Some pretty ugly moments in football over the last few days. We've had several incidents of racist chants against black players, Nazi salutes, and even an assault on a player.
Have these things happened before this Government? Of course. But they're deliberately now stoking things up. I would urge every one of you on here to think twice before you join them with 'phobic' hate messages, even as jokes, against demographics that don't fit your mould. Be careful whom you are clambering into bed with. It's not so very different from what Putin does to try and justify his disgusting acts in Ukraine. He too launches attacks on gays, trans people, non-pure Russians and those whom he calls Nazis. I expect he would also launch attacks on Working From Home - making out that these people are lazy layabouts.
Fanning the flames of culture wars is the thing I will most despise this Government for in the years to come. It's far worse than Major's back to basics, which was pretty benign blue rinse rubbish. This is really toxic and it's going to get worse right up until the General Election.
I've been away the last five days, so may missed this, but where was the racist chanting and the nazi salutes?
Billy Sharp is white, so I'm not sure race had anything to do with what happened last night. That said, things have changed since COVID. There does seems to be more t****ish behaviour by supporters.
I'm not sure how much the bad behaviour has actually increased and how much it's just being highlighted more. That said, the Billy Sharp incident yesterday was disgraceful and unexpected - pitch invasions in such circumstances are always going to happen because there are many more fans than stewards. They're usually purely euphoric though and harmless.
Insofar as bad behaviour has increased, I wonder how much of it can be put down to a very human reaction to the "you are all stupid racists" lecture that begins every PL and EFL game.
I've heard some daft excuses for bad behaviour but that beats the lot.
No, I'm with Applicant here. Tell people they're racist often enough and that's what they'll become.
Nobody is telling anyone that.
By your own logic, tell people that we all stand (or kneel) together against racism often enough and we'll all unite against racism. So lets keep doing what we're doing.
But it isn't about that - it has always been about explicit support for one particular dubious political campaign, no matter how much they try to gaslight us now: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55151065
Standing against racism is not a dubious campaign. 🤦♂️
Standing against racism would not be a dubious political campaign.
Kneeling in support for the BLM campaign, as they've been doing since summer 2020, is.
If they wanted to make a gesture against racism and not in support of the BLM campaign, that ios what they would do.
The BLM campaign to 99.99% of people who heard and used the words just means that black lives matter and does not mean anything dubious whatsoever.
When people objected to dubious politics a few eccentric individuals had that were being used by those words then they stopped using the words BLM and started using their own words which they use today like "Kick It Out" or "United Against Racism" so what is dubious about that? The fact they've stopped saying BLM should be the end of the matter, unless you find United Against Racism to be dubious?
They haven't stopped using the BLM gesture. If they want to continue to make a gesture, they should find a different one.
Its not a BLM gesture its an anti-racism gesture. It predates BLM and is associated by 99.9999% of people who see it with anti-racism and not the BLM that may have tried but failed to hijack it.
You claiming its a BLM gesture is as pathetic as claiming that because the BNP use the Union Flag anyone who uses the Union Flag is a racist and using a racist gesture.
It was explicitly a BLM gesture when they started using it, which is why they started using it. The idea that the message somehow changed when the gesture didn't is frankly risible. Not least because the idea that it was a generic anti-racism gesture only started after fans came back and some booed it.
If they want to do that, it's fine - I just ask them to be honest about it. Otherwise they're stoking an atmosphere where a section of fans feel that they're seen as a basket of deplorables - and we learned with football fans in the 70s and 80s, if you treat them like animals some of them will behave like it.
It was not explictly a BLM gesture when they started using it ,
Oh dear. I understand how painful the year 2020 was and a lot of people have blocked a lot of it out, but you do really seem to have forgotten how football jumped on the BLM campaign's bandwagon that summer when there was already a long-standing football anti-racism campaign in existence.
Is there anything dubious about the words black lives matter?
There is when the words "all lives matter" are decried as racist and a threat to "black lives matter".
Again the words "BLM" is just anti-racism for almost everyone sane and yes there is a long-standing anti-racism campaign in existence and that is there because there is a longer-standing racism problem in football that is still there.
If the words "all lives matter" are used in response to the the words "black lives matter" then yes that is dismissive, insensitive and nasty of course it is, just as if anyone said "justice for everyone" as an instantaneous response every time "Justice for the 96" was said it would be dismissive, rude and nasty.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
The question was both equally in that respect . Clearly this has hit a nerve for you and you’re now busy digging a hole .
Clearly as the UKs GDP is more reliant on EU trade a trade war hurts the smaller partner more . Not sure this is controversial , it’s basic economics and supported by facts not Leaver Unicorn reality !
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
If this poll means anything, it may be that the SNP are not really being taken very seriously at the moment. Elections are a long way away in any event, and a referendum is more a matter of gesture than substance. Nevertheless Sturgeon remains lucky in her choice of enemies, so I guess the long stalemate in Scottish politics simply continues.
Just one final thought very quickly. Margaret Thatcher thought that inflation was THE scourge. High inflation was the hallmark of the 1970's and we have largely forgotten about what a blight it is on everyone, including the poorest.
It is possible that of all the things which will finish off Boris Johnson, it's inflation that will.
Not helped of course by the fact that whereas Maggie had a parsimonious 'housewife's purse' approach to understanding this scourge, Boris Johnson is a spaffing spendthrift whose personal credit rating is about to be matched by that of his Government's.
Inflation is rising because of rising oil and electricity costs and rising fuel and food prices because of the Ukraine war.
There is not a lot the UK government can do other than try and expand global supply for the former and push for a peaceful resolution to the latter. Until then sanctions on Russia will also bite
It is not just Russia. This was happening before the war. Coming out of COVID was a big impact as it takes time for supply to gear up eg the delivery driver shortage, computer chips, etc. And of course the self inflicted Brexit adding to supply costs with red tape and tarrifs.
The Netherlands and Greece have a higher inflation rate than the UK now, so it is certainly not just Brexit either
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
They would both be damaged and would show a failure of leadership by both sides
Yes I agree but who in your opinion would come off worse?
Some pretty ugly moments in football over the last few days. We've had several incidents of racist chants against black players, Nazi salutes, and even an assault on a player.
Have these things happened before this Government? Of course. But they're deliberately now stoking things up. I would urge every one of you on here to think twice before you join them with 'phobic' hate messages, even as jokes, against demographics that don't fit your mould. Be careful whom you are clambering into bed with. It's not so very different from what Putin does to try and justify his disgusting acts in Ukraine. He too launches attacks on gays, trans people, non-pure Russians and those whom he calls Nazis. I expect he would also launch attacks on Working From Home - making out that these people are lazy layabouts.
Fanning the flames of culture wars is the thing I will most despise this Government for in the years to come. It's far worse than Major's back to basics, which was pretty benign blue rinse rubbish. This is really toxic and it's going to get worse right up until the General Election.
I've been away the last five days, so may missed this, but where was the racist chanting and the nazi salutes?
Billy Sharp is white, so I'm not sure race had anything to do with what happened last night. That said, things have changed since COVID. There does seems to be more t****ish behaviour by supporters.
I'm not sure how much the bad behaviour has actually increased and how much it's just being highlighted more. That said, the Billy Sharp incident yesterday was disgraceful and unexpected - pitch invasions in such circumstances are always going to happen because there are many more fans than stewards. They're usually purely euphoric though and harmless.
Insofar as bad behaviour has increased, I wonder how much of it can be put down to a very human reaction to the "you are all stupid racists" lecture that begins every PL and EFL game.
I've heard some daft excuses for bad behaviour but that beats the lot.
No, I'm with Applicant here. Tell people they're racist often enough and that's what they'll become.
Nobody is telling anyone that.
By your own logic, tell people that we all stand (or kneel) together against racism often enough and we'll all unite against racism. So lets keep doing what we're doing.
But it isn't about that - it has always been about explicit support for one particular dubious political campaign, no matter how much they try to gaslight us now: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/55151065
Standing against racism is not a dubious campaign. 🤦♂️
Standing against racism would not be a dubious political campaign.
Kneeling in support for the BLM campaign, as they've been doing since summer 2020, is.
If they wanted to make a gesture against racism and not in support of the BLM campaign, that ios what they would do.
The BLM campaign to 99.99% of people who heard and used the words just means that black lives matter and does not mean anything dubious whatsoever.
When people objected to dubious politics a few eccentric individuals had that were being used by those words then they stopped using the words BLM and started using their own words which they use today like "Kick It Out" or "United Against Racism" so what is dubious about that? The fact they've stopped saying BLM should be the end of the matter, unless you find United Against Racism to be dubious?
