Brexit Begins

[RandBlade]

Good for you. If you want that good for you and as was said by a contemporary at the time the UK can wish you luck with that while not participating in that. We won the wars in Europe when Germany turned evil and are not looking to integrate with those we defeated but be friendly neighbours instead. I'm happy to put faith in Germany not turning evil again.

I fail to see why a trade zone without strings attached is unthinkable to you. You want the strings, you like the strings, you can have the strings that you desire. Why does it bother you if we don't have the strings since to you the strings are attractive rather than repulsive? While we were trying to be partners in the inside we were trying to ensure there were no strings at all - for us or for you - but that didn't work as you wanted them. So why not separate the issues? You keep the strings that you desire and separate that from the trade that we both desire? Or are you worried France or Germany will look at us and think "actually we don't want the strings afterall"?

PB&J sandwiches are a fantastic example because I hate peanut butter. I can't eat it or anything with it in except Chinese style satay sauces (something in the sauce must balance the peanut butter). I can't eat peanut butter chocolate treats like Reese's when I'm on the other side of the pond either.

So I'll happily eat a jam sandwich (what the Yanks call Jelly). But please don't give me a pb&j. I'll take the jam on its own thank you. If you want to eat pb&j then fine good for you but I'll leave the pb behind.

PS I'm not allergic to nuts or anything like that, its purely a taste thing that I can not stand it. I'm not suggesting you scrape off the pb, that is what we were suggesting when we were members, that nobody should have peanut butter. Now I'm merely suggesting that you can have pb&j to your hearts content since that is your preference. Please just let me eat a jam sandwich on its own. You can look at my jam sandwich and think that I'm missing out, I have an inferior sandwich to yours since yours has not just jam but peanut butter too. Whereas I can happily have my own lunch that I enjoy without bothering anyone else with my endless complaints about having peanut butter forced on me.

[Hazir]

Good for you. If you want that good for you and as was said by a contemporary at the time the UK can wish you luck with that while not participating in that. We won the wars in Europe when Germany turned evil and are not looking to integrate with those we defeated but be friendly neighbours instead. I'm happy to put faith in Germany not turning evil again.

I fail to see why a trade zone without strings attached is unthinkable to you. You want the strings, you like the strings, you can have the strings that you desire. Why does it bother you if we don't have the strings since to you the strings are attractive rather than repulsive? While we were trying to be partners in the inside we were trying to ensure there were no strings at all - for us or for you - but that didn't work as you wanted them. So why not separate the issues? You keep the strings that you desire and separate that from the trade that we both desire? Or are you worried France or Germany will look at us and think "actually we don't want the strings afterall"?

PB&J sandwiches are a fantastic example because I hate peanut butter. I can't eat it or anything with it in except Chinese style satay sauces (something in the sauce must balance the peanut butter). I can't eat peanut butter chocolate treats like Reese's when I'm on the other side of the pond either.

So I'll happily eat a jam sandwich (what the Yanks call Jelly). But please don't give me a pb&j. I'll take the jam on its own thank you. If you want to eat pb&j then fine good for you but I'll leave the pb behind.

PS I'm not allergic to nuts or anything like that, its purely a taste thing that I can not stand it. I'm not suggesting you scrape off the pb, that is what we were suggesting when we were members, that nobody should have peanut butter. Now I'm merely suggesting that you can have pb&j to your hearts content since that is your preference. Please just let me eat a jam sandwich on its own. You can look at my jam sandwich and think that I'm missing out, I have an inferior sandwich to yours since yours has not just jam but peanut butter too. Whereas I can happily have my own lunch that I enjoy without bothering anyone else with my endless complaints about having peanut butter forced on me.

You didn't win any wars, you were on the winning side. Which makes you a whole lot less special than you think you are.

And impressive how you ran with my analogy and still didn't get that even in reverse the same holds tru;removing the one means removing parts of the other. There is no Jelly sandwich for you to be had. Not with our Jelly anyway.

