Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't share your view. I think these were clearly wrong and clearly intended to manipulate voters.

If they weren't certainly true they shouldn't have been said.

No prediction about the future can be "certainly true", particularly where it depends on the future behaviour of human beings (as all the predictions you list did).

If your rule were strictly applied, then the entire Brexit campaign, suggesting that the UK would be better off outside the EU, was a tissue of statements that should never have been made; they were not certainly true, and they were intended to manipulate voters. Your own posts on this board expressing the view that the UK will negotiate trade deals more advantageous than the ones it currently participates in are posts that you should not be making; they are not certainly true. And so forth.

On edit: I think you can criticise predictions about the future if you can show that the people making the predictions did not themselves believe them when they made the statement. "The UK will negotiate good trade deals" is not a lie, and does not become a lie if, in the event, the UK negotiates terrible trade deals, or no trade deals at all. But "I believe that the UK will negotiate good trade deals" would be a lie if the person making the statement did not believe that.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Yes, there's no way to justify your view as a democrat and oppose implementing the result of the referendum. There's no way to claim referenda don't or haven't had a place on the British electoral system when they have been used for decades either.

Yes there is. It was advisory, a glorified opinion poll. I don't know why you keep abusing that word to be honest. You've also ignored the argument I've made.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Let's be fair the remain side sold some shocking lies. The Treasury said there would be unemployment and a recession in the immediate aftermath of leaving the EU.

Clue is in the name there, "Analysis". The reasoning is clearly visible.

solodeogloria wrote: »

[URL=
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/08/brexit-hit-house-prices-significantly-george-osborne-eu-referendum]George Osborne said house prices would plummet and mortgage costs would increase[/URL].
This didn't happen. Borrowing costs are lower. House prices are broadly stable and rising in most areas.

We haven't left yet.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Barack Obama told us that the UK would be at the back of the queue in respect to trade with the US.

So far this seems to be true. Trump's opinion on the subject seems to change with the tides so who really knows.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The IMF warned the UK would be in recession in 2017. Not true.

Again, the UK is still an EU member.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: The IMF again on a prophesied stock market crash after the referendum and severe crash in house prices. Didn't happen, wasn't going to happen. Manipulative fear mongering.

You don't seem to know what a lie is. A lie is a deliberate falsehood told by someone who know what the truth is. This was a warning of what could happen.

solodeogloria wrote: »

David Cameron told us he would be prime minister after the referendum and he would pull Article 50 after the referendum.

This might have been true when he'd said it. He was banking heavily on a leave win at the time. It's ultimately irrelevant. People voted Leave regardless. This was a trivial thing to base your argument on.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Where was ancapailldorcha during the referendum campaign? He'll probably make some excuses for these now. I don't particularly mind if he does.

Would it not be a bit hypocritical of my to ask you to list something and then not respond?

The fact is Brexit is happening. The people voted for it. Get over it.

That's more like it! That's the Brexiteer mindset right there. "We got what we wanted and that's all that matters. Who cares that you're worried about your job or your right to live here? Screw the NHS, we were never going to fund it anyway."

I appreciate the honesty at least. I truly do.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Again - all of these are about the immediate aftermath of the referendum. You don't get to rewrite what was said.

Personally I think it's pretty clear how the remain campaign bent the truth time and time again. I believed it also when I went to the ballot box.

The pressing question is:
If project fear got it so catastrophically wrong then, why should people believe the fearmongering now?

From what I can see there's no good reason to both on the basis of their track record and on the basis of what they are saying. This is a fair point. How much more wrong could they have been?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

If they weren't certainly true they shouldn't have been said.
It's fair to ask the remain side to acknowledge the clear untruths from their side of the campaign.

When you're picking up your P45 and looking abroad for work will you accept that Brexit was a mistake? I know, you're a dev (like me) so you'll likely not end up having to leave the UK for work, especially as the image the UK is now presenting to the world is (sadly) a less welcoming one and devs from the rest of the world are less interested in working in the UK now. But for many other jobs this will not be the case. Brexit is going to do massive damage to the UK economy if it happens the way the Tories want it to happen (though I agree that it should be Brexit or no Brexit (possibly not an option any more). A Norway deal is the worst of both worlds for the UK).

