm for the EU, because it has more power than your tiny country on its own or even my tiny country on its own. And as long as power is the only decisive factor in human interaction on a national level, more power is better.
It's not bullying, it's competition. One argument for Brexit was that we'd all be better off with more capitalist competition. Now that you get it, don't call it bullying or you're just a whining loser.

So why are so many countries entering bilateral free trade deals and not quasi-sovereignty? Especially as my "little" country is still in the top 10, and there are over 200 countries.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

So why are so many countries entering bilateral free trade deals and not quasi-sovereignty? Especially as my "little" country is still in the top 10, and there are over 200 countries.

~:smoking:

Haven't you seen what the US and China are doing to smaller competitors? The US have already done so to us, even upping the terms when we raised our voice, as they know we are powerless relative to them.

And a cabinet minister has broken ranks to question if Brexit will be worth it. Proceeding should be based on evidence, and evidence should not be dismissed simply because they are inconvenient or undesirable. A future decision should be based on the country's welfare, not dogma. The chief whip has promptly cracked down on him. Expect the Daily Mail to call him a traitor for defying the will of the people.

[rory_20_uk]

Haven't you seen what the US and China are doing to smaller competitors? The US have already done so to us, even upping the terms when we raised our voice, as they know we are powerless relative to them.

And a cabinet minister has broken ranks to question if Brexit will be worth it. Proceeding should be based on evidence, and evidence should not be dismissed simply because they are inconvenient or undesirable. A future decision should be based on the country's welfare, not dogma. The chief whip has promptly cracked down on him. Expect the Daily Mail to call him a traitor for defying the will of the people.

Like the TPP which is a free trade area for many countries - most smaller than us. Is that inconvenient too? Yes, supposedly NAFTA is being reviewed... which is again two relatively small countries with a really big one.

The country's welfare might be best applying to be the 51st state. Or follow Singapore's approach to be more productive.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

Like the TPP which is a free trade area for many countries - most smaller than us. Is that inconvenient too? Yes, supposedly NAFTA is being reviewed... which is again two relatively small countries with a really big one.

The country's welfare might be best applying to be the 51st state. Or follow Singapore's approach to be more productive.

~:smoking:

You talk about Britain needing to diversify beyond the EU, yet care little for the loss of small trades and accompanying expertise, and speak of Singapore as a model. Would you like the UK's agricultural model to follow that of Singapore?

And now the minister in charge of doing trade deals after Brexit says that being inside the CU might not be such a bad thing after all. That's May (the PM), Davies (minister of DExEU) and Fox (minister for post-EU trade) all back-tracking on why the EU is bad and needs to be put behind us. Meanwhile, the Tories not directly involved in managing Brexit are accusing the civil service of producing falsely negative research (without proof, of course). It's as though the more knowledge one has about the UK's relationship with the EU, the less appetite one has for breaking it.

[Pannonian]

And senior civil servants say that the Brexiteers are setting up the civil service for a Dolchstosslegende to take the fall for a Brexit that every bit of evidence indicates will never work.


“[Civil servants] look at the evidence and we go where it is,” he said. “Of course if you are selling snake oil, you don’t like the idea of experts testing your products.

“And I think that’s what we’ve got, this backlash against evidence and experts is because they know where the experts will go.”

Responding to claims officials distorted their analysis, the former civil servant told ITV’s Peston On Sunday show: “I think that’s completely crazy. The truth is civil servants operate by the civil service code. The values are honesty, objectivity, integrity, impartiality.

“Their job is to look at the evidence and present it as best they can, analyse the uncertainties ... but that’s what they do, they’re objective and impartial.

“And I think what you find is that tends to get accepted very nicely when it agrees with someone’s prior beliefs, but actually, when someone doesn’t like the answer, quite often they decide to shoot the messenger.”

“‘Dolchstoss’ means ‘stab in the back’,” Lord Turnbull told the Observer. “After the first world war there was an armistice, but the German army was then treated as the losers. Then, at the start of the Nazi era, the ‘stab-in-the back’ theme developed.

“It argued that ‘our great army was never defeated, but it was stabbed in the back by the civilians, liberals, communists, socialists and Jews’. This is what I think these critics are trying to do. They are losing the argument in the sense that they are unable to make their extravagant promises stack up, and so they turn and say: ‘Things would be OK if the civil service weren’t obstructing us.’”

NB. the Tory Brexiteers had been accusing the civil service of negatively slanting its research, producing only negative forecasts of realistic scenarios.

