Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Brexit, Vent Your Spleen!
Fantasy Football Forums | Starting 11 > The Lounge > Non-Football Discussion
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Netley Lucas
Anyone wishing to discuss the future post-Brexit? Got something to get off your chest? Got a few nice little one-liners stacked-up? laugh.gif Maybe here's the place to do it. cool.gif
crazylegs
Well we are all still here and life goes on tongue.gif
Peterorange
This is going to get ugly...

EU referendum: Moody's cut UK's credit outlook to 'negative'


Not that any Brexit voters will take any notice, they didn't want to listen to all the experts before the vote so they certainly won't now.
Netley Lucas
QUOTE (Peterorange @ Jun 25 2016, 09:10 AM) *
This is going to get ugly...

EU referendum: Moody's cut UK's credit outlook to 'negative'


Not that any Brexit voters will take any notice, they didn't want to listen to all the experts before the vote so they certainly won't now.


The impact on debt and imported inflation may mean an eventual rise in rates to the general population but should also mean savers gain, the ones who supply the money to lend.
If however growth slows dramatically we may find the BoE conflicted. On the one hand they will wish to lower base rates to 0.25 and then zero, but may be constricted by the need to tackle the imported inflation and debt issues mentioned.
The lower pound is however very good news for exporters and firms who's activities are non-sterling who will see a boost to sterling reported profitability and dividends. This maybe a factor in the ft100's partial recovery yesterday as multinationals' overseas earnings/dividends may actually be boosted.
RAPID
First of all, Scotland will be off!
Netley Lucas
QUOTE (RAPID @ Jun 25 2016, 01:12 PM) *
First of all, Scotland will be off!


Yes the SNP are clearly about to get into referendum mode again. I guess if they can show they have a realistic chance of winning via polling representative samples then I see no obvious reason why they should be denied. There will be Unionist arguments that they lost 2 years ago but that can be countered by the recent EU referendum where the voice of the people (won every area) counted for nothing.
Would they win? Yes I think they would this time and good luck to them. I sincerely hope they do win and independence frees them to go forth and prosper.
Sinn Fein are also making some noises about a NI referendum for a Utd Ireland, another good move imho as long as there is clear polling indications of a potential win.
We live in interesting times, change is on the menu in large portions, tuck in.
D. B.
http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=131215

Interesting!
Peterorange
QUOTE (D. B. @ Jun 26 2016, 08:48 PM) *

Nice to see Oxford East in dark red.
andygreenley76
QUOTE (Peterorange @ Jun 27 2016, 10:33 AM) *
Nice to see Oxford East in dark red.

and Cambridge, all of us rolleyes.gif
WALOR
the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Bertolt Brecht
Netley Lucas
Those Project Fear predictions in full:

David Cameron: “The job you do, the home you live in are at risk. The shock to our economy after leaving Europe would tip the country into recession.”

George Osborne: “A vote to leave would tip our economy into year-long recession with at least 500,000 UK jobs lost”

Treasury: “UK economy would fall into recession”, predicted 2016 Q3 growth between -0.1% and -1%

IMF: “Brexit would trigger recession”, predicted -0.3% GDP for Q3

Bank of England: Mark Carney said “It would be likely to have a negative impact in the short term… I certainly think that would increase the risk of recession.”

OECD: Short term impact of -1.25% GDP

Today’s GDP figures are +0.5%. big_boss.gif
nahmartin
Services holding it at the moment.

Market wont know what to do when Trump gets in in 2 weeks wink.gif

PTC
QUOTE (nahmartin @ Oct 27 2016, 10:11 AM) *
Services holding it at the moment.

Market wont know what to do when Trump gets in in 2 weeks wink.gif

Gets in where? huh.gif

'Cos he won't be getting anywhere near the White House.

Hillary's gonna trounce him.
JFG
Cameron was an absolute disgrace as PM, probably the worst in England's history. A slick, but empty vessel who's focus was solely on helping his rich friends grow richer at the expense of everyone else.
Peterorange
QUOTE (Netley Lucas @ Oct 27 2016, 02:43 PM) *
Those Project Fear predictions in full:

David Cameron: “The job you do, the home you live in are at risk. The shock to our economy after leaving Europe would tip the country into recession.”

George Osborne: “A vote to leave would tip our economy into year-long recession with at least 500,000 UK jobs lost”

Treasury: “UK economy would fall into recession”, predicted 2016 Q3 growth between -0.1% and -1%

IMF: “Brexit would trigger recession”, predicted -0.3% GDP for Q3

Bank of England: Mark Carney said “It would be likely to have a negative impact in the short term… I certainly think that would increase the risk of recession.”

