Brexit discussion thread IV

Infini

kowtow wrote: »

Yup, Leave Means Leave really is nonsense.

All Humpty Dumpty words.

It's actually stupid of them to be pushing this considering what will happen if they continue this folly (notwithstanding the feeling Farage is probably wanting this to happen so he can profit of the British Peoples misery when things implode but noone talks about this over there).

Leave mean's your royally screwed, Politically, Economically and Diplomatically. That's what leaving will cause for them.

Covney has also taken another shot at the DUP (who rightly deserve it) saying they cannot have a veto on the backstop.

https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0922/995368-brexit/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/22/dup-cannot-have-veto-on-brexit-border-deal-says-ireland

Imreoir2

revelman wrote: »

The vast majority of seats in the senate are either nominated directly by the Taoiseach or by members of the Oireachtas, Councils etc through 'panels'. The only election is for the six NUI and University of Dublin seats and this election is confined to graduates of those places

By that measure the US president is not democratically elected because they are appointed by the electoral college. Having a layer between the people and the election of a candidate is argueably less democratic than a direct election by the people as we have for our President for example, but it is not non-democratic.

prawnsambo

revelman wrote: »

I do try to take an interest in economics and I really admire the likes of Keynes. But we should remember that economics is not a science. Even economists admit that future predictions are invariably proved wrong. I'd be interested if somebody could point to an example from the recent past where an economist or think tank has made a precise predication about future economic activity that has turned out to be accurate. The idea that somebody can say that there will be a '16% hit to the regional economy' in the North East and people take this as the gospel truth is a bit strange in my opinion. I think most can agree that things are likely to get worse than better following Brexit in the UK but anything beyond this is pure guesswork in my opinion.

It's not that complicated though. The data available on any particular region is massive. So take the main areas of employment, apply price rises and/or shrinking markets and project job losses. Apply those job losses to the local economy and estimate the multiplier effect. You can get very close to actual figures. But that's a very basic look at it. Economists would create models and apply various external modifiers. Multiple scenarios can be examined. I don't see it as a big mystery given the kind of economic data that's available to economists.

Capt'n Midnight

revelman wrote: »

We have to put all of this in context though - the UK's position as a net contributor to the EU for many years. According to the most recent House of Commons report on this issue, 'in 2017 the UK made an estimated gross contribution (after the rebate) of £13.0 billion. The UK received £4.1 billion of public sector receipts from the EU, so the UK's net public sector contribution to the EU was an estimated £8.9 billion.'

Thanks to the lack of growth compared to the rest of the EU economies since Brexit their contribution would have fallen.

€8.9Bn is less than a 1.5% over head on imports and exports.
And for that they get access to the Galileo statellites,
And access to the Schengen Information System, used 539 million times last year
And the European Arrest Warrant.


The UK exports services to the EU, a large part of this is because they are in the EU. They import a lot of food and energy from the EU.
[URL="https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851"[/url]

The UK had an overall trade deficit of -£67 billion with the EU in 2017. A surplus of £28 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of -£95 billion on trade in goods.

The UK had a trade surplus of £41 billion with non-EU countries. A surplus of £83 billion on trade in services outweighed a deficit of -£42 billion on trade in goods.

How many of these will be affected by passporting, controls on EU data or EU citizens data ?
Also factor in how many EU citizens are doing this work in the UK.

Financial services and other business services (a category which includes legal, accounting, advertising, research and development, architectural, engineering and other professional and technical services) are important categories of services exports to the EU – in 2017 these two service categories made up 52% of UK service exports to the EU.[/URL]

Here's a clue to how well the UK data protection ethos is aligned with the EU.
UK has six months to rewrite snooper's charter, high court rules
Judges say Investigatory Powers Act is incompatible with EU law after legal challenge by Liberty


Also all the EU agencies that moved.
The UK will lose command of the EU naval task force - set up to combat piracy off the coast of Somalia - as it exits the European Union.

revelman

Imreoir2 wrote: »

By that measure the US president is not democratically elected because they are appointed by the electoral college. Having a layer between the people and the election of a candidate is argueably less democratic than a direct election by the people as we have for our President for example, but it is not non-democratic.

I totally disagree on the US president analogy. The members of the electoral college are just window dressing - what matters is the vote by the people.

