UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
No, Jim, we haven't voted to get out of the EU. A narrow majority voted for a type of Brexit that is almost certainly impossible to deliver. We can't have all the benefits of EU membership without the obligations for freedom of movement. We can't have £350 million extra a week for the NHS. We can't cut red tape - all we can do is to transfer it (at some expense) to the UK civil service.That's not democracy; it's a con. It's no different to Parliament being conned into voting for a war with Iraq on the basis of the dodgy dossier.
Sooner or later, those who voted Leave will work out that they have been sold a pup. In all likelihood this will be when the Theresa May Government unveils its Brexit-lite proposals. At that point, some people will criticise the Government for "going soft". And some other people will realise that this is the best compromise that could be delivered that sticks to the "Brexit means Brexit" line.
What could be bitter sweet and ironic is when a Brexit-lite emerges and large numbers of Leave supporters demand another referendum because it wasn't what they thought they were voting for.
The UK Bill of Rights is a similar issue. It sounds all fine and dandy and might appeal to those who don't understand how international conventions work. But it's a huge backwards step which appeals to the lowest common denominator in politics - appeal to people's fears instead of dealing with the real issues.
Parliament wasn't conned into voting for the Iraq war, Parliament voted that way because it was populated by Blairites, placemen, and third rate bit players who had no grasp of Geo-politics or who possessed any moral judgement whatsoever.
Will wrote: "No, Jim, we haven't voted to get out of the EU. A narrow majority voted for a type of Brexit that is almost certainly impossible to deliver. We can't have all the benefits of EU membership without ...That's not democracy; it's a con. "
Our democracy is a con
Will wrote: "No, Jim, we haven't voted to get out of the EU. A narrow majority voted for a type of Brexit that is almost certainly impossible to deliver. We can't have all the benefits of EU membership without ..."sorry but what on earth do you think you were voting about? I voted to get out, as did all the others who voted Brexit. And how do you know what sort of Brexit we voted for, Out is Out. That was what the majority voted for, that is the democratic decision.
I knew exactly what I was voting for - staying in the EU. I had no idea what a leave vote meant and I still don't. The Leave campaign promised £350 million to spend on the NHS, which we all know can't be delivered. Tough luck if you voted for that.
They promised that we would simultaneously cut immigration and enjoy the benefits of free trade "because the other states will have to do a deal with us." It's becoming increasingly clear that we aren't going to get a deal which is remotely like that. If you voted for immigration controls and strong trade, it seems almost inevitable that you can have one but not the other.
They promised that the economy would be better after we left the EU. It isn't now, and that is more than 2 years before we leave. Sorry if you voted Leave to put more money into your pocket or the NHS.
So the version of Brexit that the Leave campaign pedaled is a fiction. It does not exist. It's like voting for David Cameron as PM and getting Theresa May.
We don't know if we are getting a hard Brexit, where we cut ourselves off altogether. Or a soft Brexit, where we do a deal with the EU. We don't know if we are triggering Article 50 soon or in several year's time. We don't know if we are heading for a deal like Norway's. Or Switzerland. Or Canada.
Later this week, Theresa May will be hosting a cabinet awayday where her Chancellor is pressing for one kind of Brexit and Fox, Davies and Johnson will be arguing for something else. There is a
chance that they will come up with a compromise version of Brexit that you will absolutely hate.
And then you'll complain that you didn't vote for that. Because the Leave campaign was so vague (and dishonest) that there is no way you could have known what you were voting for.
Here's a prediction. At some point in the next 12 months, you will find yourself being very disappointed with Theresa May's government. You'll find yourself saying "I didn't vote for that".
Who knows? You might even wish you could have a second referendum to get the kind of Brexit that you want.
