Brexit discussion thread III

MrPudding

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Is HS2 still on the cards ?

Like Brexit the cost is continually going up and the benefits are hard to justify , optimistically £48Bn to get to Birmingham or up to £111Bn overall, and only expected to make £34Bn revenue over the next 60 years. Where is the rest of the money going ? And who benefits ?

It would be far cheaper to subsidise the internets so people could telecommute instead, and everyone would benefit. Not just executives.

CBA looking up the alternative plans where most of the cost could be saved if they went for a slightly slower setup which would have most of the benefits. It would be like staying in the EU and using their existing rights. BTW thanks to Sterling tanking they'll save a good bit on their future contributions. So there's that.



Love this Viz top tip

Excellent Viz Top Tip.

I think HS2 is still on the cards. That Adonis thinks it is a good idea is something that does trouble me somewhat, as I think the general consensus on it is that it is a bit of a waste of money.

MrP

Sam Russell

There are package size regulations that apply to certain products - butter and bread are two that spring to mind. [Bread must be sold in 400 gram or 800 gram loaf sizes unless the weight is shown on the package. Butter must be sold in 1 lb or 8 oz packages. Milk is to be sold in litres (denominated) that is 1 litre, 2 litre and .5 litres - but this may be an agreement by the dairies. The UK still uses quarts and pints, and fractions of these.

There has been a general reduction in package size of 10% in recent time - most notable being Toblerone's reduction from 400 g to 360 g by increasing the spaces between the hall mark triangular peaks. (Is nothing sacred?)
Bread sizes have reduced to as low as 275 g per loaf (large roll), and are frequently under weight. The traditional sliced pan remains at 800 g, but I expect that to reduce to 700 g soon.

Jam packaging has long dropped from 454 g (1 lb) to 340 g or less.

We need to have strict packaging size rules and have them enforced, Brexit or not.

There are sugar reduction guidelines the snack manufacturers have to meet and I believe this is based on pack size, so reducing the size of a chocolate bar is apparently for our own good.

murphaph

MrPudding wrote: »

Excellent Viz Top Tip.

I think HS2 is still on the cards. That Adonis thinks it is a good idea is something that does trouble me somewhat, as I think the general consensus on it is that it is a bit of a waste of money.

MrP

HS2 makes absolute sense as part of an integrated European high speed rail network. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to take a train from Birmingham or Leeds to Paris on a German ICE train but Brexit has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works.

Indeed the channel tunnel was supposed to enable this sort of thing so high speed rail only going as far as London is odd. It does not make enough use of the tunnel at all, which was the most expensive bit by a long way.

MrPudding

murphaph wrote: »

HS2 makes absolute sense as part of an integrated European high speed rail network. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to take a train from Birmingham or Leeds to Paris on a German ICE train but Brexit has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works.

Indeed the channel tunnel was supposed to enable this sort of thing so high speed rail only going as far as London is odd. It does not make enough use of the tunnel at all, which was the most expensive bit by a long way.

Absolutely, there is a place for a high speed trains, but there does seem to be a lot of issues with this particular project. it is a great idea, in theory, but in practice it seems to be a bit of a mess.

I am not an expert in this, but is it not the case that the economic case for HS2 (that is HS2 specifically, not high speed trains in general) is not made out? I am sure National Audit Office has even said the economics of it do not add up. Added to this, we are seeing a reduction in journeys by season ticket holders, and even before those number came out there were already questions around the projected passenger numbers for HS2.

Added to that, even the route is controversial. Something like this will, of course, always come up against NIMBYs, but sticking it through the Chilterns does seem a little off.

MrP

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

There are sugar reduction guidelines the snack manufacturers have to meet and I believe this is based on pack size, so reducing the size of a chocolate bar is apparently for our own good.

If you believe that tosh ....

The packet size has been a variable for the last 50 years. First they up the price until sales fall, then they reduce the size until sales fall, then they give 10% extra to increase sales. Then they start all over again.

The butter size was to stop this, and so was the bread size. However, there is a let out with bread but not butter.

I would have hoped the EU would tackle this type of racket. They still might.

Capt'n Midnight

murphaph wrote: »

HS2 makes absolute sense as part of an integrated European high speed rail network. There's no reason why you shouldn't be able to take a train from Birmingham or Leeds to Paris on a German ICE train but Brexit has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works.

Airplanes are cheaper once you start going over that sort of distance. Compare Ryanair or Easyjet prices to train fares. There isn't a huge amount in it. Do not expect prices to go down either so its not like the general public will benefit, just the executives really.