[RandBlade]

We won the wars with our allies but its moot. Doesn't matter one jot whether we won, lost or abstained that is not the point. The point is that after our allied victory you guys chose to join France and Germany with us as friendly neighbours but not as part of the union. At no stage was uniting the UK and Germany to prevent war between us an objective and so there's no reason for it to be today.

I'm not proposing we remove anything. I'm proposing that we make a new sandwich, put the jam on it and not put peanut butter on it. Sandwich made, everyone happy, life goes on. You guys can enjoy the platter of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and we can enjoy a jam sandwich. We can even refer to yours as jelly and ours as jam despite it being the same thing if that is what people prefer.

[Hazir]

Oh, you didn't sign up to the Treaty of Rome you say? That's a bit of a big booboo Randy. Or a massive lie. Have your pick.

And get it into your thick skull; we're not going to reform anything to make you happy.

[RandBlade]

I didn't say that. We did sign the Treaty of Rome. We (the British electorate) were told at the time that it was not a political union and were told repeatedly down the years that it was a eurosceptic lie to suggest it was.

You have no need to reform anything. You can keep eating pb&j to your hearts content while we just have the inferior plain j.

[Aimless]

I didn't say that. We did sign the Treaty of Rome. We (the British electorate) were told at the time that it was not a political union and were told repeatedly down the years that it was a eurosceptic lie to suggest it was.

This is a lie. I refer you back to the previous discussion we had on this topic.

[Aimless]

Productivity is a bizarre metric with known issues as we are at record employment levels. A lot of jobs created (and a lot filled by migrants) are of a low value-added variety but they are better than having people unemployed.

The irony is that productivity only looks at those employed so if the marginally [un]employed are the least productive members of society then your productivity is inflated when unemployment goes up and deflated when unemployment goes down.

My mistake, I was initially thinking of production, which is what the report in the link describes. While your observation about the pitfalls of interpreting labor productivity statistics is correct, I fail to see how the interpretation implied in your post makes things look any better given the high likelihood that many of the the low-value-added positions are temporarily being filled by non-British EU nationals.

It's also not clear that increased employment is sufficient to explain the UK's underwhelming productivity statistics, either now or over the past decade. I have not seen any analyses that have found this problem to be an artefact of increased employment even though the UK economy's dependence on low-value-added on-demand service jobs likely explain some of the productivity issues. Scholars seem to attribute less than one percent of the estimated shortfall to the shift to greater dependence on low-skilled jobs.

This problem is by all accounts a mystery that has baffled everyone for a long time, and your convenient explanation therefore seems insufficient and implausible. The only conclusion I've come across around which there may be a growing consensus is that the UK's productivity shortfall is a symptom of a demand-constrained economy afflicted by depressed demand.

So? We are in a state of uncertainty, that won't last forever.

It calls into question Lawson's understanding of the facts as well as his interpretation.

No it is what economics would predict when you have the lowest unemployment rate since the 1970s - a 42 year low

Not relevant. Persons not in the UK are not counted in unemployment statistics and those statistics don't say anything about staffing shortages. The wage-increasing effects of high employment are also primarily enjoyed by people in high-paying jobs. Wages and esp. real wages in the rest of the labor market have gone down. Either way, it also calls Lawson's facile analysis into question because he disregards an increasingly difficult problem that many businesses are being forced to grapple with as a direct consequence of Brexit.

[RandBlade]

This is a lie. I refer you back to the previous discussion we had on this topic.

"There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified"

[Aimless]

Like I said, I refer you back to the previous discussion we had on this subject.

[RandBlade]

Yes you weren't convincing then and nothing has changed.

[Aimless]

You're right, nothing has changed--you're as ignorant now as you were then.

https://medium.com/@UKIPNFKN/uk-vote...f-2f565b972cd6

http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/we-...er-hoodwinked/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2...new-what-we-w/

If the British public hadn't wanted a political union, they wouldn't have voted for one, nor would they have continued to vote for leaders who pursued precisely the goal of an ever closer union.