They haven't stopped using the BLM gesture. If they want to continue to make a gesture, they should find a different one.
Its not a BLM gesture its an anti-racism gesture. It predates BLM and is associated by 99.9999% of people who see it with anti-racism and not the BLM that may have tried but failed to hijack it.
You claiming its a BLM gesture is as pathetic as claiming that because the BNP use the Union Flag anyone who uses the Union Flag is a racist and using a racist gesture.
It was explicitly a BLM gesture when they started using it, which is why they started using it. The idea that the message somehow changed when the gesture didn't is frankly risible. Not least because the idea that it was a generic anti-racism gesture only started after fans came back and some booed it.
If they want to do that, it's fine - I just ask them to be honest about it. Otherwise they're stoking an atmosphere where a section of fans feel that they're seen as a basket of deplorables - and we learned with football fans in the 70s and 80s, if you treat them like animals some of them will behave like it.
It was not explictly a BLM gesture when they started using it ,
Oh dear. I understand how painful the year 2020 was and a lot of people have blocked a lot of it out, but you do really seem to have forgotten how football jumped on the BLM campaign's bandwagon that summer when there was already a long-standing football anti-racism campaign in existence.
Is there anything dubious about the words black lives matter?
There is when the words "all lives matter" are decried as racist and a threat to "black lives matter".
Again the words "BLM" is just anti-racism for almost everyone sane and yes there is a long-standing anti-racism campaign in existence and that is there because there is a longer-standing racism problem in football that is still there.
If the words "all lives matter" are used in response to the the words "black lives matter" then yes that is dismissive, insensitive and nasty of course it is, just as if anyone said "justice for everyone" as an instantaneous response every time "Justice for the 96" was said it would be dismissive, rude and nasty.
"everyone sane" being "people who haven't looked into what the BLM campaign actually stands for", I presume.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
Being out of NATO and giving up trident is extreme Celtic Privilege on behalf of the SNP, Safe in the knowledge there will always be someone bigger looking out for them, all the benefits, but making sure they can act holier than thou to those very same nations which would defend them.
As it shows, NATO means a heck of a lot to people which actually are threatened.
The SNP now wants a future independent Scotland to join Nato. Scotland would not be allowed to retain Trident on independence so the fact it does not want to is neither here nor there.
It's not about turning away from the world, it's not about separation, it's about how do we ensure that Scotland - a country with historic traditions of being a force in the world - can play that positive force in the world in the future.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
They would both be damaged and would show a failure of leadership by both sides
Yes I agree but who in your opinion would come off worse?
Both would come off worse - that's the definition of a trade war, it damages both sides...
Now if you're arguing that the UK would be worse off by (random number) 7% and the EU would be worse off by (ditto) 5%, and therefore it's fine for the EU to get into the trade war because the UK would be relatively damaged more, I'm not convinced that's helpful.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
It's a Scotland in Union poll with all that implies.
The question is whether 'the UK should retain its independent nuclear deterrent', not Trident specifically, and Scotland isn't mentioned. Personally I feel it should be up to the rUK whether it wants to continue bolstering its sense of importance and self worth with da nookleerz, and an indy Scotland should gently minister to that difficult psychological transition (while charging a suitable rent during that period of course).
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
The question was both equally in that respect . Clearly this has hit a nerve for you and you’re now busy digging a hole .
Clearly as the UKs GDP is more reliant on EU trade a trade war hurts the smaller partner more . Not sure this is controversial , it’s basic economics and supported by facts not Leaver Unicorn reality !
The UK has a trade deficit with the EU, the EU have a trade surplus with the UK.
If you believe in protectionism (I don't) then you'd know the UK can engage in import substitution with the EU's trade in a trade war, the EU can't.
So no, you're the one whom its hit a nerve for. Remainer Unicorn fantasy might be that the EU is all powerful and the UK is puny and weak but that's not reality.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Actually defining worse isn't that easy. But let's say that both sides took a £100bn hit to their economies. That would be a major blow to the UK. For the EU? Not so much.
Now it's quite possible that when it comes to politics the UK has a higher 'pain threshold.' But from the evidence of the May and Johnson governments that isn't convincing.
I don't think calling Leave voters stupid because 21% of them have a surprising answer to a vague question is very productive.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
Being out of NATO and giving up trident is extreme Celtic Privilege on behalf of the SNP, Safe in the knowledge there will always be someone bigger looking out for them, all the benefits, but making sure they can act holier than thou to those very same nations which would defend them.
As it shows, NATO means a heck of a lot to people which actually are threatened.
A minor, but interesting theme, has been the implosion of the ScotNat meme that Scotland is naturally closer to the Nordic countries than to England.
In the face of Russian aggression an Indy Scotland would be about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. And SNP attempts to dismember the UK, Europe's leading NATO member, can hardly be said to be in the national interest of any Scandinavian country.
No wonder Sturgeon has jetted off to the USA rather than Helsinki or Stockholm.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
They would both be damaged and would show a failure of leadership by both sides
Yes I agree but who in your opinion would come off worse?
I know you want me to say UK but it depends on when and if it happens so time alone will tell
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h TICK. TOCK. Today, May 18th, will be the day Russian losses in Phase 2 reach the level, relative to their initial Phase 2 force, that led them to withdraw from the North in Phase 1, on the Ukrainian estimates.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
Being out of NATO and giving up trident is extreme Celtic Privilege on behalf of the SNP, Safe in the knowledge there will always be someone bigger looking out for them, all the benefits, but making sure they can act holier than thou to those very same nations which would defend them.
As it shows, NATO means a heck of a lot to people which actually are threatened.
The SNP now wants a future independent Scotland to join Nato. Scotland would not be allowed to retain Trident on independence so the fact it does not want to is neither here nor there.
Is suspect that rUK would like to keep a NATO base in Scotland for Trident though.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
It's a Scotland in Union poll with all that implies.
The question is whether 'the UK should retain its independent nuclear deterrent', not Trident specifically, and Scotland isn't mentioned. Personally I feel it should be up to the rUK whether it wants to continue bolstering its sense of importance and self worth with da nookleerz, and an indy Scotland should gently minister to that difficult psychological transition (while charging a suitable rent during that period of course).
LOL.
Andrew Neil: "Nicola Sturgeon says an independent Scotland would help protect the world’s seas from Russian aggression. This from a leader of a party that would kick out UK nuclear deterrent and can’t even build two ferries"
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
As a proportion of GDP it’s more important for the UK . The governments own figures confirm this . Really not sure why you’re going down this rabbit hole when the facts speak for themselves .
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
It's a wonder these opinion polls still exist at all. Much easier just to ask you for the right answer.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
It's a Scotland in Union poll with all that implies.
The question is whether 'the UK should retain its independent nuclear deterrent', not Trident specifically, and Scotland isn't mentioned. Personally I feel it should be up to the rUK whether it wants to continue bolstering its sense of importance and self worth with da nookleerz, and an indy Scotland should gently minister to that difficult psychological transition (while charging a suitable rent during that period of course).
LOL.
Andrew Neil: "Nicola Sturgeon says an independent Scotland would help protect the world’s seas from Russian aggression. This from a leader of a party that would kick out UK nuclear deterrent and can’t even build two ferries"
The UK nuclear deterrent does not help protect the world's seas. It is not as if Trident submarines are stuffed full of torpedoes to sink enemy cruisers.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
As a proportion of GDP it’s more important for the UK . The governments own figures confirm this . Really not sure why you’re going down this rabbit hole when the facts speak for themselves .
Trade isn't just about a proportion of GDP though and nor is a trade war.
If you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the nation with the trade surplus should come off worse in a trade war, since the other nation can engage in import substitution while the surplus trading nation can't. Now personally, I think that's bollocks, but if you're wanting to go on about trade wars then lets follow that bollocks to its conclusion - and sadly the EU is a very protectionist organisation.
If you don't believe in protectionism then all parties come off worse in a trade war and so the right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option.
So if you believe in protectionism the correct answer is the EU, if you don't believe in protectionism the only right answer is Both. Under no rational reason is the correct answer just the UK.
O/t I've seen a name published somewhere for the Tory MP in serious bother. Anyone else seen it? And is it correct?
I've seen a name strongly implied. As to if it is correct? Firstly, I don't know. Secondly, I don't know whose name you've seen anyways. Probably best to leave it there.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
That’s a fair point but overall the EU will be effected less . I doubt there will be a trade war so it’s somewhat hypothetical anyway.
As long as the UK don’t insist on removal of ECJ oversight then there’s a chance some fudge can be done .
