Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit Referendum Superthread
Options
Comments
-
No, I've been on the receiving end of racist sh1te by someone I've known for years; told to "go home", "fvck off to Germany", called Neville Chamberlain, regards Brexit etc.
Over the years of living in the UK I have also heard (from other sources, not the bell-end mentioned above) casual comments that weren't directed at myself that belie a sense of looking unfavourably upon foreigners if not anything more sinister. I have even had the good fortune to effectively be barricaded into my home on several occasions by the police as the EDL/BNP/NF decided to hold "marches" past where I lived for several years. On that account I saw more than enough unsavoury behaviour directed at anyone who wasn't perceived as "English" and oh-so-very-white. I wont proclaim all of the above represents people the length & breadth of the UK, but there's certainly a sizeable minority who hold unpleasant - if not downright ugly - views. They have been emboldened by UKIP & a Westminister parliament that seems to be lurching to the far right of the aisles.
None of the underbelly of British attitudes towards Johnny Foreigner is helped by an entrenched gutter-press that lives off pedalling lazy stereotypes as if it's all fact. Add to that that most people I have ever had a conversation with in the UK about Europe in general was met with a staggering level of ignorance. Far more so than back home.
I make it a point of not going anywhere near tabloids. I avoid them like the plague as much as i can. Complete lies about virtually all EU matters. Cheerleaders for the Iraq war and spreading fear about Muslims.0 -
Well, not necessarily. It depends on the status of your visitors in Dublin.This is correct. I have had visitors in Dublin on ROI visas who wanted to go to Belfast. The did, but I did warn them that they would be there illegally. . . .
The Common Travel Area is only sustainable as long as UK and RoI policies regarding immigration/travel from the rest of the world are broadly aligned. If there is a large class of people who (a) want to enter the UK, but don't have he right to, and (b) do have the right to enter Ireland, the common travel area would obviously provide a back door into the UK. And vice versa, of course. A limited amount of this "leakage" can be tolerated but, really, not very much. Hence the UK and Irish governments have always sought to keep their migration/border control policies more or less aligned.
The result is that most people entitled to enter Ireland are also entitled to enter the UK. Obviously I don't know about the status of your visitors in Dublin, but most visitors to Dublin are entitled to enter the UK.
The second point is that, even if they aren't entitled to enter the UK, they would not be acting "illegally" in entering the UK. Not having a right to enter the UK means that you can lawfully be refused entry. But if, when you cross the border/land at a port/land at an airport, you aren't refused entry, that's fine. You are not breaking any law or doing anything illegal by entering the UK in those circumstances. Thus people who would be refused entry at Heathrow but who come to Ireland and cross the land border without inspection are in the UK perfectly legally. They don't have the right to stay there; they can be asked to leave at any time. But they have not acted in any way illegallly.
Getting back to Brexit and the CTA, the situation seems to be to be this:
EU and EEA nationals: Ireland will impose no restrictions at all on the movement of EU/EEA nationals. If post-Brexit UK wants to impose restrictions on the movement of EU/EEA nationals into the UK, it seems to me that the common travel area would be unsustainable; it would be easy (and, as noted above, perfectly lawful) for people to evade the UK restrictions by entering via Ireland.
Third-country nationals: If the UK wishes to tighten restrictions on the entry of third country nationals into the UK, the CTA is viable so long as Ireland is willing to mirror that, more or less, in its own border control policies. But of course if the UK wishes to do this they don't need Brexit to do it; they could do it tomorrow. Presumably, therefore, the UK already has in place the controls on third-country nationals that it wants.
That suggests that any new border controls that the UK will introduce after Brexit will be controls affecting EU/EEA nationals, and Ireland will be unable to mirror them. This means, I think, that unless the UK decides it can live with easily-evaded border controls for EU/EEA nationals, the CTA must come to an end.0 -
3 benefits of BrexitZubeneschamali wrote: »there are many rational reasons to vote for Brexit
I have seen that stated many times here, but I have yet to see any. Can you give us 3?
I do agree that Brexit will bring English nationalists an emotional boost from the feeling of independence and control.
But rationally, the UK is leaving the biggest free trade zone in the world. There will be a concrete, immediate and ongoing hit to the economy and budget, which, with the Tories in power will mean swinging cuts to public services. The UK government has estimated this as 3-6% of GDP, and there is no plan for how that can ever be made up.
