UKC

/ Brexit: UK Poorer In All Scenarios Over 15 Years

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Timmd on 12 Mar 2018
George Ormerod - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

But it’s not about the money. Think of the other benefits: the loss of power and influence, the surrender of sovereignty in the desperation for new trade deals. The lost decade of sorting this mess out when we should be sorting out the country’s problems (none of which have anything to do with the EU). Get with the programme remoner traitor  

 

5
MG - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Bizarrely, it is now government policy to make us poorer. Tory government policy...! If you don't support this you are a traitor and enemy of the people.

4
Pete Pozman - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

At least we'll be free of unelected eurocrats' meddling and if Trump decides we're one of his special friends he might exempt us from his tariffs.

I just can't wait for my dad's old pit to open again, The Beatles to reform and Engelbert Humperdink to be top of the charts. It was great then  I can't understand why remoaners can't see it. Get on board... The Future's the Past ! 

1
Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

"GDP will shrink by at least 0.1 per cent in each of the four quarters after the referendum - bringing a year-long recession."

"After the referendum,  the jobless rate would be 1.6 per cent higher."

"By 2018, house prices would be at least 10 per cent lower and possibly fall by up to 18 per cent."

"Public sector borrowing rise by £12.2billion in 2016-17 "

"It is official. Figures for the past six months show that the forecasts of instant Brexit catastrophe from the Treasury and the Bank of England were garbage. The Bank’s economist, Andrew Haldane, admitted yesterday that it was a repeat of the failure to predict the 2008 crash. It was another “Michael Fish moment”, when meteorologists failed to forecast the 1987 hurricane."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/economists-economic-policy-brexit-crash-failure

You keep focusing on doom and gloom though Timmd mate, I'm sure sometime soon you'll get the downfall of the UK which you seem to crave. 

38
Andy Hardy on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> I'm sure sometime soon you'll get the downfall of the UK which you seem to crave. 

Why do brexit always say this. The downfall of the UK is an outcome that remainers are trying to avoid

3
Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Why do the remainers concentrate on spreading negative stories then? Surely working towards the best outcome for the UK does not mean posting constant doom and gloom, but supporting UK efforts to get the best deal.

Some seem to have pinned their hopes on a second referendum, which both main parties have said will not happen, and are looking for ways to show they were right to vote remain, rather than working within the current scenarios.

Post edited at 08:43
39
Rampikino - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Perhaps it's a response to some of the posts on UKC that APPEAR to take delight in any evidence that Brexit is going to be "Bad" for the UK.

These posts COULD be interpreted by some as embracing any negativity as a way of being able to say "I told you so".

Just my interpretation.

2
Queenie - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Exactly. Any downfall will be the fault of the Remainers for not "getting behind Brexit"....apparently.

2
Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

> Bizarrely, it is now government policy to make us poorer. Tory government policy...! If you don't support this you are a traitor and enemy of the people.

Yes, and we will all be forced to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before we go to bed, eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to go to work, and when we get home, our Dad will kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."

 

Dear god, you couldn't make up this sort of stuff!

33
john arran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Surely working towards the best outcome for the UK does not mean posting constant doom and gloom, but supporting UK efforts to get the best deal.

I've asked this several times and never had an answer: What can I do to "support UK efforts to get the best deal" a.k.a. get behind Brexit? Other than 'put up and shut up', of course.

Seems to me that 'telling it like it is' isn't something very palatable to Leavers as the reality is distinctly unpalatable.

 

4
MG - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Dear god, you couldn't make up this sort of stuff!

For once you are correct.

Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Why do the remainers concentrate on spreading negative stories then? 

For the last 20 years the Leavers have been campaigning on  a platform that everything is negative and it is all the fault of the EU. During that time we have enjoyed strong growth with for a mature economy with so few natural resources. Now we are moving to a situation where we will, by the govts own admission, have worse growth but we Remainers are he ones accused of negativity . 

> Supporting UK efforts to get the best deal.

Please suggest one practical way I can do that which will make a difference

 

> Some seem to have pinned their hopes on a second referendum, which both main parties have said will not happen, and are looking for ways to show they were right to vote remain, rather than working within the current scenarios.

What if they are wrong? The only reason for continuing is he will of he people, if it really is the will of the people what's wrong with s second referendum? If you were measuring a window for curtains would you not remeasure if there was reason to suspect you got it wrong first time?

 

Post edited at 08:53
2
Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

I agree John that it's not easy, possible even, for individuals to have an effect. But demanding second referendums, as some here would seem to be, or constantly spreading doom and gloom stories, as some seem to do, just help to create an atmosphere of negativity and despondence.

We all know the Poms love a good grumble and moan, and that some seem to revel in negativity, however, if we don not question their reasons for, and try to offer an alternative, we'll be dragged down to their level.

 

(PS< You could always vote Tory?)

31
Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> For the last 20 years the Leavers have been campaigning on  a platform that everything is negative and it is all the fault of the EU. During that time we have enjoyed strong growth with for a mature economy with so few natural resources. Now we are moving to a situation where we will, by the govts own admission, have worse growth but we Remainers are he ones accused of negativity . 

I disagree, I'd like to see some historical evidence for this "20 year" campaign 

> Please suggest one practical way I can do that which will make a difference

Vote Tory.

> What if they are wrong? The only reason for continuing is he will of he people, if it really is the will of the people what's wrong with s second referendum? If you were measuring a window for curtains would you not remeasure if there was reason to suspect you got it wrong first time?

Well if "the people" call for a second referendum, we should have one. But I'm afraid the tide is against that.

 

26
Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> I disagree, I'd like to see some historical evidence for this "20 year" campaign 

UKIP formed 25 years ago

> Vote Tory. 

They are in power until after the deal is done so not practical, anything else?

> Well if "the people" call for a second referendum, we should have one. But I'm afraid the tide is against that.

Is it, maybe we should have a refurendum to find out!

Post edited at 09:05
john arran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

o when you said we should be "supporting UK efforts", that was just a meaningless phrase that sounded good to you?

You also seem to be deliberately missing the point; your focusing on the negativity as grumbling completely ignores the twin 'facts' that the overwhelming expert opinion believed the negative predictions to actually be correct, and the small majority of voters now seem to think Brexit might not be the cake option they once thought may be possible.

Given that we have a lot more information now than we had in 2016, what do you think would be the problem with putting the new question of EU membership - on terms that will by then be far better understood - to the electorate? Could it be a fear of the electorate now getting what it seems to want?

2
jkarran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> "It is official. Figures for the past six months show that the forecasts of instant Brexit catastrophe from the Treasury and the Bank of England were garbage. The Bank’s economist, Andrew Haldane, admitted yesterday that it was a repeat of the failure to predict the 2008 crash. It was another “Michael Fish moment”, when meteorologists failed to forecast the 1987 hurricane."

Good news eh. I wonder if that is because brexit is actually a good thing that will deliver the opposite of what the CBI and the vast majority of economists predict or I wonder if there was more going on than you'd like to imply. Perhaps dramatic loosening of monetary policy in the aftermath of the referendum by the BoE or a significant upturn in the global economy which we are for now at least still effectively connected to, coincident with the referendum and of course the fact we didn't actually leave, in the period you highlight we hadn't even given notice. Still facts, f*** em, I'm convinced.

jk

1
stevieb - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Why do the remainers concentrate on spreading negative stories then? Surely working towards the best outcome for the UK does not mean posting constant doom and gloom, but supporting UK efforts to get the best deal.

> Some seem to have pinned their hopes on a second referendum, which both main parties have said will not happen, and are looking for ways to show they were right to vote remain, rather than working within the current scenarios.


I'm sure you realise that if polls were consistently showing that 60% of the population now backed remain, then the main parties would probably offer a second referendum. You surely know that almost no-one in this country wishes ill on this country (although I think most people on both sides are more concerned with their personal circumstance). 

People who voted to stay in the EU are not trying to talk the country down, they are trying to make people totally aware of all the negative consequences of leaving. Its just that most of the time they do it in a really really bad way which makes people who voted to leave the EU more defensive and makes any change of mind more unlikely.

jkarran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Why do the remainers concentrate on spreading negative stories then? Surely working towards the best outcome for the UK does not mean posting constant doom and gloom, but supporting UK efforts to get the best deal.

The best outcome for the UK is to remain in the EU on our existing terms. If it takes a cold shower of uncomfortable truths to turn enough wavering voters to achieve that then so be it.

> Some seem to have pinned their hopes on a second referendum, which both main parties have said will not happen, and are looking for ways to show they were right to vote remain, rather than working within the current scenarios.

Yeah, because someone says no you just stop and give up. Who ever achieved anything like that? Another referendum is the only way this can reasonably now be resolved either way. Whether we choose the deal we get or reject it and remain we have a lot of pain coming as a consequence of the choices we've made and have allowed our representatives to make. No government or party will have the courage to own that or to be seen to be disregarding public opinion, something that can of course change.

jk

3
wercat on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

the best outcome is to stop Brexit

there was no agreed process for the decision - the referendum was forced on us as a forced onus.

the referendum was improperly executed after a campaign of disinformation

the subsequent course taken has not reflected any democratically sampled opinion and is not in our national interest

what is to get behind?  or are we just to be 1930s style good Ger mans

Post edited at 09:33
3
Pete Pozman - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

I don't actually want the EU to cave in to our demands to get all the benefits of membership without any of the costs and commitments. The EU was always more about peace in Europe than mere prosperity. Brexit, to this country's shame, gave encouragement to the Trump campaign and all the other sub-fascist, xenophobic parties in Europe. It is a source of deep satisfaction for Putin.

We've turned our back on mutually assured prosperity and a future of easygoing cooperation for unease and danger. That's how remainers see things . The second raters in the tories have done and said nothing to reassure me . Can anyone on here say anything that is in any way optimistic about the future the 17 million voted for? For God's sake don't tell me about how great this country is. Volt de nem most: it was but not now . 

4
Andy Hardy on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Why do the remainers concentrate on spreading negative stories then? Surely working towards the best outcome for the UK does not mean posting constant doom and gloom, but supporting UK efforts to get the best deal.

I feel like I'm trapped on a bus full of loonies heading for a cliff edge. I have no option but to keep yelling at the driver to stop or turn before we go over. Unfortunately half the bus are cheering the driver on.

We have had this discussion many times before, if I am wrong I will be the happiest man who ever ate a massive slice of humble pie. But the reason I'm not posting positive brexit stories is that there is absolutely no good news about brexit to post.

> Some seem to have pinned their hopes on a second referendum, which both main parties have said will not happen, and are looking for ways to show they were right to vote remain, rather than working within the current scenarios.

The current scenario being we are going to have less access to our biggest, closest and richest trading partner - excuse me while I yell at the driver some more, it looks like a long way down off that cliff

 

5
Pete Houghton - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

I tend not to comment on these threads, but I have to mention one thing... since the result of this perplexing and misguided referendum so very long ago, it's been rather entertaining watching the "Likes" and "Dislikes" given out by each team dwindle from roughly 50/50, as per the referendum results, to around 80-90% in favour of one particular team.

If only the referendum itself had taken this format instead of a sudden all-or-nothing vote one day... if we could have dragged it out over so many months, then people could have absorbed the information a little better and perhaps this whole farce could have been avoided.

3
RomTheBear on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> I agree John that it's not easy, possible even, for individuals to have an effect. But demanding second referendums, as some here would seem to be, or constantly spreading doom and gloom stories, as some seem to do, just help to create an atmosphere of negativity and despondence.

It’s not a “doom and gloom story” it’s simply the result of an analysis conducted by a ministry led by an arch-brexiteer.

It’s doom and gloom from your point of view because every day that passes every piece of news is more evidence that all the pipe dreams and lies you believe were just rubbish.

From my point of view it’s neutral because this is not news and was all rather very obvious from the start. 

Post edited at 10:16
3
GrahamD - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Why do the remainers concentrate on spreading negative stories then?

Because there aren't any f*cking positive stories. Its just shit.

3
Steve Halfpenny - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

I'm a remain voter, but I don't see what it has to do with climbing, isn't climbing a way to be free of everyday life ................

7
Rob Exile Ward on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

'Well if "the people" call for a second referendum, we should have one. But I'm afraid the tide is against that.'

Well it seems to be, but there's a way to go yet.

And can we just knock this 'anti-democratic' criticism on the head please. If someone is convicted in a court of law, based on lies being used as evidence, when the truth finally emerges the courts don't just shrug their shoulders and say 'that's too bad, the law has to be upheld.' A retrial is held, or the conviction squashed.

The Brexit vote was won by demagogues who unashamedly told lies, about everything from £350 million per week for the NHS, to Turkey joining the EU, from the costs of Brexit being akin to resigning from a golf club, to the idea that doing trade deals 'was the simplest thing in the world.' There should be a law against politicians knowingly peddling lies; in the absence I'll settle for another referendum, thanks very much.

 

4
john yates - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

Tory government policy is to respect the wishes of the people expressed in a referendum. Shock. 

9
jonnie3430 - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

I think we should remember how we felt about the EU before brexit came. Greece getting bailed out, Italy, Spain, Cyprus and Portugal struggling (and more?) the benefits of being in a common trade agreement with Germany and France mitigated by support of the poorer members and the feeling that there was more money going out than coming in. There were thoughts that the Greek failure could bring down the EU, that it could never survive. Have things changed? Unemployment levels in some Mediterranean countries still seem really bad and not improving, so is the EU going down anyway?

I'm pro remain, measure twice, cut once, as referred to above sums it up, I like the lack of border control, but remember it isn't all sunshine in the EU.

Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

> o when you said we should be "supporting UK efforts", that was just a meaningless phrase that sounded good to you?

Nope, it was a genuine exhortation to stop posting each and every negative bit of forecasting as if it was  god's judgement on all the Brexit supporter.s

> You also seem to be deliberately missing the point; your focusing on the negativity as grumbling completely ignores the twin 'facts' that the overwhelming expert opinion believed the negative predictions to actually be correct, and the small majority of voters now seem to think Brexit might not be the cake option they once thought may be possible.

See my list of negative forecasts above.

> Given that we have a lot more information now than we had in 2016, what do you think would be the problem with putting the new question of EU membership - on terms that will by then be far better understood - to the electorate? Could it be a fear of the electorate now getting what it seems to want?

I've no fear of it, neither do I think it necessary.

 

15
Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

>. Still facts, f*** em, I'm convinced.

Forecasts are not "facts".

See my list of negative forecast that the likes of you were touting prior tpo the vote.

 

10
Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

 

> The Brexit vote was won by demagogues who unashamedly told lies, about everything from £350 million per week for the NHS, to Turkey joining the EU, from the costs of Brexit being akin to resigning from a golf club, to the idea that doing trade deals 'was the simplest thing in the world.' There should be a law against politicians knowingly peddling lies; in the absence I'll settle for another referendum, thanks very much.

The Brexit vote was lost by liars who predicted economic collapse, mass unemployment, housing price meltdown etc...

 

19
jkarran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Forecasts are not "facts".

No they're not but the facts I posted in response to your claim the predictions were wrong were facts, those things happened, they mitigated the impact of the vote on our economy and they were not included in the models nor under the government's control.

jk

3
jkarran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

The vote was 'lost' for a wide range of reasons (that wide unconnected spread of grievances being the main one), predictions of hard times ahead outside the EU will I'm sure have swayed a few to vote for that but not many. Is that what convinced you?

jk

2
Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to jonnie3430:

I think most people are realistic enough to recognise the EU has massive problems, that's partly what it's for, to attempt to solve these massive issues (rather than having a war as in the past!).

Everything of any size will have issues be it the NHS, the army, the civil service. At any one time we will have issues with other countries. So it was easy for Brexiters to point at these problems and compare it with a completely unrealistic fantasy land. That's what we were asked to vote on, now we know that fantasy land does not exist it seems only fair to be asked to vote again. 

 

 

Post edited at 10:56
2
Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> The vote was 'lost' for a wide range of reasons (that wide unconnected spread of grievances being the main one), predictions of hard times ahead outside the EU will I'm sure have swayed a few to vote for that but not many. Is that what convinced you?

> jk

You should ask Mr Junker to stop talking about  the ways the EU is going to make sure the UK is punished, as  a preventative to other nations leaving the club.

A survey carried out for the Telegraph reveals that while the split of Leave and Remain voters is largely unchanged since the referendum, 67?per cent of individuals, regardless of their voting preference, agreed that “the EU is trying to bully the UK” in its approach to the talks.

The figures come after several senior pro-Europe figures warned that a growing perception of an “excessively tough” attitude by EU leaders threatened the appetite among British voters for future co-operation with Brussels in areas such as the economy, security and research.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/03/10/two-three-people-believe-eu-trying-bully-uk-brexit/

Post edited at 10:58
11
Pete Pozman - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Steve Halfpenny:

> I'm a remain voter, but I don't see what it has to do with climbing, isn't climbing a way to be free of everyday life ................

It's going to be just a little bit harder to get to the Alps and get medical attention if you have an accident. There'll be fewer Eastern Europeans down at the climbing wall ; I'll miss them. Brexit is going to make all our lives just a little bit shittier. 

7
jkarran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> You should ask Mr Junker to stop talking about  the ways the EU is going to make sure the UK is punished, as  a preventative to other nations leaving the club.

It's obvious UK can't have what is seen to be a better deal with the EU out of it than we had in, we already had a better deal than most. That's not punishment, that's protecting the EU's interests. It's a good thing IMO because even outside it the EU's interests are ultimately ours.

> A survey carried out for the Telegraph reveals that while the split of Leave and Remain voters is largely unchanged since the referendum, 67?per cent of individuals, regardless of their voting preference, agreed that “the EU is trying to bully the UK” in its approach to the talks.

No, I'm shocked and in the Telegraph you say!

> The figures come after several senior pro-Europe figures warned that a growing perception of an “excessively tough” attitude by EU leaders threatened the appetite among British voters for future co-operation with Brussels in areas such as the economy, security and research.

Who knew they'd play tough eh? Oh I did. So did you. Moaning about it won't change anything.

jk

4
john arran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Nope, it was a genuine exhortation to stop posting each and every negative bit of forecasting as if it was  god's judgement on all the Brexit supporter.s

So 'put up and shut up' then. Thought so.

> See my list of negative forecasts above.

Forecasts will always have a range of accuracy. Factors such as the prompt and severe QE after the ballot will greatly change the outcomes, as will ensuing political decisions. That's not forecasts being wrong, that's goalposts moving. The fact was that the vote shook the financial establishment and it took some pretty severe intervention (which cost the country billions) to stop the forecast doom and gloom from being bad enough to do even more severe damage than it has.

> I've no fear of it, neither do I think it necessary.

Then you'll not object if we keep on proposing it, then, for such time as when we know the full extent of the cliff we're being dragged towards?

 

 

1
Bob Kemp - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Steve Halfpenny:

> I'm a remain voter, but I don't see what it has to do with climbing, isn't climbing a way to be free of everyday life ................

I haven't seen much discussion of this, so it's worth raising. Here's a few quick thoughts:

We might wish to use climbing to get away from everyday life, but climbing doesn't exist in a bubble. The Brexit decision has already had impacts on climbing, for example making it more expensive to visit Europe via its impact on Sterling. We will lose the right to live and work in 27 countries - that will have an effect. I haven't seen any discussion of what might ensue after we leave, but I wouldn't imagine travel to Europe will be easier, and if there aren't positive  developments around airline travel the way we get there will be affected. I would also be interested to know what will happen to all those ex-pat UK climbers living and running businesses in Europe.

Other things I've wondered about are gear prices and availability - what might happen here? Maybe there could even be the rare sighting of positive impacts here - a stimulus to the UK gear manufacturing sector? Or will there be a regulatory mess to untangle to start with?

Oh, and then there's the environmental impact. I can't begin to think what might happen here, positive or negative. 

Whatever the outcomes for climbing, there will be some. We can't ignore Brexit. 

Post edited at 11:12
2
Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> A survey carried out for the Telegraph reveals that while the split of Leave and Remain voters is largely unchanged since the referendum, 67?per cent of individuals, regardless of their voting preference, agreed that “the EU is trying to bully the UK” in its approach to the talks.

> The figures come after several senior pro-Europe figures warned that a growing perception of an “excessively tough” attitude by EU leaders threatened the appetite among British voters for future co-operation with Brussels in areas such as the economy, security and research.

Strap in snowflakes, we're going to get the same sort of bullying from every country we need to make a deal with. Like the US is bullying us with steel tariffs, the Indians want to bully us with more visas in return for trade etc etc.

BTW why are we letting the EU bully us when we have such a strong hand?

2
Bob Kemp - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> The Brexit vote was lost by liars who predicted economic collapse, mass unemployment, housing price meltdown etc...

Once again - we haven't left yet. 

1
wercat on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

 

> It's going to be just a little bit harder to get to the Alps and get medical attention if you have an accident. There'll be fewer Eastern Europeans down at the climbing wall ; I'll miss them. Brexit is going to make all our lives just a little bit shittier. 

 

Plus you'll have to explain Brexit to everyone you meet when they find out where you are from

 

1
andyfallsoff - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Why do the remainers concentrate on spreading negative stories then? Surely working towards the best outcome for the UK does not mean posting constant doom and gloom, but supporting UK efforts to get the best deal.

Well we're still in a stage of deciding what happens next. Ignoring the warning signs and bad news is a bit like saying that the best way to treat an illness is to ignore the symptoms and just concentrate on the parts of the body that are healthy...

 

Rob Exile Ward on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Brexit hasn't happened yet. Yes, the more lurid forecasts of what would happen the day after might have been exaggerated; who knew? Except of course, the pound DID slump, and has not recovered, so that the cost of living and inflation are inexorably rising, and house prices have stagnated. Rising exports caused by the weak pound have offset the worst effects to date; this is unsustainable in the long term as the rising costs of imports create upward price pressure.

Once Brexit does happen, and suddenly our exports are piled up on the docks at Tilbury, our food is delayed at Calais, we can't harvest our own crops, we can no longer export cars to the far East as we have no agreement in place, when HMRC haven't got any infrastructure in place to deal with all the changes that are legally required, there could be a pretty bumpy ride ahead - anything from mild chaos to downright anarchy. My own suspicion is that this will be the UK equivalent of Prohibition, that the rule of law simply breaks down - because the laws no longer exist, or are unenforceable - and the criminality required to just get through the day will become institutionalized.

Of course I'm probably wrong; but that's a hell of a risk that we're taking for no plausible or clearly identified economic, social or political benefit

4
mrphilipoldham - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to George Ormerod

For the purpose of the debate, would you mind mentioning the non-EU related problems?

 

RomTheBear on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> The Brexit vote was lost by liars who predicted economic collapse, mass unemployment, housing price meltdown etc...

The treasury and boe analysis got pretty much everything bang on correct except maybe with one year lag. And now after the referendum brexit department analysis also finds the same results.

on the other side, what have the brexiteers predicted that proved correct ? Absolutely nothing.

