World Politics - EXIT NEGOTIATIONS [Archive] - Page 7

Husar

08-05-2018, 18:15

As I've mentioned before, I don't live in fear of the neoliberal boogieman.
Are they wrong?

All evidence points towards a yes. Chile's economic policy was modelled entirely after neoliberal ideas:

https://www.ukprogressive.co.uk/chiles-plantation-economy/article33413.html

Neoliberalism is an economy theory that works extremely well, if you are already rich; however, for the rest of society, the jury is still out. But, if Chile is the prime example of how neoliberalism works at its best, they should not hold their breath.

http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Globalization/Case_Chile_VFTS.html

Over time, Chile did indeed become the "Latin American tiger," with economic growth of 6 to 7 percent annually during the last 13 years. However, the competitiveness of the Chilean economy was based on natural resource exports, low wages, and unequal wealth distribution...
The military government changed both the mining code and the water code to attract foreign investment. One of these changes, Decree 600, stimulated large investments at the expense of the local communities and allowed companies to obtain water rights. These have led to a reduction in agricultural activities in some communities; many small farmers have been forced to abandon their lands.
To promote exports in the forest sector, the government introduced legislation like Decree 701, which subsidized between 75 to 90 percent of forest company costs, and freed the companies from taxes. This mechanism encouraged the big companies to substitute native forest with pine and eucalyptus and channeled 96 percent of the subsidies to the big farmers; only 4 percent has gone to small farmers.
[...]
This high growth rate has also had tremendous social costs. Our poverty rate grew from 20 percent of the population in 1970 to 40 percent in 1985. Today, after 13 years of 6 to 7 percent annual growth, almost 30 percent of the Chilean population (about 4 million people) still struggles at the poverty level. And poverty today is not because of the lack of jobs, since the unemployment rate is only 5 to 6 percent. The poor have jobs, but they have very low-paying jobs.

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/sep/15/chile-santiago-water-supply-drought-climate-change-privatisation-neoliberalism-human-right

A recent protest saw at least 2,000 people take to the capital’s streets to demand the repeal of laws that privatised Chile’s water supply. At the heart of the protest and others like it in recent years lies frustration that the privatisation of water has kept prices unnecessarily high, delivered poor service and done little to address concerns over insufficient supply in the future.

https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/world/americas/15chile.html

Private ownership is so concentrated in some areas that a single electricity company from Spain, Endesa, has bought up 80 percent of the water rights in a huge region in the south, causing an uproar. In the north, agricultural producers are competing with mining companies to siphon off rivers and tap scarce water supplies, leaving towns like this one bone dry and withering.

So basically you may indeed get economic growth by shrinking government, but it doesn't mean your country will actually profit from it as a whole. Much like snake oil, it does something, but probably not what most people want it to do. :sweatdrop:

Of course neoliberal shilltanks are selling it as a success: https://www.heritage.org/international-economies/report/how-chile-successfully-transformed-its-economy

Before Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of Great Britain or Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States, Chile implemented unprecedented privatization and other reforms. From the mid-1980s to the Asian crisis in 1997, the Chilean economy grew at an average annual rate of 7.2 percent, followed by an average annual rate of 3.5 percent between 1998 and 2005. Such growth is very good compared to other countries. Chile's exceptional economic performance and the resulting welfare improvement have been recognized internationally and are the result of systematic application of sound economic policies.

I happen to know a few Chileans and not one of them seems to be happy about the "welfare improvements". There's also a German documentary that is more exhaustive than what I posted here, but I guess it won't help you much and you technically didn't pay to see it (and we wouldn't want to hurt the "market", would we?).

Furunculus

08-05-2018, 20:09

Who cares about Chile, what about Canada, Australia, nz, or even America?

I'd add; who cares about neoliberals, but its obviously fetish du jour hereabouts.

Pannonian

08-05-2018, 20:51

Who cares about Chile, what about Canada, Australia, nz, or even America?

I'd add; who cares about neoliberals, but its obviously fetish du jour hereabouts.

How about Britain, and the British people? You've talked about how it'll all be worth employing extra customs officers and warehousing to be out of the EU. That takes time, and the June 2018 Parliamentary report states that we're short some 4000 or so, with no way of making up those extra numbers in time. The Brexit supporting politicians have also said that no deal is the most likely scenario. So would you say that the interim, with a massive shortfall in necessary resources known to exist, will be worth it? Would you accept that as the consequence of your decision?

BTW, the lorry driver quoted in said Parliamentary report isn't some think tank producing "research" in return for money. He's describing his work experience, as someone who works in the field. Have you listened to him yet, or read the transcript? He can concretely point to where Brexit politicians are wrong or lying. Does his testimony as someone who works in logistics matter?

Furunculus

08-05-2018, 21:03

You keep on repeating this, with the implicit suggestion that the catalogue of difficulties means we should.... what? Cancel brexit?

Husar

08-05-2018, 23:26

Who cares about Chile, what about Canada, Australia, nz, or even America?

Don't make me laugh, Chile is in America...

Anyway, Australia is not doing well:
http://tai.org.au/system/files_force/PB+64+Income+and+wealth+inequality+FINAL.pdf

The paper also shows how, over time, the generosity of the welfare system and the
progressive nature of the tax system has been unwound. For example, Figure 11 shows how
welfare payments that were once sufficient to maintain recipients above the poverty line have
been eroded. Similarly, Table 3 shows that, in the last eight years, the cost of tax cuts
introduced by successive governments has amounted to around $170 billion and that the top
ten per cent of income earners received more benefit from those tax cuts than the bottom 80
per cent of taxpayers combined.
The nature and extent of inequality is the choice of policy makers. We know how to reduce it
and we know how to exacerbate it. Despite the fact that the Australian public expresses a
strong desire to reduce inequality, successive governments have done little in recent years to
reduce it and much to increase it. To conclude, tackling poverty is primarily a political
problem, not an economic problem.

Their governments are good neoliberals who ignore democracy and impose oligarchic demands on the people, just like the USA.

https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-the-great-australian-wealth-gap-84515

Australia is becoming wealthier, but much of the increase is concentrated in the hands of older generations. The trend is unmistakable: unless something changes, the young will fall further behind and inequality will get worse.

https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/news/economy/2015/04/11/taxation-inequality-and-the-wealth-gap/14286744001737

For about 30 years after World War II, inequality declined across the developed world. Economic growth rates were generally high, unemployment generally low and wages increased pretty much in parallel with productivity.

“Then,” says Peter Whiteford, professor in the Crawford school of public policy at the Australian National University, “there here was a turning point. Something happened in the late 1970s and inequality started going back up again, particularly in the English-speaking countries. The United States is the most extreme [example].”

In the US, wages for most people are lower now, in inflation-adjusted terms, than they were 40 years ago. For those at the bottom of the income distribution scale, they have fallen. For those at the top they have risen dramatically. And wealth has risen even more.
[...]
Between 1975 and 2014, Leigh says, the income share of the top 1 per cent of Australians has doubled, and that of the top 0.1 per cent has tripled.

“And the top 10 per cent have seen three times the wage growth of the bottom 10. We’re in the top third of the most unequal countries in the OECD [the 34 wealthy countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development].

“We’re more egalitarian than the Americans and Canadians but not as egalitarian as the Europeans and particularly the northern Europeans,” Leigh says.

Makes you wonder what mystical thing noone dare speak about happened in the 70s... :laugh4:
Your GDP growth will do nothing but create a new classes of noblemen and wage slaves with a very small middle class in between.
It's basically neoliberal class warfare. I wonder how that works together with your natural laws where all men are created equal and stuff.

Pannonian

08-05-2018, 23:48

You keep on repeating this, with the implicit suggestion that the catalogue of difficulties means we should.... what? Cancel brexit?

That Leavers should own responsibility for what comes next would be a start. I've not seen it yet, neither from politicians nor voters. Just about everyone recognises that there will be drastic logistics difficulties from day 1 in the event of no-deal, but Leavers have progressed from rubbishing the possibility of no-deal to magicking away the effects of no-deal until we reach some post-Brexit utopia in the indefinite future. None of them own up to the difficulties that will happen in the meantime.

The government have admitted that no-deal is the most likely scenario come March 30th next year, and there are a host of difficulties in such a scenario, the most immediate being logistics and its knock on effects. Do you accept responsibility for this as the outcome of your decision? Have you listened to that lorry driver or read the transcript?

a completely inoffensive name

08-06-2018, 02:57

That Leavers should own responsibility for what comes next would be a start. I've not seen it yet, neither from politicians nor voters. Just about everyone recognises that there will be drastic logistics difficulties from day 1 in the event of no-deal, but Leavers have progressed from rubbishing the possibility of no-deal to magicking away the effects of no-deal until we reach some post-Brexit utopia in the indefinite future. None of them own up to the difficulties that will happen in the meantime.

The government have admitted that no-deal is the most likely scenario come March 30th next year, and there are a host of difficulties in such a scenario, the most immediate being logistics and its knock on effects. Do you accept responsibility for this as the outcome of your decision? Have you listened to that lorry driver or read the transcript?

Pan,

I think it is clear at this point he neither thinks the logistical nightmare you describe will
A. Happen
B. Take priority over having a sovereign government.

Personally if I could, I would ask the Brexiteers in here to respond to my question about why national pride should come before economic self interest?

Pannonian

08-06-2018, 03:37

Pan,

I think it is clear at this point he neither thinks the logistical nightmare you describe will
A. Happen
B. Take priority over having a sovereign government.

Personally if I could, I would ask the Brexiteers in here to respond to my question about why national pride should come before economic self interest?

The Parliamentary report states that this is the unavoidable consequence of no-deal, due to resources on the ground. The report I cite deals with the human resources. The local authority dealing with this states that the infrastructure won't be ready to deal with no-deal until 2023 at the earliest. The government minister dealing with trade has just stated that no-deal is the most likely outcome of Brexit. Everyone in the food chain, whose logistics is based on JIT, has said that the solution that Furunculus has suggested is impossible in the timeframe we're talking about. Even Brexit-supporting newspapers are now recognising that the food supply will dry up post-no-deal, although they and their readership are more concerned with blaming the EU than accepting responsibility for their own decision (hence my question to Furunculus about the same). Note that Furunculus skips over the immediate problems to talk about some utopian future.

All that from a 52-48 vote with Leave violating just about every principle of established liberal democracy, with plenty of hypocrisy to boot; you can find quotes from the leading Brexiteers demanding a second referendum (having expected Remain to have won) and stating that they'll never lie down after a narrow 52-48 result (having expected Remain to have won) and that it's not democracy if you can't change your mind (having expected Remain to have won).

a completely inoffensive name

08-06-2018, 07:24

The Parliamentary report states that this is the unavoidable consequence of no-deal, due to resources on the ground. The report I cite deals with the human resources. The local authority dealing with this states that the infrastructure won't be ready to deal with no-deal until 2023 at the earliest. The government minister dealing with trade has just stated that no-deal is the most likely outcome of Brexit. Everyone in the food chain, whose logistics is based on JIT, has said that the solution that Furunculus has suggested is impossible in the timeframe we're talking about. Even Brexit-supporting newspapers are now recognising that the food supply will dry up post-no-deal, although they and their readership are more concerned with blaming the EU than accepting responsibility for their own decision (hence my question to Furunculus about the same). Note that Furunculus skips over the immediate problems to talk about some utopian future.

All that from a 52-48 vote with Leave violating just about every principle of established liberal democracy, with plenty of hypocrisy to boot; you can find quotes from the leading Brexiteers demanding a second referendum (having expected Remain to have won) and stating that they'll never lie down after a narrow 52-48 result (having expected Remain to have won) and that it's not democracy if you can't change your mind (having expected Remain to have won).

You could be 100% correct about all of that. The logistical breakdown post-Brexit, the hypocracy of the Brexiteers and the tainted nature of the referendum, however...

The decision has been cast, both parties are committed to Brexit. It was the decision made of a non-ideal question posed in a non-ideal world. The fallout will either prove you wrong and life goes on as normal, or prove the Brexiteers wrong and people will clamor to re-join before they starve to death.

Take it from an American who had to accept a President Donald Trump before people started to realize, oh hey maybe the Republican Party really is batshit crazy.

Furunculus

08-06-2018, 08:02

Personally if I could, I would ask the Brexiteers in here to respond to my question about why national pride should come before economic self interest?

That is a false dichotomy.
I think what you meant to say "why democratic self governance should come before economic self interest", but what you said is quite different.
Had you asked the real question, we could get into interesting debate about the trade-offs that derive from multilateralism as a tool to reinforce a positive trend vs one that compounds lowest common denominator compromises. Alas...

I am fully cognizant of the power of compound growth, and the 'sovereign' power that derives from shear relative weight.
Brexit puts the trend growth at risk.
I am equally appreciative that this 'power' is only of value if it can be used to pursue the governance you desire, if in fact it leads you further away from the norms and expectations of what the socio-economic compact should be, then that must be recognised as a price.
Ever-closer-union meant staying in the EU had a steep price-tag.

I also realise this calculation is coloured by my own personal preferences; the EU might be seen to reinforce trends that you prefer, such as greater state intervention in achieving equality of outcome using the twin tools of tax and regulation.
If that is your jive, then I would ask for a little self awareness in appreciating that people on the other side of the table might view your enthusiasm for the EU as a lever to achieve that which could not be brought about at the ballot box.

Pannonian

08-06-2018, 08:56

You could be 100% correct about all of that. The logistical breakdown post-Brexit, the hypocracy of the Brexiteers and the tainted nature of the referendum, however...

The decision has been cast, both parties are committed to Brexit. It was the decision made of a non-ideal question posed in a non-ideal world. The fallout will either prove you wrong and life goes on as normal, or prove the Brexiteers wrong and people will clamor to re-join before they starve to death.

Take it from an American who had to accept a President Donald Trump before people started to realize, oh hey maybe the Republican Party really is batshit crazy.

You have the chance of voting out Trump at the end of his term, which is limited by law to 4 years. I don't expect UK membership of the EU within my lifetime. Rees Mogg has said that it may take up to 50 years for the benefits of Brexit to show themselves. That's the kind of timescale you're talking about with Brexit. And as you can see, Brexiteers still won't accept responsibility for the material effects of their decision.

a completely inoffensive name

08-07-2018, 03:17

You have the chance of voting out Trump at the end of his term, which is limited by law to 4 years. I don't expect UK membership of the EU within my lifetime. Rees Mogg has said that it may take up to 50 years for the benefits of Brexit to show themselves. That's the kind of timescale you're talking about with Brexit. And as you can see, Brexiteers still won't accept responsibility for the material effects of their decision.

Rees Mogg is full of shit. You don't trust anything the brexiteers says but you take it at face value when they say "no revisit for 50 years?"

a completely inoffensive name

08-07-2018, 03:37

That is a false dichotomy.
I think what you meant to say "why democratic self governance should come before economic self interest", but what you said is quite different.
Had you asked the real question, we could get into interesting debate about the trade-offs that derive from multilateralism as a tool to reinforce a positive trend vs one that compounds lowest common denominator compromises. Alas...

In my view, you have democratic self governance under the EU.
So I think we are already at the heart of the answer.

If that is your jive, then I would ask for a little self awareness in appreciating that people on the other side of the table might view your enthusiasm for the EU as a lever to achieve that which could not be brought about at the ballot box.
And the dismantling of institutions is in no way a means of affecting change outside of the ballot box?

rory_20_uk

08-07-2018, 09:51

Rees Mogg is full of shit. You don't trust anything the brexiteers says but you take it at face value when they say "no revisit for 50 years?"

Typical confirmation bias. Only those facts - however tenuous - that fit the narrative are good, balanced and true, even when said by the very people described as self serving liars.

You could be 100% correct about all of that. The logistical breakdown post-Brexit, the hypocracy of the Brexiteers and the tainted nature of the referendum, however...

The decision has been cast, both parties are committed to Brexit. It was the decision made of a non-ideal question posed in a non-ideal world. The fallout will either prove you wrong and life goes on as normal, or prove the Brexiteers wrong and people will clamor to re-join before they starve to death.

Take it from an American who had to accept a President Donald Trump before people started to realize, oh hey maybe the Republican Party really is batshit crazy.

The EU is not a strong institution. It is inherently weak. Countries can neither just leave without consequence nor just return when they feel like it - countries might decide they want to return to a system that is solely about trade and not with the massive bureaucratic overheads - and what then would happen to all the EU staff?

The EU is already shrilly saying the UK needs to pay all the pensions for the staff from the UK that work for the EU... as again, just imagine if countries one by one followed and each refused to pay for the overheads? All these politicians, ex-politicians and hangers on would have no one to pay them! And who would they complain to? It would be like any other company that collapsed except no country would have support in place for the failed pension. Every country that left would retain their independence and can't be forced to pay.

This is the true doomsday situation - an entity that requires very little supervision. The horrors of a NAFTA situation where barriers are low, and things just work. What then?

So at the very least, the UK would have to be ritually and publicly humiliated before a return - perhaps Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland join independently (or with powers).

~:smoking:

Husar

08-07-2018, 10:39

The EU is not a strong institution. It is inherently weak. Countries can neither just leave without consequence nor just return when they feel like it - countries might decide they want to return to a system that is solely about trade and not with the massive bureaucratic overheads - and what then would happen to all the EU staff?

You also can't leave a gun club and stop paying the monthly fee without the consequence of not being allowed to shoot there anymore. Booo hooo, how unfair! Some members might even want to return to it bein an archery club, but they can't have it, it's truly terrifying how time moves on and you can't bring knives to a gun fight anymore.

rory_20_uk

08-07-2018, 10:57

You also can't leave a gun club and stop paying the monthly fee without the consequence of not being allowed to shoot there anymore. Booo hooo, how unfair! Some members might even want to return to it bein an archery club, but they can't have it, it's truly terrifying how time moves on and you can't bring knives to a gun fight anymore.

Good response there - both failing to address what I was saying, as well as repeating the falsehood that there are no existing examples of rules being bent.

To address the metaphor you've created, the gun club also requires both funding for the future since well, they want it and how will they pay for what they want without it?

Knives to a gun fight? There you've really lost me. I don't even see why this should be a "fight" at all. The UK is leaving, under the rules that the EU agreed beforehand. Germany has lost possessions before with more grace - they control the rest of Europe!

~:smoking:

Husar

08-07-2018, 11:44

Good response there - both failing to address what I was saying, as well as repeating the falsehood that there are no existing examples of rules being bent.

To address the metaphor you've created, the gun club also requires both funding for the future since well, they want it and how will they pay for what they want without it?

