UKC

A brilliant video by Stephen Fry setting some things straight about Brexit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYonSZ8s3_o&feature=share&fbclid=Iw...

Fry's video contains a lot of weak arguments, is very selective in its use of "facts", full of opinion masquerading as facts and rich in highly edited video excerpts to support them.

Also, it only deals with the leave campaign arguments with no analysis of the highly questionable claims (a.k.a. lies) of the remain side.

It doesn't take into account the varied political arguments that millions of people hold independently of the campaign, and that these will have developed over decades from sources other than tabloid newspapers. In fact, the video contains an implicit condescension of ordinary people i.e. it makes the implicit claim that ordinary people are incapable of forming nuanced political opinions (let alone forming conclusions that may actually be correct) and that every ordinary person who voted to leave was a mental slave to the leave campaign.

Stephen Fry fails to acknowledge that many people voted, not because of myths, but because their opinions were based on actual observation of the EU during our membership such as the increasing federalization of Europe which concentrates huge power in the hands of a distant minority elite which alienates us from the centres of power.

His video perpetuates its own myth, that the referendum was a question to which we gave the wrong answer, rather than the reality which is that it was a choice between two visions of Britains future to which there is no right or wrong answer.

It is a loaded opinion piece which will persuade no one not already convinced, it is childishly weak, utterly patronising, plays entirely to the view that he is part of an out of touch elite and is probably the weakest argument for remain I have ever seen.

Don't sit on the fence pec, tell us what you really think

I would urge people to watch it anyway, as I believe your scatter-gun list of criticisms and overall conclusion will not seem credible after having done so, to anyone with an even slightly open mind.

What qualifies someone to be an "ordinary person"? It seems you think an ordinary person is anyone who voted leave.

It's time to start being honest about the fact that the vision of Britain underpinning much of the Brexit vote is ugly, indefensible and ultimately undemocratic. It's based on the worst kind of English nationalism, atavism and xenophobia. 

What happened to the Lib Dems does not support your rosy picture of an intelligent and sophisticated electorate.   Nor does the Eddie Stobart video.  Nor does the experience of my wife who knows 2 people in this sparsely populated area who openly admitted to her that they formed their final decision from stories they received via social media.

, to anyone with an even slightly open mind.

Chuckles....

However most 'ordinary people's' view of Europe is through the filter of the right wing press...

Give me a convincing argument. I'm all ears.

Edit: Indeed I've made repeated requests to that effect on other threads, but received remarkably little of substance in return.

I genuinely would like to know what's driving the continued obsession with Brexiting, now that the consequences are much clearer - and starker.

Have you got a nice little video showing us how great it'll be when we leave?

Writing off half the population of Britain as xenophobic fascists is a ridiculous thing to do.

  No, you're really not. You made up your mind long ago and are now a very angry man. I won't waste my breath.

Thanks, it's nice to hear a considered opinion from the Leave side.

I don't think the point of the video was to make a case against the whole Brexit case, rather its purpose was to calmly dispel some commonly believed myths. It contained a sensible demonstration of why immigration has been good for the UK, it pointed out that the criticisms of "elites" by brexiteers was hypocritical and wrong and it pointed out some of the techniques of presentation used to turn people unwittingly against the EU.

I've never met John but he's never seemed like an angry man to me from his UKc posting to his presence through the climbing mags etc. 

You're right about one thing at least: that I'm angry.

Who wouldn't be, having repeatedly asked for reasons to doubt opinions held with reasoned justification, and having been presented with precious little?

Your response is yet another example. The reasoned justification for continuing with Brexit simply doesn't exist.

We're told we want to control borders (which is code for immigration) but we're not told who we want to keep out, or why.

We're told we want to be completely in charge of our own lawmaking, but we're not told which laws we currently want to change.

Beyond these two big question marks, we're left guessing.

>

   He was always a bit of a climbing hero to me but, like many on here, his posting on brexit have done him no favours.

oops, sorry!

Exactly. Speaking as someone who voted remain and believes remaining in the EU is in the best interests of the UK, what do people actually think they gain by making statements like that?

Or for that matter perpetrating the myth that every single person over the age of 50 voted leave because they're all just senile old Nazis, whilst every young person in the country voted remain, including the f***ers too lazy to get out of bed that day.

I can't help thinking this country deserves a harsh bit of education in reality and the need to deal with issues rather than trading insults.

Hmmm, he is a climbing hero. I don't generally like Brexit posts or threads, but I think the opposite of you. John's comments on Brexit seem well thought out and considered.

  As I said , you are not listening at all. If you haven't read or heard "reasoned justifications" then you are guilty of succumbing to confirmation bias.

  Read Bootle's "The Trouble with Europe: Why the EU isn't Working" or Varoufakis (who actually thought the UK should stay to reform what he regards as an organisation heading towards fascism).

  I wouldn't expect either those or the many other detailed rationales for leaving to convince you. There are reasonable and strong arguments to stay in.And that's OK.

  But that you claim that such arguments don't exist makes it blindingly obvious that, despite your claims to the contrary,  you are not interested in listening to or considering any alternatives positions to your own. Hence I don't waste my breath.(the other reason being that, as we have seen in the past 48 hours, many of your fellow remainers will greet any argument, good, bad or indifferent, simply as a good opportunity to vent their anger and abuse)

I wouldn't say Varoufakis believes that's where the EU is heading but rather that he sees it as a possible consequence of the way the EU is set up and currently behaves towards its members. Gavin Hewitt's book on the Eurocrisis is also well worth a read. It gives a broader context to the Greek debt crisis and goes some way to explaining why Angela... er sorry, the EU behaved the way they did.

Something did strike me the other day though about Brexit and economic forecasts. While there are plenty of forecasts out there giving a pessimistic view of Brexit I've yet to hear, let alone read, one that predicts the opposite with any sort of rigour. Does such a thing exist?

