Brexit the economy and house prices part 7: Brexit Harder

westernpromise

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

170 countries? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Did you read what you wrote? Why not 170 countries? Well, mm, I don't know, maybe the hint is in the name: "European Union".

So what? It could change its name. It could be the Atlantic Union or the Eurasian Union if it wanted to be and the interest was there. Europe isn't even a real place geographically. Look at a globe. It's just the western tip of Asia.

When the USA started it was on the east coast. By your logic California could never have joined the USA because it wasn't yet in the USA. Why aren't America or the GCC clamouring to join the (suitably-renamed) EU?

Was Clarke wrong in saying what he said? Yes.

He'd say No. So would Clegg. So would Jean Monnet. Who's right? Whose definition of Remain is correct?

None of that means there was any reason to think remain would have meant anything other than the status quo.

You can't agree on what the status quo is. Status quo is short for status quo ante. Ante when?

I refer you back to my original questions: in the Brexit camp, you had Brexiters who said different things about the meaning of Brexit soft, hard, deal, no deal, etc) and Brexiters who have backtracked on their own version of Brexit. I asked about comparable examples in the Remain camp and all you have managed to come up with is people who have switched sides and Clarke who seems to want more integration than the Germans and the French.

No, Clarke wants more integration than Cameron, as was clear. This is why I conclude that Remain lied as much as Leave. I've given you examples of different versions of Remain, against which all you've offered is huffing and puffing and your personal incredulity. I think you actually understand perfectly well that there are different versions of Remain, Clegg having helpfully provided two or three. But you are aware that the one that involves integration into a European superstate is impossible to sell. So this has to be lied about and denied. Sorry but that's how you come across. Not just you, Remain generally.

On the European Army: I don’t know how else to repeat this strikingly banal concept. The decision requires unanimity. Please, please, pretty please, explain how something which requires unanimity but on which only 2 or 3 leaders out of 28 (27 if you exclude the UK) are keen has any chance of being approved in this lifetime.

Typically, how this works is that the ones who are in favour persuade all the others, in return for something. Unless you're suggesting that the only ideas the EU has ever implemented have been those on which there was instant ex ante unanimity? How it would happen in practice is that the countries involved merge their own armed forces into the Franco-German army, navy, etc. The others are then only allowed to train with them and use their bases, etc if they agree to merge their own similarly. For 12 to 15 militarily negligible countries, this is a no-brainer and suddenly you have a "two-speed Europe", with laggards failing to face reality and visionaries who have already joined the European army. Four countries are up for it already. Eventually 26 are in and 1 is not.

That's roughly how it happens. Of course this dissolves NATO.

Define win. You are again thinking with a FPTP mindset which does not translate into a proportional system. What if a right-wing party gets 35%, but two left-wing parties get 25% and 20% and make an alliance?

So what? It is better than what we have now. In the above instance the answer is for the two left wing parties to form an electoral alliance and stand joint candidates. It doesn't matter that the individual commissioners have numerically unequal mandates, because they can't get anything enacted without a majority in the EP anyway. Incidentally, denial that the EU needs reform, or claims that it's just as undemocratic as everywhere else, do nothing for the Remain case.

giving more power to the European Parliament and less power to the national governments which currently nominate Commissioners.

Correct. What's wrong with that? Why should national governments, elected on a domestic manifesto, determine what MEPs elected specifically to a European assembly get to do? It sounds like you prefer the current set-up because the Establishment is Remain and always nominates Remainers. I think a European Commission with people like Farage on it would be a much more useful body. He's a pi11ock but he's got a bigger mandate than anyone actually on it and we might then have seen a bit of the reform it needs.

Tromking

I love how the ‘The Bus’ continues to trigger the Remoaner Class even three years after the event. In those three years I’ve seen articles suggesting that it was a grossly inaccurate claim and also saying that it was entirely possible to fund the NHS to those levels with the help of the repatriation of the U.K. EU contributions. You pays yer money I suppose!
From my recollection the text on the Bus was quite cleverly worded, and lest we forget also that there’s been a couple legal challenges that have been lost to people that have taken umbrage to the perceived ‘lie’ on the bus.
Although the bus issue has become totemic to Remoaners, to me it has more than a hint of sour grapes about it.
On the Turkey issue, I distinctly remember Cameron pre-Brexit bigging up Turkey’s accession to the EU, only to regret it big-time when challenged about it during the referendum campaign.
The Remain referendum campaign was pants.