Jim, if you are going to reply to that your middle name must be Job.
simple, a leave vote means we leave. As for the 350 million, it was a promise made by politicians. I suppose there are still people out there who believe promises made by politicians but there cannot be all that many
I voted to leave. Immigration is not an issue round here, I didn't vote leave to put money in my pocket, in fact if I voted with my wallet I would probably have voted remain. I voted leave because I want to be out of the EU
What bit of being out of the EU do you not understand? Why do you have to attribute reasons to me for voting the way I did? You might worry about these reasons, but I voted out because I want to be out of the EU because it is not a democratic organisation, indeed it is pretty much antithetical to democracy, and I do not want to be a part of it. Any organisation that will happily impose 50% plus youth unemployment on a member state in a frantic attempt to save a political project is not one I want to be part of.
I don't care if we see slower growth, or have to trade with the EU under WTO terms. In fact since the vote I have become even more strongly convinced we must leave. Basically because of the contempt poured on those who voted leave by those who want to remain.
In fact, much to my surprise, just talking to people round here, these are pretty much the same reasons they voted to leave as well. Wagon drivers, builders, electricians, none of them worried about migrants. But just sick of the EU and want to live in a country that respects democracy
So you've swallowed all the hype about the EU being undemocratic? Most of it spread by that democratically elected MEP Nigel Farage or the unelected right wing press.The EU is controlled by its Member States who are each democratically elected. It does not ban non-bendy bananas or any other of the stories made up by the media.
What we have instead is a Prime Minister that none of us voted for who is looking for a way to steamroller a massive decision through without having to go to Parliament. Is that democratic?
You may not care about immigration, but plenty of voters did. It is a nonsense to suggest otherwise.
According to voting analysis, the £350 million a week figure was the single most influential claim in the entire campaign. And it's a lie. It's not just another politician bending the truth. It is an out and out lie. A Government Minister would come under pressure to resign for a whopper like that one.
The Leave campaign promised that the economy would be better off outside the EU. All the evidence suggests otherwise.
People voted Leave for all sorts of reasons. Some wanted to reduce immigration. Some wanted more money spent on the NHS. Some believed that we could secure better trade deals on the outside. Some wanted to get out of what they see as an undemocratic organisation.
Most of them aren't going to get what they want. You may be happy with an economic crash, job losses and less money for the NHS, but the vast majority of Leave voters will be deeply upset that they have been lied to.
You want to live in a country that respects democracy? Me too. The starting point for democracy is the truth. Give people a real choice and then respect their decision. That's where this referendum falls down. The voters were not given a real choice because of the lies that were told. Sooner or later we are going to have to have a proper vote with all the facts on the table.
Will wrote: "According to voting analysis, the £350 million a week figure was the single most influential claim in the entire campaign."Evidence, please.
Will wrote: "So you've swallowed all the hype about the EU being undemocratic? Most of it spread by that democratically elected MEP Nigel Farage or the unelected right wing press...."
Bollocks
I've lived of a member of the sodding organisation since the 1970s. I've watched it operate.
How the hell do you know what papers I read? What sources of information I have. I'm a bluidy freelance journalist and have met people and talked to people from a fair bit of Europe and the UK, politicans and bureaucrats amongst them over the last thirty plus years.
IPSOS Mori found that 78% of voters had heard about the £350 million claim and 47% believed it was true. No other single claim had such a high visibility rating.https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Doc...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/...
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Doc...
So we have something which we know without a shadow of a doubt to be untrue which is believed by 47% of voters.
so what? half of them could be remain voters. It's meaninglessThere's remain voters who believed the chancellor's claim that there would have to be an emergency budget. Funny you don't see so many people claiming that as a big lie
Will, while I agree with much of what you say, the answer is not to hold another referendum, because that's based on erroneous logic as much as many of the flawed claims of Brexit campaign. The whole referendum as I've consistently said had to be based on both sides on a complete void, remainers like me voting for an ideal of the EU (and not currently as it is constituted) and Brexiters voting for a multi-headed ideal of life outside the EU. Yes the referendum was flawed from the outset but it was still a legitimately observed democratic process. One side may have lied more than the other? How are you going to quantatively adjudge that? And if it was applied to all successful governing parties against the implementation of their election manifestos (and promises made on the hoof during an election campaign), they're all going to fall a long way short. This is our democracy. Rubbish as it is, the most iniquitous and damaging thing that could be done is to ignore or reverse the outcome of that referendum because then you basically say 54% of the citizens of this country have no voice at all, which is what many of them would have been saying in how they cast their vote in the first place. Should Parliament discuss Brexit? Yes of course. Should they move to renege on the result of the referendum, definitely not.
Jim wrote: "so what? half of them could be remain voters. It's meaninglessThere's remain voters who believed the chancellor's claim that there would have to be an emergency budget. Funny you don't see so man..."
Even if half of them were Remain voters, that it still several million people who believed that the £350 million figure was correct. More than the winning margin.
And Philip Hammond, the new Chancellor, is indeed going to have an emergency budget this Autumn, after initially saying that he didn't intend to. The Bank of England started QE and talking about lowering interest rates within days of the referendum.
That's why you don't see anyone claiming that the Remain figures were a lie. They weren't.
Will wrote: "Even if half of them were Remain voters, that it still several million people who believed that the £350 million figure was correct. More than the winning margin. And Philip Hammond, the new Chancellor, is indeed going to have an emergency budget this Autumn, after initially saying that he didn't intend to. The Bank of England started QE and talking about lowering interest rates within days of the referendum.
That's why you don't see anyone claiming that the Remain figures were a lie. They weren't. .."
It's irrelevant. Just because somebody said they believed a figure doesn't mean that it swayed their opinion. Given that it was estimated that the vast majority of voters made their mind up before the vote.
The Bank may have started QE but a lot of 'the experts' have said they were wrong to do it.
So the remain camp claim to be the only political campaign in history to tell only the truth
You didn't hear much about this either in the remain campaign. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...
The EU was never set up as a tax collecting agency but given the challenges yesterday with Apple and Ireland whatever the rights and wrongs of multinationals and tax avoidance, it is starting to flex its muscles Some countries do have VAT on all foods so the phrase 'may have right to veto' Isn't worth a candle in the long term.
The big lie of the Remain campaign was that we could remain in a reformed EU. The first meeting the big three have after Brexit, what signs of reform? They're finally going to form an EU army. The other piece of mendacity the remain campaign repeatedly used was when saying how bad things would be and comparing us against a successful EU.
Given we have an EU with many southern states having youth unemployment rates of well over 30%, Italian banking crisis looming which will really screw the commission's rules as well as Greece not solved and Eastern Europe semi detached behind barbed wire barriers thanks to German policy to welcome migrants, the EU is in a right mess
Forming an EU army? That's up there with the nonsense about Turkey joining the EU.Those other things will happen whether we are in the EU or not... the only difference is we now won't have a say in what steps are taken to combat the after effects.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "You didn't hear much about this either in the remain campaign. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2...
The EU was never set up as a tax coll..."
there is a strong argument that the Commission is making up law as it goes along.
The problem here is that whatever you think about taxation, the Irish Republic has a right to set its own tax rates and draw up its own agreements.
At the very best the EU is bringing in retrospective regulations to penalise deals which were legal when they were drawn up
Jim - for you, the biggest issue seems to be the EU itself. You've formed this image of an undemocratic incompetent organisation - somewhere between Spectre and Exxon. That's the image that some parts of the British press have been pushing for decades. And there's probably nothing that I or anyone else could say to change your mind on that one. I've worked with the EU and with other international organisations, and I know that they are nothing like the bogie men that you think they are. But that's your opinion and you aren't going to shift from it. You are probably one of the few who would be satisfied with Theresa May's "Brexit means Brexit". As long as we get out of the EU, you don't care how we do it or what pain we have to suffer as a result. In your words, "it's irrelevant".
Okay, let's park that one and look at the wider picture. You will admit, surely, that some people voted Leave because they wanted to reduce or even stop immigration? After all, that was a core part of UKIP's campaigning.
And some people wanted to save money from our subscriptions to the EU so we could spend more on the NHS?
And some people believed the line - which you have used in this thread - that the EU will have to do a special deal with us because we are so big and important. We will get access to the tariff-free market without having free movement of people.
Some people think we can cut red tape if we leave the EU.
And the economy would be no worse than it is now, and probably better outside the EU.