Thanks for the tips, finally. Don't suppose you have a link or two? Would certainly help your cause if you not only have a strong argument but you actually have an easy way of getting it across. Or is it just me, and 17m people have alreay read Bootle and Varoufakis before making their minds up?

I'm intrigued to know what could have put that nonsense into your head, as all I remember ever saying is that nobody has actually stated them. 

Ok so I've just done a quick google for your recommended sources of Brexit argument that were convincing enough to get 17m people to vote for it.

Bootle's argument appears to be locked in a proprietary book and no online summary was apparent.

Neither did Varoufakis's website show any recent Brexit-specific arguments that I could see.

It's hardly surprising that people such as myself are sceptical that there's a good case to be made for continuing with Brexit. Do we need either to pay or to take it on trust that such things really do exist? Or perhaps you'd like to summarise the most salient points for us?

  Varoufakis was discussed on hear as far back as 2016 pre-the referendum and I know that Eric has referred to him quite recently. Bootle has also featured.

   But all you are demonstrating is that you've never bothered to read around the subject, prefering to be spoonfed, and  yet pontificate as if you had.

You:   "The reasoned justification for continuing with Brexit simply doesn't exist."

If it exists, tell me what it is. It can't be that hard, surely!

As I said, I'm all ears.

I always thought Fry to be moderately intelligent but here he displays all the usual Remain prejudices. Sure the Leave campaign was flawed, tho no more so than the Project Fear of Leave. But that is a stale argument. What Fry and seemingly most of Remain miss is the fact that most Leavers had come to a negative opinion of the EU long before the campaign which was largely irrelevant to many. I still firmly believe that we are well out of the massively flawed effort at empire building with its unelected people, unnecessarily expensive and complex systems and currency doomed to fail. We are told how wonderful it all is but with no evidence. Just ask Greece, Italy, Hungary, the youth of Spnain. Look at the way in which Germany, France and Ireland have tried to treat us. Away with it all I say. No deal is better than a poor deal.

  No, the reasons for brexit remain the same as they were two years ago and it is to those that I was referring.

  I decided 18 months ago that trying to interpret every twist and turn of the negotiations was a mug's game, especially since I can't vote on any of it. If there were to be a second vote I would review the situation.

Come on, you've clearly nothing better to do so give us the bullet points of why Varoufakis says we're better off out of the eu.

He supports EU membership. Hardly a compelling reference for brexit! 

And he writes little more than agitprop - regulation=red-tape, Commonweath 2.0, Singapore of the West etc. etc. 

You are demonstrating, again, there is simply no rational case for leaving. If there were, you would be able to state it rather than point vaguely to books that don't make it. 

Perhaps you'd like to refresh our memories, as the ones I heard 2 years ago didn't sound convincing, and subsequent developments have made the likelihood of them being convincing less likely still. But please ... I'm all ears.

Edit: typo

He doesn't, as I said above and said before. He was desperate for us to stay in order to achieve reform. The triumph of hope over experience.

It's extraordinary how so many conceited and condescending remainers appear to have read so little.

"And the weak they must suffer" is worth a read.

This covers some of his criticisms and his "solutions"

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/05/eu-no-longer-serves-p...

So it this article.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/brexit/2018/11/yanis-varoufakis-eu-de...

I think that's the funniest thing you've ever said.

  No, if you had any interest you'd have  read all this stuff.

And if you'd been listening as you claim you would have noticed that "I wouldn't expect either those or the many other detailed rationales for leaving to convince you". Just that they are detailed justifications for leaving (or in Varoufakis' cas for root and branch reform)

  As if project fear and hysteria doesn't use the odd cliche! Given that you can't get beyond cliches about little Englander, xenophobe, racists any discussion is obviously pointless.

    I rather doubt you've read more than a few press articles. In the original book he wasn't even actually a leaver, just a sceptic.

But, strangely, he doesn't recommend leaving. So carry on attempting to be condescending and list another couple of titles. Or you could make your own point, sell me the sunny uplands, show us how we're going to be better off as a country after March (but you won't).

I remember reading that article at the time. A quote from it: "a vote for “Brexit” in the forthcoming referendum is not the answer"

A quote from that one: "His dream, he said, was for the UK to return to a progressive and democratic EU in 2025."

Maybe it's just me, but I'm still not seeing overwhelming justification for Brexit here. What I am reading here, which agrees with what I've thought for some time, is that there's plenty of justification for EU reform, which can only be done from within.

Are you really reading these pieces as reasons for Brexit? Or, as is my reading, as criticisms of the EU that suggest work needs to be done to overcome its failings?

  It's not strange at all. He's desperate and admits to a certain element of "utopianism". It's perfectly rational to agree with him on the state of the EU but believe that it is unreformable. Is that hard to  get your head round?

So both your examples of compellingly leave arguments conclude that we, err, shouldn't. 

Oh dear.

But you think that we will be better off out. So explain why.

Thought this was going to be a thread about head games when you are run out with a clean fall 2 metres above a bomber nut /Disappoint.

Well I've been following and responding to all leads PP is providing. Do you have any better ones?

I presume you must think Brexit is a good idea too. Perhaps you could help explain why you think it's in all of our interests to do so.

  No, I've explained why several times. I was involved in many such discussions pre-referendum. and never mentioned "sunny uplands" or any other sort of uplands. But I would suggest you do some reading outside UKC if you want to understand the arguments.

  There is a core of  remainers on here who are have turned into angry internet yobbos. They are only in transmit mode. They transmit nothing new and much which is unpleasant and abusive. Not interested.

Tune out of you like, it's entirely up to you (it's just a way of avoiding questions you can't answer, but hey, it's all voluntary). 

You still can't see, can you, that we're angry because we're facing tangible and serious negative consequences of Brexit - financial, social and probably environmental too - and yet even the most ardent Brexit supporters on here either can't or won't put even a rudimentary case for it being beneficial.

And yet we're supposed to do what, 'get behind it'?

