Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

For this election, I believe the problem is far greater than economics.

As a believer in free market capitalism, the very idea of Jeremy Corbyn taking to 10 Downing Street is horrifying.

What aspect of free-market captialism is so great? Why do you "believe" so hard in it?

What would be your preferred model for the UK? Say America or Denmark?

Second, his history with the IRA and general sympathies with those terrorist organizations that oppose the UK, is an even greater reason to oppose Corbynism.

What aspect of his contact with the IRA in the 70s/80s do you particularly dislike and reckon risks the integrity of the UK now?

Doesn't the GFA guarantee that the North is continues to be part of the UK until the consent of those therein is given to change it?

Does Corbyn as PM threaten the GFA?

Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence,

When a material change occurs in the status of a State should a second referendum, not be looked at again?
I mean, the famous "VOW" from Cameron, Milliband and Clegg was a lie.
Or do you believe that it was a lie worth telling to coerce the Scots to stay within the dysfunctional bosom of the UK?

What do you care, as an Irishman, if Scotland decided "take her place among the nations of the earth"?

coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office.

The reunification of Ireland can only occur with the consent of all the people of this island via 2 referenda, north and south. Corbyn as PM can only work within the framework as laid out in the GFA.

As PM he would be guarantor of that framework. Do you think he shouldn't, as PM, be a guarantor or be pro-GFA?

Fourth, deliberately misleading the country at the previous General Election saying that the Labour Party would "respect the referendum result", yet the party went on to do precisely the opposite, and now wishes to renegotiate a deal that approximates toward Remain, then offer that versus Remain in another referendum.

How did he mislead the country? The referendum has been respected. The nature of the exit has yet to be agreed and that is all on the Tories.

They are my four key reasons for opposing Corbynism.

The spending pledges that the Conservative Party are offering are almost irrelevant compared to the significance of avoiding the above 4 risks.

In your opinion. But the Tories are LYING and MISLEADING everyone. But you're okay with that.

Joe_ Public

[Deleted User] wrote: »

For this election, I believe the problem is far greater than economics.

As a believer in free market capitalism, the very idea of Jeremy Corbyn taking to 10 Downing Street is horrifying.

Second, his history with the IRA and general sympathies with those terrorist organizations that oppose the UK, is an even greater reason to oppose Corbynism.

Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence, coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office.

Fourth, deliberately misleading the country at the previous General Election saying that the Labour Party would "respect the referendum result", yet the party went on to do precisely the opposite, and now wishes to renegotiate a deal that approximates toward Remain, then offer that versus Remain in another referendum.

They are my four key reasons for opposing Corbynism.

The spending pledges that the Conservative Party are offering are almost irrelevant compared to the significance of avoiding the above 4 risks.

Ok fair enough. I'll take that as a no then.

VinLieger

Deleted User wrote: »

Third, the potential risk of Scotland securing a second referendum on independence, coupled with his support for Irish reunification, is a further reason for him not to attain office.

Actually im curious do you think the absolute bare faced lie the Scottish people were fed during their referendum that the only way to stay in the EU was stay in the UK is justified under your "constructive deception" position?

lawred2

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i watched the Joe Duffy doc on the Children killled in The Troubles and it really brought it home to me just how evil the IRA was. sickening atrocities.
that and the young girl (now a mature lady) blinded in the Omagh bomb who was on the Gaybo tribute last evening. truly evil baastaards they were in case we ever forget.

yeah the IRA are bad

This is a Brexit thread

Letwin_Larry

lawred2 wrote: »

yeah the IRA are bad

This is a Brexit thread

yes but as a previous poster pointed out corbyn's association with our republican child-killlers could well affect the upcoming Brexmas election.
you need to try joining up the dots.

Joe_ Public

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

yes but as a previous poster pointed out corbyn's association with our republican child-killlers could well affect the upcoming Brexmas election.
you need to try joining up the dots.

I think the ira thing was done to death in 2017 tbh. Didnt really change much then and see no reason why it would have much effect now. Bigger problems for corbyn than that old attack line.

