Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

JMcGee

I was just reading an article about the Brazlian beef (not a porn star) being cheaper and Irish beef being priced out of the UK market. I'm over simplifying this no doubt, but why couldn't Ireland try to increase it's exports to other European countries?

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think many of us have known this thread has been slipping over the last few months. If it descents to the absolute scutter that is allowed in the Trump thread, there won't be any point in coming here either.

Go to conspiracy theories or go to the Russian interference thread. Don't come here and poison discourse with assertions that Russia caused Trump and Brexit, before backpeddling to "influence" or "factor". If that's what you think it is, then say it from the start.

I'll say it outright. Brexit would not have passed if the leave campaign werent funded by russian money. Simple as that. 8 million pounds of unexplained money influenced enough people to vote for brexit to swing the vote.

If it wasnt for the Russian involvement, the Leave side would have not have had the resources to spread their lies so effectively.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Even then, it's nonsense, and pinning either on some foreign entity is just ignoring the actual societal problems that resulted in them.

Had Russia done nothing whatsoever, Trump and Brexit would have still happened.

So you're accepting that Russia did something. It's just the quantifiable effects that you seem to be having a problem with. So let's just park that for a moment and think what a foreign power attempting to influence democracy in another country means for democracy. And having thought about that, think a bit deeper about the fact that they got what they wanted. Whether or not it was their influence that acheived that result. Because they'll feel that they were successful. And so will try it again.

And so, back to the parked bit. Robert Mueller has indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers (that he can't get his hands on) and another who's now facing five years in jail after pleading guilty. The alleged involvement of these individuals goes from hacking computers through to entering the US and paying US citizens to help them. And then there's the massive surge of money going through the NRA - over $400 million in 2016 compared to $260 million in 2012. All under investigation by Mueller.

Moving to the UK, there is still no valid explanation as to the source of the £8 million that Arron Banks donated to the Leave campaign. The source of the funds still remains murky because his explanations don't stack up with the financial state of his companies into which he has had to pour money and which are lossmaking. But he has been very cosy with Russian interests and has also been interviewed by Robert Mueller. By his own admission.

Hurrache

prawnsambo wrote: »

The Indo are back with the FUD this morning.

Can you remember who wrote the piece without given it additional clicks? I suspect it's s lifted from the Farmers Journal, the author was on Pat Kenny yesterday morning and didn't really know his stuff.

There's a thread on the Farming forum that seems a bit of a mess last time I looked with people there taking a pop at Bord Bia of all places.

prawnsambo

JMcGee wrote: »

I was just reading an article about the Brazlian beef (not a porn star) being cheaper and Irish beef being priced out of the UK market. I'm over simplifying this no doubt, but why couldn't Ireland try to increase it's exports to other European countries?

I posted this earlier. You may have missed it.

prawnsambo wrote: »

The Indo are back with the FUD this morning. Saying that the UK are going to use quotas to import Brazilian beef tariff free by... Well... just ignoring MFN rules apparently. In other words, setting a tariff-free quota that apparently only the Brazilians can avail of. All of this is 'understood' without quotes and without any back up. It would just apply to Braxil because... And they could 'flood the market' because... nothing. I've quoted the relevant bit here so you don't have to click.

Short answer is that the Indo is talking nonsense. Yes, Brazilian beef is cheaper, but it also has to travel a long way. And we have been increasing exports to other EU countries and of course outside the EU through EU FTAs. Like Japan. Potentially a much bigger market than the UK.

prawnsambo

Hurrache wrote: »

Can you remember who wrote the piece without given it additional clicks?

Gareth Morgan and Louise Hogan.

JMcGee

prawnsambo wrote: »

I posted this earlier. You may have missed it.


Short answer is that the Indo is talking nonsense. Yes, Brazilian beef is cheaper, but it also has to travel a long way. And we have been increasing exports to other EU countries and of course outside the EU through EU FTAs. Like Japan. Potentially a much bigger market than the UK.