Knives to a gun fight? There you've really lost me. I don't even see why this should be a "fight" at all. The UK is leaving, under the rules that the EU agreed beforehand. Germany has lost possessions before with more grace - they control the rest of Europe!

~:smoking:

You weren't saying a lot, that members lose benefits upon leaving does in no way prove anything is weak.
Rules have indeed been bent, and you know what happens when a country that is already sitting on a bent rule bends it too far? Yes, the rule breaks and the country falls down.

The funding of a gun club doesn't entirely depend on the one and only member who keeps crying about wanting to return to bows and arrows.
The other members might just be aware that bows and arrows won't help a lot against future threats.

If you don't see why this would be a fight at all, maybe you missed Furunculus' posts about how Britain will outcompete every other country in a glorious more competitive future where the market rules all (*totally not neoliberal) and competition between countries is the holy grail of all growth.

See, you could compete by reducing regulation.

How about you introduce fracking for a glorious fossil future?

Furunculus

08-07-2018, 13:28

If you don't see why this would be a fight at all, maybe you missed Furunculus' posts about how Britain will outcompete every other country in a glorious more competitive future where the market rules all (*totally not neoliberal) and competition between countries is the holy grail of all growth.

See, you could compete by reducing regulation.

How about you introduce fracking for a glorious fossil future?

Still following the long and honourable tradition of selectively quoting me, eh?

What I have done is point out that our natural inclination is toward a lower tax/regulation policy regime than tends to be favoured on the continent.
That this is a cause for UK dissatisfaction in the first instance.
But, more importantly, that this inclination will of necessity be reinforced if the exit 'deal' looks to be unduly punitive. I. E. We would further reduce tax/regulation in an effort to maintain competiveness as a response to market barriers.
That this is the choice we're offering; close economic ties in return for maintain a euro-style social democracy, or.... Without close economic ties have a CANZUK style market economy as a neighbour.
In tax/spending terms this would see the gdp value drop from 38% to circa 33%, as apposed to the euro norm or circa 43%.

And let's not forget, what I advocate is close economic ties with a euro style social democracy!

Seamus Fermanagh

08-07-2018, 17:50

Husar

08-07-2018, 18:36

Still following the long and honourable tradition of selectively quoting me, eh?

What I have done is point out that our natural inclination is toward a lower tax/regulation policy regime than tends to be favoured on the continent.
That this is a cause for UK dissatisfaction in the first instance.

I remove parts of your posts that I'm not directly answering to to reduce bloat.
And where does that natural inclination come from?
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40408576

48% say they want higher taxes to pay for more spending on health, education and social benefits; 44% say they want it to stay the same and 4% would like to see taxes cut

So 4% are dissatisfied without tax cuts and that makes it a natural inclination across the entire UK or did I miss something?

That this is the choice we're offering; close economic ties in return for maintain a euro-style social democracy, or.... Without close economic ties have a CANZUK style market economy as a neighbour.
In tax/spending terms this would see the gdp value drop from 38% to circa 33%, as apposed to the euro norm or circa 43%.

And let's not forget, what I advocate is close economic ties with a euro style social democracy!

You can have them, just like Norway does. You also sound like you're holding the well-being of your poor hostage over the EU bending to your will and giving you the access you want on the terms you want without requiring you to give anything in return.

Furunculus

08-07-2018, 20:07

I remove parts of your posts that I'm not directly answering to to reduce bloat.

Not editorialised at all? :D

And where does that natural inclination come from?

Page 292 - what people vote for:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5718201/KS-DU-10-001-EN.PDF/bd63fe10-7339-491f-afcb-08bd4c8daa8b?version=1.0

So 4% are dissatisfied without tax cuts and that makes it a natural inclination across the entire UK or did I miss something?
But, do they vote for more tax? Do they take a more collective view of society that would legitimise more tax (and regulation)?
No.

You can have them, just like Norway does. You also sound like you're holding the well-being of your poor hostage over the EU bending to your will and giving you the access you want on the terms you want without requiring you to give anything in return.
Granted, but we have industries we want to protect. Industries that are disproportionately large in the UK vis a vis the continent, and to which the continent tends to take a more hostile view. Industries which aren't globally managed (and so safe) like goods. In short, services, and fincancial services.

Husar

08-07-2018, 20:44

But, do they vote for more tax? Do they take a more collective view of society that would legitimise more tax (and regulation)?
No.

People's vote is affected by far more than taxation promises, wouldn't you say?

Furunculus

08-07-2018, 22:30

People's vote is affected by far more than taxation promises, wouldn't you say?

absolutely, I would agree.
but long term trends don't lie.

Montmorency

08-08-2018, 00:07

Page 292 - what people vote for:
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5718201/KS-DU-10-001-EN.PDF/bd63fe10-7339-491f-afcb-08bd4c8daa8b?version=1.0

But, do they vote for more tax? Do they take a more collective view of society that would legitimise more tax (and regulation)?
No.

That's misleading. Tax revenue as % of GDP is neither an explicit function of voter choice nor of law/policy - which latter is itself is not an explicit function of voter choice.

I expect those complaining of the EU's democratic deficit are on the case at the home front.

I don't think your pat assertion holds up; if the formula 'more taxes for more services' has the plurality in the UK, we might expect it to be the majority stance across the EU-27.

If people's representatives (in the UK) legislated more in accord with fulfilling their constituents' wishes, you would probably be quite unhappy with that direction.

Pannonian

08-08-2018, 00:28

absolutely, I would agree.
but long term trends don't lie.

Shouldn't the UK be remaining in the EU then? After all, every previous government has been in favour of EU membership, and they all have democratic mandates more concrete than that of Leave, which didn't publish any manifestos.

Fragony

08-08-2018, 06:29

Personally if I could, I would ask the Brexiteers in here to respond to my question about why national pride should come before economic self interest?

Iḿ no Brit, bur why settle for less automity if you don have to, eurocrats immediatly scream national pride and facism but screw that. As for economics for the Netherlands the EU is a hindrance in many ways as not all countries in the EU are as innovative as the Netherland, especially France is an asshole when it comes to that, same with NGOś whose lobbyś are every powerful in Brussels. The worst part is that we could easily leave the EU the financial consequences would be all on them if they start saddle-rattling with tarrifs but national are secondary for politicians as national politics is no more then a starting block.

Furunculus

08-08-2018, 07:04

Shouldn't the UK be remaining in the EU then? After all, every previous government has been in favour of EU membership, and they all have democratic mandates more concrete than that of Leave, which didn't publish any manifestos.

But, do they vote for it?

That's misleading. Tax revenue as % of GDP is neither an explicit function of voter choice nor of law/policy - which latter is itself is not an explicit function of voter choice.
I don't think your pat assertion holds up; if the formula 'more taxes for more services' has the plurality in the UK, we might expect it to be the majority stance across the EU-27.
If people's representatives (in the UK) legislated more in accord with fulfilling their constituents' wishes, you would probably be quite unhappy with that direction.

If you want a better measure of the collective expectation of society, then the level of taxation and the degree to which it is progressive (punitive?), is pretty much up there with the best of them.
You can see the same result from looking at more direct research such as eurobaromoter, i simply couldn't find it on my phone in the five minutes I had to post that comment.

Pannonian

08-08-2018, 07:26

But, do they vote for it?

They voted for governments implementing manifestos favouring EU membership. Did the voters vote for hard Brexit? Which bit of the government's manifesto promised no-deal, and what majority did such a manifesto win?

rory_20_uk

08-08-2018, 09:32

Shouldn't the UK be remaining in the EU then? After all, every previous government has been in favour of EU membership, and they all have democratic mandates more concrete than that of Leave, which didn't publish any manifestos.

In an entrenched system based on first past the post, all three main parties were all to a greater or lesser degree for the EU. Where exactly does that leave choice for the voters - ignoring that most seats are "safe" for one party or another, and given there was up until a shock vote no hint that the EU had any intention of democracy rearing its ugly head, why would this be a bigger issue than any other?

~:smoking:

Pannonian

08-08-2018, 12:16

In an entrenched system based on first past the post, all three main parties were all to a greater or lesser degree for the EU. Where exactly does that leave choice for the voters - ignoring that most seats are "safe" for one party or another, and given there was up until a shock vote no hint that the EU had any intention of democracy rearing its ugly head, why would this be a bigger issue than any other?

~:smoking:

You could always have voted for UKIP. Did you?

BTW, what democratic mandate does no-deal or hard Brexit have? Did the winning party promise such in their manifesto, and what majority did they win?

Furunculus

08-08-2018, 13:07

They voted for governments implementing manifestos favouring EU membership. Did the voters vote for hard Brexit? Which bit of the government's manifesto promised no-deal, and what majority did such a manifesto win?

Funny, I thought the 2017GE was campaigned in the knowledge of the fairly clear direction for brexit...

rory_20_uk

08-08-2018, 13:18

You could always have voted for UKIP. Did you?

BTW, what democratic mandate does no-deal or hard Brexit have? Did the winning party promise such in their manifesto, and what majority did they win?

Perhaps there are more aspects in the normal election cycle than the EU. I also disagree with many of UKIP's positions. So no, I didn't vote for them.

The democratic mandate is what was decided by the politicians who created a digital yes/no vote on the issue. Perhaps politicians were concerned that an alternative voting system with nuance might have ended up with more happy to leave if there was a "soft" Brexit. But then you're in to reinterpreting things to fit your own position.

More voted for "out" than "in". There was nothing on the voting card caveating either position in any way. The decision for the wording was from the party that had been democratically elected in... who had never said they'd do such a thing. But if you want to somehow doubt that mandate, you have to equally doubt the mandate for each and every alteration to the treaty that has been made. You shouldn't pick and choose (although you certainly appear to be doing so).

~:smoking:

Pannonian

08-08-2018, 13:47

Funny, I thought the 2017GE was campaigned in the knowledge of the fairly clear direction for brexit...

So what's the majority of the winning manifesto?

Furunculus

08-08-2018, 15:21

Why don't you go away and quote the tory manifesto section on brexit?

Pannonian

08-08-2018, 17:16

Why don't you go away and quote the tory manifesto section on brexit?

What was the Tory majority from the 2017 general election?

Furunculus

08-08-2018, 22:16

What was the lib-dem majority from GE17?

From wiki:
"The Conservative manifesto committed the party to leaving the single market and customs union, but sought a "deep and special partnership" through a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement. It proposed seeking to remain part of some EU programmes where it would "be reasonable that we make a contribution", staying as a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights over the next parliament, and maintaining the Human Rights Act during Brexit negotiations. Parliament would be able to amend or repeal EU legislation once converted into UK law, and have a vote on the final agreement"

2017
Popular vote 13,636,684
Percentage 42.4%

2015
Popular vote 11,334,226
Percentage 36.9%

2010
Popular vote 10,703,754
Percentage 36.1%

2005:
Popular vote 9,552,436
Percentage 35.2%

2001
Popular vote 10,724,953
Percentage 40.7%

1997
Popular vote 13,518,167
Percentage 43.2%

You have to go back over twenty years before you find an election with a higher percentage of the popular vote.
"But," you say, "labour still received 40% of the popular vote, such a narrow margin obviously changes things..."
"Yes," I reply, "indeed that is so, for they too went out on a manifesto of leaving the single market and [the] customs union!"

Pannonian

08-08-2018, 23:31

You have to go back over twenty years before you find an election with a higher percentage of the popular vote.

If you want to use the popular vote argument, note that the Major government of 92-97 was the most popular in my lifetime in terms of votes. Is it viewed that way in retrospect?

The U.K. would run out of food by this time next year if a no-deal Brexit forced the nation to rely solely on its own produce, a farmers group warned.

British food supplies would be exhausted by Aug. 7, 2019, if the country ate only its own products from Jan. 1, the National Farmers’ Union said Tuesday, highlighting the U.K.’s reliance on imports from the European Union and other regions. The group called for the government to prioritize food security in Brexit negotiations.

U.K. farming “has the potential to be one of the most impacted sectors from a bad Brexit,” NFU President Minette Batters said. “A free and frictionless free trade deal with the EU and access to a reliable and competent workforce for farm businesses is critical to the future of the sector.”

Britain produces just under two-thirds of its own food, according to government figures for 2017, and most of the rest comes from the EU. Concerns about the impact of Brexit are rising as Trade Secretary Liam Fox said this weekend that there was a 60 percent chance that no agreement would be struck before the U.K. leaves the EU in March, although a spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said Monday that an accord is more likely than not.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-07/-bad-brexit-could-starve-britain-by-next-august-farmers-warn

You said that you favour no deal out of those three options mentioned earlier. Can you explain how you'd ensure food security in the event of your favoured scenario? Or do you consider it of minor importance, compared with your "classical liberalism" project?

Furunculus

08-09-2018, 23:23

If you want to use the popular vote argument, note that the Major government of 92-97 was the most popular in my lifetime in terms of votes. Is it viewed that way in retrospect?

You said that you favour no deal out of those three options mentioned earlier. Can you explain how you'd ensure food security in the event of your favoured scenario? Or do you consider it of minor importance, compared with your "classical liberalism" project?

This is a non-sequitur.

My "classical liberalism project" is informed by an understanding that socialism is a great way to spend other peoples money. I am not obliged to accept the moral superiority of your values. This is desperately close to vexatious whining.

Husar

08-10-2018, 00:29

20994

:clown:

Husar

08-10-2018, 00:37

My "classical liberalism project" is informed by an understanding that socialism is a great way to spend other peoples money.

So is capitalism. The corporations are spending the money of their investors and the investors are spending the money of their investors /daddies/underpaid workers, the banks are spending the money of their customers and money that doesn't even really exist on top. The only difference is that in capitalism very few people get to spend everybody else's money and in socialism, more people get the benefits while the profiteers of capitalism still aren't worse off than everybody else...

And that's before we get into the question of whether people actually deserve to own billions of dollars just for having had a nice idea one time.

a completely inoffensive name

08-10-2018, 04:29

spmetla

08-10-2018, 05:05

You would rather pay the 2 grand for a CT Scan like us Yanks over here?

Personally I would rather have them take another 5% from my paycheck and only worry about the results, not my bills.

Would be nice if people who needed a doctor went instead of ignoring it until whatever it is is so bad because they can't afford the co-pay etc...

Montmorency

08-10-2018, 05:10

But, do they vote for it?

If you want a better measure of the collective expectation of society, then the level of taxation and the degree to which it is progressive (punitive?), is pretty much up there with the best of them.
You can see the same result from looking at more direct research such as eurobaromoter, i simply couldn't find it on my phone in the five minutes I had to post that comment.

Well, first, I don't see why, unless you are presuming a close relationship between public weltanschauung and executive wrangling.

Second, even if that were true you should present the actual tax policy rather than an indirect measure like tax revenue as % of GDP; such a measure fluctuates regardless of any government policy, or as a consequence of any government policy other than tax policy.

Third, even if the two above are true, why is a tax rate a good measure of "the collective expectation" of society?

Why does the evidence suggest desire for less social or fiscal intervention rather than more? As far as I have seen, every single successful upstart far-right party in Europe today is anti-austerity as well as white supremacist/identitarian.

Pannonian

08-10-2018, 06:18

This is a non-sequitur.

My "classical liberalism project" is informed by an understanding that socialism is a great way to spend other peoples money. I am not obliged to accept the moral superiority of your values. This is desperately close to vexatious whining.

Does repeating what experts deem to be important issues, backed by what I know of RL, count as vexatious whining? The NFU reckons we'll be running out of homegrown food by this time next year, while you're suggesting putting up barriers to importing food. How do you propose we ensure food security in your favoured scenario of no-deal? Or is your dream of classical liberalism the only thing that matters, and people can go starve if they can't cope? Is wanting to be able to eat deemed socialism?

AE Bravo

08-10-2018, 07:31

Ease up on the rhetorical questions ffs. You do seem like you are whining.

Pannonian

08-10-2018, 07:44

Ease up on the rhetorical questions ffs. You do seem like you are whining.

That's what Leave accused Remain of: "Project Fear". Except that post-referendum, the Leavers are going for a far more drastic option than they'd promised. And the people who know about such things have subsequently postulated a far worse scenario than Remain said would happen, given this changed Leaver stance.

1. Around half of the UK's food supply comes from abroad. By far the majority of the food imports come from elsewhere in the EU.
2. The truckers responsible from bringing in this food supply have said that this will be impractical post-Brexit, either from extreme delays from the customs bottleneck, or from some of them going out of business altogether from the increased overheads.
3. The local authority dealing with the bottleneck are preparing for a far worse queue than they've ever dealt with before, except their worst previous experience happened once in the decade since they'd prepared for it, while they expect this to happen every day post-Brexit until the infrastructure is up. They don't expect the infrastructure to be up for another 5 years, at the soonest.
4. Food retailers have said that stockpiling at their end is not possible.
5. National Farmers' Union have said that, if we rely solely on homegrown food without imports, our food will run out August next year.

Is it whining to say that food is an important issue?

Furunculus

08-10-2018, 07:48

And that's before we get into the question of whether people actually deserve to own billions of dollars just for having had a nice idea one time.

I am not obliged to accept the moral superiority of your values.

Well, first, I don't see why, unless you are presuming a close relationship between public weltanschauung and executive wrangling.
Second, even if that were true you should present the actual tax policy rather than an indirect measure like tax revenue as % of GDP; such a measure fluctuates regardless of any government policy, or as a consequence of any government policy other than tax policy.
Third, even if the two above are true, why is a tax rate a good measure of "the collective expectation" of society?

Why does the evidence suggest desire for less social or fiscal intervention rather than more? As far as I have seen, every single successful upstart far-right party in Europe today is anti-austerity as well as white supremacist/identitarian.

Answer to all three: because I referenced tax:gdp in terms of long-term trend.

I make no claim that 'right-wing' parties must be [both] socially conservative [and] economically liberal. It is a self-evident fact that polish politics (to give one example) cleaves in the opposite direction: with a 'right-wing' socially conservative [and] economically conservative party and a 'left-wing' socially liberal [and] economically liberal. That fascinating little aside dealt with, i'm not sure what relevance the nature of right wing populist parties on the continent have to the broad social compact in the UK which seems to restrict our appetite for tax and regulation at a level noticeably below the norm on the continent.

Furunculus

08-10-2018, 07:50

You would rather pay the 2 grand for a CT Scan like us Yanks over here?

Personally I would rather have them take another 5% from my paycheck and only worry about the results, not my bills.

No, I wouldn't.
I don't think pure-'Murica is a good model to follow.
Equally, I think france with its tax at 50+ percent of GDP is a terrible model.
What I have actually advocated is something closer to the model practiced in Canada or Australia.