Sterling devaluation to parity with the Euro (around perhaps $1.05-10) over the next 2 years will lead to lead to a period of inflation and erosion of living standards.
Rationally, is that cost worth paying for the feeling of independence and control? What, rationally speaking, is the UK going to do with that control?
Keep out the Poles? The UK economy needs them. If you exclude unskilled workers from the EU, who will pick fruit, make Lattés, stack shelves? May thinks Brits should work these jobs, but they are poorly paid. Will wages have to rise to tempt Brits? This will hit the economy again. Will unskilled labour be allowed in from the EU or the former colonies? This will make the whole thing redundant.
Restrictions on immigration will also empower and validate xenophobes and racists. We have seen an uptick in this behaviour just from talking about it - this will get worse. If the UK becomes less pleasant for immigrants, you won't just lose the unskilled ones. The skilled immigrants who power research and development, tech companies and the NHS will be less keen, too. Another hit to the economy and services.
Change EU laws and eliminate bureaucracy and red-tape for efficiency? Which EU laws? Be specific.
Get out from under the European courts? This is a big deal with May, because she would like to violate the human rights which those courts protect today. Do you really want to let her?
1) Re-gain the ability to decide their own:
*laws and regulations that they want to live by
*foreign policy
*immigration policy
*future
2) Negotiate and agree trade agreements that have UK interests at the heart where EU has proven incapable due to 28 different opinions
3) Leave the EU in a controlled manner before the EU disintegrates in an uncontrolled manner - which it surely will - it is only a matter of time.
To reply to some of your other points:
Negative impact on the UK economy:-
*A weaker pound is having a very positive effect on UK industry
-
*UK imports more from the EU than it exports to the EU - big industry in Germany will seek a compromise
-
*An ability to negotiate tailor-made trade agreements will boost UK's trade with non-EU
Stg devaluation leading to erosion of living standards:
You seem to forget that the Euro has depreciated against the dollar by 30 - 40% over the past year - what other depreciations are in store as the PIIGs inevitably suffer due to their huge debt levels during the next global downturn
Immigration policy
There is nothing to stop UK from issuing work visas to non-UK nationals - the point is the UK will control who they allow in.
Every country in the world has restrictions on visas - I'm not aware that this leads to significant increases in racist attacks.
Which EU laws?
All of them - especially the one about banana shapes.
UK will have to introduce equivalent laws if it wants its companies to offer its services to EU citizens - relevant to banking, insurance and investment management. This is no different for other non-EU countries.
European courts
Your comment suggests democratically elected governments aren't capable of enacting appropriate laws - why are you so eager to denigrate democracy? It's not perfect but its better than having rules imposed by bureaucrats that have not been elected by us.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »
Gove's point, unfortunately, was not as neutral or as responsible as you would appear to be crediting it. There is a great difference between saying that experts should not be above challenge simply because they are experts (which is obviously a fair statement) and saying that a broad consensus of experts saying that something is a bad idea, not least due to the fact that the bad idea has virtually no blueprint for implementation, should simply be ignored. Gove was not encouraging people to weigh up the opinions of a wide range of sources and come to their own opinion, he was encouraging people to ignore the wide range of sources in favour of a Brexit plan which even now has no apparent structure or credible plan. You cannot take Gove's point in vacuity either -- he was concurrently arguing that the NHS would receive a manifestly unrealistic amount of extra money, while also putting a forward a simplistic argument to voters regarding the concept of the UK's national sovereignty and Parliamentary supremacy, among other jingoistic ploys.
And while you may content yourself with the belief that my previous post amounted to a 'rant', I feel more than comfortable in saying that, notwithstanding that there are rational arguments in favour of Brexit, the reasons which spurred people to vote in favour were irrational. One does not rationally vote for seismic constitutional change without having ever seen any sort of credible solid plan for implementing said seismic change.
Finally, your point that the experts were wrong over the immediate aftermath of the Brexit vote is unfair -- the reason being that despite all the media attention, nothing has really happened on the Brexit front. The vote took place and the world waited to see how Brexit would take shape. Seven months down the line and all we know is that 'Brexit means Brexit' apparently ---- whatever that means. All the huge uncertainty (which was forecast) has led to a greatly weakened Pound and, despite the fact that a weak currency can yield attractive looking graphs on the FTSE in the short term, this is only mainly to the benefit of wealthy individual or institutional investors i.e. one version of the 'elites' to whom the British public were encouraged to show antipathy. For the everyday working British man and woman, it just made their hard-earned holiday that bit more expensive.