O/t I've seen a name published somewhere for the Tory MP in serious bother. Anyone else seen it? And is it correct?
More than one name has been published, so no and probably yes. PMQs will be noisy today with government benches packed full of MPs ensuring viewers see it is not them who has been suspended.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
They would both be damaged and would show a failure of leadership by both sides
Yes I agree but who in your opinion would come off worse?
I know you want me to say UK but it depends on when and if it happens so time alone will tell
Not really, the answer is obvious to anyone who can do basic arithmetic.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
It's a Scotland in Union poll with all that implies.
The question is whether 'the UK should retain its independent nuclear deterrent', not Trident specifically, and Scotland isn't mentioned. Personally I feel it should be up to the rUK whether it wants to continue bolstering its sense of importance and self worth with da nookleerz, and an indy Scotland should gently minister to that difficult psychological transition (while charging a suitable rent during that period of course).
LOL.
Andrew Neil: "Nicola Sturgeon says an independent Scotland would help protect the world’s seas from Russian aggression. This from a leader of a party that would kick out UK nuclear deterrent and can’t even build two ferries"
The UK nuclear deterrent does not help protect the world's seas. It is not as if Trident submarines are stuffed full of torpedoes to sink enemy cruisers.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
That’s a fair point but overall the EU will be effected less . I doubt there will be a trade war so it’s somewhat hypothetical anyway.
As long as the UK don’t insist on removal of ECJ oversight then there’s a chance some fudge can be done .
It was interesting that the much-maligned President Macron was recently floating the idea of a looser class of European states that could trade freely with the EU while not being part of it.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
That’s a fair point but overall the EU will be effected less . I doubt there will be a trade war so it’s somewhat hypothetical anyway.
As long as the UK don’t insist on removal of ECJ oversight then there’s a chance some fudge can be done .
Each EU member state will clearly be far less affected by a trade war than the UK because no EU member state is remotely as dependent on sending exports to the UK as the UK is on sending exports to the Single Market.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
They don't need to.
If you believe in protectionism, I don't, then you need to look at the trade surplus or deficit to get the accurate figure, since import substitution is an option. UK businesses which are importing and exporting to the EU can engage in substitution so trading directly within Britain making up what was exported and imported.
Personally I think protectionism is a load of bollocks, but the EU is a very protectionist institution as is anyone talking up a trade war. But if you take the ideas behind protectionism to its extremes the EU would come out worst since its the one with the trade surplus.
However if you're asking who would come out worse, not worst, then the only right answer is Both. The EU would be worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has come off worse. The UK is worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has ALSO come off worse.
MPs will be starting to hear about this in surgeries shortly:
"The DWP has begun sending out the first forced Migration Notices moving claimants from legacy benefits, including ESA, to UC."
AIUI this is the re-start of the pilot schemes abandoned under COVID. It affects only 500 claimants so far. The end of 2024 target for moving everyone will be missed by a country mile. More details here.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
It's a Scotland in Union poll with all that implies.
The question is whether 'the UK should retain its independent nuclear deterrent', not Trident specifically, and Scotland isn't mentioned. Personally I feel it should be up to the rUK whether it wants to continue bolstering its sense of importance and self worth with da nookleerz, and an indy Scotland should gently minister to that difficult psychological transition (while charging a suitable rent during that period of course).
LOL.
Andrew Neil: "Nicola Sturgeon says an independent Scotland would help protect the world’s seas from Russian aggression. This from a leader of a party that would kick out UK nuclear deterrent and can’t even build two ferries"
Andra still smarting from his total impotence in trying to have Sturgeon toasted a year ago obvs.
I'd have thought you'd be concentrating on rebuilding the the shattered remains of the SCons after your reaming at the locals? You're second faves to save the Union, SLab, were distinctly underwhelming also.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
That’s a fair point but overall the EU will be effected less . I doubt there will be a trade war so it’s somewhat hypothetical anyway.
As long as the UK don’t insist on removal of ECJ oversight then there’s a chance some fudge can be done .
It was interesting that the much-maligned President Macron was recently floating the idea of a looser class of European states that could trade freely with the EU while not being part of it.
That was an interesting idea and has merit . In terms of freely trading we’re yet to see what the details might be.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
Being out of NATO and giving up trident is extreme Celtic Privilege on behalf of the SNP, Safe in the knowledge there will always be someone bigger looking out for them, all the benefits, but making sure they can act holier than thou to those very same nations which would defend them.
As it shows, NATO means a heck of a lot to people which actually are threatened.
The SNP now wants a future independent Scotland to join Nato. Scotland would not be allowed to retain Trident on independence so the fact it does not want to is neither here nor there.
The United Kingdom of England, Wales and the Lagan Valley will veto (or threaten to veto) Scottish membership of NATO surely.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
It's a Scotland in Union poll with all that implies.
The question is whether 'the UK should retain its independent nuclear deterrent', not Trident specifically, and Scotland isn't mentioned. Personally I feel it should be up to the rUK whether it wants to continue bolstering its sense of importance and self worth with da nookleerz, and an indy Scotland should gently minister to that difficult psychological transition (while charging a suitable rent during that period of course).
LOL.
Andrew Neil: "Nicola Sturgeon says an independent Scotland would help protect the world’s seas from Russian aggression. This from a leader of a party that would kick out UK nuclear deterrent and can’t even build two ferries"
The UK nuclear deterrent does not help protect the world's seas. It is not as if Trident submarines are stuffed full of torpedoes to sink enemy cruisers.
As it happens, the Trident subs (Vanguard class) have 4x 21inch Torpedo tubes and carry the Spearfish torpedo. Not sure how many reloads they carry.
They are for self defence, when on patrol. But still....
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
They don't need to.
If you believe in protectionism, I don't, then you need to look at the trade surplus or deficit to get the accurate figure, since import substitution is an option. UK businesses which are importing and exporting to the EU can engage in substitution so trading directly within Britain making up what was exported and imported.
Personally I think protectionism is a load of bollocks, but the EU is a very protectionist institution as is anyone talking up a trade war. But if you take the ideas behind protectionism to its extremes the EU would come out worst since its the one with the trade surplus.
However if you're asking who would come out worse, not worst, then the only right answer is Both. The EU would be worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has come off worse. The UK is worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has ALSO come off worse.
The accurate figure is that no EU member state sends close to 40% of its exports to the UK, while the UK sends well over 40% of all its exports to the single market. That is a huge imbalance which clearly puts the UK at a disadvantage in a trade war. As for import substitution, the claim that there are no alternatives to be found to the vast majority of UK imports within the EU is a bold one.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
They don't need to.
If you believe in protectionism, I don't, then you need to look at the trade surplus or deficit to get the accurate figure, since import substitution is an option. UK businesses which are importing and exporting to the EU can engage in substitution so trading directly within Britain making up what was exported and imported.
Personally I think protectionism is a load of bollocks, but the EU is a very protectionist institution as is anyone talking up a trade war. But if you take the ideas behind protectionism to its extremes the EU would come out worst since its the one with the trade surplus.
However if you're asking who would come out worse, not worst, then the only right answer is Both. The EU would be worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has come off worse. The UK is worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has ALSO come off worse.
The accurate figure is that no EU member state sends close to 40% of its exports to the UK, while the UK sends well over 40% of all its exports to the single market. That is a huge imbalance which clearly puts the UK at a disadvantage in a trade war. As for import substitution, the claim that there are no alternatives to be found to the vast majority of UK imports within the EU is a bold one.
Perhaps I'm being overly cynical here, but you splitting up the EU into its constituent parts for one side of the equation and not the other does rather look like fiddling the figures.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
Give it up mate.
The question didn't ask which side would win. It was which side would be worse affected. You can say 'both' in answer to that but really that is just fence sitting. You might as well say 'don't know.'
Whether you mean to or not you're muddying the waters like a tiresome Russian bot.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If the EU states can't trade with us they're just go to our European competitors. Who will we go to? They might just have some price rises; we'll starve!
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
Why would the EU necessarily be worse off? Is there anything they get from us that they can't get from each other?
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
They don't need to.
If you believe in protectionism, I don't, then you need to look at the trade surplus or deficit to get the accurate figure, since import substitution is an option. UK businesses which are importing and exporting to the EU can engage in substitution so trading directly within Britain making up what was exported and imported.
Personally I think protectionism is a load of bollocks, but the EU is a very protectionist institution as is anyone talking up a trade war. But if you take the ideas behind protectionism to its extremes the EU would come out worst since its the one with the trade surplus.
However if you're asking who would come out worse, not worst, then the only right answer is Both. The EU would be worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has come off worse. The UK is worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has ALSO come off worse.
