Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You criticise the Mail and then quote the Guardian?

 

:-D 

I just added reported news.

I wouldn't necessarily defend the Guardian but the Daily Mai is just the worst rag going.

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

Why should we accept this as fact when numerous EU politicians have said the opposite?

 

Because it suits your narrative?

She's the EU trade commissioner.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

On ‎24‎/‎04‎/‎2017 at 22:38, Thracian said:

I don't think Foxxed is very keen on Brexit. And yet some opposed to Brexit will willingly vote for a guy who'd facilitate a £10 an hour minimum wage, never mind what that would do for inflation and never mind the truism that it's not how many £'s an hour you earn so much as what those pounds will buy - and for how many people - given that a whole lot of employees would be shed if businesses became unprofitable.

 

I notice the gloom merchants have nothing to say about the economic impact of being able to tap billions of founds worth of shale and other gas both onshore and off, once we come to our senses and start getting on with the job of getting at it..

 

And even some of the "negatives" mentioned actually offer opportunities for our existing residents, who should never have been neglected or disadvantaged in the first place. If anyone seriously believes people are not going to be keen to trade with the UK, they're bad-dreaming.

 

I said little or nothing about economic upsides after the Brexit decision because I knew there'd be swings and roundabouts, some with UK dimensions and others related much more to other events.

 

But will Brexit actually happen. I'm still not convinced. There are so many cancers eating against the idea but it has to happen for me. Britain needs to be a leader instead of a follower again even a leader only of itself - and I hope France is starting to feel the same.

 

Maybe a new form of European co-operation will evolve because it needs to and quickly if anything is to remain in 10 years time.

 

But there'll need to be some radical re-thinking and I don't mean Corbynism and that kind of road to ruin although that doesn't mean there doesn't need to be a whole lot more incentive for the advancement of lower income people and improved aspirational opportunities for those people and their families.

 

And that should centre on an emphasis of responsibility involving everyone.

 

The nation for its citizens (their health, fitness, education, opportunities etc), the people for their families and those they work for and employers for their staff and their local communities to quote a few examples.

 

As I've always said about human rights - it's a flawed concept without human responsibility. And right now too many responsibilities for our communities are being neglected all round.

 

We can set an example to others but can only be responsible for our own communities because the wider responsibilities become the more the system is stretched and the weaker it becomes, resulting in the demise of many an empire throughout history and now blatantly apparent in the creaking of the EU. .       

 ..       

 

   

 

   

Another fine post Thac.

[Kopfkino]

34 minutes ago, toddybad said:

What exactly will you be doing to directly influence the outcome? We'll all be working in the same jobs (we hope). The outcome won't be decided by us.

 

The evidence was 40 years of economic growth, world's biggest financial centre (for all its sins), peace in Europe (historically something of an oddity) and stability. Addedto that the predictions of every expert and serious organisation known to man. Further evidence is offered by the number of times the UK government has tried to breach EU laws which would harm its own population (in relation to climate change and pollution, for example- the only reason Britain has clean beaches today is because the EU took Britain to court over the issue 20+ years ago when our waters were filled with excrement) and hasn't been allowed. This 'freedom' from the EU courts will mean that the Tory party is able to do whatever it wants to help the rich and screw the poor. 

 

On the other side, Gove, Boris, Farage and the Daily Mail. 

 

 

We're all economic agents, we're all political actors in some way. No I won't be there negotiating but it's daft to think we don't have a role to play as citizens.

 

This isn't evidence, this is creating implying the EU is responsible for all that without any idea of actual causality.

 

- Had similarly strong economic growth between 1830 and 1870, what's your point?

- London was the world's financial centre in the 60s, lost its way in the 90s. This has little to do with the EU and is very unlikely to change after we leave.

- Peace and stability in Europe was evidence to vote remain, why? 

- I have spent the last 10 weeks at uni studying how dreadfully wrong economists get it a lot of the time. As someone that studies economics, I would be reluctant to listen to any of them. The Bank of England (about the only ones I would have any mind to trust) has already come out and admitted it got it woefully wrong in its forecasts for the aftermath of the vote.