Thanks for that. Not sure of the shipping routes for beef, but Brazil->UK is maginally closer than Ireland->Japan

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

I'll say it outright. Brexit would not have passed if the leave campaign werent funded by russian money. Simple as that. 8 million pounds of unexplained money influenced enough people to vote for brexit to swing the vote.

If it wasnt for the Russian involvement, the Leave side would have not have had the resources to spread their lies so effectively.

Do you know many British people? Pretty much all of them that I know hated the EU before Brexit was even a thing. Your point would stand up better if there weren't so many of the public and so many MPs who already hated it.

I think it would have passed no matter what. Immigration fears / Refugees / The Big Red Bus / Boris Johnson etc. were there. It's not like the entire population got tricked.


My Brexit-voting best friend who initially regretted his vote is now full on backing No Deal. This is not Russia. It's innate to the British character and some measly few million and some targeted ads didn't push it over the line.

prawnsambo wrote: »

So you're accepting that Russia did something. It's just the quantifiable effects that you seem to be having a problem with.

I have a problem with the quantifiable effects? No, I don't. They are impossible to calculate and if you read my post above, you'll see my rationale for thinking that it would have happened anyway.

prawnsambo wrote: »

So let's just park that for a moment and think what a foreign power attempting to influence democracy in another country means for democracy.

Like many, I think this is a bit rich when discussing the UK and the US considering their histories. Influence is to be expected, but a large percentage of the British population was already firmly against the EU.

prawnsambo wrote: »

And having thought about that, think a bit deeper about the fact that they got what they wanted. Whether or not it was their influence that acheived that result. Because they'll feel that they were successful. And so will try it again.

And so, back to the parked bit. Robert Mueller has indicted 12 Russian military intelligence officers (that he can't get his hands on) and another who's now facing five years in jail after pleading guilty. The alleged involvement of these individuals goes from hacking computers through to entering the US and paying US citizens to help them. And then there's the massive surge of money going through the NRA - over $400 million in 2016 compared to $260 million in 2012. All under investigation by Mueller.

Moving to the UK, there is still no valid explanation as to the source of the £8 million that Arron Banks donated to the Leave campaign. The source of the funds still remains murky because his explanations don't stack up with the financial state of his companies into which he has had to pour money and which are lossmaking. But he has been very cosy with Russian interests and has also been interviewed by Robert Mueller. By his own admission.

Belongs in the Trump thread and does nothing to convince me of the actual impact of their influence. Proving something happened is different to talking about the effects of it. It's too easy to say "Russia did this, therefore the result is their doing."

To add to that big post, check the polling in the UK back to 2010 regarding EU membership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum


Maybe Russia has been running a disinformation campaign for a decade, but I think it's more than reasonable to pin the leave vote on systemic issues in British society. I don't think Russia did enough. I think it was already there and waiting to happen.

seamus

The UK flooding their own internal markets with cheap food from developing countries that hasn't been through proper checks, is how they will annihilate their food export market. Any food they want to sell into the EU still has to meet those checks, and if they're pulling in tonnes of unverified rubbish, they might find their own exports being turned away.

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The UK flooding their own internal markets with cheap food from developing countries that hasn't been through proper checks, is how they will annihilate their food export market. Any food they want to sell into the EU still has to meet those checks, and if they're pulling in tonnes of unverified rubbish, they might find their own exports being turned away.

Surely this isn't really an option, though? They couldn't get a trade deal with anyone if their market has sub-standard produce.

Or is this what would happen temporarily under WTO?

downcow

Deleted User wrote: »

To add to that big post, check the polling in the UK back to 2010 regarding EU membership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum


I think it's more than reasonable to pin the leave vote on systemic issues in British society.

Of course the shambles that is the EU had nothing to do with it?

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Of course the shambles that is the EU had nothing to do with it?

Here we go again :rolleyes:
In what way is the EU a shambles?

Peregrinus

We can't say that Russian influence caused Brexit any more than we can say that it was caused by anti-immigrant sentiment, or by the long-standing dislike of the EU felt by a chunk of the UK population, or by the corrosive effect of the UK's appalling media, or any one of a number of other factors.