The accurate figure is that no EU member state sends close to 40% of its exports to the UK, while the UK sends well over 40% of all its exports to the single market. That is a huge imbalance which clearly puts the UK at a disadvantage in a trade war. As for import substitution, the claim that there are no alternatives to be found to the vast majority of UK imports within the EU is a bold one.
Perhaps I'm being overly cynical here, but you splitting up the EU into its constituent parts for one side of the equation and not the other does rather look like fiddling the figures.
Nope - it's the reality. The UK is a third country to which each individual EU member state sends exports. The UK sends its exports into one single market. In terms of hurt, there is no EU to feel the pain of a trade war, there are 27 member states. None of them are as exposed to the UK market as much as the UK is to the single market.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
I agree with your last statement, which is why it is daft of the UK to initiate one. But "come off worse" is a comparative question, as is made even more explicit by the fact there are two options. It isn't "come off worst" because with two options the superlative form of the adverb is unnecessary. You could only answer "both" if you thought the impact on the UK and EU were proportionately the same, but basic arithmetic tells you that that isn't remotely likely. If Leave voters think the impact will be equal this simply tells you that their views are not informed by objective reality.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
The percentage doesn't matter to my point and you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
It's a Scotland in Union poll with all that implies.
The question is whether 'the UK should retain its independent nuclear deterrent', not Trident specifically, and Scotland isn't mentioned. Personally I feel it should be up to the rUK whether it wants to continue bolstering its sense of importance and self worth with da nookleerz, and an indy Scotland should gently minister to that difficult psychological transition (while charging a suitable rent during that period of course).
LOL.
Andrew Neil: "Nicola Sturgeon says an independent Scotland would help protect the world’s seas from Russian aggression. This from a leader of a party that would kick out UK nuclear deterrent and can’t even build two ferries"
Andra still smarting from his total impotence in trying to have Sturgeon toasted a year ago obvs.
I'd have thought you'd be concentrating on rebuilding the the shattered remains of the SCons after your reaming at the locals? You're second faves to save the Union, SLab, were distinctly underwhelming also.
On your first point. Don't think so. NS didn't look as if she was having the time of her life when I saw her being interviewed by him. No wonder BJ skipped it.
The split in the Unionist vote is, indeed, a weakness and contributes to SNP hegemony. But doesn't seem to be bringing Indy any closer tho. Something will give eventually but suspect we could be in a holding pattern for many more years. Joy.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
Give it up mate.
The question didn't ask which side would win. It was which side would be worse affected. You can say 'both' in answer to that but really that is just fence sitting. You might as well say 'don't know.'
Whether you mean to or not you're muddying the waters like a tiresome Russian bot.
It does not say which side would be worse affected. The question was which side would "come off worse".
The only correct economic answer to that is "Both". Both sides come off worse.
Is this statement true or false: The EU would come off worse from a trade war than the EU would have been without a trade war.
Is this statement true or false: The UK would come off worse from a trade war than the UK would have been without at trade war.
If both answers are true, then both nations have come off worse. This is economics for you and why nations try to avoid trade wars, because there are no winners or losers to trade wars, just losers.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
Give it up mate.
The question didn't ask which side would win. It was which side would be worse affected. You can say 'both' in answer to that but really that is just fence sitting. You might as well say 'don't know.'
Whether you mean to or not you're muddying the waters like a tiresome Russian bot.
So, I actually went and looked at what the question asked actually was, not how it was reported in the tweet.
And it was:
If there were to be a 'trade war' between the UK and the EU, who do you think would be most negatively affected? % (The UK, Both equally, The EU)
Now (setting aside the grammatical error that it should be "more" not "most"), the actual question does seem to not support BR's interpretation.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
I agree with your last statement, which is why it is daft of the UK to initiate one. But "come off worse" is a comparative question, as is made even more explicit by the fact there are two options. It isn't "come off worst" because with two options the superlative form of the adverb is unnecessary. You could only answer "both" if you thought the impact on the UK and EU were proportionately the same, but basic arithmetic tells you that that isn't remotely likely. If Leave voters think the impact will be equal this simply tells you that their views are not informed by objective reality.
"Come off worse" is a comparative question but it is a comparison for each option against what each option would have been without the trade war, not against each other.
If the EU is worse off than the EU would have been without a trade war then it has come off worse. If the UK is worse off than the UK would have been without a trade war then it has also come off worse.
That is why both was an option, because economics shows both come off worse. If you want to ask a superlative question you need to put the superlative there, it wasn't.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
The percentage doesn't matter to my point and you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
The single market is only an importer. It is not an exporter. The UK cannot divert its current exports to Germany to France, Italy or Spain. We lose access to 27 countries that account for well over 40% of all our exports simultaneously. On the other side of the equation, Germany loses access to a market that takes 4.8% of its exports.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
Give it up mate.
The question didn't ask which side would win. It was which side would be worse affected. You can say 'both' in answer to that but really that is just fence sitting. You might as well say 'don't know.'
Whether you mean to or not you're muddying the waters like a tiresome Russian bot.
So, I actually went and looked at what the question asked actually was, not how it was reported in the tweet.
And it was:
If there were to be a 'trade war' between the UK and the EU, who do you think would be most negatively affected? % (The UK, Both equally, The EU)
Now (setting aside the grammatical error that it should be "more" not "most"), the actual question does seem to not support BR's interpretation.
Fair enough, the superlative is there in that question. It was not in the question quoted I replied to.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
The percentage doesn't matter to my point and you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
All parties come off badly, but some come off worse than others. Your point on the UK vs Germany is wrong. An EU-UK trade war has a bigger effect on Germany than the UK with respect to bilateral trade between the two countries. But the UK isn't picking a fight with Germany, it is picking a fight with Germany and 26 other countries. So on the UK side you need to add the impact on its trade with France, with Italy, with Ireland, with Spain and so on. That is why the impact is so much bigger on the UK than on Germany, France or any other EU country (perhaps with the exception of Ireland), or indeed the EU as a whole. This is basic arithmetic.
In which case there would be a gap when Scotland would be out of NATO and it would also have no protection from the UK nuclear deterrent. While Putin wants to expand Russia into neighbouring nations he also benefits from Western nations breaking up
Interestingly there is now a big majority of Scots voters in favour of retaining Trident. So an iconic SNP shibboleth has become a liability.
"A poll published last week suggested that voters in Scotland do not agree with the first minister, with 58 per cent of respondents saying Trident should be retained. Just 20 per cent of people backed scrapping it."
If The Times thinks an independent Scotland will retain Trident, what will the United Kingdom do?
It's a Scotland in Union poll with all that implies.
The question is whether 'the UK should retain its independent nuclear deterrent', not Trident specifically, and Scotland isn't mentioned. Personally I feel it should be up to the rUK whether it wants to continue bolstering its sense of importance and self worth with da nookleerz, and an indy Scotland should gently minister to that difficult psychological transition (while charging a suitable rent during that period of course).
LOL.
Andrew Neil: "Nicola Sturgeon says an independent Scotland would help protect the world’s seas from Russian aggression. This from a leader of a party that would kick out UK nuclear deterrent and can’t even build two ferries"
Andra still smarting from his total impotence in trying to have Sturgeon toasted a year ago obvs.
I'd have thought you'd be concentrating on rebuilding the the shattered remains of the SCons after your reaming at the locals? You're second faves to save the Union, SLab, were distinctly underwhelming also.
On your first point. Don't think so. NS didn't look as if she was having the time of her life when I saw her being interviewed by him. No wonder BJ skipped it.
The split in the Unionist vote is, indeed, a weakness and contributes to SNP hegemony. But doesn't seem to be bringing Indy any closer tho. Something will give eventually but suspect we could be in a holding pattern for many more years. Joy.
The first point referred to the so called Salmond enquiry where the conjoined forces of Brillo, the Speccy, the Tele and Dave 'twinkly' Davis convinced themselves that they were an asset to Eck the Balrog in his attempt to pull Sturge down with him into the depths of Moriah. Bunch of fecking amateurs.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
The percentage doesn't matter to my point and you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
All parties come off badly, but some come off worse than others. Your point on the UK vs Germany is wrong. An EU-UK trade war has a bigger effect on Germany than the UK with respect to bilateral trade between the two countries. But the UK isn't picking a fight with Germany, it is picking a fight with Germany and 26 other countries. So on the UK side you need to add the impact on its trade with France, with Italy, with Ireland, with Spain and so on. That is why the impact is so much bigger on the UK than on Germany, France or any other EU country (perhaps with the exception of Ireland), or indeed the EU as a whole. This is basic arithmetic.