I respect your opinion on all of this. I'm sure you have compelling arguments against the UK's place in the EU, or the EU as a concept itself. I do as well. But on the Brexit vote, the British people were sold a concoction of misplaced nostalgia, flimsy ideas on sovereignty, outright lies and a fair dose of bigotry. With no plan in place to actually make good on what they were promised, they voted for it anyway. That is irrational.
I watched Gove's presentation where he was answering questions from the public audience and that's exactly what I took from it - that one should not assume experts are correct given their track record - and he went on the give examples.
Of course there are experts on both sides of every argument - including on the side of Brexit. Gove's point was that everyone should assess the facts for themselves - I thought this was obvious from his presentation.
It's your opinion that someone rational doesn't 'vote for seismic constitutional change without having ever seen any sort of credible solid plan' - but where's the plan for fixing the EU? Is staying in a broken set-up any less risky / irrational especially with the increasing risks of an uncontrolled disintegration.
I think May has done a good job at setting out her stall - she's prepared to go nuclear (hard Brexit). It's a good starting negotiating position and one she can definitely achieve - and the markets like it.
A weakened pound benefits British industry which benefits the British people. A weakened pound reduces the value of the wealthy - i.e. the opposite to what you say.0 -
If May is not willing to restrict Polish migration into the UK, then she may as well not bother restricting EU migration at all. Poland is, by a long measure, the country provding the largest share of non-citizens resident in the UK. The follows India, Ireland, Italy, Pakistan in that order.KingBrian2 wrote: »The Poles won't stand for that and they are good friends with the Brits. Theresa would not be cold to the Poles. They share a lot in common more than with Germany & France. I expect she will target the Bulgarians, Hungarians & Romanians. The Brits don't like them.
Of the three countries you expect her to target only one, Romania, makes the top ten list - 3.5% of the non-citizens living in the UK are from Romania.
Basically, insulating the Poles as you suggest will mean that whatever else you do can make no material difference to size or visibility of the Eastern European population resident in the UK. Poles outnumber all other Eastern European nationalities put together, and that by a very long measure.0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote:The result is that most people entitled to enter Ireland are also entitled to enter the UK. Obviously I don't know about the status of your visitors in Dublin, but most visitors to Dublin are entitled to enter the UK.
They were on ROI visas.0 -
That means they were entitled to enter the RoI; it doesn't mean that they weren't not entitled to enter the UK. In general, the ability to get a visa to enter the RoI suggests that you will be able to enter the UK, since the migration policies of both countries tend to be fairly closely aligned, for the reason already mentioned.They were on ROI visas.
Most people who can get leave to enter the RoI can get leave to enter the UK, and vice versa.0 -
Peregrinus wrote:Most people who can get leave to enter the RoI can get leave to enter the UK, and vice versa.
The visas were issued by an Irish embassy for entry to Ireland. Nowhere else.0 -
Yes, I know. The point is the visas issued by the Irish government tell you something about someone's right to enter the RoI, but they tell you nothing at all, one way or the other, about that person's right to enter the UK.The visas were issued by an Irish embassy for entry to Ireland. Nowhere else.
Nothing you have said so far suggests that your guests acted illegally in travelling to Belfast. Can I put it any more clearly than that?
At worst, they exposed themselves to the possibility of being required to leave the UK, but even that much is not certain from what you have said. And, if they did expose themselves to that possibility, there is nothing illegal in the UK (or indeed in Ireland) about exposing yourself to that possibility.0 -
Peregrinus wrote:Nothing you have said so far suggests that your guests acted illegally in travelling to Belfast. Can I put it any more clearly than that?
Not sure how much more clearly I can say that their visas were issued explicitly and exvlusively for Ireland.0 -
Advertisement
-
I repeat: yes, I know. But so what? That tells me nothing about what the legal situation is if they enter the UK. Or indeed any country in the world that isn't Ireland. Why do you think their holding of an Irish visa is remotely relevant to the question of whether they can enter the UK?Not sure how much more clearly I can say that their visas were issued explicitly and exvlusively for Ireland.