The NFU reckons we'll be running out of homegrown food by this time next year, while you're suggesting putting up barriers to importing food.
Or is your dream of classical liberalism the only thing that matters, and people can go starve if they can't cope?

Two points:
1. The customs union [IS] a barrier to importing food!
2. Suggesting that choosing democratic self governance which adopts a canada/australia style open trading environment will lead to starvation is 110% absurdist fantasy.

Pannonian

08-10-2018, 08:16

No, I wouldn't.
I don't think pure-'Murica is a good model to follow.
Equally, I think france with its tax at 50+ percent of GDP is a terrible model.
What I have actually advocated is something closer to the model practiced in Canada or Australia.

Two points:
1. The customs union [IS] a barrier to importing food!
2. Suggesting that choosing democratic self governance which adopts a canada/australia style open trading environment will lead to starvation is 110% absurdist fantasy.

On your point 1: have you listened to that trucker I linked to earlier? He describes the process of going through customs, the timings involved, the documents necessary, etc. He also calls out Kate Hoey as a know-nothing liar for claiming what he knows to be not the case.

On your point 2: the government are saying that, in the event of no-deal, they are downgrading the UK's food supply from abundant (currently) to adequate.

What is your answer to the logistics problem highlighted by experts on the subject? Your suggested solution of stockpiles was shot down by the food retailers who have been asked by the government to do the stockpiling. If you are content to say that it's not your problem but the government's, and the government says there is no satisfactory solution, will you still deny there is a problem?

Husar

08-10-2018, 11:02

I am not obliged to accept the moral superiority of your values.

So now you're selectively quoting me, answering the one part I said we weren't talking about.
And the answer to your answer is that the same also applies in reverse. You can't seem to give any convincing arguments for your neoliberal ideas other than a polemic "you're spending other peoples' money" that doesn't even make sense.

This article is a bit older, but could be relevant to the topic and even our discussion to some extent: https://www.theglobalist.com/british-exceptionalism-and-the-european-union/

The art of compromise, of creating friendships and mutual obligations across a political divide is essential for any continental politician who wants to succeed.

But in the UK, the norm has been majority governments. A British prime minister is used to getting his or her way, whether it be with cabinet, party or Parliament. It breeds a different approach — decide and implement, not discuss and compromise.
[...]
The prevailing political style in Britain also creates leaders who think deeply, but too often in a vacuum. But it doesn’t end there. Having done so, they inevitably convince themselves that they are right and then simply do not know how to interact with people who do not agree.

All of this has created a succession of British prime ministers who are used to dictating events at home. When they get to Brussels and have to negotiate, they founder, with neither diplomatic skills nor prearranged alliances.

Pannonian

08-10-2018, 13:09

So now you're selectively quoting me, answering the one part I said we weren't talking about.
And the answer to your answer is that the same also applies in reverse. You can't seem to give any convincing arguments for your neoliberal ideas other than a polemic "you're spending other peoples' money" that doesn't even make sense.

This article is a bit older, but could be relevant to the topic and even our discussion to some extent: https://www.theglobalist.com/british-exceptionalism-and-the-european-union/

The funny thing is, up until Cameron, every other previous British PM in my lifetime has been unabashedly Europhile, with Thatcher arguably the most Europhilic of them all. I'd point to the increasingly Eurosceptic media as the reason for the confrontational style, and the owners and editors of said media. For a free press to work, it must at least aspire to truthful journalism. When the majority of your press is the equivalent of Infowars, confirming each other and egging each other on, society is going to suffer. Brexit is just the watershed moment.

You know what though. With what we've seen of Facebook, twitter and news via social media, even the bad old conventional media may well be seen as the golden age of journalism compared with what's to come. Leave was probably just the first to seize the moment. How they did so was deeply corrupt, up to and including a hostile foreign government financing the campaign by bribing a local middleman. There should be a proper inquiry into how it happened, and laws updated to make sure democracy regains accountability.

Furunculus

08-10-2018, 13:42

I'd point to the increasingly Eurosceptic media as the reason for the confrontational style, and the owners and editors of said media.

I'd point to ever-closer-union. Simply, that the 1973 gov't leaflet was a lie that could no longer be sustained.

Fragony

08-10-2018, 15:02

The funny thing is, up until Cameron, every other previous British PM in my lifetime has been unabashedly Europhile, with Thatcher arguably the most Europhilic of them all. I'd point to the increasingly Eurosceptic media as the reason for the confrontational style, and the owners and editors of said media. For a free press to work, it must at least aspire to truthful journalism. When the majority of your press is the equivalent of Infowars, confirming each other and egging each other on, society is going to suffer. Brexit is just the watershed moment.

You know what though. With what we've seen of Facebook, twitter and news via social media, even the bad old conventional media may well be seen as the golden age of journalism compared with what's to come. Leave was probably just the first to seize the moment. How they did so was deeply corrupt, up to and including a hostile foreign government financing the campaign by bribing a local middleman. There should be a proper inquiry into how it happened, and laws updated to make sure democracy regains accountability.

An inquiry by who

Pannonian

08-10-2018, 15:07

I'd point to ever-closer-union. Simply, that the 1973 gov't leaflet was a lie that could no longer be sustained.

You what?

Furunculus

08-10-2018, 15:59

You what?

You very reasonably ask me to clarify my rather muddy comment:

Your response was to Husar who was discussing brexit in the context of our adversarial politics, noting the role you believe the british media has played in creating the adversarial style (and perhaps by extension led to brexit).

My response to you (from a brief free moment at work dashed out on a phone - my apologies), is to counter that a fptp majoritarian electoral system is always going to breed an adversarial form of politics (rather than consensual), that our political system has thus always been this way, and that anti-eu sentiment has responded to ever-closer-union rather than ever-more-hostile media.

the reference to the "1973 leaflet" actually referring to the 1975 referendum pamphlet:
http://www.harvard-digital.co.uk/euro/pamphlet.htm

What is your answer to the logistics problem highlighted by experts on the subject? Your suggested solution of stockpiles was shot down by the food retailers who have been asked by the government to do the stockpiling. If you are content to say that it's not your problem but the government's, and the government says there is no satisfactory solution, will you still deny there is a problem?
Your looking at this with all of the soul and vitality of a bureaucrat:
"This change to the existing operating environment will not work within the current fiscal and regulatory regime!"
"No kidding, the current regime was tailored to the existing environment. What we must do is change the regime."

Furunculus

08-10-2018, 16:18

You can't seem to give any convincing arguments for your neoliberal ideas other than a polemic "you're spending other peoples' money" that doesn't even make sense.

This article is a bit older, but could be relevant to the topic and even our discussion to some extent: https://www.theglobalist.com/british-exceptionalism-and-the-european-union/

Not convincing to you, no, apparently not. But fortunately for both of us, we our not obliged to to accept the intellectual and moral foundations of each other's value systems. Not only because we can both agree to disagree under the assent to accept the outcome of common governance, but in our particular case: because we exist in different political entities and so our different views do not compete directly with one another.

There is much to recommend in that article. In the broad strokes it is on the money.
I do take issue with his interpretation of some of the detail:

"In the UK, party manifestos at election time have traditionally been very granular. This gives the British political class a good grip on practicalities, but a correspondingly poor concept of “vision.” The UK prefers to work out the next steps exactly — rather than contemplate what may be on the far horizon.
The more common approach in continental European — not just the French one, but to an extent also the German approach — is to focus on “le grand projet.”
That kind of visioning is sometimes done at the cost of letting the details sort out themselves as they happen, the exact opposite to how the UK approaches things."
I'd say this is far more a consequence of a common-law legal system derived from natural rights, than it is a cosnequence of an adversarial political system.

"The more common approach in continental European — not just the French one, but to an extent also the German approach — is to focus on “le grand projet.”
That kind of visioning is sometimes done at the cost of letting the details sort out themselves as they happen, the exact opposite to how the UK approaches things.
This creates a political class which is good at immediate problem-solving — and poor at vision and long-term planning. As policy issues become ever more complex, that kind of visionless pragmatism is not necessarily an advantage. It lacks the guiding perspective."
Or, to flip the lens the other way around; this big-picture perspective creates inflexible visions of a destination, with no detail how to get there, and no metrics for the political class to assess public acceptance and re calibrate based on the results. The vision is all!

"The prevailing political style in Britain also creates leaders who think deeply, but too often in a vacuum. But it doesn’t end there. Having done so, they inevitably convince themselves that they are right and then simply do not know how to interact with people who do not agree."
Hmmm, this just seems flat out wrong, in that it much better describes the flaws of the 'big picture perspective' than it does the 'visionless pragmatism' of the UK.

Pannonian

08-10-2018, 21:18

Your looking at this with all of the soul and vitality of a bureaucrat:
"This change to the existing operating environment will not work within the current fiscal and regulatory regime!"
"No kidding, the current regime was tailored to the existing environment. What we must do is change the regime."

My question is simple and direct: how do you propose to get food to people? Your suggestion is to change the regime. What does that lead to? Follow your logic and explore the implications, and see if you have an answer for them. Once you change the regime, there will be a frictionful border where there was once a friction-free border. Have you listened to the truck driver I linked to, who explains what goes on at borders? He tells you what goes on at borders, which is what you propose us to change to. How do you propose to deal with the issues he raises?

Furunculus

08-11-2018, 07:41

My question is simple and direct: how do you propose to get food to people? Your suggestion is to change the regime. What does that lead to? Follow your logic and explore the implications, and see if you have an answer for them. Once you change the regime, there will be a frictionful border where there was once a friction-free border. Have you listened to the truck driver I linked to, who explains what goes on at borders? He tells you what goes on at borders, which is what you propose us to change to. How do you propose to deal with the issues he raises?

My reply is even shorter:
In all honesty I haven't watched the video, because while it would be interesting to see the ants-eye-view of global logistics I don't think it will inform brexit very much.
If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

The idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

Husar

08-11-2018, 12:37

Pannonian

08-11-2018, 14:55

My reply is even shorter:
In all honesty I haven't watched the video, because while it would be interesting to see the ants-eye-view of global logistics I don't think it will inform brexit very much.
If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

The idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

If you've listened to him, then you'd know that any assertion of frictionless or near-frictionless logistics at the new border is a fantasy, such as being claimed by every Brexit advocate. He gives concrete details of just what kind of friction there is at present borders, and what frictionlessness is within the single market. That gives a marker of the difference between friction and frictionlessness. Now the job of government is to translate that into larger scales. You don't have to do that; the different levels of government have already done that. The national government expects food shortages, and have asked food retailers to stockpile; the foot retailers have told them this is not possible. The local government have looked at what a future border will mean in the event of no-deal, and have adapted current crisis plans; they predict there will be a queue from Dover to Maidstone and beyond every day until infrastructure is ready, which won't be before 2023 at the soonest. And the National Farmers' Union have said that, if we rely solely on food produced in the UK, we will run out of food by August next year.

What is your answer to these organisations? They're all based on the experience of that lorry driver, so maybe he isn't so irrelevant after all. After all, the Parliamentary report contains a direct transcript of his testimony, so they obviously think he's worth listening to.

Furunculus

08-11-2018, 17:40

So why should anyone trust you or some think tank interns on how to model the UK tax system?

Sorry, but I'll bet my level of knowledge/reading on the subject of brexit over at least 90% of my fellow citizens, and probably 95% of european citizens (given the reduced interest), so forgive me for not giving much of a damn about joe the trucker.

Furunculus

08-11-2018, 17:41

[lots of stuff.......]

What is your answer to these organisations? They're all based on the experience of that lorry driver, so maybe he isn't so irrelevant after all. After all, the Parliamentary report contains a direct transcript of his testimony, so they obviously think he's worth listening to.

My answer is that: the idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

Husar

08-11-2018, 21:57

Sorry, but I'll bet my level of knowledge/reading on the subject of brexit over at least 90% of my fellow citizens, and probably 95% of european citizens (given the reduced interest), so forgive me for not giving much of a damn about joe the trucker.

From the looks of it you read a lot of neoliberal sources about it.
If I told you that I were an expert on religion and cited only scientology sources, people would probably doubt my expertise as well. :shrug:

If you think you know so much better than Joe the Trucker, why do you refuse to even talk about his arguments? Or as you said earlier, Joe the Trucker is right until you prove him wrong. You claim to know better than him and your answers never go to any practical levels, they mostly stay even above theory in the lofty realm of ideology.

It's like someone asks you how to change a tyre and you keep replying that privatizing roads would solve all road-related problems. :dizzy2:

Furunculus

08-11-2018, 22:13

From the looks of it you read a lot of neoliberal sources about it.
If I told you that I were an expert on religion and cited only scientology sources, people would probably doubt my expertise as well. :shrug:

If you think you know so much better than Joe the Trucker, why do you refuse to even talk about his arguments? Or as you said earlier, Joe the Trucker is right until you prove him wrong. You claim to know better than him and your answers never go to any practical levels, they mostly stay even above theory in the lofty realm of ideology.

It's like someone asks you how to change a tyre and you keep replying that privatizing roads would solve all road-related problems. :dizzy2:

lol, look at you; the fount of disinterested objective analysis. still emotionally crippled by an idea. "neoliberalism". i'll let you in on a secret; it just another idea on how to run society that is just as daft and just as sensible as many others, depending on how religiously you practice it. the fact that you berate me on this matter whilst remaining blind to your own prejudice is nothing short of funny.

I don't refuse to debate the idea, because I have never refused to accept that trade would be frictionless. In good measure, becuase trade with the eu has friction, not least in compliance costs. It just happens that this friction is a known known (in rumsfeld speak), which makes people much less fearful than known unknowns. Yes there will be more friction, and the response will be to accommodate and mitigate it.

My earlier response remains germane to the topic: If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

Pannonian

08-11-2018, 22:30

My answer is that: the idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

But you haven't even looked at his experience, let alone the analysis done by government and other bodies based on the experience of people like him. You said that, out of the three options on offer, you would choose no-deal. But you refuse to look at the consequences of no-deal. When no-deal happens, are you going to own responsibility for the consequences of your choice? Or are you going to defer responsibility by passing it onto a government that, after all, is doing exactly what you want?

Montmorency

08-11-2018, 23:30

I am not obliged to accept the moral superiority of your values.

Answer to all three: because I referenced tax:gdp in terms of long-term trend.

I make no claim that 'right-wing' parties must be [both] socially conservative [and] economically liberal. It is a self-evident fact that polish politics (to give one example) cleaves in the opposite direction: with a 'right-wing' socially conservative [and] economically conservative party and a 'left-wing' socially liberal [and] economically liberal. That fascinating little aside dealt with, i'm not sure what relevance the nature of right wing populist parties on the continent have to the broad social compact in the UK which seems to restrict our appetite for tax and regulation at a level noticeably below the norm on the continent.

If the point is about what degree of collectivity the populace will demand, and counting levels of taxation - levels of taxation as such, not mediated through indirect measures - as one measure of collectivity among many, then the clear indication in Europe today, including the UK, is that people want more collectivity.

It could well be that the UK has an absolute lower baseline for taxation than the Continent, but this wouldn't impinge on a situation where both the UK and the Continent want to increase taxation and government intervention beyond current levels (recalling that even your sneering "neoliberalism" demands more government intervention, albeit restrictively in defense of market actors).

My answer is that: the idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

You keep saying that. How do we know you are right, putting assertion against evidence? Moreover, why should we accept the premise that the choice is between "democratic self-governance" on one hand and staying in the EU on the other? As I've belabored, perhaps there is no democratic dividend in leaving?

Husar

08-12-2018, 01:24

lol, look at you; the fount of disinterested objective analysis. still emotionally crippled by an idea. "neoliberalism". i'll let you in on a secret; it just another idea on how to run society that is just as daft and just as sensible as many others, depending on how religiously you practice it. the fact that you berate me on this matter whilst remaining blind to your own prejudice is nothing short of funny.

Says the guy who didn't even know what that is and then couldn't explain how his views are different from it after claiming they were...
And no, I don't think it's "just another idea" just like slavery isn't "just another idea on how to run society". Now you're just using some vague moral equivalence argument to justify ending democracy. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised considering your country's immature politics still see room for a queen and politicians incapable of negotiation...

I don't refuse to debate the idea, because I have never refused to accept that trade would be frictionless. In good measure, becuase trade with the eu has friction, not least in compliance costs. It just happens that this friction is a known known (in rumsfeld speak), which makes people much less fearful than known unknowns. Yes there will be more friction, and the response will be to accommodate and mitigate it.

If you don't refuse to accept that trade would be frictionless, why do you mention all the friction?
The problem here is that mitigating a problem does not entirely solve it, it only makes it less severe. You still have a problem in the end.

My earlier response remains germane to the topic: If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

There's a difference between listening to someone's input and making someone the senior project architect.

Pannonian

08-12-2018, 01:54

lol, look at you; the fount of disinterested objective analysis. still emotionally crippled by an idea. "neoliberalism". i'll let you in on a secret; it just another idea on how to run society that is just as daft and just as sensible as many others, depending on how religiously you practice it. the fact that you berate me on this matter whilst remaining blind to your own prejudice is nothing short of funny.

I don't refuse to debate the idea, because I have never refused to accept that trade would be frictionless. In good measure, becuase trade with the eu has friction, not least in compliance costs. It just happens that this friction is a known known (in rumsfeld speak), which makes people much less fearful than known unknowns. Yes there will be more friction, and the response will be to accommodate and mitigate it.

My earlier response remains germane to the topic: If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

Have you looked at the accommodations and mitigations, and related them to food? There are specific problems relating to friction in no-deal, which can be seen concretely in that lorry driver's testimony, and extrapolated to a larger scale in the government's planned response. Just about all the evidence you cite comes from IEA and other think tanks, which speak in terms of ivory tower theory (that's without taking into account whom they've been bought by). Have you tried looking at concrete evidence? Literally, in KCC's case, although personnel is a pretty big issue too, as seen in that parliamentary report.

Furunculus

08-12-2018, 07:03

But you haven't even looked at his experience, [b]let alone the analysis done by government and other bodies based on the experience of people like him. [/b[]

that is supposition on your part.
i've been reading brexit papers for years now.
have you read flexcit?

recalling that even your sneering "neoliberalism"

what is the purpose of this statement?

Now you're just using some vague moral equivalence argument to justify ending democracy. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised considering your country's immature politics still see room for a queen and politicians incapable of negotiation...

Just... lol. Nothing more. Nothing more is required.

Husar

08-12-2018, 13:58

Just... lol. Nothing more. Nothing more is required.

You still don't quite understand that one article I linked.
There's really nothing we can do though, on that I am starting to agree.

Montmorency

08-12-2018, 21:54

what is the purpose of this statement?

