Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, the quote is accurate - that "if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more" in its own way.

Given the economic stature of the UK, I don't believe my belief is unreasonable.

Yeah. The economic stature of the UK is of a UK currently in the EU. Do you have any facts that demonstrate the UK will be economically better off post-Brexit? That Joe Bloggs will be better off post-Brexit?

gooch2k9

Eric Cartman wrote: »

as opposed to a labour one with no crowd....


I don't think the british public will be silly enough to put corbyn in no. 10 , silly enough for brexit but not that. They'll end up with some strange coalition, even stranger than the last and brexit will drag on for years.

You know exactly what comparison I was making, I even clarified it in a further post how they're aping the American approach.

The Labour one is typical of how it is normally done in the UK and Ireland, if not all over Europe.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yeah. The economic stature of the UK is of a UK currently in the EU. Do you have any facts that demonstrate the UK will be economically better off post-Brexit? That Joe Bloggs will be better off post-Brexit?

I think I've delivered a comprehensive answer already.

Namely, I do not have the arrogance to claim to know what the long-term economic consequences - be they positive, negative, or net neutral - will be for the UK when it eventually leaves the European Union.

What I can say is this: that anyone who claims to have almost full knowledge of this answer can be dismissed and must immediately leave the island.

Those with the greatest certainty harbour the greatest bias.

Letwin_Larry

schmittel wrote: »

Eh? Tom Watson is a centrist Labour MP?

His stepping down now certainly does not seem like Labour becoming more united to me.

I'd interpret it as very bad news for centrist voters and centrist Labour MPs.

they're dropping like flies.
personally i think the fact that UK politics has become so dysfunctional is partly to blame.
being an MP during the last 3 years must be like being part of some weird cult asking yourself how the frigin hell you ever got wrapped up in all this, and waiting for your chance to escape the madness.

expect more as this campaign heats up.

hotmail.com

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, the quote is accurate - that "if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more" in its own way.

Given the economic stature of the UK, I don't believe my belief is unreasonable.

Have you been to parts of the North of England?

The 5th largest economy means nothing to them.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

I think I've delivered a comprehensive answer already.

Namely, I do not have the arrogance to claim to know what the long-term economic consequences - be they positive, negative, or net neutral - will be for the UK when it eventually leaves the European Union.

What I can say is this: that anyone who claims to have almost full knowledge of this answer can be dismissed and must immediately leave the island.

Those with the greatest certainty harbour the greatest bias.

Yet you said this:

"what I am saying is that if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more."

Despite being asked three times, you have offered no facts. Not one single fact to support your opinion. You simply believe because reasons. Just 'belief'. Okey dokey.

BonnieSituation

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?

No.

All of their MPs will be elected BECAUSE of abstentionism.

So no. Ad infinitum.

Tell me how

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

they're dropping like flies.
personally i think the fact that UK politics has become so dysfunctional is partly to blame.
being an MP during the last 3 years must be like being part of some weird cult asking yourself how the frigin hell you ever got wrapped up in all this, and waiting for you chance to escape the madness.

expect more as this campaign heats up.

Think it's at about 60 odd at this point which is just under 10%of total members.
In 2010, 158 sitting MP's declined to contest the next election which was nearly a massive 25% which seems incredible. That was after extensive investigations in to expenses scandals plus the fallout from the financial crash meaning everyone knew the next government was going to be unpopular.

Bannasidhe

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

i merely mentioned the pira as i expect corbyn will get his association with them thrown in his face, during the Brexit election campaign.

What exactly was Corbyn's 'association' with the PIRA that would be so damning that it would damage him now in the 2nd GE he has been involved in as leader of the LP ?

Here is a fact check Channel 4 news did back in 2017 on Corbyn's association with the PIRA https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland

1. Seems to me it boils down to he condemned violence by both sides of the sectarian divide rather than just one side.
2. He pretty much openly met and entered into a dialogue with Republicans - at the same time the Tory govt was clandestinely doing the same thing.
3. Then there some stuff that people say but have been unable to prove so it may be true or it may be mudslinging.
4. Corbyn has always stated he is in favour of Irish re-unification. To some people that = support for the PIRA.