- I wish I could find the reading and if I do I will edit but since 2010 the UK has contravened EU law one of the fewest of all EU nations. Still you are right about the beaches, all the shit I'll have to wade through in 3 years time damn.

- Nice conjecture to finish off. Evidence indeed.

[Buce]

19 minutes ago, Webbo said:

She's the EU trade commissioner.

 

I see.

 

And does she have absolute authority on this issue?

[bovril]

46 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You criticise the Mail and then quote the Guardian?

As well he should. The Guardian is biased of course, but its journalism is of a much higher quality than the Mail.

[Buce]

26 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

Another fine post Thac.

 

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I see.

 

And does she have absolute authority on this issue?

I don't know, but I'm guessing she's been involved in the discussions amongst the people that have.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

As well he should. The Guardian is biased of course, but its journalism is of a much higher quality than the Mail.

Really? Paul Mason?

[Guest]

Thing is there's no way it can be tested who is right or wrong, even after it's happened. 

 

For the most part, nobody really disagrees that we'll be worse off economically - and certainly not better off - even the Brexiteers like Boris  aren't trying to argue that now.

It's the rather untestable idea of 'bringing back control' which seems to now be the fundamental argument that Farage and Boris are now using. They aren't even talking about reducing migration any more. 

 

The remainers may be able to point at economic difficulty in the future (and maybe not) but leavers don't seem to be using that as their test of success.

It would be interesting to know what test leavers will use to judge the success of Brexit when it comes - as things stand there is still relative hostility on both sides so leavers aren't really talking about, and certainly don't seem able to admit to, there needing to be a measure by which success or otherwise would be viewed, in their eyes. 

 

Another complicating factor is that the deal reached within the next two years may well only be the deal about the temporary arrangements between Brexit and a final deal being reached. Recent EU pronouncements have suggested that Britain would be subject to all sorts of expectations which fundamentally oppose the Brexit movement - remaining in the single market by paying into the budget, continuing with free movement etc. Do leave voters expect that the deal agreed in 2 years will do away with all of this immediately or are they happy to accept this on the road to the final deal?

 

So an open question to you leavers - which of these would be success or otherwise or is there another way by which you'll determine if your hopes have been met?:

• reduced immigration from the EU - either with increased immigration from outside offsetting this or an overall reduction in immigration
• economy - performing at least as well as equivalent (i.e. the richer) EU nations, or under-performing within a certain %
• payments into EU budget - do you want zero payment? Would you accept making payments to retain single market access?

There are obviously a whole host of other issues which you might consider important.

 

Given that part of the issue was apparently bringing back control in terms of the law, what are leave voters feeling about the fact that the UK politial class and civil service is going to be overwhelmed for years dealing with Brexit and overhauling British law to deal with the implications? Does this matter? The current government has purposely reduced policy announcements etc to a minimum to allow a focus on this issue. Also, the Tories want to implement a law to allow ministers to alter laws without parliamentary oversight - does this concern you. 

 

Given that I am pretty firmly against the idea of Brexit, whilst accepting that in a democracy it has to happen unless the population changes its mind (and they won't be asked to finalise any deal so it's irrelevant now), I'd really like people that voted leave to explain at what point they would feel disappointed as it isn't as clear as for us remainers. 

[bovril]

Just now, Webbo said:

Really? Paul Mason?

Who still writes better than 90% of Mail journalists even though I don't personally like his articles. There is a lot of guff in the Guardian, especially the opinion pieces. But they still consistently pull out great articles, more so than most mainstream newspapers.

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I don't know, but I'm guessing she's been involved in the discussions amongst the people that have.

 

Well, that's excellent news, if true, but I fully expect to see it contradicted in the next few days.

 

 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

Who still writes better than 90% of Mail journalists even though I don't personally like his articles. There is a lot of guff in the Guardian, especially the opinion pieces. But they still consistently pull out great articles, more so than most mainstream newspapers.