So let me rephrase. Will you accept Brexit was a mistake if unemployment rises to say 10% a couple of years after the formalities and hand-holding transition periods end?

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again - all of these are about the immediate aftermath of the referendum. You don't get to rewrite what was said.

No, they weren't no matter how you lie about it.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Personally I think it's pretty clear how the remain campaign bent the truth time and time again. I believed it also when I went to the ballot box.

So you were fine with the racist fearmongering from the Leave side, the threats about Turkey joining, the lies about the NHS, the promises of increased trade deals, etc.... Lies that suit your agenda are fine so you'll just lie about the other side then so.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The pressing question is:
If project fear got it so catastrophically wrong then, why should people believe the fearmongering now?

Project fear won if you recall. The Remain side made arguments based on the opinions of experts and projections. They didn't need to resort to stoking people's prejudices or insinuating that their wages were low because of foreigners or that 80 million Turks were on the way.

If I rephrase your question to ask why people should be optimistic about Brexit then some reasons for optimism would probably help instead of the usual spiel about glorious opportunities you can't detail.

solodeogloria wrote: »

From what I can see there's no good reason to both on the basis of their track record and on the basis of what they are saying. This is a fair point. How much more wrong could they have been?

You mean the referendum that was lost by the remain side by a few percent? Hardly a case that they couldn't have been "Much more wrong".

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Again - all of these are about the immediate aftermath of the referendum. You don't get to rewrite what was said.

Personally I think it's pretty clear how the remain campaign bent the truth time and time again. I believed it also when I went to the ballot box.

The pressing question is:
If project fear got it so catastrophically wrong then, why should people believe the fearmongering now?

From what I can see there's no good reason to both on the basis of their track record and on the basis of what they are saying. This is a fair point. How much more wrong could they have been?

They could have been much, much wronger. They could have been as wrong as the people who said that the UK was sending 350 million a week to the EU, for example. They could have been as wrong as Boris Johnson when he said that "EU citizens living in this country will have their rights fully protected", which it now turns out is not the government's plan. They could get it as wrong as Liam Fox, who during the referendum campaign predicted that a UK outside the EU would take advantage of its freedom to negotiate for itself a different trading relationship with the world, tailored to British circumstances, but now that he is the Minister in charge of doing precisely that has decided to target a trading relationship modelled as closely as possible on the one the UK currently has as an EU member.

And these examples could be multiplied. But what would be the point? Each prediction is an independent event. The fact that a particular prediction came true, or did not come true, tells us nothing about whether an entirely different prediction will, or will not, come true. Whether a prediction about the future behaviour of other people will come true or not depends on the behaviour of those other people, and not on the character of the person making the prediction.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

No, they weren't no matter how you lie about it.

The first link is a treasury report about the immediate aftermath of the referendum.

George Osborne was speaking of an economic shock and house prices after the referendum.

The IMF spoke about the same shock in the second article.

The IMF predicted a recession in 2017 before Brexit day in 2019.
Read the articles again. None of the stuff in here was true.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

So you were fine with the racist fearmongering from the Leave side, the threats about Turkey joining, the lies about the NHS, the promises of increased trade deals, etc.... Lies that suit your agenda are fine so you'll just lie about the other side then so.

The prospect about trade deals is very much true and is will an argument for being out. When the UK leaves the customs union these can be struck.

The arguments about Turkey and Iraq were disgraceful. I agree. I wish you could honestly say the same about the fearmongering from the Treasury.

The figures about the NHS were also wrong.

There's no point calling me a liar when I'm willing to say that these weren't true. There's also no point calling me a liar for reading what the links I've posted said.

I think you ought to go for a walk and get away from the internet for a while.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Remain side made arguments based on the opinions of experts and projections. They didn't need to resort to stoking people's prejudices or insinuating that their wages were low because of foreigners or that 80 million Turks were on the way.

What you mean is that people with vested interests massaged the truth in a big big way. Both are disgraceful. I don't need to do either or with you.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You mean the referendum that was lost by the remain side by a few percent? Hardly a case that they couldn't have been "Much more wrong".