SouthLondonUser

phillw wrote: »

Assaulting a girlfriend is a judgement call,

As much as I despise Boris, I must admit that we don't know this is what's happened.

A heated discussion in a couple is nothing new. I don't care much for a candidate's private life, unless there is proof of domestic violence or anything particularly outrageous that should disqualify him/her from public office. IMHO I don't even particularly care if politicians have affair (French Presidents anyone? )

And, I must say, the neighbour calling the Guardian, come on! Or the protesters outside that flat, shouting things like "we will block his way to n. 10" (or something to that effect) - that sounded threatening, and it reminded me of when some protesters told Jacob Rees Mogg's children something like "your dad is a bad person". As much as I dislike JRM, saying that to a child is beyond terrible.

SouthLondonUser

westernpromise wrote: »

So what? It could change its name. It could be the Atlantic Union or the Eurasian Union if it wanted to be and the interest was there. Europe isn't even a real place geographically. Look at a globe. It's just the western tip of Asia.

I trust you realise you are being ridiculous? It would be more dignified to just call the 170 country thing a brain fart and leave it at that...

westernpromise wrote: »

When the USA started it was on the east coast. By your logic California could never have joined the USA because it wasn't yet in the USA.

United States of America. California has always been, geographically, in the Americas. Shall I draw it on a map for you?

westernpromise wrote: »

Why aren't America or the GCC clamouring to join the (suitably-renamed) EU?

I think you should share this pearl of wisdom with James 'Brien.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/
Dear James, if the EU is so great, why aren't 170 countries in it, why didn't America join the European Union? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

westernpromise wrote: »

You can't agree on what the status quo is. Status quo is short for status quo ante. Ante when?

. The state of affairs until now. Which means the current status. Simple, really.

westernpromise wrote: »

No, Clarke wants more integration than Cameron, as was clear.

Yes. And, again, you continue to confuse what people want with what is likely to happen with reasonable certainty in the near future.
Is there any sign that the closer integration with Clarke advocates is going to happen? I don't see it. So I don't see how the status quo is likely to change - it isn't.

westernpromise wrote: »

This is why I conclude that Remain lied as much as Leave. I've given you examples of different versions of Remain, against which all you've offered is huffing and puffing and your personal incredulity.

I have methodically debunked every single one of your totally irrelevant examples!! Come on, you said that Remain lied because there are people who used to be Leavers in the '80s!!!!

westernpromise wrote: »

Typically, how this works is that the ones who are in favour persuade all the others, in return for something. Unless you're suggesting that the only ideas the EU has ever implemented have been those on which there was instant ex ante unanimity?

Ehm, you are forgetting a point which is a bit of a biggie: not every decision requires unanimity (very few, in fact, otherwise nothing would ever get done). A EU army is one of the very few decisions that requires unanimity!!!

westernpromise wrote: »

How it would happen in practice is that the countries involved merge their own armed forces into the Franco-German army, navy, etc. The others are then only allowed to train with them and use their bases, etc if they agree to merge their own similarly. For 12 to 15 militarily negligible countries, this is a no-brainer and suddenly you have a "two-speed Europe", with laggards failing to face reality and visionaries who have already joined the European army. Four countries are up for it already. Eventually 26 are in and 1 is not.
That's roughly how it happens. Of course this dissolves NATO.

Mmm, and, let's see, over how many generations would this happen?

If you want to 'believe' that this is what will eventually happen in the very long term, by all means, believe that. But is a belief which is not founded on anything factual at the moment. How would you react if Remainers told you they "know" or "believe" that "x" will happen to the UK in 20 years if we leave? Would you take them seriously or would you laugh them out of the room?