But if you believe in protectionism then the UK would gain from import substitution versus Germany, France etc and you add up those gains across the different nations then that is a lot of gain for the UK.
I don't believe in protectionism, but many people do.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
I agree with your last statement, which is why it is daft of the UK to initiate one. But "come off worse" is a comparative question, as is made even more explicit by the fact there are two options. It isn't "come off worst" because with two options the superlative form of the adverb is unnecessary. You could only answer "both" if you thought the impact on the UK and EU were proportionately the same, but basic arithmetic tells you that that isn't remotely likely. If Leave voters think the impact will be equal this simply tells you that their views are not informed by objective reality.
"Come off worse" is a comparative question but it is a comparison for each option against what each option would have been without the trade war, not against each other.
If the EU is worse off than the EU would have been without a trade war then it has come off worse. If the UK is worse off than the UK would have been without a trade war then it has also come off worse.
That is why both was an option, because economics shows both come off worse. If you want to ask a superlative question you need to put the superlative there, it wasn't.
No if the question was who is negatively affected it would be who comes off *badly*. Comes off *worst* is appropriate when you are comparing across >2 options. For comparing between 2 *worse* is the right word. In any case I see that the original question had even more unambiguous wording which supports my hypothesis that Leave voters are completely wrong on this and forming their opinions in a fact-free void of nationalistic horseshit.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
The percentage doesn't matter to my point and you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
All parties come off badly, but some come off worse than others. Your point on the UK vs Germany is wrong. An EU-UK trade war has a bigger effect on Germany than the UK with respect to bilateral trade between the two countries. But the UK isn't picking a fight with Germany, it is picking a fight with Germany and 26 other countries. So on the UK side you need to add the impact on its trade with France, with Italy, with Ireland, with Spain and so on. That is why the impact is so much bigger on the UK than on Germany, France or any other EU country (perhaps with the exception of Ireland), or indeed the EU as a whole. This is basic arithmetic.
But if you believe in protectionism then the UK would gain from import substitution versus Germany, France etc and you add up those gains across the different nations then that is a lot of gain for the UK.
I don't believe in protectionism, but many people do.
So Leave voters are right because they believe something you think is wrong? Okay...
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
The percentage doesn't matter to my point and you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
The single market is only an importer. It is not an exporter. The UK cannot divert its current exports to Germany to France, Italy or Spain. We lose access to 27 countries that account for well over 40% of all our exports simultaneously. On the other side of the equation, Germany loses access to a market that takes 4.8% of its exports.
Sorry but that's bollocks. It is an importer and an exporter, or it is neither.
If you believe in import substitution then the UK doesn't need to divert its current exports to France, Italy or Spain etc. It needs to divert its current exports to the UK. If you believe in protectionism, then we export less, but import less, and since we had a trade deficit we are better off than we would have been.
Now personally I think that's utterly ridiculous, but if you believe in protectionism that is the argument whereas its nothing but loss for European nations since they can't engage in import substitution since they have a trade surplus they have nothing to substitute with.
As it happens the EU is a very protectionist institution, so using the EU's own logic behind its protectionism, a trade war would make the UK better off. I think that's wrong, but if you agree its wrong, you should be glad we've left the protectionist EU don't you think?
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
I agree with your last statement, which is why it is daft of the UK to initiate one. But "come off worse" is a comparative question, as is made even more explicit by the fact there are two options. It isn't "come off worst" because with two options the superlative form of the adverb is unnecessary. You could only answer "both" if you thought the impact on the UK and EU were proportionately the same, but basic arithmetic tells you that that isn't remotely likely. If Leave voters think the impact will be equal this simply tells you that their views are not informed by objective reality.
"Come off worse" is a comparative question but it is a comparison for each option against what each option would have been without the trade war, not against each other.
If the EU is worse off than the EU would have been without a trade war then it has come off worse. If the UK is worse off than the UK would have been without a trade war then it has also come off worse.
That is why both was an option, because economics shows both come off worse. If you want to ask a superlative question you need to put the superlative there, it wasn't.
No if the question was who is negatively affected it would be who comes off *badly*. Comes off *worst* is appropriate when you are comparing across >2 options. For comparing between 2 *worse* is the right word. In any case I see that the original question had even more unambiguous wording which supports my hypothesis that Leave voters are completely wrong on this and forming their opinions in a fact-free void of nationalistic horseshit.
But there are >2 options.
There are 2 scenarios (With or without trade war) and 2 nations/blocs named (UK and EU) so multiply them together and there are 4 options.
Option 1: EU with a trade war Option 2: EU without a trade war. Option 3: UK with a trade war. Option 4: UK without a trade war.
Options 1 and 3 leave both parties worse off than options 2 and 4.
Look what Brexit has done to inflation in the UK. And in the EU. And in the US.
Well, many of us remainers argued Brexit was not only bad for the UK, but also bad for the EU. Even we didn't realise that it would affect the US so badly
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
I agree with your last statement, which is why it is daft of the UK to initiate one. But "come off worse" is a comparative question, as is made even more explicit by the fact there are two options. It isn't "come off worst" because with two options the superlative form of the adverb is unnecessary. You could only answer "both" if you thought the impact on the UK and EU were proportionately the same, but basic arithmetic tells you that that isn't remotely likely. If Leave voters think the impact will be equal this simply tells you that their views are not informed by objective reality.
"Come off worse" is a comparative question but it is a comparison for each option against what each option would have been without the trade war, not against each other.
If the EU is worse off than the EU would have been without a trade war then it has come off worse. If the UK is worse off than the UK would have been without a trade war then it has also come off worse.
That is why both was an option, because economics shows both come off worse. If you want to ask a superlative question you need to put the superlative there, it wasn't.
No if the question was who is negatively affected it would be who comes off *badly*. Comes off *worst* is appropriate when you are comparing across >2 options. For comparing between 2 *worse* is the right word. In any case I see that the original question had even more unambiguous wording which supports my hypothesis that Leave voters are completely wrong on this and forming their opinions in a fact-free void of nationalistic horseshit.
But there are >2 options.
There are 2 scenarios (With or without trade war) and 2 nations/blocs named (UK and EU) so multiply them together and there are 4 options.
Option 1: EU with a trade war Option 2: EU without a trade war. Option 3: UK with a trade war. Option 4: UK without a trade war.
Options 1 and 3 leave both parties worse off than options 2 and 4.
I think you are creating ambiguity where there is none - to me the meaning of the question is clear, and I think most others would share my interpretation of it. But in any case the actual question that was asked was even clearer, and anyone who thinks that the EU will come off worse than the UK in a trade war between the two simply doesn't understand that numbers have meaning.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
The percentage doesn't matter to my point and you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
All parties come off badly, but some come off worse than others. Your point on the UK vs Germany is wrong. An EU-UK trade war has a bigger effect on Germany than the UK with respect to bilateral trade between the two countries. But the UK isn't picking a fight with Germany, it is picking a fight with Germany and 26 other countries. So on the UK side you need to add the impact on its trade with France, with Italy, with Ireland, with Spain and so on. That is why the impact is so much bigger on the UK than on Germany, France or any other EU country (perhaps with the exception of Ireland), or indeed the EU as a whole. This is basic arithmetic.
Put it this way.
German Carmakers were one of the groups of businesses who were bound to come to the UK's rescue and ensure we got a mate's rates trade deal with the EU. As far as we all know, that didn't happen. It turns out that exporting to the UK is important to them, but not that important.
British Carmakers, especially Nissan in Sunderland, made jolly sure that the UK government was aware of their needs from the Brexit deal. (Indeed, my working theory of Brexit is that the Johnson government wants the most distance between the UK and EU compatible with Nissan in Sunderland staying open. Which is why sabres are rattled but never used in anger.)
Even if the bad consequences of a trade war are roughly equal for the UK and EU, the resulting pain will be much more concentrated (by a factor of about 5:1) on the UK. It's the difference between stepping on the flat side of a drawing pin versus stepping on the pointy end.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
I think there is a philosophical argument here between value of money, and percentage of GDP. Total value of trade at risk by EU is higher - and that value will hit individuals just as hard in the factories of the Ruhr, or Northern Italy. You could argue that as a percentage the effect is lower in Europe, but Mannfred or Mannfredo in those factories could still lose their livelihood.
I think the main thing about Europe, and we complained about this when we were in is that the politicians have limited accountability. If things go wrong in their nations, national politicians get voted out. So it's like me playing poker with a billionaire - he can go all in on a 2 and 4 to try and bluff me because it doesn't affect his bank balance.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
Why would the EU necessarily be worse off? Is there anything they get from us that they can't get from each other?