OECD: Short term impact of -1.25% GDP

Today’s GDP figures are +0.5%. big_boss.gif


Ummmmm Brexit hasn't actually happened, you numpty.
Spurs Crew
QUOTE (Peterorange @ Oct 27 2016, 04:50 PM) *
Ummmmm Brexit hasn't actually happened, you numpty.


laugh.gif Don't go down this road with Netley. He has all day to respond to anything you say. I'd avoid.
WALOR
QUOTE (Peterorange @ Oct 27 2016, 11:50 AM) *
Ummmmm Brexit hasn't actually happened, you numpty.



Has it happened yet?
Peterorange
QUOTE (WALOR @ Mar 29 2017, 10:43 PM) *
Has it happened yet?

The start of it has. The Age of Stupid takes another leap forward...and lands flat on its face.

WALOR
QUOTE (Peterorange @ Mar 30 2017, 03:36 AM) *
The start of it has. The Age of Stupid takes another leap forward...and lands flat on its face.


So will you go back to pounds and ounces, etc.?

And how many muppets in a numpty?
Leo Messy
Trading with Trump and the Chinese they promise...

lol.gif
bp9000
Peterorange
QUOTE (WALOR @ Mar 30 2017, 08:42 PM) *
So will you go back to pounds and ounces, etc.?

And how many muppets in a numpty?

We've never really left pounds and ounces. We have a weird mix of measures, miles, grams, feet and mm all mixed up together!

And there are 2.5 muppets to a numpty. Used to be more before all this Brexit stuff tongue.gif.
Netley Lucas
More good news, more experts grudgingly admit they got it wrong...

Independent economic forecaster the Item Club – sponsored by City professional services giant EY – today reports a headline prediction of 1.8% GDP growth for 2017. This is well up on even the 1.3% prediction it made last October. And it is incredibly well up on its post-referendum forecast…

The Item Club sent shock-waves through the City last summer when it downgraded its forecast for 2017 GDP growth to an absolutely dismal 0.4% after the Brexit vote. This prediction of dread set much of the business media agenda: the Item Club is taken seriously because it uses the same economic models as the Treasury. Between July 2016 and today the Item Club has revised up its forecast by an eye-popping 1.4%…

Peter Spencer, chief economic advisor to the Item Club, said today:

“Although the starting gun for Brexit has just been fired, the UK economy has been adjusting to life outside the EU since the referendum…”

And the Item Club has been adjusting its numbers
Albert
Unfortunately, I was out of the UK when the Referendum vote took place. My area of the UK (Stoke) voted strongly to exit the European Union (not Europe) and personally I would have also added my vote to that number.
The losers should get over it and get on with life. No point belly aching!
Netley Lucas
QUOTE (Peterorange @ Oct 27 2016, 04:50 PM) *
Ummmmm Brexit hasn't actually happened, you numpty.


Those fearful predictions, bar Dave's, were for the period following the vote, not the period following exit.
Netley Lucas
Now it's the IMF's turn to admit they were hopelessly wrong...


Britain's economy will grow at a much faster rate than previously predicted, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The IMF, a global organisation focused on economic stability, said the UK's economy will grow by 2% in 2017 and by 1.5% in the following year.

Just three months ago, the IMF predicted growth of 1.5% this year, and 1.4% the year after.

While the forecast growth for many economies has been increased slightly, the 0.5% rise in predicted UK growth this year is striking - it is, by far, the biggest change made in any of the IMF's forecasts.

In October 2016, the same organisation said it thought the UK economy would expand by just 0.9% in 2017 - six months later, that predicted growth rate has doubled. (Sky News Tuesday 18 April 2017)

vsberlina
QUOTE (Netley Lucas @ Apr 19 2017, 02:14 AM) *
Now it's the IMF's turn to admit they were hopelessly wrong...


Britain's economy will grow at a much faster rate than previously predicted, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The IMF, a global organisation focused on economic stability, said the UK's economy will grow by 2% in 2017 and by 1.5% in the following year.

Just three months ago, the IMF predicted growth of 1.5% this year, and 1.4% the year after.

While the forecast growth for many economies has been increased slightly, the 0.5% rise in predicted UK growth this year is striking - it is, by far, the biggest change made in any of the IMF's forecasts.

In October 2016, the same organisation said it thought the UK economy would expand by just 0.9% in 2017 - six months later, that predicted growth rate has doubled. (Sky News Tuesday 18 April 2017)

All just predictions and opinions. Let's not forget the predictions pre-GFC.

I follow cycles. We're due a recession this year or next. They happen like clockwork, and they usually happen when everyone thinks things are going great.
Netley Lucas
QUOTE (vsberlina @ Apr 19 2017, 01:16 AM) *
All just predictions and opinions. Let's not forget the predictions pre-GFC.

I follow cycles. We're due a recession this year or next. They happen like clockwork, and they usually happen when everyone thinks things are going great.