If you want foaming at the mouth fanatics you'll find more in the Guardian than Mail. As for the writing The Guardian aspires to be a high brow paper the Mail is middlebrow.

[ajthefox]

41 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Mac may have been trolling, but I'd defend what he said. To me it is dishonest to now say it will be great because the majority of voters want it (For one it's a logical fallacy - argument ad populum), when it was self-evidently a bad idea 12 months ago, and there's been no sign of that changing. 

 

I accept the result happened, doesn't mean I have to agree with the verdict - we're leaving, fine, but it's dishonest to yourself to abandon your views to better fit in.

 

You can make a fuss all you like but that is not fact. It is an opinion. As widely held as the opposite, but an opinion none-the-less.

 

And anyways, you've gone off on a tangent here. Izzy didn't say that brexit will be great and he isn't abandoning his views. He was just pointing out that we might as well at least try and work together to get the best deal for ourselves rather than just completely exclude ourselves from discussion and leave everything to leave voters so we can say "I told you so". It's a fvcking ridiculous standpoint to take and one that Mac isn't actually endorsing. But you seemingly are...

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you want foaming at the mouth fanatics you'll find more in the Guardian than Mail. As for the writing The Guardian aspires to be a high brow paper the Mail is middlebrow.

 

 

Is there such a thing? Or is it a concept of your own design?

[bovril]

Just now, Webbo said:

If you want foaming at the mouth fanatics you'll find more in the Guardian than Mail. As for the writing The Guardian aspires to be a high brow paper the Mail is middlebrow.

If you're talking about the BTL comments, then I imagine they're the same people on both sites writing nonsense to get reactions. A cursory glance at the headlines of both newspapers at the moment makes it clear which readership is more likely to be 'foaming at the mouth'.

You're right though, they are different types of papers targeting different readers. I don't know why people compare them, other than they're both biased which could be said of most media outlets.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

Is there such a thing? Or is it a concept of your own design?

It's a term I've heard before, somewhere between low brow and high brow.

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you want foaming at the mouth fanatics you'll find more in the Guardian than Mail. As for the writing The Guardian aspires to be a high brow paper the Mail is middlebrow.

 

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's a term I've heard before, somewhere between low brow and high brow.

 

Yep.

 

Pretty much sums up the Mail..

 

middlebrow

adjective

derogatory

• Demanding, involving, or having only a moderate degree of intellectual application.

  ‘middlebrow fiction’

[Izzy]

45 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Mac may have been trolling, but I'd defend what he said. To me it is dishonest to now say it will be great because the majority of voters want it (For one it's a logical fallacy - argument ad populum), when it was self-evidently a bad idea 12 months ago, and there's been no sign of that changing. 

 

I accept the result happened, doesn't mean I have to agree with the verdict - we're leaving, fine, but it's dishonest to yourself to abandon your views to better fit in.

I don't think anyone is particularly hanging from the rafters shouting "it will be great" because there are still so many unknowns.

 

And I'm not suggesting for one minute that remainers should agree with the verdict or abandon their views - that would indeed be dishonest and incongruent.

 

My issue is with some people actively sounding like they want the whole process to fail, just so they can say "I told you so". To me that's just immature and driven by peoples own personal ego and status.

 

I'm sure we all disagree with decisions made at work every day - but we just have to get on with it. Those who sulk, moan, whinge and dig their heels in are 

just seen as 'blockers' to change and disrupt the whole process from moving forward.

 

 

 

 

 

[sphericalfox]

8 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

Is there such a thing? Or is it a concept of your own design?

it's another word for unibrow.

 

 

[The Doctor]

41 minutes ago, ajthefox said:

 

You can make a fuss all you like but that is not fact. It is an opinion. As widely held as the opposite, but an opinion none-the-less.

 

And anyways, you've gone off on a tangent here. Izzy didn't say that brexit will be great and he isn't abandoning his views. He was just pointing out that we might as well at least try and work together to get the best deal for ourselves rather than just completely exclude ourselves from discussion and leave everything to leave voters so we can say "I told you so". It's a fvcking ridiculous standpoint to take and one that Mac isn't actually endorsing. But you seemingly are...