We’re not getting those fantastic trade deals in no time, the EU is not bending over backwards to give us what we want, the NHS is not getting extra millions, we’re not getting more sovereignty and control over our own laws, and instead of the booming economy they promised we have falling real wages and the lowest growth amongst the advanced economies.

Post edited at 12:16
2
gallam1 - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

"Factors such as the prompt and severe QE after the ballot" Care to put some detail on that - it's a bit woolly.

"The fact was that the vote shook the financial establishment and it took some pretty severe intervention (which cost the country billions) ".  See above.

Rob Exile Ward on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Have to say though, Vince Cable's contribution over the weekend won't have swayed many,  I don't suppose; playing the racist card again - even if there is more than a grain of truth in it - doesn't seem a very constructive way to go. Especially as there is now so much hard evidence of the lies that were told by Brexiteers before the referendum.

Post edited at 12:43
2
kipper12 - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

let me preface my response; I voted remain.  Much of what I currently enjoy about my job will change out of all recognition in just about 12-months.  I spend a good amount of my time representing the UK at one of the EU's regulatory agencies.

However; one must acknowledge the remain campaign was badly run and spun a web of its own lies and half truths too.  Mostly it was very poorly executed.

I'm afraid if we sought to prosecute every elected representative who lied to us, the gaols would be very full.  The majority of them lie to us all the time, it goes with the job description.  It would be great if they didn't.

RomTheBear on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> You should ask Mr Junker to stop talking about  the ways the EU is going to make sure the UK is punished, as  a preventative to other nations leaving the club.

But it is exactly what you wanted, Big Ger, by giving up our place at the top table and “taking back control”. Why moan about it now ?

Of course the natural result is that you end up at the mercy of the likes of Juncker and so on. What did you expect ? That the world was a nice place where others countries and blocs would just give up fighting for their interest when it harms us ?  Are you really this naive ?

1
gallam1 - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

"The treasury and boe analysis got pretty much everything bang on correct except maybe with one year lag. And now after the referendum brexit department analysis also finds the same results."  Mark Carney was predicting before the vote that if we voted leave interest rates would rise significantly.  After we voted leave, he cut interest rates.  The time lag between the forecast and the decision was about 4 weeks, if I am not mistaken.

The UK Treasury and BoE analysis before the event was appallingly inaccurate.  You could argue that the actions of the BoE after the vote were appropriate, but there would be many who disagree with you.

1
john arran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> "Factors such as the prompt and severe QE after the ballot" Care to put some detail on that - it's a bit woolly.

> "The fact was that the vote shook the financial establishment and it took some pretty severe intervention (which cost the country billions) ".  See above.

Plenty of info online, I'm sure. Google will be your friend.

1
Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

This article is pretty good, specifically point 3 abut QE but point 5 is also interesting; the divergence between wages and spending seen from Q3 2016 is going to bite consumer spending on the arse sometime soon.

https://www.ft.com/content/6aec5eb8-0256-11e7-aa5b-6bb07f5c8e12

 

1
jkarran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> "Factors such as the prompt and severe QE after the ballot" Care to put some detail on that - it's a bit woolly.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/04/bank-of-england-cuts-uk-interest-rates

Google will turn up plenty more if you can't cope with the Guardian, it was just the first result not behind a paywall.

jk

1
Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> You could argue that the actions of the BoE after the vote were appropriate, but there would be many who disagree with you.

What was/is the alternative course of action these people are arguing for and what are the advantages of their course?

RomTheBear on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> "The treasury and boe analysis got pretty much everything bang on correct except maybe with one year lag. And now after the referendum brexit department analysis also finds the same results."  Mark Carney was predicting before the vote that if we voted leave interest rates would rise significantly.  After we voted leave, he cut interest rates.  The time lag between the forecast and the decision was about 4 weeks, if I am not mistaken.

> The UK Treasury and BoE analysis before the event was appallingly inaccurate.  You could argue that the actions of the BoE after the vote were appropriate, but there would be many who disagree with you.

That is simply wrong.

GDP impact predicted over two years = -3.6 %. Actual: estimated ~ - 1% last year, probably same or more next year. With compounding effect takes us to more than -2% at the very least.

Inflation predicted : 2.4%. Actual : 3%

sterling ERI predicted: -12%. Actual : - 15%

houses prices predicted impact (over two years)  : -10%, actual : -6% in one year and a half

Impact on real wages predicted -2.8% over two years. Actual Impact estimated over 1.5 year : -3%

You could say they got it wrong on unemployment, they had predicted +1.6% over two years, but it’s questionable whether unemployment would be lower than it is today without brexit.

Sure, they overestimated some and underestimated some, but mostly they were in the ballpark and well within the CI.

 

Post edited at 13:13
2
Bob Kemp - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Tory government policy is to respect the wishes of the people expressed in a referendum. Shock. 

What is 'the people'? Doesn't seem to include the 48% who voted against Brexit, or those who weren't allowed to vote, or those who didn't vote. Did they suddenly become the 'non-people'? This use of language is very popular with extremists of all kinds. 

"The next time you hear someone claiming to speak for “the people” – and you will – be sure to count the democratic silver."

 - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/17/brexit-will-of-the-people-vassal-state-populism

Post edited at 13:08
3
Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> houses prices predicted impact (over two years)  : -10%, actual : -6% in one year and a half

This needs more explanation, are you saying prices are actually dropping (they aren't) or that they were expected to rise by 11% PA

Post edited at 13:27
1
RomTheBear on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> > houses prices predicted impact (over two years)  : -10%, actual : -6% in one year and a half

> ??????This needs more explanation, are you saying prices are actually dropping (they aren't) or that they were expected to rise by 11% PA

Indeed, they aren’t dropping but the rate of growth has significantly slowed to what it was prior brexit vote.

Had the pre-brexit trend continued house prices would be around 6% higher than they are now.

I thinks that’s what people didn’t get about the impact assessments, it sought to predicts the impact, not the actuals. The clue was in the title really.... but most people don’t read the actual report or try to understand it, they just listen to overblown claims in the press

Post edited at 13:30
Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Nope, it was a genuine exhortation to stop posting each and every negative bit of forecasting as if it was  god's judgement on all the Brexit supporter.s

> So 'put up and shut up' then. Thought so.

Come on John, I though you could do better than that. There was no request to 'put up and shut up'  was there?

> Forecasts will always have a range of accuracy

An some will always look to find the glass half empty.

> Then you'll not object if we keep on proposing it, then, for such time as when we know the full extent of the cliff we're being dragged towards?

Well you can keep proposing it, but I doubt Mrs May et al read this forum much, so  you're pissing into the wind frankly.,

10
Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Well that's something I guess, HPI of 11% is ridiculous

RomTheBear on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> Well that's something I guess, HPI of 11% is ridiculous

Over two years, remember.

john arran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Come on John, I though you could do better than that. There was no request to 'put up and shut up'  was there?

OK, I agree that "stop posting" and " put up and shut up" are completely different.

 

Happy now?

1
jkarran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

It is but there are better ways to manage house price inflation than by dropping a bomb into the economy then waiting to see which bits survive while arguing over which type of bomb to try next.

jk

Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Well you said 18 months and HPI has been 5% last two years so it would have been 9%, still too much

Tyler - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Don't get me wrong, I don't see Brexit as anything other than a total catastrophe

RomTheBear on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

There are two kind of optimists Big Ger,

Those who believe tomorrow will be better if they work hard towards it by planning for it and taking informed decisions today.

And then there’s the naive ones like you who think tomorrow will be better regardless of their reckless behaviour.

Post edited at 13:53
2
RomTheBear on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> Well you said 18 months and HPI has been 5% last two years so it would have been 9%, still too much

Whether it’s too much of too little is another debate, I’m just making the point that the impact assessment got it more or less right.

Big Ger - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

> OK, I agree that "stop posting" and " put up and shut up" are completely different.

Your selective quoting is so demeaning to your intellect, why do it?. Here is the proper quote;

"Nope, it was a genuine exhortation to stop posting each and every negative bit of forecasting as if it was  god's judgement on all the Brexit supporters."

The bts in bold are the little parts you missed when you selectively quoted me.

> Happy now?

When you play honestly I will be.

 

Post edited at 15:38
12
john arran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Yes, of course dear. Cup of tea?

1
wercat on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Yes, of course dear. Cup of tea?


make sure the scone is right

Pete Pozman - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to wercat:

> Plus you'll have to explain Brexit to everyone you meet when they find out where you are from

I'll be travelling on an Irish passport. I figure that will be easier to get  than a Czech, Slovak, or Hungarian one. The longer this farce goes on the less British I feel although, to be fair, some of my Brexiter friends have told me that their animus against Eastern Europeans  doesn't apply to me  Which is nice  

 

Dave B on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Steve Halfpenny:

Get climbing wrong and is a way of being free of love every day  ;-)

Basil on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

Maybe the negative's are not stories but brexit economic impact studies? just a thought.

john arran - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> some of my Brexiter friends have told me that their animus against Eastern Europeans  doesn't apply to me  Which is nice.

I'm not racist; some of my best friends are black.  ;-)

 

1
john yates - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Another person quick to label opponents extremist. Oh dear. There was a referendum. One side won. The other lost. Not sure which side you were on. But if it were remain and remain had narrowly won, would you be so loud in declaiming the legitimacy of the result. All those who think EU such a success story, read The Guardian’s ( you guys seem to like that middle class left ish propaganda posing as need) Larry Elliot. He also usefully reminds us both Tony Benn and some chump called Corbyn were opposed to membership. Or even pro-EU Stiglitz’s rather good book on the Euro. Why if EU such a harmonious, prosperous place to live is London the sixth largest French city; why are the far right and fascists (if you believe Grauniad twaddle) doing so well across the piece from Italy and France to Austria and Hungary. Why is the euro f*cked without political union? ( this was the proximate cause of the referendum post EU Rejection of Cameron’s admittedly flawed proposal on Banking Union). Possibly the worlds best climber at least now admits there is direction to government as we are being dragged to a cliff edge. Would that be the same cliff edge we were going to fall off immediately after voters rejected the entire establishment and voted to leave? Or is this a second cliff edge. Night y’all. 

16
pasbury on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Thank you for your contribution.

1
Bob Kemp - on 12 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

>Another person quick to label opponents extremist. Oh dear. 

Perhaps we should revisit what I actually said: 

"What is 'the people'? Doesn't seem to include the 48% who voted against Brexit, or those who weren't allowed to vote, or those who didn't vote. Did they suddenly become the 'non-people'? This use of language is very popular with extremists of all kinds. "

I deliberately made a point of not labelling you, or anyone, an extremist. I pointed out that using the term 'the people' is often associated with extremists. That's all. 

The rest of your post is largely irrelevant to what I posted. Some of it seems at the very least a bit odd: "London the sixth largest French city"; "Possibly the worlds best climber at least now admits there is direction to government as we are being dragged to a cliff edge.". I really don't know how to respond to this.

1
Wicamoi on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

>  Why if the EU is such a harmonious, prosperous place to live is London the sixth largest French city?

That someone as articulate as yourself can apparently overlook the fact that both London and France are part of the EU really saddens me. It shows how far the debate has come from being reasoned..... and I've no doubt that I am capable of making similarly illogical oversights.

But your question really is at the heart of it all - who is "us", and who is "them"?

From your perspective: many French people are leaving their own country to work in the UK. Your conclusion: disharmony in the EU.

From my perspective: many French people are moving from one EU country to another. My conclusion: what wonderful harmony the EU has wrought.

Vive la difference?

1
George Ormerod - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> In reply to George Ormerod

> For the purpose of the debate, would you mind mentioning the non-EU related problems?

Let’s see: The non-existent housing policy; woeful state of infrastructure; ignoring everything outside London and the South East; the poor training and education of the workforce, income equality, austerity, the huge productivity gap; our inability to trade as well as our European contemporaries (which will somehow be sorted out by leaving the EU). Want me to go on?

1
john yates - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Wicamoi:

Valid points all. My comment was aimed more at the significant majority of UKC posters who portray U.K. as some backward looking, economic basket case destined for oblivion. That is not how many millions of Europeans see us. Despite the Brexit vote, UK will remain hugely attractive to migrants because they value our values. The reverse of this is that the EU itself faces an existential crisis at an economic, financial, cultural and social level. Hence the high stakes surrounding our departure. As The Five Presidents report published after the crash suggested, however, the EU thrives on crisis: it spurs policies aimed at ever closer union. While this is a legitimate response, there is much evidence in voting patterns across the EU, and the emergence of populist parties, that further and deeper integration is not shared by all. As for free movement and border controls it is clear that the social, if not economic, impact of this ‘third pillar’ has been dangerously mishandled. Back in the 80s there was a brief but heated debate about ’subsidiarity’. I rather think that the question of who enters a country is a decision for that country and its elected representatives alone. Not a supranational body with little democratic legitimacy and even less credibility. By all means have an open door. But, if that does not work, at least you can vote out the party that was elected on a free movement platform. No such option exists in the EU. 

11
RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> By all means have an open door. But, if that does not work, at least you can vote out the party that was elected on a free movement platform. No such option exists in the EU. 

 

Nobody in the EU forced free movement on any nation. Free movement was established by a succession of treaties that the government of each member state had to ratify, and membership is fully voluntary, you can leave any time.

I agree with you, free movement should be something for the people to decide. So let the people in Scotland, London, and Northern Ireland decide their own arrangement instead of forcing decisions on them. If the rest of the country wants to shut itself out let them do but please don’t take the rest with us.

Post edited at 06:48
1
wbo - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:you point to London.  Do you think London is representative of the UK, particularly to foreigners.

to the op - outside London has the UK got richer or poorer in the last 5 or 10 years, and do you see a reason it should rapidly improve with/without Brexit?

 

Dr.S at work - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Quite in contrast with how it works in the UK, in fact, where member nations are essentially forced down whatever path the bigger nation takes, and they can’t even leave if they want.

Erm, I seem to recall you arguing for Scotland to leave the UK in the recent referendum on this question? If Yes had won do you think the result would not have been honoured? 

RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Erm, I seem to recall you arguing for Scotland to leave the UK in the recent referendum on this question? If Yes had won do you think the result would not have been honoured? 

Maybe it would have, but the point is that Scotland needs to ask for permission to get a referendum.

I am simply making the point that when brexiteers talk about sovereignty, they are complete hypocrites, the lack of sovereignty is not in the EU, which is a voluntary, treaty based organisation  in which only those who want take part. It is in the U.K. that we have a problem.

Post edited at 07:03
1
john yates - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

We are leaving. But my point is that leaving is the only way to only way to avoid free movement. The process you describe is true, but so is the observation that this process is increasingly seen by voters as distant, unaccountable and only weakly democratic. The root of EU existential crisis. Two options. One is leave. Other is deeper integration. 

4
Dr.S at work - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Hmmm, that would potentially get you into a ‘what about Yorkshire’ argument, but let’s not go there!

 

RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> We are leaving. But my point is that leaving is the only way to only way to avoid free movement.

Yes, and at least you can make that choice as to whether or not you have free movement. Here in Scotland we’ll have to accept whatever the U.K. decided, and we can’t even leave without asking for permission.

Which is more democratic, the EU or the U.K. ?

> The process you describe is true, but so is the observation that this process is increasingly seen by voters as distant, unaccountable and only weakly democratic. The root of EU existential crisis. Two options. One is leave. Other is deeper integration. 

False dichotomy as deeper integration is only possible if all members agree.

But that is fine, by all means leave, just don’t force it on others.

 

Post edited at 07:13
1
john yates - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Err no. The U.K. is a soveriegn state. Until the Scots or other ‘nations’ secede that will remain the case. I suspect the Union in the U.K. has more chance is survival than the Union in Europe. Your picture of the the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions is touching. But misplaced. Hence the rise of atavistic, populist parties across Europe. Your ideal, and the reality are diverging at an accelerating pace. Institutional response is to accelerate integration. The very thing populist voters do not want. 

7
john yates - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

No one is forcing anything on Scotland. Until  you leave the Union you remain bound by its laws and its various legislatures. 

Or did I miss a referendum where a majority of Scots voted to leave the Union? In your view, the majority of Scots who voted to remain in the UK should be accorded more value than those who voted to stay. The aggregated Union vote on EU membership was to leave. And Scotland should honour that decision. 

3
RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Err no. The U.K. is a soveriegn state. Until the Scots or other ‘nations’ secede that will remain the case.

Exactly, but the key is, they are not free to “secede” whenever they like, unlike the U.K. is free to leave the EU.

> I suspect the Union in the U.K. has more chance is survival than the Union in Europe. Your picture of the the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions is touching. But misplaced. Hence the rise of atavistic, populist parties across Europe. Your ideal, and the reality are diverging at an accelerating pace. Institutional response is to accelerate integration. The very thing populist voters do not want. 

Integration cannot accelerate unless those who want to integrate deeper agree between themselves. Its a simple legal reality.

Now you could argue that the government of member states do not do the thing their voters want them to do, but that’s an issue with those respective democracies, not a problem with the EU, with or without the EU it won’t change.

RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> No one is forcing anything on Scotland. Until  you leave the Union you remain bound by its laws and its various legislatures. 

Absolutely, but as you would have observed, we don’t have a free choice as to whether we remain in that union. 

We were given the choice once and we were told that if we stayed, we’d be able to stay in the EU, When it became clear that we were told a massive porky pie, our democratically elected government asked for a new referendum, and we were told to just suck it up.

Imagine what would happen in the U.K. if our democratically elected government was told by the EU that we can’t have a referendum on leaving the EU ? 

> Or did I miss a referendum where a majority of Scots voted to leave the Union? In your view, the majority of Scots who voted to remain in the UK should be accorded more value than those who voted to stay. The aggregated Union vote on EU membership was to leave. And Scotland should honour that decision. 

If the U.K. had to ask permission to the EU in order to organise a referendum to leave the EU, you would probably think it’s an undemocratic outrage.

Yes it doesn’t seem to bother you that at the U.K. level this is exactly what happens.

 

Post edited at 07:33
1
Tyler - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Valid points all. My comment was aimed more at the significant majority of UKC posters who portray U.K. as some backward looking, economic basket case destined for oblivion. That is not how many millions of Europeans see us. Despite the Brexit vote, UK will remain hugely attractive to migrants because they value our values.

Evidently less attractive though. It's not that the UK become a basket case overnight but Brexit will accelerate a decline brought about by other things we can'tcontrol. Britain is essentially a brand and that is why it does so well on the world stage, this sort of thing damages the brand, we appear less of a leader and more isolated, especially if we are no longer the number 1 ally of the US. It's not that all banks will uproot but they will open new offices in other EU countries and then when they next expand they may think 'let's expand the Frankfurt office as it has office a capacity and is doing quite well' whereas previously they never had that option (obviously it could be a lot worse than this if manufacturers who are part of a supply line are unable to get their goods out as quickly or as cheaply as they once did).

> The reverse of this is that the EU itself faces an existential crisis at an economic, financial, cultural and social level. Hence the high stakes surrounding our departure. As The Five Presidents report published after the crash suggested, however, the EU thrives on crisis: it spurs policies aimed at ever closer union. While this is a legitimate response, there is much evidence in voting patterns across the EU, and the emergence of populist parties, that further and deeper integration is not shared by all.

I agree, all this talk by the Brexiters about ever closer union was a nonsense, wasn't it? Never likely to happen.

> As for free movement and border controls it is clear that the social, if not economic, impact of this ‘third pillar’ has been dangerously mishandled. Back in the 80s there was a brief but heated debate about ’subsidiarity’. I rather think that the question of who enters a country is a decision for that country and its elected representatives alone. Not a supranational body with little democratic legitimacy and even less credibility. By all means have an open door. But, if that does not work, at least you can vote out the party that was elected on a free movement platform. No such option exists in the EU. 

This is the only policy in which the EU has any say which anyone in the uk gives a shit about. All the rest of its interference is in stuff that needs international co-operation or is too dull for people to care about, e.g. open skies, Euratom, clean beaches. Considering that on balance we do ok out of EU immigration and migration it was never enough to justify the disruption we're seeing

Post edited at 07:35
1
Big Ger - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to gisajob:

> Maybe the negative's are not stories but brexit economic impact studies? just a thought.

All these studies are just speculation.

As were these predictions;

 

"GDP will shrink by at least 0.1 per cent in each of the four quarters after the referendum - bringing a year-long recession."

"After the referendum,  the jobless rate would be 1.6 per cent higher."

"By 2018, house prices would be at least 10 per cent lower and possibly fall by up to 18 per cent."

"Public sector borrowing rise by £12.2billion in 2016-17 "

 

Post edited at 07:41
9
RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

And none of what you quoted is anywhere in the actual impact assessment.

RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Dr.S at work:

> Hmmm, that would potentially get you into a ‘what about Yorkshire’ argument, but let’s not go there!

Of course, I’m just using this as a way to highlight the fundamental contradictions and double standards of the brexiteers when it comes to their argument of sovereignty and democracy.

the point I am making is that one may argue that you want to leave the EU to achieve some policy objectives such as ending free movement, and that is a logical argument.

But the idea that this will allow to regain sovereignty and democracy is a deeply flawed and hypocritical argument, no more than a thin gloss over what is essentially an identitarian claim. 

The gloss comes of quickly as soon as you push a bit on the issue, as evidenced in john’s latest post.

 

Post edited at 08:22
1
mrphilipoldham - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to George Ormerod:

Much of that can be linked to our membership of the EU. Lack of housing, and infrastructure couldn't possibly be affected by 3 million extra bods here, no? Poor training and education of the workforce.. well, we've got all these highly skilled Europeans coming here, working for peanuts, why bother training our own? Etc. Etc.

2
Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Err no. The U.K. is a soveriegn state.

Many Brexit supporters need reminding of this.

>Your picture of the the democratic legitimacy of the EU institutions is touching. But misplaced. Hence the rise of atavistic, populist parties across Europe.

It’s not a case of simple cause and effect. Populist parties find the EU a useful scapegoat in their pursuit of power and expend a great deal of effort on exaggerating and misrepresenting EU democratic shortfalls. 

>Your ideal, and the reality are diverging at an accelerating pace. Institutional response is to accelerate integration. The very thing populist voters do not want. 

How exactly has the EU accelerated integration recently?

 

Big Ger - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

 

> I agree, all this talk by the Brexiters about ever closer union was a nonsense, wasn't it? Never likely to happen.

I'm glad you agree that the EU talks nonsense....

The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of “ever closer union” in the following words in the Preamble. In English this is: “Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe …..”.

In the Solemn Declaration on European Union of June 1983, the then ten heads of state and government (including the UK) agreed: … on the basis of an awareness of a common destiny and the wish to affirm the European identity, confirm their commitment to progress towards an ever closer union among the peoples and Member States of the European Community.