# 1 seems to me to be exactly what all British politicians should have been doing.
#2 Dialogue is always welcome.
# 3 prove it or shut up applies here imho.
#4. It is perfectly possible to support Irish re-unification and not support the PIRA. Just ask Simon Coveney.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

If you ask Europhiles, the UK will be worse off.

If you ask staunch Brexiteers, the UK will be better off.

If you ask a moderate, they'll say that nobody knows.

If you ask a realist, they'll say the UK will survive.

If you ask any independent economists, including the Bank of England they will say the UK is already measurably 2-2.5% worse off and will get drop a lot more in every circumstance other than revoke. You don't need a crystal ball to link the lack of in investment in industry with future problems.

Any belief that the UK can go it alone needs to be seen in the light of growth in exports since pound fell drastically. Hint there hasn't been any.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Yet you said this:

"what I am saying is that if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more."

Despite being asked three times, you have offered no facts. Not one single fact to support your opinion. You simply believe because reasons. Just 'belief'. Okey dokey.

The UK is the fifth-largest economy in the world.

I've made several comparisons to Singapore and Switzerland, (though it doesn't end there) in which independent countries unbound by the EU, can thrive and succeed in the economic world.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the UK has every possibility of succeeding in a post-EU world. I cannot define the architecture of that future, but given that many countries - such as the above - have established success, there is no reason to assume that the UK cannot do the same.

Again, I am not arrogant enough to claim to know the long-term future of the UK - in all its intricate details.

That's the difference between you and me.

Tell me how

Lady Sylvia Hermon stepping down from the HoC is a big loss to the people of Northern Ireland who so often see their elected representatives engage only in partisan actions.

A measure of the respect which she held was shown by both Simon Coveney and Leo Varadkar tweeting about her leaving. The fact that SF and the SDLP weere not going to oppose her is a measure of just how respected she is/was.
Simon's message is once again very well phrased and respects those of a unionist nature in Northern Ireland.

https://twitter.com/simoncoveney/status/1192165485137317888

Thargor

Tom Watson gone aswell, its a bit of a bloodbath on all sides atm tbh, at any other time it would be a major upheaval but its just lost in the general madness, Id love to have a read of this thread in a years time, anything could happen.

BonnieSituation

boring accountant wrote: »

The most credible Brexiter argument is that it allows for greater deregulation along the same lines as the United States. It has worked for the US, but whether that will work for the UK, a much smaller economy, smaller military and with fewer resources is highly doubtful, but it is an argument.

America is definitely the sort of place that should be copied wholesale because if its success.

Mother of God.

Mr.Nice Guy

Tell me how wrote: »

Lady Sylvia Hermon stepping down from the HoC is a big loss to the people of Northern Ireland who so often see their elected representatives engage only in partisan actions.

A measure of the respect which she held was shown by both Simon Coveney and Leo Varadkar tweeting about her leaving. The fact that SF and the SDLP weere not going to oppose her is a measure of just how respected she is/was.
Simon's message is once again very well phrased and respects those of a unionist nature in Northern Ireland.

The irony being that Hermon was as scathing about the deal that Varadkar helped broker with Johnson as the DUP were; and voted against it, believing it compromised the principles of GFA.

Eric Cartman

boring accountant wrote: »

The most credible Brexiter argument is that it allows for greater deregulation along the same lines as the United States. It has worked for the US, but whether that will work for the UK, a much smaller economy, smaller military and with fewer resources is highly doubtful, but it is an argument.

de regulation and cutting taxes is absolutely the best way for the UK to survive post brexit and hopefully they can clear the legal mess to allow that.

Letwin_Larry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly was Corbyn's 'association' with the PIRA that would be so damning that it would damage him now in the 2nd GE he has been involved in as leader of the LP ?