  No, what you have to do is read some books which detail the arguments. Simply reading a couple of brief articles and sneering doesn't count even if it a long established habit. It's clear to me  that many of you emperors have no clothes and have just swallowed the anti brexit arguments undigested hook line and sinker.A wonderful case of groupthink. Who'd have thought?

It's like a fraudster expecting politeness and respect after you find they have emptied your bank account. "oh, you know, it was just money - you're better off without it I say" 

This is really quite amusing, you really think it's the remoaners who think the emperor has lovely clothes? Whereas it's actually the leavers who want us all to pretend that he's wearing ermine.

  I have tuned out. I haven't argued about brexit for months (you might have noticed many others don't either). I occasionally drop in to point out how ghastly the yobbo element is.

Oh, and don't be so childish.  If you are interested then do some study.

  No, the remainers think they "know" more but actually just shout a lot-hence no clothes.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. I'm sure somebody else will be along for you all to jeer tomorrow

Yes, yes, here you are not making any point at all. I'll study whatever case you make for us being better off out of the eu (but you have never made a case).

I'm sure you are right. My colleague who has just had to spend £5k on residence applications because of brexit is a figment of my imagination. If I read more  books that don't support brexit I'd clearly know this. 

I argued the toss at length but since I didn't decide which way to vote until referendum day I was unlikely to make  a case for "sunny uplands".

Do you know what the median estimate of key economic "forecasters" for the aggregate impact of brexit from 2016-30 was?

 If I read more  books that don't support brexit I'd clearly know this. 

  Well, you might be able to put it in perspective....

Well good luck persuading the 56% or so of the population who now want to stay in the EU to buy and absorb your proprietary volumes before the People's Vote.

What has politics come to, in an age of information at our fingertips, if we need to buy specialist books even to get a vague idea as to one side of an important debate that will seriously affect us all?

Go on - at least tell us what colour the Brexit Emperor's new clothes are!

I don't believe you.

No.

This is yet another reason why debate is pointless. You have neither read what I refer to nor read what I wrote abut it but think you have made some clever(dick) comment.

   Lol. Yet another reason not to waste time on you. Y9u can't even be bothered to use UKC resources let alone anything else!

  Funny that, but you know it's going to be a disaster nevertheless presumably.

Emperor...clothes....

  Is "proprietary volumes" a new word for "best selling books"? I bought one of them at Athens airport FFS!

  I thought all knowing remainers were so well educated and smart they'd all have read these "proprietary volumes" and many others besides. I'm shcked, shocked I tell you...

Well it's difficult to believe you, you said you were going to bed - but perhaps sometimes you don't make things up.

Sell me the dream, tell us how we're going to be better off (you won't).

Sunny uplands.

If you like - it's the same thing, isn't it?

Either way, the idea that political opinion, upon which we're all supposed to be basing our enlightened views, and upon which we're all to be forming our voting decisions, is hiding entirely behind a paywall of any description, is simply absurd.

Why don't you just admit you don't have a pro-Brexit argument you're prepared to share with us or to outline?

Is it top secret? If you told me, would you then have to kill me?

I'm even more intrigued now.

Because you're wrong and have no arguments left but can't face the truth.

We were led up the garden path by Cameroon giving us a choice.  

Somehow I don't think Fry could do any worse.  But what does he know?

While Varoufakis is right in that the EU is in need of reform. He doesn't present a good argument for leaving.

I find it particualrly annoying (not you the general mash up that is Brexit) that we now seem to be harking back to the politics of fear that started all this nonsense. On thing that the remain camp haven't learned is that shouting "we're all going to die" doesn't help while the Brexit camp all seem to be putting their fingers in their ears and going "la la la"

Varoufakis - himself and his country badly burnt by the EU, of course - argued for a remain vote in the UK, with the hope that the EU could subsequently be reformed. That's a 'hope' only.

The general left case for leaving is that the EU has proven to an unreformable market-driven juggernaut, and that leaving it provides an opportunity for the UK to do things better. See e.g. http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/theleftcaseforbrexitphilipbwhyman.p... for a recent discussion. (Of course, 'doing things better' relies on the citizens of the UK electing governments inclined that way - but that would our collective affair and responsibility: that's democracy.)

  I think Minford's is the only stuff producing a really positive view but of course the economic outlook to 2030 is not central to most brexiteers' positions.

   This analysis by Cambridge econometrics is useful (it also summarises most of the other analyses). CE estimates a negative impact on GVA from a worst case scenario (WTO rules) of 3% against baseline (assuming the UK stayed in the SM and CU) by 2030. Given the baseline would probably be real growth of 2% pa. we would be looking at maybe 25% aggregate growth compared to 28% (in a worst case scenario) over the period.

    It's negative but not exactly plagues of locusts.

Thanks, I'll track it down (no link) and give it a read.

Oops https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/preparing_for_brexit_final_re...

I'm a remainer but.......

This video has all the sophistication of a 1940's public information film. Its simplistic content and presentation is patronizing  and does the remain argument very little good in my opinion. 

I watched it yesterday (not from this link).  I voted remain btw.

I did note the part in which the usual bit is rolled out about how much EU workers contribute etc. to UK, and I agree - I have eloquent European friends, who have good jobs here and contribute plenty to society and the economy, also hard working 'working class' ones doing manual jobs.  

I do however have mates who live in less well off areas, and have listened to their complaints about the less eloquent europeans who have come over in search of jobs. How they are causing trouble and difficulties for the community, are a bit of a menace overall.  Whilst they might be hard working, they aren't necessarily a blessing for the community.  So I think it is a bit rich for the likes of Stephen to chastise those with these arguments when he probably doesn't live on a terraced street with loads of rough Eastern Europeans/romanies behaving badly.  

I briefly watched a few minutes before I left for work.