Again, we were talking about status quo and near future. Saying that we should leave the EU because you "think" that some drastic change will for sure happen in the distant future is laughable. You may as well say that we'll be invaded by aliens, or that we'll become a Chinese colony, or that the world will be destroyed by a nuclear war. Who can forecast the future so far ahead?

westernpromise wrote: »

Correct. What's wrong with that? Why should national governments, elected on a domestic manifesto, determine what MEPs elected specifically to a European assembly get to do? It sounds like you prefer the current set-up because the Establishment is Remain and always nominates Remainers. I think a European Commission with people like Farage on it would be a much more useful body. He's a pi11ock but he's got a bigger mandate than anyone actually on it and we might then have seen a bit of the reform it needs.

You are confused to say the least. I initially said that the alternative to the current system is to give more power to MEPs and less to national governments; you said your idea was another alternative; now you admit we have effectively said the same thing. Make up your mind!

I am not, in principle, opposed to a system in which MEPs have more power. I don't have a clear view on which would be better.
I was just saying that something like that is unlikely to fly with Eurosceptics because it would mean giving more power to an EU institution and less to national governments.

SouthLondonUser

Tromking wrote: »

I love how the ‘The Bus’ continues to trigger the Remoaner Class even three years after the event. In those three years I’ve seen articles suggesting that it was a grossly inaccurate claim and also saying that it was entirely possible to fund the NHS to those levels with the help of the repatriation of the U.K. EU contributions. You pays yer money I suppose!

Well, first of all the money we pay to the UK is NOT £350, per week. That figure ignores the rebate we get, net of which the figure is closer to something like £240-260m, I don't remember exactly.

This is a FACT. No opinions, no forecast, no estimate, no judgement call: we send much less than £350m, and saying otherwise is a LIE. Pure and simple.

Tromking wrote: »

From my recollection the text on the Bus was quite cleverly worded, and lest we forget also that there’s been a couple legal challenges that have been lost to people that have taken umbrage to the perceived ‘lie’ on the bus.

Let's be clear, though. The Court didn't say Boris didn't lie. The Court basically said it wasn't for them to rule on that. In other words, it basically said it's not for a Court to rule on whether a politician blatantly and willingly lies to the electorate.

Tromking wrote: »

On the Turkey issue, I distinctly remember Cameron pre-Brexit bigging up Turkey’s accession to the EU, only to regret it big-time when challenged about it during the referendum campaign.
The Remain referendum campaign was pants.

Cameron did support Turkey joining the EU around 2010 or so, he said so publicly and very clearly. However, the accession of a new country requires unanimous consent; i.e. the UK would have always had a veto. I.e. Turkey can never join the EU without the UK's approval. This alone should have been sufficient to put those rumours to rest.
Also, since 2010, relationships between the EU and Turkey have become more tense, making its admission a very, very remote possibility.

The Leave campaign, however, sold the fake news that Turkey was likely to join by 2020. That's patently false. 2020 is next year! Do you see Turkey joining?

Tromking

Look, I can see why the Bus irks you chaps, but the wording was clever. The gross payment in 2016 by the U.K. was just shy of £19 billion, so before the rebate and before the funding returned to the U.K. the figure is in fact £363 million per week.
No you may have lived you life in a world where campaigning tactics where all sweetness and light, I certainly haven’t.
For the record, if the Leave campaign had cited the real net amount available to the U.K. some £180 million per week, the effect would’ve been pretty much the same. To your average punter they’re both huge amounts of money.
The Leave campaign played dirty, the Remain campaign played dirty, in politics when was it ever thus.

SouthLondonUser

Tromking wrote: »

The Leave campaign played dirty,

Finally a Brexiter who admits it!

Tromking wrote: »

the Remain campaign played dirty

How? I'd say it played stupidly. It tried to capitalise on fear and made no effort of stressing the positive aspects. I am not aware of lies, divisions, financing irregularities etc in the Remain campaign even remotely comparable to those of the Leave campaign. Are you?

westernpromise

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

I trust you realise you are being ridiculous?

I'm deadly serious. If being in a big bloc is so valuable where's the pressure from others to be in it?

The state of affairs until now. Which means the current status. Simple, really.

No, disingenuous. The status quo of 1975 was not that of 1985, or 1995, or 2005, or today. The Remain claim was that we could stay in the EU unaltered from its 2016 status, which overlooked that this status changes and will continue to do so.

Yes. And, again, you continue to confuse what people want with what is likely to happen with reasonable certainty in the near future. Is there any sign that the closer integration with Clarke advocates is going to happen?