The objective of “ever closer union” was retained in the Preamble to the 1992 Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty): RESOLVED to continue the process of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as closely as possible to the citizen in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity.

The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty added a new qualification to “ever closer union”

Since Lisbon (2009) the EU Treaties have contained three references to “ever closer union”

2
Tyler - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

As you are fond of pointing out, the apparatchiks of the EU have a different agenda to its member states hence whilst a few of those hated Brussels bureaucrats may talk ever closer union there is a point where everyone else says no, this was reiterated with Cameron's concessions and again with the Brexit vote. 

Post edited at 08:35
RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

the irony of all this is that with Britain outside of the EU, the integration agenda of some EU leaders has now a chance succeed.

Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

It would be helpful if people stopped wilfully misrepresenting the EU’s ‘ever closer union’ aim. It’s ‘ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’, not governments:

“Notably, the treaties actually say “ever closer union of the peoples” of Europe, not governments. The phrase does not contain the word “political”, and it uses the word “union” with a small u, less suggestive of a formal drive towards a European super-state.”

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/

 

 

1
RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

As it was made clear in legally binding terms in cameron’s negotiations, « ever closer union » refers to the « ever closer union of the people of Europe ». Hardly controversial to aim to have an ever closer union of the people, given what Europeans populations have suffered in the last century, but just in case this bothered the likes of you, we were even offered an opt out.

1
summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> “Notably, the treaties actually say “ever closer union of the peoples” of Europe, not governments. The phrase does not contain the word “political”, and it uses the word “union” with a small u, less suggestive of a formal drive towards a European super-state.”

Given that closer union (small u) is to involve more fiscal control, an eu army, as well as everything now like farming, fisheries, employment directives, product standards, the euro, trade agreements... what would be left politically for individual nations to decide once closer eu union is achieved? 

 

Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I think Cameron was partly responsible for spreading this myth- talking about not wanting ever closer political union in Parliament at the time of his renegotiation effort. 

 

Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

>Poor training and education of the workforce.. well, we've got all these highly skilled Europeans coming here, working for peanuts, why bother training our own? Etc. Etc.

Chicken, egg...

 

1
Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> Given that closer union (small u) is to involve more fiscal control, an eu army, as well as everything now like farming, fisheries, employment directives, product standards, the euro, trade agreements... what would be left politically for individual nations to decide once closer eu union is achieved?

The political stuff. The things you mention are not specifically political. They all have political implications but they are economic and regulatory, apart from the euro army issue  

 

mrphilipoldham - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Well, quite. Merely pointing out the fact that the problems are related to the EU, whether George liked it or not. Each one worthy of it's own separate debate.

summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> The political stuff. 

Such as?

Give me an example of something big that countries could still debate and control, that barnier/juncker and co. wouldn't like Brussels to decide in the future. 

 

Jon Stewart - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> You keep focusing on doom and gloom though Timmd mate, I'm sure sometime soon you'll get the downfall of the UK which you seem to crave. 

Man/ball? Hypocrite.

jkarran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> We are leaving. But my point is that leaving is the only way to only way to avoid free movement.

Some of us consider free movement of people (labour) the greatest sacrifice in leaving. Nationalism has brought Europe nothing but horrors, the sooner we can erode it the better.

jk

1
Rob Exile Ward on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

'Give me an example of something big that countries could still debate and control, that barnier/juncker and co. wouldn't like Brussels to decide in the future. '

Income tax rates, corporation tax rates (within the scope of free trade, obviously), spending on welfare, health, education etc, bilateral relations with non-EU countries, the legal system, (except in cross border/free trade disputes), immigration policy...

Seems enough there to debate for a few hundred years to come.

1
Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> Such as?

> Give me an example of something big that countries could still debate and control, that barnier/juncker and co. wouldn't like Brussels to decide in the future. 

What do you think 'barnier/juncker and co.' would like Brussels to decide in the future? None of the examples you gave earlier were intrinsically political, and I can't see any recent post-Brexit proposals for extending political control.

In the meantime, the EU has made no effort to change countries' internal political structures - their constitutions or legal systems, and as far as I can see have no intention of interfering with these.

1
Tyler - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> Give me an example of something big that countries could still debate and control, that barnier/juncker and co. wouldn't like Brussels to decide in the future. 

Barnier and Junker are not the EU

2
Big Ger - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> As you are fond of pointing out, the apparatchiks of the EU have a different agenda to its member states hence whilst a few of those hated Brussels bureaucrats may talk ever closer union there is a point where everyone else says no, this was reiterated with Cameron's concessions and again with the Brexit vote. 

So, the founding principle of the EU, stated in it's creating  documents, and restated in all it's major treaties since, of  "ever closer union", you consider that just to be; "a few of those hated Brussels bureaucrats may talk ever closer union ".

 

Thanks for my belly laugh of the day!

10
Big Ger - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> It would be helpful if people stopped wilfully misrepresenting the EU’s ‘ever closer union’ aim. It’s ‘ever closer union of the peoples of Europe’, not governments:

> “Notably, the treaties actually say “ever closer union of the peoples” of Europe, not governments. The phrase does not contain the word “political”, and it uses the word “union” with a small u, less suggestive of a formal drive towards a European super-state.”

And how does it intend to achieve this ever closer union if not by taking on more of teh role of an over-government?

 

Jean-Claude Juncker today called for an ever-more powerful European Union and warned that Britain would “regret Brexit”, in a defiant speech that was branded a blueprint for a United States of Europe.

The plans push for “ever-closer union” on defence, asylum and foreign policy in a bigger, more powerful bloc under a new, directly elected EU president. A eurozone finance minister would be appointed, with every country to adopt the euro.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/13/jean-claude-junker-claims-uk-will-regret-brexit-vows-create/

Post edited at 10:22
3
Tyler - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

But that ever closer union phrase has been explained by both Bob and Rom above, not to mention the confirmation of the UK's opt out that Cameron sought and got. 

1
Tyler - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> And how does it intend to achieve this ever closer union if not by taking on more of teh role of an over-government?

> Jean-Claude Juncker today called for an ever-more powerful European Union and warned that Britain would “regret Brexit”, in a defiant speech that was branded a blueprint for a United States of Europe.

> The plans push for “ever-closer union” on defence, asylum and foreign policy in a bigger, more powerful bloc under a new, directly elected EU president. A eurozone finance minister would be appointed, with every country to adopt the euro.

......aaaand we're back to Big Ger conflating Juncker with the EU again.

1
Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> And how does it intend to achieve this ever closer union if not by taking on more of teh role of an over-government?

> Jean-Claude Juncker today called for an ever-more powerful European Union and warned that Britain would “regret Brexit”, in a defiant speech that was branded a blueprint for a United States of Europe.

Who was it branded by? Oh yes, a reliable unbiased source:

"Syed Kamall, the most senior Conservative MEP, said: "Today President Juncker said the EU had the wind in its sails. Anyone that heard his speech now knows what direction he is sailing it in - towards a United States of Europe.” "

Quoting that's just meaningless propagandising from the Telegraph. Am I surprised? No.

> The plans push for “ever-closer union” on defence, asylum and foreign policy in a bigger, more powerful bloc under a new, directly elected EU president. A eurozone finance minister would be appointed, with every country to adopt the euro.

Looking at this, it's remarkably devoid of content about increasing political union. What I did notice is that Junker's looking at merging posts and making them subject to elections. That is, more democracy. 

"Mr Junker said the major roles of European Commission president, who heads the EU’s civil service, and the European Council President, who chairs meetings of EU leaders, should be merged and chosen through European Parliament elections."

Post edited at 10:36
1
summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Income tax rates, corporation tax rates (within the scope of free trade, obviously),

There are many within the eu who desire fiscal control, it is almost certainly the only way the euro will survive.

Within the scope of free trade is  critical phrase, countries aren't entirely free to do as they please are they, otherwise they are held to account for various bits such as unfair competition. 

> the legal system, (except in cross border/free trade disputes),

Given that it is the highest court(in some fields) in Europe, that's not strictly true.

> immigration policy...

You mean non eu migration via out of country visa applications, the refugees quotas which were largely ignored by many, or eu migration 'worker' policy?

> Seems enough there to debate for a few hundred years to come.

Debate yes, then go to Brussels to listen to the eu then tell countries how they want things done, then watch Poland, Hungary, Austria, .... ignore them. 

Post edited at 10:42
1
summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> Barnier and Junker are not the EU

Only they are, their influence is greater than many countries individually elected PM. Barniers negotiation will impact the UK forever, the eu parliament only ratifies what his negotiation puts forward at the end of this period. 

4
jkarran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> And how does it intend to achieve this ever closer union if not by taking on more of teh role of an over-government?

Perhaps by removing barriers to the movement of people of different origins so they can live and love freely establishing networks of connections across the continent.

You moved half way around the world for a woman, right? Did you abandon the relationships in England when you left or those in Australia when you returned or have you become a small part of a valuable cultural and economic bridge between those places?

> Jean-Claude Juncker today called for an ever-more powerful European Union and warned that Britain would “regret Brexit”, in a defiant speech that was branded a blueprint for a United States of Europe.

Warned/Stated... Either way he's right. Branded by whom, the Telegraph again perchance?

LOL. How did I guess.

jk

3
Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

>Within the scope of free trade is  critical phrase, countries aren't entirely free to do as they please are they, otherwise they are held to account for various bits such as unfair competition. 

Countries are never entirely free to do as they please. International law, trading agreements, standards - all put limits on what countries can do. Unless they're North Korea of course. Is that the model now?

summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Countries are never entirely free to do as they please. International law, trading agreements, standards - all put limits on what countries can do. Unless they're North Korea of course. Is that the model now?

Of course not; but there are many models between the extremes. The eu model is unlikely to be the only one that works, nor the best as it has to encompass so many different nations individual situation. One size, rarely fits all. 

elsewhere on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> Debate yes, then go to Brussels to listen to the eu then tell countries how they want things done, then watch Poland, Hungary, Austria, .... ignore them. 

> Only they are, their influence is greater than many countries individually elected PM.

Schrodinger's Europe - more powerful than nations and simultaneously ignored by Poland, Hungary, Austria, ....

1
Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Branded by whom, the Telegraph again perchance?

> LOL. How did I guess.

Not even by the Telegraph. Just the Tory MEP who's closest to UKIP... That's the best they could do.

 

 

1
summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

> > Debate yes, then go to Brussels to listen to the eu then tell countries how they want things done, then watch Poland, Hungary, Austria, .... ignore them. 

> Schrodinger's Europe - more powerful than nations and simultaneously ignored by Poland, Hungary, Austria, ....

Well yes. As many countries follow the eu legislation and directives to the letter etc.. and other countries always seem to never quite make the time to meet some deadline, environmental targets etc... strange how it's often the net contributors who are most obedient too. Who is the fool? 

The eu solution, let them continue their directive breaking and make individual targets into eu averages. The eu has met it's goal of a 50% reduction in x & y. One country has eliminated it's entire use of something another has done absolutely nothing, but isn't the eu fantastic.  

5
elsewhere on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

It's almost as if the EU is not omnipotent or even that member states have their ultimate sovereignty.

1
Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> Only they are, their influence is greater than many countries individually elected PM. Barniers negotiation will impact the UK forever, the eu parliament only ratifies what his negotiation puts forward at the end of this period. 

Barnier is only a negotiator. He is not the EU.

"In theory, the European Parliament’s role in the negotiations process is fairly limited. Article 218 states that the Parliament must be kept ‘immediately and fully informed at all stages of the [negotiations] procedure’, but it does not give the Parliament a role in deciding the substance of the negotiations. However, the Parliament must pass the final agreement by a simple majority vote. This ability to reject the withdrawal agreement means that, in reality, the Parliament is likely to wield significant power over the content of the agreement and the negotiations itself. No majority in the European Parliament = no withdrawal agreement."

And:

"Both the Council of the EU and the European Parliament are entitled to vote on the final deal. Once negotiations have concluded, the Council of the EU submits the draft withdrawal agreement to the European Parliament where it is put to a vote. The agreement needs a simple majority in order to proceed. Subsequently, the draft agreement returns to the Council of the EU. The Council also votes on the agreement but in this case, the agreement needs a qualified majority in order to pass – i.e. 72% of the 27 members states (representing at least 65% of the total population of the 27 member states) need to vote in favour of the agreement."

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/eu’s-role-brexit-negotiations

Oh, and a little note for elsewhere - "It's almost as if the EU actually had some democracy"...

Post edited at 11:20
2
Rob Exile Ward on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summon:

'strange how it's often the net contributors who are most obedient too. Who is the fool? '

You're beginning to sound like Donald Trump, dividing the world into winners and losers, aggressors and victims, conmen and patsys.

He's wrong and so are you; the World, and in particular the EU, is mostly run by well-meaning people who are trying to their best for their countries, while recognising their wider responsibilities. Only an idiot thinks that international politics is a zero sum game.

If targets are missed, or some plans don't work out in practice, or some initiatives turn out to be a mistake; well blow, me, that's part of the human condition. The fact remains that the EU is the first attempt - ever - to create a group of nations bound together by a shared commitment to personal freedom, social justice, free trade, free movement, social and environmental responsibility, human rights and international development. It is a blueprint - albeit imperfect - for a better and more sustainable future. And drunken barrow boy Farage somehow persuaded 52%, mostly older people, to throw that all away.

2
elsewhere on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> but isn't the eu fantastic.  

Yes it is* but also far from perfect.

*compared to 1850-1950

1
Ex Poster 666 on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Wicamoi:

>  It shows how far the debate has come from being reasoned.....

HoHoHo, that made laugh.
When was it ever?!
Cast your mind back over the last two years, or whenever it was that that spineless individual announced we were having a referendum.

 

 

1
summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It isn't the eu policies on the environment, emissions, farming, refugees don't work. Most do, but many countries refuse to follow them and the eu is pretty lame at chasing them, it just modifies the goal, so everything is a success! When it clearly isn't. Look at eastern Europe and their refugee policy. 

There aren't winners and loser, but if you have 27 nations with a common policy, those that don't follow it need to be punished in one form or another. Many net beneficiaries are the worst at following eu policy. 

summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

> Yes it is* but also far from perfect.> *compared to 1850-1950

And in that period there were many lines drawn in haste on maps dividing and merging nations that came to bite the world on the ass later. Whose to say fast track merging 27/8 vastly different nations won't end well either. Slowly slowly catchee monkey? 

5
Sir Chasm - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> And in that period there were many lines drawn in haste on maps dividing and merging nations that came to bite the world on the ass later. Whose to say fast track merging 27/8 vastly different nations won't end well either. Slowly slowly catchee monkey? 

How is Sweden merged with Spain?

1
elsewhere on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> And in that period there were many lines drawn in haste on maps dividing and merging nations that came to bite the world on the ass later. Whose to say fast track merging 27/8 vastly different nations won't end well either. Slowly slowly catchee monkey? 

That's rather why I think the idea of a european superstate with national leaders giving up power is just silly. That also makes scaremongering about such a silly prospect similarly silly. It's a bit like fearing an  implausible monster.

Post edited at 11:48
1
Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> And in that period there were many lines drawn in haste on maps dividing and merging nations that came to bite the world on the ass later. Whose to say fast track merging 27/8 vastly different nations won't end well either. Slowly slowly catchee monkey? 

I would agree that there's a case for saying that the EU was expanded too quickly over the last fifteen years or so. I rather suspect that we wouldn't have had a referendum if the pace had been slower. But there were also good reasons - political and economical - for expansion

gallam1 - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Have you ever been persuaded to do anything by a drunken barrow boy?

If not, why do you think that Brexit voters would be persuaded by said individual?  Perhaps because they are all stupid, sub-human, etc etc.  Or maybe they are fully functional, reasonable human beings who simply came to a different conclusion to your own.

That was a pretty offensive post really.

6
Pete Pozman - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

You probably think the Paris climate accord is a really unfair deal, I'm guessing  

3
Pete Pozman - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> Have you ever been persuaded to do anything by a drunken barrow boy?

> If not, why do you think that Brexit voters would be persuaded by said individual?  Perhaps because they are all stupid, sub-human, etc etc.  Or maybe they are fully functional, reasonable human beings who simply came to a different conclusion to your own.

> That was a pretty offensive post really.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Brexiteers are subhuman  but they did make a very unwise choice  

2
RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> It isn't the eu policies on the environment, emissions, farming, refugees don't work. Most do, but many countries refuse to follow them and the eu is pretty lame at chasing them, it just modifies the goal, so everything is a success! When it clearly isn't. Look at eastern Europe and their refugee policy. 

> There aren't winners and loser, but if you have 27 nations with a common policy, those that don't follow it need to be punished in one form or another. Many net beneficiaries are the worst at following eu policy. 

For once you are making a valid criticism of the EU. 

It has a common policy on many area to enable freedom of movement, goods, services etc etc...  but then each country is responsible for enforcing them, and they don’t do it consistently, and getting them to comply through the ECJ takes ages.

That obviously creates problems.

But critically, it is worth pointing out that leaving the EU doesn’t fix this drawback at all, it just introduces new barriers. No matter how they dress it up, it’s protectionism, pure and simple.

The obvious solution would be to have supra national enforcement structures. Federal agencies basically, like in the US. 

1
Rob Exile Ward on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

Why? 1) He is a drunken barrow boy. 2) If he'd died in that plane crash Brexit wouldn't have happened; the world would be a safer place and we would all be billions better off, even now. 3) I don't know all the reasons why people voted for Brexit, in my own experience the reasons seem to vary from the coolly rational (Giselle Stuart) to the outright bonkers (I shared a chairlift last year with someone who seemed rational until he explained that he'd voted for Brexit, despite living in France, because the EU was a conspiracy between Nazis and Jews). 4) Sadly it appears that people are as susceptible to the big lies (the £350 million a week, being overrun by Turks, the EU insisting on straight bananas) as ever they were; if you were one of them I'm sorry, but if the cap fits... Yes you were frigging lied to , endlessly. 

4
andyfallsoff - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> Only they are, their influence is greater than many countries individually elected PM. Barniers negotiation will impact the UK forever, the eu parliament only ratifies what his negotiation puts forward at the end of this period. 

So presumably you think David Davis more important than the PM as he is negotiating on our behalf?

1
Rob Exile Ward on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to andyfallsoff:

'So presumably you think David Davis more important than the PM as he is negotiating on our behalf?'

 

Is he? Negotiating I mean. He seems to have gone very quiet. Maybe he's come to realise that he's not up to the job.

1
gallam1 - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

OK, taking those in order:

1.  Nigel Farage is plainly not a drunken barrow boy.

2.  He was not solely responsible for Brexit.

3.  I also do not know all of the reasons why people did or did not vote for Brexit, but I generally make the assumption that people are relatively calm and rational and I find it interesting to try and understand their motives.

4.  "Sadly it appears that people are as susceptible to the big lies"  Well yes, that may be true and it applies to people, not just those who voted for Brexit.  I wonder if you could point to any big lies propagated by the side that you seem to support?

1
jkarran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> It isn't the eu policies on the environment, emissions, farming, refugees don't work. Most do, but many countries refuse to follow them and the eu is pretty lame at chasing them, it just modifies the goal, so everything is a success! When it clearly isn't. Look at eastern Europe and their refugee policy. 

And your 'solution' is the 21st century equivalent of throwing a clog into the loom. Do you seriously think their policies and the results of them will be 'better' if we leave or if the EU breaks up? Do you seriously think we insulate ourselves from the consequences of these failures by walking away and refusing to even try to make successes of basically good policies?

> There aren't winners and loser, but if you have 27 nations with a common policy, those that don't follow it need to be punished in one form or another. Many net beneficiaries are the worst at following eu policy. 

So now we're back to the "The EU's a bully. The EU's too weak. It's changing too fast. It won't change. We have no control. They do as they want..." nonsense.

jk

Post edited at 12:36
1
Andy Hardy on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> All these studies are just speculation.

> As were these predictions;

> "GDP will shrink by at least 0.1 per cent in each of the four quarters after the referendum - bringing a year-long recession."

> "After the referendum,  the jobless rate would be 1.6 per cent higher."

> "By 2018, house prices would be at least 10 per cent lower and possibly fall by up to 18 per cent."

> "Public sector borrowing rise by £12.2billion in 2016-17 "

Maybe you could post some of the economically positive predictions of the effect of leaving then? 

1
gallam1 - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

That's pretty simple if you don't own a house; number 3 in your list.  Likewise if you think interest rates are too low and you voted on the basis of Mark Carney's prediction of rising interest rates post-Brexit.

1
jkarran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> 1.  Nigel Farage is plainly not a drunken barrow boy.

LOL. I prefer 'haunted wank sock' but the sentiment is much the same.

> 2.  He was not solely responsible for Brexit.

Not solely but the vote could still have gone to leave with the loss of any of the other major proponents, it would never have survived the loss of Farage or his support.

> 3.  I also do not know all of the reasons why people did or did not vote for Brexit, but I generally make the assumption that people are relatively calm and rational and I find it interesting to try and understand their motives.

What was your calm rational motivation?

> 4.  "Sadly it appears that people are as susceptible to the big lies"  Well yes, that may be true and it applies to people, not just those who voted for Brexit.  I wonder if you could point to any big lies propagated by the side that you seem to support?

I honestly can't remember any. Obviously you'll claim, perhaps justifiably that's because I'm blind to them so perhaps you could help me see clearer?

jk

Post edited at 12:59
3
Big Ger - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Perhaps by removing barriers to the movement of people of different origins so they can live and love freely establishing networks of connections across the continent.

Funny, it used to be that only nation states could remove cross border barriers, haven't you just given us a perfect example of the EU  "taking on more of the role of an over-government?" Thanks for making my point for me.

> You moved half way around the world for a woman, right? Did you abandon the relationships in England when you left or those in Australia when you returned or have you become a small part of a valuable cultural and economic bridge between those places?

And the inevitable obsession with me and my life continues.

> Warned/Stated... Either way he's right. Branded by whom, the Telegraph again perchance?

> LOL. How did I guess.

> jk

Of course , if it was reported in the Telegraph, then it cannot be true!

9
Big Ger - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Maybe you could post some of the economically positive predictions of the effect of leaving then? 

When I claim any exist, then I'll do so.

Rob Exile Ward on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

OK so you acknowledge that there don't appear to be ECONOMIC benefits; I don't remember the slogan 'Vote Brexit so you, your children and children's children will be poorer' featured prominently but let's let that go.

Can you just explain then the political, environmental and social benefits instead, so we'll all feel a lot better?

1
summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> You probably think the Paris climate accord is a really unfair deal, I'm guessing  

Why? 

 

1
summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> How is Sweden merged with Spain?

They both follow the same CAP policy despite massively different landscapes and climate. 

jkarran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Funny, it used to be that only nation states could remove cross border barriers, haven't you just given us a perfect example of the EU  "taking on more of the role of an over-government?" Thanks for making my point for me.