Think about it; the fact that you hold a visa for Ireland does not mean that you have no right to enter the UK/the US/Russia/Chile/Luxembourg/India/anywhere else. If there's a country in the world that has a rule banning entry to the holders of Irish visas, I don't know about it. I do know that the UK has no such rule.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I repeat: yes, I know. But so what? That tells me nothing about what the legal situation is if they enter the UK. Or indeed any country in the world that isn't Ireland. Why do you think their holding of an Irish visa is remotely relevant to the question of whether they can enter the UK?
Think about it; the fact that you hold a visa for Ireland does not mean that you have no right to enter the UK/the US/Russia/Chile/Luxembourg/India/anywhere else. If there's a country in the world that has a rule banning entry to the holders of Irish visas, I don't know about it. I do know that the UK has no such rule.
There are only a few countries that you need to have an Irish visa but don't need a UK visa. These are Timor-Leste, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, F.S. Micronesia, Namibia, Palau and Papua New Guinea. If the visitors were from any other country than these and they required an Irish visa, it means they needed a UK visa. They were not permitted to enter any part of the UK without a valid visa and could be deported if they were caught.0 -
Peregrinus wrote:Think about it; the fact that you hold a visa for Ireland does not mean that you have no right to enter the UK/the US/Russia/Chile/Luxembourg/India/anywhere else. If there's a country in the world that has a rule banning entry to the holders of Irish visas, I don't know about it. I do know that the UK has no such rule.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
If you are a citizen of a country that needs a visa to enter the UK, then you need a UK visa to be legally in the UK.
A visa that allows you to enter the ROI does not entitle you to be in the UK, including Northern Ireland.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 19380
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
If you are a citizen of a country that needs a visa to enter the UK, then you need a UK visa to be legally in the UK.
A visa that allows you to enter the ROI does not entitle you to be in the UK, including Northern Ireland.
Exactly.
By saying you can enter the UK (without a required UK visa) because you hold a valid Irish visa would suggest that the Irish authorities issue visas for the UK which is arrant nonsense.
If you are required to have a visa to enter the UK, then you must have one or suffer the consequences (which might involve imprisonment). Having an Irish visa and being present in Ireland does not change this.
I think Lasange might be in this category.0 -
-
What are you talking about?KingBrian2 wrote: »The Poles won't stand for that and they are good friends with the Brits.
There is a fair bit of evidence to suggest that the UK is particularly anti-immigration by European standards:KingBrian2 wrote: »Isolated cases in a country of over 60 million. Britain also donates a substantial portion of its wealth to countries around the world. Hardly a predominately xenophobic Nation although the referendum campaign was extremely divisive and vile.
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/21/xenophobia-britannica-anti-immigrant-attitudes-in-the-uk-are-among-the-strongest-in-europe/
Can we described is as a xenophobic country when it leaves the most prosperous trading bloc in the world just to get rid of a few foreigners?KingBrian2 wrote: »The UK cannot be described as a xenophobic country when we see isolated incidents of crime against foreigners.0 -
-
Every single piece of UK legislation gets passed in Westminster - every single bit of it.3 benefits of Brexit
1) Re-gain the ability to decide their own:
*laws and regulations that they want to live by
The EU invaded Iraq with W, did it?*foreign policy
The UK already has the power to substantially reduce non-EU immigration, but chooses not to.*immigration policy
What the hell does that mean?*future
Oh you mean like the one Protectionist Donald has “promised”? Good luck with that.2) Negotiate and agree trade agreements that have UK interests at the heart where EU has proven incapable due to 28 different opinions
Britain has been saying that since the ECSC came into being in 1951 - it will never last, they said.3) Leave the EU in a controlled manner before the EU disintegrates in an uncontrolled manner - which it surely will - it is only a matter of time.
That’s highly debatable given the rising costs of importing components, raw materials and energy.*A weaker pound is having a very positive effect on UK industry
But anyway, the problem is the UK doesn’t have a whole lot of industry to speak of - the economy is overwhelmingly service-based.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this will happen - it’s just wishful thinking on Britain’s part.*UK imports more from the EU than it exports to the EU - big industry in Germany will seek a compromise
...which will in no way compensate for the trade lost with the EU.*An ability to negotiate tailor-made trade agreements will boost UK's trade with non-EU
Maybe not a foregone conclusion, but it’s extremely unlikely that the UK will be better off for it.How this all plays out is anyone's guess - my point is that its not a foregone conclusion that exiting the EU will be negative in the long-run.
No it hasn’t? The USD/EUR exchange rate is almost exactly the same as it was in January 2016.You seem to forget that the Euro has depreciated against the dollar by 30 - 40% over the past year
And which law would that be?Which EU laws?
