View previous topic | View next topic

Brexit (the EU Referendum debate)

Page 567 of 580
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 566, 567, 568 ... 578, 579, 580  Next

dr.bob
1329769.  Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:37 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
we really need to deal with it because at the momnent it is causing untold damage (more than leaving without a deal)


I'd love to see some figures to back up the claim that the current uncertainty is more damaging than a no deal.

 
Celebaelin
1329772.  Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:46 am Reply with quote

The markets are notoriously wary of uncertainty. How can anyone tell if anyone's strategy is appropriate when no-one knows what the rules are going to be? No deal would likely lead to a further fall in the pound but that might be redressed in time - at the moment it's only ever going to be bad news.

 
Celebaelin
1329774.  Fri Sep 13, 2019 10:09 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
This is very true. However, it's vitally important to note that the effect on both trading partners will not be equal. According to FullFact, the total amount of goods and services exported from the UK to the EU accounts for 13.4% of the value of the British economy. By contrast, the amount of goods and services exported from the EU to the UK accounts for just 3-4% of the size of the remaining EUís economy.

513.5 million people x $37,800 GDP per capita in 2017 = 19.410 trillion
UK GDP 2.622 trillion
19.410-2.622 = 16.788

3.5% of 16.788 trillion = $0.59 trillion
13.4% of 2.622 trillion = $0.35 trillion

The EU as a whole has more to lose (but not per capita).

dr.bob wrote:
Unless, of course, the country was run by a bunch of hard-line right-wing nutjobs

Like the electorate you mean?

dr.bob wrote:
That would be a convincing argument if the current UK government hadn't announced that it intends not to charge tariffs on goods and services coming from the EU. By contrast, WTO rules will require that the EU charges tariffs on good and services coming from the UK.

And the WTO rules apply unilaterally because...? 'Intends' seems to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting there.

dr.bob wrote:
dr.bob wrote:
All they have done so far is to block a no deal.

Celebaelin wrote:
Not true - the deal that WAS negotiated by Mrs May at quite some length was also rejected effectively preventing brexit - or so they hoped.

That's a good point. I seem to recall one Mr B. Johnson enthusiastically voted against Mrs May's deal. Was that also anti-democratic?

Yes, or probably yes - I was never sure what the deal consisted of only that the backstop was a sticking point.

dr.bob wrote:
Celebaelin wrote:
This is what all the brexit means brexit stuff was about - the referendum result should be interpreted to mean, well, brexit and the question of deal or no deal was not part of it

"Brexit means brexit" is clearly meaningless nonsense. As already discussed on this thread, the referendum was inadequate at determining what the UK public really wanted to do, hence the three year impasse. Anyone who claims to be "upholding the will of the people" is talking out of their arse because nobody actually knows yet what the people want to do. Another, better organised, referendum would go some way to sorting out that problem.

No, it's tautology at best. Are you suggesting that Mt. Fuji is NOT a mountain or that the River Avon is NOT a river?

How convenient that you are opposed to brexit (as am I as I have said widely and repeatedly) and that your interpretation requires another referendum.


Last edited by Celebaelin on Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:56 am; edited 1 time in total

 
PDR
1329780.  Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:27 am Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:

And yet the figure on the bus was a correct gross figure, and as soon as it came out the Remain campaign rightly pointed that out.


Once again - oh no it wasn't!

The claim on the bus was that we would liberate £350m/wk to spend to the NHS. There is no possible calculation or obfuscation which justifiably comes up with a liberated amount of £350m/wk. The most optimistic number seemed to be around £250m/wk, so there is a missing £100m/wk which could never ever have been given to the NHS - it was a lie and it remains a lie (or ďa clear misuse of official statisticsĒ as the ONS described it).

Even the more realistic numbers developed then are now rather optimistic due to the way the pound has tanked and the effects of tarrifs on imports (with or without a deal, but especially without).

There may come a time when a rational, objective discussion of the number is possible, but that time cannot ever come while there is still a claim that it was somehow true.

PDR

 
suze
1329781.  Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:27 am Reply with quote

Alexander Howard wrote:
The refrain that 'we were lied to' settles on two points which are repeated endlessly to invalidate the vote: the figure on the bus, and no one spoke about no deal.

And yet the figure on the bus was a correct gross figure, and as soon as it came out the Remain campaign rightly pointed that out. Boris Johnson was interviewed on this gross-net distinction on the bus itself; an MP left the Leave campaign in protest: no one pretended it was a net figure and no one paying attention could have been in any doubt about it: and they still voted Leave.


