Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 03:14 PM

Nigel has yet to tell us why he feels optimistic for the UK after we leave the EU.

Not once has he addressed that question, not once.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 01:40 PM

"It does mention "most economists", which could be as little as 51%"

May I nitpick the nitpicker? If 51% of economists say a thing, and you then claimed that "most economists" had said it, you would be seriously misrepresenting the position in a tendentious manner. Honest debate dictates that you'd say instead "just over half of economists..." or "a small majority of economists..." or, most honest of all, "51% of economists." "Most economists" would be highly misleading. You have a hundred apples. You tell me that most of your apples are bruised. I examine your apples and find 51 bruised and 49 unbruised. The first thing I'd say to you would be to tell you to stop being such a bloody pessimist. Dunno about anybody else, but I'd have expected at least 70 to 80% to be bruised had you told me that "most" were bruised.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:38 PM

It's worse than that, Karen. Not only are they reducing taxation, one of the main drivers for brexit is so their rich puppet masters can use the UK as a tax haven once the EU tightens up avoidance legislation. And the turkeys that voted for Christmas are still trying to justify it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:30 PM

The welfare state is buggered whatever. It needs taxation, which this government reduces.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:28 PM

Oh,and it wasn't an honest form of discussion at all. It was a blatant diversion away from the honest discussion on Btexit in one of your usual attempts to avoid the main issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:25 PM

Yes they do, Nigel. Now try doing a bit of work yourself and doing a Google search. Better still, provide us with some links that support your optimism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 12:10 PM

The good thing about this thread, including the tone of some of the debate, is that it shows the fractures that exist within the UK, which have been exacerbated, though probably not created, by Cameron's decision to hold a referendum.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:52 AM

Nigel, In the past two and half years as Dave has said there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of reports of the probable negative impacts of Brexit.
I presume you read the newspapers, watch the news and listen to the radio so these cannot have escaped your attention.
Yet you ask that you are provided with these again.

Try reading what I wrote. I am not asking to be shown more links to guesses of what might happen when/if we leave the EU. As you rightly say, I can read these anywhere.
What I was asking was that, if links to external articles are used to back up arguments being made here, then they should show support for the argument being made. The three links given by Dave:
Stanron: What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?

Dave the Gnome:I can't believe that after over 2000 posts, many of them linking news items confirming what I say, that you are asking that question but, here goes...

Do the links support the viewpoint that: "almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you (Dave) say they say?"

My post was not even showing a pro/anti Brexit bias. It was asking that an honest form of discussion be used when giving links.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Raggytash
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:34 AM

Nigel, In the past two and half years as Dave has said there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of reports of the probable negative impacts of Brexit.

I presume you read the newspapers, watch the news and listen to the radio so these cannot have escaped your attention.

Yet you ask that you are provided with these again.

You have obviously ignored the warnings first time round and give not sign of changing your mind if we were to repeat them.

You seem to think there is a better world to be had if the UK leaves the EU.

What we have consistently asked for is some backing for your viewpoint. To date you have signally failed to post such.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:16 AM

Sigh. Nitpicking Nigel once again. I would be more than happy to provide as many as you like that do support the view that everyone but you you and your little troupe of verbal acrobats accept but there is little point. They have been linked already over and over again in the past 2300 posts. If I was to provide more you would only ignore them as well.
Hardly 'nitpicking'. You selected three links to support your argument, and they do not do so. Some, such as Backwoodsman: "I do have to smile wryly and shake my head when I read someone dismissing the informed forecasts and estimates of recognised and acknowledged sources of business, economic, and political analysis, in favour of their own 'opinions'" might not choose to actually read the links but to assume that they support your argument.
If there are several thousand such links available, why not provide the ones which actually support your contentions?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:04 AM

Sigh. Nitpicking Nigel once again. I would be more than happy to provide as many as you like that do support the view that everyone but you you and your little troupe of verbal acrobats accept but there is little point. They have been linked already over and over again in the past 2300 posts. If I was to provide more you would only ignore them as well.

Now, how about any links whatsoever detailing or even forecasting any of these possible long term benefits that you can see. Or could I borrow your rose tinted specs?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 11:04 AM

I do have to smile wryly and shake my head when I read someone dismissing the informed forecasts and estimates of recognised and acknowledged sources of business, economic, and political analysis, in favour of their own 'opinions' which appear to be cherry-picked (some might say nit-picked) to suit their personal agenda.