[Furunculus]

...for a Brexit that every bit of evidence indicates will never work.

What do you mean by this?
In what terms is brexit to be evaluated, such that "every bit of evidence indicates will never work"?

[Sarmatian]

What do you mean by this?
In what terms is brexit to be evaluated, such that "every bit of evidence indicates will never work"?

My guess would be that it will never work in terms of achieving what was promised, ie. UK will be better of out of EU. There won't be economic improvement, there won't be more security, and in general average Briton won't be better off by pretty much any parameter.

There is the fact that some are willing to stomach all that for return of (real or perceived) power to British institutions, and that's fair, I'd say, but there is also the fact that most of those who voted for it didn't understand that and will have problem accepting that.

It's the British sausage from Yes, Minister. Those damn Eurocrats won't be able to stop anyone from eating it, but people, like Jim, might get a bit sick from it.

[Furunculus]

My guess would be that it will never work in terms of achieving what was promised, ie. UK will be better of out of EU...

There is the fact that some are willing to stomach all that for return of (real or perceived) power to British institutions, and that's fair,

you answered the question very nicely:
i.e. if you think of this through the prism of economic alone you will be disappointed, but that isn't why most people voted the way they did.
they may well not understand the fine nuance of post-lisbon vote-weight and the creep of QMV in narrowing the possibility of public policy, but don't make the mistake of conflating the majority of brexit-voters (inc many soft remainers) with the left behind (who merely tipped the balance).
not that i'd blame you if you did, laura kuensberg failed the same test in her miserable post brexit explanatory documentary...

[Pannonian]

you answered the question very nicely:
i.e. if you think of this through the prism of economic alone you will be disappointed, but that isn't why most people voted the way they did.
they may well not understand the fine nuance of post-lisbon vote-weight and the creep of QMV in narrowing the possibility of public policy, but don't make the mistake of conflating the majority of brexit-voters (inc many soft remainers) with the left behind (who merely tipped the balance).
not that i'd blame you if you did, laura kuensberg failed the same test in her miserable post brexit explanatory documentary...

So why are ministers denying that Brexit will be economically nothing but damaging? If Brexit is fundamentally political, and economic factors don't matter, why don't they come clean about the damage that Brexit will do to the economy?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So why are ministers denying that Brexit will be economically nothing but damaging? If Brexit is fundamentally political, and economic factors don't matter, why don't they come clean about the damage that Brexit will do to the economy?

Because they'd like to keep their seats in Parliament? Just guessing...

I am sure you don't actually expect your politicians to be noble to the point of self-sacrifice, do you? Kennedy wrote Profiles in Political Courage because the phenomenon is rare, not common.

[Sarmatian]

you answered the question very nicely:
i.e. if you think of this through the prism of economic alone you will be disappointed, but that isn't why most people voted the way they did.
they may well not understand the fine nuance of post-lisbon vote-weight and the creep of QMV in narrowing the possibility of public policy, but don't make the mistake of conflating the majority of brexit-voters (inc many soft remainers) with the left behind (who merely tipped the balance).
not that i'd blame you if you did, laura kuensberg failed the same test in her miserable post brexit explanatory documentary...

I can totally get behind that you weighed the pros and cons and that you found the risks acceptable with what is at stake here.

I have very low opinion of general populace's ability to do that, and I think it might get ugly when they see they didn't get what was essentially promised to them by the Brexiters.

[Pannonian]

I can totally get behind that you weighed the pros and cons and that you found the risks acceptable with what is at stake here.

I have very low opinion of general populace's ability to do that, and I think it might get ugly when they see they didn't get what was essentially promised to them by the Brexiters.

If the general Leave-voting electorate were of a mind with Furunculus, there would be no need for the government to obfuscate over the economic impact of Brexit. That they are blackening the name of the civil service in order to deny that Brexit has negative economic consequences tells you much about how they think th British electorate will take the results. One senior civil servant has called this "Dolchstosslegende", Brexit-pushing politicians claiming that Brexit would have been a success but for the backstabbing efforts of the civil service.

[Pannonian]

In an Treasury analysis viewable by MPs, every region in the UK is reported to do badly from Brexit, with the closest relationship to EU membership minimising the negative impact, and the furthest maximising it. London is affected the least, but the regions most pro-Brexit will be the most badly affected, with double figure drops in growth in the event of no deal. The forecasts are listed in terms of single market and customs union, free trade, and no deal. For London, the drops in growth forecast will be 1%, 2% and 3.5%. For the north east, the drops will be 3%, 11% and 16%. For comparison, Furunculus reckons we will attain steady growth rates of 1-1.5% which will be acceptable to his eyes.