[RandBlade]

LOL at your second link. Your response to the claim that we did not say we were going to join a political union is to say that we were joining a political union. And proof that we knew we were joining a political union is a newspaper article saying:

Political union will not come unless and until we - and the French and Germans - are ready for it. And we're nowhere near ready for it now, and a lot of us probably won't live to see it.
That is the political reality. And everyone knows it. That is why political union is not much of a live issue now.

Well guess what: we're still not ready for it! We weren't ready for it in the seventies, or the eighties, nineties, noughties or today. And now we're told not only must we be ready for it but that it was always what we voted for in the past. No, no it is not.

[Aimless]

LOL at your second link. Your response to the claim that we did not say we were going to join a political union is to say that we were joining a political union. And proof that we knew we were joining a political union is a newspaper article saying:

Well guess what: we're still not ready for it! We weren't ready for it in the seventies, or the eighties, nineties, noughties or today. And now we're told not only must we be ready for it but that it was always what we voted for in the past. No, no it is not.

No, taken as a whole the information on those sites show clearly that voters should have been aware of the fact that the EU was a political union, just as their political representatives were aware. Your country gave up EFTA to join a political union. At this point you're just beginning to look kinda thick.

[RandBlade]

Yes saying "political union will not come ... political union is not much of a live issue" is clear and concrete proof that political union would come, was what we were joining and was what was voted for!

You are the one being disingenuous or kinda thick.

[Aimless]

Yes saying "political union will not come ... political union is not much of a live issue" is clear and concrete proof that political union would come, was what we were joining and was what was voted for!

No, but repeatedly speaking of the EU as a political union and clarifying on many occasions what that entails is in fact clear and concrete proof that the public as well as political representatives should have been well aware of what they were voting for or against. They weighed the arguments and facts and decided. What you're saying is that one or two isolated remarks somehow misled the public by drowning out the rest of the debate in its entirety, which is manifestly false (see repeated quotes showing that people were actively discussing this subject and continued to discuss it even after joining). To pretend that you were lied to then and not this time is just ridiculous, not to mention pathetic. Grow up.

[RandBlade]

Except the often out of context quotes in the links DON'T speak of the Community/Market (as what later became the EU was interchangeably called) as a political union.

Where political union is refered to it is explicitly saying the Market was NOT a political union.

[Hazir]

Except the often out of context quotes in the links DON'T speak of the Community/Market (as what later became the EU was interchangeably called) as a political union.

Where political union is refered to it is explicitly saying the Market was NOT a political union.

At the time you joined there wasn't a common market.

[RandBlade]

Never said there was. Nor was there a political union.

[Hazir]

A community with the purpose of creating ever closer union, federation not excluded. You may believe your own nonsense but you aren't convincing anyone else.

[gogobongopop]

I really dislike the fact that people who voted to leave now feel justified in using the term "we" when debating Brexit. RB has been doing throughout this thread, and it makes me glum. I don't believe his views are not representative of Britain as a whole. The fact is that almost the same amount of people voted to remain, and had the referendum been based on the same rules as Scottish Independence then all indications points towards a resounding remain vote.

I voted to remain. I'm able to objectively see all of the benefits we get from being in the EU, and I want a second referendum, just as those who voted to leave would want one if they had lost. I don't care about the history. I care about now, and whether it's cleaner beaches, or more renewable energy, or free data roaming across the EU or having the power to impose fines on companies like Facebook, MS and Google for monopolising their position - the benefits are clear for everyone to see.

Just want people to know that are many people in Britain who believe in a political community and see the value of being apart of it.

We're embarking on the biggest and most unnecessary risk this country has ever(?) undertaken for some hypothetical benefits that may or may not come true in a few decades time. I believe strongly that I and my children are going to be poorer as a result, and that makes me even more glum.

Anyway, I hope the EU continues to thrive without us. I'm interested to see how the tax evasion initiatives starting in 2019 play out. Just one of the many things we'll be missing out on.