What we can say is that it was the combination of all these factors that led to Brexit. No one of them is solely responsible, but every one of them is as responible as every other one of them.

We can only speculate about what would have happened if the factors had combined in a different way. The margin of victory was pretty small; would it have been eroded altogether if the Russian factor had not been at work? That's not an unreasonable or implausible speculation but, equally, it's not an established fact - it never can be. It's not the established fact that Akrasia suggests but, equally, it's not "nonsense" as Ads by Google asserts. Over-simplistic binary thinking is not helpful here.

Is it a problem? Yes; if we accept that improper Russian influence was a factor, and that it may have had a material impact on the outcome of the course of events then, undeniably, this puts a question mark over the democratic legitimacy of the referendum outcome. And that in turn might affect in what way Parliament decides to "respect" the outcome, as the Tory manifesto committed to do. "Respecting" the outcome does, I suggest, involve respecting the fact that the outcome is a bit dodgy.

Hurrache

Deleted User wrote: »

To add to that big post, check the polling in the UK back to 2010 regarding EU membership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum


Maybe Russia has been running a disinformation campaign for a decade, but I think it's more than reasonable to pin the leave vote on systemic issues in British society. I don't think Russia did enough. I think it was already there and waiting to happen.

What is the data now that people have been exposed a lot more to how the EU actually works, and not basing their belief on what the red tops tell them?

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

Of course the shambles that is the EU had nothing to do with it?

LOL, you say you were a remainer. Why would you have wanted to stay in a shambles? Just as well the reaction of Irish people to Brexit changed your mind isn't it.

downcow

Now that Anna Soubry has lost all integrity by wanting a second vote on the one she lost (EU remain) but running scared from a second vote on the one she won (election to HoC), I am curious about how far this inconsistency would stretch.

if there was a second referendum and result was flipped i.e. an equally close vote to remain, do you think we should check again to be sure?
...and if NI vote to leave and the others vote to stay, how should that affect the way ahead?

downcow

downcow wrote: »

Of course the shambles that is the EU had nothing to do with it?

I think it's pretty clear that even up to today, the majority of the British public knew nothing of the "shambles" it was. They just "knew" it was a shambles.

As someone from Northern Ireland, could you fill us in on some of your grievances with the EU?

I've heard people harp on about the EU being this and that, but they struggle to point out how the issues there negatively affected them, and the "British character" I mentioned seems to blind too many to the benefits it brings, even if it is a "shambles".


"It may be a shambles, but it's our shambles, and it's better that nothing." - 90% of Irish people.

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

Now that Anna Soubry has lost all integrity by wanting a second vote on the one she lost (EU remain) but running scared from a second vote on the one she won (election to HoC), I am curious about how far this inconsistency would stretch.

if there was a second referendum and result was flipped i.e. an equally close vote to remain, do you think we should check again to be sure?
...and if NI vote to leave and the others vote to stay, how should that affect the way ahead?

You've jumped the shark now. When was the last time you made a factual post?

Do you have anything worthwhile to say? I mean you were literally just asked to explain why the EU is a shambles. Now we know your modus operandi is to ignore questions, but give this one a go, you may redeem yourself. It can't be that hard to do so as you recently changed from being a remainer didn't you, so the reasons must be still fresh in your mind.

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

Now that Anna Soubry has lost all integrity by wanting a second vote on the one she lost (EU remain) but running scared from a second vote on the one she won (election to HoC), I am curious about how far this inconsistency would stretch.

Are you satisfied that there was no outside interference or corruption within the referendum campaign?

downcow wrote: »

if there was a second referendum and result was flipped i.e. an equally close vote to remain, do you think we should check again to be sure?
...and if NI vote to leave and the others vote to stay, how should that affect the way ahead?

I would prefer if the UK and NI held an informed referendum rather than one whee private agendas were allowed control the "facts" being discussed.
If this was the case then the majority of people would vote to remain wihtin the EU.