Words like 'cloud', 'cuckoo', and 'land' spring to mind.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:59 AM

And yes, I can see the possibility of some hardships following Brexit (assuming it happens) but I view the possible benefits as being of greater long term value. (in answer to DMcG)

Well that is certainly a start, Nigel, but it is a long way of identifying any personal hardship, staring it in the face, and saying "If needs be, I will pay that." We know the number of nurses and doctors in the NHS has fallen because of Brexit and immigration policies . Are you willing to say to friends and family I know this is delaying your treatment but I think it a price worth paying?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:46 AM

What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?
I can't believe that after over 2000 posts, many of them linking news items confirming what I say, that you are asking that question but, here goes...

From The Economist
The link does not refer to "almost 100% of economists". It does mention "most economists", which could be as little as 51%

From The Caterer
This page does not give a forecast for Brexit, it details costs already incurred, and plans currently being laid.

From CNN
This page deals (mainly) with the expected results if we follow Mrs May's deal, which does not have much support from those who voted Brexit, as it does not get us 'out'.
It does go on to give forecasts for a 'no-deal' Brexit, but based on the prognostications of the Bank of England. A department which has so far failed to cover itself in glory with its predictions.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such links. I have yet to see any saying we will be better off.
If your hundreds, or thousands, of such links are of the same standard it is hardly worth bothering, as they do not support your statements.
__________________________________________

And yes, I can see the possibility of some hardships following Brexit (assuming it happens) but I view the possible benefits as being of greater long term value. (in answer to DMcG)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:43 AM

Juncker et al is what I meant.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:41 AM

You insult Jeremy Corbyn all the time, Iains.

As for Juncker, a couple of things. First, you gave no sources for your quotes and I imagine that a bit of context for a good few of them might have provided a bit of gloss that you didn't supply. Second, the President of the Commission has no powers to execute any of his aspirations. Only elected members of the European Parliament can do that, and we have considerable powers of veto. Generally, the EU is run by consensus and one man spouting his hopes means not a lot really.

Stanron, you'd make a damn good climate change denier too.

Oh no...don't tell me...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 10:34 AM

Can I make something clear here Karen
I have no great objection to occasional outbursts of temper, most of us do it at one time or another
Iains has developed abuse into a technique for avoiding arguments he can't handle from the first thread he posted on, go look - I doubt if you can find he hasn't done this on
I got so fed up with being abused by him at one stage, I began to paste them up and post them on the relevant thread - they numbered into the twenties and thirties on some threads on occasion- in all, I would guess they amount to the several hundreds .   
Each time I put them up, he calms down a little, but come the next problem, he starts over again
I really have had enough - I don't mind strong argument - I welcome it, but Iain's personal abuse has got beyond a joke - time for it to stop once and for all before more threads get closed
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 08:36 AM

"What stunning advice for little jimmie to follow!"
Sorry - forgot one
Three in one posting - you excel yourself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 06:59 AM

As there has been no answer to my question, by someone who expressed self-righteous outrage that a UK National, living in Ireland, should have the temerity to accept the UK State Pension, I'll ask again - why should anyone refuse a pension to which, by dint of contributions via NICs over many years of work, they are perfectly entitled?

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-if-you-retire-abroad

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:26 AM

I understand from a friend this morning that one of the first effects of Brexit will be that those wishing t visit Australia will be forced to take out medical insurance

Not even the good grace to respond to the answers I gave Iains
How expected !
Far from being the Anglophobe and racist you describe me, I am extremely proud of what my family of British citizens did for their country, while the people you represent and admire dragged its name into the mire prior to the war and continue to keep the spirit of race hatred and bigotry alive and kicking up to the present day   
I trust we will never see this accusation ever again
Rule Britannia - pip-pip
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:25 AM

What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?

I can't believe that after over 2000 posts, many of them linking news items confirming what I say, that you are asking that question but, here goes...

From The Economist

From The Caterer

From CNN

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such links. I have yet to see any saying we will be better off.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:13 AM

Dave the Gnome wrote: So, Stanron, what do you have to offer by way of evidence that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself are wrong on this while you are right?

