EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

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

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

[Furunculus]

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

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053766140

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

In order of preference. ;)

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053766231

The 1% difference is vis-a-vis the continental norm given the potential difference in spend between a UK on 35% of GDP and the Eurozone on 45%. The putative bump in UK growth from dropping down from 40% of GDP would be plus 0.5% in growth. UK trend growth in the last fifty years has dropped from roughly 3.5% to roughly 2.5%, with brexit putting a further immediate dent in confidence (and thus growth). The response in tax and regulatory terms would bump that back up. There is always a response, it's just a case of whether people like that response.

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053767849

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

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

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

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...post2053767879

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

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

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

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

Theresa May official account, 13th January 2018
https://twitter.com/theresa_may/stat...08358668038146

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

[Furunculus]

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

[Pannonian]

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

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

[Husar]

Non-sequiter, much...

*Non sequitur

Don't try to britainize latin now.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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

[Gilrandir]

*Non sequitur

Don't try to britainize latin now.

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

[Furunculus]

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

tacitus had something to say on that score.

[Fragony]

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-...disinformation
brrrrrr, increasingly scary, 1984 is so eighties

[Pannonian]

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-...disinformation
brrrrrr, increasingly scary, 1984 is so eighties

Do you get your news from St Petersburg?

[Fragony]

Do you get your news from St Petersburg?

did you miss the ec.europa.eu?

[Husar]

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-...disinformation
brrrrrr, increasingly scary, 1984 is so eighties

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

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

[Pannonian]

did you miss the ec.europa.eu?

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

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

As I said

[Husar]

As I said

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

[Fragony]

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

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

[Kralizec]

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-...disinformation
brrrrrr, increasingly scary, 1984 is so eighties

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

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

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

[Montmorency]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Fragony]

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

[Husar]

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

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

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

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

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

[HopAlongBunny]

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

[Pannonian]

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






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

It probably traces back to St Petersburg.

[Pannonian]

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

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

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

[Pannonian]

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

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