Peregrinus

JMcGee wrote: »

I was just reading an article about the Brazlian beef (not a porn star) being cheaper and Irish beef being priced out of the UK market. I'm over simplifying this no doubt, but why couldn't Ireland try to increase it's exports to other European countries?

We'd have to increase them by an awful lot; 50% of Irish beef exports go to the UK. To make up for the loss of this, the rest of the EU would have to more than double the amount of Irish beef they currently take and, while it would be nice if they did, is their any reason why we should expect them to? They're not going to suddenly start eating more beef; why would they?

The fact is that we have reduced our exposure to UK markets (a few years ago they took 54%), and increased our sales in the EU (and the rest of the world). But it's unrealistic to think that any marketing campaign can more than double the sales of Irish beef to other EU countries.

downcow

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Here we go again :rolleyes:
In what way is the EU a shambles?

You have a habit of answering a question with another question. but let me put it a less contentious way - Are you suggesting that British society is in such a mess and the EU and Ireland are the opposite. You say the reason UK people want out is because of systemic problems in UK society - that just seems like a bit of a stretch

Hurrache

downcow wrote: »

You have a habit of answering a question with another question.

C'mon now, grow up and read what's put in front of you. You said the EU was a shambles, you were asked, multiple times, to explain why.

How on earth is that answering a question with a question?

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

You have a habit of answering a question with another question. but let me put it a less contentious way - Are you suggesting that British society is in such a mess and the EU and Ireland are the opposite. You say the reason UK people want out is because of systemic problems in UK society - that just seems like a bit of a stretch

If the EU was the shambles that you refer to then surely every country within the EU would be as bad as Britain!
The EU may have issue but nothing when compared to the UK.
Your DUP unionist pride is clouding your judgement. Travel the world and see for yourself: Britain is a laughing stock due to its incompetence and its been like this for quite a while.

downcow

Hurrache wrote: »

You've jumped the shark now. When was the last time you made a factual post?

Do you have anything worthwhile to say? I mean you were literally just asked to explain why the EU is a shambles. Now we know your modus operandi is to ignore questions, but give this one a go, you may redeem yourself. It can't be that hard to do so as you recently changed from being a remainer didn't you, so the reasons must be still fresh in your mind.

Pot and kettle comes to mind. I have answered that question several times. when i continually repeat answers then mods aren't happy with me.

How about you tell me what is wrong with me questioning someones integrity who wants second votes when situations change - but only when they lost and think they may win next time - not when they won and know fine well they would lose in a second vote.
So instead of attacking me just enlighten me as i am struggling on this one

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you know many British people? Pretty much all of them that I know hated the EU before Brexit was even a thing. Your point would stand up better if there weren't so many of the public and so many MPs who already hated it.

This is a bit of a strawman. Because I've never said anything about anti-EU sentiment and certainly never intimated that it wasn't strong in the UK. Even the EU has a web page listing all the lies told about the EU in the British press over the years. And it's a very big page.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it would have passed no matter what. Immigration fears / Refugees / The Big Red Bus / Boris Johnson etc. were there. It's not like the entire population got tricked.

Yes, it may well have done. But again that wasn't my point. I said that if you accept that the Russians interfered (which you do), the result justifies their actions. Whether or not those actions directly influenced the result.

Deleted User wrote: »

My Brexit-voting best friend who initially regretted his vote is now full on backing No Deal. This is not Russia. It's innate to the British character and some measly few million and some targeted ads didn't push it over the line.

That 'measly' few million added up to almost two thirds of the entire leave campign funding. Your friend is not unusual. It's the desire to collect the winning trophy, regardless of how it smells.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a problem with the quantifiable effects? No, I don't. They are impossible to calculate and if you read my post above, you'll see my rationale for thinking that it would have happened anyway.

You seem to have deliberately misinterpreted my point about the quantifiable effects of Russian interference. Your problem is that they aren't quantifiable. Is that clear enough for you?

Deleted User wrote: »

Like many, I think this is a bit rich when discussing the UK and the US considering their histories. Influence is to be expected, but a large percentage of the British population was already firmly against the EU.