All of them - especially the one about banana shapes.
Which kind of undermines your argument, doesn’t it?UK will have to introduce equivalent laws if it wants its companies to offer its services to EU citizens - relevant to banking, insurance and investment management.
Ah yes, the glorious UK, with it’s single party government elected with just 37% of the vote, is somehow more democratic than the EU.Your comment suggests democratically elected governments aren't capable of enacting appropriate laws - why are you so eager to denigrate democracy? It's not perfect but its better than having rules imposed by bureaucrats that have not been elected by us.
What “expert” told you that?I watched Gove's presentation where he was answering questions from the public audience and that's exactly what I took from it - that one should not assume experts are correct given their track record - and he went on the give examples.
...
A weakened pound benefits British industry which benefits the British people.0 -
The problem with saying that new free trade deals will boost exports to non-eu countries and replace the lost trade to the EU is a total fallacy and needs to be called out. Britain has spent 40 years developing the market for British good and services in Europe, adopting European standards etc. It has an established market there.
What it is proposed is to leave the established market at least partially behind and replace the lost trade by going to new markets where it currently has a non-existant or small presence. It will take years for British exporters to cultivate these new markets to the same value of the European one.
In the very long run the strategy might pay off, but the problem is getting the public on-side for 10 to 15 years minimum where there are reduced exports as the new markets are built. The transition is the problem because it will lead to job losses.
I think that indeed was the problem with the remain campaign in that it's message wasn't simple. Vote Remain for Exports, vote Remain for jobs might have resonated better with the public.0 -
Yeah it's childish nonsense to suggest the UK can move from a position where it trades more with Ireland or Belgium than India or China to the reverse of that. Countries simply tend to trade more with neighbouring countries because it's much more cost effective and as mentioned above, the UK is service sector dominated these days. What are the going to do? Sell Barclaycards to Brazil?! If Britain was in anywhere near a position to be this global trading nation, it would already be so. If they haven't already managed to do more business with a former colony of theirs, that speaks English and has a billion people, than they do with the former colony of theirs with 5 million, then they will need nothing short of a miracle to turn that around.
The reality is the UK will continue depending mostly on trade with the EU, but under poorer conditions than now and financial services will be hit really hard, which is a particular problem for the UK. Germany can still sell BMWs into the UK with a 10% tariff, but the UK will be able to sell their Hondas and Toyotas into the EU with the same tariff, but (neglecting the fact cheap Japanese cars can be substituted easily for something else while prestige German marques cannot) the UK will suffer completely disproportionately when it comes to financial services as it's a mostly one way street and we coe back to the fact that the post Brexit EU will be made up of 27 states, so a loss in business fro the UK will be divided up across them.
The UK doesn't seem to realise that it is one ninth the size of the rest of the EU. It has a lot more to lose than the rest of the EU by leaving the single market.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19380
3 benefits of Brexit
Negative impact on the UK economy:
European courts
Your comment suggests democratically elected governments aren't capable of enacting appropriate laws - why are you so eager to denigrate democracy? It's not perfect but its better than having rules imposed by bureaucrats that have not been elected by us.
On devaluation:
In 1948, the GB£ was worth $4. It devalued to $2.80 in 1949.
In 1967, the GB£ was worth $2.80. It devalued to $2.40.
In 1975, Britain had to go to the IMF for a bail out loan.
So in 70 years, sterling has gone from $4 to the pound to $1.22 today.
So devaluation works, does it?
On Bureaucrats
Your reference to unelected bureaucrats is a reference to European Union civil servants. The EU civil servants are picked from member states, and the more senior are picked personally by commissioners who in turn are directly appointed by their (democratically elected) governments.
Who appoints the civil servants in London that implement the laws of the UK Government? Are they democratically appointed?0 -
A weakened pound benefits British industry which benefits the British people. A weakened pound reduces the value of the wealthy - i.e. the opposite to what you say.
A weakened pound increases the cost of imported staples like food and consumer goods and increases the cost of fuel. The poorer you are, the higher the percentage of your income that you spend on these necessities. (For example, the poorest 10% spend 26% of their income on food and groceries. The average spend 14%. And the wealthy the least) A decrease in the pound will hit the poor much worse then the wealthy.