[RandBlade]

I've never claimed to be representative of all Brits. As far as I know (not sure about Spawnie) all other Brits on this forum were Remainers.

As for your claim about if children could vote that might have swung the results, possibly though unlikely but I fail to see why it matters. Votes for children has never been an established thing and there are 1.5mn 16-17 year olds in the UK. Not all would be eligible to vote (non-citizens etc), not all who would be eligible to vote would register to vote and not all who registered to vote would vote the same way.

The winning margin for Leave was just under 1.3 million votes. Extraordinarily unlikely that votes at 16 could have overturned that, even if 100% were eligible to vote, registered to vote and turned out to vote then it would just take 7% of them to vote Leave to ensure Leave won.

EDIT I certainly don't see how adding 1.5mn potential voters could turn a winning margin of 1.3mn (described as "almost the same amount of people voted to remain") to a "resounding remain vote".

[gogobongopop]

I've never claimed to be representative of all Brits. As far as I know (not sure about Spawnie) all other Brits on this forum were Remainers.

As for your claim about if children could vote that might have swung the results, possibly though unlikely but I fail to see why it matters. Votes for children has never been an established thing and there are 1.5mn 16-17 year olds in the UK. Not all would be eligible to vote (non-citizens etc), not all who would be eligible to vote would register to vote and not all who registered to vote would vote the same way.

The winning margin for Leave was just under 1.3 million votes. Extraordinarily unlikely that votes at 16 could have overturned that, even if 100% were eligible to vote, registered to vote and turned out to vote then it would just take 7% of them to vote Leave to ensure Leave won.

EDIT I certainly don't see how adding 1.5mn potential voters could turn a winning margin of 1.3mn (described as "almost the same amount of people voted to remain") to a "resounding remain vote".

That doesn't invalidate my point though, which is that it's disingenuous and rather crude to say "we" when describing your position on Brexit. Please respect the fact that a significant number of people in this country completely, utterly and profoundly disagree with your position on this. This was not an overwhelming majority. It was a tiny majority, and it's utterly ridiculous that we've initiated this process because of an advisory referendum based on such an inconclusive result.

Irresponsibility at its finest, from the greatest country in the world.

[Hazir]

That doesn't invalidate my point though, which is that it's disingenuous and rather crude to say "we" when describing your position on Brexit. Please respect the fact that a significant number of people in this country completely, utterly and profoundly disagree with your position on this. This was not an overwhelming majority. It was a tiny majority, and it's utterly ridiculous that we've initiated this process because of an advisory referendum based on such an inconclusive result.

Irresponsibility at its finest, from the greatest country in the world.

You may feel that way, but I think this referendum wasn't just won by the enthousiasm from the Brexiteer side. It was also lost by the utter lack of enthousiasm on the 'In' side. The most pro-EU voices from the UK (at least in the media) were allways droning on on the need to reform the EU, where reforming basically meant less federal aspects. Seen from the continent pro-EU and anti-EU Brits were hardly different at all.
In general Brits are awfully proud of the foresight of Brown not to join the euro. Continentals only see selfish gloating and absolving of European problems.

I have little doubt that if you would today put a vote in front of the British electorate for U-turn on the basis of article 49 (which may very well be the question in your 'second' referendum if there will be one) a lot of 'remainers would flinch at having to sign up to the EMU and Schengen and God knows for what else you have opt-outs for under your present membership.

So, It may irk you that it's become 'us' and 'them' as if there isn't a difference between a remainer and a breximaniac, but on this side of the Channel that difference lost all relevance on the 24th of june, 2016. For it to matter you, and other people who want to remain, have to try much harder than you have done. Because we're done trying to solve the internal problems in your political parties with members who've got trouble moving on from the 19th century. Conservative and Labor.

[gogobongopop]

It was also lost by the utter lack of enthusiasm on the 'In' side.

Agreed.