FrancieBrady

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the ira thing was done to death in 2017 tbh. Didnt really change much then and see no reason why it would have much effect now. Bigger problems for corbyn than that old attack line.

Having gotten a serious dose of the DUP the average British person might understand northern Ireland a bit better.

Letwin_Larry

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I think the ira thing was done to death in 2017 tbh. Didnt really change much then and see no reason why it would have much effect now. Bigger problems for corbyn than that old attack line.

you're probably right, but i have no doubt bojo & co will remind him of his past associations with mass murderers during this campaign and especially during the TV debates, if for no other reason "than to hear him deny it"

VinLieger

So in the same week Boris blocked the release of the report on russian interfereance during the referendum the tories get a massive cash injection from russian donors...

Nope nothing suspicious here

https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnsons-conservatives-receive-surge-in-cash-from-russians-2019-11?r=US&IR=T

ancapailldorcha

lawred2 wrote: »

yeah the IRA are bad

This is a Brexit thread

Do not backseat mod please.

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

you need to try joining up the dots.

Drop the snide comments please.

Imreoir2

theological wrote: »

The UK's reduced competence in trade negotiations is because it joined the EEC in the 70's and later the EU in post-Maastricht. This is the reason I find your argument poor here. It highlights a downside to EU membership which is that countries are required to give up an independent trade policy to join. Leaving the EU and building up this capacity will be good for the UK.

There is very little evidence of this. It is true that the UK lacks a competant trade cadre because of it's membership of the EU, but it does not follow that the UK would be better off having to do trade deals of its own.

The UK's trade negiotiatiors may in time become just as good as the EU's as they gain experience in the hard world of trade deals. The lack of a competant trade team is an initial disadvantage that the UK will have to overcome during a period of crisis, but in twenty years time it will no longer be a significant factor. Eventually having a trade team as competant as the EU has now does not mean they will do a better job then the EU is doing now for the UK, and it won't make up for the other inescapable disadvantages the UK suffers from.

As such, there is no reason at all to believe that the UK will ever be better off from having its own trade negiotiators doing deals on its behalf rather than enjoying the trade deals the EU does.

I disagree with the pessimism about the UK being able to agree FTA's. Smaller countries have been able to negotiate good FTA's that have been beneficial to their economies.

It is true that many countries have managed to negiotiate FTA's, but being able to get some FTA's does not make Brexit a good idea. What matters is the quantity and quality of those agreements. For Brexit to make sence economicially the agreements the UK forges after leaving the EU need to be more extensive and of better quality than those it currently enjoys as part of the EU and whatever future deals the EU gets.

Far from getting better and more extensive trade deals outside the EU, it is quite certain that the UK will start off from a massivly worse position than it has within the EU. Any deal the UK does with the EU, especially the kind of bare FTA that the Tories now seem to favour is going to be vastly worse for the UK than the current access it has to the EU through the SM and CU. Outside of Europe, the UK is failing to even stand still. All indicators suggest that the UK will not be able to agree standstill agreements with most of its significant partners outside of the EU becasue they see Brexit as a golden opportunity to leverage the UKs weakness to gain siginficant concessions.

This is presuming that the UK won't be able to negotiate a FTA with the European Union. Smaller countries like Canada have been able to do this.

The UK may eventually get an FTA with the EU, but that will be much worse for the UK than the current access it has to the EU market under the SM and CU.

I don't deny that it will take time for the UK to develop its own trade and immigration policy, I simply think it is a step worth taking. What Brexit offers is the opportunity for the British parliament to make these decisions rather than the European Union. That for me is a good thing because I believe in national sovereignty.

Thats your opinion and you are welcome to it, but there is no evidence to support it over the short or medium term. Perhaps JRM is right and Brexit will be of benefit to the UK in 50 years time. It is essentially impossible to make any kind of credible prediction over that time scale. In the short to medium term through, it is impossible to deny that Brexit will be bad for the UK economically.

You can't eat national sovereignty.