MrPudding wrote: »

I am not an expert in this, but is it not the case that the economic case for HS2 (that is HS2 specifically, not high speed trains in general) is not made out? I am sure National Audit Office has even said the economics of it do not add up. Added to this, we are seeing a reduction in journeys by season ticket holders, and even before those number came out there were already questions around the projected passenger numbers for HS2.

Over the next 60 years the revenue is projected to be a quarter of the overrun estimate. So it's not even remotely economic.


If only the economic realities of Brexit were as well known.

Jim2007

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Over the next 60 years the revenue is projected to be a quarter of the overrun estimate. So it's not even remotely economic.

I don't know the figures or if even it would make much difference in this case, but in general the UK calculations for public transport fail to take the full picture into account.

For instance in Switzerland, reductions in the requirement to build and maintain roads and carparks etc. plus congestion of course are all factored in. And of course there is no obligation that it has to be economic in the first place, if the other factors make it worth while. The basic idea that this must be economic and cheap is why they (+ Ireland) end up with such a crap system and of course because it is a crap system usage falls and so it is an unending story.

Except for two or three times a year, I can be sure that my 6:57 bus will arrive on time and take me to the local station in time to meet the 7:12 Zurich train and that will get into the station in Zurich by 8:06, leaving me five minutes to get to the tram which will have me sitting at my desk by 8:17. So of course I use public transport to get to work, like pretty much everyone else. That kind of service is why the average Swiss resident travels 8,000K per year by train...

Tell me how

Jim2007 wrote:

Except for two or three times a year, I can be sure that my 6:57 bus will arrive on time and take me to the local station in time to meet the 7:12 Zurich train and that will get into the station in Zurich by 8:06, leaving me five minutes to get to the tram which will have me sitting at my desk by 8:17. So of course I use public transport to get to work, like pretty much everyone else. That kind of service is why the average Swiss resident travels 8,000K per year by train...

What is the cost of such travel per week for you, bus, train and tram?
Am curious.

eire4

Sidey wrote: »

Yeah but at the same time the colour etc are guidelines, not requirements. Croatia has always retained its blue passport, and the other 27 EU member states use a variety of shades of burgundy, they are not all identical.

I never knew that. I wonder then why Ireland goes with the burgundy colour and or why do we not go back to green.

Sidey

eire4 wrote: »

Sidey wrote: »

Yeah but at the same time the colour etc are guidelines, not requirements. Croatia has always retained its blue passport, and the other 27 EU member states use a variety of shades of burgundy, they are not all identical.

I never knew that. I wonder then why Ireland goes with the burgundy colour and or why do we not go back to green.

*shrugs*

It's always been government policy to be seen to be good solid committed Europeans, in marked contrast to the British. Which turned out to serve us quite well recently with the whole Brexit thing. A small country can do well for itself if you are seen to be a team player facilitating discussion and agreement rather than constantly being stroppy and awkward. Irish "soft power" diplomacy has been well respected by the rest of the EU ever since the 1990 Dublin Summits under Haughey cleared a lot of the roadblocks for German reunification.

eire4

Sidey wrote: »

*shrugs*

It's always been government policy to be seen to be good solid committed Europeans, in marked contrast to the British. Which turned out to serve us quite well recently with the whole Brexit thing. A small country can do well for itself if you are seen to be a team player facilitating discussion and agreement rather than constantly being stroppy and awkward. Irish "soft power" diplomacy has been well respected by the rest of the EU ever since the 1990 Dublin Summits under Haughey cleared a lot of the roadblocks for German reunification.

Fair points there. Personally I would prefer a green passport again but I am not bothered with the EU burgundy ones. Hey at least its not EU blue like on the EU flag now that I would not be happy about.

Jim2007

Tell me how wrote: »

What is the cost of such travel per week for you, bus, train and tram?
Am curious.

That is actually no so straight forward to calculate - I have a season ticket for all public transport country wide and that is priced at CHF 3,860 pa. It is 100% tax deductible so that knocks about 1000 off it and the payment method offers a 10% discount. So the out of pocket expense is about 2,400 or so. And with average professional wages running from about 7,000 to 11,000 a month it is not that expensive.

Government subsidies are about CHF 8 Billion a year, but because everyone makes use of the service they have an interest in it and it is not seen as case of favoring one group over another.

Jim2007

Tell me how wrote: »

What is the cost of such travel per week for you, bus, train and tram?
Am curious.

That is actually no so straight forward to calculate - I have a season ticket for all public transport country wide and that is priced at CHF 3,860 pa. It is 100% tax deductible so that knocks about 1000 off it and the payment method offers a 10% discount. So the out of pocket expense is about 2,400 or so. And with average professional wages running from about 7,000 to 11,000 a month it is not that expensive.

Government subsidies are about CHF 8 Billion a year, but because everyone makes use of the service they have an interest in it and it is not seen as case of favoring one group over another.