Some people believe we can make any laws we want once we have "taken back" our sovereignty.
In varying degrees, that's what people think they are getting from the Leave vote. The problem is that we can have some of it, but not all. Some of the claims are plainly undeliverable, like the £350 million a week figure. Other claims would force us to make compromises elsewhere.
Right now there is an argument going on in Government. The Chancellor wants to interpret Brexit in a way that satisfies the Leave voters who were worried about the economy, the NHS and their jobs. He is looking for a soft Brexit which probably changes our relationship with the EU without actually leaving it, gives us access to the single market and doesn't do much to reduce immigration.
At the same time, the Brexit Ministers of Fox, Johnson and Davies are working up plans for a hard Brexit where we trigger article 50 immediately, we leave the EU totally, we introduce controls on immigration and we suffer the economic consequences.
Will the public be satisfied with either outcome? A hard Brexit will hurt the economy. Far from saving money for the NHS, we will be spending more, receiving less taxation income and increasing national debt.
But a hard Brexit is probably the only way to deliver the controls on immigration that the Leave campaign promised, either explicitly or implicitly.
If the Government comes up with a form of Brexit that you don't like, would you wish you or Parliament had a chance to vote on it?
Lynne - the EU has always tackled what is known as "State aid". This means that Governments should not give a business an unfair advantage. The idea is that all countries should compete equally for businesses to set up in their country.What has happened here is that Ireland have given Apple an unfairly low tax rate. This means that Apple has based itself in Ireland instead of another country, say, the UK. Ireland gets an economic boost because of the jobs this creates in Ireland. The other countries can't compete on an equal footing.
The EU cracking down on Ireland's state aid helps the UK. It's one of the benefits of EU membership.
They are allowing EDF to charge a retroactive supplement on electricity supplied 2014-15. On the basis they underestimated the real cost of the tariff. Incredible, just let an independent retailer try that. I get the message Michael re Turkey, you don't have to kick it to death.
Will Luxembourg crack down on Amazon, or will Junckers find a solution?
I too have had to work with the EU, for pretty much my entire working life.Some people doubtless voted leave because of migrants just as some people voted remain because their mortgages are paid by grants from the EU and to hell with the rest of us.
People have believed all sorts of things, none of which am I responsible for. I merely know, from my own experience, that I've had enough of being in the EU
I am perfectly happy to leave and trade with the EU under WTO rules, after all, the way the EU has been treating Apple etc with retrospective regulation, and the end of attempting to get a freetrade deal between the EU and US we're as likely to pick up foreign investment as anybody.
The EU cracking down on Ireland does help the UK, if we leave. If we stay they'll just crack down on us next
But stop kidding yourself that people don't want to leave and want some sort of soft brexit without leaving the single market. It isn't on offer, it isn't going to happen, the EU couldn't let it happen.
In light of the problems that TTIP is encountering during the talks that indicate that it is pretty much dead in the water and also the attack on Apple's use of Ireland as a method of paying little or no tax, is the EU finally waking up to the electorate's dislike of globalisation and the role of corporate entities that exploit it?The Brexit vote, combined with Cameron's departure has been a body blow to TTIP, as Cameron was the leading advocate for it.
It was the French that killed off TTIP.
Michael Cargill wrote: "It was the French that killed off TTIP."If my facebook feed is anything to go by the left in Europe were pretty much against it, or at least the young and vocal members were. There seem to have been pretty big demonstrations against it in Germany.
The problem with TTIP is that to get it through the EU would have had to sacrifice too many sacred cows. These weren't a problem from a UK perspective, as they were often things we wanted rid of anyway
Jim - the EU cracking down on Ireland and Apple benefits the UK whether we leave or not. It is hard to see how "we are going to be next" because on the whole the UK observes State Aid rules.Geoff - the EU isn't waking up to anything. It has been tackling State Aid issues for decades. Apple and Ireland are some of the biggest fish it has taken action against, but hardly the first.
We can read TTIP in several different ways. A Remain point of view would be that it shows how hard it is going to be for the UK to argue bilateral trade deals. A Leave point of view might be that the EU couldn't secure the deal, maybe we will have better luck.