Here is a fact check Channel 4 news did back in 2017 on Corbyn's association with the PIRA https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-corbyn-on-northern-ireland

1. Seems to me it boils down to he condemned violence by both sides of the sectarian divide rather than just one side.
2. He pretty much openly met and entered into a dialogue with Republicans - at the same time the Tory govt was clandestinely doing the same thing.
3. Then there some stuff that people say but have been unable to prove so it may be true or it may be mudslinging.
4. Corbyn has always stated he is in favour of Irish re-unification. To some people that = support for the PIRA.

# 1 seems to me to be exactly what all British politicians should have been doing.
#2 Dialogue is always welcome.
# 3 prove it or shut up applies here imho.
#4. It is perfectly possible to support Irish re-unification and not support the PIRA. Just ask Simon Coveney.

again show me where i said it would be damaging to corbyn's electoral campaign. i didn't.
and tbh i couldn't care less if it does or it doesn't.

i think you are debating with yourself.

Ribs1234

I think all forecasts can at least go with a direction based on some assumptions and a range of where it will land. Even simply whether it will be good, bad, neutral or too close to call between two of those. The fact that there are no positive Brexit forecasts show how foolish it is.
And why does that matter? Because tax receipts pay for everything, from that extra receptionist to answer the phone at the medical centre, the pothole repairs, bin collections or books for schools to the big government projects (which all seem to be postponed or under scrutiny at the moment). The UK already has lower tax receipts than it would have if A50 had not been enacted. No deal or Boris deal is going to make that worse.
It is this connection that has not been made between the daily complaints of the man down the pub and the economic consequences of Brexit. Austerity could have ended in the UK in 2016. Instead it is there for much longer.

20silkcut

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If you ask Europhiles, the UK will be worse off.

If you ask staunch Brexiteers, the UK will be better off.

If you ask a moderate, they'll say that nobody knows.

If you ask a realist, they'll say the UK will survive.

They will not thrive in a no deal brexit.

The UK will survive as an independent country like Switzerland but not an isolationist country like North Korea.
They will have to deal with the EU and accept its pre conditions there is no way around that.
No matter what the UK decides to do internally the three pre conditions are not going away.
The Irish border
Citizens rights
Divorce payment.
Failure to deal with these will damage the UK badly and the EU to a lesser extent.
Everyone is blue in the face of this at this stage.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK is the fifth-largest economy in the world.

I've made several comparisons to Singapore and Switzerland, (though it doesn't end there) in which independent countries unbound by the EU, can thrive and succeed in the economic world.

Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the UK has every possibility of succeeding in a post-EU world. I cannot define the architecture of that future, but given that many countries - such as the above - have established success, there is no reason to assume that the UK cannot do the same.

Again, I am not arrogant enough to claim to know the long-term future of the UK - in all its intricate details.

That's the difference between you and me.

No facts so. None.

Bannasidhe

Deleted User wrote: »

I've made several comparisons to Singapore and Switzerland, (though it doesn't end there) in which independent countries unbound by the EU, can thrive and succeed in the economic world.

Switzerland is hardly 'unbound'

The relations between Switzerland and the European Union (EU) are framed by a series of bilateral treaties whereby the Swiss Confederation has adopted various provisions of European Union law in order to participate in the Union's single market, without joining as a member state...

...In 2009, Switzerland became a participant in the Schengen Area with the acceptance of an association agreement by popular referendum in 2005. This means that there are no passport controls on Switzerland's borders with its neighbours though customs controls continue to apply.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland%E2%80%93European_Union_relations

looksee

CelticRambler wrote: »

If the Queen was prepared to draw a line under the past and invite Martin McGuinness to dinner in her own home, do you not think that it's time for the rest of the UK's politicians to move on too?

You're following the same line of discussion as Johnson in his Telegraph article yesterday - dragging up references from the mid-20th Century in an attempt to discredit one of his opponents.

This is so typically British: always, always, always looking to the past and regretting they can't live in the bits they cherry-pick from it - and Brexit is a product of that.

In the same vein, this is why calling for/having a General Election instead of dealing with the inherent flaws and contradictions of Brexit was such a bad idea and is unlikely to get it "done" without yet more unforeseen consequences - most of them negative.