My point is that our Seanad is not very far away from the House of Lords in terms of how people are appointed. Apart from the relatively few religious seats, most are appointed 'on the advice of the Prime Minister' - the same layer that you are referring to. I don't know how many of the hereditary peers are still left after Blair's reforms - i imagine fewer and fewer each year until there are eventually none!

revelman

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not that complicated though. The data available on any particular region is massive. So take the main areas of employment, apply price rises and/or shrinking markets and project job losses. Apply those job losses to the local economy and estimate the multiplier effect. You can get very close to actual figures. But that's a very basic look at it. Economists would create models and apply various external modifiers. Multiple scenarios can be examined. I don't see it as a big mystery given the kind of economic data that's available to economists.

Thanks - this is interesting. I get that there are models - my question is when have these models ever made a prediction that turned out to be accurate? I always see the economic forecasts in this country and elsewhere being revised.

briany

Imreoir2 wrote: »

By that measure the US president is not democratically elected because they are appointed by the electoral college. Having a layer between the people and the election of a candidate is argueably less democratic than a direct election by the people as we have for our President for example, but it is not non-democratic.

Both systems have their faults. Direct democracy is open to mob rule and demagogic appeals to the base fears and desires of voters. The average person is too concerned with other areas of their lives to educate themselves politically. Representative democracy is open to corruption of its actors, and their interests diverging from those of the people they're supposed to represent. In both cases, you have humans involved, which tends to cause trouble.

Imreoir2

revelman wrote: »

I totally disagree on the US president analogy. The members of the electoral college are just window dressing - what matters is the vote by the people.

You should probably educate yourself on the electoral college then, there is nothing to stop them ignoring the vote of the people, and members of the electoral college have done so many times. It's only window dressing if you don't care that the existance of democracy depends on the honor system being respected by a group of unelected representatives behind closed doors.

kowtow

revelman wrote: »

I totally disagree on the US president analogy. The members of the electoral college are just window dressing - what matters is the vote by the people.

My point is that our Seanad is not very far away from the House of Lords in terms of how people are appointed. Apart from the relatively few religious seats, most are appointed 'on the advice of the Prime Minister' - the same layer that you are referring to. I don't know how many of the hereditary peers are still left after Blair's reforms - i imagine fewer and fewer each year until there are eventually none!

I sometimes think there are more hereditary peers in the Dail than in the House of Lords these days.

revelman

Imreoir2 wrote: »

You should probably educate yourself on the electoral college then, there is nothing to stop them ignoring the vote of the people, and members of the electoral college have done so many times. It's only window dressing if you don't care that the existance of democracy depends on the honor system being respected by a group of unelected representatives behind closed doors.

When is the last time faithless electors made any difference to an election? The theory is one thing, the reality another.

Imreoir2

revelman wrote: »

When is the last time faithless electors made any difference to an election? The theory is one thing, the reality another.

The more important question is when the next time will be. Democracy is about process as well as outcome.

revelman

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The more important question is when the next time will be. Democracy is about process as well as outcome.

I think that is a good point but I wouldn't underestimate the power of conventions, doing what is principles etc in politics. The process is made up of the actions of people after all.

Calina

revelman wrote: »

Imreoir2 wrote: »

By that measure the US president is not democratically elected because they are appointed by the electoral college. Having a layer between the people and the election of a candidate is argueably less democratic than a direct election by the people as we have for our President for example, but it is not non-democratic.

I totally disagree on the US president analogy. The members of the electoral college are just window dressing - what matters is the vote by the people.

My point is that our Seanad is not very far away from the House of Lords in terms of how people are appointed. Apart from the relatively few religious seats, most are appointed 'on the advice of the Prime Minister' - the same layer that you are referring to. I don't know how many of the hereditary peers are still left after Blair's reforms - i imagine fewer and fewer each year until there are eventually none!

I disagree. First up, Seanad plebescite needs reform but aside from the academic bloc, most seats are voted on by elected representatives. We don't enable the stuffing of the second house which is possible in the UK, we have no hereditary members and bishops do not sit there by right. There are a limited number of Taoiseach's nominees and it is broadly not used as a reward system for ex civil servants or industrialists who may or may not have strong ties with politucal parties.

revelman

Calina wrote: »

I disagree. First up, Seanad plebescite needs reform but aside from the academic bloc, most seats are voted on by elected representatives. We don't enable the stuffing of the second house which is possible in the UK, we have no hereditary members and bishops do not sit there by right. There are a limited number of Taoiseach's nominees and it is broadly not used as a reward system for ex civil servants or industrialists who may or may not have strong ties with politucal parties.