The "facts" that were presented by project fear couldn't have been any more wrong. My point is why should I believe them now?

murphaph: Tell you what. If I'm sacked directly because of Brexit and if I have to sell my house and move back into the EU directly because of Brexit I'll definitely agree that I was wrong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

murphaph

We still don't know (but it is suspected) for sure that the referendum wasn't manipulated through social media, targeting individual users who may have been more suggestible and ensuring those swing voters received messages likely to sway them to vote leave.

Until the Cambridge Analytica etc. connections are investigated by means of a full public enquiry I won't believe it. The DUP spent half a million pounds on such social media targeting of mainland GB residents! It all stinks and needs proper investigation. I believe democracy was subverted and it only needs to have been a small bit and things would have gone the other way.

Having said all that....the UK is simply too proud and we'd be back here again in 3 or 4 years. Brexit needs to happen and fail for the UK to finally realise it is not something special any more. Just another mid sized economy, smaller than Germany and around the same size as France. It's tragic but I don't believe it can be put to bed any other way.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The first link is a treasury report about the immediate aftermath of the referendum.

George Osborne was speaking of an economic shock and house prices after the referendum.

The IMF spoke about the same shock in the second article.

The IMF predicted a recession in 2017 before Brexit day in 2019.
Read the articles again. None of the stuff in here was true.

Unless there is evidence that they knew that they were spreading falsehood, these aren't lies. They are educated projections made by experts. The Leave side knew full well that they weren't going to boost NHS funding and that Turkey was nowhere near joining and yet they claimed otherwise anyway. There is a difference.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The prospect about trade deals is very much true and is will an argument for being out. When the UK leaves the customs union these can be struck.

And if previous form is anything to go by, it'll take many years.

Panrich

The UK seems to be on a path to a hard Brexit and not one imposed by the EU (although there may be a few nasty surprises to come from that side yet).

It is very peculiar to me that the narrative of 'Brexit means Brexit' has been largely unchallenged by all sides in the media since the referendum.

Surely the referendum result being as close as it was meant an exit from the EU but with as close ties as possible e.g. Customs union was ' the will of the people'. Otherwise we are to believe that more than 95% of leave voters wanted a hard Brexit and that has not been proven as the question was never asked.

Peregrinus

Panrich wrote: »

It is very peculiar to me that the narrative of 'Brexit means Brexit' has been largely unchallenged by all sides in the media since the referendum.

It's hard to challenge a tautology which is basically devoid of meaning.

"Rumboflange means rumboflange!" Discuss.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's hard to challenge a tautology which is basically devoid of meaning.

"Rumboflange means rumboflange!" Discuss.

unless of course Brexit means an exceptionally close relationship between the UK and EU that involves free movement pf people, payment towards the eu budget member of a "Special" customs union, membership of the FTA etc but isn't actually being in the eu, because Brexit means Brexit goddammit.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

murphaph: Tell you what. If I'm sacked directly because of Brexit and if I have to sell my house and move back into the EU directly because of Brexit I'll definitely agree that I was wrong.

Now now, I didn't ask that in the end because you are in a skilled profession that will always be in demand, pretty much anywhere.

I asked:

So let me rephrase. Will you accept Brexit was a mistake if unemployment rises to say 10% a couple of years after the formalities and hand-holding transition periods end?

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

unless of course Brexit means an exceptionally close relationship between the UK and EU that involves free movement pf people, payment towards the eu budget member of a "Special" customs union, membership of the FTA etc but isn't actually being in the eu, because Brexit means Brexit goddammit.

If Brexit means anything, it means the UK not being a member of the EU. It doesn't inherently mean anything about what relationship with the EU the UK might have as a non-Member. There's a range of possibilities, from a very close relationship to a very distant one, and there are functioning models for relationships across the entire range. Norway twice voted against EU membership (thus proving themselves even more opposed to it than the UK!) and yet has an extremely close relationship; there is no evidence that the Norwegian people feel betrayed or let down by this.

The Brexit vote doesn't tell us anything about what the British people want in this regard; nobody thought to ask them. The likelihood is that there's a range of views about this, but it's reasonable to hypothesize that the 48% who voted to remain, and some non-trivial fraction of the 52% who voted to leave, would lean towards a closer, rather than more distant, relationship.

ThisRegard

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dare say that if I were to trawl through the archive of your posts on board I could make you a liar.