What evidence do you have that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself actually say what you say they say?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 05:08 AM

A world government would be fantastic. But its not on the agenda. The link you give is a theoretical analysis of how it might work if people agreed.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:55 AM

The fact, and as a fact it is questionable, that lots of people make a mistake does not stop it being a mistake.

So, Stanron, what do you have to offer by way of evidence that almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself are wrong on this while you are right? This is what this thread has been about from the start. If you believe we will be better off, let us in on your insider knowledge. Up to now all the pointers indicate that we will be worse off. What makes you so optimistic?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:49 AM

If anything threatens their individualism it's globalisation led by massive multinationals,

Where do you think the ultimate destination of globalism resides?
Do you not think European Federalism is merely a stepping stone to an eventual world government?

Other events are afoot.
Agenda 21 is a non-binding action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development. It is a product of the Earth Summit (UN Conference on Environment and Development) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development was launched by a UN Summit in New York on 25-27 September 2015
According to some the above declarations have some nasty stings in their tale. Beware that weasel word sustainability!
The significance of a world government in the process of globalization in the 21
https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2017-02-13/secretary-general%E2%80%99s-remarks-world-government-summit

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:49 AM

The fact, and as a fact it is questionable, that lots of people make a mistake does not stop it being a mistake.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:22 AM

Three possibilities of which the inconvenient two are ignored.

Yes, Stanron. Three possibilities of which only the one that says we will be poorer is backed up by almost 100% of all economists, most business leaders and the government itself.

Why would any intelligent person argue around this?

Well, yes. Exactly.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:16 AM

Ah, the Nigel defence.

It is not about what will or could or might happen. It is about you saying something like "Even if it means I or my loved ones have to suffer X that is a price I am prepared to pay." In the medical case that might mean suffer a painful medical condition for months longer than would otherwise, for instance. My half brother - a strong Leaver- keeps reminding us of what our parents and grandparents went through 'to be free of German domination.' 'They risked their lives and those of loved ones. So what are you prepared to risk?' Answer comes there none.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:14 AM

"Well we know you are an anglophobic exiled racist jim. "
You know no such thing
I detest or mistrust most English politicians
I would be as much wasting my time asking you to back your claims up with afacts as I have in th past asking you to produce evidence for all your claims
Your "bogtrotting Irish" racism is so regular as to need no backing up
"There's always something there to remind us" as the song once said

Once more, your expected abuse is a filler-in for the fact that you are unable to respond to the points made about you heavily clichéd flag wagging - regular and as expected as number 10 buses

What did my father do in the war ?
He spent a couple of years recuperating from the serious wounds he received wound's and a horrific year in a Spanish jail after setting out to fight fascism while the English authorities were appeasing "Herr Hitler" and King Edward the 8th (would have been) was teaching the Royal family the Nazi salute
When he finally recuperated, he spent the next ten years as a Navvy because MI5 blacklisted him as a "premature anti-fascist" as those heroes came to be known

His brother, my Uncle Jerry, a decorated war hero who was traumatised when he was sent to Germany to open up the extermination and slave camps financed and run by German Industrial right-wing capitalism, became a regular Commando and was disciplined for refusing to obey the British Army's orders to go to Greece to train Fascist fighters in the Greek Civil War

I would wish on everybody the same pride I still feel for my family's dedication to humanity
Far more 'patriotic' and human than the pathetic flag-wagging that now passes fro being "British" - heroes all, as far as I am concerned
Why do you ask ?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 04:08 AM

I think the hard left posting here like to deny reality:

Quotes from Federalists and Pro-Integrationists:
Jean-Claude Juncker - President of the European Commission quotes:

    "When it becomes serious you have to lie."

    "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

    "I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious, I am for secret, dark debates."

    "Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"

    "There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law."

    "If it's a 'Yes,' we will say "On we go!" and if it's a 'No' we will say "We continue!">/I>

Viviane Reding - Vice President of the European Commission

    "Strengthening Europe's legitimacy can be best done by turning our Union into a United States of Europe. As in the U.S., we need a two-chamber system for the United States of Europe. A strong political Union with a strong government (the Commission) and two Chambers - the European Parliament and a 'Senate' of Member States."

    "There will be no repatriation of EU powers. It is not our problem, it is not us making the demands. You are either ‘in’ or ‘out’."

    "At Maastricht people wanted to have us believe that we could irreversibly establish a monetary union and a new world currency without creating a United States of Europe at the same time. That was a mistake, and now that mistake needs to be corrected"

    "We must now embark on the road to a United States of Europe."