Project Fear was real, it was orchestrated by The Establishment to bully the British public into voting to remain a member of the (utterly hopeless) EU. One of the most striking examples was when we were told 'you wouldn't ignore your doctor's advice so why dismiss the economic experts?'.
The fact that all these 'respected experts' wheeled out have been proved wrong, and all have had to back-peddle massively cannot simply be put down to errors. The margins are too great, too striking, there can only be one conclusion.
The 'experts' deliberately peddled the least optimistic estimates and kept quiet on more positive scenarios in an attempt to frighten the public into voting Remain.
Sadly many of the villains that orchestrated this treachery - talking down the economy for political gain - remain in high position, Mark Carney is still Governor of The Bank of England and should have been one of the first be sacked with George Osborne.
scoobyliscious
QUOTE (Netley Lucas @ Apr 20 2017, 02:08 PM) *
Project Fear was real, it was orchestrated by The Establishment to bully the British public into voting to remain a member of the (utterly hopeless) EU. One of the most striking examples was when we were told 'you wouldn't ignore your doctor's advice so why dismiss the economic experts?'.
The fact that all these 'respected experts' wheeled out have been proved wrong, and all have had to back-peddle massively cannot simply be put down to errors. The margins are too great, too striking, there can only be one conclusion.
The 'experts' deliberately peddled the least optimistic estimates and kept quiet on more positive scenarios in an attempt to frighten the public into voting Remain.
Sadly many of the villains that orchestrated this treachery - talking down the economy for political gain - remain in high position, Mark Carney is still Governor of The Bank of England and should have been one of the first be sacked with George Osborne.

Ummm. Yeah - I'm incapable of resisting (something about spending 4 days working on technical documentation makes me incapable of resisting the urge to rant).

The evidence is debatable on all sides as to the various effects of policy decisions on the economy.

I'm (far) less familiar with UK politics, but here in Trumpland, we've recently revisited the "illegal immigrants in the economy" debate, particularly as it relates to wages. The linked article states (and includes more links to supporting evidence for the statement), "Most economists firmly reject the notion that “immigrants are taking our jobs.” By providing new customers as well as new workers, immigration increases income and employment opportunities for native-born workers, leaving everyone better off on average. But the key phrase there is “on average.” There is much less agreement among economists about how low-skilled immigration affects the wages of low-skilled workers. And it is almost certain that some individual American workers are worse off because of competition from immigrants."

So, even with something as old as "outsiders arrive in my community," we aren't very certain of the economic effects, especially in light of the difference between macroeconomic growth (increased opportunity for native-born workers) and microeconomic problems (affecting the wages of low-skilled workers). Ignoring such differences can, literally, be deadly (see: Diaz, Porfirio, dictator, Mexico, "... thus generated a stark contrast between rapid economic growth and sudden, severe impoverishment of the rural masses, a situation that was to explode in the Mexican revolution of 1910").

But the political rhetoric is clear: either you are for immigration (economic growth and globalization) or against it (remove obstacles to wage growth). The political choice is binary: Build That Wall or No Walls At All. The underlying reality is far muddier.

We should be careful not to allow ourselves to believe in a false clarity, but to wade, carefully, into those murkier waters, in an effort to see what really needs doing.

With regards to Brexit, we should also mention that the only thing to actually happen is the beginning of the negotiation clock. We don't know (because we can't predict with that much certainty) what will happen to the UK and EU economies post-Brexit (because, you know, we aren't in a post-Brexit world).

At this point, the changing of the previous predictions is just that: a change to a prediction. We don't really know why a prediction changed (well, someone probably does, but this thread/discussion does not have that evidence, despite a clear need for it, as I point out below). It is possible that the post-2008 global recession recovery is moving faster than previous predictions, so we changed our prediction. Assigning a known cause to these prediction changes (and worse, in my opinion, blame a person for propaganda or bias, when we have never had enough evidence to state categorically we know the effects of policy on the economy) is to conclude first, then point to evidence, rather than use evidence to build a convincing case for a conclusion. Cart before horse or something like that. Not recognizing the mud in the water, too.

Put another way, you stated, "The margins are too great, too striking." How do you know they are too large? What's your statistical analysis of the margin of error? Where is your detailed discussion of the experimental design and subsequent modification that led to the changed predictions? Why is "deliberately peddled the least optimistic estimates" the only conclusion, when we must remember Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"?

It's possible Brexit won't have dire economic consequences predicted; it's also possible those predictions are not as dire as the eventual outcome (margins of error occur on both sides of a predicted data point).