Lemming

Jim2007 wrote: »

That is actually no so straight forward to calculate - I have a season ticket for all public transport country wide and that is priced at CHF 3,860 pa. It is 100% tax deductible so that knocks about 1000 off it and the payment method offers a 10% discount. So the out of pocket expense is about 2,400 or so. And with average professional wages running from about 7,000 to 11,000 a month it is not that expensive.

Just to put that in perspective; I availed of a season pass for train through former employers when I worked in Leeds. Whilst it was tax-deductible, I was still paying roughly £2250 pa (CHF2400 works out at roughly £1825 according to xe.com today) and that was ONLY for travel between Sheffield & Leeds by train. It did not cover any other sort of travel service such as buses or trams such as one might find themselves using to catch their respective train. Nor did it dictate what sort of train service I might receive: frequently late, packed, cancelled, etc. The above season ticket price was from several years ago so no doubt those prices have risen considerably since as is the fashion for UK rail companies ...

Spot on with the assessment of the UK & Ireland performing cost-benefit analysis that is abject sh1te when stood next to the Swiss model

Strazdas

eire4 wrote: »

I never knew that. I wonder then why Ireland goes with the burgundy colour and or why do we not go back to green.

It's a recommendation from the EU that passports are burgundy in colour. I think it's simply meant to show that the country is an EU member state, a show of solidarity with the other members or whatever.

MrPudding

Lemming wrote: »

Just to put that in perspective; I availed of a season pass for train through former employers when I worked in Leeds. Whilst it was tax-deductible, I was still paying roughly £2250 pa (CHF2400 works out at roughly £1825 according to xe.com today) and that was ONLY for travel between Sheffield & Leeds by train. It did not cover any other sort of travel service such as buses or trams such as one might find themselves using to catch their respective train. Nor did it dictate what sort of train service I might receive: frequently late, packed, cancelled, etc. The above season ticket price was from several years ago so no doubt those prices have risen considerably since as is the fashion for UK rail companies ...

Spot on with the assessment of the UK & Ireland performing cost-benefit analysis that is abject sh1te when stood next to the Swiss model

Those Swiss prices are insane. A season ticket from Milton Keynes to London (a journey that can be as quick as 30 minutes) costs about £5k for standard class (which basically means standing during peak time). If you want to add the Tube on top of that, you are looking at around another £1k.

MrP

Leonard Hofstadter

MrPudding wrote: »

Those Swiss prices are insane. A season ticket from Milton Keynes to London (a journey that can be as quick as 30 minutes) costs about £5k for standard class (which basically means standing during peak time). If you want to add the Tube on top of that, you are looking at around another £1k.

MrP

Yeah, train fares are ridiculously expensive in the UK.

They go up by at least 1% every year as well (plus whatever inflation is) for good measure.

MrPudding

captainspeed wrote: »

Yeah, train fares are ridiculously expensive in the UK.

They go up by at least 1% every year as well (plus whatever inflation is) for good measure.

Oh yeah, forgot to mention, season tickets are going up by 3.6% tomorrow.

MrP

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Back on topic please.

Samaris

Strazdas wrote: »

It's a recommendation from the EU that passports are burgundy in colour. I think it's simply meant to show that the country is an EU member state, a show of solidarity with the other members or whatever.

I'd say it's that it's just convenient for people handling passports to have the colour commonality, since that gives x rights when travelling.

Nody

Dear David Davis has gone out of his way to put his foot in his mouth again:

The Brexit Secretary also used an article to turn the European Union’s negotiating mantra against the bloc, claiming that it cannot “cherry-pick” the terms of a free trade deal.

Britain, he added, wants the “full sweep of economic cooperation” and financial services must not be excluded from any agreement.

This of course misses a few points such as services are not part of FT agreements, that UK is not in a position to dictate terms (as seen by how well phase 1 went down to the T as EU said it would be from the start) and well, that's it already ruled out by EU in the first place since UK will get a Canada FTA due to their red lines. But it gets better:

First, European Council president Donald Tusk has approved an immediate start to discussions on the future relationship, and though EU guidelines will not be agreed until March, when chief negotiator Michel Barnier and his team will be able to confirm their positions, talks about implementation begin in the New Year.

No, what Donald Tusk actually said was:

… the Union will be ready to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions with the aim of identifying an overall understanding of the framework for the future relationship, once additional guidelines have been adopted to this effect".

Those are two very different points to start; EU is ready to start to see what they might consider to agree on, not the future relationship which comes after leaving the EU which is outlined in the EU guidelines as:

EU's guidelines state unequivocally that "a future relationship can only be finalised and concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country". The EU thus will only commit to an "understanding" which "should be elaborated in a political declaration accompanying and referred to in the Withdrawal Agreement".

