Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The EU core is overtly political. There are clear objective aims. Sitting back with an attitude of I'm alright jack as my financial circumstances are ok. Are a recipe for disquiet.

Yet it's the brexit supporting government that is causing the problems and the EU and UN who are trying to do something about the injustice in the UK.

If you're not already thinking "I'm all right jack" then leaving will be a huge disappointment for you.

movilogo

There are three documents listed here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_criteria

So yes it does exist and we do know.

These are criteria a country needs to fulfil while joining EU.

If we assume same criteria to be continuously fulfilled while staying with EU.

In this regard, I do not see anything controversial being in EU.

The problem gets complex when you throw Single Market rules into the mix.

There are countries (e.g. Norway, Iceland etc.) which are in SM but not in EU.

But is there any country which is in EU but not in SM?

It is the SM freedoms, especially FOM, which is causing debate and possible single biggest force behind Brexit.

Hence, Customs Union could actually be a compromise on Brexit as it avoids FOM but keeps goods flowing between UK & EU easily.

If we are going to prosecute all Leave campaigners for each fib they told, surely our courts won't be able to cope?

Let's start with Cameron on the remain side then He promised to execute people's decision but didn't.

phillw

movilogo wrote: »

If there is such list, is there any governing EU document which says whether 100% of all those points need to be followed by a member country or one can be still be in EU by following 70-80% of those rules?

You don't have to follow 100% of the rules, but you do have to have negotiated permission if you aren't going to follow the rules. Not everything is up for negotiation though.

movilogo wrote: »

If no such policy/guidance/rules do not exist, surely we can say Remainers are not sure of what Remain means?

We're already members, so our terms have already been negotiated.

You've provided a good example of someone who doesn't understand what being a member of the EU is, so I'm sure you could argue that people don't know. However a vote for remain means they wanted their experience of being in the EU to remain the same. If they didn't feel the need to be aware of every nuance of EU membership before the referendum & were still motivated to voted to remain, then it's hard to argue that their lack of knowledge is a problem.

On the other hand someone voting to leave means you weren't happy with the EU rules, so for your decision to be legitimate then you have to show you understand what you were upset with.

To me it would seem leave voters were mostly upset with the strawman arguments made by vote leave than anything related to the reality of EU membership. The last three years of debate have proved pointless because leave voters don't want to accept reality.

Malthusian

mayonnaise wrote: »

Boris Johnson ordered to appear in court over £350m claim.

Bear in mind that if I brought a private prosecution against you personally for running me over with a purple bus with "Emergency Budget" painted on it, you'd be summoned to a preliminary hearing as well if I was prepared to waste enough money on the proceedings.

fewgroats

movilogo wrote: »

Let's start with Cameron on the remain side then He promised to execute people's decision but didn't.

Source?

He did market it as merely a non-binding referendum. Okay, that didn't wash with the Brexiters. His biggest problem may have been giving them ANY platform.

BikingBud

mayonnaise wrote: »

Boris Johnson ordered to appear in court over £350m claim.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48445430

This doesn't sit well with me. I mean...where does it end?
If we are going to prosecute all Leave campaigners for each fib they told, surely our courts won't be able to cope?

So how much does the UK send to the EU?

Remember phrases such as up to 50% off?

If we really want to get at politicians for misconduct in public office, let's have a look at Blair and starting unnecessary wars. :mad:

phillw

BikingBud wrote: »

So how much does the UK send to the EU?

The claim on the bus was "We send the EU £350 million a week". The amount of money sent "a week" to the EU is £0, because there are no weekly payments. A lot of the money that is part of the "divorce settlement" is money that we haven't "sent" them for things like pension contributions (it operates more like the state pension where they are paid out of current money but we won't be in the EU when the pensions are claimed, but we should still contribute for our time in the EU).

Evidence was presented to the court that Boris claimed different numbers on different days & it would be impossible for him to believe that every figure he said was true, so the real figure is not relevant to the case at all.

I expect his "It is absurd that we are told that you cannot sell bananas in bunches of more than two or three bananas" statement he made in public will also be bought up in court.

BikingBud wrote: »

If we really want to get at politicians for misconduct in public office, let's have a look at Blair and starting unnecessary wars. :mad:

I thought they did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry

Are you really saying that it's ok for politicians to lie and fool people to achieve things you approve of because you think politicians lie to achieve things you disapprove of?

Yes, we really want to get at politicians for misconduct in public office. Isn't that something we should all agree to? If you feel like Tony Blair hasn't been dealt with then find evidence and crowd fund a court case. If the courts show that they will take private prosecutions seriously then I can see someone doing it.