Because whenever you have referred to someone's use of the word "neoliberal(ism)", you sounded like you're sneering it. :shrug:

i've been reading brexit papers for years now.
have you read flexcit?

No, but I just read this piece called "Flexcit is dead (https://medium.com/@WhiteWednesday/flexcit-is-dead-bd1b9ae81cd7)", and I figure that's just as good. :beam:

Furunculus

08-12-2018, 22:34

Because whenever you have referred to someone's use of the word "neoliberal(ism)", you sounded like you're sneering it. :shrug:

No, but I just read this piece called "Flexcit is dead (https://medium.com/@WhiteWednesday/flexcit-is-dead-bd1b9ae81cd7)", and I figure that's just as good. :beam:
I do find the conspiracy of neoliberalism funny, but no more or less funny than the left wing equivalent I mentioned nearly a month ago; Common Purpose, which sunk without trace in these hallowed halls of disinterested objectivism. If anything I sneer at a blinkered fear.

If you had read it - four hundred odd pages on the detail and intricacy of the regulatory environment of the single market and customs union - you'd understand why I feel like i have nothing to learn from joe the trucker. Video is such a low bandwidth medium, the message needs to be pretty bloody compelling before I'll spend the time absorbing that over the written word. In a similar vein to how I regarded with amusement the apparent equivalence of a three minute youtube flash animation on the joys of high taxation as compared to 80 pages of dense text on the opposite theory.

Pannonian

08-12-2018, 22:42

that is supposition on your part.
i've been reading brexit papers for years now.
have you read flexcit?

I quoted one of the authors of Flexcit earlier in the thread, disowning Brexit as it is being implemented by the government. Ironically, for all that you're citing Flexcit as a practical implementation of Brexit, your preferred option of no-deal is even further from Flexcit as its authors envisaged it.

So, given a choice between Remain, SM/CU and no-deal, would you still choose no-deal as you'd previously said you would?

Pannonian

08-12-2018, 22:45

I do find the conspiracy of neoliberalism funny, but no more or less funny than the left wing equivalent I mentioned nearly a month ago; Common Purpose, which sunk without trace in these hallowed halls of disinterested objectivism. If anything I sneer at a blinkered fear.

If you had read it - four hundred odd pages on the detail and intricacy of the regulatory environment of the single market and customs union - you'd understand why I feel like i have nothing to learn from joe the trucker. Video is such a low bandwidth medium, the message needs to be pretty bloody compelling before I'll spend the time absorbing that over the written word. In a similar vein to how I regarded with amusement the apparent equivalence of a three minute youtube flash animation on the joys of high taxation as compared to 80 pages of dense text on the opposite theory.

Why don't you read that parliamentary report that contains a transcription of your despised Joe the trucker? The select committee evidently regard his testimony rather higher than you do.

Montmorency

08-12-2018, 22:49

I do find the conspiracy of neoliberalism funny, but no more or less funny than the left wing equivalent I mentioned nearly a month ago; Common Purpose, which sunk without trace in these hallowed halls of disinterested objectivism. If anything I sneer at a blinkered fear.

If you had read it - four hundred odd pages on the detail and intricacy of the regulatory environment of the single market and customs union - you'd understand why I feel like i have nothing to learn from joe the trucker. Video is such a low bandwidth medium, the message needs to be pretty bloody compelling before I'll spend the time absorbing that over the written word. In a similar vein to how I regarded with amusement the apparent equivalence of a three minute youtube flash animation on the joys of high taxation as compared to 80 pages of dense text on the opposite theory.

It's not a conspiracy, it's rotten ideology. You seem to sneer at anything that disrupts the comfort of pure ideology.

Again, if the length of the text is what confers virtue and credibility, then Das Kapital exists.

Furunculus

08-13-2018, 07:51

I quoted one of the authors of Flexcit earlier in the thread, disowning Brexit as it is being implemented by the government. Ironically, for all that you're citing Flexcit as a practical implementation of Brexit, your preferred option of no-deal is even further from Flexcit as its authors envisaged it.

So, given a choice between Remain, SM/CU and no-deal, would you still choose no-deal as you'd previously said you would?

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

Why threaten no deal? Because:
1. Every negotiation is only as strong as its ability to walk away.
2. This [IS] a power struggle. We are a significant actor, and it is in the EU's interest to contain and control us. This is geopolitics 101.
3. Because if we're forced into a bad deal, it will poison UK:EU relations and our domestic politics for a generation. Nobody, least of all you, wants that outcome!

Chequers achieves:
1. No regression of flanking policies, which is better than full adherence
2. Common rule-book for Goods, but freedom for Services
3. The ability to join TTIP, which is a worthy goal for geopolitical reasons alone (europe will be a backwater in the 21st century, all the fun will be in asia)

That all said:
1. As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above
2. As long as it retains our geopolitical freedom then i'm happy to compromise on the details, i.e. no unilateral guillotine on access as a threat
3. If we can't achieve the above, then yes, I am content that no-deal is the only way forward.

I have a feeling - much like earlier debates - this is a post I will be referring back to regularly as a result of being serially misrepresented in succeeding months.
p.s. Flexcit - life is complicated; I can recognise the merit of the authors work without needing to agree with everything he says. Presumably you are the same, given that he advocates brexit for many of the same reasons I do?

Pannonian

08-13-2018, 17:12

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

That leaves the UK with three options: 1. “Soft Brexit”, which means paying the EU to obey almost all its rules, accepting “the status of colony”, as Johnson says, and forgoing trade deals. 2. No-deal Brexit: crashing out of the EU, queues at the border, flights grounded, the Royal Air Force delivering food and medicines etc. 3. No Brexit.

If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take option 2, thanks.

"If that is all that is on offer, then I'll take (No-deal Brexit), thanks."

SMCU is the minimum necessary for frictionless trading/import of food. As you've said that you won't accept that above, but you'll accept no-deal, please explain how you'll get around the problems raised by the people who've looked at the logistics. And if you don't want to lower yourself to listen to Joe the trucker, perhaps you could manage reading the parliamentary report which transcribes him.

Furunculus

08-13-2018, 18:09

And this because... Barnier said so?

Pannonian

08-13-2018, 20:24

And this because... Barnier said so?

The rules were there even before Barnier was appointed.

Have you listened to Joe the trucker, or read any of the experts on the logistics situation yet? With you and other followers of the ERG ruling out the minimum required for frictionless trade, how do you propose to resolve the logistics issue? Does IEA say anything on how the logistics issue may be solved? You know, apart from handwaving it away.

Furunculus

08-13-2018, 21:40

Montmorency

08-14-2018, 01:16

"My preferred option" is not no deal, despite your best efforts to spin it so.

And you of course know this to be the case because:
1. I have said that 52:48 is not decisive enough to justify the fundamental transformation of society as a first goal.
2. I have said that I am quite happy to trade a close economic relationship for a continuance of the social democratic model.
3. I have said I would be quite content to see something akin to chequers.

See, this is what I mean. You talk in Platonic ideals even as you admit elsewhere that they will not and can not be instantiated.

What you say you prefer doesn't matter! If I say I prefer going on a date with this celebrity over that celebrity, well, I'm not going on any dates with celebrities, am I?

"Though the claith were bad, blythely may we niffer; gin we get a wab, it makes little differ" ends up a churlish philosophy.

Why not the customs Union? Because:
1. I see the EU has having a naturally protectionist bent, which is why coffee beans have a 5% tariff but ground coffee has a 25% tariff.
2. Trade is a tool of foreign policy.... which would be in the EU's hands rather than our own, and I like our activist foreign policy.
3. Because it is in no way necessary to achieve EFTA, which is a desirable body to influence via membership.

Why not the Single Market? Because:
1. While I have no problem with goods (globally governed anyway), there is no moral or rational justification to for losing control of Services regulation.
2. As well as a general hostility to Services which we do not share, it is once again a tool of foreign policy that I do not want to see slowly suffocated.
3. Because it comes with the flanking policies of social, employment and climate change regulation, the first two of which are first-order reasons to leave.

EU tariff rate, applied, weighted mean, all products (2016): 2%

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TM.TAX.MRCH.WM.AR.ZS

Elsewhere, you don't seem to prize any non-tariff barriers or their benefits. The UK is not going to drop all technical barriers to trade outside the EU - in fact, it's not really possible for any WTO member to do so - so you must have some priorities. What EU barriers are especially onerous that you think the UK will slough off outside it? And as you touch on below any deal requires the UK to abide by those barriers anyway...

So if goods don't matter to you, why would barriers to goods that exist regardless of membership matter to you?

Is UK activist foreign policy more efficacious in or out of the EU really? This is of course a separate question than "Can the UK subsist outside the EU", which has always been almost-certainly yes.

As long as it achieves the core aims of democratic self-governance I'm not religious about any of the technical items above

Why is rule by oligarchs and plutocrats better and more democratic than (alleged, eventual) rule by "Eurocrats"? Over the years I judge this to be one of the least coherent positions you take.

Pannonian

08-14-2018, 05:56

you're still living firmly in the realm of absurdist fantasy.

1. I am not 'with' the ERG, I am with chequers.
2. Why does trade have to be [absolutely] frictionless? You are more than willing to accept a great deal of friction with 55% of our trade, through the great EU (non-) tariff wall, are you not? Even accepting that EU trade is frictionless (which I don't - because oh boy, does it come a cost!), what is so terrible for all the extra-eu importers to the UK?

you're a full on outrage factory, and it's more than a trifle amusing.

2. Have you listened to that truck driver? He describes, in concrete detail, the difference between frictioned border and frictionless border. You've only talked about theory so far, and refuse to look at concrete details. The parliamentary report I cite talks about concrete details, plans, and consequences of those plans. How is your theory more trustworthy than said parliamentary report?

Pannonian

08-14-2018, 06:01

Furunculus

08-14-2018, 08:01

See, this is what I mean. You talk in Platonic ideals even as you admit elsewhere that they will not and can not be instantiated.

What you say you prefer doesn't matter! If I say I prefer going on a date with this celebrity over that celebrity, well, I'm not going on any dates with celebrities, am I?

Says who? We have yet to find out what is achievable in this negotiation.
There are rumours that the EU is willing to separate Goods from Services, that is just the start.

Why is rule by oligarchs and plutocrats better and more democratic than (alleged, eventual) rule by "Eurocrats"? Over the years I judge this to be one of the least coherent positions you take.

Legitimacy derives from [both] representation [and] accountability.
Factors that will always be more achievable in smaller, closer, more coherent polities.

2. Have you listened to that truck driver? He describes, in concrete detail, the difference between frictioned border and frictionless border. You've only talked about theory so far, and refuse to look at concrete details. The parliamentary report I cite talks about concrete details, plans, and consequences of those plans. How is your theory more trustworthy than said parliamentary report?

I think I told you I have read Flexcit (to mention but one!), have you?

Unfortunately, this isn't talking about dates with celebrities. If only it were that inconsequential. Furunculus is parroting the arguments of the ERG, who are the driving faction in government on this issue, having already forced the PM to change her supposedly final offer to the EU in order to ensure no-deal. See how Furunculus also sets up red lines in such a manner as to preclude any possible deal, couching them in terms of theory, and arguing that any deviation from this theory is the fault of the EU, thus pushing for no-deal whilst blaming the EU for eventual no-deal. See Jacob Rees Mogg for the archetype of this.

I'm enjoying you trying to paint me as an extremist, but I believe my stated position to be the very soul of sweet reason.
It is you that is the extremist.

Husar

08-14-2018, 16:23

Legitimacy derives from [both] representation [and] accountability.
Factors that will always be more achievable in smaller, closer, more coherent polities.

Why should this be applied to governments but not corporations? Isn't a nation like the UK too big then anyway?
Humans are thought to be incapable of having more than around 200 acquaintances after all. Everything beyond that would not be a close community to me.

Furunculus

08-14-2018, 17:32

Why should this be applied to governments but not corporations? Isn't a nation like the UK too big then anyway?
Humans are thought to be incapable of having more than around 200 acquaintances after all. Everything beyond that would not be a close community to me.

That's someone else's argument for a quite different discussion.

More generally, on the increasing potential for corrupt disinterest of larger and more diverse political units; sure, this is why we tend to like devolution.

Husar

08-14-2018, 18:20

That's someone else's argument for a quite different discussion.

I find the answers are relevant to the topic since you're only discussing one side of the topic here but the other is quite relevant to how much sense your argument makes in itself. If you downsize government to become more democratic, but end up having your democracy upended by powerful corporate, undemocratic interests, then your argument for downsizing due to democracy concerns makes zero sense. The level of government alone does not necessarily say anything about the level of democracy, so you can't link the two as though they were directly related. A small tribe isn't automatically more democratic than a nation state of many tribes.

If your argument is correct, then anarchy, with every man for himself, should be ultimate legitimacy, no?
But why then, does anarchy always lead to a formation of factions and why do factions tend to grow or become absorbed?
Where do you draw the line as the best size of government and how do you maintain it against larger, hostile factions?

Furunculus

08-14-2018, 18:41

I find the answers are relevant to the topic since you're only discussing one side of the topic here but the other is quite relevant to how much sense your argument makes in itself. If you downsize government to become more democratic, but end up having your democracy upended by powerful corporate, undemocratic interests, then your argument for downsizing due to democracy concerns makes zero sense. The level of government alone does not necessarily say anything about the level of democracy, so you can't link the two as though they were directly related. A small tribe isn't automatically more democratic than a nation state of many tribes.

If your argument is correct, then anarchy, with every man for himself, should be ultimate legitimacy, no?
But why then, does anarchy always lead to a formation of factions and why do factions tend to grow or become absorbed?
Where do you draw the line as the best size of government and how do you maintain it against larger, hostile factions?
My point previous was in reference to devolution, and that in response to size and diversity of the population governed, not the size of government.

And no, that would not be a liberal conclusion of society should run.

Pannonian

08-14-2018, 19:41

I think I told you I have read Flexcit (to mention but one!), have you?

If the original advocates of Flexcit have disowned Brexit as it is transpiring, does the theory still hold water? NB. the salient part of Flexcit is that we should remain inside all EU institutions for 10 years or so while we build new replacements. They've disowned Brexit because it is abandoning this in favour of an immediate and total withdrawal from all important institutions. Why do you continue advocating Flexcit, whilst discounting continued membership of SMCU? Your latter stance is the antithesis of the former.

Furunculus

08-14-2018, 19:46

If the original advocates of Flexcit have disowned Brexit as it is transpiring, does the theory still hold water? NB. the salient part of Flexcit is that we should remain inside all EU institutions for 10 years or so while we build new replacements. They've disowned Brexit because it is abandoning this in favour of an immediate and total withdrawal from all important institutions. Why do you continue advocating Flexcit, whilst discounting continued membership of SMCU? Your latter stance is the antithesis of the former.

As already mentioned: it covers these complex trade and border issues in an ENORMOUS amount more detail than joe the trucker, which you keep on asking me to watch. It is in that context I bring it up.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-15-2018, 01:15

Montmorency

08-15-2018, 01:45

Says who? We have yet to find out what is achievable in this negotiation.
There are rumours that the EU is willing to separate Goods from Services, that is just the start.

So your understanding of negotiations is the same as it was 2 years ago? What could you possibly mean by this?

Legitimacy derives from [both] representation [and] accountability.
Factors that will always be more achievable in smaller, closer, more coherent polities.

You speak in a relaxed, desultory, impersonal manner - like it's a game to you. Like you're arguing for a certain boardgame rule set, even as the your "polity" and the people that make it up are subjected to a different one.

As already mentioned: it covers these complex trade and border issues in an ENORMOUS amount more detail than joe the trucker, which you keep on asking me to watch. It is in that context I bring it up.

Then apply some of that detail. If Flexit has not been rendered obsolescent, as even many of its early floggers seem to say now, then don't just invoke the idea of Flexcit as a document, or the idea of Flexcit as an idea: apply it.

What does Flexcit have to say about logistics, and why is it right? Since you've read it cover-to-cover so many times.

If this is such a horrid thing, why hasn't someone pushed for a vote of no confidence, and elect a new majority that insists on AoP reversing the referendum?

If not willing to repudiate it, then England pretty much has to lump it, take the economic hit, re-establish the borders and move forward.

The EU has few practical reasons to let England down easy in this, and several political lessons to teach other would-be leavers by telling England to go pound sand.

It is what it is.

The Catastrophe Paradox asserts a correct observation of human behavior to be that we tend to take decisive action against a threat only after the worst has come to pass: inertia.

Pannonian

08-15-2018, 05:55

If this is such a horrid thing, why hasn't someone pushed for a vote of no confidence, and elect a new majority that insists on AoP reversing the referendum?

If not willing to repudiate it, then England pretty much has to lump it, take the economic hit, re-establish the borders and move forward.

The EU has few practical reasons to let England down easy in this, and several political lessons to teach other would-be leavers by telling England to go pound sand.

It is what it is.

Because the main parties have put party ahead of country, and they all have reason to go with Brexit for one reason or another. The ERG faction are well placed to take advantage of disaster capitalism, a la the oligarchs in Yeltsin's Russia. May thought she'd increase her majority in 2017 and failed, and won't gamble again. Labour and SNP both hope for a disaster so they can profit politically, with Labour hoping for government of the UK and the SNP hoping for Scottish independence to get away from England and towards Europe.

The current likelihood is that we will go out in the most radical way possible, one that the Brexiteers assured us would not happen, and go crawling back to Brussels within a short while as the results play themselves out. And the EU27 won't have any sympathy.

Pannonian

08-15-2018, 06:06

As already mentioned: it covers these complex trade and border issues in an ENORMOUS amount more detail than joe the trucker, which you keep on asking me to watch. It is in that context I bring it up.

The Flexcit creators have already disowned Flexcit. What don't you get about this? All the detail you talk about was contingent on a certain scenario happening. And the ERG-driven Brexit, that you support, has made this scenario unlikely, with all the arguments you make turning against this scenario. With this being the case, they've declared that Flexcit cannot work, and that they've turned against Brexit as a result. So why are you still citing Flexcit as the way forward? They, being the creators, know more about Flexcit than anyone else, even you. a supposed fan.

BTW, why are you so reluctant to take the evidence of Joe the trucker? His testimony is deemed good enough for parliament to base their discussion on, yet it's not good enough for Furunculus? What do you say to the conclusions of the local and national governments, food retailers, logistics union, etc.? Are they unreliable compared with the IEA as well?

Furunculus

08-15-2018, 07:52

So your understanding of negotiations is the same as it was 2 years ago? What could you possibly mean by this?