Oh dear David; once again you've failed even the most basic fact check of policies already available in writing on EU's website. His full article can be found here and was posted in the Telegraph.

ancapailldorcha

Free Trade Agreements are basically consensus how much cherrypicking one agrees to allow the other side to engage in. This is why they are so difficult to negotiate and ratify. Davis likely thinks that he is being clever in twisting this statement from the EU and probably hasn't noticed that he's thoroughly embarrassed both himself and his government with almost every action he's taken since he became head of DExEU.

breatheme

David Davis saying "financial services must not be excluded" is analogous to the EU saying "free movement of people must not be excluded".
Will this mean a Norway like deal is in the cards?

breatheme

David Davis saying "financial services must not be excluded" is analogous to the EU saying "free movement of people must not be excluded".
Will this mean a Norway like deal is in the cards?

Leroy42

You would have thought they would have discussed this at the start of the process, rather than having triggered Art 50 and agreeing to Phase 1 points.

There has been some articles recently regarding the state of US politics and the fact that bipartisanship have taken away any real oversight etc.

At what point will MP's in the UK start to question the government's handling of this. Not Brexit itself, will all know that voters can only every be asked once about any question, but surely normal MP's can see that this is not being handled correctly.

Whether that is down to a bad PM, poor cabinet, problems caused by ideology over ideas or whatever, I would've expected there to be a bigger outcry

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote:

At what point will MP's in the UK start to question the government's handling of this. Not Brexit itself, will all know that voters can only every be asked once about any question, but surely normal MP's can see that this is not being handled correctly.

Think they might be less likely to do so given the treatment of the 11 traitors before Christmas.

I agree though, there are plenty intelligent people in the UK and in Westminster. But then, why did it get this far?

Nody

Tell me how wrote: »

Think they might be less likely to do so given the treatment of the 11 traitors before Christmas.

I agree though, there are plenty intelligent people in the UK and in Westminster. But then, why did it get this far?

Because all the experts were telling them what they did not want to hear and the Brexit hardcore fan club pulled out one person claimed as expert telling them what they wanted to hear.

ambro25

Tell me how wrote: »

<...>

I agree though, there are plenty intelligent people in the UK and in Westminster. But then, why did it get this far?

Because

(i) the most Brexit-biased media shouts loudest (see your own mention of the 11 traitors, and there were plenty more before them: Remainers from the get-go, Gina Miller, High Court Judges, Supreme Court Justices <etc.> and all consistently without much in the way of outcry or condemnations by anyone, least of all the government), and

(ii) the undue and non-trivial influence which social network trends have gained within the political sphere, which is effectively turning representative parliamentarian democracies into direct plebeian democracies...ripest for the exploiting by populists.

A vicious, rather than virtuous, circle. Moreover, one of the self-reinforcing type.

I'm loathe to Godwin the thread, but Goebbels said it best ("the bigger the lie" <etc.>) and he'd be proud of May, Davis & Co.

By the AAA-rating of Davis' trolling gambit as the new year just opened for business, this will go much further yet, before 2018 is out.

Leroy42

But what is their end game? Surely they can't be so deluded as to think that this will turn out, at least in the short-term, to be anything other than a massive pain for the UK.

I get that they want to be seen to uphold the wishes of the voters, but it never said in the vote what that actually was (apart from leave the EU). There was no time frame, no red lines etc.

They seem to be going out of their way to make it as difficult and troublesome as possible.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what is their end game? Surely they can't be so deluded as to think that this will turn out, at least in the short-term, to be anything other than a massive pain for the UK.

I get that they want to be seen to uphold the wishes of the voters, but it never said in the vote what that actually was (apart from leave the EU). There was no time frame, no red lines etc.

They seem to be going out of their way to make it as difficult and troublesome as possible.

Well as always look at the money; a lot appears to be connected to money that thrive on disruption / chaos (vulture funds) or simply wants less pesky regulation to deal with (be it for worse working standards, lowers quality standards or simply less scrutiny to consolidate market shares). They will not be affected negatively about a hard brexit; rather the other way around. The MPs etc. will of course expect suitable "jobs" in the organizations after retirement for their work on their behalf.

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree though, there are plenty intelligent people in the UK and in Westminster. But then, why did it get this far?