Yes, for starters our cash. That's why they've got a surplus with us, because we're paying for it, if there's a trade war they can't get access to that anymore.
If you believe in protectionism (I don't) that makes the UK better off and the EU worse off.
If you believe in free trade (I do) it makes all parties worse off.
So I think all parties would be worse off, but if you wish to take protectionist nonsense to extremes then the EU is comparatively worst off from the two.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
Well for starters they export far more to us than we do to them. So if you want to go down that protectionist road the answer could be the EU would be hurt more, but I think the far more rational thing to do is to say Both.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
They chose the wrong answer. A trade war will damage both sides but as the far larger trading bloc the impact on the EU's economy will be proportionately smaller. This is basic stuff.
If both sides are damaged then both sides have come off worse and the right answer is both.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
"come off worse" means which of the two will be negatively affected more. It doesn't mean which of the two will be negatively affected (that would be "come off badly"). Worse is a comparative adjective/adverb.
You're half-right, it is a comparator and if you compare each side to what it would have been without a trade war, then both sides can be worse off. That is basic free trade economics. Free trade makes both sides better off, trade wars makes both sides worse off.
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off. If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
I agree with your last statement, which is why it is daft of the UK to initiate one. But "come off worse" is a comparative question, as is made even more explicit by the fact there are two options. It isn't "come off worst" because with two options the superlative form of the adverb is unnecessary. You could only answer "both" if you thought the impact on the UK and EU were proportionately the same, but basic arithmetic tells you that that isn't remotely likely. If Leave voters think the impact will be equal this simply tells you that their views are not informed by objective reality.
"Come off worse" is a comparative question but it is a comparison for each option against what each option would have been without the trade war, not against each other.
If the EU is worse off than the EU would have been without a trade war then it has come off worse. If the UK is worse off than the UK would have been without a trade war then it has also come off worse.
That is why both was an option, because economics shows both come off worse. If you want to ask a superlative question you need to put the superlative there, it wasn't.
No if the question was who is negatively affected it would be who comes off *badly*. Comes off *worst* is appropriate when you are comparing across >2 options. For comparing between 2 *worse* is the right word. In any case I see that the original question had even more unambiguous wording which supports my hypothesis that Leave voters are completely wrong on this and forming their opinions in a fact-free void of nationalistic horseshit.
But there are >2 options.
There are 2 scenarios (With or without trade war) and 2 nations/blocs named (UK and EU) so multiply them together and there are 4 options.
Option 1: EU with a trade war Option 2: EU without a trade war. Option 3: UK with a trade war. Option 4: UK without a trade war.
Options 1 and 3 leave both parties worse off than options 2 and 4.
I think you are creating ambiguity where there is none - to me the meaning of the question is clear, and I think most others would share my interpretation of it. But in any case the actual question that was asked was even clearer, and anyone who thinks that the EU will come off worse than the UK in a trade war between the two simply doesn't understand that numbers have meaning.
Or they believe in protectionism.
People like Scott keep claiming eg that a trade deal with NZ is bad because its bad for our farmers. That's the same perverted logic as claiming that a trade war with NZ is good because its good for our farmers.
Well given that we have a trade deficit with the EU, using that logic that people Scott and others love to quote all the time, a trade war with the EU would be bad for the EU and good for the UK.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
I think there is a philosophical argument here between value of money, and percentage of GDP. Total value of trade at risk by EU is higher - and that value will hit individuals just as hard in the factories of the Ruhr, or Northern Italy. You could argue that as a percentage the effect is lower in Europe, but Mannfred or Mannfredo in those factories could still lose their livelihood.
I think the main thing about Europe, and we complained about this when we were in is that the politicians have limited accountability. If things go wrong in their nations, national politicians get voted out. So it's like me playing poker with a billionaire - he can go all in on a 2 and 4 to try and bluff me because it doesn't affect his bank balance.
It is percentages that matter. If the UK factory sells half of its output to the EU while the Ruhr factory sells 5% of its output to the UK, which factory is likely to lay off the most people?
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
The percentage doesn't matter to my point and you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
The single market is only an importer. It is not an exporter. The UK cannot divert its current exports to Germany to France, Italy or Spain. We lose access to 27 countries that account for well over 40% of all our exports simultaneously. On the other side of the equation, Germany loses access to a market that takes 4.8% of its exports.
Sorry but that's bollocks. It is an importer and an exporter, or it is neither.
If you believe in import substitution then the UK doesn't need to divert its current exports to France, Italy or Spain etc. It needs to divert its current exports to the UK. If you believe in protectionism, then we export less, but import less, and since we had a trade deficit we are better off than we would have been.
Now personally I think that's utterly ridiculous, but if you believe in protectionism that is the argument whereas its nothing but loss for European nations since they can't engage in import substitution since they have a trade surplus they have nothing to substitute with.
As it happens the EU is a very protectionist institution, so using the EU's own logic behind its protectionism, a trade war would make the UK better off. I think that's wrong, but if you agree its wrong, you should be glad we've left the protectionist EU don't you think?
It is not bollocks. It is fact. It is fact you do not like. But it is fact nevertheless. The UK sends over 40% of all its exports to the EU single market, which is one regulatory market applying one set of laws, rules, customs checks and so on for all third country imports. The single market does not export to the UK. Individual EU member states do. No EU member state sends close to 40% of its exports to the UK. That will inevitably put the EU member states in a much more powerful position should it come to a trade war. Each of them is far less exposed to the UK than the UK is to the single market. Again, that is just inarguable fact.
As for import substitution, the UK exports more services than goods to the EU. Where do you see the major domestic opportunities here should the EU markets be closed to our exporters?
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
Indeed. And looking at it that way France has a trade surplus with the UK, Germany has a trade deficit with the UK, almost every nation except Ireland does.
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Nope - the UK sends over 40% of all its exports to one single market. Germany does not send close to 40% of its exports to the UK. No EU member state does.
The percentage doesn't matter to my point and you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
All parties come off badly, but some come off worse than others. Your point on the UK vs Germany is wrong. An EU-UK trade war has a bigger effect on Germany than the UK with respect to bilateral trade between the two countries. But the UK isn't picking a fight with Germany, it is picking a fight with Germany and 26 other countries. So on the UK side you need to add the impact on its trade with France, with Italy, with Ireland, with Spain and so on. That is why the impact is so much bigger on the UK than on Germany, France or any other EU country (perhaps with the exception of Ireland), or indeed the EU as a whole. This is basic arithmetic.
Put it this way.
German Carmakers were one of the groups of businesses who were bound to come to the UK's rescue and ensure we got a mate's rates trade deal with the EU. As far as we all know, that didn't happen. It turns out that exporting to the UK is important to them, but not that important.
British Carmakers, especially Nissan in Sunderland, made jolly sure that the UK government was aware of their needs from the Brexit deal. (Indeed, my working theory of Brexit is that the Johnson government wants the most distance between the UK and EU compatible with Nissan in Sunderland staying open. Which is why sabres are rattled but never used in anger.)
Even if the bad consequences of a trade war are roughly equal for the UK and EU, the resulting pain will be much more concentrated (by a factor of about 5:1) on the UK. It's the difference between stepping on the flat side of a drawing pin versus stepping on the pointy end.
Considering German exporters are coming to Russia's aid and seeking sanctions avoiding on Russia, I think its safe to say that yes Mercantilist interests in Germany would come to the aid of trade with the UK in the unlikely event a trade war ever actually happened.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
I think there is a philosophical argument here between value of money, and percentage of GDP. Total value of trade at risk by EU is higher - and that value will hit individuals just as hard in the factories of the Ruhr, or Northern Italy. You could argue that as a percentage the effect is lower in Europe, but Mannfred or Mannfredo in those factories could still lose their livelihood.
I think the main thing about Europe, and we complained about this when we were in is that the politicians have limited accountability. If things go wrong in their nations, national politicians get voted out. So it's like me playing poker with a billionaire - he can go all in on a 2 and 4 to try and bluff me because it doesn't affect his bank balance.
It is percentages that matter. If the UK factory sells half of its output to the EU while the Ruhr factory sells 5% of its output to the UK, which factory is likely to lay off the most people?
Depends on their total output and how many people they employ.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
I think there is a philosophical argument here between value of money, and percentage of GDP. Total value of trade at risk by EU is higher - and that value will hit individuals just as hard in the factories of the Ruhr, or Northern Italy. You could argue that as a percentage the effect is lower in Europe, but Mannfred or Mannfredo in those factories could still lose their livelihood.