What is not to understand? I was responding to this:
"See, this is what I mean. You talk in Platonic ideals even as you admit elsewhere that they will not and can not be instantiated. What you say you prefer doesn't matter!"
The implicit suggestion that we are in a take it or leave it situation. I disagree; I believe we are in a negotiation, and that valuable compromise can emerge.
Is this confusing?

You speak in a relaxed, desultory, impersonal manner - like it's a game to you. Like you're arguing for a certain boardgame rule set, even as the your "polity" and the people that make it up are subjected to a different one.

Politics is my hobby, I enjoy analysing it. It helps no-one (least of all me), if i am hugely emotionally invested in the things I am trying to analyse. I appreciate Pan is in a different place, he just wants things tomorrow to be broadly the same as today. So our current situation with all its poised potential energy must be very distressing.

Then apply some of that detail. If Flexit has not been rendered obsolescent, as even many of its early floggers seem to say now, then don't just invoke the idea of Flexcit as a document, or the idea of Flexcit as an idea: apply it.

I think the Gov't already did that, they counter-proposed chequers. Now we have to see how that is received.

The Catastrophe Paradox asserts a correct observation of human behavior to be that we tend to take decisive action against a threat only after the worst has come to pass: inertia.
Like staying in the EU to the point where we are so enmeshed politically socially and economically that it is impossible to leave... even thought it is constitutionally just a formal letter away?

Furunculus

08-15-2018, 08:05

The Flexcit creators have already disowned Flexcit. What don't you get about this? All the detail you talk about was contingent on a certain scenario happening. And the ERG-driven Brexit, that you support, has made this scenario unlikely, with all the arguments you make turning against this scenario. With this being the case, they've declared that Flexcit cannot work, and that they've turned against Brexit as a result. So why are you still citing Flexcit as the way forward? They, being the creators, know more about Flexcit than anyone else, even you. a supposed fan.

Have the flexcit creators disowned flexcit?

Pannonian

08-15-2018, 22:02

The logistics people have criticised the Transport secretary for being clueless about their industry, which is critical to the movement of goods across the UK and borders. They raised the issue of certification in the case of no-deal, and the minister "looked at me like I was talking in a foreign language." This was, as anyone who's listened to Joe the trucker would know, one of the key issues that said trucker noted that would make logistics post-no-deal practical or not. Oh, and said haulage reps deem Operation Brock, the post-Brexit update of Operation Stack, to be unworkable. They also raised various other issues with Grayling that Joe the trucker had already talked about on that clip I pointed you to.

Do you want to listen to what Joe the trucker has to say now? Or do you reckon that all haulage people, even those who represent the whole industry, to be unworthy of your attention, unlike your IEA think tanks?

Montmorency

08-16-2018, 13:03

What is not to understand? I was responding to this:
"See, this is what I mean. You talk in Platonic ideals even as you admit elsewhere that they will not and can not be instantiated. What you say you prefer doesn't matter!"
The implicit suggestion that we are in a take it or leave it situation. I disagree; I believe we are in a negotiation, and that valuable compromise can emerge.
Is this confusing?

I'm not referring to the very availability of compromise but of the foreclosure on specific scenarios or features of compromise by this time. You don't think whatever seemed possible in 2016 must be available now, do you?

Politics is my hobby, I enjoy analysing it. It helps no-one (least of all me), if i am hugely emotionally invested in the things I am trying to analyse. I appreciate Pan is in a different place, he just wants things tomorrow to be broadly the same as today. So our current situation with all its poised potential energy must be very distressing.

I get it, it's what all of us do here in the end. But you have to realize at some point that the policies one advocates for can have significant repercussions and affect millions of lives. It's not just something that happens on paper or to satisfy an ideological preference, even if the way we talk about things can sometimes suggest that impression.

I think the Gov't already did that, they counter-proposed chequers. Now we have to see how that is received.

Doesn't tell us much about Flexcit. Did the government make an argument on the basis of Flexcit? And what is "chequers"? If you're referring to the PM, isn't the PM a member of the government? Clarify your terminology please.

Like staying in the EU to the point where we are so enmeshed politically socially and economically that it is impossible to leave... even thought it is constitutionally just a formal letter away?

You're technically on point in that, as I argued on the basis of the construction of a "single economy" being so complex an undertaking, that attempting to extricate one party should have been understood from the outset as too frictional to contemplate naively. Clearly the longer one is a member the more difficult departure becomes. But then if one believes in the value of not continuing in the EU one should be willing to accept the articulation of whatever costs there may be to Exit and 'take it like an adult'.

Pannonian

08-16-2018, 13:20

I'm not referring to the very availability of compromise but of the foreclosure on specific scenarios or features of compromise by this time. You don't think whatever seemed possible in 2016 must be available now, do you?

I get it, it's what all of us do here in the end. But you have to realize at some point that the policies one advocates for can have significant repercussions and affect millions of lives. It's not just something that happens on paper or to satisfy an ideological preference, even if the way we talk about things can sometimes suggest that impression.

Doesn't tell us much about Flexcit. Did the government make an argument on the basis of Flexcit? And what is "chequers"? If you're referring to the PM, isn't the PM a member of the government? Clarify your terminology please.

You're technically on point in that, as I argued on the basis of the construction of a "single economy" being so complex an undertaking, that attempting to extricate one party should have been understood from the outset as too frictional to contemplate naively. Clearly the longer one is a member the more difficult departure becomes. But then if one believes in the value of not continuing in the EU one should be willing to accept the articulation of whatever costs there may be to Exit and 'take it like an adult'.

"Chequers" is the recent supposedly final position from the PM, thrashed out over a weekend at the PM's retreat, with all cabinet ministers locked in until they could agree on a position. 3 ministers resigned as a result of that, and the ERG forced the supposedly final position to move towards the ERG's position, with demands that make any compromise with the EU27 impossible, and no-deal more likely. So when Furunculus talks about "Chequers", he might mean May's Chequers position, or Rees-Mogg's Chequers position. I suspect the latter.

And while Furunculus has disdained listening to "Joe the trucker" as his weltanshaung is far too close to the ground to be of use, the reps of the logistics industry, on whom the UK's food supply depends, have made clear their contempt for the Transport minister, who does not understand the issues that "Joe the trucker" raised, which are central to the workability of the logistics industry. NB. anyone talking about tariffs and nothing else is completely missing the point. Tariffs is the easiest bit to work around. It's everything else, especially the bits raised by "Joe the trucker", that is impossible in the case of no-deal.

Furunculus

08-16-2018, 22:23

I'm not referring to the very availability of compromise but of the foreclosure on specific scenarios or features of compromise by this time. You don't think whatever seemed possible in 2016 must be available now, do you?
I continue to [hope] that a satisfactory compromise can be found for both parties. I have always known that this would be a classic geopolitical power-struggle, with the EU keen to keep britain firmly within its sphere of power. I accept that the consequence may be that there is no acceptable compromise. Nothing is decided until everything is decided, that is the EU mantra.

I get it, it's what all of us do here in the end. But you have to realize at some point that the policies one advocates for can have significant repercussions and affect millions of lives. It's not just something that happens on paper or to satisfy an ideological preference, even if the way we talk about things can sometimes suggest that impression.
I get that too, but I have always had the decency to accept the choice to remain (and yes; even to go full federal), as a legitimate and moral choice. One that I do not agree with, but so what. That common decency has rarely been reciprocated, so forgive me for being a little blase after x number of wasted pages in this thread playing your game defending my legitimate political preferences.
Preferring more or less tax/regulation are legitimate choice in national politics, it is no less legitimate in european politics.

Doesn't tell us much about Flexcit. Did the government make an argument on the basis of Flexcit? And what is "chequers"? If you're referring to the PM, isn't the PM a member of the government? Clarify your terminology please.
As already explained:
1. "it [flexcit] covers these complex trade and border issues in an ENORMOUS amount more detail than joe the trucker, which you keep on asking me to watch. It is in that context I bring it up."
2. "Flexcit - life is complicated; I can recognise the merit of the authors work without needing to agree with everything he says. Presumably you are the same, given that he advocates brexit for many of the same reasons I do?"
Flexcit is a deep look at the complexities of a post brexit world, it's worth reading and understanding, but I don't hold it against the government for trying to do better than eea+cu for the reasons I mentioned in the last page.

You're technically on point in that, as I argued on the basis of the construction of a "single economy" being so complex an undertaking, that attempting to extricate one party should have been understood from the outset as too frictional to contemplate naively. Clearly the longer one is a member the more difficult departure becomes. But then if one believes in the value of not continuing in the EU one should be willing to accept the articulation of whatever costs there may be to Exit and 'take it like an adult'.
I think I have done exactly that.

Furunculus

08-16-2018, 22:28

p.s. an excellent watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUhjB0Gzsog&feature=youtu.be

Fragony

08-17-2018, 09:38

p.s. an excellent watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUhjB0Gzsog&feature=youtu.be

Not known to you? The trade outside the Eurozone is bigger than the trade in it for you Brits. If you squueze numbers the EU is holding you back

Husar

08-17-2018, 10:43

Not known to you? The trade outside the Eurozone is bigger than the trade in it for you Brits. If you squueze numbers the EU is holding you back

Exactly. Let's say oyu have a pie and 60% of that pie is lemon pie from your aunt and 40% of that pie is strawberry pie from your uncle. If you throw the 40% of strawberry pie into the trash, your pie is unshackled and there is more pie for everyone because now you have 100% lemon pie!

Pannonian

08-17-2018, 11:54

Not known to you? The trade outside the Eurozone is bigger than the trade in it for you Brits. If you squueze numbers the EU is holding you back

If you think the UK post-Brexit is going to be such a lovely place to live in, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and join us? The leading Brexiteering politicians have certainly put their money where their mouth is; by looking for exit plans for themselves and their money inside the EU27. Even Rees-Mogg's company is advising clients on how to "protect them from the effects of Brexit".

Fragony

08-17-2018, 11:56

Exactly. Let's say oyu have a pie and 60% of that pie is lemon pie from your aunt and 40% of that pie is strawberry pie from your uncle. If you throw the 40% of strawberry pie into the trash, your pie is unshackled and there is more pie for everyone because now you have 100% lemon pie!

All I ask from you is to read that out loud three times without feeling stupid

Gilrandir

08-17-2018, 12:54

Exactly. Let's say oyu have a pie and 60% of that pie is lemon pie from your aunt and 40% of that pie is strawberry pie from your uncle. If you throw the 40% of strawberry pie into the trash, your pie is unshackled and there is more pie for everyone because now you have 100% lemon pie!

Give me the recipe of the pie that is partly lemon and partly strawberry.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-17-2018, 20:03

Give me the recipe of the pie that is partly lemon and partly strawberry.

Actually, a good dash of lemon juice while macerating the berries enhances the flavor of the pie.

Pannonian

08-17-2018, 21:01

Actually, a good dash of lemon juice while macerating the berries enhances the flavor of the pie.

A sprinkling of lemon juice is also standard procedure when drying or otherwise processing other fruit, to help preserve the colour.

Husar

08-17-2018, 21:19

All I ask from you is to read that out loud three times without feeling stupid

Exactly.

Give me the recipe of the pie that is partly lemon and partly strawberry.

I'd ask the IEA, they appear to be the experts.

Pannonian

08-17-2018, 21:22

Exactly.

I'd ask the IEA, they appear to be the experts.

The answer would depend on which sponsor they're plugging though.

Husar

08-18-2018, 02:49

The answer would depend on which sponsor they're plugging though.

So far they appear to be sponsored by Big Lemon...

Gilrandir

08-18-2018, 05:03

According to Husar, you can't mix 'em.

Husar

08-18-2018, 14:43

According to Husar, you can't mix 'em.

Don't confuse me with Fragony.

Fragony

08-18-2018, 16:14

Don't confuse me with Fragony.

That on tops huh

Husar

08-18-2018, 16:21

That on tops huh

Yes, if you throw a paper plane from Ukraine over here, it's very easy to miss my place and hit yours instead.
We're practically neighbors.

Fragony

08-18-2018, 17:21

Yes, if you throw a paper plane from Ukraine over here, it's very easy to miss my place and hit yours instead.
We're practically neighbors.

I hope the paper landing isn't the bill of any humour contest that was meant for you

Husar

08-18-2018, 17:52

I hope the paper landing isn't the bill of any humour contest that was meant for you

You should know, it landed on your lawn.

Why don't we discussxit from this thread together so it can get back on topic?
I don't think we're getting anywhere with this anymore.

Fragony

08-18-2018, 18:11

Yeah it said something about eating cake, who does that really, eatingcakelol what's next a tsunami

Furunculus

08-24-2018, 07:51

Pannonian

08-24-2018, 11:40

what the referendum debate should have been talking about:

“The European Union: Supranational or Intergovernmental?” https://medium.com/@jskrase/the-european-union-supranational-or-intergovernmental-7980f7b5b4a1 …

Which would you prefer, supranational or intergovernmental? Do you think the EU should be more or less democratically accountable?

Furunculus

08-24-2018, 15:28

Pannonian

08-24-2018, 16:57

intergovernmental, in a heartbeat.

because there isn't sufficient closeness of social and cultural aims to justify a single governance among the 28.

i care about accountability and representation, something the EU is poorly set up to achieve.

it is the gradual encorachment of supranationalism at the same time as the eu competences move into core government activities that has necessitated our departure.

Aren't your demands mutually contradictory? If you want the EU to be intragovernmental, then the EU interacts via representatives appointed by nationally elected governments. If you want the EU to be democratically accountable, then the EU interacts via directly elected representatives. Your demands make it possible for you to lambast the EU for lacking whatever you want to accuse the EU of lacking.

Me, I'm consistent, and I follow through with my logic. I want the EU to be intragovernmental, and I see no problem in the EU having powerful government figures that aren't directly elected, but are appointed by their national governments.

Fragony

08-25-2018, 08:46

Many a prommilage say you are right about that, hi juncker good morning, yes it is saturday, no sunday is tomorow you old git monday comes after it remember

Furunculus

08-25-2018, 08:57

Aren't your demands mutually contradictory? If you want the EU to be intragovernmental, then the EU interacts via representatives appointed by nationally elected governments. If you want the EU to be democratically accountable, then the EU interacts via directly elected representatives. Your demands make it possible for you to lambast the EU for lacking whatever you want to accuse the EU of lacking.

Me, I'm consistent, and I follow through with my logic. I want the EU to be intragovernmental, and I see no problem in the EU having powerful government figures that aren't directly elected, but are appointed by their national governments.

It might seem contradictory if i was complaining that the eu wasn't democratic enough. but that is not a position i have taken.
I have not taken this position, because i have never had the expectation that the eu should be a fit and proper form of governance that I would assent to be governed by.

The eu is:
1. functionally incoherent as a form of government - in attempting to achieve the power it needs to possess by successive 'useful' crises.
2. practically illegitimate in my opinion - in not being representative of my interest, and incapable of being accountable to such diverse interests.
3. constitutionally incompatible with the UK - in constraining the fundamental principles of english democracy: parliamentary supremacy and the common law.

That it might be deemed "not democratic enough" is someone else's problem, not mine, since I have NEVER assented to governance by Brussels.

Seamus Fermanagh

08-25-2018, 15:43

...The eu is:
1. functionally incoherent as a form of government - in attempting to achieve the power it needs to possess by successive 'useful' crises....To be fair, using a crisis as a means of leveraging more power for one's self/organization/government is par for the course pretty much globally throughout the course of human history. And your first point is just as readily addressed by granting EU leadership power to truly enforce its choices as it is by discarding the EU. I don't think you want coherence restored using that approach (with which I agree, old-school nationalist that I am).

Furunculus

08-25-2018, 22:20

Pannonian

08-25-2018, 23:37

A fair cop. I'm entirely convinced of the principal assertion, but happy to admit the flaws in the given example.
It should perhaps read:

The eu is:
1. functionally incoherent as a form of government - in removing the functions of sovereign action in response to calamity, and yet being entirely absent the political will/mechanisms to enact those same responses on behalf of the nation.

What has been wrought on southern europe is a catastrophe of europes making, by which I include both the EU and european governments complicit in the idiocy of the single currency.

This example still falls under the aegis of your suggested solution, but I feel entirely free to reject it. :)

It's the national governments' choice to participate in the single currency though. Those that didn't want to weren't forced to.

And on your claim that the EU has steadily gained power through exploitation of crises: the major revolutions in my lifetime were created through sober negotiations by national government, under no coercion. Schengen was a local initiative popular to businesses that was adopted by entire countries. The single market was a British-led project that integrated numerous levels of openness to create a true single market. The single currency was a Core 6 project that was adoptable by other countries if their economies were sufficiently in synch with the standards of the Core 6. The expansion to the east was part of the price demanded by the UK in return for allowing the Core 6 to go ahead with the euro. Which crises caused the above to happen? Or were there greater, even more revolutionary changes in the EU's form than the above?

Also, what do you think of those Brexiteers who complain about unelected EU commissioners?

Furunculus

08-26-2018, 08:42

"choice" is an interesting word.
the only two nations that have a 'choice' are the uk and denmark, and only then because they fought for it.

the eu is functionally incoherent as a form of go't:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/26/greece-was-never-bailed-out---it-remains-a-debtors-prison-and-the-eu-still-holds-the-keys

Shaka_Khan

08-30-2018, 01:43

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZ03CiyTVqQ

Montmorency

08-30-2018, 02:48

belong only to China

Husar

08-30-2018, 11:01

So many questions:

1. Why do they show the studio reporter from behind? Why show him at all then?

2. Why is their reporter in Scotland a priest with a sinister facial expression?

3. Why would anyone ask Michael Gove about anything?

4. What about environmental protection? How does it help anyone if the British fish every last fish away and then there is nothing to fish afterwards?

5. Crying about throwing rocks? BECOME A REAL MAN! You know, like the French fishermen...

6. Does the fisher lady (MP of Cornwall) blink every time she lies? Is that her tell?

7. How does it compute that one guy says the French were always tolerating the British in their area, someone else talks about international waters and the fisher lady talks about the UK economic zone, being protected by the Royal Navy when the moderator talks about it having happened off the coast of Normandy? Clearly some are full of it or don't even seem to know where the incident happened.

8. Did she just say that it's unfair that the scallops are swimming mostly in French waters? Maybe she should complain to the scallops then?

9. There might be more, but do I really care enough?

rory_20_uk

08-30-2018, 13:08

I tend to the last point. No I don't care. It is a stupid problem - and I'm shocked, shocked I tell you - that anything can have been made worse by the EU!

So, I await the EU to do nothing about the fact that the UK fishermen are fishing legally and the french are getting pissy about having to follow their own laws.