I'm finding it very hard to come up with an argument that says "the collapse of TTIP proves X". Trade deals are not easy to negotiate - the reasons for their success and failure are many and various.
how do we know we observe State Aid rules? The Irish thought they did under the Commission decided to reinterpret the law. At what point does the Commission demand that the UK increase its corporation tax rate because that is a state aid making us unnaturally competitive with France?
As part of the negotiations on the EU bale out of Irish banks they tried to get the Irish to increase their tax on businesses, but the Irish held out because there was a growing feeling they would be better off telling the Commission to stuff the deal, and the Commission backed down because the growing feeling was right
Every large investment decision made by the UK Government is scrutinised for its impact on the State Aid principles. So when I negotiate funding for a new transport project (say a road or a public transport improvement), I have to prove to the Government that the project is state aid compliant. This sometimes means using specialist state aid lawyers and, in some cases, asking the EU directly for advice on a specific project.Projects can be stopped if they can't prove that they are State Aid compliant.
In some instances, a State Aid question is clear-cut. In other cases there is room for interpretation and negotiation with the EU. But the principle is well established and has been tested and refined over many years.
That's one of the benefits of being in the EU. The State Aid rules mean that other member states shouldn't be able to gain a competitive advantage over the UK by offering businesses an unrealistically low tax rate.
It also helps other businesses to compete on a level footing. What do you think Apple's competitors think about their unfair tax break?
And it's good for consumers because it means that the big corporations can't avoid paying a fair rate of tax.
If a democratically elected government decides to honour its mandate from the electorate and cut tax on companies (which is pretty much what Irish governments have done over the years) and other democratically elected governments decide to increase the tax on companies, then that is between them and their electorates who will share the benefits or the pain of the policy. An unelected bureaucracy has no right to interfere
Which is one reason why members of the electorate of this democracy voted to leave
As for Apple's competitors, they're all major multinationals who are perfectly capable of looking after themselves.Indeed there is a strong argument for not taxing company profits at all, because it is so difficult to track them down and work out what they actually are.
The money a company makes goes in four main directions. One is 'costs' which are paid to other companies, government and local authorities.
One is wages. This goes to employees who pay tax
One is dividends to shareholders, which are taxed
One is investment, which tends to create more jobs, more profits, more investment.
what's the point in taxing investment?
Corporations are unelected, yet they're perfectly happy to interfere as and when it suits them - why do you think it's so hard to track these profits down in the first place?The EU are doing what the likes of the G8 and the G20 should be doing.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Corporations are unelected, yet they're perfectly happy to interfere as and when it suits them - why do you think it's so hard to track these profits down in the first place?The EU are doing what..."
Quangos, charities and small businesses are unelected, they all lobby governments.
Why is it so hard to track profits? Simple, some governments work out they're better off getting the jobs in their country than trying to screw a company for tax
which may be true but is pretty morally reprehensible unless government come clean and admit that is policy
As I said before, this EU vote is done and dusted. Looking to the future is a lot better than looking to the past. I'm not a left-winger, but it's a shame that the Left have this malaise, this depression upon them because of the referendum result. They've resigned themselves to 100 years of Tory rule, which of course, is nonsense.
There is a left-wing vision for post-BREXIT Britain in the 21st century, and the quicker they realize that, the better for our democracy.
It's the Brexiters who are looking to the past - going on about the WWII generation, what their grandparents did, and yearning for the golden age that they believe existed prior to 1975.
Michael Cargill wrote: "It's the Brexiters who are looking to the past - going on about the WWII generation, what their grandparents did, and yearning for the golden age that they believe existed prior to 1975."To be honest, I'm not quite sure about this generational gap. To be fair, there are die-hard euro-skeptics like my elderly father, who voted against the EEC in the 1970s, blames Ted Heath for this nation's woes, and believes a golden age of New Zealand butter and lamb is set to return to the UK once more.
But I look at the old and the young, and in my slightly biased eyes, the young were quite happy to hand the whole nation over, lock stock and barrel, to the EU without a second thought.