He did vote for remain, ergo....

blanch152

Peregrinus wrote: »

If Brexit means anything, it means the UK not being a member of the EU. It doesn't inherently mean anything about what relationship with the EU the UK might have as a non-Member. There's a range of possibilities, from a very close relationship to a very distant one, and there are functioning models for relationships across the entire range. Norway twice voted against EU membership (thus proving themselves even more opposed to it than the UK!) and yet has an extremely close relationship; there is no evidence that the Norwegian people feel betrayed or let down by this.

The Brexit vote doesn't tell us anything about what the British people want in this regard; nobody thought to ask them. The likelihood is that there's a range of views about this, but it's reasonable to hypothesize that the 48% who voted to remain, and some non-trivial fraction of the 52% who voted to leave, would lean towards a closer, rather than more distant, relationship.

Sadly, it does seem clear what the people of the UK wish in terms of Brexit.

They want to be able to go on holiday to Spain, France and Italy without any delays at passport control and the ability to be able to retire to a nice spot in the sun without restriction. However, they should be allowed impose strict controls on who enters the UK so that their jobs aren't taken away and that terrorists can't get in and that workers from Eastern Europe aren't pushing up house prices.

In business, traditional British products shouldn't have to compete with cheaper alternatives from the rest of the EU, but we should be allowed keep our great financial services centre in London and sell to anywhere in the EU without restriction.

Finally, despite all these contradictory positions, those Irish are great craic and should be allowed come and go as they wish (there aren't that many of them, and they can always go home and grow potatoes if the economy turns bad) and sure we can find some way that technology can work out that border thing.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

If Brexit means anything, it means the UK not being a member of the EU. It doesn't inherently mean anything about what relationship with the EU the UK might have as a non-Member. There's a range of possibilities, from a very close relationship to a very distant one, and there are functioning models for relationships across the entire range. Norway twice voted against EU membership (thus proving themselves even more opposed to it than the UK!) and yet has an extremely close relationship; there is no evidence that the Norwegian people feel betrayed or let down by this.

The Brexit vote doesn't tell us anything about what the British people want in this regard; nobody thought to ask them. The likelihood is that there's a range of views about this, but it's reasonable to hypothesize that the 48% who voted to remain, and some non-trivial fraction of the 52% who voted to leave, would lean towards a closer, rather than more distant, relationship.

yes, but for it to be effective, the message that Brexit is happening needs to be very loud and clear

joeysoap

Peregrinus wrote: »

If Brexit means anything, it means the UK not being a member of the EU. It doesn't inherently mean anything about what relationship with the EU the UK might have as a non-Member. There's a range of possibilities, from a very close relationship to a very distant one, and there are functioning models for relationships across the entire range. Norway twice voted against EU membership (thus proving themselves even more opposed to it than the UK!) and yet has an extremely close relationship; there is no evidence that the Norwegian people feel betrayed or let down by this.

The Brexit vote doesn't tell us anything about what the British people want in this regard; nobody thought to ask them. The likelihood is that there's a range of views about this, but it's reasonable to hypothesize that the 48% who voted to remain, and some non-trivial fraction of the 52% who voted to leave, would lean towards a closer, rather than more distant, relationship.

Afaik Norway allows the 4 freedoms and contributes to the EU budget. We are being told that the border with NI is the 'only' land border with the EU when Norway has a long border with Sweden. also afaik Norway more or less shadows EU rules and regulations. I think the no vote was a reflection on Norways vast reserves of currency (and oil). Not an anti EU vote as such.

Calina

It is the only UK land border. Any agreement post Brexit doesn't necessarily apply to Gibralter.

If you look at any map of Europe, there are quite a few landborders. Finland, and two of the Baltic are bordered by Russia. Switzerland borders 4 EU countries as does the Ukraine. Norway is not like something proving that Ireland is an exception. In British terms, Ireland is the only landborder.

joeysoap

Yes, of course. Only Uk land border.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

This thread really is an embarrassment to the forum.

Take a read of the Daily Mail or Express comments section. Such attitudes certainly exist.

steddyeddy

Today Theresa May refused to condemn Donald Trump's statements on racism. Has she got a single principled bone in her body? I take it she's attemlting to get on the good side inthe hope of a trade deal.

steddyeddy

murphaph wrote: »

Take a read of the Daily Mail or Express comments section. Such attitudes certainly exist.