British industry, only 11% of the economy, is growing at 1.2% (Nov 2016) per year. After a 15% decrease in sterling. That is below the rest of the national growth rate, so industry is still shrinking as a proportion of the economy. With this level of growth Britain will be poorer then it is now.
The thing that annoys me most is when people say they want to be free of EU regulations. With EU regulations, a company only had to adhere to one set of rules. Outside the EU, UK manufacturing will have to adhere to 2 if they want to sell to the EU (the EU and UKs), if they sign a trade deal with the US, they will have to adhere to 3 (as the US and the EU have some areas where the regulations are accepted as equivilant). How is this going to reduce red tape? If the UK signs a new trade deal with India, any company wishing to export there will now have to adhere to new set of Indian regulations and then comply with India's new monitoring processes. This is not less red tape.0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,315 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16343
Remember that promise from Nissan to keep building cars in the UK from October? Yea; they are going back on it if the UK deal will be to bad for them but there's no way May would get a poor deal on trade, right?0 -
I suspect that you're right regarding high spec, prestige cars. If someone wants a Q7 or 5 Series I don't think that an increase in price will cause them to flinch too much. I wouldn't be too sure about the 1 Series and Caddy van demographic however. Plus, bear in mind that about half of car sales in the UK last year were fleet sales. Increased list price means increased taxable benefit in kind for company cars. The middle scale 3 Series/A4 offering becomes a whole lot less attractive to the company driver.Yeah it's childish nonsense to suggest the UK can move from a position where it trades more with Ireland or Belgium than India or China to the reverse of that. Countries simply tend to trade more with neighbouring countries because it's much more cost effective and as mentioned above, the UK is service sector dominated these days. What are the going to do? Sell Barclaycards to Brazil?! If Britain was in anywhere near a position to be this global trading nation, it would already be so. If they haven't already managed to do more business with a former colony of theirs, that speaks English and has a billion people, than they do with the former colony of theirs with 5 million, then they will need nothing short of a miracle to turn that around.
The reality is the UK will continue depending mostly on trade with the EU, but under poorer conditions than now and financial services will be hit really hard, which is a particular problem for the UK. Germany can still sell BMWs into the UK with a 10% tariff, but the UK will be able to sell their Hondas and Toyotas into the EU with the same tariff, but (neglecting the fact cheap Japanese cars can be substituted easily for something else while prestige German marques cannot) the UK will suffer completely disproportionately when it comes to financial services as it's a mostly one way street and we coe back to the fact that the post Brexit EU will be made up of 27 states, so a loss in business fro the UK will be divided up across them.
The UK doesn't seem to realise that it is one ninth the size of the rest of the EU. It has a lot more to lose than the rest of the EU by leaving the single market.
Is it correct to say that, because the EU consists of 27 states, that any loss from business with the UK (I assume you mean lack of?) will be divided across the 27? The balance of trade from the UK isn't spread evenly so Estonia or Romania wouldn't suffer the same loss as Ireland or Spain for example.0 -
I watched Gove's presentation where he was answering questions from the public audience and that's exactly what I took from it - that one should not assume experts are correct given their track record - and he went on the give examples.
Of course there are experts on both sides of every argument - including on the side of Brexit. Gove's point was that everyone should assess the facts for themselves - I thought this was obvious from his presentation.
It's your opinion that someone rational doesn't 'vote for seismic constitutional change without having ever seen any sort of credible solid plan' - but where's the plan for fixing the EU? Is staying in a broken set-up any less risky / irrational especially with the increasing risks of an uncontrolled disintegration.
I think May has done a good job at setting out her stall - she's prepared to go nuclear (hard Brexit). It's a good starting negotiating position and one she can definitely achieve - and the markets like it.
A weakened pound benefits British industry which benefits the British people. A weakened pound reduces the value of the wealthy - i.e. the opposite to what you say.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on Gove's argument my friend.
To address your other points. One does not sensibly use a flamethrower to kill weeds among flowers. To say that the solution to some of the downsides of EU membership, given the incredible legal, political and economic complexities at play, is to simply jettison from it lacks sense and perspective. Calling it a broken setup seems to be a rather sweeping injustice when it stands as one of the world's mightiest economic blocs, which has transformed a battlefield of a continent into an integrated and peaceful union with high living standards, progressive multicultural societies and for the most part economic prosperity. It has stood as an example that nations and cultures can bury old hatchets and co-exist in the principles of peace, free trade and free movement --- all without losing that which makes them nations. I do not ignore its flaws, and I have my own disagreements with some of the decisions which its institutions take (for example, I disagreed with its treatment of Ireland over Apple tax but that's one for another day). But in a world where flaws will always exist, we can only speak on balance -- and on balance I am very satisfied in saying that I love the EU and that which it stands for in general.