Here's a link to a rather interesting essay on Nationalism from The Economist:

https://www.economist.com/news/christmas-specials/21732704-nationalism-not-fading-away-it-not-clear-where-it-heading-whither

I'd like to highlight this particular paragraph:

The Economist wrote:

The impotence and insecurity felt by large numbers in developed countries shows that an important lesson has been forgotten. In “Ill Fares the Land”, written in 2010 as he lay dying, the British historian Tony Judt described how post-war democracies were transfixed by the fear that fascism or Bolshevism could once again spellbind the masses. Democracy was fragile, they thought; they were determined that the mistakes of 1914 to 1945 should never be repeated. So they tried to ensure that economies grew in ways that benefited all those who participated in them and provided safety nets for those who could not. Karl Marx believed the working class needed a revolution to get justice. Western democracies gave it welfare states and Great Societies instead.

There did, and still does seem to be a sense among the lower classes that the system is rigged against them and is only becoming more so. It's no coincidence that the slogan of Vote Leave was carefully constructed. "Take back control!" was as powerful as it is simple. Add in stagnant wages and a lacklustre economy compared to the levels of wealth and opportunity enjoyed by baby boomers along with a dash of prejudices and an immigration crisis and one might almost pat Remain on the back for getting as high as 48% given the phoned in campaign we saw from Britain Stronger in Europe.

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

Well as always look at the money; a lot appears to be connected to money that thrive on disruption / chaos (vulture funds) or simply wants less pesky regulation to deal with (be it for worse working standards, lowers quality standards or simply less scrutiny to consolidate market shares). They will not be affected negatively about a hard brexit; rather the other way around. The MPs etc. will of course expect suitable "jobs" in the organizations after retirement for their work on their behalf.

Yeah, I'd considered that, and I fully accept that part of it.

But that doesn't explain the acceptance by the vast amount of people that aren't insulated from the effects.

It also doesn't give much long term stability to the MPs themselves. Surely the Tory party can see that it this plays out as it currently appears to be that Tories will be blamed from years to come. Or am I giving too much credit to the voters of the future?

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

But what is their end game? Surely they can't be so deluded as to think that this will turn out, at least in the short-term, to be anything other than a massive pain for the UK.

I get that they want to be seen to uphold the wishes of the voters, but it never said in the vote what that actually was (apart from leave the EU). There was no time frame, no red lines etc.

They seem to be going out of their way to make it as difficult and troublesome as possible.

This is my confusion as well. I think if they were so concerned about the wishes of the voter, they would have been so inclined to ensure the voters did not pick something which was going to cause them or their children trouble in future.

Is it some sense of being a history maker which will be spoken about for hundreds of years?

I wonder would it be naive to think that future referendums on any subject would be structured so that each side would present their arguments, their papers/assessments etc using funds made available by the government and then these would be debated in public discourse for say 4-6 weeks before the vote.

The shambles of the £350M/Week claims are like something from a teen edition of the UN. And yet these claims worked for Farage and co.

This episode makes you fear for the value of open democracy and the government who can convince the electorate of this could then gain even more powers such as longer terms which might not ultimately be for the good of the people.

ambro25

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yeah, I'd considered that, and I fully accept that part of it.

But that doesn't explain the acceptance by the vast amount of people that aren't insulated from the effects.

It also doesn't give much long term stability to the MPs themselves. Surely the Tory party can see that it this plays out as it currently appears to be that Tories will be blamed from years to come. Or am I giving too much credit to the voters of the future?

You appear to assume in the above, that this vast amount of Brits are all sufficiently educated and informed to understand the (potential) consequences of Brexiting upon their individual circumstances.

After living in the north of the UK for over 2 decades (cumulatively), I daresay that you are wrong. Very much so.

Do not mistake ignorance for acceptance

Note that I do not claim that most Brits are ignorant generally, or as an ad hominem: I claim that most Brits are ignorant about the EU generally, and the UK's place within it; significantly more so than the Irish and continental Europeans (a life experience call, based on 3 decades' worth of living and working across the EU, including in IE and the UK).

That's partly the fault of their education system, partly the fault of their MSM, partly the fault of their political legacy and system, and partly their own fault for lack of critical thinking faculties (-stemming at least partly from the education system). The balance is down to social inequality levels after 10 years' worth of GFC "recovery".

Tell me how

ambro25 wrote: »

Do not mistake ignorance for acceptance. Note that I do not claim that most Brits are ignorant generally, or as an ad hominem: I claim that most Brits are ignorant about the EU generally, and the UK's place within it; significantly more so than the Irish and continental Europeans (a life experience call, based on 3 decades' worth of living and working across the EU, including in IE and the UK).

That's partly the fault of their education system, partly the fault of their MSM, and partly their own fault for lack of critical thinking faculties (-stemming at least partly from the education system).

I've a brother who owns a business in the west midlands and he backs up that most locals do not understand the functioning practices of the EU and the UK as part of that.

If the part in bold is true, that is a damning indictment of such a society.