Yep. These attitudes aren't disimilar to those in the Tory party either. Boris Johnsin's equally vacuous father uses the term "Irish bog rat" and his don refers to black people as piccaninnies.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Today Theresa May refused to condemn Donald Trump's statements on racism. Has she got a single principled bone in her body? I take it she's attemlting to get on the good side inthe hope of a trade deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/theresa-may-joins-cross-party-criticism-donald-trump-charlottesville-speech

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/16/theresa-may-joins-cross-party-criticism-donald-trump-charlottesville-speech

But refused to condemn Trump specifically.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: We have a forum for Feedback. Please do not discuss moderation here.

steddyeddy

Scientists for the EU summed up the future with the following statement:

If Rees-Mogg becomes PM... then we, like America, will be a declining power tragically trying to look strong by fronting ourselves with a comic stereotype of our national character.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

But refused to condemn Trump specifically.

Oh dear god.

The Corbynistas really are a desperate bunch

sfakiaman

The Uk is already a declining power tragically trying to look strong by fronting ourselves with a comic stereotype of our national character.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Can we have more substantial arguments please than just random one-liners and quotes.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

Having said all that....the UK is simply too proud and we'd be back here again in 3 or 4 years. Brexit needs to happen and fail for the UK to finally realise it is not something special any more. Just another mid sized economy, smaller than Germany and around the same size as France. It's tragic but I don't believe it can be put to bed any other way.

Yes at this stage BREXIT has to happen and we will just have to see who the winners and the losers are. I suspect the average workers and those on fixed incomes will be hit very hard. In the end I expect it will be at least 10 years before we see any movement.

If they do want to return the big question is will they be allowed? The EU will be a different place by then and people will have gotten used to not have to find work arounds for all the U.K. objections. Getting the approval of the members at that stage may be problematic.

Jim2007

murphaph wrote: »

So let me rephrase. Will you accept Brexit was a mistake if unemployment rises to say 10% a couple of years after the formalities and hand-holding transition periods end?

I don't think it will necessarily happen in that way. The recent figures on unemployment look very good at first glance - lowest unemployment rates since the 1970s, I think. But if you look closer there has been little or no wages growth and productivity has fallen to 2007/8 levels suggesting it's a case of adding more bodies to achieve the same output!

It may well be that more people are forced to work for less. Competing as a third country will put pressure on wages, declining tax revenues may hit benefits and people on fixed incomes may need to work part time.

The real measure will be the quality of life people will enjoy and if it will keep up or surpass it's neighbors. If it fails to meet expectations then we may see social unrest.

kingchess

A genuine question but-if the entire population of Northern Ireland are entitled to an Irish passport-which gives them automatic EU citizenship with all the rights that gives them,ie.freedom to travel and work and study in the EU etc.Does this not give the people of Northern Ireland certain advantages over their fellow citizens in the rest of the UK?Could an English,Scot or Welshman claim he was being discriminated against???, And which court would get to decide??

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!


Let's be fair the remain side sold some shocking lies. The Treasury said there would be unemployment and a recession in the immediate aftermath of leaving the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Samaris - all these predictions were about the immediate aftermath. You don't get to whitewash these.

The immediate aftermath has not happened yet. The UK is still in the EU. The immediate aftermath will be in 2019. This is not whitewashing. I cannot any more clearly highlight what you said without turning it bright red.

kingchess wrote: »

A genuine question but-if the entire population of Northern Ireland are entitled to an Irish passport-which gives them automatic EU citizenship with all the rights that gives them,ie.freedom to travel and work and study in the EU etc.Does this not give the people of Northern Ireland certain advantages over their fellow citizens in the rest of the UK?Could an English,Scot or Welshman claim he was being discriminated against???, And which court would get to decide??

I...honestly have no idea. This will probably arise at some point though. Erk.

Sam Russell

kingchess wrote: »

A genuine question but-if the entire population of Northern Ireland are entitled to an Irish passport-which gives them automatic EU citizenship with all the rights that gives them,ie.freedom to travel and work and study in the EU etc.Does this not give the people of Northern Ireland certain advantages over their fellow citizens in the rest of the UK?Could an English,Scot or Welshman claim he was being discriminated against???, And which court would get to decide??