The EU is essentially a forum for nation states to negotiate multilateral agreements, in this case over free movement of labour. A huge raft of bilateral agreements could achieve the same but of course would cost far more to agree and would be far harder to maintain. Could you explain why that would be better?

> And the inevitable obsession with me and my life continues.

Don't flatter yourself. You've been quite open about where you've lived and why previously. Interesting that you chose to attack me rather than answer my simple reasonable question.

> Of course , if it was reported in the Telegraph, then it cannot be true!

It's not about true or false, it's an opinion, a highly partisan one in this instance.

jk

Post edited at 13:50
2
summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> The EU is essentially a forum for nation states to negotiate multilateral agreements, in this case over free movement of labour. A huge raft of bilateral agreements could achieve the same but of course would cost far more to agree and would be far harder to maintain. Could you explain why that would be better?

Trade great. We agree. So why does the eu need the euro, CAP, fisheries, an army, Strasbourg... ? Thousands of extra unnecessary employees that do nothing related to trade agreements. 

4
Bob Kemp - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

> Of course , if it was reported in the Telegraph, then it cannot be true!

They usually get the name of the paper and the date right. Seriously, it used to be a reasonably reliable newspaper in a right-wing sort of way, but it's degenerated in recent years and has extended its propaganda efforts. Even Peter Oborne quit (although that was over what they wouldn't print more than what they did).

1
Sir Chasm - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> They both follow the same CAP policy despite massively different landscapes and climate. 

So if countries have the same rules they are merged? Like if all members of a climbing club follow the same rules those people are merged and no longer individuals? Nah, i don't believe that people in Sweden think they're merged with the Spanish.

1
jkarran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> Trade great. We agree. So why does the eu need the euro

Facilitates trade.

> CAP

Ensures food security imperfectly. Continental Europe has suffered famine in living memory.

> fisheries

Manages stocks, limits disputes. Could do better.

> an army

Same headline reason a nation wants an army: defence. An attack on one in the EU is in effect an attack on all, why should those who benefit from defence rely on the border states, why not contribute to a competent unified European defence force? There are alternative options but unless you buy into the crazy Fourth Reich conspiracy stuff I fail to see why this riles you so, it's hardly unreasonable.

> Strasbourg... ?

Good question. I'll counter with who the hell really cares, it costs individuals buttons? Why should we refurbish the Palace of Westminster for billions rather than build new in Birmingham... that's just the way we do things and it does no real harm.

> Thousands of extra unnecessary employees that do nothing related to trade agreements. 

Unnecessary if the EU were just what you thought it should be is not actually unnecessary.

jk

Post edited at 14:41
1
thomm - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

GDP measures the size of an economy, not whether it is richer or poorer. Collective wealth is measured by GDP per capita (i.e. per person). A significant proportion of the various forecasts of GDP impact (not all) relates to a forecast of a smaller population due to reduced immigration. Any interpretation regarding whether we will be richer or poorer should take this into account.

summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran: > CAP

> Ensures food security imperfectly. Continental Europe has suffered famine in living memory.

Most people on here complain that CAP is free money for simply owning land? In more recent memory there have been food mountains, set aside etc.. all because of CAP.

> Manages stocks, limits disputes. Could do better.

Much... eus shared resources when it suits them. Why share sea resources, but not land? Oh because that would be bad for the big eu players like France etc.. 

> Same headline reason a nation wants an army: defence. 

Nato, un? The eu is hardly famous for being quick off the mark on defence. 

> Good question. I'll counter with who the hell really cares, it costs individuals buttons? 

Because the eu preaches austerity to many , but refused to practice it itself? 

 

4
jkarran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> Most people on here complain that CAP is free money for simply owning land? In more recent memory there have been food mountains, set aside etc.. all because of CAP.

I can't speak for most people. I don't think it's perfect, frankly it clearly isn't but I don't really care that much. Chip away at reform from the inside because you'll get absolutely nowhere from the outside.

> Much... eus shared resources when it suits them. Why share sea resources, but not land? Oh because that would be bad for the big eu players like France etc.. 

Because almost all European land is privately owned, it would be utterly impossible, the sea isn't so it is possible? Why *not*?

> Nato, un? The eu is hardly famous for being quick off the mark on defence. 

Not the UN's role, not even close. Trump is showing NATO may not always be as responsive to the needs of a small member as we'd hoped.

> Because the eu preaches austerity to many , but refused to practice it itself? 

It costs us each in very broad terms 2% of the tax we pay, much of that we each directly benefit from (you far more than me as a CAP recipient). I struggle to see why we should inflict far greater economic losses on ourselves to escape the EU because it won't shave a bit off that 2%. I don't even want it to!

jk

1
Ramblin dave - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Good question. I'll counter with who the hell really cares, it costs individuals buttons? Why should we refurbish the Palace of Westminster for billions rather than build new in Birmingham... that's just the way we do things and it does no real harm.

Strasbourg (and, arguably, parts of the CAP and the common fisheries policy, and the various British rebates and opt-outs, and a load of other stuff) are basically political noise - they're low-grade collateral damage that you have to accept when you want to form a broadly functional political consensus between a range of players with their own priorities and hangups.

Ironically, pretty much everyone in Brussels (ie everyone except the French) hates the Strasbourg routine - it's a significant personal inconvenience as well as being a waste of money. But because the French can veto any attempt to stop it, the all-powerful, national-interest-trampling Brussels Reich can't actually stop it happening. There was some talk of moving the European agencies that the UK is losing to Strasbourg in exchange for not having to periodically decamp the parliament there, but the last I heard, the French nixxed that as well.

RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> Trade great. We agree. So why does the eu need the euro, CAP, fisheries, an army, Strasbourg... ? Thousands of extra unnecessary employees that do nothing related to trade agreements. 

I am not sure why you don’t grasp that the reason there no tarifs on agricultural products within the single market, is precisely because there is a common scheme on subisidies.

It’s not really hard to understand that for free trade to work there needs to be an agreement that we play fairly by the same rules. The deeper the free trade, the wider the agreement needs to be.

If you want deep free trade like we have with the EU then you can do it two ways. Either you create a platform like the EU which provides an mechanism for establishing compromise or consensus in a fairly democratic manner.

Or you go the Switzerland way and do 100s of bilateral deals to cover everything, which ends up becoming completely undemocratic as the bigger entity always gets its way, and completely unmanageable.

Now the EU clearly doesn’t want to repeat the nightmare that is the Swiss deal with the U.K.

So you’ll get a hard brexit with big barriers to trade. It’s unavoidable at this point and stated gouvernement policy.

2
charliesdad - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:This may be true, but it’s probably unimportant, because many of the people who voted leave simply don’t care; they know from bitter experience that the fruits of any economic growth will go to the usual suspects and not to them. The leave vote was, ( in part), a huge “f**k you” to the whole establishment by people who feel completely marginalised. 

 

jkarran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to charliesdad:

> This may be true, but it’s probably unimportant, because many of the people who voted leave simply don’t care; they know from bitter experience that the fruits of any economic growth will go to the usual suspects and not to them.

And who do they think will be the first to enjoy fruits of economic decline?

As ever the poorest with nothing in reserve and a threadbare moth eaten safety net below them will be hit hardest and fastest. I don't believe people "don't care" about that, it's a thankfully rare day you meet anyone that callous, I think the vast majority simply don't understand the world in which they live anywhere near as well as they think they do. Yes, that includes me. That's not to say people are stupid but most are ill equipped to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to complex subjects we're not expert in, mostly we fall back on simpler ways of making decisions then we pick and choose arguments to defend those decisions from others and our doubt as best we can. Given that, the fact the public is evenly and widely divided on the issue of leaving doesn't of course mean the range of possible outcomes are as widely and evenly divided, here we should look to experts not demagogues for guidance.

jk

Andy Hardy on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Big Ger:

 Maybe you could post some of the economically positive predictions of the effect of leaving then? 

> When I claim any exist, then I'll do so.

Ok, can you post some non-economic positive outcome from brexit? Something tangible that will make my life better, in some way that is just not possible while we're in the EU.

summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I am not sure why you don’t grasp that the reason there no tarifs on agricultural products within the single market, is precisely because there is a common scheme on subisidies.

That's just not true. It's because there is a trade agreement that covers food products. The vast majority of CAP is spent on land ownership and a few environmental measures. There is no correlation between kg of meat produced, or ton per hectare if grain etc and what a farmer is paid under the scheme. 

To export food in the eu you need to comply with eu food regulations, animal welfare & husbandry, product labelling etc.. CAP is irrelevant. 

 

3
RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> That's just not true. It's because there is a trade agreement that covers food products. The vast majority of CAP is spent on land ownership and a few environmental measures. There is no correlation between kg of meat produced, or ton per hectare if grain etc and what a farmer is paid under the scheme. 

That wasn’t the point.

> To export food in the eu you need to comply with eu food regulations, animal welfare & husbandry, product labelling etc.. CAP is irrelevant. 

Nonsense. Non-EU countries face a tarrif on agricultural  product when they export to the EU.

Complying to the minimum standards gives you access. Not tarrif free access. Of course to get tarrif free access they will want some kind of assurance that you subside your farmer on a similar set of rules or within a given framework to avoid being screwed by unfair state subsidies.

 

Every trade bloc does this.

Post edited at 17:34
1
summo on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Nonsense. Non-EU countries face a tarrif on agricultural  product when they export to the EU.

That's because of the trade agreement, not CAP. Two different fish. 

> Complying to the minimum standards gives you access. Not tarrif free access.

No, trade agreements gives access. Norway for example has better welfare standards than the eu benchmark, one of the lowest antibiotics use in europe, but it's trade agreement does not include food and drink, so there is a tariff. CAP is irrelevant. But note the border is still open(relevant to NI problem).

The Swiss are more complex. Their bilateral agreement means, cheese, veg and meat have a customs duties. But drinks, organic produce, feed and seeds (plus others) are tariff free. CAP is irrelevant. 

Should I say it again. CAP is irrelevant. It is trade agreements that allow food and drink to cross borders, provide they match the eu welfare and product standards, labelling etc.. which is nothing to do with CAP.

 

Post edited at 18:09
2
RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to summo:

> That's because of the trade agreement, not CAP. Two different fish. 

Yes, and why, do you think, that is that most trade agreements exclude or restrict agricultural products... I wonder... maybe something to do with the difficulty of aligning subsidies schemes to a degree to keep a level playing field... It's annoying to have to state the obvious.

> No, trade agreements gives access. Norway for example has better welfare standards than the eu benchmark, one of the lowest antibiotics use in europe, but it's trade agreement does not include food and drink, so there is a tariff. CAP is irrelevant. But note the border is still open(relevant to NI problem).

Lol, and why do you think that is that their trade agreement does not include food and drink despite the fact that the have such high standards ? You're a bit slow sometimes.
BTW the border is "open" because they are in Schengen,  so no immigration control, but they still have customs border posts where lorries are checked.

> Should I say it again. CAP is irrelevant. It is trade agreements that allow food and drink to cross borders, provide they match the eu welfare and product standards, labelling etc.. which is nothing to do with CAP.

I refer you to your own argument above which just contradicted that.

Post edited at 19:19
1
RomTheBear on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

For good laughs, the official leave campaign broadcast :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtlGN8wVnis

Actually, it just makes me sad.

1
john arran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Surely most of that has come true already ...

... or maybe not.

Neither did any of it ever have any chance of ever coming true - and yet people appear to have swallowed it at the time.

Let them eat cake.

2
Robert Durran - on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> For good laughs, the official leave campaign broadcast :

> Actually, it just makes me sad.

That just makes me angry - to think this country has been f*cked over in this way over by Brexiteer lying bastards peddling this shit.

Post edited at 23:23
4
Ex Poster 666 on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

Well, seeing as the UK will be continuing to be paying a net contribution of around £9 billion for the next three years to the EU, it's a bit early to be claiming it's a false promise really.

It still amuses me that you keep trawling up these 'promises' made by politicians as if they're some kind of God given truth and they'll actually be fulfilled. Have you not been following election campaigns for the last 50 years?

4
Graeme Alderson on 13 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

That film is disgraceful. I wonder how the likes of the Postie can defend it?

2
George Ormerod - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> Much of that can be linked to our membership of the EU. Lack of housing, and infrastructure couldn't possibly be affected by 3 million extra bods here, no? Poor training and education of the workforce.. well, we've got all these highly skilled Europeans coming here, working for peanuts, why bother training our own? Etc. Etc.

Really?  Funny that many of our European contemporaries don't seem to have these issues with housing and training (albeit they have other issues), so it would seem to be domestic policies:  Not reinvesting the dividend that immigrants provide to tax income in infrastructure and affordable housing for example.  And highly skilled EU workers?   I thought the issue was low skilled EU workers driving down wages of less skilled UK workers; more or less everyone seems to think it's OK to have high skilled workers coming to the UK?  

 

1
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> That film is disgraceful. I wonder how the likes of the Postie can defend it?

Stand by for some industrial grade whataboutery...

 

;-)

Post edited at 08:11
3
Postmanpat on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> That film is disgraceful. I wonder how the likes of the Postie can defend it?


  I can put you out of your misery. I only skimmed it but it looks like sh*t. But really, get a life

2
jkarran - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> Well, seeing as the UK will be continuing to be paying a net contribution of around £9 billion for the next three years to the EU, it's a bit early to be claiming it's a false promise really.

Still just focusing on the contributions to the budget, and not the economic benefit we will lose by leaving. You seem to understand the word nett very selectively when assessing costs and benefits of the EU. What will it take, do we just have to wait, how long will you hold out for the future you were sold, the future they cannot deliver before you will consider the possibility the EU wasn't the root of your malaise? I don't think I have the patience, it's just too tragic.

> It still amuses me that you keep trawling up these 'promises' made by politicians as if they're some kind of God given truth and they'll actually be fulfilled. Have you not been following election campaigns for the last 50 years?

Elections come every 4-5 years and the changes a government makes last perhaps 5 years into the next if they're to be unpicked. Brexit fundamentally unpicks 40 years of incredibly valuable work and creates realistically another 20 years of turbulence before we're back on an even keel with replacement alliances built. It brings enormous risk. They're not even comparable beyond the actual process of crossing a box on a little paper square.

That video is a f*****g disgrace I'd thankfully forgotten, packed with the nastiest dog-whistle cues from start to finish and selling a lie nobody with a basic grasp of how our world works could actually believe.

jk

Post edited at 09:43
3
mrphilipoldham - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to George Ormerod:

Yes, domestic policies but as you rightly pointed out.. everything to do with the EU all the same. Thank you.

The debates themselves are another matter. Where do you expect 1m homes to have been built to house these tax payers? ..and in the space of 15 years? You don’t get much house on the tax receipts of unskilled workers.

1
summo on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> That film is disgraceful. I wonder how the likes of the Postie can defend it?

Imagine if people replayed videos of Blair or brown promising the world. I bet so many Labour voters still wake up today with a smile on their face knowing that they ended boom & bust. 

7
gallam1 - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Surely most of that has come true already ...

> ... or maybe not.

> Neither did any of it ever have any chance of ever coming true - and yet people appear to have swallowed it at the time.

> Let them eat cake.

Is that really the best explanation you can find for why about half of the UK population (which is amongst the most well educated and informed populations on the planet) voted for Brexit?  

A youtube video with 30,000 views.  That's probably about the same number of total views the recent UKC Brexit threads have had, and we do not appear to be convincing anyone of anything.

Post edited at 10:49
2
jkarran - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> Is that really the best explanation you can find for why about half of the UK population (which is amongst the most well educated and informed populations on the planet) voted for Brexit?  

It's an interesting piece of history.

> A youtube video with 30,000 views.  That's probably about the same number of total views the recent UKC Brexit threads have had, and we do not appear to be convincing anyone of anything.

That ad ran on prime time national television, the number of views on a YouTube copy is irrelevant, it's like looking at 3 stamps in a library copy of the Bible then concluding it's barely reached anyone.

I talked to a lot of leave voters in the run up to the referendum and while the leave vote is best characterised by a smorgasbord of voters with disparate grievances and hopes, many totally contradictory and unrelated to the EU the 'fund the NHS' trope was probably second only in prevalence to 'stop immigration' which itself regularly boiled over into naked (mainly anti Pakistani) racism. Uncomfortable stuff I found profoundly depressing.

Educated and informed would not be near the top of the list of adjectives I'd use to describe the sample of the British population I met and talked to in those weeks. 'Polarised', 'Angry', 'Frightened' and 'Spoonfed' would probably top the list.

jk

Post edited at 11:18
1
gallam1 - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> Educated and informed would not be near the top of the list of adjectives I'd use to describe the sample of the British population I met and talked to in those weeks. 'Polarised', 'Angry', 'Frightened' and 'Spoonfed' would probably top the list.

I have an Italian friend, who is a professor of Economics specialising in development, who treats me like a spoilt child complaining about the Christmas presents whenever I complain about the state of politics/education etc etc in the UK.

He simply says you have no idea how lucky you are to be living in the UK, even compared with Italy.  In comparison to Brazil, Bangladesh and Somalia simply by living in the UK you effectively won the lottery.

So, to state the obvious, the UK population is amongst the best educated and most well-informed on the planet, and there must have been something more than a youtube video involved in the millions of decisions taken to vote in favour of Brexit..

Post edited at 12:02
2
wercat on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

the mother of a friend of one of my sons is married to an ex-soldier.   Very nice family generally but she told my wife she didn't know how to vote but eventually voted for Brexit as she was very angry about ex-soldiers having housing problems.   Important electoral issue certainly but not one to fuel a seismic-scale constitutional change.

Post edited at 12:03
1
RomTheBear on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> Is that really the best explanation you can find for why about half of the UK population (which is amongst the most well educated and informed populations on the planet) voted for Brexit?  

Educated, somewhat, informed, definitely not.

> A youtube video with 30,000 views.  That's probably about the same number of total views the recent UKC Brexit threads have had, and we do not appear to be convincing anyone of anything.

That was the official campaign broadcast, shown of the BBC several times a day, reaching millions of people.

it was quite typical of the leave campaign they conflated issues such as the NHS or non Eu migration with brexit with no logical connection.

its called populist propaganda, and it works.

Unfortunately the other side completely gave up trying to debunk the bullshit, probably out of fear and incompetence.

Ive  followed closely many elections in many countries, and the brexit campaign was the most unbelievable I had ever seen. 

The Front National in France tried to emulate it during the presidential, with some success initially, but there was a proper informed debate and they got absolutely destroyed in the end.

 

Post edited at 12:25
2
jkarran - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> He simply says you have no idea how lucky you are to be living in the UK, even compared with Italy.  In comparison to Brazil, Bangladesh and Somalia simply by living in the UK you effectively won the lottery.

Which relates to my points how? Do you somehow imagine I'd disagree with that?

If someone doesn't know their 13 times table then they don't know it, the fact they're already better than most at knowing times tables because they know up to their 12 times table isn't much help when they need to quickly multiply 13s.

It's uncomfortable but it's what I observed: the majority of people I spoke to planning to vote out had very poor understanding of the real negative consequences of their choice though some were aware in abstract terms and in many cases their reasons for so doing were totally unrelated to the EU. Still, they won. I'm not sure what they won or whether they really want it but they won, you won. I hope it works out for you.

jk

1
gallam1 - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I am not quite sure why you think you know how I voted in the Brexit referendum, since we have never even met as far as I know.

By and large I don't discuss how I vote with anyone, least of all people on the internet.  People died to give us the right to cast a secret ballot in a proper voting system.

Post edited at 12:24
4
RomTheBear on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to wercat:

> the mother of a friend of one of my sons is married to an ex-soldier.   Very nice family generally but she told my wife she didn't know how to vote but eventually voted for Brexit as she was very angry about ex-soldiers having housing problems.   Important electoral issue certainly but not one to fuel a seismic-scale constitutional change.

And nothing to do whatsoever with the EU.

jkarran - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> I am not quite sure why you think you know how I voted in the Brexit referendum, since we have never even met as far as I know.

Perhaps I've misremembered but I thought I recalled you on several occasions since expressing virulently anti EU ideas. Obviously that may still translate into venting but voting remain anyway or I may have confused you with someone else, if so I apologise.

jk

gallam1 - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

You confused me with someone else.  Good of you to apologise though.

2
john yates - on 14 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

‘Polarised, angry, frightened and spoon fed’ is that a self description? 

I might mention my Kashmiri teaching friends who voted Brexit because of the Eastern Europeans turning up at Bradford’s schools, or the two Jamaican women standing for UKIP fed up at impact of free movement on the ability of their extended families to come to the U.K..life is full of ironies. The myth persists that those who voted Brexit were dim, duped or diabolical racists. It’s that kind of cruel slander that drives voters to the UKIP. The myths and lies were from both sides. 

13
RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> ‘Polarised, angry, frightened and spoon fed’ is that a self description? 

> I might mention my Kashmiri teaching friends who voted Brexit because of the Eastern Europeans turning up at Bradford’s schools, or the two Jamaican women standing for UKIP fed up at impact of free movement on the ability of their extended families to come to the U.K..life is full of ironies. 

Just ignorant and lied to. Free movement has nothing to do with the ability of their extended family to come to the U.K, this was purely a result a result of U.K. immigration law made in the U.K.

BTW the latest conservative manifesto makes it clear they want to clamp down further on all routes of immigration, last nail in the coffin to the lunatic idea that ending free movement would mean easier visas for non EU. 

Conservative manifesto 2017 : 

« We will, therefore, continue to bear down on immigration from outside the European Union. We will increase the earnings thresholds for people wishing to sponsor migrants for family visas. We will toughen the visa requirements for students, to make sure that we maintain high standards. We will expect students to leave the country at the end of their course, unless they meet new, higher requirements that allow them to work in Britain a er their studies have concluded. »

Whatever you think of the issue, the fact that commonwealth citizens were given a vote but EU citizens weren’t was a total fraud.

Post edited at 06:38
3
baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

You know why EU citizens ( not including the Irish, Cypriots and Maltese) weren't allowed to vote in the referendum yet you continue to peddle the myth that somehow they were excluded to rig the result.

4
Tyler - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I might mention my Kashmiri teaching friends who voted Brexit because of the Eastern Europeans turning up at Bradford’s schools, or the two Jamaican women standing for UKIP fed up at impact of free movement on the ability of their extended families to come to the U.K..life is full of ironies. The myth persists that those who voted Brexit were dim, duped or diabolical racists

You say its a myth but cite two examples of people who voted Brexit who fit at least one of those descriptions!

jkarran - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> ‘Polarised, angry, frightened and spoon fed’ is that a self description? 

Yes, to a degree that's fair. I was careful not to pin the description solely on Leavers, I'm aware of my own limitations. In hindsight I omitted 'ambivalent/unaware', that I also came across a lot of especially among the under 30s.