Could we in Ireland claim to be any better given we are so similar in many ways?

listermint

Tell me how wrote: »

I've a brother who owns a business in the west midlands and he backs up that most locals do not understand the functioning practices of the EU and the UK as part of that.

If the part in bold is true, that is a damning indictment of such a society.

Could we in Ireland claim to be any better given we are so similar in many ways?

We studied the EU in school and that was the 80s 90s. I'm sure the do similar today with a dedicated class can't recall the name of it .

Leroy42

Tell me how wrote: »

I've a brother who owns a business in the west midlands and he backs up that most locals do not understand the functioning practices of the EU and the UK as part of that.

If the part in bold is true, that is a damning indictment of such a society.

Could we in Ireland claim to be any better given we are so similar in many ways?

Yes and No. In part, I think many in Ire see the EU as a way to escape the control of the UK. Of course we still depend on it in many ways, but we aren't solely focused on it anymore. In part, Ire has never had an empire, so we accept that we will always be part of a bigger picture. We value our independence, but don't see that as a need to be alone.

On the flipside, there certainly was many that held out great annoyance at the EU for the crises and how we, the country, were dealt with. I know of some (doesn't prove anything of course) that felt that we should ditch the EU and rejoin the commonwealth or get closer to the US. So I think there is always the possibility of the type of messages that worked in the Uk having an impact here.

I think the saving will be that the EU has brought about a significant social change (or at the least coincided with one) in terms of the moving away from the church, expanding our horizons through travel etc. IMO, many Irish can see the benefits (as a well as the costs) that EU memberships brings and whilst there are serious issues with the EU, many of those issues won't be solved by joining a different club.

The UK feels different. It blames the UK for social change, it blames the EU for the erosion of its empire. They seem to also think that many of the issues that effect the UK today will actually be solved by leaving the EU rather than seeing them as stand alone issues that at best will remain the same.

Tell me how

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yes and No. In part, I think many in Ire see the EU as a way to escape the control of the UK.

I was wondering more about the statement about a lack of critical thinking.

ambro25 wrote: »

That's partly the fault of their education system, partly the fault of their MSM, partly the fault of their political legacy and system, and partly their own fault for lack of critical thinking faculties (-stemming at least partly from the education system). The balance is down to social inequality levels after 10 years' worth of GFC "recovery".

I'd like to think we would, but... Irish water experience would have be doubtful.

ambro25

listermint wrote: »

We studied the EU in school and that was the 80s 90s. I'm sure the do similar today with a dedicated class can't recall the name of it .

Never underestimate the power of populism

I have a 13 year-old daughter who's been in the [standard, national] Brit curriculum since Year 1. Everything she knows about the EU from that, I could summarise in about 5 pages. Everything more she knows about it, she knows from me, and her travels with us.

She remarked on the likely impact of Brexit upon passport check queues when we were at CDG the other month, off her own initiative, asking me at the time -unprompted- whether Mum (who is a Brit) would have to queue separately from us in that hours-long queue after Brexit.

Now I seem to recall some difficulty in the British press and amongst politicians to even acknowledge, never mind debate and discuss, such a simple, logical consequence of Brexiting. That was after the above episode, btw.

I don't claim my daughter is a precocious genius. And she has always been a dual national with two families living in their respective countries and speaking their respective languages, frequently visited year-in year-out, so she'll have had plenty of formative coalface experience about languages, borders, the EU and whatnot. But, still.

(I'm sparing you the inane questions -topical, but dumbfoundingly idiotic- from her Brit schoolmates about her dual nationality, this-that-and-the-other over the years).

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There did, and still does seem to be a sense among the lower classes that the system is rigged against them and is only becoming more so. It's no coincidence that the slogan of Vote Leave was carefully constructed. "Take back control!" was as powerful as it is simple. Add in stagnant wages and a lacklustre economy compared to the levels of wealth and opportunity enjoyed by baby boomers along with a dash of prejudices and an immigration crisis and one might almost pat Remain on the back for getting as high as 48% given the phoned in campaign we saw from Britain Stronger in Europe.

The welfare State is being deconstructed since the advent of the market and trickle down economics. The demise of the Soviet Union also removed an existential threat to capitalists who no longer had to compromise by conceding social democracy.
The resulting unfairness/growing inequality has caused the political turmoil in the west particularly in US and UK.
Unlike the US: In the UK, EU regulations provide a barrier to the inevitable low wage/low regulation/oligarchic destination of this journey.
The problem for these guys IMO is not really free movement of people or the single market: It is the regulations that stop them from producing products more cheaply and paying people less.
That is why you see the demise of the entire EU as a goal of many of these billionaires. Without it, the worker class can be trodden a little lower to free up more profit on top.
The single market can be rebuilt but not for the benefit of citizens or workers but for the benefit of corporate profit. Sure, there might be plenty of dodgy baby food but there will be good stuff too probably out of price range of all but the wealthy: as things should be.
Authoritarian regimes will naturally and do help with this plan as we have all seen.
IMO the EU represents the last remaining barrier to the dismantling of social democracy. Leaving the EU is not ideal as deregulating it..or rather regulating it with low standards and workers rights would be clearly preferable.