I noted the infamous UKIP poster and a statement that 'the only white face has been deliberately obscured'. It hasn't, there are white faces visible, but I wouldn't expect to see many in a photo of middle eastern and sub-saharan asylum seekers anyway, so not sure what the point was.

Secondly the statement that the numbers of EU nurses in the NHS has fallen since the brexit vote. This may well be correct, but a graph of ongoing nurse registrations, not nurses leaving, was used to imply there'd been a huge exodus.

So pretty much using the same techniques as the brexiteers...

I think you and Steven are talking about two different things.

Steven is pointing out the economic benefits of migration and also making the point that areas with high levels of immigration mainly voted remain while many areas with lower levels voted Leave. You are pointing out the social impact of immigration.

While I'm not going to tell you that your friends are plain wrong I will say it's not always like that. I have friend who has lived in Govan for nearly two decades. When he first moved there every front door in his stair has some form of reinforcement, his was a steel roller shutter, such was the level of crime. Over the years the junkies and crooks moved out to be replaced with working class East Europeans and Africans. His quality of life has improved immeasurably as a result. He likes immigration because he's got better neighbours.

On the negative side, skilled Eastern European tradesmen have reduced wages in the building trade to the point where a joiner is now on what was a labourers rate. That said, the drop in the value of the pound has resulted in many tradesmen returning home.

On the other hand in Govanhill things have got worse. Many of the immigrants are from one particular European ethnic group and have been responsible, so it is believed, for an increase in property crime and prostitution.

My take on this is that overall immigration is good but occasionally it isn't and that something should be done to keep the good while eliminating the bad.

You're probably right.... answering the 'coming over here taking our benefits argument'.  I do feel that the social impact has been ignored - or to my knowledge it has.

I thought the immigration vs voting pattern was slightly misleading - referring only to non UK born immigrants and not EU immigrants.  Whilst he was making the argument about getting to know vs the fear factor, it made for a good soundbite but was too vague to be of any real value.  Especially given your point about Govanhill and I think mine too (talking about the same group).

Upthread it is mentioned about Stephen sounding patronising, but I recognised it more like he was doing a take on the 'Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy' type of description (given he did the voice on said film). If so he should have made it more comedic perhaps to take the edge off - even though its a serious and emotive subject.

Perhaps if you ever paid any attention to what anybody wrote that didn't entirely concur with your rosy view of the EU I would but you don't so why bother?

Its not that I expect you to change your mind, as I've said ad nauseum (and almost certainly to you, many times) you're perfectly entitled to think we are better off in the EU but there are also perfectly good reasons for wanting to leave, even if on balance you would rather stay, but your continued insistance that you've never read any argument for leaving that had any merit simply tells me that you are essentially an EU fundamentalist zealot.

There are plenty of rational remainers out there, some on here like B'n'B who accept there are valid arguments to leave and some positives top be gained from leaving but on balance would still rather stay and I have no quarrel with that. But your repeated claim to have never seen such arguments despite them having appeared in threads to which you have contributed many times over the last three years can only mean you don't actually read what people have written or won't engage your rational brain whilst doing so.

Trying to explain to you why there might be some positives to Brexit, even if you don't ultimately think they outweigh the negatives, is like trying to tell a jihadist he might not actually go to paradise.

So, no benefits you're prepared to outline then. Fair enough, nobody's forcing you to present any.

This is one of the reasons why I and many others would prefer a system of controlled migration based on merit (I actually believe a lot of remain voters would prefer this!). Obviously others are free to disagree but the chorus of "that makes you a xenophobic racist" from the militant reamainers" is part of the reason why they have actually been so unsuccessful in winning many over to their cause.

No John, not no benefits, just no point wasting time explaining them to the deaf.

What sort of EU do you 1)want and 2) expect in a)10 years and b) 25 years?

What sort of UK do you 1)want and 2) expect in a)10 years and b) 25 years?I

And how do you think leaving the eu will achieve that?

How about you answer some questions for a change?

What sort of EU do you 1)want and 2) expect in a)10 years and b) 25 years?

Any news on the median estimate of key economic "forecasters" for the aggregate impact of brexit from 2016-30 was? I even helped you put on this one.

Fair enough (but it's a remarkably stupid question), for both 10 and 25 years:

1) A happy, secure and prosperous eu.

2) How would I know? A week is a long time in whatever the quote...

Your turn.

So you are quite happy to ask what people expect brexit to result in long term but clueless about what the EU looks like long term.

And both utterly ignorant and incurious  about the available analysis of either.

Speaks volumes

I think in the next 10 years or so we'll see a few Balkan states join, and in general I would welcome that, although lessons from Orban's leadership of his own country and how it is tolerated within the EU will need to be learned before that, and the Balkans is still very divided, so it could take some time before it became clear which wanted to align with Europe and which with Russia. I'd be happy to see countries like Macedonia and Montenegro join, once ready.

I think most of the problems perceived by British people as being EU issues are actually very much caused by UK government decisions (or inactivity) when faced with changing demographics.

I'd like to see the EU focus more on socially responsible policies to help reduce inequality, not necessarily just between countries but also between the very rich and the very poor in all member states. I'm not a politician so I don't have clear ideas as to what such policies would look like in practice. I strongly suspect this would involve a strong line against the unchecked power of huge multinationals, which would be something the EU would be far better suited to than any of its individual states ever could be.

25 years is much harder to foresee. I wouldn't have a big problem with further integration, as I see all of Europe as being broadly speaking as alike as is all of the UK, with no glaring cultural obstacles to effective cooperation. Indeed I see regional blocs becoming far more prominent, now that communication within and between them is easier than ever. In place of what used to be a dozen or so individual small countries calling the shots, many with their associated empires, we'll see up to a dozen or so regional blocs instead, with relatively few unaligned countries finding niche ways to exist independently at a relatively small scale.

  So nothing at all on the key issues of the future of the Euro and its implications for integration (or the opposite) or the issues in achieving this, immigration or any other existential issues.

Weird

And no economic forecasts at all ????????

You seem to think your priorities have to be shared by everyone.

How about you now tell me what your vision of a bright future is outside the EU in, say, 10 and 25 years, and how that's going to be achievable after Brexit?

So you don't like the eu, you've voted to leave. But you don't know what you want, you don't know how to move forward, you've voted for the country as a whole to be worse off. And you want me to predict the future of an organisation you've voted for us to leave. No plan, no ideas, no clue.

The volume is loud.

  You dont think the future of the euro will impact EU prosperity?

Or you don’t care about prosperity?

Odd given the remainer focus on the economic impact of Brexit.

Interesting . So what are your priorities?

I think I've just spent some time outlining priorities. How about you reciprocate with a response to my questions now?

You'll note that it's not dissimilar to things you've been asked before.

How much worse off? 

On the basis of what assumptions about EU growth rates?

You’ve voted to stay. Obviously you have a well researched view on its future.

No you haven’t. Youve implied that prosperity and stability are not priorities but not much else.

Youve spent months telling us brexit is a disaster. How about backing that with some simple criteria and analytical support.

My expectation is of “muddling through” on a 10 year view.

You voted for it, you tell me.

Show me some figures saying we're going to be better off.

Yes, I did. You voted to change, you can't explain what change you want, or how leaving the eu is going to achieve it, but here we are, this is situation you have voted us into. How do you see it working?

I give up. You're clearly never going to be constructive about anything you're arguing for on here, instead simply fishing for cracks to try to exploit in others. I spent time giving you a genuine expression of what the future of the EU looked like to me, in answer to your question, and all you can do is try to pretend I didn't, while simultaneously not even bothering putting even the slightest sunny Brexit upland down on paper in return.

This is not debate.

Anyway, I'm watching a film now. Good night.

hmmm, "his country badly burned by Varoufakis and co" would be closer to the truth. (though they obviously were not the cause, they only blew up the possible solutions)

see: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/greece/2015-09-14/what-really-happe...

quite some parallels to brexit btw....

  You’ve spent months pontificating and when put on the spot you  appear completely unaware or uncaring about the central issues facing the EU and unable to support your views.

Conversely I’ve not pontificated let alone predict “sunny uplands” which phrase appears to be an excuse for not backing up your pontification.

Enjoy the film.

Worst case? The consensus is 3-4% of GVA growth percentage points to 2030 so nothing terrible.

  Minford reckons about 4% to 2030 but I think he's wrong. Over 25 years there are no real numbers but PCW reckons the UK will only slip relative to developing countries (from a lower base), not our developed peers.

 You voted for change because obviously the EU is going to change. How do you expect it to change?

So only 3% smaller than it could have been (and that's year on year isn't it?). If you equate that to current spending (£800 billion pa) that's only about £24 billion a year. That's not much i suppose, not exactly sunny uplands though. And not a change for the better. 

So the best figure from Minford (brexiter) is 4% (you do mean less than it would have been don't you?), but you think he's wrong anyway and pwc think we might not slip. That's great, it's a real  endorsement, definitely a change for the better.

I don't know, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that the change will be better for the UK out of the eu as opposed to in. Your idea that change is going to happen anyway so we may as well leave the eu is odd.

  WTF are you talking about?

1)Of course it's smaller. That's what I said.

2) It's not a spending figure nor is it year on year (in the common usage of the term) It's a GVA figure and at the end of the period (2030 it's about £50-60bn ie 3% smaller than the baseline)

  No, 4% bigger, Keep up at the back. Why do you think I thought in the period to 2030 that brexit would mean a GDP change for the better? You're making stuff up.

  Why is it odd? If you were in an aeroplane and thought it might be about to crash wouldn't a parachute being an interesting consideration? You might at least like to have a view on the likelihood of the aeroplane soaring into the sunny uplands, or crashing.

Neither you nor John seem to have considered at all the outlook for the EU.

PS. Any views on how the Italian debt crisis plays out?

So you've voted to make us poorer.

Still smaller, you're still voting to make us poorer.

4% bigger than it would have been if we'd stayed in the eu? Of course not.

You think the eu is about to crash? I accept that's a possibility, it's just one that doesn't appear very likely. And if the eu does crash then we're buggered anyway, in or out.

Let's say it crashes, how are we going to be better off out than in?

  Ive accepted that there may be a small short term hit which will be offset over the longer term both economically and otherwise. Absolutely.

  Incidentally he CE report linked above estimates the GDP per capita negative at less than 3% to 2030 (worst case). And of course the chequers plan would be less than the WTO estimates quoted.

  Er, yes. What do you mean?

  We went through all this before. Clearly being next to a sinking ship isn't great but it's better than being in it.

  But honestly, you just confirmed very clearly why it's a waste going through this. You don't understand the simple information being given to you and appear oblivious to many of the major issues of relating to the EU. So, I'm unlikely to learn much of the alternative view from you

So you accept that we're going to be poorer. But you're saying we're going to offset that poorness in some way that you can't explain.

So still a negative. We've established you're happy for us to be poorer than we could have been.

What would the figure have been if we were staying?

The problem is that analogies are usually crap, like this one. Generally used by people who are unwilling to discuss the actual issues.

Post or don't post, the choice is yours. So far all you're confirming is that you've voted for the country to be worse off for a minimum of 15 years. Bravo you.

It's remarkable that your view of important issues is what currency we use and fractions of percent differences in economic forecasts. I'd say thats unbelievably myopic. Climate change,  social cohesion, defence against aggressive states such as Russia and increasingly China (arguably the US too) are the key issues of concern and also those the EU is (or perhaps was thanks to brexiteers) well placed to counter. 

4% lower according to Minford!!

  What's the point? You don't even appear to know what the issues are, let alone being competent to discuss them!

  That's actually not all I'm confirming. But anyway, to 2030 is 12 years and in per capita GDP the negative is about 1%.ie. in forecasting terms pretty close to meaningless. You are obsessing about what, in the worst case, is a small or absolutely tiny impact.

 It's a well established observation that remainers can only see the issues in short term economic terms and that is why they  failed to win the argument. You still are.

Christ on a bike. Do you guys understand nothing? It's not about what currency is used . it's about what the  currency and and the  the financial structure sustaining it mean for the cohesion or lack of it in the EU.

  Given that you and others focus relentlessly on the economically disasterous impact of brexit which you mistakenly believe has been forecast it would make sense that you don't want your mistake to be pointed out.

He's somewhat of an outlier. And you've said you think he's wrong.

So dont, no one is making you (I hope, although it would explain some things).

But you are confirming we're going to be poorer, year on year for the next 12 years at least, than we could have been.

And it's well established that leavers are dreaming of the £350 million a week extra that we're going to be spending on the nhs, no short term thinking there at all.

Whatever, it's a minor matter on a decade. Plus timescale

I don't. It's certainly important but one of several important matters. 

Anyway, its now looking like you'll get your way and we'll crash out. I think the combination of climate change, economic stagnation, populist politics and over population will probably lead to a major war soon. You won't, I am sure, l take any responsibility despite pushing all three parts of this... 

So after having eplained it to you three times you've accepted what I first said

  Yes, it would explain , as I have severla times, why I don't normally waste my breath.

  To coin a phrase: "It's remarkable that your view of important issues is and fractions of percent differences in economic forecasts"

  Neither well established nor short term . Long term but dumb and no longer believed. Anyway, what has that got to do with the issues under debate?

   Er, why on earth do you say that about the  the Euro. It's an existential long term determiner of the sustainability and/or nature and structure of the EU.

  Do you actually not get this? (Jaw hits table..)

  If your worst case scenario comes true then the undemocratic elitist political classes, not least of the EU, will have much to answer for, as will you for supporting them.

Because it is easy to change the arrangements if needed. Not so with the other matters I mentioned. Also given it has been fine for two decades and survived a major financial crash, I don't agree with your assessment. 

Eyeroll.

The populist right has and is actively preventing action climate change, opposes any common  EU defence or foreign policy,  and is deliberately undermining social cohesion  

Yes, we've established we're going to be poorer.

You're in control of what you type. Although this

would possibly suggest you're not quite in control of your fingers.

Well you seem to be suggesting that brexiters voted with a long term view of the economy. Have you got anything to back that up?

  Yes, I’m sure the mass unemployed in Southern Europe think it’s been absolutely “fine” (the Italians just luvvit) and that the German electorate are champing at the bit to finance a permant transfer union for them to sustain the Euro.Except that they are not and without that the only way to “change the the arrangments” (lovely euphumism by the way)is by authoritarian diktat,

Unbelievable... goodnight.

What I find unbelievable is that you seem to don't understand that supporting Brexit is supporting the destabilising process you purport to foresee - you had the option to vote for stability, but you chose the alternative. That choice - stability versus the unknown - is being exercised all across Europe. Maybe you are confident that your own future will be brighter in the destabilised Europe, but don't try to excuse yourself for the chaos you are supporting by claiming that it was forced upon you because you were wise enough to see the winds of change blowing through Europe. You ARE the wind of change, and many will suffer for it, and some already have. It is for this reason that people keep asking you what change you are looking for. Telling us what you are running away from is not good enough when it is you that is making the running.

1) You have completely missed,or just ignored, my previous post! The choice is not between "stability versus the unknown". It's a choice between two unknowns.

2) The wind of change has many causes, but they don't include me. Ordinary peoples' feeling of disconnection from the elites that control their lives is a key cause. Those elites, or their supporters, telling these people people that they are thick racists and should therefore be ignored is another one.

  I would like to see the gap bridged between the political and elite class and the rest of the population. I believe that this is more likely to be achieved when power is returned to national institutions to which people feel some connection and over which they feel they have some power, and away  from distant and undemocratic institutions of which they know little and whose leaders cannot be removed.

That's a profoundly ignorant comment. Are you aware of what happened in Greece, for example, and the effect that's had on citizens of that country?

You really need to do some reading on that subject. I find it hard to believe someone could actually write that.

No it's not ignorant, it's a statement of fact. 

Yes.  It was bad.  The Euro survived. And even Varoufakis still thinks EU membership is a good thing (despite being cited as evidence of brexit being a good thing).

What don't you agree with?  The Euro clearly has survived two decades, and a severe crash, and is a globally traded reasonably strong currency - i.e. fine.

So, you worry about UK GDP per capita growth coming in 1-2% below baseline to 2030 but that the  EU has enforced a 25 per cent contraction in the size of the Greek economy during the last eight years (more severe than the great American depression of the 1930s) and its fiscal punishments have caused youth unemployment to reach a staggering 44 per cent is "fine"?

What was that about "Little Englanders"?And how do you see the Italian debt crisis being resolved?

No self respecting economist thinks that the Euro crisis is over. It's simply on hold.

Yawn.He thinks being a member of a completely different EU would be a good thing.

How is it that the old saying puts it? 

     A DIVIDED HOUSE CANNOT STAND.

    The UK leaving Europe will destabilise and weaken Europe.That makes it vulnerable to predators such as Putin's Russia and  Chinese markets.We are still economically European,Brexit or no Brexit.If we ally to the U S economy we will just be a vassal state to Trump.

     Inside the u k our own house is divided.You bicker here on UKC, but the ruling class are quietly laughing.They are pulling the strings and will do so in future,Brexit or no Brexit.

The video points out the long term trend that migrants make a net contribution to our economy.This is approx. £2 billion per year profit to us.End of migrant debate.

No I said nothing about the Greek situation other than it was bad.

  So you don't even realise that the Euro is a major the cause of the Greek situation? Gasps...

So, you don't even realise gravity acts downwards? Gasps...  (See, anyone can play that game).

If you want a discussion of the Greek crisis, I suggest you start another thread. 

The fact remains, the Euro has survived for an extended period and a severe crisis.  I think that is good evidence that it will continue.

   The fact is that the Euro as currently constituted has contributed to massive current account and fiscal deficits in southern Europe, huge negative impacts on economies, 1930s level of unemployment and austerity policies that make the UK look like a cakewalk. Millions of people are in poverty because of the Euro and you regard this as "fine".

  The fact is also that mainstream economists agree that that the situation (the structure of the Euro and the EU finacial system-and therefore the political system) absolutely cannot continue as it is. There must be change or disaster.

  Any thoughts on how the Italian debt crisis gets resolved?

OK, change it.

No, Italian government debt is not something I know anything about.

  What do you think the difficulties of this might be ? (I gave you some clues last night 23.36)

It represents the current cutting edge of the Euro-crisis. You should look into it if you feel so strongly bout the EU.

3% smaller doesn’t sound much.

But: the nhs England budget last year was just over £120bn. Healthcare cost inflation runs at around 4% per annum; this is already in excess of GDP growth per annum. Funding that gap is going to be one of the most severe challenges we face over the next decade 

Engineering a situation where a sum equivalent to half the current nhs England budget is not available to the economy, when it otherwise would have been, moves sustaining the nhs from ‘severe challenge’, to ‘not actually possible’

i know from previous threads that you are a skeptic of the funding model of the nhs; so you may regard this outcome as a desirable side effect of Brexit. But I don’t think that most people who voted for Brexit voted for the end of the NHS; I wonder how they will feel when it happens.

Here is a basic primer about the problem with the Euro. It doesn't address the primary issue which is that the Euro results in huge German current account surpluses which need to be recycled in the form of debt to countries with concomitant deficits. But it highlights the secondary issues.

youtube.com/watch?v=ULQiCN0YNmw&

Have to be honest and say that is a pretty small so called profit in monetary terms in the context of gdp etc.

There are of course two views on this (1) the Joseph Spieglitz view( or whatever his name is) that  the EU will pull itself together by closer economic integration( common tax etc) to save the Euro and as proposed by Macron or (2) the alternative view say by Bootle that it is better to get out whilst the going is good and we do not get sucked into an economic mess derived from the inevitable collapse of the Euro ( caused by lack of reform )and its ramifications.

 > Engineering a situation where a sum equivalent to half the current nhs England budget is not available to the economy, when it otherwise would have been, moves sustaining the nhs from ‘severe challenge’, to ‘not actually possible’

   You seem to be comparing apples and pears. UK tax receipts in the current year are projected at about £594bn. 3% of that (worst case scenario according to CE) is about £18bn. You might want to adjust that down on a per capita basis.Tax receipts regularly move up (and sometimes down) by more than that. And the tax GDP ratio has moved about that percentage in recent years. The current budget deficit has been reduced by £100bn in recent years. So there is "wiggle room".

  So, yes, it's not irrelevant but nor is it unmanageable.

  Economic forecasts are consistently that far out anyway over that sort of period of time.

Absolutely: but what seems clear is that things cannot stay as they are.It is also clear that both in Germany and in the South there is deep resistance to the necessary change. I read an interesting article that I can't find recently by an economist who did a presentation to a hall full of German asset managers.(numbers from memory)

  He asked for a show of hands on a) how many wanted the EU to remain together (about 98%), followed by share a show of hands on b) how many  wanted the Euro to stay together (about 95%), followed by a show of hands c) on how many would accept accept permanent transfers from Germany to the deficit countries of the South (about 20%).

  As you will recognise, you can't have <b> without <c> (or something similar) and as the economist asked, if only 20% of sophisticated cosmopolitan asset managers will accept that how many Bavarian hausfraus or autoworkers in Dusseldorf will accept it?

So essentially, your position is that Brexit won't make that much different to the economy one way or the other.

Your desire to leave the EU is therefore based on what? A reluctance to join the European project of "ever closer union"?

Cost pressures on all other departments are rising over that period too. The reduction of the budget deficit still hasn’t eliminated it, and the limits of containing expenditure seem to have been reached, insofar as voters are willing to support the measures needed. The problem of funding personal and residential care for the elderly hasn’t even begun to be addressed, and no party appears to have a clue over how to deal with it. And costs from climate change are starting to be felt, and will only increase. 

I have my doubts over whether the nhs can survive anyway, even without Brexit. Cost increases outstripping growth in national income by 2% pa compounded over decades only has one outcome.

but even if it’s ‘only’ ca. 20bn, there is no slack in the system. It’s the end of the road for the current model of healthcare provision. Again, maybe it just forces us to have a difficult conversation as a country earlier than we were going to anyway; but a frank discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of Brexit should be making people aware of this, rather than just dismissing any discussion of fiscal hazard as ‘project fear’

  In a nutshell, yes. I don't believe it is either necessary in terms of enabling co-operation on major issues such as security, climate change etc . I think ( as we are seeing) it is as likely to be divisive as it is to create cohesion across Europe, and it aggravates the the breakdown in the connection between the electorates and the political class and thus undermines trust.

Yet as we're seeing despite your belief this isn't actually the case in reality with talks on Galileo collapsing lumbering us with a multi billion pound project which will take a decade to re-build alone if it even proves possible. And that is to pick but one expensive problem brexit has thrown up making us less secure, not more.

jk

 Again, maybe it just forces us to have a difficult conversation as a country earlier than we were going to anyway; but a frank discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of Brexit should be making people aware of this, rather than just dismissing any discussion of fiscal hazard as ‘project fear’

  That is true, but the BOE and Try forecasts are at the worst end of estimates and the timing of their (re) release is obviously not a coincidence.

  Here is ex BOE chief Mervyn King on the subject: "It saddens me to see the Bank of England unnecessarily drawn into this project. The Bank’s latest worst-case scenario shows the cost of leaving without a deal exceeding 10 percent of GDP. Two factors are responsible for the size of this effect: first, the assertion that productivity will fall because of lower trade; second, the assumption that disruption at borders — queues of lorries and interminable customs checks — will continue year after year. Neither is plausible. On this I concur with Paul Krugman. He’s no friend of Brexit and believes that Britain would be better off inside the EU — but on the claim of lower productivity, he describes the Bank’s estimates as “black box numbers” that are “dubious” and “questionable.” And on the claim of semi-permanent dislocation, he just says, “Really?” I agree: The British civil service may not be perfect, but it surely isn’t as bad as that."

  I would add a caveat: that if no deal is to happen then it needs to be prepared for. If neither side is prepared to let that happen they may cause serious short term pain.

Why have the other Europeans acted so poorly in respect of Galileo? They don't display a very cooperative attitude, do they?

I think I agree with Carl Bildt, former prime minister of Sweden and currently co-chair of the European Council on Foreign Relations. From the FT: "Mr Bildt attacked the move to exclude the UK from the “security part of the Galileo satellite system” and thus forcing them out, as “strategic folly of the first order”. A solution “must be possible”, he said in a post on Twitter."

Fair enough.

I take the opposite view that I would like to see the abolition of all borders in Europe so we end up as a USE if you like. However I think this should happen over a couple of generations and certainly not at the speed the EU was moving before the Euro crisis. In order to ensure we do end up in the right place I want the UK to be a major influence on the EU which means we must be a member.

Regarding the economics I am not so blase as yourself about the effect on peoples jobs in the medium term and don't want to see a generation go through the same sort of carnage we experienced in the late seventies and early eighties.

It's a political problem that requires goodwill and leadership.  It is clearly possible, as demonstrated by the US, say, which has at least as large economic differences between states.  In comparison with serious problems, which is where this conversation started, it's trivial.  One option is a brexit type approach where you end up with every country back to the situation 50, or perhaps 110 years ago where mutual suspicion prevented mutual benefit.  Or you recognise the huge benefits that the EU has brought and make the changes needed (if that proves necessary).

 That you think it is "trivial" suggests that you don't understand. It is an existential problem for the whole project.

   It is clear that electorates don't want it. The Germans don't want either the cost or the responsibility and the Greeks and Italians understand that "he who pays the piper calls the tune" and do not want to be governed by the Germans. It also creates a dependency culture which will entrench the problem further.

  So it is fantasy land to think that this can be done by a bit of "goodwill and leadership". What it would require is more force majeure. We know that this is a habitual modus operandi of the EU but given the hostility it engenders it would be a massive risk.

  Either way, "change is gonna come......."

  I think that the UK has spent thirty years failing to use it's influence constructively, but it my be that because the whole thing was established along Franco-German lines (much to the dismay of eg the Scandis) it was impossible ever to get real change.

  I quote King again: "The U.K. is a European country, and always will be. Trade and contacts among the nations of Europe can and should continue much as before. And I have no doubt they will do so. But the political nature of the EU has changed since monetary union. The EU failed to recognize that the euro would demand fiscal and political integration if it was to succeed, and that countries outside the euro area would require a different kind of EU membership. It was inevitable, therefore, that, sooner or later, Britain would decide to withdraw from a political project in which it had little interest apart from the shared desire for free trade."

  Politicians underestimate national loyalties at their peril

   Well I trust you won't be voting for Corbyn then because economists are are a lot more frightened by him than by WTO rules!!

I think that might be a matter of perspective. From the EU's side of the table I suspect British demands to maintain an element of control over an EU strategic project from outside the union seemed unreasonable especially one conceived as insurance against a breakdown in relations with the US who's grasping arms we're blundering into. I can see their point, they are under no obligation to Britain, we want out, we're getting out predictably with none of the perks we had on the inside.

It's just a foretaste of negotiating (begging really) for a fraction of what we had from a position of weakness after March.

jk

If you look at this very nuanced post:

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/off_belay/facts_vs_fear-696740?v=1#x89006...

Factor in if you're one of the less salubrious areas, your wages have plummeted in real terms, add a dash of problems with non EU immigration as seen with grooming in the north and no job opportunities unless you go into debt to do a degree.

Then you see a video delivered in Mr Fry's finest condescending tones that this is more than worth it because it brings in enough to run the NHS for less than a week.

Not exactly going to win hearts and minds, is it?

I don't see it as a question of 'obligation' on either side; it's just an obvious piece of defence cooperation which can/should be carried on.

Possibly negotiating brinkmanship though, sure. We'll see what finally happens.

It's not at all obvious collaboration should be carried on.

GPS is a good system (as is GLONASS) but the EU wants an improvement on and independence from the systems of countries which may not always be reliable allies or may even become openly hostile. The UK in leaving the EU will be likely forced into the sphere of influence of the US. Having a US ally with full access to the inner workings of and in partial control of their strategic insurance policy against potential future US hostility makes no sense at all.

We know what happens, we tried brinkmanship and the talks have collapsed, we've walked away. In a decade or so assuming we can negotiate sufficient radio spectrum and afford it we will have our very own version... probably still sat on the drawing board for a number of reasons.

jk

Sadly true. It's one of the reasons it would take more than a generation to unite Europe in the minds of its citizens.

It's just the tory politicians who are afraid of Jeremy (actually John). ????

  I was thinking about this. The band of Corbyn supporting economists are the equivalent of the economists for brexit. Persona non-grata to most of the profession.

Back to this (since it's how this thread started): Stephen Fry reminds me of that other "Idiots' Thinking Man" Boris Johnson. Both have the same stylistic tricks: ponderous phrasing; some smug asides; the odd arcane word dropped in here and there; and the occasional classical allusion which they will have looked up in a book the night before. I really don't see the attraction myself - but both manage to get certain people drooling.

That's like comparing the Mona Lisa with the symbol for ladies' toilets on the basis that they're both recognisably images of women.