[rory_20_uk]

In an Treasury analysis viewable by MPs, every region in the UK is reported to do badly from Brexit, with the closest relationship to EU membership minimising the negative impact, and the furthest maximising it. London is affected the least, but the regions most pro-Brexit will be the most badly affected, with double figure drops in growth in the event of no deal. The forecasts are listed in terms of single market and customs union, free trade, and no deal. For London, the drops in growth forecast will be 1%, 2% and 3.5%. For the north east, the drops will be 3%, 11% and 16%. For comparison, Furunculus reckons we will attain steady growth rates of 1-1.5% which will be acceptable to his eyes.

When has analysis ever gone wrong...? They seem to do a lot better with precision than accuracy.

20564

20565

20566

Sometimes really wrong:

20567

But yes, sure. This time their modelling will be bang on. The irony is that if they could get this right within the measure of a guess, they could make a killing on the stockmarket.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

If the government is confident that the analyses are wrong, why didn't they release them to Parliament anyway, whilst stating why they thought they were wrong? Why did they originally block Parliament from seeing them? Was the government right not to trust Parliament with the information?

And BTW, are you accusing the analysts of being biased against Brexit and thus deliberately producing negative analyses?

[Pannonian]

Also, if the EU allows individual Brits to apply for continued EU citizenship, would the Leavers here voluntarily refrain from doing so?

[rory_20_uk]

If the government is confident that the analyses are wrong, why didn't they release them to Parliament anyway, whilst stating why they thought they were wrong? Why did they originally block Parliament from seeing them? Was the government right not to trust Parliament with the information?

How on earth would I know the inner workings of anyone at Westminster? More often than not it appears to be a large playground full of children who sadly govern our future.

I think that MPs are almost all universally ill equipped for reviewing / analysing any of the data they are given on any subject matter they are given even before their political beliefs are taken into account as such farces as Ms Abbot demonstrate every time she opens her mouth. It would require the best polymaths to be able to do so - and we sure don't have them in charge.

But hoping for an all-knowing benevolent leader is more a matter of religion that running a country.

~:smoking:

[rory_20_uk]

Also, if the EU allows individual Brits to apply for continued EU citizenship, would the Leavers here voluntarily refrain from doing so?

Humour me - what does one have to do with the other? For example, I like Germany. I would love to visit there again - work allowing. Of the Germans I meet in my line of work I prefer them to the ones in the UK as they have a much better attitude. I seem to end up visiting Switzerland more frequently. And lo and behold they are not in the EU either. In both places my passport is checked.

Passports are given out by Sovereign entities. Requiring both is sort of exactly what Leavers have been wanting. Either Sovereign authority then has the power to rescind theirs as they so desire. Just like how having any other passport for any other country in the world. It would only be an issue for those who already have an additional one to the UK.

~:smoking:

[Pannonian]

How on earth would I know the inner workings of anyone at Westminster? More often than not it appears to be a large playground full of children who sadly govern our future.

I think that MPs are almost all universally ill equipped for reviewing / analysing any of the data they are given on any subject matter they are given even before their political beliefs are taken into account as such farces as Ms Abbot demonstrate every time she opens her mouth. It would require the best polymaths to be able to do so - and we sure don't have them in charge.

But hoping for an all-knowing benevolent leader is more a matter of religion that running a country.

~:smoking:

So would you be up for removing sovereignty from Parliament? If so, who should be the decision making body? Since you're equally against the analyses of economic experts where they relate to the economy.

BTW, the above analysis was done by DExEU, the department in charge of Brexit.

[Pannonian]

Humour me - what does one have to do with the other? For example, I like Germany. I would love to visit there again - work allowing. Of the Germans I meet in my line of work I prefer them to the ones in the UK as they have a much better attitude. I seem to end up visiting Switzerland more frequently. And lo and behold they are not in the EU either. In both places my passport is checked.

Passports are given out by Sovereign entities. Requiring both is sort of exactly what Leavers have been wanting. Either Sovereign authority then has the power to rescind theirs as they so desire. Just like how having any other passport for any other country in the world. It would only be an issue for those who already have an additional one to the UK.

~:smoking:

Freedom of movement of labour. One of May's red lines.

[rory_20_uk]

Freedom of movement of labour. One of May's red lines.

One that can be rescinded by the issuer of the passport - not possible when the passport is given by someone else. So this in fact is not freedom of movement as it is currently.

~:smoking: