UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
She can't be held responsible for anything the Leave campaign said, for which I am sure she is very grateful.But the Leave campaign is what people voted for. She has said repeatedly that "Brexit means Brexit" and that her Government will implement what people voted for. She is using that argument as a reason not to have a second referendum or even a vote in Parliament. She argues that the Government has all the sovereignty it needs without another vote because they are implementing the will of the people.
But she can't claim to be implementing the will of the people if she isn't ... ahem ... implementing the will of the people.
It is entirely possible (and probably quite likely) that the eventual Brexit deal will look very different to what the Leave campaign promised. A struggling economy. No new money to spend on the NHS. Technically outside the EU but still inside the single market under a bespoke deal. Some restrictions on immigration, but not much. Most of the red tape from the EU still in place because it's a requirement of trade with the EU.
And if we end up with a soft Brexit like that we might find that Leave voters want a second referendum because it doesn't go far enough.
Then you have the Greens, who want to have a referendum on what has been negotiated. Frankly, I do not understand how that will work. To get to that position we will have triggered Article 50 and be at lease two years down the line. How do you hold a referendum on a fait accompli?
Easy. You hold the referendum before Article 50 is triggered. Or at the very least a debate in Parliament.The public voted for a set of vague promises made by the Leave campaign. We've known all along that most of those promises were undeliverable. As R.M.F. quite rightly says, some were written on the back of a beer mat by Farage.
All of this means is that there is no single recipe for Brexit starting from where we are now. Theresa May says that Brexit means Brexit and everyone else is scratching their heads trying to work out what they means. A clean break with the EU or a Norway-style deal? More money for the NHS or less? Immigration controlled or not?
That's no basis for a democratic decision.
Right now the Government is trying to work out what kind of Brexit is the best match between what the public were promised and what can actually be delivered. At some point in the next few months, they will have a pretty good idea about what kind of a Brexit is possible, how much it would cost, what the benefits would be, how long it would take.
When Theresa May has all that information in front of her, she gets to make the decision about whether to trigger article 50 or not. She gets to choose which kind of Brexit we end up with.
That version of Brexit could be very different from the one you thought you were voting for.
It is at that point that we ought to get a chance to have a say in what Brexit actually looks like. Should we go for option A or option B? Or, having seen the evidence, do we want to Remain? At the very least this should be debated by Parliament. That's what it's for.
The Leave campaign was all about taking back control. Shouldn't that mean that we don't leave decisions about our the future of our country to an elite of the Tory right wing?
If you try to put that genie back in the bottle, you will destroy parliament's credibility once and for all.You'll then be in the same situation as Ireland was, where the EU forced a second referendum on Maastrict after the Irish people had voted against it.
If you do that, this country will really know what anger on the streets means. It will be seen, quite simply, as a betrayal. If that happens there won't be remains and brexits any more, just one angry mass against parliament. That would be the best time to go to Syria to get asylum.
Meanwhile, for those who feel that the UK's trade with the EU was an excellent thing...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2...
And the EU still fails its citizens in Greece and Spain. One reason why many people voted Leave, Will. The organisation is not fit for purpose whilst it fails to address issues such as this.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/26...
Will wrote: "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. ..."yes she can.
She wasn't part of the leave campaign, campaigning instead in a not particularly enthusiastic way for remain.
Also the campaign wasn't a government, hasn't formed a government and isn't going to form a government. It was a referendum, not a general election
Will wrote: "Easy. You hold the referendum before Article 50 is triggered. ..."which is a total waste of time because nobody will know any more than they knew during the referendum.
After all the commission has banned any discussion with the UK until Article 50 has been triggered
Will wrote: "Meanwhile, for those who feel that the UK's trade with the EU was an excellent thing...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2......"
absolutely, the EU has been an unparalleled disaster for many, it's destroying the life chances of a generation.
If the Eu was so wonderful why on earth have we so many young people from the EU looking for work here?
And why is it that the migrants are clustered around Calais wanting to come here when they had to cross at least three EU member states to get there (where legally they should have stopped and sought asylum)
Jim wrote: "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 ..."
These polls are all rubbish. Who do they ask for a start?
Geoff - Where is Parliament's credibility if it doesn't get a vote on the UK remaining in the EU? Or if the Government forces through a form of Brexit which isn't what the Leave campaign promised? Or what most people actually want?Will - I am confused. Why have you linked to an article which shows the importance of EU trade to the UK economy? It says that 15% of the UK's GDP comes from exports to the EU. Exactly!
Jim - Theresa May may not have been part of the Leave campaign, but she is now our (unelected) Prime Minister. She is claiming that the referendum gives her Government a mandate for Brexit. She is using that argument to dodge calls for a vote in Parliament.