The older generation, remembering the war, and the price of freedom, were more reluctant.
Yes, these might be sweeping generalizations, but it seems to me, that it was the old who were the radicals, and the young wanting the status quo, when it's usually the opposite.
Jim wrote: "An unelected bureaucracy has no right to interfere."The EU is not an unelected bureaucracy. It is an international organisation governed by its Member states.
All EU Member States have made a treaty obligation not to give State Aid to businesses. It's part of the price of being in the EU. So the EU has every right to interfere when one of its member states breaks a convention commitment.
A state can't simply ignore international law or treaty obligations on a whim, even if it thinks it has a mandate from its public.
If the international community wants to rewrite the rules about business taxation, then it can. But it would have to do that by amending or repealing existing legislation. You cannot simply break a law because you want to.
The smoke signals from Chequers are that the Government will prioritise control of immigration over trade deals. This means that those who voted for Leave to keep the foreigners out are probably going to be happy. Those who voted Leave to save money and spend more on the NHS ought to be furious.And definitely no second referendum. The Government gets to choose what kind of Brexit we get and will impose it on us regardless of public opinion.
There'll be tears before bedtime on this one.
Will wrote: "... There'll be tears before bedtime on this one."Finally something we can all agree on.
no government does anything regardless of public opinion. If they make a habit of it they stop being the government. That's why political parties make such an effort to manipulate public opinion
I did tell you about what was going on in Calais. I'm dreading our journey later in the month. Again.
From all accounts, it can be scary going through Calais at the moment. Fingers crossed that it will be okay for you.I don't know what the answer is. As the migrants are not from the EU, Brexit won't make much of a difference - unless the French authorities become more reluctant to cooperate with us when/if we are outside the EU.
Theresa May has poured cold water on a points based immigration system even though that was one of the Brexit promises.
I really don't know what happens next.
given that the points based immigration system was not something Theresa May ever promised, you can hardly hold her to themmind you it now seems there are more remain people who are happy we are leaving than leave people who wish we were remaining :-)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/...
Jim wrote: "mind you it now seems there are more remain people who are happy we are leaving than leave people who wish we were remaining :-)"Ah, the ficklety of the electorate. I suspect these figures will swing back and forth with the release of each piece of good news and bad news.
They are from everywhere. The BBC interviewed one chap from Gambia a while back who claimed he'd been imprisoned in Libya for 3 months after getting there then he paid €400 euros to traffickers to get across the Med. where he hid that €400 while he was in a Libyan gaol God only knows. Gambia is still a holiday destination not a war zone. It's a mess
absolutelyI suspect that there is a core of supporters for both sides, each probably not far from 40% and then a small group that floats between the two
The Telegraph have a short memory about Lord Ashcroft's polls:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/gener...
Theresa May can't have it both ways. She can't say that "Brexit means Brexit" and then pick and choose which of the Leave campaigns promises she implements and which she doesn't. The "mandate from the public" argument sounds very hollow when she doesn't do what the public voted for.
Right now we have a political vacuum around Brexit. The Government are drip-feeding us with information about how they are going to implement it. There is no effective opposition. Other states (like the US and Japan) are saying what Brexit does and doesn't mean for them. The pro-Brexit press are ignoring all the warning signs and saying "rejoice! The economy is booming" while the serious press are reporting it more accurately. The Telegraph is turning into the Daily Mail.
I think Jim is right that there is a core of people who support Remain or Leave and a large number of floating voters who are trying to make sense of it. Some people are interpreting the lack of an apocalypse as meaning that Brexit is going to be great. No-one in Government (with the possible exception of the three brexiteers and their immediate circles) believes that. Theresa May has already (rightly) warned of the tough times to come.
A second referendum or parliamentary vote is looking more and more likely. The further that the Government gets from the Leave campaign promises, the harder it will be to argue that they are fulfilling a mandate from the public.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
Naturally, of course, we'll get none of that, and BREXIT, rather than being the exciting dynamo of change it should be, will be another nail in the coffin of UK plc, as we slowly slide towards more decades of managed decline...