Me? I'm a raging capitalist, with concomitant belief in free trade, immigration as an element of a labor market and economic interdependence as the best foreign policy (put simply: it's easier to keep the peace and trade with me than it is to fight with me but "control" more of your own stuff). I think the very real questions raised by recent politicians, be it Brexit, Trump or others, all require some form of answer. And those questions include what we can, and should, be doing as a matter of policy, to help ameliorate the real issues for lower-skilled workers within the framework of advancing globalization. Should we improve the global social safety net? Are there ways to build better economies in countries with net emigration, lowering the microeconomic costs in countries with net immigration? Can we, as a matter of policy, ensure a "fair" distribution of wealth (yes, those quotes are deliberate, but post-Age of Reason history teaches us that concentration of power & resources in the hands of too few leads to revolution).

Or, you could just conclude the world works the way you think it does (last thing to remember: we are, all of us, human; so we are, all of us, wrong about something) and proceed from there.

Woe betide she who finds her own humanity only after achieving great heights, for therein lies a great fall.
Netley Lucas
QUOTE (scoobyliscious @ Apr 24 2017, 08:35 PM) *
Ummm. Yeah - I'm incapable of resisting (something about spending 4 days working on technical documentation makes me incapable of resisting the urge to rant).

The evidence is debatable on all sides as to the various effects of policy decisions on the economy.

I'm (far) less familiar with UK politics, but here in Trumpland, we've recently revisited the "illegal immigrants in the economy" debate, particularly as it relates to wages. The linked article states (and includes more links to supporting evidence for the statement), "Most economists firmly reject the notion that “immigrants are taking our jobs.” By providing new customers as well as new workers, immigration increases income and employment opportunities for native-born workers, leaving everyone better off on average. But the key phrase there is “on average.” There is much less agreement among economists about how low-skilled immigration affects the wages of low-skilled workers. And it is almost certain that some individual American workers are worse off because of competition from immigrants."

So, even with something as old as "outsiders arrive in my community," we aren't very certain of the economic effects, especially in light of the difference between macroeconomic growth (increased opportunity for native-born workers) and microeconomic problems (affecting the wages of low-skilled workers). Ignoring such differences can, literally, be deadly (see: Diaz, Porfirio, dictator, Mexico, "... thus generated a stark contrast between rapid economic growth and sudden, severe impoverishment of the rural masses, a situation that was to explode in the Mexican revolution of 1910").

But the political rhetoric is clear: either you are for immigration (economic growth and globalization) or against it (remove obstacles to wage growth). The political choice is binary: Build That Wall or No Walls At All. The underlying reality is far muddier.

We should be careful not to allow ourselves to believe in a false clarity, but to wade, carefully, into those murkier waters, in an effort to see what really needs doing.

With regards to Brexit, we should also mention that the only thing to actually happen is the beginning of the negotiation clock. We don't know (because we can't predict with that much certainty) what will happen to the UK and EU economies post-Brexit (because, you know, we aren't in a post-Brexit world).

At this point, the changing of the previous predictions is just that: a change to a prediction. We don't really know why a prediction changed (well, someone probably does, but this thread/discussion does not have that evidence, despite a clear need for it, as I point out below). It is possible that the post-2008 global recession recovery is moving faster than previous predictions, so we changed our prediction. Assigning a known cause to these prediction changes (and worse, in my opinion, blame a person for propaganda or bias, when we have never had enough evidence to state categorically we know the effects of policy on the economy) is to conclude first, then point to evidence, rather than use evidence to build a convincing case for a conclusion. Cart before horse or something like that. Not recognizing the mud in the water, too.

Put another way, you stated, "The margins are too great, too striking." How do you know they are too large? What's your statistical analysis of the margin of error? Where is your detailed discussion of the experimental design and subsequent modification that led to the changed predictions? Why is "deliberately peddled the least optimistic estimates" the only conclusion, when we must remember Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"?

It's possible Brexit won't have dire economic consequences predicted; it's also possible those predictions are not as dire as the eventual outcome (margins of error occur on both sides of a predicted data point).

Me? I'm a raging capitalist, with concomitant belief in free trade, immigration as an element of a labor market and economic interdependence as the best foreign policy (put simply: it's easier to keep the peace and trade with me than it is to fight with me but "control" more of your own stuff). I think the very real questions raised by recent politicians, be it Brexit, Trump or others, all require some form of answer. And those questions include what we can, and should, be doing as a matter of policy, to help ameliorate the real issues for lower-skilled workers within the framework of advancing globalization. Should we improve the global social safety net? Are there ways to build better economies in countries with net emigration, lowering the microeconomic costs in countries with net immigration? Can we, as a matter of policy, ensure a "fair" distribution of wealth (yes, those quotes are deliberate, but post-Age of Reason history teaches us that concentration of power & resources in the hands of too few leads to revolution).

Or, you could just conclude the world works the way you think it does (last thing to remember: we are, all of us, human; so we are, all of us, wrong about something) and proceed from there.

Woe betide she who finds her own humanity only after achieving great heights, for therein lies a great fall.