> I might mention my Kashmiri teaching friends who voted Brexit because of the Eastern Europeans turning up at Bradford’s schools

You might, in fact please do, that'd be interesting. What exactly is their problem with Eastern Europeans turning up in Bradford's schools?

> ...or the two Jamaican women standing for UKIP fed up at impact of free movement on the ability of their extended families to come to the U.K.

Again, this'll be interesting, let's unpack it because I don't see how getting out of the EU changes their lot for the better. I do see how stoking a fire of xenophobia to achieve that end could have the opposite effect. Help me understand their reasoning John if you were impressed by it.

> The myth persists that those who voted Brexit were dim, duped or diabolical racists. It’s that kind of cruel slander that drives voters to the UKIP.

Leaving aside the fact that doesn't hold together logically I'm not claiming all brexit voters were: dim, duped or racist, many plainly weren't but I did meet quite a few where that conclusion was sadly unavoidable, some who wore their bigotry as a badge of honour. The vast majority of those falling into the duped category, people voting out in the hope of effecting change leaving the EU simply could never deliver.

jk

 

Post edited at 10:12
1
RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> You know why EU citizens ( not including the Irish, Cypriots and Maltese) weren't allowed to vote in the referendum yet you continue to peddle the myth that somehow they were excluded to rig the result.

Do you know why ? Please give us a good, logical reason, as to why someone from, say, Pakistan in the country for one year, should be given the right to vote, whilst someone from Sweden, in the country for 4 years, is not. Please explain to us why that’s fair. Good luck with that.

I’m not claiming the result was rigged, I am claiming that the entire rules of the game are rigged.

 

 

Post edited at 10:30
1
Bob Kemp - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to gallam1:

> So, to state the obvious, the UK population is amongst the best educated and most well-informed on the planet, and there must have been something more than a youtube video involved in the millions of decisions taken to vote in favour of Brexit..

They may be 'best educated and most well-informed' in comparison to many other countries, but that's not saying much:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/oct/29/todays-key-fact-you-are-probably-wrong-about-almost-everything

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-british-public-wrong-about-nearly-everything-survey-shows-a7074311.html

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/12/end-democracy

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/what-are-the-implications-of-political-ignorance-for-democracy/

Of course we could use more data, but it's not particularly encouraging is it?

 

baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

The rules for who can and can't vote in a parliamentary election are well known.

These rules were used for the referendum.

It was that simple.

Whether or not the rules are good or logical is another matter.

But they were and still are the rules.

You wanted these rules changed to include several million EU citizens who might just possibly have voted remain.

How would things have looked if the government have changed the rules just for the eu referendum so as to include possibly pro remain voters?

Didn't the government, keen to win the vote, consider a possible rule change?

Are you assuming that commenwealth citizens voted to leave?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36316467

 

2
Bob Kemp - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> How would things have looked if the government have changed the rules just for the eu referendum so as to include possibly pro remain voters?

I'm not sure what you mean by changing the rules here - there were no rules for a one-off referendum (it's not a standard election, and the Electoral Commission has called for a standard legal framework in future), and in any case I don't think that's the main issue. The main issue is that the government deliberately excluded people who had a direct interest in the outcome of the referendum, like British ex-pats. That was wrong.

Post edited at 12:06
RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> The rules for who can and can't vote in a parliamentary election are well known.

> These rules were used for the referendum.

> It was that simple.

It was a referendum, not an election, and there were no defined rules. It was a choice to use the same broken rules that we use in GE.

> Whether or not the rules are good or logical is another matter.

> But they were and still are the rules.

> You wanted these rules changed to include several million EU citizens who might just possibly have voted remain.

> How would things have looked if the government have changed the rules just for the eu referendum so as to include possibly pro remain voters?

> Didn't the government, keen to win the vote, consider a possible rule change?

They did and didn’t go through with it because they were scared of the daily mail.

But I suspect most british citizens are not bigots for the most part and would have understood the need to make the outdated rules fair before such a momentous vote.

that the brexiteers were scared that they would lose massively if the rules were made fair, that’s a different problem.

> Are you assuming that commenwealth citizens voted to leave?

No, how they voted is irrelevant, I am simply arguing that giving a vote to some foreigners and not others on no other basis than nationality is discriminatory and unfair.

Post edited at 12:08
baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Allowing Irish citizens to vote in uk elections is unfair.

Same for Cypriots and the Maltese.

It happens due to historical reasons.

Same for commenwealth citizens.

It's the UK and how we do things.

6
Doug on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

The rules for the last Scottish referendum were different so no reason why they had to use GE rules for the Brexit referendum. As I've been out of the UK for > 15 years I'm not too bothered about voting in GE (although I wish I could) but not being able to vote in a referendum which potentially removes my right to live & work where I do seems very hard to justify

baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to Doug:

I wasn't trying to argue that the rules for the eu referendum were either logical or fair but that they had some historical context.

I would have thought that the government, keen to win, would have tried to include as many possible remain voters as possible and I have no idea why they excluded some ex pats.

2
RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> Allowing Irish citizens to vote in uk elections is unfair.

> Same for Cypriots and the Maltese.

> It happens due to historical reasons.

> Same for commenwealth citizens.

> It's the UK and how we do things

So you agree that the rules were and discriminatory still uphold the referendum result because « that’s how we do things ».

How revealing.

 

 

Post edited at 13:01
jkarran - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> I would have thought that the government, keen to win, would have tried to include as many possible remain voters as possible and I have no idea why they excluded some ex pats.

No idea? Do you suppose we'd have ever seen the back of Nigel In a "52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way" Farage if they had allowed UK resident Europeans and British emigre to vote on their futures?

jk

baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I never said that these rules were discriminatory.

If a country has a long and varied history you'll find things that don't make any sense.

Change the rules if you wish but after consultation and discussion not in either a rush nor in a way simply to get the result that you want.

Good to see you managed to fit another personal comment in.

5
baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I think your comment is true for the eu citizens being allowed to vote but not so much the ex pats.

mark s - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

I don't understand why the government don't just say ' we've looked at the options and its going to ruin the country and cost too much, we are staying in the e.u'

jkarran - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to mark s:

Because half of them don't and can't believe that. The other half have reluctantly put their balls in the brexiteer's vise in exchange for power and the cohesion of the party. That's half of cabinet, not the parliamentary Conservative party which is relatively sane if terrified of its deluded electorate.

jk

Post edited at 13:40
1
wercat on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

do you really think that someone in the commonwealth should have been able to vote while someone on the electoral register and participating in local democracy and resident in the UK, all for 20 years, should not?

RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> I never said that these rules were discriminatory.

Can you explain to us how this is not discriminatory ?

RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> If a country has a long and varied history you'll find things that don't make any sense.

which is fine as long as it doesnt have long lasting consequences.

> Change the rules if you wish but after consultation and discussion not in either a rush nor in a way simply to get the result that you want.

The rules were not « changed » since we have no set rules for referendum in the U.K..

You admitted yourself that the rules were unfair, yet you are happy with them because you have the outcome you want. 

RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> I think your comment is true for the eu citizens being allowed to vote but not so much the ex pats.

Effectively you just admitted that the rules were rigged to avoid a far right backlash.

baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to wercat:

I didn't get asked my opinion before the government decided who could vote.

But for what it's worth now that the referendum has been held and should any future referendums be held -

Is it fair that somebody from the commonwealth can decide the uk's future, no.

Is it fair that someone from the eu can decide the uk's future, no.

So only UK citizens whether resident in the UK or not can vote.

That sounds simple enough but I'm sure somebody will be along shortly to tell me how much more complicated it is.

1
baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

No.

But you decided that they were, why do I need to say that they weren't.

Your asking me to defend or argue something that you brought up!

baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't remember using the word happy.

Once again you put words into my mouth and then expect me to defend them.

baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

The rules were decided because the government didn't want to upset voters of all persuasions not just the far right and they were complacent enough to think that the vote would be to remain no matter what they did.

 

 

Doug on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

From memory (I haven't checked), extending the right to vote in general elections to UK citizens living overseas (not sure if still time limited but >15 years or indefinite) was in the Tory manifesto in 2015 but Cameron  never got round to implementing it.

baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to Doug:

I think you are correct.

One more thing to lay at Mr Cameron's door.

RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> No.

> But you decided that they were, why do I need to say that they weren't.

You’ve said yourself that the rules were unfair.

1
RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> The rules were decided because the government didn't want to upset voters of all persuasions not just the far right and they were complacent enough to think that the vote would be to remain no matter what they did.

Are you arguing that voters of all persuasions would have been upset to have a fair franchise for the referendum that doesn’t discriminate against Europeans ?

It may be the case, but if it is, it would say a very sad truth about the U.K. electorate.

for the record I suspect that most people in this country are sensible and would have been happy with  a non discriminatory franchise.

But the government was just scared of the daily mail and UKIP, that’s the main problem the tories have, their only strategy against UKIP was to give them what they wanted.

Post edited at 15:50
1
wercat on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Let's again look at the fact that Brexit is against the national interest and its executionhas been left to a party receiving donations from elements in a state that has European, NATO and British interests far from its central purposes.  Why should the rules have been fair and not weighted like a Roulette wheel.

1
john yates - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Opinion poll after opinion poll showed significant majority wanting a referendum. So there was an appetite for one as was proved by the substantial turnout.  The Mail has less influence than you might think, though it’s ability to get a story first does mean it often sets an agenda. You are right about Tory office fearing impact of UKIP in key marginals. The ref announcement briefly took the wind out of Nigel’s sails. 

RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Opinion poll after opinion poll showed significant majority wanting a referendum. So there was an appetite for one as was proved by the substantial turnout.  The Mail has less influence than you might think, though it’s ability to get a story first does mean it often sets an agenda. You are right about Tory office fearing impact of UKIP in key marginals.

I think you misunderstood. I was talking about the policy decision to give the right to vote in the referendum to non U.K. citizens from the commonwealth, but not to non U.K. citizens from the EU.

I believe the British public would have been happy to have a franchise for foreigners that doesn’t discriminate on nationality,  but the Tories were scared of the far right press giving them a beating for not discriminating against Europeans.

Which is quite revealing of the populist state of U.K. politics.

> The ref announcement briefly took the wind out of Nigel’s sails. 

And then delivered the policy objective that UKIP wanted. Well done.

1
andyfallsoff - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Opinion poll after opinion poll showed significant majority wanting a referendum. So there was an appetite for one...

 

Did they? I certainly don't remember that, and only something like 10% of the population put the EU as a main political concern prior to the ref (again going by memory; happy to be updated). Any evidence of these opinion polls with a "significant majority" demanding a referendum? 

I find it unlikely as anyone who would have voted remain wouldn't have demanded one. And those who voted leave aren't a "significant" majority, they're just about a majority...

 

1
RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to andyfallsoff:

I remember quite well opinion polls quite in favour of a referendum and the tories were elected against such a manifesto.

But really I don’t think anybody wanted a referendum based on rules that are so ridiculously unfair.

I found out though that most people didnt even  know what the franchise was though, most people in this country are utterly ignorant about their own electoral system.

Post edited at 17:43
1
Graeme Alderson on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to andyfallsoff:

>  And those who voted leave aren't a "significant" majority, they're just about a majority...

They are a small majority of those that voted, so the guess that a significant majority wanted a referendum is pretty inaccurate.

 

1
baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

How would allowing several million eu citizens to vote, most if not all of whom would have voted remain, have made the referendum any fairer?

Removing the right of commonwealth citizens might have reduced the unfairness.

At the risk of sounding like a far right nationalist I think that the future of a country should be decided by its citizens.

I'm fairly sure that's how many countries in the world are run.

wercat on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> the future of a country should be decided by its citizens.

 

domiciles

Post edited at 19:12
2
Tringa on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

 

The problem with the EU referendum was it was handled very badly from the the beginning.

 

In seemingly very little time we've had a leader of the Government who, afraid UKIP were gaining ground, and therefore potentially going to take some of the Government's votes (and/or seats) offered the country a vote on EU membership.


The combination of the leave issues being very emotive (£350m a week to spend on the NHS and stop immigrants taking our jobs) and the vast majority of the UK population not having enough knowledge to understand the real issues, which were very complicated, resulted in the Leave campaign being successful.

The leader, surprised/amazed/horrified that he had lost the referendum fell on his sword and was replaced by someone who wanted us to remain in the EU but was, apparently, the best person to get us out of the EU.

The new leader told the country there would be no snap election and then called an election allegedly to get a stronger mandate for Brexit even though the referendum had already provided the mandate. We were not supposed to think the election was called because the leader and/or the governing party did not want to have the next election close to the completion of the Brexit negotiations and that the ratings of the main opposition party, and particularly its leader, were very poor.

The party in power ran a campaign that focussed too much on the leader who did not engage well with the electorate. Meanwhile the ratings of the main opposition and its leader increased and the election resulted in the governing party whose bid for a stronger mandate resulted in it going from having a small (but more or less workable) majority to having none at all and needing some form of alliance/understanding with another party.
 

I know it is not going to happen but I think we need another referendum because we were very poorly informed in 2016.

 

The Leave campaign played a blinder, eg  £350million we could give the NHS, we can control immigration but can continue to be part of the single market. Even at the time we knew that the £350million a week was a lie. I use that word deliberately because, although we do pay a lot to the EU, it is not £350million a week and the leave campaign knew they were lying. However, the remain campaign failed miserably in nailing the leavers on that one. Virtually nothing was said before the referendum about the Northern Ireland/Eire border or our continuing financial commitments to the EU after we left.

 

We are now in the process of making the largest change in out political and economic position in the last 70 years and which will have an impact for decades to come.

john yates - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Your memory fails you

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-does-british-public-think-about-europe/

Also 72 per cent testified to demand. 

john yates - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Another round of ‘most people in this country are utterly ignorant’ abuse from a remainer. And which country are u referring to?

8
baron - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to wercat:

Citizens.

As in somebody who was either born in a country or somebody who can be bothered to become a citizen.

If you can't be bothered then you can't vote, in any election, referendum or whatever.

1
wbo - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:19th happiest country in the world apparently - i expect you'll number 1 by about October next year after 6 months of freedom

 

john yates - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to Tringa:

Curious to hear from those who chant the slogan that £350m was a lie, just what they think the weekly figure is that we pay to the EU. The assumption is that you know it is a lie because you know what the true figure is. If there is a true figure one would expect all responses to this question to be the same. Answers please. 

3
Andy Hardy on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Is your Google broken?

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-membership-fee-55-million/

£250,000,000 per week in 2016 was sent to the EU (some which was spent in the UK)

1
john arran - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

not to mention the fact that it was all promised to be going to the NHS. If the NHS gets even a penny of ex-EU money I'll be amazed. Given that it has been deliberately starved of resources for years, when funds certainly could have been made available (the DUP will testify to the actuality of unbudgeted tree money), what makes you think the same government would be keen to change its spots all of a sudden?

And all of that presupposes there's anything to spend at all anyway, once the inevitable post-Brexit recession (as widely predicted by those pesky so-called experts) has taken its toll.

4
Graeme Alderson on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

FFS even Farge distanced himself from the £350 million a week lie.

1
MG - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

That went well didn't it!

If you don't want people to regard you and your mates as ignorant, don't ask such ignorant questions.

1
RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> FFS even Farge distanced himself from the £350 million a week lie.

Farage at least was half honnest.

1
RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> How would allowing several million eu citizens to vote, most if not all of whom would have voted remain, have made the referendum any fairer?

It would be fairer because they would have been on a equal footing with Commonwealth citizens. Yes the result woudl have been remain, it's not because it's not result you want that is doesn't mean it's not a fairer franchise.

> Removing the right of commonwealth citizens might have reduced the unfairness.

Indeed.

> At the risk of sounding like a far right nationalist

Lol, that ship sailed a loooong time ago I'm afraid.

> I think that the future of a country should be decided by its citizens.

And yet you don't seem to mind that it hasn't been the case.

Post edited at 23:13
1
RomTheBear on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> Citizens.

> As in somebody who was either born in a country or somebody who can be bothered to become a citizen.

> If you can't be bothered then you can't vote, in any election, referendum or whatever.

... Unless you are from the commonwealth, or Irish. You know, double standards, hypocrisy, and all.

Post edited at 23:04
2
john yates - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

It did go well.

One person says the figure wasn't £350m but £250 m. A week.

A not inconsiderable sum.

Or do you disagree with that number? You didn't say as you went into abuse mode.

Would you 'and your mates' have been happy had the bus slogan said £250 m a week.

And do you think that, had that been the figure, the vote would have been different?

I am almost taking delight in the fact that you lost; you can't get over it; and this winds you up.

 

 

 

14
john yates - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

Deliberately starved of resources? More lies. Here is the fiercely independent, and highly critical of this government, Institute for Fiscal Studies on NHS spend.

Read it and apologise for misleading people. And don't tell me that it doesn't include 2017 figures..

UK public spending on health has increased in real terms (after accounting for economy-wide inflation), and as a share of national income, between 1955–56 and 2015–16. Real spending increased from £12.8 billion in 1955–56 to £143.7 billion in 2015–16 (2017–18 prices). This growth in spending is larger than the increase in national income over this period. As a result, health spending increased from 2.8% of national income in 1955–56 to 7.4% in 2015–16. Health spending also increased at a quicker rate than other government spending. Health spending therefore grew from 7.7% of public spending in 1955–56 (or 11.2% of public service spending) to 18.4% of public spending in 2015–16 (29.9% of public service spending).

9
john yates - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

No, Farage doesn't like Boris.And the 350 m was a Boris wheeze nicked from Nigel. Just old time political envy.

john yates - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

And here, more evidence of 'deliberate' starvation. Again IFS the source..

Health spending per capita in England has almost doubled since 1997, yet relatively little is known about how that spending is distributed across the population.

 

2
Bob Kemp - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

 

> Deliberately starved of resources? More lies. Here is the fiercely independent, and highly critical of this government, Institute for Fiscal Studies on NHS spend.

Talk about cherry-picking your data! That's starting in 1955 - hardly a measure of recent spending patterns! Try this instead:

https://fullfact.org/health/is-nhs-in-crisis/

Much more ambiguous in recent times...

https://fullfact.org/health/is-nhs-in-crisis/

As for the 'deliberately starved' bit, I'd suggest you're more careful with the accusation of lying. John didn't say the NHS has been deliberately starved of resources for ideological reasons as some do. It's easily arguable that the NHS has been deliberately starved in the sense that government decisions have been made that have left the NHS unable to provide the level of care required. 

Post edited at 23:37
andyfallsoff - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I am almost taking delight in the fact that you lost; you can't get over it; and this winds you up.

Don't be a dick about it, eh?

1
Bob Kemp - on 15 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> And here, more evidence of 'deliberate' starvation. Again IFS the source..

> Health spending per capita in England has almost doubled since 1997, yet relatively little is known about how that spending is distributed across the population.

That really doesn't prove anything about health spending under the Tories does it? You need figures since 2010. 

1
john yates - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You can look up the link - the figures are from early post war to current and the words are a caption to a graph....so no, I don't need to look at 2010 ...the increase continues..

As for the greatest climber in the world's comment he was clearly referring to the current government

....Given that it has been deliberately starved of resources for years, when funds certainly could have been made available (the DUP will testify to the actuality of unbudgeted tree money)..

How many other administrations have made a deal with the DUP.

But thanks for your suggestion...

5
john yates - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Yeah, your right. I should just take other people's abuse and do the Christian thing and turn the other cheek......but then there's a more Old Testament approach..

 

6
Bob Kemp - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I am almost taking delight in the fact that you lost; you can't get over it; and this winds you up.

Why on earth do you think anyone should 'get over' Brexit? Apart from the fact that a key element of democracy is that people are entitled to oppose, we don't know from one week to the next what we are supposed to be 'getting over'. And as it hasn't happened yet, are you expecting us to get over it in advance? 

1
john yates - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Get over the fact you lost. Even with almost entire Establishment backing you.

Nothing like a sore loser bleeding on at the Ref.

24
pasbury on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Well f*ck me. NHS spending has increased in real terms since 1955. 

1
pasbury on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Get over the fact you lost. Even with almost entire Establishment backing you.

> Nothing like a sore loser bleeding on at the Ref.

Nothing like a gloating ignoramus picking scraps out of the bin.

1
RomTheBear on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> No, Farage doesn't like Boris.And the 350 m was a Boris wheeze nicked from Nigel. Just old time political envy.

Farage was relatively more honest in his motivations on brexit than the rest of the brexiteers.

I disagree with him but at least he had a fairly consistent argument :  Europeans are idiots, we don’t want them to come here, lets leave and f*ck them.

The likes of Boris and co just ran an anti intellectual jingoistic campaign, they didn’t even believe their own lies. History will not be kind on them.

 

 

 

1
Rob Exile Ward on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Show me a good loser and I'll show you a loser.

1
john yates - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

A wonderful tautology.

If someone is a good loser, they are by definition a loser.

But not necessarily good. 

2
john arran - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Unless something changes soon we'll all be losers anyway; indeed we already are. And if the pesky experts are to be believed again, the 'winners' are set to lose more than the 'losers'.

But I'm sure even then you won't accept that you backed a donkey. Enjoy it while it lasts.

3
Bob Kemp - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Didn’t read my post then did you? Or do you just prefer trying to wind people up to intelligent debate?

Post edited at 08:45
1
john yates - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Bob, you link confirms the IFS point on spending (I tried to attach the graph) - there was a slowing of the rate of increase around 2010 post-financial crash, which is not really the same as being 'deliberately starved.'  Health Economists at University of York are doing some very good work on opportunity costs of internal health spending decisions and quality-adjusted life year metrics. Its a million miles from simple; but then nothing is simple in so large an organisation.

 

MG - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Or do you disagree with that number? 

If you are saying that, or any significant sum, will be available for the NHS, of course I  disagree.  All the stuff the EU funding paid for centrally (trade deals, medicine standards etc. etc.) now will have to be duplicated by the UK separately at huge expense.  Further, the total amount available will be reduced anyway due to smaller size of our economy as a result of leaving.

> I am almost taking delight in the fact that you lost; you can't get over it; and this winds you up.

A admission that neatly sums up the brexit mind-set - tribal, vengeful, zero-sum, , ignorant, morons.

2
john yates - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

I didn't back anything. I was very far from UK when the vote was held. But yes, I did have some involvement in getting the referendum on the agenda. I had, and still have, no view on the outcome. Other than it was remarkable that so many people were prepared to vote leave when the weight of 'informed opinion,' the financial and corporate establishment, the government and all the opposition parties, the Scottish government, the trade unions, almost to a man and woman the university establishment, were telling them that to do otherwise would be a disaster. It might yet be. It's just that I don't share your confidence, or the confidence of those who seem unable to admit that they might just be wrong and the majority (slender though it was) might just be right. What was it  Zhou EnLai said in response to a question on the French Revolution? 