I think we may have gone a bit off topic! I see where you are going but remember that the hereditary peerage seats were abolished. Those who had them get to keep them until they die - there must be very few left. The bishops make up a tiny proportion of seats. The vast majority of seats are now political appointments.

I don't think the Seanad is very far away from this at all. The vast majority of seats are either the Taoiseach's appointments or the panels, which as far as I'm aware, are nominated by members of the Oireachtas and Councillors (meaning political appointments). You find the Seanad packed with people who are rewarded by political parties for something or other (or as a way to raise their profile ahead of a Dail election). Granted, you don't seem to get ex-civil servant appointments in Ireland. In sum, I really think there are more similarities than differences between the respective upper houses.

briany

briany wrote: »

Let's talk about 'Leave means Leave' for a second. It's one of these vagaries totally open to interpretation. You can leave the EU but transition to the EEA and EFTA. Notice that Norway, while a member of the EEA and EFTA, is not referred to as a member of the EU. Why? Because it isn't one.

Well this is the point I've been making for a while. 48% voted Remain. Of the 52% who voted Leave can be split into groups who wanted EEA, hard Brexit and who knows what else. For some reason the let's call it 30% who wanted out of everything are getting their way. It's laughable.

prawnsambo

revelman wrote: »

Thanks - this is interesting. I get that there are models - my question is when have these models ever made a prediction that turned out to be accurate? I always see the economic forecasts in this country and elsewhere being revised.

Economic forecasting is based on known factors. When you're talking about national economies, those forecasts can sometimes be off when some other external factor intervenes. What we're talking about is applying a massive economic blow to a region and extrapolating the result. Other factors may ameliorate or exacerbate these, but the forecasts are made on the basis of a particular set of events and what knock-on effects those events will cause. So by definition, they will probably be wrong, but only in the case of such other unforecasted or unmodeled factors.

Usually when forecasts miss, they can easily identify the cause. The brexit vote itself was one of those external factors that would have affected forecasts. The consequent drop in sterling was another effect.

Capt'n Midnight

In the UK the Head of State isn't elected.
The House of Lords isn't elected.
In the House of Commons 59% of MP's have Safe Seats. And the Tories have done a wee bit of Gerrymandering

Without massive swigs only two out of five of constituencies are realistically contested.

Here thanks to multi seat constituencies there aren't as many safe seats for TD's even when though the party is guaranteed to win. Because the trick for each TD is to win more votes than their running mate from the party faithful while not getting caught doing that. There's a lot of Devil take the hindmost, especially in a five seater.



The odd thing here is that the discussions are being done by unelected civil servants on both sides. Except the EU ones are following this and the UK ones have an impossible wish list and most of their wiggle room has been ruled out.
https://www.rte.ie/news/brexit/2018/0531/967284-border-poll/

The Tánaiste said from his experience, the British civil service was arguably the best in the world, but that it needed political direction in terms of making progress on the very complex set of issues linked to Brexit.

I must say I liked Tony Connelly's Jenga analogy. Each new statement or promise on the UK side seems to undermine a previous one. Look at incompatible promises on the border. The whole thing is getting top heavy.

Then again May is dead against the European courts so a Hard Brexit is just collateral damage.

Imreoir2

prawnsambo wrote: »

Economic forecasting is based on known factors. When you're talking about national economies, those forecasts can sometimes be off when some other external factor intervenes. What we're talking about is applying a massive economic blow to a region and extrapolating the result. Other factors may ameliorate or exacerbate these, but the forecasts are made on the basis of a particular set of events and what knock-on effects those events will cause. So by definition, they will probably be wrong, but only in the case of such other unforecasted or unmodeled factors.

Usually when forecasts miss, they can easily identify the cause. The brexit vote itself was one of those external factors that would have affected forecasts. The consequent drop in sterling was another effect.

The point people miss is that even when a forecast is wrong, the value of the forecast is not merely to tell you exactly where you will be in 12 months time, it is to give you information on weather or not a proposed policy is a good idea. A good policy might be predicted to boost your economey by 5%, if some other unanticipated shock comes along you might end up standing still, but without the good policy that unanticipated shock would have caused you to lose 5% instead of standing still. Other factors might effect the ultimate outcome, but the benefit or the good policy is still felt.