I think I have been quite clear on the crux of my recent posts but I'll clarify, just to be crystal clear. The period I refer to is predictions made for 2016 and 2017, ie not post-Brexit but post-referendum, pre-Brexit.
I contend that key world & national economic bodies colluded to paint an overly pessimistic picture of this period in a crass attempt to frighten the British people into voting remain. Politicians then seized upon these dire warnings and we got "if your doctor gave you advice about a serious medical problem you wouldn't ignore it would you?"
Clearly the economic experts had a range of estimated probabilities & outcomes based on inputs because they said so at the time.
A striking example of all this was laid bare the day after the referendum when instead of the promised punishment Budget from Osborne, Carney simply turned the QE taps on again as the pound plummeted and markets tanked. This BoE tactic was obviously planned and there was no emergency/punishment budget and stock markets recovered and Sterling settled - volatility reduced. Osborne had lied and Carney had colluded with him.
As for your central theme of globalisation and protectionism? For many this was not about wages and immigration, it was about getting out of a pernicious political mission-creep (of a once simple trading block!) that we never fully embraced.
I remain optimistic that The Remoaners will be proved wrong in good time and that the UK will prosper and grow much better outside the EU, and set an example for others to follow. The EU will try to punish UK to prevent others having the temerity to leave as is their wont. The economic horizon medium-term is far from clear due to uncertainty but hopefully experts colluding to paint an overtly gloomy picture for crass political ends will become a thing of the past and a more measured approach to these things develops as we prepare to leave.


PTC
You could have just posted your reply without quoting his post.

Idiot.
PTC
QUOTE (Netley Lucas @ Apr 25 2017, 02:12 PM) *
I remain optimistic that The Remoaners will be proved wrong in good time and that the UK will prosper and grow much better outside the EU, and set an example for others to follow. The EU will try to punish UK to prevent others having the temerity to leave as is their wont. The economic horizon medium-term is far from clear due to uncertainty but hopefully experts colluding to paint an overtly gloomy picture for crass political ends will become a thing of the past and a more measured approach to these things develops as we prepare to leave.

I would hope that all Brits, no matter how they voted, wish for a prosperous future. smile.gif

I really haven't been paying attention...have other nations expressed a (official/public or otherwise) desire to leave the EU? I have no doubt that one or two are watching how the UK gets on before officially making plans to jump ship. Might be a decade or so, but it will happen.
Netley Lucas
QUOTE (PTC @ Apr 25 2017, 07:20 PM) *
You could have just posted your reply without quoting his post.

Idiot.


Quoting a post to which you reply is not idiotic, it's good manners. biggrin.gif
scoobyliscious
QUOTE (Netley Lucas @ Apr 25 2017, 02:12 PM) *
I think I have been quite clear on the crux of my recent posts but I'll clarify, just to be crystal clear. The period I refer to is predictions made for 2016 and 2017, ie not post-Brexit but post-referendum, pre-Brexit.
I contend that key world & national economic bodies colluded to paint an overly pessimistic picture of this period in a crass attempt to frighten the British people into voting remain. Politicians then seized upon these dire warnings and we got "if your doctor gave you advice about a serious medical problem you wouldn't ignore it would you?"
Clearly the economic experts had a range of estimated probabilities & outcomes based on inputs because they said so at the time.
A striking example of all this was laid bare the day after the referendum when instead of the promised punishment Budget from Osborne, Carney simply turned the QE taps on again as the pound plummeted and markets tanked. This BoE tactic was obviously planned and there was no emergency/punishment budget and stock markets recovered and Sterling settled - volatility reduced. Osborne had lied and Carney had colluded with him.
As for your central theme of globalisation and protectionism? For many this was not about wages and immigration, it was about getting out of a pernicious political mission-creep (of a once simple trading block!) that we never fully embraced.
I remain optimistic that The Remoaners will be proved wrong in good time and that the UK will prosper and grow much better outside the EU, and set an example for others to follow. The EU will try to punish UK to prevent others having the temerity to leave as is their wont. The economic horizon medium-term is far from clear due to uncertainty but hopefully experts colluding to paint an overtly gloomy picture for crass political ends will become a thing of the past and a more measured approach to these things develops as we prepare to leave.

I have to say I think you're looking for nefariousness. Incompetence is both more pernicious and more common. Or, perhaps it isn't incompetence, but short-sighted self-preservation. After all, marching toward a more global economy is clearly beneficial for those members of the economic upper class; precisely the people producing your reports (btw: please link, so we can all have the underlying data). Bias exists, consciously or otherwise, so naturally such people will shade interpretation of data one way or another. It isn't crass; merely human.

Lastly, to move in a different direction: I've been contemplating the parallels between the present-day EU and a post-Revolution-but-pre-Constitution United States (under the Articles of Confederation). In both cases, the government structures were explicitly created to maintain the sovereignty of member states, necessarily limiting the power and reach of the centralized government (or, in the case of the EU, government-like structures).