Not all opinions are equal, and mine is aligned with experts in a lot of fields. Frankly I like those odds.

 

We've not really got a say on it from here though, so the options presented are get behind it and pretend to agree with the decision, or don't. Like if city were to decide to sack off Shakespeare and appoint Harry Redknapp this summer. I'm not on the board, I don't get a say in who the manager is - all I can do is either pretend that I think it's the right call, or say that appointing Redknapp is moronic. Frankly, I'm not throwing myself behind brexit for the same reason I'd not throw myself behind 'arry - because I can't do so and preserve my integrity. 

 

As for saying I told you so - I don't want to have to be saying that, I've got a lot of roots here and don't particularly want to uproot to the continent if I can avoid it, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't expecting to.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Not all opinions are equal, and mine is aligned with experts in a lot of fields. Frankly I like those odds.

 

We've not really got a say on it from here though, so the options presented are get behind it and pretend to agree with the decision, or don't. Like if city were to decide to sack off Shakespeare and appoint Harry Redknapp this summer. I'm not on the board, I don't get a say in who the manager is - all I can do is either pretend that I think it's the right call, or say that appointing Redknapp is moronic. Frankly, I'm not throwing myself behind brexit for the same reason I'd not throw myself behind 'arry - because I can't do so and preserve my integrity. 

 

As for saying I told you so - I don't want to have to be saying that, I've got a lot of roots here and don't particularly want to uproot to the continent if I can avoid it, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't expecting to.

If I was in the financial position to do so, that's exactly what I'd do too. Though to be fair I'd do that without Brexit as I really can't see what's so great about the British quality of life. 

[Buce]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/27/eu-trade-commissioner-says-bloc-will-do-post-brexit-free-trade/

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/28/eu-leaders-to-insist-uk-pays-its-brexit-bills-as-precursor-to-trade-talks

 

Not quite so straightforward then.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, bovril said:

As well he should. The Guardian is biased of course, but its journalism is of a much higher quality than the Mail.

I'm a firm believer that quality will always sell, the Guardian circulation is dropping like a stone. The only thing they do better than the Mail in my experience is keep the utter shit they often spout off the front page.

[ajthefox]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Not all opinions are equal, and mine is aligned with experts in a lot of fields. Frankly I like those odds.

 

We've not really got a say on it from here though, so the options presented are get behind it and pretend to agree with the decision, or don't. Like if city were to decide to sack off Shakespeare and appoint Harry Redknapp this summer. I'm not on the board, I don't get a say in who the manager is - all I can do is either pretend that I think it's the right call, or say that appointing Redknapp is moronic. Frankly, I'm not throwing myself behind brexit for the same reason I'd not throw myself behind 'arry - because I can't do so and preserve my integrity. 

 

As for saying I told you so - I don't want to have to be saying that, I've got a lot of roots here and don't particularly want to uproot to the continent if I can avoid it, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't expecting to.

But likewise surely you realise there are plenty of well informed people who disagree with you and the experts you refer to though. 

 

We've got a general election to vote in. I'd argue that in itself is a significant say which will subsequently influence the negotiations.

 

And why does anyone have to pretend to agree? No-one has to pretend anything, I don't understand why you're painting it as if anyone who voted remain and tries to help form the best deal is a liar. It's bizarre. What do you suppose all of the remain voting MPs are going to do in the commons? Ignore all of the debates? It doesn't make them dishonest to be party to those discussions.

 

Imagine....

 

The wife and mother of my child decides to break up with me. In spite of weeks of talks about how I don't think we should and that we should remain together, she insists on leaving permanently. I help in the splitting up of belongings and in devising the best set up for our child's living arrangements. That doesn't make me a liar just because I enabled the process of splitting up even though I disagreed with the idea pf it. It makes me an adult who accepts the situation and does what he can to improve it. Not part-taking in that process ends up with you being the dick who doesn't get to see his kid.