Only those in NI born on the island of Ireland are granted the right to an Irish or British passport. The same applies to he English, Scots, or Welsh. Of course, if they are born on the island of Great Britain, then they do not qualify for the Irish one.

So no court case.

Fratton Fred

kingchess wrote: »

A genuine question but-if the entire population of Northern Ireland are entitled to an Irish passport-which gives them automatic EU citizenship with all the rights that gives them,ie.freedom to travel and work and study in the EU etc.Does this not give the people of Northern Ireland certain advantages over their fellow citizens in the rest of the UK?Could an English,Scot or Welshman claim he was being discriminated against???, And which court would get to decide??

Discriminated in what way?

A French citizen living and working in the U.K. Would have the same advantages. Similarly a British citizen currently living in morocco has advantages over Moroccans, but they aren't being discriminated against.

kingchess

You are saying that a British citizen will still have the same rights to work,live or study or access health care in the EU after Brexit? the same as an Irish citizen??My point(could be totally wrong) is that one part of the UK can have these rights by being born in Northern Ireland while their fellow citizens in Scotland, England and Wales will not be treated equally,.We live in a world where you can sue if you drink 20 pints and injure yourself falling off a bar stool,and people get kinda angry if they fell there not treated like their fellow UK citizens,and people can feel discriminated against for the most trivial of reasons,And, yes I know that its the Irish Government gave this right , like I said I could be 100% wrong about all this. (sorry fratton frd-just saw you said french man working in uk)

joeysoap

A person born in Nortgern Ireland and holding Irish passport would be equal in the UK to all other Uk citizens ? To work etc without any constraints or permits?

And the same person would be equal in the EU to all other EU citizens? Again to work and travel (within EU) without any constraints?

Question: my EHIC card has my name,PRSI number (or whatever it's called now)and HSE -14 as the institution. Covers public hospitals and clinics (public doctors) when on holidays etc in EU

If no deal can be done like Norway, Switzerland etc will Irish passport holders from Northern Ireland (and the rest of the UK) be entitled to such a card. And will the HSE be the authoriser? If so it's a no brainier to hold an Irish passsport.

Fratton Fred

kingchess wrote: »

You are saying that a British citizen will still have the same rights to work,live or study or access health care in the EU after Brexit? the same as an Irish citizen??My point(could be totally wrong) is that one part of the UK can have these rights by being born in Northern Ireland while their fellow citizens in Scotland, England and Wales will not be treated equally,.We live in a world where you can sue if you drink 20 pints and injure yourself falling off a bar stool,and people get kinda angry if they fell there not treated like their fellow UK citizens,and people can feel discriminated against for the most trivial of reasons,And, yes I know that its the Irish Government gave this right , like I said I could be 100% wrong about all this. (sorry fratton frd-just saw you said french man working in uk)

It's no different to someone having dual citizenship is it? The uk allows that, which is effectively what the situation is in the North.

Capt'n Midnight

joeysoap wrote: »

Afaik Norway allows the 4 freedoms and contributes to the EU budget. We are being told that the border with NI is the 'only' land border with the EU when Norway has a long border with Sweden. also afaik Norway more or less shadows EU rules and regulations. I think the no vote was a reflection on Norways vast reserves of currency (and oil). Not an anti EU vote as such.

The Norway Sweden border is 1,630 kilometres long. 10 customs offices. The border up north has 260 crossings. Many of which could be re-opened with a JCB over a weekend if someone had a mind to.

Back in 2001 smuggling of fuel alone cost UK Treasury £300m

Overall oil imports have halved from 940,000 litres in 1994 to 440,000 last year, and BP now has just 51 outlets in the province, compared with 98 three years ago.

BTW can't say this often enough, in addition to the freedoms, Norway has NO passporting for financials and pays about the same per capita as the UK.




It's like the old joke about a consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time, and then keeps the watch. For the UK , Norway gives almost nothing. Yes they get fisheries , but they've already said they'd allow johnny foreigner to keep taking the fish.


As an exporter of raw materials and food and an importer of finished goods Norway has far fewer conflicts of interest than the UK where concessions on most items mean job losses for one side or the other.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's no different to someone having dual citizenship is it? The uk allows that, which is effectively what the situation is in the North.