To my view, at least, an understanding of why these structures lacked cohesion (in the case of the US, it was an inability to collect taxes and pay for a central government as well as the lack of effective executive and judicial structures within the central government) would help inform better structures for the future.

I have to admit that a well-integrated European economy is first on my list of "threats" to American economic hegemony (yes, above China, at least for now), so I'm curious as to any thoughts for why a European citizen would want to remain separated, rather than more tightly integrated.
Netley Lucas
QUOTE (PTC @ Apr 25 2017, 07:26 PM) *
I would hope that all Brits, no matter how they voted, wish for a prosperous future. smile.gif

I really haven't been paying attention...have other nations expressed a (official/public or otherwise) desire to leave the EU? I have no doubt that one or two are watching how the UK gets on before officially making plans to jump ship. Might be a decade or so, but it will happen.


I fear some wish for a less than prosperous outcome.

Yes there are those who would wish to leave EU but are not in a position currently to table a referendum. There are certainly powerful voices within the EU that are urging other countries not to hold referendums, well they would wouldn't they? laugh.gif
RAPID
Do I bother?
Netley Lucas
QUOTE (scoobyliscious @ Apr 25 2017, 10:40 PM) *
I have to say I think you're looking for nefariousness. Incompetence is both more pernicious and more common. Or, perhaps it isn't incompetence, but short-sighted self-preservation. After all, marching toward a more global economy is clearly beneficial for those members of the economic upper class; precisely the people producing your reports (btw: please link, so we can all have the underlying data). Bias exists, consciously or otherwise, so naturally such people will shade interpretation of data one way or another. It isn't crass; merely human.

Lastly, to move in a different direction: I've been contemplating the parallels between the present-day EU and a post-Revolution-but-pre-Constitution United States (under the Articles of Confederation). In both cases, the government structures were explicitly created to maintain the sovereignty of member states, necessarily limiting the power and reach of the centralized government (or, in the case of the EU, government-like structures).

To my view, at least, an understanding of why these structures lacked cohesion (in the case of the US, it was an inability to collect taxes and pay for a central government as well as the lack of effective executive and judicial structures within the central government) would help inform better structures for the future.

I have to admit that a well-integrated European economy is first on my list of "threats" to American economic hegemony (yes, above China, at least for now), so I'm curious as to any thoughts for why a European citizen would want to remain separated, rather than more tightly integrated.


You would have had to have followed events pre-referendum to understand the forces at work. I'm not saying the Brexit camp were 'whiter-than-white' re. skulduggery btw, they weren't, but the bulk of the misinformation and fear was clearly coming from remainers and they had the weight of the establishment machinery behind them, pulling the strings. It wasn't a fair fight and they still lost, funnily enough.
Scrutiny of hysterical estimates & statements made by experts such as EU bodies, OECD, IMF, UK GOV, BoE are all out there, you should be aware of them already. This is not me arguing a contentious issue, they were all gloomy as hell and they were for the period after the referendum but before leaving.
If the EU was simply a good trading area and co-operated sensibly on security and crime then I doubt there would even be an issue.
scoobyliscious
QUOTE (Netley Lucas @ Apr 25 2017, 06:10 PM) *
You would have had to have followed events pre-referendum to understand the forces at work. I'm not saying the Brexit camp were 'whiter-than-white' re. skulduggery btw, they weren't, but the bulk of the misinformation and fear was clearly coming from remainers and they had the weight of the establishment machinery behind them, pulling the strings. It wasn't a fair fight and they still lost, funnily enough.
Scrutiny of hysterical estimates & statements made by experts such as EU bodies, OECD, IMF, UK GOV, BoE are all out there, you should be aware of them already. This is not me arguing a contentious issue, they were all gloomy as hell and they were for the period after the referendum but before leaving.
If the EU was simply a good trading area and co-operated sensibly on security and crime then I doubt there would even be an issue.

So, you are making a non-contentious point to a group of necessarily ignorant persons (we didn't follow the events pre-referendum), repeatedly (come back to this thread multiple times), won't answer a simple question for evidence (I should be aware of them already, but couldn't understand them because I didn't pay attention pre-referendum to the forces that were at work?)

And your last line barely answers the question I asked, with a facile tautology boiling down to "if it were better, it would work."

Why, then, are you posting? It's not to convince those that disagree(d) with you, since you are simply restating you think you were/are right. Do you really need to gloat that badly? I get the title of the Thread is presumptuous (assumes everyone is frustrated with the outcome), but self-aggrandizement in the face of arrogant presumption accomplishes little (and, frankly, self-satisfaction, as any clichéd flasher-in-a-trenchcoat will tell you, shouldn't really be a public thing).