Malthusian wrote: »

Bear in mind that if I brought a private prosecution against you personally for running me over with a purple bus with "Emergency Budget" painted on it, you'd be summoned to a preliminary hearing as well if I was prepared to waste enough money on the proceedings.

What evidence would you provide to the court? Archive TV footage would be pretty good.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Ball-v-Johnson-FV-290519.pdf

The discretion to issue a summons is not unfettered or unlimited. The general principle
is that a summons ought to be issued pursuant to a properly laid information unless
there are compelling reasons not to do so, most obviously if an abuse of process or
impropriety is involved, or whether it would be vexatious to issue a summons, in other
words whether there is the presence of an improper ulterior purpose and/or long
delay. The consequences may be significant but the threshold to grant a summons is
low.

You can't just make someone appear at a preliminary hearing by paying for it. If you lied and I could prove I was somewhere else at the time and that it was a vexatious complaint because I disagreed with you about brexit on MSE then it would likely go no further.

His defense at this stage was interesting

In drawing upon freely-available public statistics for the purpose of a political argument, Vote Leave,
and those who supported and spoke for that campaign, were clearly not acting as public officials, nor
exercising any public power. They made no claim to special knowledge of the sums expended by the
UK, they exercised no official powers in promoting that message and the provision of figures about UK
spending formed no part of Mr Johnson’s official duties.

I would have thought putting it on a bus and parading around the country is claiming special knowledge, the claim that it was just "a political argument" & so it doesn't matter if he's wrong is kinda playing into the prosecutions hand somewhat.

This is significant whether the case proceeds to trial or not. Ensuring a fair trial is going to be very difficult, because it can't be based on whether the jury want to leave the EU or not.

If politicians are forced to tell the truth then I think we will all (eventually) be better off.

BikingBud

phillw wrote: »

The claim on the bus was "We send the EU £350 million a week". The amount of money sent "a week" to the EU is £0, because there are no weekly payments. A lot of the money that is part of the "divorce settlement" is money that we haven't "sent" them for things like pension contributions (it operates more like the state pension where they are paid out of current money but we won't be in the EU when the pensions are claimed, but we should still contribute for our time in the EU)

So how much do we send to the EU per week?

Who mentioned divorce settlement? It was simple question really.

Yes i can accept act it doesn't happen every week but our liability is roughly £19 billion. I can also accept that the rebate and cash inflows make this net contribution about half of this value. But the same as many other claims by many politicians they often do not present the complete facts. Hence my comment about up to 50%off.

phillw

BikingBud wrote: »

So how much do we send to the EU per week?

I don't know, according to the evidence that was submitted to the court Boris says it's £10 billion a year.

However that comes out of tax income that the government gets which some comes from exports to the EU that will reduce if we leave on WTO terms & there will be extra costs in terms of regulatory checks as we will have to take control of all the things we got the EU to do (drug, food regulations etc).

So it shouldn't be represented as a figure we'll have to spend on NHS etc if we leave the EU & it's misleading to use it as such even if the number was what we sent the EU.

Your other points are irrelevant because the claim was "we send". I was trying to point that out when I discussed the divorce settlement but you seem to have misunderstood.

BikingBud

phillw wrote: »

I thought they did https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry

Are you really saying that it's ok for politicians to lie and fool people to achieve things you approve of because you think politicians lie to achieve things you disapprove of?

Yes, we really want to get at politicians for misconduct in public office. Isn't that something we should all agree to? If you feel like Tony Blair hasn't been dealt with then find evidence and crowd fund a court case. If the courts show that they will take private prosecutions seriously then I can see someone doing it.

I never said anything was OK i was seeking clarification about how much we might be paying.

Tony Blair hasn't been dealt with. Some people think there was insufficient evidence. However, it was very telling how little evidence was kept by those in power who knew their actions would come under scrutiny. Especially those that seemed to suffer from amnesia, although it may have just been old age.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/iraq-inquiry-key-points-from-the-chilcot-report

The Chilcot inquiry has delivered a damning verdict on the decision by former prime minister Tony Blair to commit British troops to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. It says:

The UK chose to join the invasion before peaceful options had been exhausted
Chilcot is withering about Blair’s choice to join the US invasion. He says: “We have concluded that the UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein
Chilcot finds that Blair deliberately exaggerated the threat posed by the Iraqi regime as he sought to make the case for military action to MPs and the public in the buildup to the invasion in 2002 and 2003. The then prime minister disregarded warnings about the potential consequences of military action, and relied too heavily on his own beliefs, rather than the more nuanced judgments of the intelligence services. “The judgments about Iraq’s capabilities ... were presented with a certainty that was not justified,” the report says.