Perhaps we could use one of our aircraft carriers to fish since it would be impervious against rocks and without planes has no function in a war (and only really had one to try and buy Scottish votes for Labour).

~:smoking:

Fragony

08-30-2018, 17:08

Oh fishing, Dutch fishers spend a lot into not tearing the sea-bottom apart, it was all for nothing

Furunculus

09-14-2018, 13:24

A conclusion that would be obvious to anyone that read Tim Shipman's All Out War:
https://order-order.com/2018/09/14/high-court-finds-electoral-commission-unfit-purpose/

a completely inoffensive name

09-16-2018, 22:48

Pannonian

09-17-2018, 00:31

I haven't been catching up with The Economist which is my only source of news for Brexit. But I take it May is still going to beg for the EU this fall to accept her Chequer's plan on the basis UK will practice single market "best practices" let's call them...

Then she is going to shove the plan down the throat of her Tory MP's who will flip a coin on whether they want to approve the plan or go through a civil war to put Boris in charge.

Meanwhile Corbyn... just sits and waits for the next election to sweep him to PM position?

Did I get everything?

Gove has assured the party they can always go back on their promises. The last time a minister said something similar, the EU27 immediately dismissed an agreement made with the UK just 24 hours previous as being made in bad faith, reminding these idiots that Europeans can read English and they're aware of what these twunts say in the UK media.

Edit: Oh, and Corbyn's attack dogs were organised in the last party conference to ensure that nothing would be said to counter their leader's pro-Brexit position. Momentum actually celebrated stopping Brexit from being formally discussed.

rory_20_uk

09-17-2018, 12:07

Does Corbyn want to be PM? Weekly meetings with someone he doesn't want to exist, and needing to have his ideals abut reality. That would be an extremely painful process for all of them - enacting the vast list of plans that require money whilst desperately trying to find the money - historically increasing taxes tends to produce little more revenue since the very ones that could pay more are the quickest to leave the country - or invest in complex schemes to protect their money.

Momentum protecting a democratic decisions by undemocratic means - what an odd world we live in.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

09-24-2018, 17:07

Seamus Fermanagh

09-24-2018, 17:19

Husar

09-24-2018, 17:50

The IEA produces dodgy research. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-45625724)

Not news I guess. Except that this is the kind of guff Brexit plans will be based on, the kind of guff Furunculus is fond of citing.

Come on, he already said he considers it fine unless you take every assumption and bit of math in their 90 page report and prove it wrong. Actually, I found barely any math in there, mostly just assumptions and numbers pulled from these assumptions and other sources. So go ahad and prove the 90 pages plus all the cited sources wrong beyond any of Furunculus' doubt, and maybe then he will turn, or decide that your proof does not prove anything to him.

It's a piece of cake, you could be done by 2025...well in time for it to be too late anyway. :clown:

Pannonian

09-24-2018, 19:16

An economist with a model that predicts more than 10 years out. Good luck with that.

The arch proponent of No Deal has said that it will take up to 50 years for the benefits to show, meaning all negatives can be excused until he is dead and doesn't have to answer any more.

Furunculus

09-25-2018, 13:27

The IEA produces dodgy research. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-45625724)

Not news I guess. Except that this is the kind of guff Brexit plans will be based on, the kind of guff Furunculus is fond of citing.

Still whining about teh neoliberals?

Shanker Singham had a good reputation, and has a long history before he recently joined the idea.

Seamus Fermanagh

09-25-2018, 15:56

The arch proponent of No Deal has said that it will take up to 50 years for the benefits to show, meaning all negatives can be excused until he is dead and doesn't have to answer any more.

I understand your snark here. The 'convenience' of the length of such a prediction, regardless of its efficacy.

My earlier post though, was really more of a shot at economists. I am fairly firmly of the belief that if you ask 5 economists for their predictions of future economic conditions, you will receive 7 different answers -- all of them contradictory.

Pannonian

09-25-2018, 20:42

I understand your snark here. The 'convenience' of the length of such a prediction, regardless of its efficacy.

My earlier post though, was really more of a shot at economists. I am fairly firmly of the belief that if you ask 5 economists for their predictions of future economic conditions, you will receive 7 different answers -- all of them contradictory.

The massive majority of economists agree that Brexit will be a disaster though, citing established models, actual laws, overwhelming evidence of economic tendencies, etc. This is backed by representatives of numerous industries who have a deep understanding of how their industries work. It is also backed by studies by relevant government bodies who will have to deal with Brexit. If 19 out of 20 expert sources tell you something is a bad idea, how likely is it that the 1 in 20 is correct? When the 1 in 20 is not backed by evidence, and the 19 in 20 are.

Furunculus

09-26-2018, 07:38

A great argument against democratic self governance, puzzled why more don't follow this logic....

n.b. https://www.economist.com/essay/2018/09/13/the-economist-at-175

Beskar

09-26-2018, 20:44

With the issue of immigration, it would be solved by investment within those regions. Though for this to be effective, there also needs to be some resemblance of global order there too, as handing money to tinpot dictators is a terrible idea, but investing in a like-minded nation would produce very fruitful returns. These fruitful returns mean people in those nations no longer feel the need to migrate too, as it is not worth the value of moving away from family and loved ones.

Unfortunately, some people are against said win-win investment due to jealousy which rears its ugly head politically in the parties of the right (though can appear in the left due to envy).

Furunculus

09-26-2018, 21:34

how important was immigration?

plus, we already spend a small fortune, how much more is needed?

Pannonian

09-26-2018, 21:49

Remember the ridicule over the notion that food supplies may be at risk in the event of no deal? The government have appointed a minister dealing with exactly that. Just about everything said by Brexiteers is shown to be wrong according to the people who have to deal with the reality.

Pannonian

09-27-2018, 09:40

Question for Americans, Europeans, and any other inhabitants of developed countries. Who is your Minister of Food Supplies? Do you even have a department dedicated to the sole purpose of ensuring that your country has adequate food supplies?

rory_20_uk

09-27-2018, 11:26

Pannonian

09-27-2018, 13:43

So... Taiwan should join China, Cuba should want to become part of the USA, Gibraltar should become part of Spain - since this is purely an economic view and when one is threatened by a larger power, capitulation is the only realistic solution.

~:smoking:

Threatened by a larger power? We're already part of the EU. We are part of that large power.

Tell me, how do you propose to solve the problems with borders and frictioned trade? Have you listened to that Mr. Trucker I linked to a couple of pages back that Furunculus derided, or read the Parliamentary report that transcribed it? How do you propose to make your idea, as you've voted for and continue to defend, meet reality, as described by experts in their field such as Mr. Trucker? Or does reality not matter in the face of The Democratic Will of The People?

Britain wants unicorns and leprechauns. Britain will not bow in the face of those who tell us we cannot have them. To accept their arguments is just capitulation.

rory_20_uk

09-27-2018, 15:38

Threatened by a larger power? We're already part of the EU. We are part of that large power.

Tell me, how do you propose to solve the problems with borders and frictioned trade? Have you listened to that Mr. Trucker I linked to a couple of pages back that Furunculus derided, or read the Parliamentary report that transcribed it? How do you propose to make your idea, as you've voted for and continue to defend, meet reality, as described by experts in their field such as Mr. Trucker? Or does reality not matter in the face of The Democratic Will of The People?

Britain wants unicorns and leprechauns. Britain will not bow in the face of those who tell us we cannot have them. To accept their arguments is just capitulation.

Ah, so this is more of a Tibet situation? They should just be happy that things are the way they are and be aware that to try to change them would be really terrible.

It's rather funny that we were forced to join the EU as an ideal and now on wanting to leave it is purely about economic reality.

~:smoking:

Husar

09-27-2018, 15:41

So... Taiwan should join China, Cuba should want to become part of the USA, Gibraltar should become part of Spain - since this is purely an economic view and when one is threatened by a larger power, capitulation is the only realistic solution.

~:smoking:

So China should give Taiwan trade conditions that don't even exist between the various regions inside China? Something, like, say, free trade of goods, but no free movement of people? Perhaps the UK should in return forbid people from moving between England and Ireland and between Northern and Southern Ireland.

rory_20_uk

09-27-2018, 15:50

So China should give Taiwan trade conditions that don't even exist between the various regions inside China? Something, like, say, free trade of goods, but no free movement of people? Perhaps the UK should in return forbid people from moving between England and Ireland and between Northern and Southern Ireland.

Oh right, like the "Two systems one China" approach that is with Hong Kong and the Mainland and pretty much with Macau. - two completely different sets of laws... Like that? Or perhaps the restrictions of movement they have with the Xinjiang province?

No, those examples are definitely unrelated.

~:smoking:

Husar

09-27-2018, 15:56

Oh right, like the "Two systems one China" approach that is with Hong Kong and the Mainland and pretty much with Macau. - two completely different sets of laws... Like that? Or perhaps the restrictions of movement they have with the Xinjiang province?

No, those examples are definitely unrelated.

~:smoking:

Or like the rebate for Britain within the EU...
Or how China told Nepal that it can leave and keep the trade deals...

rory_20_uk

09-27-2018, 16:07

Or like the rebate for Britain within the EU...
Or how China told Nepal that it can leave and keep the trade deals...

Yes, there are all these many a la carte "fixes" within the EU - mainly around tweaking things to avoid plebiscites of if God forbid they had to occur to win over the "no" votes which occurred in every single one that has happened.
But any when people leave?? No! This is impossible! The EU never has these things...

When was Nepal part of China?

Remove oversight of the ECJ and I would be on balance happy with the rest of the EU. Much happier if all the countries south of Belgium and East of Switzerland were got rid of, of course.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

09-27-2018, 16:37

So China should give Taiwan trade conditions that don't even exist between the various regions inside China? Something, like, say, free trade of goods, but no free movement of people? Perhaps the UK should in return forbid people from moving between England and Ireland and between Northern and Southern Ireland.

the eu has effectively already sold that pass via the dcfta with ukraine, and to a degree with switzerland in separating goods from services.

Pannonian

09-27-2018, 23:37

Ah, so this is more of a Tibet situation? They should just be happy that things are the way they are and be aware that to try to change them would be really terrible.

It's rather funny that we were forced to join the EU as an ideal and now on wanting to leave it is purely about economic reality.

~:smoking:

Isn't Tibet being colonised by Chinese in all respects, with the previous government exiled and with its existing culture repressed? How is that in anyway similar to the UK's position within the EU? The EU actually promotes local regions by protecting their commercial identities, ensuring funding where the national government has neglected them for decades, etc. See the case of Liverpool, which was deliberately starved of funding by Westminster as a political act, but which has revived at least partly under EU-guaranteed funding.

I'll ask again, how do you propose to solve the problems raised by experts, such as the haulllers who are responsible for the transport of goods to and from the UK? Forget about your theoretical political arguments for a moment, and focus on everyday reality. They say there will be problems, and they are not satisfied the government has given them practical answers. Do you agree that there will be problems? How will they be solved? What if they're not solved? Are you just going to blame the EU?

Pannonian

09-27-2018, 23:39

the eu has effectively already sold that pass via the dcfta with ukraine, and to a degree with switzerland in separating goods from services.

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? The government have, and their response is to appoint a minister for food supplies. Are you still blase about the issue of food supplies that I raised in the event of no deal?

Husar

09-28-2018, 01:28

When was Nepal part of China?

When I couldn't remember the name Tibet and couldn't be bothered to look it up. :clown:

rory_20_uk

09-28-2018, 11:27

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? The government have, and their response is to appoint a minister for food supplies. Are you still blase about the issue of food supplies that I raised in the event of no deal?

Just overlook the cause of the problem is the best option is it? Any issue with the EU suddenly refusing to allow any transfers is completely the decision of the EU. The USA and Russia can get their planes to work over Syria. But apparently it might be impossible between London and Paris.

If this was a human relationship and one person said "if you leave me I'll kill your whole family" we'd not be saying "well, if that's the outcome of leaving, you'd best stay".

~:smoking:

Husar

09-28-2018, 12:47

rory_20_uk

09-28-2018, 13:00

Isn't it more like "If you leave me, I'll not want contact anymore and will delete you from my phone because I still love you and being reminded of you hurts my feelings every time."?

I wasn't aware that the EU threatened to kill UK citizens over Brexit.

Apparently food will be cut off and we might all starve. Transport links will be severed. We get power from France - is that to be stopped next?

From memory, the UK have repeatedly put forward plans but - as you have said yourself - there is no option for an a la carte solution. Fine - but this shows that the severance is on the EU side. The UK is guilty of "trying to have its cake and eat it" which is different.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

09-28-2018, 13:28

Just overlook the cause of the problem is the best option is it? Any issue with the EU suddenly refusing to allow any transfers is completely the decision of the EU. The USA and Russia can get their planes to work over Syria. But apparently it might be impossible between London and Paris.

If this was a human relationship and one person said "if you leave me I'll kill your whole family" we'd not be saying "well, if that's the outcome of leaving, you'd best stay".

~:smoking:

I'm talking about the problem affecting the largest volume of freight, which Mr Trucker mentioned as a fact but which Kate Hoey denied exists, and which the Haulage reps put into numbers. When asked about it, the transport secretary assured those reps that there will be a deal solving the issue, which they don't believe as they've not seen any sign of it. What's happening with permits? What will happen when the number of permits will only satisfy a tiny fraction of the current trade volume?

Oh, and have you seen the details about how we'll deal with customs on our side of Dover? I've cited the county government's findings on the practical reality of the planned solution. Even if the EU is entirely obliging on their side, how do you see our situation on this? Or do you blame the EU for that as well?

rory_20_uk

09-28-2018, 14:00

I'm talking about the problem affecting the largest volume of freight, which Mr Trucker mentioned as a fact but which Kate Hoey denied exists, and which the Haulage reps put into numbers. When asked about it, the transport secretary assured those reps that there will be a deal solving the issue, which they don't believe as they've not seen any sign of it. What's happening with permits? What will happen when the number of permits will only satisfy a tiny fraction of the current trade volume?

Oh, and have you seen the details about how we'll deal with customs on our side of Dover? I've cited the county government's findings on the practical reality of the planned solution. Even if the EU is entirely obliging on their side, how do you see our situation on this? Or do you blame the EU for that as well?

How could the government allow things into the UK without causing blockages. Oooooh, that's a tough one. After all, they're obligated to check every piece of material at the borders...

Oh wait! They're not! In fact, they are the government. They could waive all checks into the country if they wanted to. They might even have the power to pass some sort of law being the government. It seems to be the sort of thing they do.

Could they somehow just let in all things from EU ports?
We'd need some sort of register of what ships are called and where they have sailed from. Thank GOD we've had that for the last few hundred / thousand years! Sort of, as they do at the moment but this would be by choice and not by mandate? Why yes - they could.

Shipments out might experience delays - as Spain has shown on occasion with Gibraltar. That would be the choice of the EU. Who would have thought that screwing over other countries such as in the Commonwealth and focusing on one trade block would be a bad idea. Life and learn eh? It's not like diversifying a supply chain is viewed elsewhere as a good idea...

Do I have complete confidence in the Government? No.
Do I think they've done a good job? No.
Do I think that integration has gone too far for one hell of a long time? Yes. The phrase "too big to fail" seems to fit quite nicely.
Do I think that there will be problems? Yes.

Of course Whitehall has a longstanding track record for screwing up almost all major projects. And I'm sure they'll do a pretty crap job on this too. This of itself does not mean adding another layer of bureaucrats and lawyers suddenly makes the system work well.

~:smoking:

Husar

09-28-2018, 16:06

Pannonian

09-28-2018, 16:52

But would "waive all checks into the country if they wanted to" not violate WTO rules as Pannonian used to say? I don't know the WTO rules by heart, so I'm just asking. I don't think the EU wants your people to starve, it's the UK that wants to go back to WTO rules.

If you do it for one country, then you need to do it for all countries. If we allow food from the EU into the UK, we allow food from everywhere into the UK. Goodbye agriculture. That's before you look at the supply chain of ensuring that imports meet required standards. Waive one link, and the whole chain is assumed to be short, with good reason (see foot and mouth, and CJD before that). The UK will become a dumping ground for food not meeting the standards of other countries, while food security will become non-existent as we won't be producing our own food, and expertise in food production will also be lost. The upper percentiles may be ok as they can afford the mark up in private imports (see the Chinese-Asian market for an example of this). Most people won't be though. And one wonders how long those upper percentiles will stay in the UK post-Brexit; some of the leaders of Leave have already made preparations to move their lives to the EU (Lawson, Farage and Rees-Mogg come to mind).

Pannonian

09-28-2018, 17:20

And once again, what's happening with permits? IIRC the numbers are currently 30k journeys in a set period of time, whereas post-no deal we can expect 1.5k permits as a third country, reducing the volume of UK-EU haulage (by some distance our biggest trade partnership) by 95%. The industry reps asked the transport secretary Grayling about this, and his response was that there will be a deal of some sort, but without giving any details. The reps have declared that they have no confidence in his assurances, as the government are currently toting no deal as the scenario come 30th March next year.

Cue Brexiteers: it's all the EU's fault.

rory_20_uk

09-28-2018, 17:41

rory_20_uk

09-28-2018, 17:48

If you do it for one country, then you need to do it for all countries. If we allow food from the EU into the UK, we allow food from everywhere into the UK. Goodbye agriculture. That's before you look at the supply chain of ensuring that imports meet required standards. Waive one link, and the whole chain is assumed to be short, with good reason (see foot and mouth, and CJD before that). The UK will become a dumping ground for food not meeting the standards of other countries, while food security will become non-existent as we won't be producing our own food, and expertise in food production will also be lost. The upper percentiles may be ok as they can afford the mark up in private imports (see the Chinese-Asian market for an example of this). Most people won't be though. And one wonders how long those upper percentiles will stay in the UK post-Brexit; some of the leaders of Leave have already made preparations to move their lives to the EU (Lawson, Farage and Rees-Mogg come to mind).

Tarriffs does not preclude standards. It might be possible that companies continue to get food from the same places they already have! Although others can offer to sell food, there is no requirement to purchase it and Food Standards still exists.
Food security is non existent... I hate to break it to you, but we've not had food security for over 100 years. And even worse - we don't produce all our industrial materials in the UK either!!!

There are (a few) other countries who have no barriers to entry and manage to purchase what they want of the quality they want from who they want. This really isn't relevant.

If I recall correctly, the unfit for human standard horse meat in foods was from countries in the EU, to abattoirs in the EU and then to us. The EU hasn't managed to prevent just the sort of event you claim will happen if we were not in the EU.

~:smoking:

Furunculus

09-28-2018, 18:04

Have you listened to Mr Trucker yet? The government have, and their response is to appoint a minister for food supplies. Are you still blase about the issue of food supplies that I raised in the event of no deal?