Its not particularly important in this discussion but I have to take exception to the above gross generalisation. Some Brits live in the past. Some Irish live in the past. That does not mean that a majority do, or that it is reasonable to make that kind of meaningless sweeping statement.

Brexit may be a product of some people looking back through rose tinted glasses. It is much more do with opportunistic greed on the part of a few, who pluck the strings of nostalgia and sovreignty to catch the imagination of people who are living in a stressed and stagnant country.

Whatever the reasons it does not become someone who calls himself Celtic-anything to criticise another country for supposedly engaging in romantic nostalgia.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

what I am saying is that if small countries can succeed, I have every confidence that the UK - the 5th largest economy in the world - can succeed just as much, if not more. This doom and gloom is horrifying.

Deleted User wrote: »

Given the economic stature of the UK, I don't believe my belief is unreasonable.

Deleted User wrote: »

I do not have the arrogance to claim to know what the long-term economic consequences - be they positive, negative, or net neutral - will be for the UK when it eventually leaves the European Union.

What I can say is this: that anyone who claims to have almost full knowledge of this answer can be dismissed and must immediately leave the island.

You're at it again! In the most bot-like fashion, you repeat in post after post after post the same catch-phrase. Today's talking point is "5th largest economy in the world" even though
(a) that figure is optimistic, as many ranks now place the UK at 6th and falling (to be overtaken by Italy and India in the next year or two); and
(b) your oft-stated faith/opinion/belief appears to be based only on wishful thinking without any reference to the demonstrable facts.

You conveniently side-step the challenge to justify your belief in the Brexit unicorn by saying nobody can predict the future, but Britain's current place in the top ten economies of the world comes after forty years of uninterrupted membership of the EEC/EU. Now compare that with the state of the British economy prior to joining the bloc: what makes you think/believe that Britain can hold onto its place in the top ten when
(a) history suggests the Brits are not great at going it alone (c.f. IMF bailout); and
(b) the current strong economy is highly distorted by the UK's service industry, in particular financial services provided into the EU single market by non-EU corporations, all of which will be diminished - if not outright destroyed - by Brexit.

So on the one side, we have concrete evidence of real harm to the UK economy; on the other, you have "confidence" that the UK is too big to fail? To me, that sounds like the worst form of arrogance.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK is the fifth-largest economy in the world.

Did you mean seventh ?

Bannasidhe

Letwin_Larry wrote: »

again show me where i said it would be damaging to corbyn's electoral campaign. i didn't.
and tbh i couldn't care less if it does or it doesn't.

i think you are debating with yourself.

How could I be debating with myself when you were the one who brought it up in the first place?
I questioned why you thought it would be even relevant. Now it appears you don't care which still begs the question why even mention it?

hometruths

Deleted User wrote: »

If you ask Europhiles, the UK will be worse off.

If you ask staunch Brexiteers, the UK will be better off.

If you ask a moderate, they'll say that nobody knows.

If you ask a realist, they'll say the UK will survive.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

And your opinion? And the facts supporting that opinion?

eskimohunt's summary of views is fairly obvious but also accurate IMO.

In the run up to the referendum I think it would have been a perfectly reasonable position from an English voter to believe that Brexit would be worth considering - obviously one may disagree that it would be worth considering, what I am arguing is that I think it would have been a reasonable position to hold. i.e I don't believe that all Brexit voters are extreme right wing, thick racists.

I think eskimo makes a fair point that the value of membership of SM is relatively higher for a small member state than a large one - like the UK. Because of this fact I think it easier to take that membership for granted for citizens of a country the size of the UK and thus focus too much on the restrictions the membership takes. i.e the grass is always greener on the other side syndrome.

It is quite common for individuals, teams, companies, countries etc who have enjoyed some position of dominance or success to succumb to overconfidence, to believe their own hype as it were. To believe that they'd be doing the easiest trade deals in history for example. I can understand how a Brit voter might have lapped that up.