    “British sovereignty is mainly in their head because they've signed the EU treaty and most business is in Europe.”

    "The most powerful parliament in Europe is the European Parliament. Seventy per cent of laws in this country are co-decided there.”

    "When people ask politicians today “What will become of Europe?” or “Where is European integration heading?”, we usually give an evasive answer. “We don’t want a super state” that is generally the first thing we say. I must admit that I have in the past often resorted to this kind of thing myself.

    "On the basis of a report by the Presidents of the EU institutions, the European Council is currently working on four new stages of integration: a European banking union with central European bank supervision; a European fiscal union with stricter control mechanisms over national budgets and the development of our own European financing capacity; a European economic union, involving a greater degree of joint decision-making on economic, tax, and social policy and finally a political union."

Jose Manuel Barroso - Former President of the European Commission and Former Prime Minister of Portugal

    "The time for piecemeal solutions is over. We need to set our minds on global solutions. A greater ambition for Europe. Today we are at a turning point in our history. A moments when, if we do not integrate further, we risk fragmentation."

    "For the euro area to be credible – and this not only the message of the federalists, this is the message of the markets – we need a truly Community approach. We need to really integrate the euro area."

    "For all of this to work, we need more than ever the independent authority of the Commission, to propose and assess the actions that the Member States should take. Governments, let's be frank, cannot do this by themselves. Nor can this be done by negotiations between governments."

    "We should remember that our Europe is a Europe of citizens. As citizens, we all gain through Europe. We gain a European identity and citizenship apart from our national citizenship."

    "We must also be realistic and recognise that, if Europe is to exert its influence fully, if Europe really wants to be a power, we must strengthen the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It must be credible. It must be based on a common security and defence dimension if we are really to count in the world."

    "Certain forms of intergovernmentalism could be the death of the united Europe we wish for."
Posted byu/[deleted]3 years ago
Quotes from Federalists and Pro-Integrationists

Jean-Claude Juncker - President of the European Commission

    "When it becomes serious you have to lie."

    "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided we continue step by step until there is no turning back."

    "I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious, I am for secret, dark debates."

    "Britain is different. Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?"

    "There is a single legal personality for the EU, the primacy of European law."

    "If it's a 'Yes,' we will say "On we go!" and if it's a 'No' we will say "We continue!"

    “You would not create a European army to use it immediately”

Viviane Reding - Vice President of the European Commission

    "Strengthening Europe's legitimacy can be best done by turning our Union into a United States of Europe. As in the U.S., we need a two-chamber system for the United States of Europe. A strong political Union with a strong government (the Commission) and two Chambers - the European Parliament and a 'Senate' of Member States."

    "There will be no repatriation of EU powers. It is not our problem, it is not us making the demands. You are either ‘in’ or ‘out’."

    "At Maastricht people wanted to have us believe that we could irreversibly establish a monetary union and a new world currency without creating a United States of Europe at the same time. That was a mistake, and now that mistake needs to be corrected"

    "We must now embark on the road to a United States of Europe."

    “British sovereignty is mainly in their head because they've signed the EU treaty and most business is in Europe.”

    "The most powerful parliament in Europe is the European Parliament. Seventy per cent of laws in this country are co-decided there.”

    "When people ask politicians today “What will become of Europe?” or “Where is European integration heading?”, we usually give an evasive answer. “We don’t want a super state” that is generally the first thing we say. I must admit that I have in the past often resorted to this kind of thing myself.

    "On the basis of a report by the Presidents of the EU institutions, the European Council is currently working on four new stages of integration: a European banking union with central European bank supervision; a European fiscal union with stricter control mechanisms over national budgets and the development of our own European financing capacity; a European economic union, involving a greater degree of joint decision-making on economic, tax, and social policy and finally a political union."

Jose Manuel Barroso - Former President of the European Commission and Former Prime Minister of Portugal

    "The time for piecemeal solutions is over. We need to set our minds on global solutions. A greater ambition for Europe. Today we are at a turning point in our history. A moments when, if we do not integrate further, we risk fragmentation."

    "For the euro area to be credible – and this not only the message of the federalists, this is the message of the markets – we need a truly Community approach. We need to really integrate the euro area."