Yes. Things like the Single European Act and the euro are pretty clear signals of it happening. All changed the status quo. The EEC became the EC became the EU. Black is white, right?

I don't see it. So I don't see how the status quo is likely to change - it isn't.

You didn't notice the EEC - EC - EU progression then? Let's be quite clear about this. One day there was the EEC. A later day there was the EC. They are different, so there was change. Now you either think there was no change, in which case we must still be in the EEC; or you concede there was a change when the EEC became the EC, in which case (i) the then status quo entailed not stasis but change, and (ii) it can do so again and is thus not a status quo at all in the correct meaning of the term.

You would do well to get your head around this, because it is the central lie of the Leave campaign - it is your £350 million bus, if you like, and it cost you my vote and probably many others.

I wonder if perhaps the words stasis and status sound a bit similar, so you think they mean the same thing?

I have methodically debunked every single one of your totally irrelevant examples!!

You've done no such thing. You have asserted, ludicrously, that there is no difference in the positions of Remainers, even when given them verbatim. This also goes to why you lost, so you should pay attention.

A EU army is one of the very few decisions that requires unanimity!!!

I've outlined for you how it would not.

Mmm, and, let's see, over how many generations would this happen?

Three to five years.

If you want to 'believe' that this is what will eventually happen in the very long term, by all means, believe that.

I want evidence that it won't, I've outlined a mechanism by which it could that requires no EU legislation or debate, and I've linked to statements that it should happen by European leaders. All I'm hearing, however, is your personal incredulity and that you've persuaded yourself. I'm afraid these no doubt weighty arguments don't cut the mustard when Merkel says it will happen, You needed to persuade me. I'm not trying to persuade you to any view, because I'm the one who thinks both sides lied and both are equally unworthy of support.

Remainers told you they "know" or "believe" that "x" will happen to the UK in 20 years if we leave? Would you take them seriously or would you laugh them out of the room?

They have done so. Remainers have made predictions about the effect of Brexit on the economy over not 20 but the next 30 years (https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/25/brexit-will-cost-young-people-up-to-108000-each-8075012/). Did you laugh when they did so? Please link to any comments where you said, I'm a Remainer but guys, this stuff makes us look stupid because nobody knows what will happen in 20 years. You never did that, did you?

You are confused to say the least. I initially said that the alternative to the current system is to give more power to MEPs and less to national governments; you said your idea was another alternative; now you admit we have effectively said the same thing. Make up your mind!

No, read what you said, which was that the "only alternative would be to give less power to the national governments, which currently nominate commissioners, and more to the EU parliament". I said there were other alternatives, such as having the commissioners elected, which in fact gives power to the electorate. The elected commissioners then implement the agenda of their party based on the manifesto on which they campaigned, and if they fail to do, they are removed at the next election. Do you follow how that would work?

You just can't grasp that people unpersuaded by Remain are not automatically Brexiters, so you default to the kind of feeble arguments that did not win you the referendum. In the ludicrous assertions and denials of obvious reality there was nothing, literally nothing, to choose between either side.

Tromking

SouthLondonUser wrote: »

Finally a Brexiter who admits it!


How? I'd say it played stupidly. It tried to capitalise on fear and made no effort of stressing the positive aspects. I am not aware of lies, divisions, financing irregularities etc in the Remain campaign even remotely comparable to those of the Leave campaign. Are you?

I don’t think I’ve ever denied the dirty nature of the Brexit referendum campaign. It simply doesn’t bother me so much as you because my side won.
I don’t except the premise of the question you posed.
As the IPSO investigation against the Daily Telegraph re. ‘the Bus’ claims said, the ‘lie’ was not significant enough.
You need to move on.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Tromking wrote: »

I don’t think I’ve ever denied the dirty nature of the Brexit referendum campaign. It simply doesn’t bother me so much as you because my side won..

Well at least that's one honest statement from a Brexiteer! :rotfl:

Of course, had the side of the bus said "Vote Leave and 3 years from now we'll still be in the EU, two Prime Ministers will have been toppled, the £ will have crashed, Boris will talking about shutting down parliament to get a No Deal Crash-Out Brexit, and a big chunk of UK car manufacturing will be shutting up shop" you'd have lost...