Bannasidhe

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i watched the Joe Duffy doc on the Children killled in The Troubles and it really brought it home to me just how evil the IRA was. sickening atrocities.
that and the young girl (now a mature lady) blinded in the Omagh bomb who was on the Gaybo tribute last evening. truly evil baastaards they were in case we ever forget.

Do you think no politician should have tried to have a dialogue with them?
Where do you think that would have led?
I think refusing to speak to the IRA - or the equally vile and murderous Loyalist paramilitaries who seem to rarely be mentioned - would have led exactly nowhere and the atrocities from all sides would have continued unabated.

Thankfully, sense prevailed, dialogue happened, an agreement was reached, and peace has (for the most part) occurred.

Danzy

[Deleted User] wrote: »

However, my point regarding spending-on-steroids stands; it's a typical socialist stance - spend your way out of existing problems, often at the expense of future generations.

I'm not disagreeing with that but the exact same can be said of Western economies since Thatcher and Reagan.

Debt levels have exploded since the 80s as free market economics took hold.

Too much one way is not a solution to too much the other way.

theological

ambro25 wrote: »

The obvious flaw in your core argument, is that the UK is a smaller economy, pre- just like post-Brexit, than the integrated supranational economy made up of these smaller countries.

So, with your above sentence, you have inadvertently validated the fundamental use case of the Single Market, at the expense of the notion of Brexiting: trade union makes trade might.

Although the UK economy is smaller than the entire EU. It is a large market in it's own right as the world's 5th biggest.

I'm not convinced of your assumption that the EU will automatically negotiate better deals for the UK. This is because the EU has to negotiate on the basis of the priorities of 28 disparate countries rather than the needs of the UK alone. This will allow the UK to negotiate on priorities that suit it. Negotiating on the basis of less countries should allow the UK to negotiate with greater agility.

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I'm not saying there are no advantages to single market membership or even EU membership. I am saying two things however.

Firstly - the value of single market membership is not as big for a large economy like the UK as it is for a small country.

Secondly - the value proposition of increased national sovereignty over trade, immigration amongst other areas is a greater value proposition than staying in the single market, customs union or the EU.

My position is more nuanced than the Brexiteer caricature that you are seeking to lump me in with.

Imreoir2

theological wrote: »

Firstly - the value of single market membership is not as big for a large economy like the UK as it is for a small country.

Secondly - the value proposition of increased national sovereignty over trade, immigration amongst other areas is a greater value proposition than staying in the single market, customs union or the EU.

Can you support these points? What is your claim as the the relative value of the SM to larger vs smaller countries based on?

As for your second point, for the avoidance of doubt, when you speak of value are you speaking about your feels or actual verifable metrics? If it is the latter, can you outline what those metrics are and how being outside the EU is better?

Professor Moriarty

theological wrote: »

Although the UK economy is smaller than the entire EU. It is a large market in it's own right as the world's 5th biggest.

I'm not convinced of your assumption that the EU will automatically negotiate better deals for the UK. This is because the EU has to negotiate on the basis of the priorities of 28 disparate countries rather than the needs of the UK alone. This will allow the UK to negotiate on priorities that suit it. Negotiating on the basis of less countries should allow the UK to negotiate with greater agility.

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I'm not saying there are no advantages to single market membership or even EU membership. I am saying two things however.

Firstly - the value of single market membership is not as big for a large economy like the UK as it is for a small country.

Secondly - the value proposition of increased national sovereignty over trade, immigration amongst other areas is a greater value proposition than staying in the single market, customs union or the EU.

My position is more nuanced than the Brexiteer caricature that you are seeking to lump me in with.

The UK is due to slip down to 7th place in 2019.

First Up

theological wrote: »

Although the UK economy is smaller than the entire EU. It is a large market in it's own right as the world's 5th biggest.

I'm not convinced of your assumption that the EU will automatically negotiate better deals for the UK. This is because the EU has to negotiate on the basis of the priorities of 28 disparate countries rather than the needs of the UK alone. This will allow the UK to negotiate on priorities that suit it. Negotiating on the basis of less countries should allow the UK to negotiate with greater agility.