1
Bob Kemp - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Bob, you link confirms the IFS point on spending (I tried to attach the graph) - there was a slowing of the rate of increase around 2010 post-financial crash, which is not really the same as being 'deliberately starved.'  Health Economists at University of York are doing some very good work on opportunity costs of internal health spending decisions and quality-adjusted life year metrics. Its a million miles from simple; but then nothing is simple in so large an organisation.

Thanks for a considered reply. I agree it’s not simple, and a lot hangs on how we construct ‘deliberate’ here. But it’s clear that the NHS is massively underfunded. The other side of this is that deliberate underfunding in other sectors is increasing the load on the NHS, via the Government’s austerity policy. This means that the NHS picks up the tab for cuts in social care and also that the general health of the nation declines. 

john yates - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

I am not pro-Brexit. I am saying that the sum we pay into the EU is considerable. And that there might be good grounds for saying that where that money is spent might better be decided by our own elected representatives. That, I imagine, was the key message behind the bus slogan. In EU terminology, it is about subsidiarity. There are those, and they are not all as you so brutally describe, who think we might be leaving a burning building. An open, dynamic, tolerant UK is not beyond possibility. But if the tone of the debate is conducted in the language you deploy, that hope diminishes day by day.  

2
tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> You know why EU citizens ( not including the Irish, Cypriots and Maltese) weren't allowed to vote in the referendum yet you continue to peddle the myth that somehow they were excluded to rig the result.

Everybody knows why.  Because they would have voted to stay in the EU and Cameron figured he would get a no vote on Brexit anyway so didn't burn the political capital fighting over it.  It's another example of the whole country getting held to ransom by internal Tory party politics.

Andy Hardy on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

£250M a week includes all the money we get back for farmers, science regional development etc. The nett contribution to the EU is lower.

£250M is indeed a lot in absolute terms, but compared to the spend on defence, education, old age pensions, the NHS etc it's tiny.

It's about £3.50 per week per UK citizen

1
Bob Kemp - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

It seems that Zhou Enlai’s quote may have been based on a misunderstanding- 

https://www.historytoday.com/dean-nicholas/zhou-enlais-famous-saying-debunked

- but it’s certainly useful to try and take a long view sometimes. In the case of Brexit though it’s always worth remembering the Law of Unintended Consequences. I’m pretty sure there will be many of those as it’s absolutely clear that the Brexit movement has had no clue and no plan as to what the post Brexit world will be like.

 

1
baron - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

I agree with your first two sentences.

As for the country being held to ransom - while internal tory politics might have brought about the referendum neither of the two main parties has the courage to go against the referendum result.

While ignoring the referendum might be the sensible thing to do any party doing somwould be commiting political suicide.

jkarran - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

You didn't get back to me about your Kashmiri friends or the Jamaican UKIPpers you were so impressed by.

> Opinion poll after opinion poll showed significant majority wanting a referendum. So there was an appetite for one as was proved by the substantial turnout.

Opinion polls have shown a steady trend toward remain to the point where there is now a clear lead, there now appears to be an appetite for not leaving the EU, I suspect that would be proven by a substantial turnout if it were to be tested...

> The Mail has less influence than you might think, though it’s ability to get a story first does mean it often sets an agenda.

It has the second highest circulation of all UK papers, just behind the Sun and nearly twice its next nearest rival. As print goes (ignoring their huge online presence) they're hugely influential.

> You are right about Tory office fearing impact of UKIP in key marginals. The ref announcement briefly took the wind out of Nigel’s sails. 

I'm not sure wholesale adoption of their ideas counts as taking the wind out of UKIP's sails. It possibly saved a few tory MP's their seats but at a what cost.

jk

1
jkarran - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> One person says the figure wasn't £350m but £250 m. A week. A not inconsiderable sum.

Almost.. Nett off what we get back and that's 8.6Bn/year out of £802Bn for 2017. Fractionally over 1% of spending

Section 17 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spring-budget-2017-documents/spring-budget-2017 

> Would you 'and your mates' have been happy had the bus slogan said £250 m a week.

If it said "We send roughly £250M/week, 1.6% of our budget to the EU. After the costs of leaving and replacing lost EU funding there may in a few years be some of that available, possibly for the NHS"... Perfectly happy.

> And do you think that, had that been the figure, the vote would have been different?

If it had said "£250M per week to the EU, let's fund the NHS instead" it would have been just as powerful and just as undeliverable.

> I am almost taking delight in the fact that you lost; you can't get over it; and this winds you up.

Then you're a wanker.

jk

 

2
andyfallsoff - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> An open, dynamic, tolerant UK is not beyond possibility. But if the tone of the debate is conducted in the language you deploy, that hope diminishes day by day.  

I am almost taking delight in the fact that you lost; you can't get over it; and this winds you up.

tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> £250M a week includes all the money we get back for farmers, science regional development etc. The nett contribution to the EU is lower.

The £350 million thing is misleading four different ways.  The first two are obvious: it was actually £250 million, and that is the gross, not the net amount.  Everybody talks about those issues but they are not the main ones.

The third issue and more significant issue is that the net amount we give the EU is not a 'contribution' like a charitable contribution it is a payment for necessary services which, if the EU did not provide, we would need to pay money to hire people to do in the UK.   If you need something like a medicines agency the amount of work to do that for 27 countries is not 27x the amount of work needed to do it for one country.  When we split the bill 27 ways we save money compared with doing it ourselves.  

The fourth, and by far the most significant issue, is that it isn't just about the amount of money collected and spent by government.  It is about the far larger amount of money spent by industry to comply with regulations and the advantages to commerce of a customs union and single market.  If industry needs to comply with 27 different sets of national regulations it will spend a fortune on paperwork and on minor and completely useless variations in products and processes to comply with slightly different rules in different countries.  There won't be the same economies of scale in production and distribution.  We will all pay more and get lower quality products as a result.

There is absolutely no way anyone but a complete idiot could possibly think we are going to save money by leaving the EU and as a result have money left to spend on other things.  Government is going to spend more money because it will need more civil servants to carry out functions where we previously shared the cost with other countries and collect less taxes because our industry will be at a competitive disadvantage and make less profit.

 

2
mrphilipoldham - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

What, a medicines agency a bit like our very own and internally funded NICE? Is there an EU equivalent doing the same job, that we're paying 1/27th in to?

Post edited at 12:54
1
MG - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

> What, a medicines agency a bit like our very own and internally funded NICE? Is there an EU equivalent doing the same job, that we're paying 1/27th in to?

No, there isn't.  This stuff is hardly difficult to find out.

NICE is about effectiveness and value for money, not regulating the safety of medicines.

2
MG - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Well put.  I still struggle to decide whether brexiters are in fact all thick, or whether they wilfully pretend to misunderstand everything.  I also can't decide which is more worrying.

4
jkarran - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

> Well put.  I still struggle to decide whether brexiters are in fact all thick, or whether they wilfully pretend to misunderstand everything.

I'm not sure it's either in most cases. Some are thick or ignorant. Some are smart and adequately informed but ideological or very narrowly focused, that focus tips the cost/benefit balance in quite baffling ways. Most just refuse to think when exposed to information that potentially challenges their views, whether that is lack of curiosity or a defence mechanism varies from person to person but that's true of most people, not just leavers.

jk

1
MG - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> I'm not sure it's either in most cases.

Most was perhaps too strong but in the previous few posts we have had questions about the £350m claim and medicine regulation that have been answered loads of times.  It's like with climate denial - no matter how many times things are explained, the same questions come back.

Post edited at 14:25
2
Ian W - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

And would the UK govt be daft enough to have one in the same city as the European Medecines Agency (in canary wharf since 1995)?

mrphilipoldham - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

Sorry, you’re right.. it is easy to find these things out and I should have fact checked myself. I should have of course named the MHRA, not NICE.

Post edited at 14:41
MG - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

...which also has a different role.

mrphilipoldham - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

To what? Being a medicines agency? 

MG - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Try reading the webpages - the even have handy "About Us" sections - almost as if they want people to know. 

http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2016/08/WC500211862.pdf

Or just carry on blindly assuming all things EU are bad.

1
mrphilipoldham - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

Try reading my post rather than assuming I think all things EU are bad. I only questioned the duplicity. Their Wikipedia pages paint a rather similar picture.

mrphilipoldham - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

Now I'm on a proper computer.. from the two opening paragraphs of their info (I used wiki for the MHRA as their site on gov.uk doesn't seem to have an about us section)

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is an executive agency of the Department of Health in the United Kingdom which is responsible for ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe.

EMA protects public and animal health in 28 EU Member States, as well as the countries of the European Economic Area (EEA), by ensuring that all medicines available on the EU market are safe, effective and of high quality.

Sounds pretty much the same to me, as far as mission statements go.

..and no, I'm not suggesting that the EU one is pointless. If anything, as has been pointed out, surely it'd be better to fund the same work at 1/27th the cost.

Post edited at 16:26
baron - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

If the costs of the eu were equally divided between its member nations then maybe some leavers could have been persuaded to vote remain.

Maybe.

1
jkarran - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> If the costs of the eu were equally divided between its member nations then maybe some leavers could have been persuaded to vote remain.

We've done this a thousand times. That would rather defeat the purpose of politically stabilising the margins, reducing the inequality gradients that drive much of what brexiteers dislike and developing consumer markets, all of which we directly benefit from. Stuff that eh, let's save 1% off our tax bill and ditch most of those benefits.

1%

Jk

Post edited at 17:37
1
Trevers - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I am almost taking delight in the fact that you lost; you can't get over it; and this winds you up.

You're taking delight in the fact that MG's life will quite probably be negatively and irreversibly affected by this, and that he can't accept that this is happening off the back of a bunch of very obvious lies.

2
baron - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

Yes we've done this many times but it's as true now as it was in the past.

We fundamentaly disagree about the UK's payments to the EU.

Not the actual amounts but the benefits of those payments and whether or not the UK and several other EU members should foot the bill for the EU project.

And we'll continue to do this topic again as long as 'the EU being equal' bit is trotted out.

It's a bit like you constantly challenging the £350 million on the bus isn't it?

4
tom_in_edinburgh - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> If the costs of the eu were equally divided between its member nations then maybe some leavers could have been persuaded to vote remain.

I don't think persuading the leavers matters any more.   Just like Greece a few years ago economic reality will keep slapping us until eventually we behave rationally and chuck this in.

1
baron - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

So when economic reality kicks in and we decide to stay in the EU will we just carry on as before or will it be 'a new door' as forseen by Mr Verhofstadt?

You might be able to sell business as usual to the electorate but selling Mr Verhofstadt's vision of the UK in the EU would be a much more difficult proposition.

john yates - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Fair cop gov! 

john yates - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

Do you work in HR by any chance? 

john yates - on 16 Mar 2018

In reply jkarran

i don’t think your statement would  fit on bus, even one of those long bendy ones.

DMail circulation 1.4 million. Leave vote 17 m plus. It wasn’t the Mail what won it love.

My point in opinion polls was not about outcomes but that, for long time prior to referendum, there was a consistent majority in favour of holding one. The high turnout reflected that appetite.

My Mirpuri friends were complaining at the sudden and unexpected influx of children who spoke little or no English. Lots of ironies there. As for the two West Indian ladies, I will let you look them up. Suffice it to say the HMG’s inability to control EU in-migration led to stricter limits on Commonweath. Interesting story emerging on tough caps on Tier 2Visas for non-EU migrants and impact on skills base.

And wanker? I don’t a toss x

 

8
MG - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Definitely 

andyfallsoff - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

Just going to leave this here as well, it's interesting reading for the "of course we were always going to leave the single market" argument:

https://mobile.twitter.com/EmporersNewC/status/974373411165270017?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fsingletrackworld.com%2Fforum%2Ftopic%2Feu-referendum-are-you-in-or-out%2F

Andy Hardy on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to andyfallsoff:

Is there a link to that which doesn't include having to sign up for Twitter? I waste enough time as is it is!

andyfallsoff - on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I didn't realise you had to, sorry! 

Try this: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/974373411165270017.html

pasbury on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Thank you very much for writing this.

1
pasbury on 16 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

And what does any of that have to do with EU freedom of movement?

RomTheBear on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> In reply jkarran

> My Mirpuri friends were complaining at the sudden and unexpected influx of children who spoke little or no English. Lots of ironies there. As for the two West Indian ladies, I will let you look them up. Suffice it to say the HMG’s inability to control EU in-migration led to stricter limits on Commonweath. Interesting story emerging on tough caps on Tier 2Visas for non-EU migrants and impact on skills base.

Utter bollocks though, ending freedom of movement will make it harder for commonwealth citizens to come.

Not only the government has  announced  that rules for non-EU post brexit will be even tougher, but, on top of that, once Europeans fall into the main immigration system, they will start taking places in the cap that were otherwise filled by non-EU. And given the number of highly qualified people in Europe from rich countries, they are likely to get a hefty chunk of it, pushing away commonwealth citizens.

I know that some brexiteers such as Priti Patel heavily campaigned commonwealth citizens and told them that by screwing EU citizens they’ll make their own situation better.

but I’m afraid they were lied to and will get the opposite of what they wanted. Which is a sort of a general pattern it seems when it comes to brexit.

Post edited at 06:49
RomTheBear on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I don't think persuading the leavers matters any more.   Just like Greece a few years ago economic reality will keep slapping us until eventually we behave rationally and chuck this in.

Nor should we try it seems. They are unable to deliver brexit anyway because they lied too much.

On March 2019, “Independence Day”, the only thing that happens is complete status quo except we lose our voting rights in the EU.

You couldn’t make this shit up.

2
john yates - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

You seem pretty good at making stuff up I thought. Don’t be so hard on yourself. 

7
john yates - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

You might want to look out for an upcoming BBC investigation into this which the producer tells me says the opposite. But your always right. So it can’t be true.  Doubtless the Beeb been brainwashed by Brexiteers. 

6
Bob Hughes - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I don't think persuading the leavers matters any more.   Just like Greece a few years ago economic reality will keep slapping us until eventually we behave rationally and chuck this in.

The problem is that economic reality will begin to bite too late to reverse Brexit. It will bite after we’ve left which will mean we’ll have to re-enter the eu which is a much longer process. I suspect also that being on the outside of the EU will make the British electorate feel even less positive about the EU, as has happened in Norway and Switzerland. 

 

john yates - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

You and those who claim the EU has been a success should read this. U.K. vote to leave is but a symptom of a project in crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/aug/10/joseph-stiglitz-the-problem-with-europe-is-the-euro

On both the economic front and worse the political it has been disastrous following Maastricht. Even Germany, whose understandable paranoia of inflation, was and remains the focus of the single currency and ECB, has a very poor growth record. The mass migration of different peopleS and cultures has broke families and robbed countries of their talent. Joseph’s description of Juncker and Commission reaction is worth noting ( it reminds me of what both Corbyn and Benn have said of the EU). The desire to punish the U.K. is all too evident. Joseph is a friend of Europe, not an enemy. But he has no illusions that it is in crisis. Possibly terminal. 

t

7
RomTheBear on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> You might want to look out for an upcoming BBC investigation into this which the producer tells me says the opposite. But your always right. So it can’t be true.  Doubtless the Beeb been brainwashed by Brexiteers. 

We have absolutely no idea what you are talking about nor what you are referring to. Not sure what the BBC has anything to do with my post or this conversation. You seem very confused.

Post edited at 15:26
1
RomTheBear on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> You seem pretty good at making stuff up I thought. Don’t be so hard on yourself. 

Again, no idea what you are talking about, nor why you think "I'm being hard on myself". If you are accusing me of "making stuff up" at least tell us what it is that I have, allegedly, made up. I am not too sure what given that there is nothing particularly controversial or hard to verify in my previous post, you could say in fact that I was pointing out the obvious.

Post edited at 15:29
1
MG - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

No doubt the growth record will improve hugely with large tariffs and queues at borders, an inability of staff to move around, and mutual hostility between countries. Obvious. Maybe a few wars again to really get things going.

 

Bob Kemp - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> You and those who claim the EU has been a success should read this. U.K. vote to leave is but a symptom of a project in crisis.

 

You're too quick to claim a critique as a confirmed crisis. Try this:

https://www.socialeurope.eu/euro-joseph-stiglitz-wrong

Or this...

https://www.ft.com/content/a84ae368-5a2e-11e6-9f70-badea1b336d4

In any case, Stiglitz goes on in his book to show how the EU can be fixed... as in most aspects, Brexit is unnecessary self-harm.

 

 

1
Bob Hughes - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> You and those who claim the EU has been a success should read this. U.K. vote to leave is but a symptom of a project in crisis.

Whether or not you believe the EU has been a success, leaving it will cause the UK some economic pain. This is the view even of DExEU. Depending on your point of view that might be a price worth paying.

 

HansStuttgart - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

thanks for the link!

john yates - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

As I said. Stiglitz is a friend to the EU. And he has a view on its best chance of survival. My point is that EU far from a success story. Joseph doesn’t even mention the disaster that was Yugoslavia. 

Bob Kemp - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> As I said. Stiglitz is a friend to the EU. And he has a view on its best chance of survival. My point is that EU far from a success story. Joseph doesn’t even mention the disaster that was Yugoslavia. 

I wouldn't have thought Yugoslavia was relevant to his argument at all. But whilst on the subject, it's arguable that the EU's failures around Yugoslavia were because divisions in the EU made a coherent policy impossible. The interesting question then is whether such division is inevitable in a union of many states.

(Also on the subject for anyone interested in Yugoslavia and its breakup - this is an intriguing alternative history approach - http://carnegieeurope.eu/2013/12/13/if-yugoslavia-were-eu-member-pub-56794 )

john yates - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I guess I’m just not convinced by your claims that Brexit will be a disaster. Much of what you say is conjecture and speculation, mixed with prejudice. 

wbo - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates: straight up question - do you believe that in 5, 10 years time the various regions of the UK will be richer, poorer.  Not just the value of the stock market, but the majority of the population

 

john yates - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to wbo:

I do.

But that might be because I am an ignorant liar. 

J

2
john yates - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Bob, Duval confirms EU in crisis. But disagrees with Stiglitz on both diagnosis and cure. Here....,

. Joseph Stiglitz clearly is right in pointing out that the conditions laid down during the drafting of the euro by the 1992 Maastricht Treaty and then the rules during its actual creation in 1999 have been deeply inadequate and have contributed to the severity of the 2010 crisis (this is what we have also been pointing out tirelessly in Alternatives Economiques for the last 25 years).

Duval favours a very dirigiste solution that would entail much greater integration. Fascinating parallel he draws with the US taking a century and a civil war to make it work. All these are legitimate debates but evidence is EU populations moving in opposite direction. 

1
john yates - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Relevant only in that it speaks to the weakness at the heart of the EU project and it’s unresolved contradictions. Your alternative history piece is a clever ‘what if’ but ends by using Multiethnic country with weak central state as analogous to current EU position. Also highlights it was US and NATO that kept piece in Europe. Not the EU as it’s boosters often claim. Thanks for the links. Have you read Larry Elliot’s Euro?  

1
Sir Chasm - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I do.

> But that might be because I am an ignorant liar. 

> J

The question, poorly phrased, was

straight up question - do you believe that in 5, 10 years time the various regions of the UK will be richer, poorer.  Not just the value of the stock market, but the majority of the population

And your answer is "I do". Now, you are a liar, of course. Ignorant? Probably.

2
john yates - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Thanks for repeating both the question and the answer. A bit like iPlayer. In case you missed it first time round. 

2
andyfallsoff - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

If you read it again, you might note that he did so because you didn't answer the question?

wbo - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to John Yates: i agree i phrased the question poorly , but still an evasive answer .  So, do you believe the population in the various  regions of the UK will be richer?

Another good question would be that if the UK didn't leave the EU would it be richer or poorer than today in 10 Years.  

 

Bob Kemp - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

>Duval favours a very dirigiste solution that would entail much greater integration. Fascinating parallel he draws with the US taking a century and a civil war to make it work. All these are legitimate debates but evidence is EU populations moving in opposite direction.

A classic political conundrum: establishing legitimacy and bringing people with you - even if the solution is the best, it's still no good if you can't convince the population.

Bob Kemp - on 17 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I guess I’m just not convinced by your claims that Brexit will be a disaster. Much of what you say is conjecture and speculation, mixed with prejudice. 

Brexit may not be a disaster, but it's already the case that there is no clear vision, many contradictory positions (see the latest open borders nonsense - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43428802-), no larger plan, and no clue as to deal with the myriad of issues that will ensue. Whatever you want to call it, it will be expensive, chaotic and in many regards ultimately pointless.

[Edit] I should have pointed out none of this, except for the last sentence, is conjecture and speculation. We can see it now.

Post edited at 00:13
pasbury on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

In reply to john yates: straight up question - do you believe that in 5, 10 years time the various regions of the UK will be richer, poorer.  Not just the value of the stock market, but the majority of the population

> I do.

> But that might be because I am an ignorant liar. 

> J

This sums up the vacuity of the leavers vision for our national prospects.

1
john yates - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to pasbury:

Forgive me. My reply was meant to say I do believe we could be better off out. The EU project is deeply flawed  But we seem to lack the self confidence and drive to make a fist of things now we have voted to leave.  The second part of the reply about being a liar and ignorant was simply a restatement of the abusive comments I get when disagreeing with people like yourself. 

7
RomTheBear on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> I guess I’m just not convinced by your claims that Brexit will be a disaster. Much of what you say is conjecture and speculation, mixed with prejudice. 

Be specific and argue your case instead of just making claims and throwing insults.

It depends what you care about. If you care about free movement then Brexit is a disaster. 

Post edited at 08:09
2
RomTheBear on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Forgive me. My reply was meant to say I do believe we could be better off out. The EU project is deeply flawed  But we seem to lack the self confidence and drive to make a fist of things now we have voted to leave.  The second part of the reply about being a liar and ignorant was simply a restatement of the abusive comments I get when disagreeing with people like yourself. 

You moan about being "abused," but you have not got a single abusive comment on this thread. Not one. Yet you've dispensed many.

Your false victimhood is just a convenient answer to reasonable questions to which you have no sensible answer.

 

Post edited at 08:08
4
Andy Hardy on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Forgive me. My reply was meant to say I do believe we could be better off out. The EU project is deeply flawed  But we seem to lack the self confidence and drive to make a fist of things now we have voted to leave.. 

Self confidence and drive are all well and good, but they need to be applied to a workable plan which is up to the brexiteers to come up with. There are so many contradictions between the different options that there is no plan, and hence nothing to apply any drive to. It's a clusterfcuk.

2
Bob Kemp - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> There are so many contradictions between the different options that there is no plan, and hence nothing to apply any drive to. It's a clusterfcuk.