The situation in the North is not effectively one of dual citizenship; it's actually one of dual citizenship.

And, no, it's not discriminatory in a way that could give anyone any legal remedy. If you argue that, if some British citizens are also dual nationals of Ireland then all British citizens must be similarly entitled, then you'd to have to concede that if one, e.g., Polish citizen is also a dual national of the UK then all Polish citizens must be similarly entitled.

Calina

joeysoap wrote: »

A person born in Nortgern Ireland and holding Irish passport would be equal in the UK to all other Uk citizens ? To work etc without any constraints or permits?

And the same person would be equal in the EU to all other EU citizens? Again to work and travel (within EU) without any constraints?

Question: my EHIC card has my name,PRSI number (or whatever it's called now)and HSE -14 as the institution. Covers public hospitals and clinics (public doctors) when on holidays etc in EU

If no deal can be done like Norway, Switzerland etc will Irish passport holders from Northern Ireland (and the rest of the UK) be entitled to such a card. And will the HSE be the authoriser? If so it's a no brainier to hold an Irish passsport.

A person born in NI is generally entitled to both UK and Republic of Ireland citizenship subject to certain provisions. Can't comment on UK provisions but the Irish provisions reflect the limitations in place in the Republic which were appkied after the citizenship referendum.

With respect to the EHIC card, residents of NI in theory won't be by default getting one from the Republic. Iirc you need to be making social insurance contributions to get one so a person in NI probably would have to be in the Republic's social insurance scheme either as a current payer or claimant. TBH something which I haven't seen discussed is the administrative impact on cross border workers, people who live in one country but reside in another. Another line item

Peregrinus

joeysoap wrote: »

Afaik Norway allows the 4 freedoms and contributes to the EU budget. We are being told that the border with NI is the 'only' land border with the EU . . .

It's the UK's only land border with the EU (or, indeed, with anybody). The UK has land borders with at least twelve countries already, including a land border to the east that stretches from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea.

The EU is well-used to land borders. The UK is not.

Peregrinus

steddyeddy wrote: »

Today Theresa May refused to condemn Donald Trump's statements on racism. Has she got a single principled bone in her body? I take it she's attemlting to get on the good side inthe hope of a trade deal.

She's definitely trying to keep on Trump's good side.

That doesn't mean that she doesn't have a "single principled bone in her body", though. Her principle may well be to act in the best interests of the United Kingdom so far as possible. And her judgment may well be that, with Brexit inevitable following the referendum, the UK's best interests strongly require it to brown-nose Donald Trump to the greatest extent possible.

I have some sympathy for her. Cleaving closely to the US has become a national priority for economic reasons just at the moment when the election of
a tangerine with a personality disorder makes doing so an exercise in national humiliation. But what can you do? Even if she were minded to call off Brexit I don't think its realistically possible for her to do so, so she and her country just have to suffer the humiliation of pretending to be best friends with a corrupt psychotic toddler.

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

The immediate aftermath has not happened yet. The UK is still in the EU. The immediate aftermath will be in 2019. This is not whitewashing. I cannot any more clearly highlight what you said without turning it bright red.

Good morning!

Did you actually read the links? They are about the immediate aftermath of the referendum.

The IMF predicted recession in 2017. It didn't and wasn't going to happen .

This thread is an echo chamber. I don't know how much longer I'll be posting in it.

People refuse to accept democracy implying that the people were gullible. They claim the leave side lied in the referendum when the remain side either were incredibly negligent in producing forecasts or were intentionally bending the truth to encourage people to stay in. That is about as immoral in my view (and I agree some of the Vote Leave stuff was too). There hasn't been a single convincing argument for remaining in the EU. Fear mongering is back on form for project fear round two but why should I believe it given how wrong project fear round one was.

Legitimate posts from mostly Fratton Fred and I are being deleted without good justification.(I will be copying this one for later if it's gone). It's kind of pointless continuing to post if a balanced debating environment can't be guaranteed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Did you actually read the links? They are about the immediate aftermath of the referendum.

The IMF predicted recession in 2017. It didn't and wasn't going to happen .

This thread is an echo chamber. I don't know how much longer I'll be posting in it.

And as long as you keep saying the same thing again and again, solo, it will continue to be an echo chamber.