The remain campaign was a disgrace and full of complacency. It was the perfect opportunity to counter the myths and untruths of the leave campaign, but the country continued to be peddled hyperbolic untruths about "open borders; no control", "corruption in the EU; accounts never signed off" and "undemocratic bureaucrats in Brussels". There was no planned or coordinated focus on countering those lies and describing the benefits of being in the union. It's really not that hard, because there are so many.

This was too big a decision to leave to the public without them being presented with fact and evidence, derived by a thorough period of expert analysis. Instead we were left in the hands of the uneducated and bitter/resentful/intolerant older generation who take the opinion that if living standards decline for their children and grandchildren after we leave the EU, it'll still be worth it because we "took back control". I'm generalising I know, but I say that because my father and his friends are all of those things.

I don't want my living standards to decline. At all. For any period of time. I don't want my children's living standards to decline. At all. For any period of time. &^%$ Cameron for allowing this to happen. It's not the way to run a country.

[Hazir]

Agreed.

The remain campaign was a disgrace and full of complacency. It was the perfect opportunity to counter the myths and untruths of the leave campaign, but the country continued to be peddled hyperbolic untruths about "open borders; no control", "corruption in the EU; accounts never signed off" and "undemocratic bureaucrats in Brussels". There was no planned or coordinated focus on countering those lies and describing the benefits of being in the union. It's really not that hard, because there are so many.

This was too big a decision to leave to the public without them being presented with fact and evidence, derived by a thorough period of expert analysis. Instead we were left in the hands of the uneducated and bitter/resentful/intolerant older generation who take the opinion that if living standards decline for their children and grandchildren after we leave the EU, it'll still be worth it because we "took back control". I'm generalising I know, but I say that because my father and his friends are all of those things.

I don't want my living standards to decline. At all. For any period of time. I don't want my children's living standards to decline. At all. For any period of time. &^%$ Cameron for allowing this to happen. It's not the way to run a country.

The lies weren't around for only the duration of that campaign. The reason why they were so effective was that they were repeated, re-inforced for decades with nobody to actually counter them. Johnson's first big lies about the EU weren't spread out on the side of a bus, but they sure as hell did their work.

And honestly, I feel quite a bit of resentment about 'remainers' post-referendum who thought they could afford to be neutral when I was debating the brexiteers in the years before. Some of them even seem to think that there is a neutral middle ground where they can stay safe as if Brexit isn't happening right under their noses. Unlike them I never considered an OUT vote as impossible.

[Steely Glint]

+1 gbp

[RandBlade]

We is a collective term with different meanings, it doesn't mean that everyone unanimously agrees with me just because a majority did on a single binary choice.

The result was conclusive enough, any majority is a majority and it is utterly ridiculous to refer to something like the referendum as "advisory" - we all knew the consequences of a Leave vote didn't we? You may not like the outcome but that's democracy, it doesn't lock us down for life. There's no reason why in 40 years we mightn't have another referendum seeking to rejoin the EU.

[RandBlade]

And this ladies and gentlemen is why voting to leave this organisation was ultimately inevitable.

[Hazir]

And this ladies and gentlemen is why voting to leave this organisation was ultimately inevitable.

Actually 40plus years of lies and kow-towing to people who didn't know what they were talking about (as we see very clearly demonstrated on a daily basis) is what made that vote inevitable.

Maybe your PM's should have done well not to come home every time as if they had won (not) WW2 all over again after major Council meetings.

[RandBlade]

Actually 40plus years of lies and kow-towing to people who didn't know what they were talking about (as we see very clearly demonstrated on a daily basis) is what made that vote inevitable.

Maybe your PM's should have done well not to come home every time as if they had won (not) WW2 all over again after major Council meetings.

I can't think of any massive victories our PM's have had as long as I've been following politics. A few minor ones yes but nothing comparable to winning WWII.

Last major victory I can think of was getting the rebate but that is before I started following politics. Since the late 80s on the EU has been diverging with the UK and an opt-out from something we're not interested in is not a victory, it is just further divergence isolating us further still from the rest of the union.