I'm not sure what you think that is a response to, but it certainly isn't one to the point of mine you quote about their being existing precedent for separating goods from services/people.

Husar

09-28-2018, 19:54

The UK has put forward several proposals that have been refused by the EU. If negotiations fail, the the default position is WTO.

Well, yes, only the mafia can force someone else to accept a deal. In a fair negotiation both partners have to agree or find someone else to trade with, no? Competition and the market will ensure the best outcome, IIRC.

Pannonian

09-28-2018, 20:52

Tarriffs does not preclude standards. It might be possible that companies continue to get food from the same places they already have! Although others can offer to sell food, there is no requirement to purchase it and Food Standards still exists.
Food security is non existent... I hate to break it to you, but we've not had food security for over 100 years. And even worse - we don't produce all our industrial materials in the UK either!!!

There are (a few) other countries who have no barriers to entry and manage to purchase what they want of the quality they want from who they want. This really isn't relevant.

If I recall correctly, the unfit for human standard horse meat in foods was from countries in the EU, to abattoirs in the EU and then to us. The EU hasn't managed to prevent just the sort of event you claim will happen if we were not in the EU.

~:smoking:

I was waiting for you to raise this. This was due to people falsifying documentation AFAIK, and was dealt with by the EU's mechanisms when this came to light (similarly with VW). If you really cared about this, you'd be demanding more teeth for the EU's institutions to prevent this kind of thing. Rather than demanding that they have no influence over us, as you've made a point of doing.

Do you think there should be uniformly high standards that the UK benefits from? Do you think that companies should be held to those standards? What do you think of proposals to hold a bonfire of regulations?

Pannonian

09-28-2018, 20:55

I'm hardly an international trade lawyer, but I believe it is mainly one can not discriminate against specific countries.

The UK doesn't want to go back to WTO rules. The UK has put forward several proposals that have been refused by the EU. If negotiations fail, the the default position is WTO.

~:smoking:

The UK has set out various red lines that bar the various solutions that are available. No one has forced the UK to set out those red lines. It did so unilaterally. With these red lines in place, no deal is what the UK defaults to.

Do you agree with those red lines? Which would you discard, which would you retain, and what solutions would be available given those you'd want to retain?

a completely inoffensive name

09-29-2018, 07:30

Seamus Fermanagh

09-29-2018, 17:23

The UK should commit to Brexit, but the Brexiteers really ducked it all up. No plan exit is just terrible governing, you cant really blame it on the EU at this point. But they will try.

How the hell did you people even have an empire, christ.

Their was an arrogant cockiness to the English culture in the past which is not present now. To be fair, their English rendition was always a bit more smoothly mannered than the USA's 'cowboy' equivalent.

Pannonian

09-29-2018, 23:08

Another tidbit for Brexit: how do you think Operation Brock will pan out? It's based on Operation Stack, which was designed to tide over short term delays and blockages. Has anyone here experienced Operation Stack in action? From the accounts I've read, it was basically a giant gridlock between Dover and Maidstone, with only some sideroads kept open for emergency vehicles. Brock is expected to be many times in scale.

Beskar

09-30-2018, 11:06

Furunculus

09-30-2018, 12:06

Pannonian

09-30-2018, 12:16

I don't think gridlock would be making Furuculus regret voting for Brexit. I don't think the economical arguments, even if they went as far as the nation bankrupting would either.

It is about British pride versus regional unification.

When I raised the point about food supplies being disrupted by no deal, he pooh-poohed the notion. Yet now we have a minister tasked with dealing with exactly that issue, for exactly the reasons I raised. Even if Brexiteers care not, at least they can own responsibility for the consequences of their decision. Yet all they continue to do is blame the EU for all problems, with leaving the EU the solution for all problems. Do you have a leak in the roof? Membership of the EU didn't prevent your roof from leaking! Ergo the leak will go away once we leave the EU!

Pannonian

09-30-2018, 12:18

It is about who you hold as legitimate to govern over you, such that you assent to be bound by their dictates as we're they your own.

Europe does not have that assent, it is not a legitimate source of governance.

Didn't you object to the European Parliament being given democratic legitimacy? I remember you saying that you shared my view that the EU should be a collection of states, yet now you complain that the EU does not have democratic legitimacy.

Furunculus

09-30-2018, 14:17

Didn't you object to the European Parliament being given democratic legitimacy? I remember you saying that you shared my view that the EU should be a collection of states, yet now you complain that the EU does not have democratic legitimacy.

no. i did not say that.
i said making it more democratic would be pointless as it would still be neither representative or accountable.
and i've long said that of the two words "representative democracy" it is the former that is truly vital, the latter is only a means to that end.

a european government will rightly reflect the compromise view of the whole of its electorate. which is too far to the statist/left for my taste. it cannot represent my interest.

a european government will always be running between pillar and post trying to take account of the very different views of its constituent peoples, and it will fail, which means it will be remote and unnacountable.

ergo - it fails in any claim to legitimacy, and thus I reject its right to govern.

Gilrandir

10-01-2018, 12:02

Cost of Brexit calculated:
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-costing-uk-500m-a-week-study-says/

Pannonian

10-01-2018, 14:26

Cost of Brexit calculated:
https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-costing-uk-500m-a-week-study-says/

And we haven't even left yet, meaning we are still benefiting from all the trade links and institutions with the EU. Actual exit with the loss of these links and institutions will cost the UK far more. The more complete the exit, the higher the cost, with a no deal exit being the most damaging. The UK government is currently heading for no deal, with next to no preparations for that either.

Pannonian

10-01-2018, 14:28

no. i did not say that.
i said making it more democratic would be pointless as it would still be neither representative or accountable.
and i've long said that of the two words "representative democracy" it is the former that is truly vital, the latter is only a means to that end.

a european government will rightly reflect the compromise view of the whole of its electorate. which is too far to the statist/left for my taste. it cannot represent my interest.

a european government will always be running between pillar and post trying to take account of the very different views of its constituent peoples, and it will fail, which means it will be remote and unnacountable.

ergo - it fails in any claim to legitimacy, and thus I reject its right to govern.

BTW, do you accept the legitimacy of Mr Trucker's warnings about bordered trade? Do you still dismiss the concerns about food security?

Pannonian

10-04-2018, 19:54

Tesco and Aldi have said they will be stockpiling food in the event of no deal. Tesco, the biggest retailer in the UK, say that the scope for doing so is limited, and that the key is to ensure continued supply. Have the Brexiteers read what Mr Trucker said, or the parliamentary report on how that pans out on a wider scale? Furunculus ridiculed the possibility, but the experts on the subject concur that the scenario I posited is likely to happen.

If/when this happens, will the Brexiteers take responsibility for causing this?

Furunculus

10-04-2018, 20:28

I ridiculed the notion that governance / business would not respond to changing circumstances. They will, of course.

a completely inoffensive name

10-05-2018, 04:52

I'm very distraught. I just caught up on the Great British Baking Show and not once in 5 seasons has anyone made a Brexit pie.

a completely inoffensive name

10-05-2018, 05:02

Actually, what would go into a Brexit pie? Something, something, clever ingredients...and it would be half baked.

Fragony

10-05-2018, 07:20

You don't understand what the EU really is, it is one big konzi-scheme that is destined to fail

Pannonian

10-05-2018, 08:38

You don't understand what the EU really is, it is one big konzi-scheme that is destined to fail

Another anti-EU quote from Frag that is substantially meaningless. Just like all of Brexit. Why don't you come over here and join our Great Experiment in Autarky?

Pannonian

10-05-2018, 08:48

Actually, what would go into a Brexit pie? Something, something, clever ingredients...and it would be half baked.

Try Woolton pie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolton_pie). Countryfile reckon the UK should be able to cope foodwise, as long as we cut back to eating week no more than once a week. Any more than that, and that means more than 99.99% of Britons, and the UK will be in trouble.

My reply is even shorter:
In all honesty I haven't watched the video, because while it would be interesting to see the ants-eye-view of global logistics I don't think it will inform brexit very much.
If I want to know how to design and implement a complete reinvention of the benefits system, i don't use Nadine from front-desk in the Job-Centre as a my senior project architect.
Governance is complex, that's why as society we agree to collective solutions to find answers to intrictate and encompassing problems.

The idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

Furunculus, do you still think the above? The government has appointed a minister to deal with food supplies in the event of no deal. Two of the biggest retailers, including the biggest of the lot, are stockpiling food ahead of no deal, with Tesco saying that this is no solution in stead of a steady supply. The parliamentary report on this says that the country cannot cope with the backlog, and all along the line logistics people are saying that there will be no steady supply of anything post no deal. And the government are saying no deal is the expected scenario (which the EU27 is now adequately prepared for).

Husar

10-05-2018, 12:07

Try Woolton pie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woolton_pie). Countryfile reckon the UK should be able to cope foodwise, as long as we cut back to eating week no more than once a week. Any more than that, and that means more than 99.99% of Britons, and the UK will be in trouble.

I'm sure the Queen will be fine and as long as she is fine, the UK will be fine.
Maybe African nations will send aid workers and ask their citizens for donations to feed the British.

Furunculus

10-05-2018, 13:38

Furunculus, do you still think the above? The government has appointed a minister to deal with food supplies in the event of no deal. Two of the biggest retailers, including the biggest of the lot, are stockpiling food ahead of no deal, with Tesco saying that this is no solution in stead of a steady supply. The parliamentary report on this says that the country cannot cope with the backlog, and all along the line logistics people are saying that there will be no steady supply of anything post no deal. And the government are saying no deal is the expected scenario (which the EU27 is now adequately prepared for).

Yes.
The idea that choosing democratic self-governance will lead to starvation is an absurdist fantasy.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-05-2018, 15:47

Furunculus

10-05-2018, 16:59

Pannonian is not truly suggesting that starvation is in the offing.
Perhaps not, but he has chosen to quote me as I have spoken, whilst asking me to acknowledge that the government is making plans to mitigate supply problems resulting from brexit...

I do acknowledge those plans, further still I am pleased that they are doing so. I do not expect the world to say the same tommorrow as it is today - in fact I expect the opposite - so a government that is responding to changing circumstances is no less than I expect.

It has always seemed to me that he wants pro-brexit leading voices to ackowledge that brexit was a poorly thought out and reactionary choice that was sold on an emotional ‘preserve our sovereignty’ and ‘keep out the wogs’ agenda.
If he does think this - and i'm not saying that he does - then i would laugh my mammaries off. It would be arrogant, condescending, and plain wrong.
The fact that by many metrics we're among the least racist people in europe - and yet still voted to leave the EU - ought to tell us something a little more profound than that uselessly reductionist conclusion.

He would further like them to publicly note that the turbulatuons and suffering/inconvenience of transitioning out of the EU will do significant economic harm to the UK for a generation whereas any measurable benefits are unconfirmable and only likely to materialize decades hence if at all.
This is fair enough in its own limited terms, looking as it does at democratic self-governance in dry economic terms. Not many people consider this to be the sole criteria to weigh the merits of their democracy.

I suspect this would require all such leading voices to also tender their resignations.
The outcome will speak for itself. If I live in some walter-mitty fantasy land then no doubt i will be proved wrong, when all brexiteer politicians resign en-masse in disgrace. If they don't, I'd suggest that it makes the rickety construction of assumptions suggested above look like a fundamental error in judgment. I've got a fiver....

p.s. i've read this again and it comes across very aggressively. it isn't meant to be, but i cannot respond accurately without noting these conceptual flaws. :)

Pannonian

10-05-2018, 17:48

Pannonian is not truly suggesting that starvation is in the offing.

It has always seemed to me that he wants pro-brexit leading voices to ackowledge that brexit was a poorly thought out and reactionary choice that was sold on an emotional ‘preserve our sovereignty’ and ‘keep out the wogs’ agenda. He would further like them to publicly note that the turbulatuons and suffering/inconvenience of transitioning out of the EU will do significant economic harm to the UK for a generation whereas any measurable benefits are unconfirmable and only likely to materialize decades hence if at all.

I suspect this would require all such leading voices to also tender their resignations.

Is this a reasonable summary of your ongoing theme regarding brexit negotiations, Pannonian?

There wasn't starvation in the UK during WWII. Plenty of empty shelves though. And just about all the experts on the food supply from producer to supermarket shelves have said that there will be problems, as I'd noted would be the case in the event of no deal, and for the reasons that I'd noted. Against that, you have Brexiteers saying that everything will be fine. Who is more likely to be right?

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the pudding will be tasted next April. However, just about every competent chef who knows about these things is telling this first timer that he's doing it all wrong, and just about all of them concur on what he's doing wrong, and what he should be doing instead. But this newbie chef continues to blunder on because this is what he feels like doing, and everyone will have to eat the product of this ill thought out experiment, whether they wanted to or not.

Fragony

10-05-2018, 22:18

There kinda was a starvation ine Netherlands in WW2, do you think we will let you starve. The Netherlands is one of the biggest food suppliers of the world and we would never let you down

Pannonian

10-05-2018, 22:33

There kinda was a starvation ine Netherlands in WW2, do you think we will let you starve. The Netherlands is one of the biggest food suppliers of the world and we would never let you down

Didn't you say that, post-Brexit, everything will be fine? Has Brexit changed the UK so much that "not starving" counts as fine? Is "not starving" what you meant when you said that everything will be fine post-Brexit?

Edit: The most concrete argument yet given for Brexit. "Do it! We won't let you starve!"

a completely inoffensive name

10-06-2018, 03:25

You guys are no fun, I wanted pie suggestions.

Pannonian

10-06-2018, 05:20

You guys are no fun, I wanted pie suggestions.

I pointed you towards the Woolton pie. We don't produce most of our meat, and in the case of shortages, we can feed ourselves only by cutting down on meat. Woolton pie uses flour, which can be milled from storable grain, and root vegetables, which we can produce and store ourselves. It feeds and it fills, which presumably is what Brexiteers mean when they say that we can cope. But it wasn't particularly popular when it first came out, and it hasn't come back into fashion since, as it sustains without offering any kind of enjoyment. Which is what coping post-Brexit will be in a nutshell.

rory_20_uk

10-06-2018, 11:13

Your hyperbole started out as amusing, but becomes wearisome.

We currently get 30% of our food from the EU. Assuming that we are incapable of purchasing any of it we could purchase food elsewhere.

And we’d have all the food we then could not export to the EU.

And hilariously the other massive threat is cheap food imports from elsewhere!

Are we to starve or drown in food?

~:smoking:

Beskar

10-06-2018, 11:56

Are we to starve or drown in food?

The issue would be Food Standards, not necessarily food itself. UK and Europe do have some of the highest food standards in the world (even though there can be slips within the system).

These can be relaxed after Brexit, but then we would products like chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, etc from the USA flooding the market.

Husar

10-06-2018, 11:58

You guys are no fun, I wanted pie suggestions.

Brexit is like a bumblepie.

Also, can't go wrong with more HFCS, everyone in Great Britain will become even greater!

Gilrandir

10-06-2018, 12:01

Brexit is like a bumblepie.

Are you sure it's not Dumbledore?

rory_20_uk

10-06-2018, 12:36

The issue would be Food Standards, not necessarily food itself. UK and Europe do have some of the highest food standards in the world (even though there can be slips within the system).

These can be relaxed after Brexit, but then we would products like chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, etc from the USA flooding the market.

Ah. So the scare is that some might have food that is only of a higher quality than most of the world, not almost all of the world. Which is the same when anyone goes on holiday outside of the EU, or ate food a decade or so ago.

God, leaving the EU will mean I’ll be a cannibal by the end of the week!!!

~:smoking:

Husar

10-06-2018, 14:13

Are you sure it's not Dumbledore?

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bumble

2. To move, act, or proceed clumsily.

Gilrandir

10-06-2018, 16:41

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bumble

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

Rowling stated she chose the name Dumbledore, which is a dialectal word for "bumblebee"

So in a way, bumblepie has something in common with Dumbledore.

P.S. I was again trolling, in case you are inclined to proceed with the discussion.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-07-2018, 22:19

...If he does think this - and i'm not saying that he does - then i would laugh my mammaries off. It would be arrogant, condescending, and plain wrong.
The fact that by many metrics we're among the least racist people in europe - and yet still voted to leave the EU - ought to tell us something a little more profound than that uselessly reductionist conclusion....

My "keep out the wogs" phrasing was my own, and very definitely hyperbolic. I was referring to the 'we do not want to endure uncontrolled emigration and refugee absorption' stance that was part of the Exit support base. Those who were truly doing so on an old school racist basis were, I am sure, a very small minority.

As a percentage, I am sure that the USA has every bit the same racist minority if not even more than does the UK. Despite the fact that racism is glaringly stupid, some do persist in the stupidity.

Furunculus

10-08-2018, 22:55

Apologies, I don't like my previous post.
it didn't seem fair in being neither a direct reply to your views nor too to those of pannonian.

Pannonian

10-08-2018, 22:59

Seamus Fermanagh

10-09-2018, 05:32

It seems that Brexiteers reckon that the break up of the UK would be a price worth paying for Brexit. Why didn't Leave say this during the campaign? Why did they deny all the consequences during the campaign, only to say that all the consequences will be worth it afterwards?

Two possibilities:

1. Despite the difficulties of the next generation, they truly believe that a generation or so hence the positives will outweigh the price that has been paid.

2. They do not want to spend the rest of their lives saying "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa and/or eat a gun.

Both may apply to the same individual.

Pannonian

10-09-2018, 07:18

Two possibilities:

1. Despite the difficulties of the next generation, they truly believe that a generation or so hence the positives will outweigh the price that has been paid.

2. They do not want to spend the rest of their lives saying "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa and/or eat a gun.

Both may apply to the same individual.

The thing is, even the most radical of the Leave campaigners was saying that the Norwegian model was what Leave will be like, that we'll essentially have the same economic system without participating in the EU's politics. Now they're saying that we must completely cut ourselves off from the EU's economy, even at the cost of food shortages, and if the rest of the UK breaks off as a result, then that's the price we have to pay. The margin was 52-48; said radical Leave campaigner said during the campaign that, if Leave lost by that margin, then they would continue to campaign to leave the EU. Yet the same margin for Leave is presumed to give a mandate for the greatest revolutionary change that modern Britain has seen, with no offered benefits inside our lifetimes.

Husar

10-09-2018, 12:07

The margin was 52-48; said radical Leave campaigner said during the campaign that, if Leave lost by that margin, then they would continue to campaign to leave the EU.