I think the main thing about Europe, and we complained about this when we were in is that the politicians have limited accountability. If things go wrong in their nations, national politicians get voted out. So it's like me playing poker with a billionaire - he can go all in on a 2 and 4 to try and bluff me because it doesn't affect his bank balance.
It is percentages that matter. If the UK factory sells half of its output to the EU while the Ruhr factory sells 5% of its output to the UK, which factory is likely to lay off the most people?
In a protectionist trade war? The Ruhr factory.
The UK has a trade deficit with Germany, so the UK citizens would be forced to buy from the UK factory instead of the Ruhr factory, which would be a shame as they'd rather have the Ruhr factories output, but the Ruhr factory would have lost customers and have nobody to replace them.
The UK factory might actually expand. It would expand selling stuff people didn't want otherwise, so that isn't good, but it is the Ruhr factory that has to lay staff off.
This is why it is hard not to call Leave voters stupid. Or does someone want to offer a reasoned defence for the view that the EU would be hurt more than the UK in a trade war?
Considering Leave voters are saying "Both" and Remain voters are picking a side, it seems that Remain voters are the stupid ones.
In a trade war, of course the correct answer is "Both".
Er, the question is who comes off worse. That is a question that requires you to pick a side.
Not if the word "both" is an option it doesn't.
Both was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose it. Only 3% of Remain voters did.
If anyone is thick there, it isn't Leave voters.
But why would the EU be hurt as much as us, when trade with the EU is a far bigger share of our imports and exports than it is of theirs?
The question that actually reflects the reality is: "Who would come off worse in a GB/EU trade war - the UK or Germany; the UK or France; the UK or the Czech Republic; the UK or Portugal? etc etc We always seem to forget that the UK exports to one single market; 27 individual EU member states export to the UK.
I think there is a philosophical argument here between value of money, and percentage of GDP. Total value of trade at risk by EU is higher - and that value will hit individuals just as hard in the factories of the Ruhr, or Northern Italy. You could argue that as a percentage the effect is lower in Europe, but Mannfred or Mannfredo in those factories could still lose their livelihood.
I think the main thing about Europe, and we complained about this when we were in is that the politicians have limited accountability. If things go wrong in their nations, national politicians get voted out. So it's like me playing poker with a billionaire - he can go all in on a 2 and 4 to try and bluff me because it doesn't affect his bank balance.
It is percentages that matter. If the UK factory sells half of its output to the EU while the Ruhr factory sells 5% of its output to the UK, which factory is likely to lay off the most people?
Depends on their total output and how many people they employ.
The intellectual dishonesty and obfuscation on the Leaver side is testimony to how out of touch with reality they are on this issue. It's sad.
... you're being hypocritical with your figures, dividing some but aggregating others.
On this narrow point, if the exports of EU countries to the UK are an average of x% for the EU as a whole, then for individual EU countries they will vary between x-a% and x+b%, making it more likely that an individual EU country would send a greater proportion of their exports to the UK than the y% of British exports that go to the EU, even though y > x.
This is important because so much of the decision-making in the EU is in the hands of the national governments, and so Denmark's government will naturally be more concerned with its exports to the UK than it is about the EU's exports as a whole.
In terms of the balance of trade doing the aggregation and disaggregation in this way is the least favourable way of making SO's point, so it's notable that the balance still supports his argument. This means it reaches a high bar of robustness.
NEW: V&A urged to investigate why a Conservative fundraising event auctioned off a private tour of the museum with its chair and trustee Nicholas Coleridge - following this Sunday's MoS column
Reading this in a wider context than the reason it came to my attention, this is a fascinating snapshot of the gathering Eurosceptic movement boding ill 20 years ago.
On the substantive point, I think the question misses the point entirely. It assumes that the issue is a trade dispute between Britain and the EU. This is not the case.
The issue is one of British political power. Boris Johnson used Brexit to gain political power and he will attempt to use Brexit to hold it. The question should be whether Johnson, Truss, Hunt or Starmer come off worse from a trade war with the EU.
It's no coincidence that the 2nd reading vote is scheduled for June 20th - three days before the Wakefield/Tiverton & Honiton by-elections. Johnson wants Brexit to be front and centre in voters' minds.
Also, after seeing off the threat from Sunak, Johnson must now turn his attention to Hunt. In 2019 Hunt lost the leadership election because he retained a tenuous link to reality, and disagreed with the Johnson no-deal fantasy. Unilaterally abrogating the Northern Ireland protocol is a similar purity test that Johnson hopes he can use to paint Hunt (and Starmer) as irredeemable Remoaners.
Unfortunately, it looks like the days of British Eurosceptics blaming the EU for everything will never end.
Comments
If the words "all lives matter" are used in response to the the words "black lives matter" then yes that is dismissive, insensitive and nasty of course it is, just as if anyone said "justice for everyone" as an instantaneous response every time "Justice for the 96" was said it would be dismissive, rude and nasty.
Clearly as the UKs GDP is more reliant on EU trade a trade war hurts the smaller partner more . Not sure this is controversial , it’s basic economics and supported by facts not Leaver Unicorn reality !
British spot gas was really cheap yesterday but we can't benefit from it due to reasons now >.>
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/18/gambler-blows-towns-whole-covid-relief-fund-that-appeared-in-his-account
It's not about turning away from the world, it's not about separation, it's about how do we ensure that Scotland - a country with historic traditions of being a force in the world - can play that positive force in the world in the future.
Sadly that poll shows only Leave voters are being rational about this.
It is ironic you were the one to claim stupidity based on the poll results when a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer and only 3% of Remain voters did.
Now if you're arguing that the UK would be worse off by (random number) 7% and the EU would be worse off by (ditto) 5%, and therefore it's fine for the EU to get into the trade war because the UK would be relatively damaged more, I'm not convinced that's helpful.
The question is whether 'the UK should retain its independent nuclear deterrent', not Trident specifically, and Scotland isn't mentioned. Personally I feel it should be up to the rUK whether it wants to continue bolstering its sense of importance and self worth with da nookleerz, and an indy Scotland should gently minister to that difficult psychological transition (while charging a suitable rent during that period of course).
If you believe in protectionism (I don't) then you'd know the UK can engage in import substitution with the EU's trade in a trade war, the EU can't.
So no, you're the one whom its hit a nerve for. Remainer Unicorn fantasy might be that the EU is all powerful and the UK is puny and weak but that's not reality.
Now it's quite possible that when it comes to politics the UK has a higher 'pain threshold.' But from the evidence of the May and Johnson governments that isn't convincing.
I don't think calling Leave voters stupid because 21% of them have a surprising answer to a vague question is very productive.
In the face of Russian aggression an Indy Scotland would be about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. And SNP attempts to dismember the UK, Europe's leading NATO member, can hardly be said to be in the national interest of any Scandinavian country.
No wonder Sturgeon has jetted off to the USA rather than Helsinki or Stockholm.
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
TICK. TOCK. Today, May 18th, will be the day Russian losses in Phase 2 reach the level, relative to their initial Phase 2 force, that led them to withdraw from the North in Phase 1, on the Ukrainian estimates.
https://twitter.com/andrew_lilico/status/1526823700426854411
A deal/fudge will be done or the can will keep being kicked...
Andrew Neil: "Nicola Sturgeon says an independent Scotland would help protect the world’s seas from Russian aggression. This from a leader of a party that would kick out UK nuclear deterrent and can’t even build two ferries"
So if you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the UK would be hurt more than Ireland, but almost every other nation in the EU and the EU in aggregate would be hurt more than the UK would.
But the only correct answer is "Both". The EU would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The UK would be worse off than it was before, so it has come off worse. The only right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option and a plurality of Leave voters chose the right answer, only 3% of Remain voters did. That's rather sad for Remain voters that so many are so ignorant of the economics here.
Much easier just to ask you for the right answer.
And is it correct?
"The DWP has begun sending out the first forced Migration Notices moving claimants from legacy benefits, including ESA, to UC."
If you believe in protectionism (I don't) then the nation with the trade surplus should come off worse in a trade war, since the other nation can engage in import substitution while the surplus trading nation can't. Now personally, I think that's bollocks, but if you're wanting to go on about trade wars then lets follow that bollocks to its conclusion - and sadly the EU is a very protectionist organisation.
If you don't believe in protectionism then all parties come off worse in a trade war and so the right answer is "Both" which is why it was an option.
So if you believe in protectionism the correct answer is the EU, if you don't believe in protectionism the only right answer is Both. Under no rational reason is the correct answer just the UK.
As to if it is correct?
Firstly, I don't know. Secondly, I don't know whose name you've seen anyways.
Probably best to leave it there.