A number of commentators predicted an economic downturn if the referendum ended with a vote to leave. Precisely because they regarded those commentators as credible and they took seriously what was said, when the referendum did result in a vote to leave the Bank of England made an immediate interest rate cut, pumped an additional 60 billion into the economy by way of quantitative easing, and provided 100 bn of new funding to banks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a slashing of the corporate tax rate, and an abandonment of the target of returning to a balanced budget by 2020. These were all measures designed to stimulate the economy to offset the effect of the Leave vote.

In other words, people considered the projections of the IMF and others, saw that they were well-reasoned, took them seriously, and decided to take action to avert a downturn. That action has had the hoped-for outcome, at least so far. The main point of making such projections is so that people hopefully will take actions to avert projected bad outcomes. The notion that, when they do so, this makes the projections a "lie" is absurd, and your advocacy of it looks like the ploy of a fifth columnist whose object is to make the case for Brexit appear ridiculous.

Samaris

Oh, right, so it was just that you were wrong, misrepresented what the article said and then complained when people didn't understand why you were blatantly contradicting yourself.

And you did, so I don't see why you're getting on your high horse about it. You made it very clear in your representation that it was in the aftermath of leaving the EU for that one that I was talking about. I pointed out that the UK has not yet left the EU. I was, perhaps, foolish to trust your representation and respond to it rather than going back into the article and realising that you were just wrong in how you wrote it, but I have had sensible conversations with you elsewhere and expected your words to be correct.

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

People refuse to accept democracy implying that the people were gullible. They claim the leave side lied in the referendum when the remain side either were incredibly negligent in producing forecasts or were intentionally bending the truth to encourage people to stay in. That is about as immoral in my view (and I agree some of the Vote Leave stuff was too). There hasn't been a single convincing argument for remaining in the EU. Fear mongering is back on form for project fear round two but why should I believe it given how wrong project fear round one was.

Okay, so you are upset that Vote Remain campaigned on Project Fear and because of this the policy of Brexit should be followed through as not doing so will be subversion of democracy.

But do you take any stock of the, lets say misrepresentation of facts, from the likes of Boris Johnson during the campaign? Surely it is obvious that both campaigns were lying throughout and while none of the prophecies of doom has as yet come true regarding a vote for Brexit, I have also not seen any convincing argument on why the UK should Brexit. This even after the campaign has settled and we have had time to really look at the facts out there.

So what are we to think of all this, surely a re-run of the referendum where better facts from both sides are presented, right?

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, democracy: the last unassailable sacred cow.

Some of us who have "denigrated the very concept of democracy" have proposed something less drastic than eligibility for voting: not relying on an underinformed electorate to make a simplistic decision about an almost incomprehensibly complex topic.

It puzzles me how people who put democracy on a pedestal are so blind to its feet of clay. Seriously: in a post arguing for democracy, you cite Trump and Brexit. Don't those two results cause you to question your slavish devotion to the idea that large groups of underinformed people can't make bad decisions? Or does that slavish devotion extend to the idea that bad decisions made democratically are better than good decisions made any other way?

We've discussed this in other threads To summarise: A bad decision which the people choose is better than a good decision in which they have no choice. Fundamentally, the human psyche does not appreciate being dictated to. And I also believed that both of those results might be a wake-up call to the establishment to stop treating ordinary people with contempt, but so far unfortunately I've seen relatively little evidence that the legitimate anger and grievances of people are being taken on board.

I'm not sure how many more "upsets" it will take for those lessons to be learned, but I will continue to support peoples' right to govern themselves regardless.

marcus001

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, democracy: the last unassailable sacred cow.

Some of us who have "denigrated the very concept of democracy" have proposed something less drastic than eligibility for voting: not relying on an underinformed electorate to make a simplistic decision about an almost incomprehensibly complex topic.

It puzzles me how people who put democracy on a pedestal are so blind to its feet of clay. Seriously: in a post arguing for democracy, you cite Trump and Brexit. Don't those two results cause you to question your slavish devotion to the idea that large groups of underinformed people can't make bad decisions? Or does that slavish devotion extend to the idea that bad decisions made democratically are better than good decisions made any other way?

Get rid of democracy and you'll see what slavish devotion really is.