That’s it in a nutshell. It doesn’t matter how much people argue the toss about what might happen or not, and how beneficial or not the outcomes might be, nothing we have seen so far gives us the slightest grounds for thinking any kind of beneficial Brexit might happen. To come back to the original post, even if all the scenarios were varying degrees of positive, there would still be no indication at all from either the government or the Brexit campaigners as to how any of them might be achieved. It’s incompetence beyond anything I’ve ever seen in domestic politics in my lifetime. 

1
john yates - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You can’t be very old. The three day week, the IMF bail out, hyper inflation, the union barons, Suez, Cuba, 2008 crash brought  on by Blair Brown incompetence, how many dead in Labour’s adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan..... if there is a ckusterf*ck it takes two sides to f*ck. EU elite know they are fighting for their very generously rewarded lives. 

12
john yates - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

So wanker is not abuse. Liar is not abuse. Ignorant is not abuse. We must live in different neighbourhoods. 

 

1
MG - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Wanker, I’ll give you. Liar and ignorant are just descriptions.

1
MG - on 18 Mar 2018
john yates - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

And I’m not a victim. Just want to challenge all the bullshit - your term not mine - that you come out with. You sound like the Scottish character in Dad’s Army. We’re all doomed. I suppose if Scotland got its independence and the EU would have you as a member you would be in perfect heaven. Now that really is fanciful. 

4
wercat on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

"domestic" - in domestic terms this, if it is pulled off by the perpetrators, will be irreversible in my lifetime. I'm not likely to get back my EU citizenship rights so all other considerations aside that represents an irretrievable loss, as it is for my wife's status here.

john yates - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to wercat:

Moron was another word you used.

j

john yates - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

WTF. One of my points about the failure of the EU is that it leads to the rise of populism. And in the case of some former Eastern Bloc countries I have visited, fascism. You seem to see the EU and the single currency as the solution. I tend to think it is the problem. The value of the referendum is that it has exposed tensions and divisions in the U.K. that have been growing certainly since 2004 and more so after the crash. We face so many challenges, beating each other up only makes it more rather than less likely that this will be what one poster called a clusterf*ck. You can abuse me all you like. I won’t feel a victim. But I will challenge your take on what the challenges are and how they might best be resolved.

6
wercat on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Moron was another word you used.

> j


what, in this thread?  I have occasionally used the word during my life I admit.

MG - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> WTF. One of my points about the failure of the EU is that it leads to the rise of populism. And in the case of some former Eastern Bloc countries I have visited, fascism.

You are supporting the counterparts in the UK - Farage, Banks, the Nazi-recalling posters and the rest.  You also doing so entirely dishonesty. And no, before you start your poor-little-me routine, that’s not abuse.

 

 

Bob Kemp - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> You can’t be very old. The three day week, the IMF bail out, hyper inflation, the union barons, Suez, Cuba, 2008 crash brought  on by Blair Brown incompetence, how many dead in Labour’s adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan..... 

I am beginning to wonder if you read my posts properly. I said domestic politics. Many of these are international. And the crash was an international one, not Blair/Brown’s fault. Even George Osborne’s admitted that. 

 

john yates - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to wercat:

I have many friends who are in a similar position. And I hope that whatever agreement HMG arrives at with the EU protects your rights. Some of my friends feel so European they will apply for French citizenship. I am not saying this will not be disruptive. And I don’t want to dismiss as unimportant any anxieties you feel. U.K. govt could have taken early moral high ground on this and assured EU citizenship rights. But chose not to. I think this was a mistake. But understand why it was done. 

5
Andy Hardy on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> . We face so many challenges, beating each other up only makes it more rather than less likely that this will be what one poster called a clusterf*ck. You can abuse me all you like. I won’t feel a victim. But I will challenge your take on what the challenges are and how they might best be resolved.

I've highlighted the bit that you and your fellow brexiteers always skip. If you could post some ideas on how to resolve any of the problems brexit creates that would move the debate forward massively.

RomTheBear on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> And I’m not a victim. Just want to challenge all the bullshit - your term not mine - that you come out with. You sound like the Scottish character in Dad’s Army. We’re all doomed. 

You can’t seem to be able to point out what it is that I’ve said that is supposedly bullshit, or able to make a proper demonstration of why it is.

All you do is moan and whine and put words in my mouth. 

Your entrenchment in victimhood despite the fact that you’ve won the referendum is quite revealing of the lack of confidence you have in your brexit  project.

> I suppose if Scotland got its independence and the EU would have you as a member you would be in perfect heaven. Now that really is fanciful. 

Where did I say that would have been the case ? I’m not even in favour of Scottish independence at this point.

Not only you are making things up, but your less than subtle references to my (alleged) Scottish identity, as if somehow it would make me less credible, do not go unnoticed.

 

Post edited at 13:29
RomTheBear on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> And I don’t want to dismiss as unimportant any anxieties you feel.

 

You did dismiss it as unimportant when you ticked that “leave” box. 

 

2
john yates - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Another lie. I mentioned earlier, I did not vote. I wasn't in the country and didn't use a postal ballot. As every you jump to conclusions. The wrong ones. Night night cuddly bear.

2
john yates - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Read Make it Happen and tell me Brown wasn't pouring gasoline on the sub-prime bonfire.

 

1
Andy Hardy on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Do you have any ideas about how to resolve the problems brexit creates? As I asked earlier https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/brexit_uk_poorer_in_all_scenarios_over_15_years-680954?v=1#x8751549

Now I come to think about it, I asked your fellow traveller big ger for positive things to come from brexit and got similar radio silence. I'm beginning to think that there isn't anything good to say about brexit, that brexiteers are starting to realise it, but aren't big enough to admit it.

Night night.

1
Bob Kemp - on 18 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Read Make it Happen and tell me Brown wasn't pouring gasoline on the sub-prime bonfire.

That's not what you said, which was "2008 crash brought  on by Blair Brown incompetence". 

There is no doubt that the Brown/Blair approach to regulation was too lackadaisical, happy to see the cowboy banking culture thrive so long as they could siphon off some of the profits to do a bit of social good. But that still doesn't mean they were directly to blame for the crash. That was a perfidious Tory myth. And as you no doubt know, Brown and Darling did a pretty good job of stabilising things. It only went completely pear-shaped when Osborne got his hands on the economy. 

Post edited at 23:26
2
john yates - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Disagree. Brown were cheering Fred the Shred and his ilk all the way to the Crash.  Alex Salmond was another. There were plenty of voices urging caution but they were ignored or ridiculed. Brown actually believed his own propaganda. That he had ended ‘boom and bust’. Blair was too busy sucking up to Bush and fighting Christian wars against the Saddam and the Taleban to take much notice of Brown’s calamitous policies. New Lab went full tilt into PFI. They were big chums of Carillion and Interserve too. They were reckless too of the social implications of free movement, believing that the deflationary  effect on wages was the primary goal, and sowing the seeds of Brexit and the disenchantment of once Labour heartlands in the North. And QE? You are wrong there too in my view. What should have been a short term Keynesian stimulus has become an decade long addiction to effectively printing money. It has totally distorted the allocation of capital, rewarded bankers and trashed the idea of ‘moral hazard’ and created a wealth destroying inflationary asset bubble. Getting free of this addiction may well prove more difficult than cutting a good deal with Barnier and his cronies. And just for the record I am not a supporter, or an opponent of Brexit. Just an innocent bystander trying to make sense of it all while being howled at by and angry mob. Best Wishes.

9
BnB - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

My finding as an investor over the period since the GFC is not that QE has directly and deliberately created an asset bubble, though that is the popular banker-bashing meme.

QE has artificially inflated government bond prices, certainly, but these have been so expensive for investors, and the yield so poor over the recent years, as to take them out of consideration. Investment funds have focused on equities, which indeed have soared under the pressure of demand.

The spectacular performance of equity markets is also down to the low base to which the GFC brought them, making big gains inevitable even before you factor in the low interest rate policies that leave investors with nowhere to turn than equities for a return, spiking demand. Meanwhile QE has stabilised the world's financial markets so successfully that economies across the globe are thriving.

So yes, QE has contributed to the rise in assets, but as a by-product of its success in re-booting economies, not as an aim in itself.

RomTheBear on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> They were reckless too of the social implications of free movement, believing that the deflationary  effect on wages was the primary goal.

There was no deflationary effect on wages. If anything it marginally increased wages.

RomTheBear on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to BnB:

> My finding as an investor over the period since the GFC is not that QE has directly and deliberately created an asset bubble, though that is the popular banker-bashing meme.

> QE has artificially inflated government bond prices, certainly, but these have been so expensive for investors, and the yield so poor over the recent years, as to take them out of consideration. Investment funds have focused on equities, which indeed have soared under the pressure of demand.

> The spectacular performance of equity markets is also down to the low base to which the GFC brought them, making big gains inevitable even before you factor in the low interest rate policies that leave investors with nowhere to turn than equities for a return, spiking demand. Meanwhile QE has stabilised the world's financial markets so successfully that economies across the globe are thriving.

> So yes, QE has contributed to the rise in assets, but as a by-product of its success in re-booting economies, not as an aim in itself.

I don’t think that’s true. Look at the fundamentals of the economy in the U.K. they have barely improved for the last 10 years, if not gotten worse. Gdp per capita is broadly at the same level as 10 years ago, same for real wages, in fact, they are falling. Productivity has been broadly flat.

The ability to borrow cheap money was used by companies to buy back their own shares, and combined with trillions of QE being used to buy ETF funds, stock markets have rocketed upwards, but it simply isn’t justified by the underlying performance of the companies.

That’s the key point I think, there is absolutely nothing in the performance of the companies that justifies the increases we have seen in their share prices.

you could say that the markets are betting on  very large increases in earning in the near future, but obviously that increases the risk in the economy substantially.

 

Post edited at 07:47
elsewhere on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> There was no deflationary effect on wages. If anything it marginally increased wages.

That's counter intuitive, you'd expect an increased supply (1) to have an impact on prices (2).

Why is that common assumption wrong?

1) immigration from lower wage countries

2) wages

 

BnB - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I don’t think that’s true. Look at the fundamentals of the economy in the U.K. they have barely improved for the last 10 years, if not gotten worse. Gdp per capita is broadly at the same level as 10 years ago, same for real wages, in fact, they are falling. Productivity has been broadly flat.

I'm not talking about the UK economy

> The ability to borrow cheap money was used by companies to buy back their own shares, and combined with trillions of QE being used to buy ETF funds, stock markets have rocketed upwards, but it simply isn’t justified by the underlying performance of the companies.

> That’s the key point I think, there is absolutely nothing in the performance of the companies that justifies the increases we have seen in their share prices.

Apart from a massive increase in profits. You've usually got a good handle on the data but this time you're miles off. I know you like a dabble in markets but I think you've taken your eye off the ball. The S&P is trading on a multiple of 16x. Not low but sub-bubble levels  

 

 

> you could say that the markets are betting on  very large increases in earning in the near future, but obviously that increases the risk in the economy substantially.

Markets always bet on the future but it's only tech stocks that show the exaggerated p/e multiples you're referring to. And that's because the PEG ratio which is a measure of profits growth is more relevant to that sector. You think Amazon isn't going to increase its profits?

 

RomTheBear on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to BnB:

You can debate on the usefulness of price to earning ratio, but in any case, Schiller PE ratio is pushing 34, similar level to those of 1929, and of the tech bubble, so I'm not so sure I'm the one being so off the mark...

Many would say this signal an era of overpriced assets  and poor returns. Mind you these days they can sell 100 years euro denominated bond with pa return rate of... 2.1%. That says quite a lot.

There is 19 trillion of assets on the balance sheets of the central banks. What it's going to do when they start selling it is anybody's guess. Think about it as trying to sell as much as every share of all the companies listed on all major stock markets, I really don't know how it will end, I just know that it definitely increases risk.

My guess is that countries that are highly sensitive to those inflated asset prices but don't manage to improve productivity, profits, and growth, will have a reckoning sooner or later. Australia and UK looking particularly vulnerable right now, and I have a big question mark on China.

Post edited at 10:56
RomTheBear on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to elsewhere:

> That's counter intuitive, you'd expect an increased supply (1) to have an impact on prices (2).

> Why is that common assumption wrong?

It is not wrong, it's just that your intuition depends  on another assumption, which would be that European migrant workers brought duplicate skills to those of British workers. But the evidence strongly suggests  that in most cases, they brought complementary skills, hence, helping with their productivity - and hence their real wages.

This has been true at the "lower" end of the market, with for example many eastern European construction workers trained in modern construction techniques that were lacking amongst natives coming to the UK.

Same is true at the "higher" end with French, Greek, and Spanish engineers and technical specialists coming to the UK and complementing the more "business minded" Uk workforce with a more "engineering minded" continental workforce.

There is some evidence of lowering of wages in some lower end sectors, but concentrated on immigrants, as new arrivals were likely to have duplicate skills to those of the existing migrant already here. But for everybody else and for natives, the picture is broadly marginally positive or neutral.

Post edited at 10:49
Bob Kemp - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> Disagree. Brown were cheering Fred the Shred and his ilk all the way to the Crash.  Alex Salmond was another. There were plenty of voices urging caution but they were ignored or ridiculed. Brown actually believed his own propaganda. That he had ended ‘boom and bust’. Blair was too busy sucking up to Bush and fighting Christian wars against the Saddam and the Taleban to take much notice of Brown’s calamitous policies. New Lab went full tilt into PFI. They were big chums of Carillion and Interserve too. They were reckless too of the social implications of free movement, believing that the deflationary  effect on wages was the primary goal, and sowing the seeds of Brexit and the disenchantment of once Labour heartlands in the North. And QE? You are wrong there too in my view. What should have been a short term Keynesian stimulus has become an decade long addiction to effectively printing money. It has totally distorted the allocation of capital, rewarded bankers and trashed the idea of ‘moral hazard’ and created a wealth destroying inflationary asset bubble. Getting free of this addiction may well prove more difficult than cutting a good deal with Barnier and his cronies. And just for the record I am not a supporter, or an opponent of Brexit. Just an innocent bystander trying to make sense of it all while being howled at by and angry mob. Best Wishes.

It doesn't matter how much you disagree. The 2008 crash was global, and you just can't argue with that. It doesn't matter whether Brown believed his own propaganda. It doesn't matter what Blair was doing - it didn't cause the crash. The light touch on regulation (initiated by Thatcher, let's remember) was a disastrous mistake but it wasn't in itself the direct cause. As for 'decade-long addiction to effectively printing money', how on earth can you blame that on Brown? He hasn't been around since 2010.

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to BnB:

"The spectacular performance of equity markets is also down to the low base to which the GFC brought them, making big gains inevitable even before you factor in the low interest rate policies that leave investors with nowhere to turn than equities for a return, spiking demand. "

 

Widely referred to as TINA in my game (investment banking) "there is no alternative"

Bjartur i Sumarhus on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

"There is 19 trillion of assets on the balance sheets of the central banks. What it's going to do when they start selling it is anybody's guess. Think about it as trying to sell as much as every share of all the companies listed on all major stock markets, I really don't know how it will end,"

 

the end of the EU and the euro? 

tripehound - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

It was the Tories baying for MORE deregulation of the banks prior to the crash in 2008, thankfully the Labour government at the time ignored them, otherwise the crash would have been far worse.

The crash was a global event not instigated by local events in the uk.

Post edited at 11:37
1
BnB - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus and Rom:

> "There is 19 trillion of assets on the balance sheets of the central banks. What it's going to do when they start selling it is anybody's guess. Think about it as trying to sell as much as every share of all the companies listed on all major stock markets, I really don't know how it will end,"

> the end of the EU and the euro? 

Central banks aren't obliged to sell off those assets. Their job is to steer a steady course. Not an easy challenge of course. The Fed has a difficult 12 months in prospect.

BnB - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Very few commentators think that a bear market isn't round the corner and my investment strategy is following the same assumption. But one of the factors that prevented the recent correction from becoming a bear market was the magnificent corporate earnings season just past. Profits are spectacular. Equities look overblown but huge profits mean that p/e and PEG multiples just haven't been speculative enough to trigger a full blown collapse.

RomTheBear on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to BnB:

> Very few commentators think that a bear market isn't round the corner and my investment strategy is following the same assumption. But one of the factors that prevented the recent correction from becoming a bear market was the magnificent corporate earnings season just past. Profits are spectacular. Equities look overblown but huge profits mean that p/e and PEG multiples just haven't been speculative enough to trigger a full blown collapse.

Put simply :  where do earning comes from : sales. Where do sales come from : from the wider economy and wages. In the UK the economy has grown only by 1.4%, and real wages have fallen.

And yet earnings are going up faster than that, and assets valuations are going up even faster.

So you've got assets prices going up faster than earnings, which are also going up faster than the overall economy. So you've got two layers of bullshit in the markets: valuation unsustainably high, and earnings unsustainably high.

That tells me that either something is wrong in the data, or people are raiding their savings to buy overpriced assets, in both cases that can't be good.

It seems to me that this situation will amplify difficulties for countries that can't achieve strong growth within the next decade. As I've said, more risks piling up.

1
BnB - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Why do you keep referring back to the UK when I've already pointed out quite distinctly that I'm talking about the global picture, where much more important economies are growing at rates of 6, 7, 8%.

It's not like you to be so parochial in your outlook.

RomTheBear on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to BnB:

> Why do you keep referring back to the UK when I've already pointed out quite distinctly that I'm talking about the global picture, where much more important economies are growing at rates of 6, 7, 8%.

> It's not like you to be so parochial in your outlook.

Because the UK outlook is what the thread was about... see the title.. I'm just trying to be on the ball, and I've spent quite a bit of effort to put the UK situation back in the international context, so I strongly object to your accusation of parochialism. 

Post edited at 14:09
1
BnB - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

It's a thread about the UK but in the context of equity markets you've been happy to refer to asset purchases in the trillions and overheated stock markets (I think we would both agree that the US market looks the most stretched today). That's a global critique. If the FTSE collapsed, as it threatened to do in February, it would be because it was following the US market downward, not because of excessive heat in UK valuations. Ironically, a good part of the recent 10% fall in the FTSE could be blamed on the recent strength of the pound.

Bob Hughes - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to thread:

Is anyone else worried that the transition period is only 21 months? Lots of talk that this could be extendable but (a) the EU doesn't seem keen and (b) not sure what would be the legal basis for extending it as by then it would be outside the scope of art50. On current performance I'd be surprised if its all neatly tied up in time for December 2021. EDIT:  December 2020...!

 

 

Post edited at 14:59
wbo - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:I'm increasingly of the opinion it should be in the order of about 21 minutes as without a hard deadline the UK seems incapable of making any decisions.

BnB, Tom et Al - interesting that were back to measuring economies by the increase, decrease of stock markets.  How relevant is that to most people , particularly outside the SE .  The UK really is on the way to a 2 speed economy

 

RomTheBear on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to BnB:

> It's a thread about the UK but in the context of equity markets you've been happy to refer to asset purchases in the trillions and overheated stock markets (I think we would both agree that the US market looks the most stretched today). That's a global critique. 

Yes, in reply to your post, I was trying to reel back the conversation to the actual topic by linking the international context you described back to the consequences of it on the UK outlook.

> If the FTSE collapsed, as it threatened to do in February, it would be because it was following the US market downward, not because of excessive heat in UK valuations.

This may or may not be true, but misses the point I was making. 

The point is, we have stretched valuations in the UK, and elsewhere, built on top of unsustainably high earnings and the UK (as with other countries) is heavily leveraged on both fronts, and high leverage will amplify any correction or slow down.

I am not attempting to make causal attribution, I'll leave that to you, I'm just giving you a broad assessment of the risk outlook in the UK.

>Ironically, a good part of the recent 10% fall in the FTSE could be blamed on the recent strength of the pound.

Yes, against the dollar. Sterling ERI flat since the drop in 2016.

It's tempting to read too much in the stock market indexes. It can be symptomatic but I think that looking at the fundamentals at a macro level gives a better picture of how the economy - and people - behave.

I look at the UK and I see an economy that doesn't grow much, doesn't increase real wages, but raids its saving to buy expensive assets that are almost certainly inflated, at a point where we face significant readjustment in our trading relationships. I have no idea how it ends, - it could be a Brexit induced blip - I just know that it increases the convexity of the losses in case of a downturn.

Post edited at 15:53
1
neilh - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

A good bit of inflation could go a long way to easing things off a bit. 5-7% a year.

As things generally move in cycles, I reckon this is on the cards globally.

RomTheBear on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to wbo:

> BnB, Tom et Al - interesting that were back to measuring economies by the increase, decrease of stock markets.  How relevant is that to most people , particularly outside the SE .  The UK really is on the way to a 2 speed economy

I'm with you there, I don't think stock markets are particularly relevant indicators, they do their own thing. It doesn't matter to most except those who have lots of liquid wealth. Most people don't have wealth apart from  a house, and even that is becoming less and less common.

When you look at what really matters to people's life, and therefore the economy,  it's things like wages, house prices, unemployement, GDP per capita... These are data points that tell a real story. 

Post edited at 18:16
1
BnB - on 19 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I don't believe anyone was arguing that stock markets are a proxy for economies. Only that asset purchase schemes aren't the only reason that markets have risen so high.

john yates - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to Timmd:

So a deal has been struck paving the way for U.K. to leave the EU. Many on here called DD an idiot and out of his depth. They said there was no plan. It’s a compromise. Messy even. With much still to be resolved. But all those here who were looking backwards fondly in the hope that talks would fail and UK would ‘come to its senses’ will be disappointed. We are slouching towards the world’s best climber’s cliff edge. But remember. As Bill Hick’s said, it’s only a ride. 

13
RomTheBear on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> So a deal has been struck paving the way for U.K. to leave the EU. Many on here called DD an idiot and out of his depth. They said there was no plan. It’s a compromise. 

Can you point out where the compromises are because from where I am sitting it pretty much looks like status quo without votes and kicking the can down the road.

None of the thorny issues of leaving CU and single markets are addressed.

Despite having claimed they held all the cards in the negotiations, in the end the Brexiters have been surrenderring on almost every single point just to effectively stay in a little longer... That says a lot.

Post edited at 05:46
1
Pete Pozman - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

What you on about ? 

2
Andy Hardy on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

I said brexiteers had no plan. And it looks like they've just agreed to what the EU proposed, rather than come up with one of their own.

1
Rob Exile Ward on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

Point to a single 'promise' that DD made that is even remotely reflected in this agreement (which I'm delighted with, by the way) and I'll concede a point.

And N Ireland has just been kicked down the lane, with the Brexiteer chair of the relevant committee admitting that, having looked round the entire world, they have not found a single example that could fulfill Theresa Mays promise of a frictionless border.

1
MG - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> So a deal has been struck paving the way for U.K. to leave the EU. Many on here called DD an idiot and out of his depth.