    "For all of this to work, we need more than ever the independent authority of the Commission, to propose and assess the actions that the Member States should take. Governments, let's be frank, cannot do this by themselves. Nor can this be done by negotiations between governments."

    "We should remember that our Europe is a Europe of citizens. As citizens, we all gain through Europe. We gain a European identity and citizenship apart from our national citizenship."

    "We must also be realistic and recognise that, if Europe is to exert its influence fully, if Europe really wants to be a power, we must strengthen the Common Foreign and Security Policy. It must be credible. It must be based on a common security and defence dimension if we are really to count in the world."

    "Certain forms of intergovernmentalism could be the death of the united Europe we wish for."

Jacques Santer - Former Prime Minister of Luxembourg and former Chairman of the European People’s Party

    "We Christian Democrats in the European People’s Party want the European Community to become a United States of Europe."

Romano Prodi - EU Commission President

    “Here in Brussels, a true European government has been born. I have governmental powers. I have executive powers for which there is no other name in the world, whether you like it or not, than government”

Helmut Kohl - Former German Chancellor

    "We want European Union, a United States of Europe."

    "In the next 2 years we will make the process of European integration irreversible. This is a really big battle, but it is worth the fight”

    “The process of Union is like the Rhine flowing into the sea. Anyone who stands in its way is crushed”

Angela Merkel - Chancellor of Germany

    "The ideal of European unification is still today a question of war and peace.”

    "I believe we will come to it step by step. The process of handing over authorities to a unified European department will take 20-30 years."

    “In the European Union we have to come closer to the creation of a European army.”

Joschka Fischer - German Foreign Minister

    “Transforming the European Union into a single state with one army, one constitution and one foreign policy is the critical challenge of the age.”

    “The creation of a single European state bound by one European constitution is the decisive task of our time”

Guy Verhofstadt - Former Prime Minister of Belgium, Leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in the European Parliament (The group the LibDems are in.)

    "We are at a crossroads, are we becoming the UN of Europe or are we becoming the US of Europe?

    "Are we becoming a loose confederation as the Eurosceptics want? With the nation states in the driver seat and without any real European Integration coordination and solidarity. Or we become this federation, this political and economic union that we absolutely need." Video

    The constitution was rejected last year by France and the Netherlands do you think the constitution should be revived or should we start from scratch? "No, no I think that we have to continue the ratification process because that keeps the pressure on the European Institutions and the European leaders to continue European integration." You would disregard the votes in France and the Netherlands? "That is there responsibility." Video

    "That is the real problem colleagues, why there is such a real problem in this crisis because member states are reluctant to transfer new soveriegnty and powers to the European Union and we all know that the only way out of this crisis is a new transfer of powers to the European Union and to the European Insitutions." Video

    "We have now a diplomatic service… but we also need a European army."

    "We need to go forwards to the United States of Europe."

Franco Frattini - Former Italian Foreign Minister

    “It is a necessary objective to have a European army”

Matteo Renzi - Prime Minister of Italy

    "I dream, think and work for the United States of Europe."

Jean-Luc Dehaene, Former Belgian Prime Minister and Vice-President of the EU Convention

    We know that nine out of 10 people will not have read the Constitution and will vote on the basis of what politicians and journalists say. More than that, if the answer is No, the vote will probably have to be done again, because it absolutely has to be Yes. "

Arnold Toynbee - Historical researcher and founding father of the EU

    "We are working discreetly ........ and all the time we are denying with our lips what we are doing with our hands."

Raymond Barre, former French Prime Minister

    "I have never understood why public opinion about European ideas should be taken into account."

Jean Monnet Founder of the European Movement (One of the EU's 'Founding Fathers')

    "Europe's nations should be guided towards the super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."

    "The fusion of economic functions would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State"

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 03:49 AM

There is no point in arguing any of this. The remainers on this forum take a statement like

"this COULD mean that we will be poorer"

and re-interpret this to mean

"this WILL mean that we will be poorer".

but the original statement could also mean

"this COULD mean that we will NOT be poorer"

which COULD mean that we will be the same or even richer.

Three possibilities of which the inconvenient two are ignored.

Why would any intelligent person argue around this?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 03 Jan 19 - 02:20 AM

I have no doubt your convictions do not extend as far as your pocket.