Similiarly the House of Commons has a long and largely successful history of democratic government delivered by intelligent and capable politicians on the whole. I don't think it is unreasonable for a UK voter to have had confidence in their political class to have made a better fist of negotiating and managing an orderly exit from the EU than they have delivered to date.

There are a few other reasons but basically the above is why I think, from a British (particularly English) voters point of view it is a perfectly reasonable vote for Joe Bloggs to make.

Fast forward three years and I now think that any Brit voter would be mad to vote for Brexit given that the above all have been comprehensively debunked; that is the value of hindsight.

But, and it is a big but, I still understand how there are very many people who voted leave, who still want to leave just to get the damn thing over and done with and try to move on from the division. I think that is a reasonable position.

And if they want to try and heal that division, all sides need to recognise that it is possible to disagree with each other, but to change somebody's mind you first need to understand their position, to respect it as a reasonable position to hold.

The division, bile and bullying even on this thread is at times ridiculous. I can't imagine what it must be like for those in the UK whose voices and votes actually count.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

You're at it again! In the most bot-like fashion, you repeat in post after post after post the same catch-phrase. Today's talking point is "5th largest economy in the world" even though
(a) that figure is optimistic, as many ranks now place the UK at 6th and falling (to be overtaken by Italy and India in the next year or two); and
(b) your oft-stated faith/opinion/belief appears to be based only on wishful thinking without any reference to the demonstrable facts.

You conveniently side-step the challenge to justify your belief in the Brexit unicorn by saying nobody can predict the future, but Britain's current place in the top ten economies of the world comes after forty years of uninterrupted membership of the EEC/EU. Now compare that with the state of the British economy prior to joining the bloc: what makes you think/believe that Britain can hold onto its place in the top ten when
(a) history suggests the Brits are not great at going it alone (c.f. IMF bailout); and
(b) the current strong economy is highly distorted by the UK's service industry, in particular financial services provided into the EU single market by non-EU corporations, all of which will be diminished - if not outright destroyed - by Brexit.

So on the one side, we have concrete evidence of real harm to the UK economy; on the other, you have "confidence" that the UK is too big to fail? To me, that sounds like the worst form of arrogance.

Or that you know best, and the UK should therefore stay in the EU.

For me, economics is a secondary point. Democracy matters far, far more. I am willing to exchange economic loss for democratic gain (but that is not an admission that economic loss is inevitable, as per my previous reasons in other posts).

Yes, Europhilics will claim that the UK gains no democratic controls by leaving the EU.

I disagree.

Furthermore, I am well aware of the economic doom and gloom predicted if the UK "didn't join the Euro" and the devastation wrought merely by the "act of voting to Leave".

Economics will always be harnessed by Europhilics to terrify the population into voting the way they prefer.

It will never, ever change.

Danzy

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Tom Watson stepping down too:

https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1192169894479122433

Hostile environment for him and other non confirming types now.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

I've made several comparisons to Singapore and Switzerland, (though it doesn't end there) in which independent countries unbound by the EU, can thrive and succeed in the economic world.

Switzerland? :pac: The same Switzerland that is closely aligned with EU rules and regulations, accepts the principles of Free Movement, is part of the Schengen Area ?

And Singapore - do you mean the same Singapore that is considered to be the most expensive place in the world to live? That'd be fun for all those food-bank users ...

Anyway, if you stand by this belief, would you then agree that the anti-independence campaigners (i.e. the Tory Government) were wrong to tell the Scots that they were doomed to economic failure if they tried to go it alone?

Or to put it another way, would you accept that an Independent Scotland has at least as much of a chance at becoming a great economic power as a deeply fractured UK?

Letwin_Larry

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How could I be debating with myself when you were the one who brought it up in the first place?
I questioned why you thought it would be even relevant. Now it appears you don't care which still begs the question why even mention it?

no you asked how it would be so damning to his electoral campaign.
again for the 3rd time i repeat. I never did.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What exactly was Corbyn's 'association' with the PIRA that would be so damning that it would damage him now in the 2nd GE he has been involved in as leader of the LP ?

if you cannot recall accurately your own postings, then perhaps it's expecting too much to accurately interpret others.