Farage conceded that the figure was plucked out of the air and not actually true the day after the referendum. If it was in fact true, why did he do that?

The referendum only happened at all because David Cameron inexplicably believed that Farage would become Prime Minister otherwise. Much as the Conservative Party doesn't like hearing this, it was Farage rather than any Conservative who won the referendum for the Leave side. So the answer "Forget Farage, he's an irrelevant fool" won't really do.


Alexander Howard wrote:
And yet people still voted 'Leave'.


Perhaps they were silly enough to believe David Davis when he claimed that The Deal would be the easiest deal ever done. I don't know whether Mr Davis actually believed that when he said it, but no one can now deny that he was utterly wrong.

 
PDR
1329782.  Fri Sep 13, 2019 11:40 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:

Perhaps they were silly enough to believe David Davis when he claimed that The Deal would be the easiest deal ever done.


On a minor point of pedantic order - wasn't it Liam Fox who said that rather than the Brexit Bulldog?

I prefer one of David Davis' better quotes:

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."19th Nov 2012

So if we are a democracy we should have another referendum to see if we have changed our minds.

PDR

 
suze
1329789.  Fri Sep 13, 2019 12:08 pm Reply with quote

Damnit all, you are entirely right. Mr Davis did say "You can be sure there will be a deal", while Gerard Batten - who succeeded Farage as UKIP leader after the second of Farage's resignations - said "A trade deal with the EU could be sorted out in an afternoon over a cup of coffee".

I do not think that any of them would now point at these statements and identify them as wholly accurate.

 
Celebaelin
1329802.  Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:07 pm Reply with quote

PDR wrote:
I prefer one of David Davis' better quotes:

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."19th Nov 2012

So the populace of the UK are to keep voting in countless referenda until they get it right?

 
PDR
1329805.  Sat Sep 14, 2019 1:15 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
PDR wrote:
I prefer one of David Davis' better quotes:

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."19th Nov 2012

So the populace of the UK are to keep voting in countless referenda until they get it right?


I accept the point, but is it that unreasonable to suggest "the populace of the UK are to keep voting in countless referenda until they vote for something that can actually be delivered"?

It is after all what we do with governments. Parties set out attractive programmes in manifestos so we vote them into office where they either deliver those programmes or find that they can't. If we decide we don't like what they've done we change our minds and vote for someone else. We've now given three administrations* three years to try to deliver what was promised in the referendum and it has proven impossible. So I can see an argument for going back to the country to say "the kitchen tells us that the diced unicorn breast in a flat-earth jus is off the menu - would you like to make another choice?"

PDR

* May with Camoron's Rovers, the May Wanderers and Boris Disunited

 
barbados
1329806.  Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:17 am Reply with quote

The thing is, while we both agree (in fact pretty much everyone here agrees) that leaving the EU is not the greatest thing we have voted for, the UK as a whole, each time it has been asked has voted in favour of leaving (it has now been asked 3 times) so perhaps it is actually us in QI land that are wrong?

 
PDR
1329807.  Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:31 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
each time it has been asked has voted in favour of leaving (it has now been asked 3 times)


I'm not sure I can agree with that assertion. Leave won the referendum by a small margin. At the subsequent general election there was no credible potential government who offered remain - the LibDems were still too badly damaged by the coalition, Tory was on a Leave platform and Labour were on a "we'll sit on the fence because Jeremy's brain is too small to actually have an opinion" platform.

What are you counting as the third time?

PDR

 
barbados
1329808.  Sat Sep 14, 2019 2:48 am Reply with quote

Leave won the referendum, in 2017 the parties that sttod on a leave ticket (even though we now know one of them out an out lied) increased their share of the vote while parties the stood on a remain ticket reduced their share of the vote. Then in 2019 the party with the most seats (in PR itís easier to work out than fptp) was a party that actually stood on the most extreme of brexit policies.

As I say, that is pretty much 3-0 to Brexit.

And now, the party that we have discovered lied about supporting the result of the referendum are too scared to have. A general election.

 
dr.bob
1329974.  Mon Sep 16, 2019 4:49 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Leave won the referendum


This is perfectly correct.

barbados wrote:
in 2017 the parties that sttod on a leave ticket (even though we now know one of them out an out lied) increased their share of the vote while parties the stood on a remain ticket reduced their share of the vote.


As any fool knows, there are a wide variety of reasons why people vote the way they do in a general election. Much as supporters of Brexit have tried to portray the 2017 vote as another referendum, that's laughably simplistic reasoning and ignores other factors such as the leader of the LibDems having a car crash of a campaign in which he was widely regarded as massively homophobic, and the SNP making some voters nervous with their bullish talk of another independence referendum.