It is an interesting one, that. I have asked a lot of Leavers to say how they will be personally worse off - not the country paying an "exit fee" but actual cash from their own pocket - or longer wait times for the NHS, if only temporarily, etc etc - and, faced with these say "Yes, I embrace these deprivations because of my convictions."

None has done so yet, partly because few can admit to the possibility of being worse off at all.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 05:41 PM

All part of the 'Leave Project Fear' - just like the '70 million Turks queueing up to invade the UK'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 05:32 PM

That's absolutely right. Sure, the occasional zealot may have called for a United States of Europe or for "ever closer union." Those sentiments have been pounced on, clutching-at-straws style, by brexiteers and their ancestors. But the mass of Europeans don't want that. They comprise patriotic citizens of their own very distinctive countries. If anything threatens their individualism it's globalisation led by massive multinationals, not some bloke sitting in an office in Brussels. And, while we are members, that individualism is protected. We have the power of veto. Once we leave, all that finishes and everything we hate about the potential future of the EU becomes more likely to come about. And we won't have a say.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 04:49 PM

Obviously there are many people who see a Federal United States of Europe analogous to that in North America as desirable, and express their hope to achieve that. There are people who would hope for a World Government. There are those who plan for inhabiting Mars. But none of these ambitions are at present close to coming into existence, and they can't come into existence, if they ever do, until a lot of things have changed.

UK membership of the EU in no way involves a commitment to such a project. In fact it is a major block on any developments in that direction. For anyone wishing to achieve a Pan-European state, Brexit is clearly to be desired. The evidence that there is general opposition to a British exit within the EU is evidence that it is absurd to see talk of this dream as anything more than a fantasy in this time.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 04:02 PM

"I assume.......you still hold out your hand each time for your British pension. I have no doubt your convictions do not extend as far as your pocket."

Why should anyone refuse the pension to which they are entitled by virtue of contributions paid in via NICs over many years of work?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 03:13 PM

Well we know you are an anglophobic exiled racist jim. You do not have to confirm it each time you post. By the way, what did your father do in the war? I assume, despite your hatred of all things British, you still hold out your hand each time for your British pension. I have no doubt your convictions do not extend as far as your pocket.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 02:49 PM

"
Why link to a financial article written in 2016?"
For the same reason you were hauling up articles which went back as far as 2010 nor so long ago
You seem to want things both ways
If Moggie can put his cash in Ireland im sure his fellow "patriots" will be more than happy to do likewise if it keeps their feet on the table
Bit crass to challenge the validity when much af your argument is proudly based on a self-confessed propagandist blogger

So you would sell your birthright for a mess of pottage?"
Meaningless rubbish - the most of our birthright is to make the best of shitty and rapidly deteriorating - go measure the gap between haves and have nots, or see the jobs we and ours are forced to take in order to stay alive - go look at the number of workers living on or below the poverty line despite that fact that they are in work
Are you for real
I bet you sing the National Anthem every time you turn the tele off
You are an anachronism that it would be hard to make up

Birthright - for crying out loud....
Best line since Spitting Image went belly upwards
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 02:18 PM

Even if I did have sovereignty, it would be worth giving up for cheaper and better imports.

So you would sell your birthright for a mess of pottage?

Think about it next time Armistice comes around:
" tell them of us and say,
For their tomorrow, we gave our today”

and yet you would trade their sacrifice quite happily for baubles!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 01:57 PM

I don't have any sovereignty. It makes little difference whether it is exercised by UK, French, German, Polish or other politicians, except that of those choices the UK ones are the ones I trust least. Even if I did have sovereignty, it would be worth giving up for cheaper and better imports.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 01:52 PM

https://www.schroders.com/en/uk/private-investor/insights/markets/where-are-the-post-brexit-opportunities-in-europe/

Why link to a financial article written in 2016?

They say a week is a long time in politics. One day can be a long time in financial markets- Remember black Wednesday when Sorus cleaned up?

we are leaving the political construct called the EU. We are not leaving Europe.