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I'm not saying there are no advantages to single market membership or even EU membership. I am saying two things however.

Firstly - the value of single market membership is not as big for a large economy like the UK as it is for a small country.

Secondly - the value proposition of increased national sovereignty over trade, immigration amongst other areas is a greater value proposition than staying in the single market, customs union or the EU.

My position is more nuanced than the Brexiteer caricature that you are seeking to lump me in with.

And its a lot more nuanced than trade "deals". Single Market membership has enabled UK companies become part of Europe wide supply and value chains. EU membership has allowed the UK to participate in the Europe wide science and research programmes that keep Europe at the top in competitiveness with China and the US. Most of that will be lost by Brexit.

Leaving the Single Market also greatly reduces the case for mobile investment from outside Europe to go to the UK.

The consequences of all that will become clear over time.

serfboard

theological wrote: »

the value proposition of increased national sovereignty over trade, immigration amongst other areas is a greater value proposition than staying in the single market, customs union or the EU.

So trade will be better outside the EU/SM/CU than inside - what are you basing that on?

gooch2k9

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50323768

Sylvia Hermon standing down as North Down MP. Definitely a bad thing for pro remain side in NI. Hopefully her votes move to Alliance en masse otherwise DUP have it in the bag.

Professor Moriarty

gooch2k9 wrote: »

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50323768

Sylvia Hermon standing down as North Down MP. Definitely a bad thing for pro remain side in NI. Hopefully her votes move to Alliance en masse otherwise DUP have it in the bag.

Big loss for sensible thinking in NI. SF were going to stand aside for her, which speaks volumes.

First Up

theological wrote: »

Although the UK economy is smaller than the entire EU. It is a large market in it's own right as the world's 5th biggest.

I'm not convinced of your assumption that the EU will automatically negotiate better deals for the UK. This is because the EU has to negotiate on the basis of the priorities of 28 disparate countries rather than the needs of the UK alone. This will allow the UK to negotiate on priorities that suit it. Negotiating on the basis of less countries should allow the UK to negotiate with greater agility.

You seem to misunderstand what I am saying. I'm not saying there are no advantages to single market membership or even EU membership. I am saying two things however.

Firstly - the value of single market membership is not as big for a large economy like the UK as it is for a small country.

Secondly - the value proposition of increased national sovereignty over trade, immigration amongst other areas is a greater value proposition than staying in the single market, customs union or the EU.

My position is more nuanced than the Brexiteer caricature that you are seeking to lump me in with.

And its a lot more nuanced than trade "deals". Single Market membership has enabled UK companies become part of Europe wide supply and value chains. EU membership has allowed the UK to participate in the Europe wide science and research programmes that keep Europe at the top in competitiveness with China and the US. Most of that will be lost by Brexit.

Leaving the Single Market also greatly reduces the case for mobile investment from outside Europe to go to the UK.

The consequences of all that will become clear over time.

quokula

With the Brexit votes so important to Ireland and on such a knife edge, and the possibility of another hung parliament looming large, I assume there's still no talk from Sinn Fein on the possibility of turning up and voting?

I know they were pushed on it for some of the key votes last year, and the response was that voters elected them on a promise of abstentionism, but a new election is a new opportunity to revisit that surely?

boring accountant

First Up wrote: »

And its a lot more nuanced than trade "deals". Single Market membership has enabled UK companies become part of Europe wide supply and value chains. EU membership has allowed the UK to participate in the Europe wide science and research programmes that keep Europe at the top in competitiveness with China and the US. Most of that will be lost by Brexit.

Leaving the Single Market also greatly reduces the case for mobile investment from outside Europe to go to the UK.

The consequences of all that will become clear over time.

Tragically, this is not the case. Europe, by that I mean European companies, are very far behind the curve. Completely missed the boat on Internet 2.0. Missing out on 5G. Likely to be 3rd best or maybe a distant second in electric vehicles.

A lot of this comes down to domestic politics and entrenched national interest. Take for example the reaction to todays announcement of a depositary banking union. It looks like its implementation will hinge upon the support of Merkel's coalition partners. Not an effective way to run a union of 27 member states.