As long as the UK don’t insist on removal of ECJ oversight then there’s a chance some fudge can be done .
He does have the presumption of innocence.
The word used was "worse" not "worst".
If you believe in protectionism, I don't, then you need to look at the trade surplus or deficit to get the accurate figure, since import substitution is an option. UK businesses which are importing and exporting to the EU can engage in substitution so trading directly within Britain making up what was exported and imported.
Personally I think protectionism is a load of bollocks, but the EU is a very protectionist institution as is anyone talking up a trade war. But if you take the ideas behind protectionism to its extremes the EU would come out worst since its the one with the trade surplus.
However if you're asking who would come out worse, not worst, then the only right answer is Both. The EU would be worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has come off worse. The UK is worse off than it would have been without a trade war, so it has ALSO come off worse.
It affects only 500 claimants so far.
The end of 2024 target for moving everyone will be missed by a country mile.
More details here.
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/first-uc-forced-migration-notices-sent-to-claimants-in-bolton-and-medway
Incidentally. Forced or managed? Language matters. Who will win?
I'd have thought you'd be concentrating on rebuilding the the shattered remains of the SCons after your reaming at the locals? You're second faves to save the Union, SLab, were distinctly underwhelming also.
They are for self defence, when on patrol. But still....
If there is a trade war then the EU will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is worse off.
If there is a trade war then the UK will be poorer than it would have been without a trade war, so it is also worse off.
Therefore a trade war makes all parties worse off. There are no winners to a trade war.
The question didn't ask which side would win. It was which side would be worse affected. You can say 'both' in answer to that but really that is just fence sitting. You might as well say 'don't know.'
Whether you mean to or not you're muddying the waters like a tiresome Russian bot.
The UK sends less to Germany than Germany sends to the UK, so if you're being protectionist then Germany will come off worse than the UK would in a trade war between them. If you take protectionism to extremes the UK would gain from a trade war between them. You can then repeat that comparison across all nations.
But if you're not protectionist it doesn't matter to the equation. If you are not protectionist, then you understand that all parties come off worse in a trade war.
The split in the Unionist vote is, indeed, a weakness and contributes to SNP hegemony. But doesn't seem to be bringing Indy any closer tho. Something will give eventually but suspect we could be in a holding pattern for many more years. Joy.
The only correct economic answer to that is "Both". Both sides come off worse.
Is this statement true or false: The EU would come off worse from a trade war than the EU would have been without a trade war.
Is this statement true or false: The UK would come off worse from a trade war than the UK would have been without at trade war.
If both answers are true, then both nations have come off worse. This is economics for you and why nations try to avoid trade wars, because there are no winners or losers to trade wars, just losers.
And it was:
If there were to be a 'trade war' between the UK and the EU, who do you think would be most negatively affected? % (The UK, Both equally, The EU)
Now (setting aside the grammatical error that it should be "more" not "most"), the actual question does seem to not support BR's interpretation.
If the EU is worse off than the EU would have been without a trade war then it has come off worse.
If the UK is worse off than the UK would have been without a trade war then it has also come off worse.
That is why both was an option, because economics shows both come off worse. If you want to ask a superlative question you need to put the superlative there, it wasn't.
Ask a different question, get a different answer.
Your point on the UK vs Germany is wrong. An EU-UK trade war has a bigger effect on Germany than the UK with respect to bilateral trade between the two countries. But the UK isn't picking a fight with Germany, it is picking a fight with Germany and 26 other countries. So on the UK side you need to add the impact on its trade with France, with Italy, with Ireland, with Spain and so on. That is why the impact is so much bigger on the UK than on Germany, France or any other EU country (perhaps with the exception of Ireland), or indeed the EU as a whole. This is basic arithmetic.
I don't believe in protectionism, but many people do.
In any case I see that the original question had even more unambiguous wording which supports my hypothesis that Leave voters are completely wrong on this and forming their opinions in a fact-free void of nationalistic horseshit.
If you believe in import substitution then the UK doesn't need to divert its current exports to France, Italy or Spain etc. It needs to divert its current exports to the UK. If you believe in protectionism, then we export less, but import less, and since we had a trade deficit we are better off than we would have been.
Now personally I think that's utterly ridiculous, but if you believe in protectionism that is the argument whereas its nothing but loss for European nations since they can't engage in import substitution since they have a trade surplus they have nothing to substitute with.
As it happens the EU is a very protectionist institution, so using the EU's own logic behind its protectionism, a trade war would make the UK better off. I think that's wrong, but if you agree its wrong, you should be glad we've left the protectionist EU don't you think?
There are 2 scenarios (With or without trade war) and 2 nations/blocs named (UK and EU) so multiply them together and there are 4 options.
Option 1: EU with a trade war
Option 2: EU without a trade war.
Option 3: UK with a trade war.
Option 4: UK without a trade war.
Options 1 and 3 leave both parties worse off than options 2 and 4.
Levelling up is not something that can be achieved overnight and, if anything, this emphasises he is right to focus on it.
German Carmakers were one of the groups of businesses who were bound to come to the UK's rescue and ensure we got a mate's rates trade deal with the EU. As far as we all know, that didn't happen. It turns out that exporting to the UK is important to them, but not that important.
British Carmakers, especially Nissan in Sunderland, made jolly sure that the UK government was aware of their needs from the Brexit deal. (Indeed, my working theory of Brexit is that the Johnson government wants the most distance between the UK and EU compatible with Nissan in Sunderland staying open. Which is why sabres are rattled but never used in anger.)
Even if the bad consequences of a trade war are roughly equal for the UK and EU, the resulting pain will be much more concentrated (by a factor of about 5:1) on the UK. It's the difference between stepping on the flat side of a drawing pin versus stepping on the pointy end.
#ToryRapist
Trending with ...... ............ , .........
LOL
I think the main thing about Europe, and we complained about this when we were in is that the politicians have limited accountability. If things go wrong in their nations, national politicians get voted out. So it's like me playing poker with a billionaire - he can go all in on a 2 and 4 to try and bluff me because it doesn't affect his bank balance.
If you believe in protectionism (I don't) that makes the UK better off and the EU worse off.
If you believe in free trade (I do) it makes all parties worse off.
So I think all parties would be worse off, but if you wish to take protectionist nonsense to extremes then the EU is comparatively worst off from the two.
People like Scott keep claiming eg that a trade deal with NZ is bad because its bad for our farmers. That's the same perverted logic as claiming that a trade war with NZ is good because its good for our farmers.
Well given that we have a trade deficit with the EU, using that logic that people Scott and others love to quote all the time, a trade war with the EU would be bad for the EU and good for the UK.
As for import substitution, the UK exports more services than goods to the EU. Where do you see the major domestic opportunities here should the EU markets be closed to our exporters?
Although after a substantial period of focus, it would be helpful if any practical ideas were to emerge from the deep meditative concentration.
The UK has a trade deficit with Germany, so the UK citizens would be forced to buy from the UK factory instead of the Ruhr factory, which would be a shame as they'd rather have the Ruhr factories output, but the Ruhr factory would have lost customers and have nobody to replace them.
The UK factory might actually expand. It would expand selling stuff people didn't want otherwise, so that isn't good, but it is the Ruhr factory that has to lay staff off.
This is important because so much of the decision-making in the EU is in the hands of the national governments, and so Denmark's government will naturally be more concerned with its exports to the UK than it is about the EU's exports as a whole.
In terms of the balance of trade doing the aggregation and disaggregation in this way is the least favourable way of making SO's point, so it's notable that the balance still supports his argument. This means it reaches a high bar of robustness.
Story today by @jessicaelgot: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/17/va-at-centre-of-row-over-auction-of-private-tour-as-prize-at-tory-fundraising-event
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/may/02/uk.conservatives1
The issue is one of British political power. Boris Johnson used Brexit to gain political power and he will attempt to use Brexit to hold it. The question should be whether Johnson, Truss, Hunt or Starmer come off worse from a trade war with the EU.
It's no coincidence that the 2nd reading vote is scheduled for June 20th - three days before the Wakefield/Tiverton & Honiton by-elections. Johnson wants Brexit to be front and centre in voters' minds.
Also, after seeing off the threat from Sunak, Johnson must now turn his attention to Hunt. In 2019 Hunt lost the leadership election because he retained a tenuous link to reality, and disagreed with the Johnson no-deal fantasy. Unilaterally abrogating the Northern Ireland protocol is a similar purity test that Johnson hopes he can use to paint Hunt (and Starmer) as irredeemable Remoaners.
Unfortunately, it looks like the days of British Eurosceptics blaming the EU for everything will never end.