So you're happy to see other nations attempt to influence your elections because turnabout is fair game? Perhaps you're correct that it's Karma. But let's not forget that this is a decision that deeply affects us and I'm not sure you can say it has the same Karmic resonance.

Deleted User wrote: »

Belongs in the Trump thread and does nothing to convince me of the actual impact of their influence. Proving something happened is different to talking about the effects of it. It's too easy to say "Russia did this, therefore the result is their doing."

And again, you're deliberately misinterpreting my point. And this doesn't belong in the Trump thread, becasue both issues are interlinked. All the CA and AIQ methodology used in the brexit campaign was used in the US presidential race. Brexit was the beta test. And this is where your argument falls down. If the results were as inconsequential and unmeasurable as you suggest, all that expense would never have been entered into and CA and AIQ would have been dropped completely.

intellectual dosser

downcow wrote: »

Pot and kettle comes to mind. I have answered that question several times. when i continually repeat answers then mods aren't happy with me.

How about you tell me what is wrong with me questioning someones integrity who wants second votes when situations change - but only when they lost and think they may win next time - not when they won and know fine well they would lose in a second vote.
So instead of attacking me just enlighten me as i am struggling on this one

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if there is data that indicates that Remain would win in another referendum, then that would be grounds for another referendum.

Nothing has changed, but the people of UK now have a better understanding of what leaving the EU means. Not a total and clear understanding yet, but better than 2016.

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Do you know many British people? Pretty much all of them that I know hated the EU before Brexit was even a thing. Your point would stand up better if there weren't so many of the public and so many MPs who already hated it.

I think it would have passed no matter what. Immigration fears / Refugees / The Big Red Bus / Boris Johnson etc. were there. It's not like the entire population got tricked.


My Brexit-voting best friend who initially regretted his vote is now full on backing No Deal. This is not Russia. It's innate to the British character and some measly few million and some targeted ads didn't push it over the line.



I have a problem with the quantifiable effects? No, I don't. They are impossible to calculate and if you read my post above, you'll see my rationale for thinking that it would have happened anyway.



Like many, I think this is a bit rich when discussing the UK and the US considering their histories. Influence is to be expected, but a large percentage of the British population was already firmly against the EU.



Belongs in the Trump thread and does nothing to convince me of the actual impact of their influence. Proving something happened is different to talking about the effects of it. It's too easy to say "Russia did this, therefore the result is their doing."

Theres so much wrong with this.

1. Yes I know lots of british people. But i dont know millions of them and neither do you. Your own circle of acquaintances isn't proof of the political sentiment of 4 countries making up the UK.

2. Most MPs voted remain

3. The big red bus etc certainly didnt trick 'the entire population' it didn't neeed to. It just needed to swing undecided voters and mobilise people to vote who would not other wise have voted. The Russians only needed to swing 2 out of every hundred voters to get over the line.

After the vote, people were asked why they voted to leave. 3/4 leave voters used the phrase 'Take back control' which was the vote leave campaign slogan.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/11/how-many-leave-voters-would-vote-differently-today-and-why/amp/

2/3 of those leave voters wanted more money for the NHS.

downcow

Hurrache wrote: »

C'mon now, grow up and read what's put in front of you. You said the EU was a shambles, you were asked, multiple times, to explain why.

How on earth is that answering a question with a question?

Pot / Kettle again. In your own words ("read what's put in front of you" - ...i sanitised that a little because if i had use your words exactly then i would have been for the high jump)


My question
'Of course the shambles that is the EU had nothing to do with it?'

The answer (question) i received back
'Here we go again
In what way is the EU a shambles?'

Seth Brundle

downcow wrote: »

My question
'Of course the shambles that is the EU had nothing to do with it?'

The answer (question) i received back
'Here we go again
In what way is the EU a shambles?'

You made a statement.
I asked you to back it up.
You asked me another question without answering mine.

So maybe now you will tell us how the EU is a shambles?