To claim that the 2017 general election was a win for Brexit makes huge assumptions about support for Brexit among Labour and Conservative voters without any corroborating evidence.

barbados wrote:
Then in 2019 the party with the most seats (in PR itís easier to work out than fptp) was a party that actually stood on the most extreme of brexit policies.


If anything, the EU elections in 2019 were more of a re-run of the referendum than the 2017 General Election. Unfortunately, as PDR rightly points out above, the picture was rather obscured by the Labour party's dithering over what their Brexit strategy actually was, such that it's impossible to claim that everyone who voted Labour did so because they were in favour of Brexit. Also, it's quite hard to draw conclusions about the desires of the nation based on an election where only 37% of voters bothered to turn out.

barbados wrote:
As I say, that is pretty much 3-0 to Brexit.


"Pretty much" seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

barbados wrote:
And now, the party that we have discovered lied about supporting the result of the referendum are too scared to have. A general election.


The only person who has said they definitely don't want a general election is Boris Johnson. He said it outside Number 10 precisely 2 days before he tried to get parliament to vote to have a general election.

Labour have been quite clear that they are in favour of a general election, but that if they voted for one now, they don't trust Boris Johnson not to simply set the election date to after 31st October and use it to try and force a no deal Brexit by default. Given how often the PM has lied and changed his mind, they seem to me entirely justified in not trusting him.

The only people who have claimed the reason Labour voted against a general election because they were scared was Boris Johnson and his right-wing cronies in a pathetic attempt to score some political points against Labour among the hard of thinking.

I find it interesting and instructive that you seem willing to mindlessly parrot their populist horseshit.

 
dr.bob
1329976.  Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:05 am Reply with quote

Celebaelin wrote:
The EU as a whole has more to lose (but not per capita).


That sums it up perfectly. It's a bit like saying increasing income tax by 10% across the board will cause a City of London CEO on £5million a year to lose more money than a cleaner on minimum wage. It's definitely true, but guess which one is going to suffer more.

Celebaelin wrote:
Like the electorate you mean?


The electorate did not put Boris Johnson in Number 10.

Celebaelin wrote:
And the WTO rules apply unilaterally because...?


They don't. WTO rules state that you must treat every country the same unless you have a trade deal with them. Since the EU has defined tariffs which apply to countries with which they have no trade deal, they would be forced to now apply those tariffs to the UK.

The UK is free to choose to not apply tariffs to EU goods, but WTO rules would force them to apply those same "zero tariffs" to every other country that it doesn't have a trade deal with, ensuring UK markets would be flooded with cheap foreign imports, thereby sounding the death knell for British manufacturing.

Celebaelin wrote:
'Intends' seems to be doing a lot of the heavy lifting there.


Merely reflecting the fact that what Mr Johnson says is not always (or, indeed, very often) what he does. As explained above, reducing tariffs for EU goods to zero would be catastrophic for British industry, so I'd be surprised if even Mr Johnson would be really prepared to go that far.

Celebaelin wrote:
No, it's tautology at best. Are you suggesting that Mt. Fuji is NOT a mountain or that the River Avon is NOT a river?


The difference there, of course, is that words like "Mount", "River", or "Afon" are long established words with an agreed meaning. By contrast "Brexit" means different things to different people so to try and clarify things by simply saying "Brexit means Brexit" is clearly meaningless nonsense.

For the record "Mount Fuji" is not a tautology.

Celebaelin wrote:
How convenient that you are opposed to brexit (as am I as I have said widely and repeatedly) and that your interpretation requires another referendum.


I was merely agreeing with you when you said that the referendum was mute on the subject of whether we should leave with or without a deal. The fact that nobody knows for sure how many of the 17,410,742 wanted to leave with a deal, and how many would prefer to remain than leave without a deal, is what's caused 3 years of political chaos and economic uncertainty. Another, better organised, referendum would be the simplest way of determining what the people actually want, which is about the most democratic way I can think of to sort out the mess.

 
barbados
1329977.  Mon Sep 16, 2019 5:12 am Reply with quote

Quote:
The only person who has said they definitely don't want a general election is Boris Johnson. He said it outside Number 10 precisely 2 days before he tried to get parliament to vote to have a general election.

I might have missed something here, but there have been two attempts by the government to force a general election, and on both occasions the other parties have whipped to abstain preventing an election.
Are you suggesting that they are actively seeking an election, while simultaneously actively preventing one?

 

Page 567 of 580
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 566, 567, 568 ... 578, 579, 580  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group