But this argument only works if she actually implements what people voted for. Look at what Geoff says about the Government betraying the people and an angry mass against Parliament.
The Leave campaign promised £350 million a week for the NHS. A points-based immigration system. A preferential deal with the the EU that didn't involve free movement of people. A booming economy. An increase in sovereignty. A reduction in red-tape.
That's what people voted for. That's what the Government now needs to deliver. If Government don't deliver this, then they need to go back to the country with a choice about what they can give us.
It doesn't matter in the slightest whether Theresa May was part of the Leave campaign or not. As our Prime Minister she claims to be implementing the referendum decision. She now needs to do that or admit that it can't be done.
Will, if you checked, you would see that our Balance of Trade deficit with the EU has reached the point where it is going to bankrupt the country. Arguably we would be better without it.The pound was about to fall with or without BREXIT because of the severe market worries about this.
Jim wrote: "Will wrote: "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. ..."...
Also the campaign wasn't a government, hasn't formed a government and isn't going to form a government. It was a referendum, not a general election "
Though it did bring about a change of all the major government players
Will wrote: "Geoff - Where is Parliament's credibility if it doesn't get a vote on the UK remaining in the EU? Or if the Government forces through a form of Brexit which isn't what the Leave campaign promised? Or what most people actually want?"The vote was taken whether to stay or leave. The people, I say again, the people, decided that we should leave the EU. There was plenty of chatter as to how we should exit and most of us knew that the Brexit campaign was an aspiration as the people who were calling for Brexit weren't the government.
The leave campaign, as everyone knew, was not in a position to promise anything, not millions for the NHS, not immigration controls, etc, etc. Most of the people I've spoken to, who voted leave, knew that when they voted. Most of the population aren't stupid. What they voted for was to leave - period.
We also knew that the Remain campaign got models that showed a range of outcomes for Brexit and they deliberately publicised the worst case scenario for every single one. In other words they lied by omission. They lied by not showing all the scenarios results.
Will wrote: "Will, if you checked, you would see that our Balance of Trade deficit with the EU has reached the point where it is going to bankrupt the country. Arguably we would be better without it.The pound was about to fall with or without BREXIT because of the severe market worries about this."
Whoah! There are some big assumptions in there.
The UK's balance of trade as a whole has been a cause for worry for many years. We import considerably more than we export. In part, that's because we are a relatively wealthy country with high incomes and we tend to buy cheaper goods from countries with low incomes.
This does not mean that we are about to go bankrupt. It does mean that we need to safeguard our exports carefully and build capacity in other sectors, especially the services and financial sectors. In lay terms, we don't make much "stuff" any more. We mostly buy it from China.
That's why most financial experts were very nervous about leaving the EU and losing tariff-free trade with the other 27 member states. Brexit is likely to be an expensive way of getting more sovereignty. That's fine if we can afford it, but a huge risk if we can't. Our economy was not as strong as George Osborne made out.
No-one knows what the pound was about to do before the Brexit vote. The trade deficit has been developing for years so would have been priced into the value of the pound. The big shock that drove sterling down was undoubtedly Brexit.
If we do Brexit, we should do it because we are prepared to pay the price for increased sovereignty. We shouldn't kid ourselves for one second that it's going to be quick, easy or cheap.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "We also knew that the Remain campaign got models that showed a range of outcomes for Brexit and they deliberately publicised the worst case scenario for every single one. In other words they lied by omission. They lied by not showing all the scenarios results."Source?
Will, if in trade terms you haemorrage £ 1 billion every four days, and do not replace that with invisibles (Latest figures seem to be for 2014 and show a £ 60 billion surplus, equivalent to less thanb 4 months' trading deficit with the EU) that is what we accountants call a current account insolvency, leading - if not recified - to full insolvency.Or in lay terms, bankruptcy. So yes, it does mean exactly that. We have managed this dangerous imbalance by
a) printing money from nothing (QE)
b) selling everything not nailed down
Neither are more than a bandaid in financial terms.
Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "We also knew that the Remain campaign got models that showed a range of outcomes for Brexit and they deliberately publicised the worst cas..."I can't put my hand on the link, but I read the Grauniad (a remain paper) admitting that the Treasury had prepared a number of papers showing a number of widely differing results with different models, but Osborne chose only one to use: which he then quoted as authoritative rather than speculative.
Will wrote: "Jim - Theresa May may not have been part of the Leave campaign, but she is now our (unelected) Prime Minister. She is claiming that the referendum gives her Government a mandate for Brexit. She is using that argument to dodge calls for a vote in Parliament. ."
Same old chestnut
We have never had an elected prime minster, they are always chosen by the crown because they're the crown's first minister (the hint is in the name)
In fact it's a common occurrence for Prime ministers to be made between elections and to wait a couple of years or so before going to the people.
She's not dodging parliament, she doesn't have to ask them. There is apparently a legal challenge to this going through in October, she promised there would be no invoking article 50 until this case was heard.
I cannot see what the problem is
The government asked the people what they wanted.
The people told them
The government is now trying to implement this.
Remember the people couldn't vote for this at a general election because all three parties stood on a platform of remaining in the EU, but for political reasons of his own Cameron included in his manifesto offering a referendum.
The referendum, an advisory referendum, has been held and the government is being advised
Marc wrote: "Though it did bring about a change of all the major government players ..."Actually it brought about a major change in both political parties. So much so that it's probably unsafe to have a general election at the moment because there might not be an opposition capable of fighting it
But that is hardly the fault of the electorate. It's the fault of the political parties in getting so far adrift from their voters
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "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 fi..."
Nail right on the head with your statement I think Geoff.
Will wrote: "Will, if in trade terms you haemorrage £ 1 billion every four days, and do not replace that with invisibles (Latest figures seem to be for 2014 and show a £ 60 billion surplus, equivalent to less t..."But we don't know if it would have been any better or worse if we were inside the EU or outside. Inside the EU we get tariff free trade. Outside ... we don't really know yet. In a decade or two we might have negotiated trade deals which come close to what we have now. But in the meantime we have to suffer the effect of giving up a very advantageous trade deal.
Will wrote: "Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "I can't put my hand on the link, but I read the Grauniad (a remain paper) admitting that the Treasury had prepared a number of papers showing a number of widely differing results with different models, but Osborne chose only one to use: which he then quoted as authoritative rather than speculative. ."
And there you have it, Will. In the desperation of winning the day, the truth was lost.
Jim - you can't see what the problem is? The Government asked the people what they wanted.
The electoral commission chose "Vote Leave Ltd" as the official campaigning agent to set out the case for leaving the EU.
The electoral commission chose "The In Campaign Ltd" as the campaigning agent to set out the case for remaining in the EU,
Throughout the campaign, the "Vote Leave Ltd" was heavily criticised for its lack of honesty and its misleading claims.
The vote went to Leave by a narrow margin.
The Government now appear to be heading for a Brexit which is markedly different from the one offered by the official Leave campaign group.
The legitimate question we must now ask is whether the public would have voted in the same way had they been given more honest information about what Brexit actually means. Or if they knew that the Government would not implement some of the claims made by the official campaigning agent.
It's a bit like ordering a new car. The salesman tells you that your new car will have alloy wheels, power steering, leather, climate control and will do 60 mpg. On that basis, you sign on the dotted line. A little later he tells you that your new car will have steel wheels, no power steering, cloth seats, no climate control and will barely do 20 mpg.
But as you've signed a contract, the salesman insists you have no way of backing out. Would you buy a car like that? Of course you wouldn't. But we are being asked to make a massive change to the way that our country is governed on exactly the same basis.
You want to leave EU whatever. That's fine. It's your choice. But there are a sizeable proportion of the voting public who voted to Leave because they believed in the Leave campaign's promises. Promises which are unravelling rapidly.
It's not hard. Theresa May should work out the best deal that she can get for a Brexit. Then she should put that deal to Parliament and the public. Honestly and without spin. If the deal truly is a good deal then we should all be confident that the public will vote for it.
Because the only reason to dodge a second referendum is if you think you're going to lose.
Will wrote: Because the only reason to dodge a second referendum is if you think you're going to lose."It could actually be that the prime minister has principles and believes that the people have decided and she feels honour bound to honour their request. So you see, that's far from the only reason.
There is also this to consider: the last referendum has torn this country apart, creating divisions that will take years to heal, if ever. I no longer speak to one of my closest friends after she accused me of being a racist for objecting to the EU treatment of Greece and the clear and obvious inability of the EU to reform in any fundamental way.What damage do you think a second referndum will do? Would we ever recover as a group of nations?
Will wrote: "Will wrote: "Will, if in trade terms you haemorrage £ 1 billion every four days, and do not replace that with invisibles (Latest figures seem to be for 2014 and show a £ 60 billion surplus, equival..."Will: we spend £ 1 billion pounds MORE every four days with the EU.
than they spend with us. In what way can that be considered advantageous?
Will wrote: "Jim - you can't see what the problem is? The Government asked the people what they wanted.
The electoral commission chose "Vote Leave Ltd" as the official campaigning agent to set out the case f..."
The electoral commission does not determine the will of the people.
It is inevitable that any vote will produce a range of opinions. That is why our political parties are effectively coalitions. So within each of them we have, for example, those who have always been pro or anti Europe.
This is no different. For example a lot of people voted to remain because they hoped that the EU would be reformed. Some voted for remain and are happy with how the EU is now.
Your can analogy is fatuous in that neither side could offer us anything concrete. I heard remain campaigners saying vote remain because the EU can be reformed, I heard remain campaigners saying that the EU is doing it right, and I heard remain campaigners selling the EU on its strength and solidity in spite of a million refugees surging across the continent, barbed wire going up on the frontiers and massive youth unemployment
Of course there will be leave voters who will be unhappy. Just as there would have been remain voters unhappy with what we ended up with had we voted remain.
It's probably an inevitable part of democracy
But you appear to believe that the remain campaign was the only campaign in the history of our democracy that never lied or misled people so i don't expect you to believe any of the above
Will wrote: "There is also this to consider: the last referendum has torn this country apart, creating divisions that will take years to heal, if ever. I no longer speak to one of my closest friends after she accused me of being a racist for objecting to the EU treatment of Greece and the clear and obvious inability of the EU to reform in any fundamental way.What damage do you think a second referendum will do? Would we ever recover as a group of nations? .."
Yes, it has struck me that a second referendum could split England apart, never mind lead to Scottish devolution. The wave of contempt that has been poured out has soured relationships and if we get much more of it, I could image that UKIP or a party like it could take power in so much of the country in the next general election that the country splitting might start to become a possibility.
Will wrote: " Will: we spend £ 1 billion pounds MORE every four days with the EU than they spend with us. In what way can that be considered advantageous?"Basic economics. We need imports to maintain our quality of life by providing us with goods that we could not make ourselves for the same price. Our wage expectations are so high that we simply could not produce goods in the UK to the same costs.
It is advantageous to us because we almost certainly couldn't get the same trade deals outside the EU, whether that's for export or import. We need both.
Jim wrote: "But you appear to believe that the remain campaign was the only campaign in the history of our democracy that never lied or misled people so i don't expect you to believe any of the above."All politicians spin. They take a basic truth and they put the best possible interpretation on it. That's a regrettable but probably inevitable part of politics. We have to get used to it.
But the difference between the Leave and Remain camps was that Leave went far beyond normal political spin. They lied. Repeatedly. They mis-sold leaving the EU far more than the Remain camp spun staying in the EU.
And as the Government works its way through the reality of Brexit, more and more of the Leave campaign's claims are unraveling.
Do I think that the Remain camp was entirely honest? Not entirely, but mostly. I've already said that the emergency budget was a little overplayed, although Osborne was belatedly trying to compete with the Leave camp's level of dishonesty.
But I do know that nearly all that the Remain campaign said was fact-checked by the civil service. Their claims were based on genuine analysis and reasonable assumptions. They may have made the best of their claims, but they were not making up whoppers like the £350 million a week.
The Leave camp argued that all facts were rubbish and that no-one listens to experts. That was really a smokescreen to hide the fact that they were the ones telling the porkies.
You don't need to take my word for it. Just watch over the next few months as the Government tries to make something positive out of Brexit and quietly drops even more of the Leave campaign's claims.
Will wrote: "There is also this to consider: the last referendum has torn this country apart, creating divisions that will take years to heal, if ever. I no longer speak to one of my closest friends after she a..."the EU; referendum brought out into the open divisions which already existed. London V the rest of England; Scots' independence within Europe ( N Ireland too to some extent, though not independence of course) V Scotland remaining part of UK; rich V poor; young V old (though as Jim says the particular cohort of youth not quite so homogenous); the people versus the politicians...
I've just read BBC Wales article that states 1 in 20 in Wales wants a second referendum implying that therefore we should have one.It's like me with my daily Soduku when I got a comment on the timer that I was faster than 20%. I'm pleased until I realised I'm slower than 80%.
Will wrote: "You don't need to take my word for it. Just watch over the next few months as the Government tries to make something positive out of Brexit and quietly drops even more of the Leave campaign's claims. ..."you mean at the same time the remain campaign will ignore the increasing acceleration towards building a common EU army, the growing unrest amongst young people whose life chances have been screwed, the growth of the far right in France and Germany and the fact that east Europe is becoming more and more semi detached
Marc wrote: "the EU; referendum brought out into the open divisions which already existed. London V the rest of England; Scots' independence within Europe ( N Ireland too to some extent, though not independence of course) V Scotland remaining part of UK; rich V poor; young V old (though as Jim says the particular cohort of youth not quite so homogeneous); the people versus the politicians... ..."I think it's the latter that may be the most important one Marc, if that didn't exist I suspect the others would have never got so bad
We now have a political class which is not merely detached from the electorate but in many cases appears to hold them in contempt
Jim wrote: "We now have a political class which is not merely detached from the electorate but in many cases appears to hold them in contempt."Depends on your point of view. In the far right Euro sceptic wing of the Tory party, I see a political elite who have misled the public into voting for a vague Brexit which will cause far more harm than good.
The far right of the Tory party haven't suddenly becomes "the peoples' friend". They're not speaking up for the ordinary punter. They are pursuing an ideological campaign by whipping up nebulous fears and appealing to the lowest common denominator.
An EU army? Hardly likely to happen. A small number of EU politicians want it, but then in a democratically elected organisation you are bound to get all sorts of points of view expressed by minorities which are never going to be accepted by the majority.
An EU army would need unanimous support from all member states. Which it won't get. It's another of those scare-mongering stories like banning bananas or Turkey becoming a member before 2020.
"Growing unrest by young people"? You mean the young people who voted remain who feel let down by the older people who voted to leave?
Try to see the picture through other people's eyes, and you'll quickly realise that it isn't as clear-cut as you think.
Will wrote: "But I do know that nearly all that the Remain campaign said was fact-checked by the civil service."And then dutifully modified by Remain campaigners to ensure that the lowest possible figure would appear.
No one mentioned bringing our VAT in line with Europe who has full VAT on all foodstuffs, not just luxury items. They buried that one
The EU Army stuff is utter nonsense that simply isn't happening.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "Will wrote: "But I do know that nearly all that the Remain campaign said was fact-checked by the civil service."And then dutifully modified by Remain campaigners to ensure that the lowest possible figure would appear."
Source?
Will wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "Will wrote: "But I do know that nearly all that the Remain campaign said was fact-checked by the civil service."And then dutifully modif..."
I refer you to Will's answer
Michael Cargill wrote: "The EU Army stuff is utter nonsense that simply isn't happening."Well some leaders are advocating it. It's not as unlikely as you think.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "Michael Cargill wrote: "The EU Army stuff is utter nonsense that simply isn't happening."Well some leaders are advocating it. It's not as unlikely as you think."
when the French, German and Italian leaders advocate it then it is definitely on the agenda.
After all people told us an EU diplomatic service was never going to happen but we still got the European Action Service with Embassies abroad
Will wrote: "Which one?"The one where you asked the question before and Will answered before I had opportunity to.
Lots of leaders say lots of things, most of which don't happen.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "Will wrote: "Which one?"The one where you asked the question before and Will answered before I had opportunity to."
Which one? I can't see any post which gives a source for your claims. Give a post number or an external source.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "This is quite interesting, as well:http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016..."
Yup, a pretty good article: "I believe that Brexit is a tragic development, which will do substantial long-run economic harm."
and
"OK, let’s start at the beginning. Brexit will almost certainly have an adverse effect on British trade; even if the UK ends up with a Norway-type agreement with the EU, the loss of guaranteed access to the EU market will affect firms’ decisions about investments, and inhibit trade flows.
This reduction in trade relative to what would otherwise happen will, in turn, make the British economy less productive and poorer than it would otherwise have been. It takes fairly heroic assumptions to make this into a specific number, but 2-3 percent lower income in perpetuity seems plausible."
The article then goes on to talk about the danger of trying to predict the short term economic impact of the Brexit vote before we leave EU. Also spot on. We can't predict that a recession will definitely happen. Nor can we extrapolate from a few good figures that Brexit is going to be hunky dory.
Dig up some more like that please. The more that people understand the economic realities of Brexit, the better chance we have of surviving the next few months and years.
People talk about the economic realities of BREXIT, and how we'd be better off if we had stayed in the EU, but as far as I'm concerned, a gilded cage is still a prison. The EU, to my mind, is a bureaucratic monstrosity, actively sucking the democracy out of Europe, an enemy to everybody who believes in liberty and democracy. Re-visiting the treaty of Rome, Lisbon, and Maastricht deals, it struck me how blatant and honest they were about their insidious goals...
When I reflect upon the forces that were aligned against Leave voters: big banks, corporate interests, and an avalanche of propaganda, all aided and abetted by a media that has long ago surrendered any notions of journalistic integrity, well...
I'm proud of myself for holding my nerve and voting to leave...
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...
And I say this as somebody who loathes the politics of May.