Europe is still great at producing the inventions of the 20th century, but the 21st century is passing us by.

Bannasidhe

quokula wrote: »

With the Brexit votes so important to Ireland and on such a knife edge, and the possibility of another hung parliament looming large, I assume there's still no talk from Sinn Fein on the possibility of turning up and voting?

I know they were pushed on it for some of the key votes last year, and the response was that voters elected them on a promise of abstentionism, but a new election is a new opportunity to revisit that surely?

I doubt they will as it would involve taking the Oath of Allegiance and that's a no for them.
Wan't that always the case for SF including in the then Free State parliament?

quokula

I see the Lib Dems have been at it again with their lying election material.

First of all they've been misattributing quotes. When a newspaper reported "Jo Swinson said X", Lib Dem election material quoted the newspaper as saying X, in order to falsely make it look like it's a quote from a neutral party rather than their own leader. And even when challenged on it they've been defending it as technically those words were printed.

Then their endless misleading graphs and false poll data designed to trick tactical voters into choosing them over Labour has been continuing, to the point that one of the polling companies they use have actually issued a statement condemning the misuse of their data, as seen here: https://flavible.co.uk/statement

They're a liability to the remain cause.

Bannasidhe

quokula wrote: »

I see the Lib Dems have been at it again with their lying election material.

.

Don't you mean Jo Swinson's Liberal Democrats?

When I saw that written on the side of her campaign bus it was a real rolleyes moment for me. Talk about the Ego has Landed.

boring accountant

quokula wrote: »

I see the Lib Dems have been at it again with their lying election material.

First of all they've been misattributing quotes. When a newspaper reported "Jo Swinson said X", Lib Dem election material quoted the newspaper as saying X, in order to falsely make it look like it's a quote from a neutral party rather than their own leader. And even when challenged on it they've been defending it as technically those words were printed.

Then their endless misleading graphs and false poll data designed to trick tactical voters into choosing them over Labour has been continuing, to the point that one of the polling companies they use have actually issued a statement condemning the misuse of their data, as seen here: https://flavible.co.uk/statement

They're a liability to the remain cause.

This election will be the most bitter in my lifetime without a doubt. I've noticed editorial standards at several Remain supporting publications fall of a cliff almost as soon as the election was announced. Case in point is the manufactured outrage over JRM's comments about Grenfell. Of course people lap it up and it fuels the hatred necessary to drive people to the polls, but it comes at the cost of social cohesion.

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

This election will be the most bitter in my lifetime without a doubt. I've noticed editorial standards at several Remain supporting publications fall of a cliff almost as soon as the election was announced. Case in point is the manufactured outrage over JRM's comments about Grenfell. Of course people lap it up and it fuels the hatred necessary to drive people to the polls, but it comes at the cost of social cohesion.

Have you heard of The Telegraph, Mail, Sun and Express? Bastions of independent reportage. Check them out of you want unbiased information.

jm08

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i watched the Joe Duffy doc on the Children killled in The Troubles and it really brought it home to me just how evil the IRA was. sickening atrocities.
that and the young girl (now a mature lady) blinded in the Omagh bomb who was on the Gaybo tribute last evening. truly evil baastaards they were in case we ever forget.

Just for a little balance. The first child killed in the Troubles was 9 year old Patrick Rooney in 1969 in Belfast. Shot in the back of his head in his own flat by a British soldier. Worth a read.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/father-tells-of-his-son-s-1969-killing-by-british-army-for-the-first-time-1.179715


Although it doesn't say it here, I think the child's father had served in the British Army.

boring accountant

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Have you heard of The Telegraph, Mail, Sun and Express? Bastions of independent reportage. Check them out of you want unbiased information.

Your Pavlovian response to my singling out Remain sources is irritatingly predictable. I thought it was particularly notable that Remain leaning broadsheets went from factual-but-with-an-editorial-perspective to tabloid toilet paper overnight. I never read right wing sources.

I may support Remain but I dislike poor journalism.