BlitzKrieg

Tell me how wrote: »

I've a brother who owns a business in the west midlands and he backs up that most locals do not understand the functioning practices of the EU and the UK as part of that.

If the part in bold is true, that is a damning indictment of such a society.

Could we in Ireland claim to be any better given we are so similar in many ways?

I think we can claim to be a small bit better, primarily because we've been more involved in the process publicly then the UK.

Cry foul about them or not but the numerous referendums Ireland has had on the EU has resulted in Irish people being a bit more aware of the EU then the UK.

I'm not saying every irish person is a scholar of EU law. But we are in general more aware of it changing (for better or worse is depending on your own views)

while most people I meet in the UK still think the EU works exactly as it has since 1992.

In fact one of the more annoying arguments during Brexit was that the EU was incapable of reform, that the UK had given it a chance and had become fed up with its inability to change.

Something that in Ireland change has been a prominent point of debate with the EU referendums, probably the most well known from Lisbon was the whole affair with the "Ireland losing it's Eu Commissioner" that was a centre piece of Libertas's argument during the first referendum on Lisbon.

I think this was best summed up during the Brexit debate when the book "Why Vote Leave" was being pushed as the brexit bible and the issues it was raising about the EU (expenses scandal, employing family members etc) were stuff that had been reformed years earlier.

book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Why-Vote-Leave-Daniel-Hannan-ebook/dp/B01B6B6SBG/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

Response on factual errors: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2016/06/01/what-daniel-hannan-s-why-vote-leave-leaves-out

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

The welfare State is being deconstructed since the advent of the market and trickle down economics. The demise of the Soviet Union also removed an existential threat to capitalists who no longer had to compromise by conceding social democracy.
The resulting unfairness/growing inequality has caused the political turmoil in the west particularly in US and UK.
Unlike the US: In the UK, EU regulations provide a barrier to the inevitable low wage/low regulation/oligarchic destination of this journey.
The problem for these guys IMO is not really free movement of people or the single market: It is the regulations that stop them from producing products more cheaply and paying people less.
That is why you see the demise of the entire EU as a goal of many of these billionaires. Without it, the worker class can be trodden a little lower to free up more profit on top.
The single market can be rebuilt but not for the benefit of citizens or workers but for the benefit of corporate profit. Sure, there might be plenty of dodgy baby food but there will be good stuff too probably out of price range of all but the wealthy: as things should be.
Authoritarian regimes will naturally and do help with this plan as we have all seen.
IMO the EU represents the last remaining barrier to the dismantling of social democracy. Leaving the EU is not ideal as deregulating it..or rather regulating it with low standards and workers rights would be clearly preferable.

I think you've missed my point. I wasn't putting forward a Eurosceptic opinion, I was commenting on the essay I read which attempts to explain the recent rise in nationlism.

Creol1

demfad wrote: »

The welfare State is being deconstructed since the advent of the market and trickle down economics. The demise of the Soviet Union also removed an existential threat to capitalists who no longer had to compromise by conceding social democracy.
The resulting unfairness/growing inequality has caused the political turmoil in the west particularly in US and UK.
Unlike the US: In the UK, EU regulations provide a barrier to the inevitable low wage/low regulation/oligarchic destination of this journey.
The problem for these guys IMO is not really free movement of people or the single market: It is the regulations that stop them from producing products more cheaply and paying people less.
That is why you see the demise of the entire EU as a goal of many of these billionaires. Without it, the worker class can be trodden a little lower to free up more profit on top.
The single market can be rebuilt but not for the benefit of citizens or workers but for the benefit of corporate profit. Sure, there might be plenty of dodgy baby food but there will be good stuff too probably out of price range of all but the wealthy: as things should be.
Authoritarian regimes will naturally and do help with this plan as we have all seen.
IMO the EU represents the last remaining barrier to the dismantling of social democracy. Leaving the EU is not ideal as deregulating it..or rather regulating it with low standards and workers rights would be clearly preferable.

While I approach the issue from the same perspective as you (i.e., a desire for a restoration of authentic social democracy), my conclusion is very different. It is true that there is some progressive EU legislation in terms of the working time directive, etc., but there is no way the Tories, with Jeremy Corbyn snapping at their heels, would dream of scrapping that and the EU is moving in a relentlessly neo-liberal direction.