To say that Theresa May has done well in setting out her stall, well, has she? She has done nothing but say exactly what anyone would expect her to say, which is essentially to sound definitive on Britain's conviction to see this through, but to be clear as mud as to what any of that actually means in practice and timescale. There is no great articulate tact or nuance to that. And as for your point that its better to see Brexit (and I presume you also mean similar Exits by other member states) rather than withstand what you perceive to be the "increasing risks of an uncontrolled disintegration" --- on that logic, why don't we all just give up on absolutely everything, retreat to the mountains and wait out the increasing risk of apocalypse through nuclear war or natural disaster?
I feel quite confident in saying that the current paradigm with the Pound will have little to no noticeable bearing on the standard of life of the ordinary British people -- in whose name the referendum was ostensibly won. The people it will benefit are those with the wealth and resources to play the great FX game and gamble huge pools of funds on the flux of the markets -- that is, financial institutions and investment managers acting on behalf of high-net worth investors. The fatcats triumph again, at the expense of the integrity of a Union of nations which has established itself as a symbol of prosperity, peace, progress and integration.
It is sometimes easy to come across as dismissive of others views on these faceless message boards. I do apologise in advance if anything said above comes across as such.0 -
Sam Russell wrote: »On devaluation:
In 1948, the GB£ was worth $4. It devalued to $2.80 in 1949.
In 1967, the GB£ was worth $2.80. It devalued to $2.40.
In 1975, Britain had to go to the IMF for a bail out loan.
So in 70 years, sterling has gone from $4 to the pound to $1.22 today.
So devaluation works, does it?
Works at what? I'd judge the success of an economy by measuring the change in GDP per capita - though I suspect most economies will compare unfavourably to the US on that score.Sam Russell wrote: »[On Bureaucrats
Your reference to unelected bureaucrats is a reference to European Union civil servants. The EU civil servants are picked from member states, and the more senior are picked personally by commissioners who in turn are directly appointed by their (democratically elected) governments.
Who appoints the civil servants in London that implement the laws of the UK Government? Are they democratically appointed?
The civil servants aren't appointed by the populace but then they don't make the laws either so your point is irrelevant.
EU Commissioners are mandated to act in the best interests of the EU, not the nation that they come from. So, in what sense is there any democratic connection between the UK and it's EU commissioner?0 -
Every single piece of UK legislation gets passed in Westminster - every single bit of it.
Under the EU's qualified-majority-voting, a law passes if it is backed by 16 out of 28 countries that make up at least 65% of the EU population. Even if the British Government doesn't vote in favour of the law it is obliged to enact it regardless.The EU invaded Iraq with W, did it?
No, but then I didn't say that.
EU's foreign policy objectives are:
-to safeguard the EU's values, fundamental interests, security, independence and integrity;
-to consolidate and support democracy, the rule of law, human rights and the principles of international law;
-to preserve peace, prevent conflicts and strengthen international security;
-to assist populations, countries and regions confronting natural or man-made disasters.The UK already has the power to substantially reduce non-EU immigration, but chooses not to.
You're missing the point - the UK wants to decide for itself who should be allowed into its country.That’s highly debatable given the rising costs of importing components, raw materials and energy.
But anyway, the problem is the UK doesn’t have a whole lot of industry to speak of - the economy is overwhelmingly service-based.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this will happen - it’s just wishful thinking on Britain’s part.
...which will in no way compensate for the trade lost with the EU.
Maybe not a foregone conclusion, but it’s extremely unlikely that the UK will be better off for it.
Obviously there's not evidence since it's way to early- business is business though and I think big German businesses will have a significant say on negotiations - the same as they always do.No it hasn’t? The USD/EUR exchange rate is almost exactly the same as it was in January 2016.
Okay - over the past 3 years - the point is the euro has suffered a huge depreciation over the past few years which was my response to your concern that a depreciated GBP will hit the UK population badly. My point is that EU citizens have suffered due to the weak euro - the euro is no safe haven / safe store of wealth.And which law would that be?
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94Which kind of undermines your argument, doesn’t it?