It is obviously much more complicated, but there is a value to knowing if you are straping on a life jacket or an ancor when you go for a swim.

Capt'n Midnight

DUP cannot be allowed have a veto on backstop deal, says Coveney

The Minister for Foreign Affairs has said the backstop agreement on the Irish border has been turned into a "green and orange" issue.

But isn't Brexit Red White and Blue

Speaking on RTÉ's Marian Finucane programme, Mr Coveney said: "We need to get a deal" and that while the DUP has a role to play in supporting the British government, Ireland [and the EU] does not have a 'confidence and supply' agreement with any political party in Northern Ireland.

Spook_ie

Sassygirl1999 wrote: »

The irony in the Brexiteers argument is shocking, the UK union is exactly the appalling bully system that the EU is not, the EU hasn't in the past (yet) been able to override a member countries democracy if that country voted against some strategy, the UK is the opposite in that the English can dictate to and ignore the other 'nations' vote even if the other nations don't want to do something such as leave the EU, imagine Germany forcing all the other countries in the EU into massive strategy changes even if they had democratically voted against that strategy, the arrogance is ironic

But it wasn't separate countries that voted leave it was the UK, your comparison would be akin to meaning Roscommon's no vote in the gay marriage referendum should mean that gay marriage wasn't legal there?

Water John

The moves and pressures within the two parties as they go through their conferences will take centre stage over the next two weeks and dictate the final run in to possible Brexit.
First up Labour. YouGov Poll this evening has 80% of their voters wanting a second referendum vote. Tom Watson also backs that. How will the leadership refuse the will of their members?

revelman

Spook_ie wrote: »

But it wasn't separate countries that voted leave it was the UK, your comparison would be akin to meaning Roscommon's no vote in the gay marriage referendum should mean that gay marriage wasn't legal there?

To be fair to Sassygirl1999, while I don't entirely agree with her analysis, you can't compare Roscommon to a nation in the United Kingdom e.g. Scotland. There was an Act of Union between two nations in 1707 (one of them being Scotland)!

Imreoir2

Spook_ie wrote: »

But it wasn't separate countries that voted leave it was the UK, your comparison would be akin to meaning Roscommon's no vote in the gay marriage referendum should mean that gay marriage wasn't legal there?

Roscommon is not a member nation of an Irish union.

Oafley Jones

Water John wrote: »

The moves and pressures within the two parties as they go through their conferences will take centre stage over the next two weeks and dictate the final run in to possible Brexit.
First up Labour. YouGov Poll this evening has 80% of their voters wanting a second referendum vote. Tom Watson also backs that. How will the leadership refuse the will of their members?

The Mirror reporting that Corbyn will back a second referendum if the party conference calls for it.

revelman

Oafley Jones wrote: »

The Mirror reporting that Corbyn will back a second referendum if the party conference calls for it.

If true, this could be a massive game-changer and might even be impetus for the EU to play even harder ball. The elephant in the room though is what happens if the Brexiteers prevail second time round too?

Spook_ie

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Roscommon is not a member nation of an Irish union.

No but it is a member county, suppose they had an option of joining the six because of their opposition to gay marriage or Donegal to join because of opposition to abortion, they don't because they were Irish referendums, likewise the Brexit referendum wasn't a NI, Scottish, Welsh, English referendum but a UK one

kowtow

revelman wrote: »

If true, this could be a massive game-changer and might even be impetus for the EU to play even harder ball.

Illustrating in one fell swoop how an impending second referendum is not in the UK's national interest.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/KeohaneDan/status/1043620195787583489


Can't make out the text in the article but...

revelman

Spook_ie wrote: »

No but it is a member county, suppose they had an option of joining the six because of their opposition to gay marriage or Donegal to join because of opposition to abortion, they don't because they were Irish referendums, likewise the Brexit referendum wasn't a NI, Scottish, Welsh, English referendum but a UK one

I really don't think this is a good argument. The United Kingdom is a Union
of nations. Ireland is a nation. So the material question is not what the individual components of the nation do (eg at county level) but what the nation does.

Imreoir2

revelman wrote: »

If true, this could be a massive game-changer and might even be impetus for the EU to play even harder ball. The elephant in the room though is what happens if the Brexiteers prevail second time round too?

The EU are not really unsubtle gansters, they have set out their position and have little reason to deviate from it, either to play hardball or to make concessions.