On privatisation, for example, not only is the EU not a check on privatisation, it actively and strongly promotes it. I imagine you would probably like Jeremy Corbyn to be elected, but his plans to nationalise the railways and energy companies could be overruled by the EU on state aid grounds. Our own state-owned monopoly on the railways is currently facing pressure from the EU (despite the fact that no private operator wants to get involved in rail!).

Indeed, not only is the EU no friend of social democracy, but with its state aid rules and draconian rules on deficits under the Fiscal Treaty, it has actually more-or-less outlawed two of the main features associated with social democracy, namely a mixed economy and Keynesian deficit spending.

ancapailldorcha

Creol1 wrote: »

While I approach the issue from the same perspective as you (i.e., a desire for a restoration of authentic social democracy), my conclusion is very different. It is true that there is some progressive EU legislation in terms of the working time directive, etc., but there is no way the Tories, with Jeremy Corbyn snapping at their heels, would dream of scrapping that and the EU is moving in a relentlessly neo-liberal direction.

On privatisation, for example, not only is the EU not a check on privatisation, it actively and strongly promotes it. I imagine you would probably like Jeremy Corbyn to be elected, but his plans to nationalise the railways and energy companies could be overruled by the EU on state aid grounds. Our own state-owned monopoly on the railways is currently facing pressure from the EU (despite the fact that no private operator wants to get involved in rail!).

Indeed, not only is the EU no friend of social democracy, but with its state aid rules and draconian rules on deficits under the Fiscal Treaty, it has actually more-or-less outlawed two of the main features associated with social democracy, namely a mixed economy and Keynesian deficit spending.

Corbyn has been opposed to the EU from day one. The only way I see it opposing his agenda if he wins is if the Tories go for the Norway option which will likely collapse the government and tear both major parties apart given that there is a strong pro-EU contingent within Labour which seems to be much more apparent than their Conservative counterparts.

Strazdas

ambro25 wrote: »

You appear to assume in the above, that this vast amount of Brits are all sufficiently educated and informed to understand the (potential) consequences of Brexiting upon their individual circumstances.

After living in the north of the UK for over 2 decades (cumulatively), I daresay that you are wrong. Very much so.

Do not mistake ignorance for acceptance

Note that I do not claim that most Brits are ignorant generally, or as an ad hominem: I claim that most Brits are ignorant about the EU generally, and the UK's place within it; significantly more so than the Irish and continental Europeans (a life experience call, based on 3 decades' worth of living and working across the EU, including in IE and the UK).

That's partly the fault of their education system, partly the fault of their MSM, partly the fault of their political legacy and system, and partly their own fault for lack of critical thinking faculties (-stemming at least partly from the education system). The balance is down to social inequality levels after 10 years' worth of GFC "recovery".

Very much so. It's obvious listening to the debates and reading the online comments that there is huge ignorance about the EU in Britain. They appear to think it is some autocratic structure like the Soviet Union and that EU 'leaders' just have to click their fingers in order to make something happen, hence all the comments about the EU becoming a superstate any time soon and "we're getting out just in time".

Probably a combination of things going on. A toxic lying press, a poor education system and some general xenophobia thrown in for good measure.

Anthracite

ambro25 wrote: »

Never underestimate the power of populism

A new geography curriculum – published on Thursday – makes no reference to the economic and political union.

It stands in stark contrast to the existing document introduced under Labour which requires pupils to study the EU at primary and secondary school.

Whitehall insiders warned that the EU was seen as a political and economic entity and had no place in geography lessons.

That last line is hilarious. Presumably they think that geography is entirely restricted to studying yardangs, zeugens and the like, and all the maps at the Home Office are one uniform colour with no borders or suchlike?

Morons. :rolleyes:

Vronsky

eire4 wrote: »

Fair points there. Personally I would prefer a green passport again but I am not bothered with the EU burgundy ones. Hey at least its not EU blue like on the EU flag now that I would not be happy about.

Presumably they chose burgundy as it was not the colour of any existing European passport at the time.

It's much like how all the images of Bridges and windows on the Euro not are emblematic of an architectural style and do not depict anything that is real.

ancapailldorcha

Anthracite wrote: »

That last line is hilarious. Presumably they think that geography is entirely restricted to studying yardangs, zeugens and the like, and all the maps at the Home Office are one uniform colour with no borders or suchlike?

Morons. :rolleyes:

Please post more constructively than this and refrain from name calling in future.

Water John

Well there is a drive, within the the European system to drive towards ever increasing integration. That, it would go backwards, otherwise, is one view. Yet, only 16% of the pop support such a stance. The majority in Ireland, would be opposed to it but feel that view can be made to prevail, internally.