I'll admit my own frustration with the tone of conversation in this Thread, but as I'm genuinely curious to understand the underlying point (UK people are better without the EU), let's try to open discussion again:
  • How would you make the EU better? If the concept of the EU is necessarily flawed, what are the underlying faults?
  • What are the priorities or structures that should be in place for any government and why do you believe in those priorities?
  • How do we, the governed, maintain checks on those in power, both hard (military, physical) and soft (economic, class-oriented or hierarchical), either in the UK or in the EU (or really, anywhere)?
  • How large should a sovereign government be? For that matter, how do we determine large: geography, population, economy?
Seriously, I want to understand the vote to Leave without resorting to facile "down with the Other" explanations. I think it's contemptuous to simply say "bunch of ignorant something-ist Neanderthals" rather than try to understand why someone might believe in additional protections to sovereignty. If people are dis-empowered and dis-affected, we, as a society (globally), should understand why and attempt to help.

I just haven't heard any explanations that aren't "down with the Other." And yes, when that is the underlying reason for something, I will be contemptuous (to answer the follow-up question: yes, I tend to be self-loathing at times, when my own such flaws are laid bare before me).
WALOR
QUOTE (scoobyliscious @ Apr 26 2017, 11:06 AM) *
If people are dis-empowered and dis-affected, we, as a society (globally), should understand why and attempt to help.




"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.
Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons.
Mr Neather was a speech writer who worked in Downing Street for Tony Blair and in the Home Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett, in the early 2000s."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law...er-adviser.html


"The Secretary of the Writers' Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?"

Bertolt Brecht



Netley Lucas
"So, you are making a non-contentious point to a group of necessarily ignorant persons (we didn't follow the events pre-referendum), repeatedly (come back to this thread multiple times), won't answer a simple question for evidence (I should be aware of them already, but couldn't understand them because I didn't pay attention pre-referendum to the forces that were at work?)"

No, I am making the point to you and you only. If you are ignorant of pre-referendum predictions it won't take you long to find out (hint... Project Fear), you appear fairly intelligent. I don't have to spoon feed you do I? Maybe ploughing into a topic which you haven't a bloody clue about and then having a go at me is perhaps a tad unwise?

"And your last line barely answers the question I asked, with a facile tautology boiling down to "if it were better, it would work.""

Not quite, I'll help you. If the EU wasn't a pernicious, mission-creep political union there wouldn't be an issue.

"Why, then, are you posting? It's not to convince those that disagree(d) with you, since you are simply restating you think you were/are right. Do you really need to gloat that badly? I get the title of the Thread is presumptuous (assumes everyone is frustrated with the outcome), but self-aggrandizement in the face of arrogant presumption accomplishes little (and, frankly, self-satisfaction, as any clichéd flasher-in-a-trenchcoat will tell you, shouldn't really be a public thing)."

Go away, do your homework and then come back mate. Oh there's more... we'll call this next bit Part 1 shall we? The Crux? The above bits were just the warm-up.

"I'll admit my own frustration with the tone of conversation in this Thread, but as I'm genuinely curious to understand the underlying point (UK people are better without the EU), let's try to open discussion again:"

Let's have a go then....

"How would you make the EU better? If the concept of the EU is necessarily flawed, what are the underlying faults?
What are the priorities or structures that should be in place for any government and why do you believe in those priorities?"


It should be a free-trade area and co-operate on security & crime only. I have told you this before, do you even read what I say?

"How do we, the governed, maintain checks on those in power, both hard (military, physical) and soft (economic, class-oriented or hierarchical), either in the UK or in the EU (or really, anywhere)?"

We vote in elections.

"How large should a sovereign government be? For that matter, how do we determine large: geography, population, economy?"

It should be national. These are too easy mate.

"Seriously, I want to understand the vote to Leave without resorting to facile "down with the Other" explanations. I think it's contemptuous to simply say "bunch of ignorant something-ist Neanderthals" rather than try to understand why someone might believe in additional protections to sovereignty. If people are dis-empowered and dis-affected, we, as a society (globally), should understand why and attempt to help."

Are you getting it yet?

"I just haven't heard any explanations that aren't "down with the Other." And yes, when that is the underlying reason for something, I will be contemptuous (to answer the follow-up question: yes, I tend to be self-loathing at times, when my own such flaws are laid bare before me)."

Go away now, think about AU, a political union of all the Americas.
Netley Lucas
I see the sneeringly biased BBC are at it again, can't accept they lost, pay us or go te jail...