Well given that the leader of the leave campaign regards him as " “thick as mince, lazy as a toad and vain as Narcissus” and  that he's achieved nothing but making us much weaker and less influential  that's not unreasonable.

 

Post edited at 08:39
1
Robert Durran - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> But all those here who were looking backwards fondly in the hope that talks would fail and UK would ‘come to its senses’ will be disappointed.

I'm not giving up hope!

> We are slouching towards the world’s best climber’s cliff edge. But remember. As Bill Hick’s said, it’s only a ride. 

WTF?

 

1
jkarran - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> As Bill Hick’s said, it’s only a ride. 

If by that you mean only a ride that is set to split families, cost jobs, destroy businesses, depress already neglected regions, suck funding and vitality from essential services... Yeah, it's only a ride and I stand by my earlier insulting assessment of you. What I don't get when you talk like this with apparent glee about so little delivered for so much cost is the prissy bristling we get when people take what you write, all we have to judge you on and conclude you're a Leave supporter?

Davis clearly is out of his depth and he doesn't have a plan that takes us anywhere. Brexit can't deliver on its contradictions and Davis lacks either the clarity of thinking or the integrity to face that. You have nothing to show for this and it'll all fall down in Ireland yet anyway before we're done. Treading water while the current pushes you about isn't much of a plan, it might keep you alive for a while but let's not forget it's Davis and his ilk that dragged us all into this vortex with them.

jk

Post edited at 09:16
2
GrahamD - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> .....But all those here who were looking backwards fondly .....

I'm sure this wasn't meant to be ironic, but even so.

 

1
john arran - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to GrahamD:

Well looking backwards is certainly one way to stop the fish brought back by the wind from hitting you in the face!

cb294 - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Viewed from the Euro side this looks like the first step to some kind of Norway relation.

CB

1
RomTheBear on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to cb294:

> Viewed from the Euro side this looks like the first step to some kind of Norway relation.

> CB

This looks more like buying more time - at any cost - so that they can indeed have time to prepare for exiting CU and the single market.

Make no mistake, this is the clear direction, in theory, and on the ground.

Now the only caveat is that the government is still trying to get its cake and it eat it and hopes to be able to cherry pick. That's the infamous "three baskets" approach we have been hearing of for a year now, from Olly Robbins department (the one really running the show), and in the most recent PM's speech.

Only problem is this approach is obviously unacceptable to the EU (I think they privately reference to it as the "three waste baskets approach" ) and more designed to buy time domestically to "reel back in" brexiteers than anything else.

It remains to be seen whether brexiteers and the prime minister coud be slowly brought back in line to accept something like Norway during the time that has been bought.

IMHO this is not likely, less likely than a full reversal in fact, I'm still not changing my bet from a year ago that this probably ends with a fairly hard Brexit, with a Canada style FTA, and inevitably, a cliff edge.

Post edited at 10:26
1
cb294 - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I agree they are buying time, but for what? My guess is to change the packaging...

 

CB

1
jkarran - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm still pretty evenly split as to which is more likely, an acrimonious 'hard' exit with little agreement achieved or a reversal, both could still fairly easily happen. If I were a betting man I'd bet on the hard split, that way at least I'd have a little win to tide me over in the aftermath. I can't see much support being mustered for 'Norway', it's so obviously pointless though low risk.

jk

1
RomTheBear on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to cb294:

> I agree they are buying time, but for what? My guess is to change the packaging...

> CB

Fot what ? Sort out what they need to sort out to avoid chaos on exit day.

For a start, renegotiate the 750 or more treaties we have through the EU on which we depend on, from finance, trade aviation, fishing..

Then sort out the registration of 3 millions + citizens, there isn't even a new immigration system ready fit them, not even a draft. (that one is going to be fun, expect a lot of mistakes and lots of court cases)

Pass all the laws that need to be passed.

Build new infrastructure in ports, hire lots of new customs officers, immigration workers, set up regulatory agencies etc etc...

Not sure an extra 21 months is going to be enough...

Post edited at 11:37
1
RomTheBear on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to BnB:

> I don't believe anyone was arguing that stock markets are a proxy for economies. Only that asset purchase schemes aren't the only reason that markets have risen so high.

Don't think anybody was arguing that this was the only reason either ;-)

1
cb294 - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Not sure an extra 21 months is going to be enough...

That is my point. IMO the UK has no chance to get replacements up and running for the tasks currently outsourced to the EU, never mind establishing the legal and practical framework to deal with additional tasks stemming from Brexit, e.g. setting up customs operations able to handle the large amount of goods and services currently handled under internal market rules. 

The current negotiations all seem to be aimed at failing, allowing May to claim to have tried but unfortunately failed to deliver what was promised. However, I cannot believe that the majority in the HoC will then go for a RM style cliff edge, rather than negotiate an extension to the transition for, say, another EU funding period, and then eventually reaching some Brexit in name only Norwayish agreement.

CB 

 

1
jkarran - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to cb294:

> The current negotiations all seem to be aimed at failing, allowing May to claim to have tried but unfortunately failed to deliver what was promised.

I don't think they'd look any different if the true intention was to seek a complete negotiated settlement over the coming decade or so via a series of 'short' extensions and bridging arrangements the first of which (and obviously the only one we'll ever ask for) will be palatable while the task seems overwhelming, demonstrable progress and discreet goals will make subsequent extensions possible for all to agree to. Or of course you're right and nobody in power believes they can deliver this which is possible but given the egos and delusions on display I'm doubtful. I'm equally doubtful they can deliver anything anyone really wants.

> However, I cannot believe that the majority in the HoC will then go for a RM style cliff edge, rather than negotiate an extension to the transition for, say, another EU funding period, and then eventually reaching some Brexit in name only Norwayish agreement.

Sense may yet prevail one way or another but I don't think our MP's have courage or leadership to avert disaster directly, they've lost sight of their role and responsibility in a representative democracy. The longer this drags on the better the hope I reckon.

jk

Post edited at 13:26
1
RomTheBear on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to cb294:

> That is my point. IMO the UK has no chance to get replacements up and running for the tasks currently outsourced to the EU, never mind establishing the legal and practical framework to deal with additional tasks stemming from Brexit, e.g. setting up customs operations able to handle the large amount of goods and services currently handled under internal market rules. 

> The current negotiations all seem to be aimed at failing, allowing May to claim to have tried but unfortunately failed to deliver what was promised. However, I cannot believe that the majority in the HoC will then go for a RM style cliff edge, rather than negotiate an extension to the transition for, say, another EU funding period, and then eventually reaching some Brexit in name only Norwayish agreement.

Interesting - you are betting on another extension leading to BINO.

Possible although I’m not sure postponing for ever is politically doable ? 

1
cb294 - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Do you see an economically viable alternative for the UK, especially one that can be reached within 21 months? WTO terms are an illusion, as so many countries, primarily the US but also places like India, Argentina, and Brazil have announced they would challenge the UK simply continuing EU schedules.

Since making money is the causa vivendi of the Tory party I cannot see them pursue anything but BINO, but that will require a few more years of smoke and mirrors to eventually sell some minor changes to immigration rules and fishing quotas as a great victory. The entire negotiation charade (I hesitate to call it a process or strategy) from Florence to yesterday's agreement seems to fit this picture.

CB

1
Bob Hughes - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to cb294:

I think the Norway option - paying in, accepting rules but no influence - is politically impossible and will get more so. As we go through the negotiations, the British public will become less and less positive towards the EU. 

RomTheBear on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to cb294:

> Do you see an economically viable alternative for the UK, especially one that can be reached within 21 months? WTO terms are an illusion, as so many countries, primarily the US but also places like India, Argentina, and Brazil have announced they would challenge the UK simply continuing EU schedules.

> Since making money is the causa vivendi of the Tory party I cannot see them pursue anything but BINO, but that will require a few more years of smoke and mirrors to eventually sell some minor changes to immigration rules and fishing quotas as a great victory. The entire negotiation charade (I hesitate to call it a process or strategy) from Florence to yesterday's agreement seems to fit this picture.

> CB

Could be, but IMO staying in power is the causa vivendi of the Tory party, not making money.

Actually since art 50 to today you’ll observe that we’re still firmly in no CU, no single market territory, with extra cherries on the cake wanted.

The only substantial thing we’ve seen is the U.K. begging for an extension and accepting pretty much any conditions to get it. But I dont think it signals a change of policy from n10 - just a readjustment to reality.

RomTheBear on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> I think the Norway option - paying in, accepting rules but no influence - is politically impossible and will get more so. As we go through the negotiations, the British public will become less and less positive towards the EU. 

Indeed, it seems to me the cake and eat it approach is very much targeted domestically. When the EU rejects it n10 can say “Ho look it’s the bad EU’s fault for being uncooperative” and then it prepares the opinion for the inevitable, which for some reason has not been sinking in (maybe it’s all the lying ?)

1
Tyler - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

A general, non-partisan question as I genuinely can't remember....

When Article 50 was triggered was it accepted from the outset that a transition period would be required or were the govt saying we would be fully out of EU once the 2 year notice period was up?

Post edited at 15:09
cb294 - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I agree, but would speculate it is not going to be the last readjustment to reality. May will compromise, and will certainly blame the EU for not compromising, but will eventually sign whatever is economically required. I guess they would have never signed the backup clause if they were not perfectly happy to screw the DUP once they have served their purpose.

CB

cb294 - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Possibly, but it is the only economically viable option. Reverting to WTO will take years as well. It will take time and a few more extensions to eventually spin some minor points on immigration, fisheries, whatever, as the great Brexit victory (it will not be called Norway option for obvious reasons), but IMO this is what will happen regardless of public opinion. Similarly, the CU will not be called CU, the court of arbitration will be the ECJ with a British judge as an observer, etc. you can imagine the spin. Nicely camouflaged BINO.

If this is not the hidden game plan, where are the preparations for the alternative? The cherry picking models cannot be considered serious negotiation proposals, and appear to be merely intended for UK internal consumption.

CB

RomTheBear on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> A general, non-partisan question as I genuinely can't remember....

> When Article 50 was triggered was it accepted from the outset that a transition period would be required or were the govt saying we would be fully out of EU once the 2 year notice period was up?

It was accepted from the outset that the U.K. would seek an “implementation period”, this is in the art 50 letter.

it was also clear in the letter that the U.K. seeks to leave single market and custom union.

Rob Exile Ward on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

'it was also clear in the letter that the U.K. seeks to leave single market and custom union.'

Yes but I think that was back in the day when we had 'strong and stable'...

MG - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I believe "that was then, this is now" is the phrase  Davies uses.

john yates - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

You guys are such a hoot.

 

6
john yates - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to MG:

You guys are such a hoot.

 

5
john arran - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> You guys are such a hoot.

Such an insightful comment, I can see why you wanted to repeat it.

2
Bob Kemp - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

> Such an insightful comment, I can see why you wanted to repeat it.

Software glitch 

john arran - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> Software glitch 

Spoilsport!

john yates - on 20 Mar 2018
Sir Chasm - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

You come across as a chap that appreciates a link to the Daily Heil http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4979296/Andrew-Pierce-says-Sir-Jeremy-Heywood-running-Britain.html 

 

1
Bob Kemp - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> The EU ideal of democracy

Let me know when the head of the U.K. Civil Service is democratically elected will you?

2
Bob Kemp - on 20 Mar 2018
In reply to john arran:

I meant a bot malfunction...

1
john yates - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

As I said earlier - despite the whole of the establishment being in favour of Remain, a majority of the electorate said no to the likes of Heywood and Juncker. A peasants' revolt. 

 

1
john yates - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You may want to watch the discussions in the EU Parliament to see what they think about Juncker's behaviour. I doubt however they will be able to sack him. A true reflection of where power lies in the European Union. Not comparable to the civil service. 

1
Andy Hardy on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

"Significantly, in what has been seen as a mixture of bias and woeful negligence, he failed to ensure that the Civil Service he heads made contingency plans for a Brexit victory."

Looks like Paul Dacre had a blamestorming session recently. 

1
HansStuttgart - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to cb294:

I agree. BINO is more in the EU's interest than Canada-like FTA. And so far EU27 seem to get what they want.

The crucial point is that opinion polls in the UK are not shifting towards remain in a significant way. As long as the split is around 50-50 I don't think it is in the EU's interest to have the UK in as a full member, because there is no political mandate for that in the UK.

BINO is a good compromise for the EU and it respects the 50-50 outcome of the referendum.

 

1
Rob Exile Ward on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

BINO? Please explain.

1
HansStuttgart - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Brexit In Name Only.

UK stays in single market and custom union. Has less influence on EU policy, but is exempt from further EU integration.

1
baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to HansStuttgart:

As a leaver I'd rather the UK stayed in the EU than settle for this BINO nonsense.

Bob Kemp - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to john yates:

> You may want to watch the discussions in the EU Parliament to see what they think about Juncker's behaviour.

Not particularly informative or surprising. Selmayr’s appointment was bound to be contested as there are already three Germans in key positions. There’s also an issue of gender bias. Then the U.K. right was bound to see this as an opportunity to bolster its shoddy Brexit narrative. Add to that Junckers’ and Selmayr’s hard line on the Polish and Hungarian right’s disregard for euro law, and you have a guaranteed recipe for controversy. (Always good to see healthy democratic debate in action of course...  )

>I  doubt however they will be able to sack him

As I understand it he’s Junckers’ appointee. The next president gets to choose a successor to Selmayr.  How long has Junckers got left?

 >A true reflection of where power lies in the European Union. Not comparable to the civil service

Why not? It’s the EU’s civil service. And the distribution of power seems highly comparable, according to your (alleged) favourite news source: 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4979296/amp/Andrew-Pierce-says-Sir-Jeremy-Heywood-running-Britain.html

 

And if you’d prefer the Guardian:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jan/27/sir-jeremy-heywood-most-potent-permanent-elusive-figure-british-politics

If you read that and compare Heywood with Selmayr, you’ll be impressed with the personal similarities too. And one last thought: by what transparent and democratic process was Sir Jeremy appointed?

 

Post edited at 09:10
jkarran - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

That's a shame but maybe you should have thought about that possibility last year. Still, as a leaver you have more influence than ten of the rest of us so get your pen out and get writing to your MP.

jk

Post edited at 09:20
wbo - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron: bit late now.  What did you ever expect?

 

baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

I'm not sure what either of your sentences are supposed to mean.

BINO is supposed to satisfy who?

Both leavers and remainers will quite rightly point out that all the UK has done is put itself in a worse position while still being wedded to the EU.

Either we leave with all the positives and negatives that we've debated or we might as well stay.

baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to wbo:

That we'd leave the EU.

How does BINO even begin to meet the idea of leaving?

 

Post edited at 09:39
Andy Hardy on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> I'm not sure what either of your sentences are supposed to mean.

> BINO is supposed to satisfy who?

> Both leavers and remainers will quite rightly point out that all the UK has done is put itself in a worse position while still being wedded to the EU.

> Either we leave with all the positives and negatives that we've debated or we might as well stay.


We have endless debates, but so far no positives have emerged.

1
baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

As you said we've had many debates around positives and negatives and we won't be starting the same discussion again.

jkarran - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> I'm not sure what either of your sentences are supposed to mean.

I mean MP's aren't listening to remainers, we no longer are 'the people', we're totally disenfranchised and have no say in the process. You and people like you are driving this, you are the only people who matter anymore. If you don't like what brexit is becoming? F*****g well do something about it!

> BINO is supposed to satisfy who?

People who won't lose their families, jobs and homes for your nationalist utopia I suppose. Don't expect them to be grateful.

> Both leavers and remainers will quite rightly point out that all the UK has done is put itself in a worse position while still being wedded to the EU.

Yes, it's an almost unbelievably shit idea but it avoids brexit ruining our economy and importantly, big chunks of the EU's economy and as must now be becoming clear we don't hold all the aces, we're going to be capitulating.

> Either we leave with all the positives and negatives that we've debated or we might as well stay.

What positives?

jk

andyfallsoff - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

As many others have pointed out, we haven't ended that discussion as we've never got to the point where any positives have been set out. 

If you're claiming that discussion has ended, then you're presumably accepting there is nothing left to note as a positive in favour of leaving? Which is pretty damning 

baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

If we're not leaving then we should stay. Stay completely in.

It's a bit like Brexit means Brexit but in reverse.

I'll write to my MP but I'm not sure that they're listening to anybody, either leave or remain, at the moment. If they've ever been listening at all.

baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to andyfallsoff:

We're not starting that discussion again.

The only damning bit is that you have ignored what people see as positives because you don't agree with them.

 

2
Bob Kemp - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> If we're not leaving then we should stay. Stay completely in.

If it had been clear that Brexit meant a hard Brexit then that would make sense. But that never was the case during the referendum. Hard Brexit was a later invention. 

 

 

Bob Kemp - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> We're not starting that discussion again.

Not your prerogative.

> The only damning bit is that you have ignored what people see as positives because you don't agree with them.

I can't speak for what andfallsoff has ignored or not, but many of us have not ignored 'what people see as positives'. It's simply that most of what have been put forward as positives are either things we already have or are things that we strongly disagree with. To say otherwise is merely insulting.

 

wbo - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:you tell me - I don't even know what a post Brexit Britain is meant to look like .  

Of course BINO is leaving the EU, just not your own particular vision

 

jkarran - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> If we're not leaving then we should stay. Stay completely in.

You don't need to tell me this. Tell your MP, tell them loud and clear and that you voted leave. Tell them what you want leaving to deliver, not 'being out of the EU' but the tangible benefits you won't discuss here. Tell them what you're willing to sacrifice to be out properly too, obviously it'll be my generation and the next that bears the bulk of that burden so be bold, if a hard 'Out' is really what you want tell them you accept the economic forecasts suggesting a decline akin to the great depression may be valid and that's a price worth paying, people survived the depression. Tell them how much of your pension you'd sacrifice. How much health insurance you might be willing to buy to keep the 'NHS' working. If the destruction of the agricultural and manufacturing economy, the reshaping of the country as a two speed economy, a tax haven in the SE offering only financial services and, well, f*** knows what elsewhere is a price worth paying then please do say so. If it's not then perhaps mention that. If what you really want is a different, better Britain then perhaps have a think about what we're paying for a project that can't deliver it then consider asking for a chance to reconsider your decision when we know what we're facing. If that settlement won't work for you you can work for those changes a different way, that's democracy in action not subverted.

> I'll write to my MP but I'm not sure that they're listening to anybody, either leave or remain, at the moment. If they've ever been listening at all.

Good, thank you.

Apologies if I seem angry, I'm absolutely furious but it's not your fault.

jk

Post edited at 10:27
Sir Chasm - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You are ignoring the manifold positives! I'll list them for you:-

Blue passports

Reforming the House of Lords

2
baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Hard and soft Brexits don't exist for the EU.

You can't stay in the single market and customs union, which would be ideal, without accepting the EU's four freedoms, which for many leavers is not ideal.

Andy Hardy on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> We're not starting that discussion again.

> The only damning bit is that you have ignored what people see as positives because you don't agree with them.


I keep asking brexiteers for one positive thing that can only be achieved if we leave the EU. The silence from them is deafening.

1
baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

You'll have trouble restarting a discussion without the opposition joining in.

The initial debates that we had on this forum have been replaced by non debates because the leavers have in the main stopped posting.

Not because we've got nothing to say but because both sides are entrenched and aren't going to change their minds.

Occasionaly a debate about a new development breaks out but even these threads soon return to the old format and gomaround in circles.

baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to wbo:

BINO - the clue is in the name and it isn't leaving, it's a cop out that won't settle anything in the long term.

baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to jkarran:

If your vision of the UK does happen then it will be my fault along with the other 17 million people and the politicians who failed to deliver.

Bob Kemp - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> You are ignoring the manifold positives! I'll list them for you:-

> Blue passports

> Reforming the House of Lords

Oh, sorry, yes... I forgot...

Bob Kemp - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

I didn't say I wanted to restart the discussion. I don't think you should be telling people that we aren't restarting it, that's all. 

I would suggest that the reason the leavers have stopped posting is that they are running out of sustainable arguments the further this Brexit farce advances. 

Bob Kemp - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> Hard and soft Brexits don't exist for the EU.

> You can't stay in the single market and customs union, which would be ideal, without accepting the EU's four freedoms, which for many leavers is not ideal.

I suspect that this is what they'll end up with in some form regardless. The alternative of a 'proper' hard Brexit is looking increasingly difficult. And 'no deal' is just ridiculous.

Doug on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Andy Hardy:

But we'll have blue (or maybe black) passports !

(although we could have had  them without leaving the EU if anyone had been bothered enough)

baron - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Bob Kemp:

Hence my point about staying completely in.

 

jkarran - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

I don't give a monkey's nut who's fault it is, I just want to avoid the very real, very serious risk we're taking. Brexit isn't going to deliver for you and it might very well do you some harm, if it does it will do others enormous harm.

We're playing Russian roulette for penny sweets that might be out of date anyway. You can be part of the solution if you're not comfortable with that.

jk

Andy Hardy on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to Doug:

Yes, just like Croatia IIRC :/

Bob Kemp - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> Hence my point about staying completely in.

We didn't need to go through all this pain then. What we should have been doing is fixing our broken democracy (including the threats of social media manipulation and fake news), stopping austerity,  looking for practical help for alienated minorities and better ways of integrating immigrants into the community.

Post edited at 11:56
Ramblin dave - on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> Hard and soft Brexits don't exist for the EU.

> You can't stay in the single market and customs union, which would be ideal, without accepting the EU's four freedoms, which for many leavers is not ideal.

Staying in the single market and customs union and accepting the four freedoms is more or less the definition of a soft Brexit and, as far as I know, would be entirely acceptable for the EU. If we don't like that, we can accept a hard Brexit, or we can negotiate for a cake-and-eat-it option. And we don't seem to be getting far with the latter because, as was repeatedly pointed out before the referendum, we've got a pretty weak position to negotiate from.

As an aside, it's interesting that you seem to see it as reasonable for us to declare things to be off the table because they're not "ideal" for "many leavers" or because we've decided they're "red lines". Surely it's equally reasonable for the EU to do the same thing?

RomTheBear on 21 Mar 2018
In reply to baron:

> You'll have trouble restarting a discussion without the opposition joining in.

> The initial debates that we had on this forum have been replaced by non debates because the leavers have in the main stopped posting.

It’s not a generalisation on all the leavers, but most of the leavers on here are just incapable on actually answering simple questions with reasonable answers. It’s wuite striking that that best defence of leave on this forum often comes from remainers...

This thread is quite an example of that with plenty of opportunities for the leavers to argue their case, yet other than the usual moaning about remoaners, it’s a deafening silence on key questions.

Seriously guys, if you want to be heard, you have to make an effort, even I could make a better pro leave case, and that’s not really my cup of tea.

1

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.