Interesting you say the political construct called the EU. The UK willingly voted for an economic union, the political union slid in by the back door. Yet some still deny the name of the game is a Federal United States of Europe. An interesting race through history below:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/12176234/Nine-deceptions-in-our-history-with-the-EU.html

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10559458/We-want-a-United-States-of-Europe-says-top-EU-official.html


https://www.euractiv.com/section/eu-priorities-2020/news/merkel-calls-for-political-union-to-save-the-euro/


https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/882881/Brexit-EU-secret-document-truth-British-public

Below:Sorbonne speech of Emmanuel Macron - Full text / English version
(a very dangerous man)
http://international.blogs.ouest-france.fr/archive/2017/09/29/macron-sorbonne-verbatim-europe-18583.html

Retaining our sovereignty seems a worthy ideal to me.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 12:01 PM

" we are leaving the political construct called the EU. We are not leaving Europe."
Remains to be seen - the mess that has been created leaves a huge question mark over both
If democracy had anything to do with any of this the people would be aseked to re-conirm this decision based on everything that has emerged - even leading Tories are suggesting this
Over Moggie's dead body, of course - he happily invests his money in Irish funds while wagging the flag fro Britannia, AS WILL MANY BREXITEERS

Patriotism doesn't travel much further than personal financial interests, it would seem
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 11:23 AM

Interesting article DtG, and not much there that I would disagree with. It has been said many times, perhaps not so much recently, we are leaving the political construct called the EU. We are not leaving Europe.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 10:59 AM

Interesting piece by Dan Snow in the Guardian

Brexit is not an end to Britain’s liaison with Europe

May be a bit too optimistic but that is needed at the moment :-)

Enjoy

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 10:12 AM

I am completely baffled that people don't see 'racism' as part of Brexit, though I do accept that the ethnocentrism and anti-Europeanism which gave rise to the contemptuous and contemptible use of words like 'Grog' 'Eyetye' 'Dago' may not strictly speaking be "racist". Similar enough in many cases.

Jingoism is not a 'thick working class' thing, as sometimes implied; an academic historian tried to convince me the other week that the only thing the Victorians admired which was Italian was ancient Rome. So much for the quattrocento and the Renaissance then. The partner of the same person commented on the bad housing described in the novel about refugees in Italy in WW2 was that in England such housing would have been closed down. ANd this demented gibberish came from somebody who had been alive in WW2 and must remember Homes for Heros. Crackpot jingoism.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 09:23 AM

HERE KAREN
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 08:56 AM

Have a look at this, and then argue that bad jobs and conditions are caused by immigrants:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jan/01/newcross-healthcare-ex-employee-cut-throat-culture-fines-sick-staff

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 08:40 AM

Showing videos like that is despicable - are you seriously suggesting it represents anything other than a poor individual with communication difficulties ?
Crap - utter despicable crap
Developing articulacy has nothing to do with intelligence and far more to do with education which is more and more being put out of reach of those who are unable to afford it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 08:21 AM

.........This is simply not true, and, worse, it is one of the stock racist excuses for keeping immigrants out. Low wages are created by employers paying low wages because they can.

This is one of the many drawbacks of capitalism. Both Labour and Conservatives could have legislated against the more severe impact of these realities but chose not to. I wonder why not?
'Twould appear I get it rather faster than your goodself!

To turn your own argument around it could be argued that in a normal population 15.7% are below average intelligence and 6.4% Cognitively impaired. Therefore a valid argument would be that 22.1% of the electorate probably had no idea what they were voting for and what way they voted is anybodies guess. Trying to argue a minority of a certain mindset stole the referendum is pure hokum, as you very well know.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZO9JGSScMQ

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jan 19 - 08:21 AM

You are of course, right Baccy
There is racism in Ireland, and not just with Travellers (who's treatment verges on ethnic cleansing)
It would be complacent to suggest otherwise

The incoming of immigrants has raised the level of prejudice here, but not seriously - yet - I think I mentioned the welcoming ceremony for the new citizens a couple of days ago - tends to be the way things are in general
In the main, Ireland is an extremely welcoming country, but since the shenanigans pulled the teeth from the Celtic Tiger, things have toughened somewhat and Goldman-Sachs buying up of rented property and selling to to the better off have made things a damn sight worse - a breeding ground for scapegoating and racist resentment
According to the Jewish community here, they have met with nothing but friendliness since they first started to settle in Ireland after the war
We'll have to run very fast and a long way before we catch up to the UK though

Farage held an Anti-Europe meeting a few months ago in Dublin - so far, no effect; let's wait and see.
Would be very grateful if you kept in in a cage back there
It is now reckoned that most European Countries now have a Farage waiting in the wings
Happy days are here again eh
Jim