Brexit: UK suggests 'temporary customs union' with EU

The UK has set out the "ambitious new customs arrangement" it wants to secure with the EU after Brexit.
Ministers said the plans would mean the "freest and most frictionless possible trade" with the rest of Europe.
This could include a "temporary customs union" after Brexit to prevent border problems as the UK leaves the EU.
Businesses have called for clarity since the UK said it was leaving the customs union - the EU's tariff-free trading area - as part of Brexit.
The customs union document is the first of a series of papers to be published by the UK government on key negotiation issues.
On Wednesday it is expected to set out proposals for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
What is the customs union?
Countries in the customs union don't impose tariffs - taxes on imports - on each other's goods.
Every country inside the union levies the same tariffs on imports from abroad.
So, for example, a 10% tariff is imposed on some cars imported from outside the customs union, while 7.5% is imposed on roasted coffee.
Other goods - such as soap or slate - have no tariffs.
The UK's departure from the EU's customs union was confirmed at the weekend in a joint article by Chancellor Philip Hammond and Trade Secretary Liam Fox.
A 'streamlined' border
According to the newly-published government paper, the UK could ask Brussels to establish a "temporary customs union" after it leaves the EU in March 2019.
But during this period, it would also expect to be able to negotiate its own international trade deals - something it cannot do as an EU customs union member.
Once this period expires, the UK will look to agree either a "highly streamlined" border with the EU, or a new "partnership" with no customs border at all.
The government said the interim arrangements would mean businesses would only have to adjust once to the new arrangements.
All of this will have to be negotiated with the EU - and the two sides have not yet even started discussing trade matters.
Other obstacles - including the size of the UK's "divorce bill" - need to be agreed first.
Mixed UK reaction
Keir Starmer, Labour's shadow Brexit secretary, said the proposals were "incoherent and inadequate" and were designed to "gloss over deep and continuing divisions within the cabinet".
"These fantastical and contradictory proposals provide no guidance for negotiators or certainty for businesses," he added.
Liberal Democrat Brexit spokesman Tom Brake said the plan would "only delay the economic pain caused by leaving the customs union".
"We still face the prospect of more red tape for businesses, longer queues at our borders and higher prices for consumers once the transition comes to an end."
However, the CBI, which represents British businesses, said the proposal was "encouraging".
Its deputy director general, Josh Hardie, added: "The clock is ticking and what matters now is giving companies the confidence to continue investing as quickly as possible."
Grey line
Analysis: UK 'hustles' Brussels
Adam Fleming, BBC Brussels reporter, said the UK was seeking a customs union agreement "that will keep things broadly the same for an interim period - an attempt to reassure business".
"Firms will be told they'll only have to change their processes once," he said.
"In Brussels, EU negotiators are likely to stick to their position that that the future relationship can't be considered until agreement has been reached on their priority issues - the rights of citizens, a financial settlement and the Irish border."
BBC political correspondent Ben Wright said the UK government was "straining to show that it does have a route-map for Brexit".
He said ministers were also attempting to "subtly" put the issue onto the negotiating table sooner than Brussels wants.
"They want to hustle EU negotiators into talking about trade much sooner than Brussels intends," our correspondent said.
Netley Lucas
BBC political correspondent Ben Wright said the UK government was "straining to show that it does have a route-map for Brexit".

Out means out Ben, get used to it. Force another ref BBC crime, we'll vote OUT every day of the week. biggrin.gif
Netley Lucas
...then we'll have a ref on BBC licence theft... Ben laugh.gif
Netley Lucas
The government's chief whip, Julian Smith, is understood to have held talks with his DUP opposite number, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, on Monday evening, as efforts began to get the party on side. (bbc)
Netley Lucas
This what happens when you don't get a majority, DUP stall it. No doubt a tactic but it's a pain to see this happen when we could be cracking on with trade talks. Remainers will see this a chance to stop it, but remember the DUP are ultra-leave so they swing it, ironically.
Peterorange
QUOTE (Netley Lucas @ Dec 5 2017, 07:16 AM) *
The government's chief whip, Julian Smith, is understood to have held talks with his DUP opposite number, Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, on Monday evening, as efforts began to get the party on side. (bbc)

Just bung them another £1 billion rolleyes.gif
Netley Lucas
QUOTE (Peterorange @ Dec 5 2017, 12:05 PM) *
Just bung them another £1 billion rolleyes.gif


Sent a cheque off te Arlene, laugh.gif
Netley Lucas
I wonder if nasty, spiteful bitter soft lefty snowflakes will get their revenge...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKoS5X4SMrY

hic!
PTC
QUOTE (Netley Lucas @ Apr 29 2018, 05:55 PM) *
I wonder if nasty, spiteful bitter soft lefty snowflakes will get their revenge...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKoS5X4SMrY

hic!

If they do I'm sure there will be panic on the streets of Carlisle and Humberside.
Spurs Crew
Well, it turns out Brexit was a ridiculous idea from the beginning and we are now in an awful position.

Who’d have predicted that eh? Well, anyone with half a brain, actually.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.