The important part here is that you Remainers stop whining because you lost and there is a clear mandate to jump off that cliff. Now shut up and jump! :clown:

Pannonian

10-09-2018, 17:37

The important part here is that you Remainers stop whining because you lost and there is a clear mandate to jump off that cliff. Now shut up and jump! :clown:

The closest parallel I can think of would be a cult with 52% of its members voting to drink the kool aid, with 48% voting against. It's a bad idea to drink the kool aid given all rational evidence, whatever the vote. Especially so when the leaders of the 52% have made preparations to excuse themselves from drinking.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-09-2018, 18:09

The closest parallel I can think of would be a cult with 52% of its members voting to drink the kool aid, with 48% voting against. It's a bad idea to drink the kool aid given all rational evidence, whatever the vote. Especially so when the leaders of the 52% have made preparations to excuse themselves from drinking.

Sadly, there is lots of evidence that a large minority of Jim Jones cultists were forced to drink the Kool-Aid...

Of course Jones did quaff it himself (or did he use a pistol? I forget and it has been a while).

Pannonian

10-09-2018, 18:56

Sadly, there is lots of evidence that a large minority of Jim Jones cultists were forced to drink the Kool-Aid...

Of course Jones did quaff it himself (or did he use a pistol? I forget and it has been a while).

At least Jones went the same way as his followers. A number of hardline no dealers have prepared to move themselves or their money out of the UK post-Brexit: Jacob Rees Mogg, Nigel Farage, John Redwood, Nigel Lawson, and probably quite a few others. When it all goes tits up, they won't have to suffer the consequences. And they know it will go tits up, as shown by their actions.

Pannonian

10-12-2018, 19:02

They've added another motorway to Operation Brock, ie. turning another major (M) road into a car park for holding lorries waiting to cross the border. Operation Stack cost £250m per day when it was last in action, lasting about a week. Operation Brock, which is a much bigger version of Stack, is scheduled to last indefinitely. And that was before this last update expanding its scope to another motorway. And as Stack has shown, when an M road shuts down, it's not just the M road that's affected. All the nearby road networks get snarled up as well. A local Kentish MP isn't too happy, as the Transport Minister had explicitly assured him just the week before that this would not happen.

And in other news, the police have admitted that Leave broke a number of laws in their campaign, but they will not be investigating because of political sensibilities.

a completely inoffensive name

10-12-2018, 21:16

Ah. So the scare is that some might have food that is only of a higher quality than most of the world, not almost all of the world.

You guys still have chickenshit residue on your eggs at the point of sale. It's time you learned to wash the damn things and keep them refrigerated along with the rest of the chicken.

https://youtu.be/Xbqv1SuQJ0s

Husar

10-12-2018, 22:42

You guys still have chickenshit residue on your eggs at the point of sale. It's time you learned to wash the damn things and keep them refrigerated along with the rest of the chicken.

You and your neoliberal chlorine chickens and eggs...

I'm probably missing the joke here about keeping it refrigerated along with the rest of the chicken, but did you watch your video beyond the 5 minute mark?

Gilrandir

10-13-2018, 04:27

You guys still have chickenshit residue on your eggs at the point of sale. It's time you learned to wash the damn things and keep them refrigerated along with the rest of the chicken.

https://www.theprairiehomestead.com/2011/10/eggs-to-wash-or-not-to-wash.html
I’ll eat unwashed veggies from my garden (we’re 100% organic, of course), raw milk straight from Oakley the cow, and raw eggs from our chickens.
Buuut, some people aren’t quite so, shall we say, accepting. And sometimes when you give people a carton of chicken eggs to take home that have bits of shavings and feathers stuck to them, it kinda grosses them out.
But no big deal, just give the eggs a good scrubbing and send them out the door. Right?
WRONG.
Believe it or not, there is more to washing an egg than you might think.
Egg shells are porous, but God designed them to have a micro membrane coating on them called “bloom” to keep potential baby chicks and their environment safe and clean.
Bacteria has a hard time getting inside a dry egg. Washing dirty eggs removes the bloom and invites bacteria to be drawn inside the egg. And washing eggs in cool water actually creates a vacuum, pulling unwanted bacteria inside even faster.

Most specialists agree, however, that you CAN wash eggs, but you will have to use them right after washing.

Pannonian

10-17-2018, 09:19

A summary of Brexit. Would be funny if it weren't so accurate. Don't know the original creator.

LEAVER: I want an omelette.

REMAINER: Right. It’s just we haven’t got any eggs.

LEAVER: Yes, we have. There they are. [HE POINTS AT A CAKE]

REMAINER: They’re in the cake.

LEAVER: Yes, get them out of the cake, please.

REMAINER: But we voted in 1974 to put them into a cake.

LEAVER: Yes, but that cake has got icing on it. Nobody said there was going to be icing on it.

REMAINER: Icing is good.

LEAVER: And there are raisins in it. I don’t like raisins. Nobody mentioned raisins. I demand another vote.

DAVID CAMERON ENTERS.

DAVID CAMERON: OK.

DAVID CAMERON SCARPERS.

LEAVER: Right, where’s my omelette?

REMAINER: I told you, the eggs are in the cake.

LEAVER: Well, get them out.

EU: It’s our cake.

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes, get them out now.

REMAINER: I have absolutely no idea how to get them out. Don’t you know how to get them out?

LEAVER: Yes! You just get them out and then you make an omelette.

REMAINER: But how?! Didn’t you give this any thought?

LEAVER: Saboteur! You’re talking eggs down. We could make omelettes before the eggs went into the cake, so there’s no reason why we can’t make them now.

THERESA MAY: It’s OK, I can do it.

REMAINER: How?

THERESA MAY: There was a vote to remove the eggs from the cake, and so the eggs will be removed from the cake.

REMAINER: Yeah, but…

LEAVER: Hang on, if we take the eggs out of the cake, does that mean we don’t have any cake? I didn’t say I didn’t want the cake, just the bits I don’t like.

EU: It’s our cake.

REMAINER: But you can’t take the eggs out of the cake and then still have a cake.

LEAVER: You can. I saw the latest Bake Off and you can definitely make cakes without eggs in them. It’s just that they’re horrible.

REMAINER: Fine. Take the eggs out. See what happens.

LEAVER: It’s not my responsibility to take the eggs out. Get on with it.

REMAINER: Why should I have to come up with some long-winded incredibly difficult chemical process to extract eggs that have bonded at the molecular level to the cake, while somehow still having the cake?

LEAVER: You lost, get over it.

THERESA MAY: By the way, I’ve started the clock on this.

REMAINER: So I assume you have a plan?

THERESA MAY: Actually, back in a bit. Just having another election.

REMAINER: Jeremy, are you going to sort this out?

JEREMY CORBYN: Yes. No. Maybe.

EU: It’s our cake.

LEAVER: Where’s my omelette? I voted for an omelette.

REMAINER: This is ridiculous. This is never going to work. We should have another vote, or at least stop what we’re doing until we know how to get the eggs out of the cake while keeping the bits of the cake that we all like.

LEAVER/MAY/CORBYN: WE HAD A VOTE. STOP SABOTAGING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. EGGSIT MEANS EGGSIT.

REMAINER: Fine, I’m moving to France. The cakes are nicer there.

Pannonian

10-17-2018, 18:08

The issue would be Food Standards, not necessarily food itself. UK and Europe do have some of the highest food standards in the world (even though there can be slips within the system).

These can be relaxed after Brexit, but then we would products like chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef, etc from the USA flooding the market.

And Trump tells us that any trade deal with the US is dependent on us abandoning our agricultural and food standards. Just about everything the Remainers have said would happen is happening. Just about nothing the Leavers said would happen is happening.

Beskar

10-17-2018, 18:22

And Trump tells us that any trade deal with the US is dependent on us abandoning our agricultural and food standards. Just about everything the Remainers have said would happen is happening. Just about nothing the Leavers said would happen is happening.

Eggsit means Eggs*it.

a completely inoffensive name

10-20-2018, 03:40

You and your neoliberal chlorine chickens and eggs...

I'm probably missing the joke here about keeping it refrigerated along with the rest of the chicken, but did you watch your video beyond the 5 minute mark?

https://www.theprairiehomestead.com/2011/10/eggs-to-wash-or-not-to-wash.html
I’ll eat unwashed veggies from my garden (we’re 100% organic, of course), raw milk straight from Oakley the cow, and raw eggs from our chickens.
Buuut, some people aren’t quite so, shall we say, accepting. And sometimes when you give people a carton of chicken eggs to take home that have bits of shavings and feathers stuck to them, it kinda grosses them out.
But no big deal, just give the eggs a good scrubbing and send them out the door. Right?
WRONG.
Believe it or not, there is more to washing an egg than you might think.
Egg shells are porous, but God designed them to have a micro membrane coating on them called “bloom” to keep potential baby chicks and their environment safe and clean.
Bacteria has a hard time getting inside a dry egg. Washing dirty eggs removes the bloom and invites bacteria to be drawn inside the egg. And washing eggs in cool water actually creates a vacuum, pulling unwanted bacteria inside even faster.

Most specialists agree, however, that you CAN wash eggs, but you will have to use them right after washing.

Was being facetious, lol. YOu don't need to use eggs right after washing, I keep my eggs up to a month in the fridge. Most of the time when they get really old, I steam them into soft boiled eggs which are the best thing in the world.

Husar

10-20-2018, 12:52

Was being facetious, lol. YOu don't need to use eggs right after washing, I keep my eggs up to a month in the fridge. Most of the time when they get really old, I steam them into soft boiled eggs which are the best thing in the world.

That explains your profile picture.

Shaka_Khan

10-21-2018, 13:28

I didn't know that there was a German version of a news satire television program.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFU6ig6giwc

Husar

10-21-2018, 14:32

I didn't know that there was a German version of a news satire television program.

There is also Extra 3 of sorts and we had/have a late night show with Harald Something. He went to Pay TV though, not sure he still exists. And TV Total, which was/is also part game show.

I'm more surprised that they have Closed Captions in English. :sweatdrop:

Pannonian

10-24-2018, 04:09

UK government's plans for no deal include government-controlled shipments of food and essential supplies. Cabinet were "shocked".

Have the Brexiteers listened to Mr Trucker's account or read the parliamentary report on the logistical consequences of no deal yet? Are they still dismissing them as absurd?

Beskar

10-24-2018, 13:18

Using a Fragonyism.

There are some very intelligent people in charge of Brexit. They formulated such an intelligent plan, others cannot understand the complexities of this innovative EU-Busting Brexit strategy, including themselves.

Husar

10-24-2018, 13:28

Pannonian

10-24-2018, 16:31

5D chess!
I can only assume the trickle-down after Brexit will be glorious!

It's full on nostalgia for the glory years of WW2. We're isolating ourselves from Europe, now we're organising shipping space at government level for food and medicines. Now we just need ration books and conscription and we're good to go.

Government advice is to stockpile necessary medical supplies for 6 weeks. Given that doctors are unwilling to prescribe some medicines for more than 2 weeks a pop, I'm wondering how this works.

Fragony

10-25-2018, 06:39

You have always been isolated from 'Europe'. Europe is not your most important trade, you really worry too much. Some things will become more expensive, some cheaper

Pannonian

11-09-2018, 01:04

Fragony

11-09-2018, 08:50

You can just ship your stuff to Rotterdam and Antwerpen, closest harbour, both huge, no u-boats

Furunculus

11-09-2018, 10:35

And the new head of DExEU admits he hadn't quite realised how reliant Britain is on the Dover-Calais crossing. Has he listened to what Mr. Trucker said, or read the parliamentary report on the logistical consequences of no deal that I've cited. Have the Brexiteers here checked out those sources?

actually, i think it reveals more about the ignorance of those who think they're being clever by scoring a 'point' in calling him out on this, than it does about raab.

i have seen quite sympatheteic responses to raab's point from trade experts like Dmitry Grozoubinski and i think its a rather more nunanced point than twitter screamers understand.

Pannonian

11-09-2018, 11:30

actually, i think it reveals more about the ignorance of those who think they're being clever by scoring a 'point' in calling him out on this, than it does about raab.

i have seen quite sympatheteic responses to raab's point from trade experts like Dmitry Grozoubinski and i think its a rather more nunanced point than twitter screamers understand.

I've been talking about the bottleneck for months, as I've been reading up on what experts say on the subject. I expect government ministers to be cleverer and better informed than me. If I, an amateur, am better informed on a non-specialist subject than the relevant minister, why the :daisy: are they in government being paid a 6 figure salary with accompanying pension?

BTW, have you listened to Mr. Trucker yet, or read the parliamentary report I've linked to?

rory_20_uk

11-09-2018, 13:19

It's full on nostalgia for the glory years of WW2. We're isolating ourselves from Europe, now we're organising shipping space at government level for food and medicines. Now we just need ration books and conscription and we're good to go.

Government advice is to stockpile necessary medical supplies for 6 weeks. Given that doctors are unwilling to prescribe some medicines for more than 2 weeks a pop, I'm wondering how this works.

Completely! The same in every way.

Apart from looking to have trade deals with countries such as China and possibly even entering the TPP. But yeah, the parallels are startling - I'm going to send my pots and pans so we can build more shells to fire at Calais.

But I completely agree that if doing anything causes any disruption to trade, it should be stopped. Frankly, having a UK parliament only creates problems - we should just have a commissioner appointed by Brussels.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

11-09-2018, 13:39

Completely! The same in every way.

Apart from looking to have trade deals with countries such as China and possibly even entering the TPP. But yeah, the parallels are startling - I'm going to send my pots and pans so we can build more shells to fire at Calais.

But I completely agree that if doing anything causes any disruption to trade, it should be stopped. Frankly, having a UK parliament only creates problems - we should just have a commissioner appointed by Brussels.

~:smoking:

Does exiting the political institutions of the EU require exiting the single market?

rory_20_uk

11-09-2018, 14:00

Does exiting the political institutions of the EU require exiting the single market?

For me it is not the single market directly, it is that this would prevent other trade agreements with third parties and electing different standards if/when wanted. I would wish for trade to be as free as possible with the EU and also elsewhere.

~:smoking:

Pannonian

11-09-2018, 14:10

For me it is not the single market directly, it is that this would prevent other trade agreements with third parties and electing different standards if/when wanted. I would wish for trade to be as free as possible with the EU and also elsewhere.

~:smoking:

How are our prospective post-EU trade agreements going, BTW? The last I heard, the US, Russia, Australia and New Zealand (that I've heard of) were objecting to the terms of our prospective membership of the WTO. In the US case, they will veto unless we align with them on agriculture, food standards and open up the health industry. In Aus and NZ's case, it's because we'll no longer be part of the single market and thus will be less of a market for them, thus they want more advantageous terms. I can't remember what it was for Russia, but it was probably for shits and giggles. Remember, Aus and NZ were supposed to be what we'll be looking to for friends as they're part of the Commonwealth, while the US were supposed to be our new main partners. Or so the Brexiteers promised, anyway.

Which of the positives promised by Brexiteers have come true so far, or looked like coming true? I've only seen the Brave New World being dialled back, replaced by "We''ll survive".

rory_20_uk

11-09-2018, 14:38

How are our prospective post-EU trade agreements going, BTW? The last I heard, the US, Russia, Australia and New Zealand (that I've heard of) were objecting to the terms of our prospective membership of the WTO. In the US case, they will veto unless we align with them on agriculture, food standards and open up the health industry. In Aus and NZ's case, it's because we'll no longer be part of the single market and thus will be less of a market for them, thus they want more advantageous terms. I can't remember what it was for Russia, but it was probably for shits and giggles. Remember, Aus and NZ were supposed to be what we'll be looking to for friends as they're part of the Commonwealth, while the US were supposed to be our new main partners. Or so the Brexiteers promised, anyway.

Which of the positives promised by Brexiteers have come true so far, or looked like coming true? I've only seen the Brave New World being dialled back, replaced by "We''ll survive".

Given the EU doesn't allow any negotiations after leaving how well can they be going? Even if they were all agreed and just needed to be signed neither side would be able to talk about them.

Could you link to where the USA has stated they'd veto us? I only ask since you are so against histrionics by Brexiteers.

~:smoking:

Seamus Fermanagh

11-09-2018, 23:34

Does exiting the political institutions of the EU require exiting the single market?

Has EU leadership offered the opportunity to opt out of the EU but keep a place in the single market? I suspect not. The British negotiator who, trying to get Brexit to work, refused such an offer would be lynched.

rory_20_uk

11-09-2018, 23:51

Has EU leadership offered the opportunity to opt out of the EU but keep a place in the single market? I suspect not. The British negotiator who, trying to get Brexit to work, refused such an offer would be lynched.

Await Husar's "there's no a la carte deal" - if countries could have the useful bits and ditch the crap the EU would quickly unravel to a trade and standards body requiring vastly less politicians and bureaucrats on high salaries - the horror!

~:smoking:

Pannonian

11-10-2018, 01:05

Has EU leadership offered the opportunity to opt out of the EU but keep a place in the single market? I suspect not. The British negotiator who, trying to get Brexit to work, refused such an offer would be lynched.

They've said that the single market requires retaining the four freedoms. None of these requirements include membership of the political institutions. One of the absolute requirements of Brexiteers is to block one of these freedoms, but they all want the other three. Hence rory's reference to no deal a la carte. But despite rory and others' references to being ruled from Brussels, none of these requirements include membership of the political institutions. We don't need to interact with Brussels other than as a foreign country, and we can still have membership of the single market. IIRC this is the Norway option, promised by Farage before the referendum, but which is now dismissed by all Brexiteers.

Husar

11-10-2018, 03:33

Await Husar's "there's no a la carte deal"

Oh please, I'm just skimming the back and forth here, I want nothing to do with this dirty talk.

But yeah, imagine you worked for a company selling drugs and someone offered you a deal where they would buy lots of drugs from you at a very cheap price but they'd be unwilling to pay above the unit cost so that you'd make absolutely no profit from that deal. Surely you'd give them that deal and let all your other customers know, right?

But no, you say, I run this company to make a profit and if I stop, nobody gets these drugs anymore!

And then some dude comes along and just says: Oh, but you just want some free money for sitting in your office chair all day and noone needs your stupid company and drugs anyway, stop crying and give people the drugs at prooduction prices! Save yourself the cost of an expensive, unnecessary sales department! They cost the drug consumer too much anyway! It's immoral to ask a profit for something so vital!

But then you go "But we have to finance future developments, invest in R&D to further improve our drugs!"

And the other guy goes: "But we don't want any new drugs, we already liked our opiates in 1980 when it would just make the pain go away and nothing else! Revert to the 1980s drugs and sell us these at production prices, development and growth are for capitalists and capitalists stink!"

You see how you're the communist here? :clown: