Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[thecrashingisles]

6 hours ago, Greg Bowman said:

Why? The UK driving test is pretty good. I don’t need an IDP in the US - is it because they are the most powerful country in the world and have a healthy dislike for pointless bureaucracy?

You can’t have ever lived in the US if you think they have a dislike of pointless bureaucracy.  

[thecrashingisles]

48 minutes ago, crouch said:

You see you ask a question not expecting to get an answer. You get an answer concerning two hugely, and I mean hugely, important EU policies which we would never have enacted had we not been required to.

Quite a stupid comment given that we voluntarily joined both by joining in the first place.

[slawek]

Brexit mythology dissected

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/10/myths-small-island-dangers-buccaneering-view-british-history

[slawek]

1 hour ago, crouch said:

I was replying to a question concerning which laws we would not have accepted had we not been members of the EU. The question was posed in the context of sovereignty. I answered the question.

You used an argument that many billions were lost due to CAF and CAP. Can you quantify this?

As you know nobody and no state is really 100% sovereign. We as an individuals live in a society and need to follow its rules even if not all of them benefit us. An alternative of living in a wild is much worse. The same with states, they are bound by pacts and agreements like WTO, UN and many more. An alternative is being a rogue state like North Korea.

The rules of the EU are meant to benefit all members, so they are not always optimal for us. They are a result of bargaining between members states. We have a prominent position in those negotiations so in most cases we got what we want.  

[Exiled Canadian]

6 hours ago, Greg Bowman said:

But millions can’t afford to live like they are now emotionally, physically or financially

Your position appears to be they are not as intelligent as remainers, by the same token many vocal remainers especially the Islington and West London mob seem to have the lowest EQ I have seen in a lifetime - Their inability to understand what drove millions to vote leave is quite breath taking considering they would label themselves as well read and intelligent 

It's quite clear that the UK economy isn't delivering an improved standard of living for many people.  I have no doubt that understandable frustration with this played a significant part in the thinking of a significant number of Brexit voters.

I don't however believe that EU membership is the underlying cause of this failure to deliver a decent standard of living for many people, and think it is highly likely that leaving the EU will in fact make the situation worse, particularly given the tack taken by BJ in his latest attempt to negotiate a WA which indicates that the UK seeks to "undercut" the EU in areas such as workers rights.

The real failure was that the Remain Campaign was very poor - Project Fear seemed like bullying whereas a calm and collected description of the benefits of EU membership for trade and economic development would have been more effective.  No one is claiming that the EU is perfect - just that being in is better for the UK than being out.

The fact is that many communities in the UK have been effectively ignored by government in the UK for many years.  This was not the fault of the EU but I understand the impulse of these people to make themselves heard when they had the chance.

 

[slawek]

6 hours ago, Greg Bowman said:

Remain has also become a cult only the ‘intelligent ‘ voted Remain be good children and trust Mother she knows best. And you appear to be part of it with your last line 

There are plenty of rational intelligent people who voted leave and plenty of dumb ignorant people who voted remain 

The continued generalisations, binary position taking and insults from both sides are not going to move us forward 

That is true but based on the study below it is also true that on average Remainers have better numerical, cognitive reflection and reasoning skills. In same cases this difference can be barely noticeable as it is hidden by a natural variation of a skill in the population e.g. reasoning. But some times the difference is so prominent that you can infer with a high confidence if someone is a Remainer or Levear by testing the skill e.g. cognitive reasoning among men.   

https://www .onlineprivacyfoundation.org/opf-research/psychological-biases/personality-authoritarianism-and-cognition-in-brexit/

[crouch]

32 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

What about the cost of food? As I understand it the cost is likely to go up due to Sterling depreciation, increased red tape, transport costs etc.  Apart from the fact that these two policies did not register as significant on most people minds, hence why I dismissed it... not trolling thank you very much... just saying it as it is.

You asked a question as to which policies we would not have accepted if we were not members of the EU in the context of sovereignty. I answered the question which had nothing to do with cost.

 

[crouch]

15 minutes ago, slawek said:

You used an argument that many billions were lost due to CAF and CAP. Can you quantify this?

No, and as the main argument was about sovereignty not cost it isn't necessary.

 

17 minutes ago, slawek said:

As you know nobody and no state is really 100% sovereign. We as an individuals live in a society and need to follow its rules even if not all of them benefit us. An alternative of living in a wild is much worse. The same with states, they are bound by pacts and agreements like WTO, UN and many more. An alternative is being a rogue state like North Korea.

The argument was about which laws we would not have enacted if we were not members of the EU. 

20 minutes ago, slawek said:

The rules of the EU are meant to benefit all members, so they are not always optimal for us. They are a result of bargaining between members states. We have a prominent position in those negotiations so in most cases we got what we want.

Irrelevant to the argument and assertion without evidence.

[crouch]

31 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Quite a stupid comment given that we voluntarily joined both by joining in the first place.

Irrelevant. The post was about which laws we would not have enacted had we not been members of the EU, not about the trade offs we made by accepting those laws.

[IMHAL]

1 minute ago, crouch said:

You asked a question as to which policies we would not have accepted if we were not members of the EU in the context of sovereignty. I answered the question which had nothing to do with cost.

 

Crouchy said ->

"The cost of food can be dismissed - seriously - dismissed - really? Are you trolling here because it looks like it? You ask a question because you don't think you'll get an answer; you get an answer, and your reaction - dismissal!"

Also, for the record I said "I can dismiss all of that [the policies] on the basis that for most people it was not a significant consideration". They were not in anyway the dominant factors before the referndum, even after they where weaponised in the referendum they still where not dominant factors. 

As for costs: You said: "The Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy have cost many billions in the last 46 years."  So....... something to do with costs then.  

 

[Social Justice League]

We won't be leaving the EU on 31st October so the general election is now the focus imo.

Cummings is already saying that the Tories are the party of "No Deal".

Nigel is jealous. 

[Chunketh]

Just now, Social Justice League said:

We won't be leaving the EU on 31st October so the general election is now the focus imo.

Cummings is already saying that the Tories are the party of "No Deal".

Nigel is jealous. 

This was always his plan, as called out by a few on twitter back in July

[slawek]

11 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

Democracy is more important than your views, even if Brexiters are thick.

One of the hallmarks of an intelligent person is being aware of their own intellectual limits, the more you know, the more questions arise.

Within the scope of a thick person's breadth of insight, they know everything and can therefore easily judge the mental aptitude of others.

Let it happen then say "I told you so". If that happens and people look for someone to blame, as you say, then votes will start to align with your views.

I value democracy but that doesn't mean that I should not try to present my view. That is the whole point of democracy, you have competing views and a decision is made by a consensus. Silencing a view kills democracy. 

If democracy is important to you should be aware that at the moment leaving the EU is a minority view. Even if you ignore this fact and stick to the result of the 2016 referendum you must be aware that it was not a mandate for no-deal or WTO Brexit, which are now advocated by TBP and Tories as the only right one. At best the referendum could have been a mandate for the softest Brexit possible as the Leave majority was so small that any harder Brexit could have been rejected by enough people.

I am aware about my limitation but if I know something, or at least I believe I know, I am keen to share this. You are more than welcome to present your arguments and prove me wrong. We all here to learn. Having said that I would like to apologies for any offence caused. That wasn't my intention.

I disagree with you, it is morally deplorable not to try to persuade people to change their mind and let them hurt themselves, boasting later "I told you so". 

[zugzwang]

24 minutes ago, slawek said:

Brexit mythology dissected

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/10/myths-small-island-dangers-buccaneering-view-british-history

Fantastic essay. Deconstructs the concept of 'Global Britain' beautifully.

In essence, a de-historicised vision of the British Empire without the gun-boats and imperial thuggery that plays on modern Britons' nostalgia for not one but two imagined pasts.

Quote

Second, it enables a synthesis between two visions of British history that might otherwise seem at odds: one that casts Britain as a global titan; another that views it as a small island punching above its weight in the world. It treats the empire as something Britain did, not as something Britain was (and is no longer). It reimagines imperial history as an achievement against the odds; the story, as David Cameron put it in 2011, of “a small country that does great things”. It casts smallness as an essential ingredient in Britain’s historic success, not as a condition to which Britain has been reduced by the withdrawing of the imperial tide.

That idea of smallness – even at the peak of Britain’s imperial power – has deep roots in British folk memory. It is the story of Francis Drake, standing heroically against the mighty Spanish empire; of Robert Baden-Powell, bravely holding off the Boers at Mafeking; and of the fishing smacks and pleasure boats that defied the Nazi war machine at Dunkirk. In the most famous cartoon of the Second World War, the lone warrior stands on the British coast, his fist clenched in defiance, as the skies blacken beneath the shadow of the Luftwaffe.

In the high days of empire, such memories were a useful dishonesty. They allowed a military superpower to imagine itself as an embattled champion of freedom, engaged in heroic resistance against forces that willed its destruction. During the two world wars, when defeat was indeed a possibility, they served to bolster morale. Today, by contrast, they are put to more dangerous ends. They invoke a glorious past as a model for the future, while wiping from popular memory everything that made Britain such a formidable power. A story that celebrates smallness, that tells of glorious victories against impossible odds, has little room for Britain’s colossal military machine, unmatched economic power and global empire – whose contribution to the war effort it has shamefully forgotten.

 

 

[thecrashingisles]

13 minutes ago, crouch said:

Irrelevant. The post was about which laws we would not have enacted had we not been members of the EU, not about the trade offs we made by accepting those laws.

That's demonstrably wrong given that we actually did enact a common fisheries policy when we were not in the EEC/EU.

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

Edited October 10, 2019 by thecrashingisles

[crouch]

4 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Crouchy said ->

"The cost of food can be dismissed - seriously - dismissed - really? Are you trolling here because it looks like it? You ask a question because you don't think you'll get an answer; you get an answer, and your reaction - dismissal!"

Also, for the record I said "I can dismiss all of that [the policies] on the basis that for most people it was not a significant consideration". They were not in anyway the dominant factors before the referndum, even after they where weaponised in the referendum they still where not dominant factors. 

As for costs: You said: "The Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy have cost many billions in the last 46 years."  So....... something to do with costs then.  

 

The question related to sovereignty and which laws we would not have accepted but for membership of the EU and that question was answered.

However, both the CAP and the CFP have consequences for the cost of food; this is the essence of those policies - it might have been a policy on the environment which also has cost implications as a consequence. You are saying that the cost of food is not a significant consideration for most people and that is clearly nonsense.

Look you asked for some instances where we would not have accepted EU laws and that question has been answered.

[crouch]

3 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

That's demonstrably wrong given that we actually did enact a common fisheries policy when we were not in the EEC/EU.

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

Irrelevant. The CAP and the CFP are both policies which we would not have enacted in substance had we not been members of the EU.

[slawek]

13 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

Crouchy said ->

"The cost of food can be dismissed - seriously - dismissed - really? Are you trolling here because it looks like it? You ask a question because you don't think you'll get an answer; you get an answer, and your reaction - dismissal!"

Also, for the record I said "I can dismiss all of that [the policies] on the basis that for most people it was not a significant consideration". They were not in anyway the dominant factors before the referndum, even after they where weaponised in the referendum they still where not dominant factors. 

As for costs: You said: "The Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy have cost many billions in the last 46 years."  So....... something to do with costs then.  

 

Thank you, saved my time replying. Typical Crouchy maneuvers.

[zugzwang]

UK industrial production down again.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/industrial-production-mom

Quote

Industrial production in the UK fell 0.6 percent from a month earlier in August 2019, after a 0.1 percent gain in the previous month and compared with market expectations of a 0.1 percent decline. Manufacturing output dropped (-0.7 percent from 0.3 percent in July), led by basic pharmacutical products (-4.7 percent).

 

[IMHAL]

1 minute ago, crouch said:

1 - The question related to sovereignty and which laws we would not have accepted but for membership of the EU and that question was answered.

2 - However, both the CAP and the CFP have consequences for the cost of food; this is the essence of those policies - it might have been a policy on the environment which also has cost implications as a consequence. You are saying that the cost of food is not a significant consideration for most people and that is clearly nonsense.

3 - Look you asked for some instances where we would not have accepted EU laws and that question has been answered.

1 - Show me.

2 - I agree re costs of those policies, but that needs to be balanced against the costs of food and ALL other costs pertaining to the cost of living of leaving the EU. No good buying a pair of shoes for a quid when the weekly shop, fuel, taxes, cars, inflation completely overshadow any saving made.

3 - Show me

[thecrashingisles]

3 minutes ago, crouch said:

Irrelevant. The CAP and the CFP are both policies which we would not have enacted in substance had we not been members of the EU.

We wouldn't have enacted a multilateral policy on fisheries without being in the EU even though we actually did do so.  Right-o.

[Freki]

7 hours ago, Greg Bowman said:

Why? The UK driving test is pretty good. I don’t need an IDP in the US - is it because they are the most powerful country in the world and have a healthy dislike for pointless bureaucracy?

Sorry, but US not swamped with pointless bureaucracy? Here some data 

The UK is overwhelmingly better on bureaucracy related topics: Starting a business, Dealing with construction permits, Getting Electricity, paying taxes.

https://www.doingbusiness.org/en/data/exploreeconomies/united-states

vs the UK 

[zugzwang]

8 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

1 - Show me.

2 - I agree re costs of those policies, but that needs to be balanced against the costs of food and ALL other costs pertaining to the cost of living of leaving the EU. No good buying a pair of shoes for a quid when the weekly shop, fuel, taxes, cars, inflation completely overshadow any saving made.

3 - Show me

Also worth noting that the main 'Economists for Brexit' analysis by Minford and co. assumes that the UK imposes no health, environment or safety standards whatsoever on imported goods post Brexit.

Caveat emptor, red in tooth and claw.

[IMHAL]

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

Also worth noting that the main 'Economists for Brexit' analysis by Minford and co. assumes that the UK imposes no health, environment or safety standards whatsoever on imported goods post Brexit.

Caveat emptor, red in tooth and claw.

Good point...Not exactley like for like then. Sounds like the work of a spiv with an agenda.

[pig]

10 hours ago, Arpeggio said:

O.K. as you wish....

 

Your words "until everybody grows up." suggests that there is a certain end point in your mind. What would that be?

Well that’s difficult to sum up !

I guess you could say it’s been envisaged like some permanently prorogued Parliament, as if a giddy 17.4m  Government without opposition albeit led by the nose by a tiny elite making it up as they go along. I don’t know why but for some strange reason it’s creating a calamity...

We’re at a stage that lunatics - a lot of lunatics -  can say with a straight face that ‘no-deal’ would be a ‘democratic’ outcome that would ‘bring the country together’.

Referenda every year till the country is nauseated by that kind of idiocy. Mere 2nd refs are for wimps