No, since the UK decides whether it wants to introduce equivalent laws or not. The key point is its UK's decision.Ah yes, the glorious UK, with it’s single party government elected with just 37% of the vote, is somehow more democratic than the EU.
EU Commissioners are mandated to act in the best interests of the EU, not the nation that they come from. So, yes the UK is more democratic than the EU.What “expert” told you that?
If currency devaluation was always detrimental then why would any country ever do it.0 -
ArthurDayne wrote: »
To address your other points. One does not sensibly use a flamethrower to kill weeds among flowers. To say that the solution to some of the downsides of EU membership, given the incredible legal, political and economic complexities at play, is to simply jettison from it lacks sense and perspective. Calling it a broken setup seems to be a rather sweeping injustice when it stands as one of the world's mightiest economic blocs, which has transformed a battlefield of a continent into an integrated and peaceful union with high living standards, progressive multicultural societies and for the most part economic prosperity. It has stood as an example that nations and cultures can bury old hatchets and co-exist in the principles of peace, free trade and free movement --- all without losing that which makes them nations. I do not ignore its flaws, and I have my own disagreements with some of the decisions which its institutions take (for example, I disagreed with its treatment of Ireland over Apple tax but that's one for another day). But in a world where flaws will always exist, we can only speak on balance -- and on balance I am very satisfied in saying that I love the EU and that which it stands for in general.
I think people are feeling the EU is causing them to lose what makes them nations - in my view, it is predominantly this concern that has driven British people to vote Brexit and what is driving the success of the National Front in France and similar parties elsewhere.ArthurDayne wrote: »To say that Theresa May has done well in setting out her stall, well, has she? She has done nothing but say exactly what anyone would expect her to say, which is essentially to sound definitive on Britain's conviction to see this through, but to be clear as mud as to what any of that actually means in practice and timescale. .
Realistically how can you expect her to articulate what it actually means in practice and what the timelines will be when negotiations haven't even begun? The only thing she can be certain of achieving is a hard Brexit - everything else is up to the EU and how it approaches negotiations.ArthurDayne wrote: »There is no great articulate tact or nuance to that. And as for your point that its better to see Brexit (and I presume you also mean similar Exits by other member states) rather than withstand what you perceive to be the "increasing risks of an uncontrolled disintegration" --- on that logic, why don't we all just give up on absolutely everything, retreat to the mountains and wait out the increasing risk of apocalypse through nuclear war or natural disaster?
Not sure I can respond sensibly to that.ArthurDayne wrote: »I feel quite confident in saying that the current paradigm with the Pound will have little to no noticeable bearing on the standard of life of the ordinary British people -- in whose name the referendum was ostensibly won. The people it will benefit are those with the wealth and resources to play the great FX game and gamble huge pools of funds on the flux of the markets -- that is, financial institutions and investment managers acting on behalf of high-net worth investors. The fatcats triumph again, at the expense of the integrity of a Union of nations which has established itself as a symbol of prosperity, peace, progress and integration.
I disagree that there is integrity of a Union of nations when Germany / France dominate the decision-making - e.g. Merkel's overriding of the Dublin rule without discussing / agreeing with the rest of the EU; Apple tax ruling; Ireland prevented from burning subordinated bondholders (would hate to have to rely on the EU preventing the fatcats triumphing!)0 -
British industry, only 11% of the economy, is growing at 1.2% (Nov 2016) per year. After a 15% decrease in sterling. That is below the rest of the national growth rate, so industry is still shrinking as a proportion of the economy. With this level of growth Britain will be poorer then it is now.
Not sure I follow your point or how your stats make sense. British industry includes both the manufacturing and service sectors.
If you are referring to the manufacturing sectors then given the capital investment required I expect there will be a lead-time before the lower fx rate will feed into higher growth rates / proportion of economy.
Obviously a currency devaluation will make it relatively poorer in the short-term but an increase in competitiveness should counter this over time.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ffs Germany does not dominate. It has voting weight less than every other country in the EU! A country of 82 million does deserve some bloody recognition.
Germany, for the record, has 16.5% of the population with 9.1% of the votes and has the poorest population to voting weight ratio.
Malta has 0.1% of the population with 0.66% of the votes and has the best population to voting weight ratio.
The system was recently changed. It was previously even unfairer to Germany!
Even if Germany and France are united on an issue, they only have 17.66% of the votes in the council.
It's this misinformation that helped cause Brexit.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement