On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
I'm with Geoff M. Northern Brexiteers are full of optimism for the future notwithstanding the exit negotiations to come. The Remain campaign failed to articulate a positive case for staying in the EU because there is not one. The EU has a myriad of serious and seeming unsolvable problems. Goodness knows why some Remainers are so wedded to it?
Of course it's the way they intend to behave, for pity's sake! Why would you think they would act differently? I've been saying this for years, including before the vote. The LEAVEr delusion that the UK could dictate its own terms and cherrypick what it wanted was simply that: a delusion. Even the article above is based on the assumption that we can decide on the deal, whether in detail or timescale. I have a horrible feeling that one of my best lines on this board ("when they've worked out what the deal is, they'll tell us") will turn out to be the plain unvarnished truth.
The Remainer delusion was that the UK could stay in the EU and dictate the way in which the whole edifice operated in defiance of the wishes of the other 27 countries.
Why would we want to dictate the whole thing? And why would we always be against the combined wishes of the 27?
In one sentence the whole Brexit mixture of post imperial delusion and paranoia is laid bare.
That was our stance for 40 years, I don't see why it would change. It was Britain vs everyone else for the most part and then Britain plus the occasional ally vs the rest sometimes. Take the decision on Juncker as an example. By all accounts Merkel wasn't keen but didn't want to veto his appointment and overrode Dave's valid concerns about his suitability for the position. In that case it was the UK and Hungary vs the rest, if Germany had backed us she would have swung Austria, NL, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Poland behind her and we'd have had a much more suitable commission president.
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
6 - 5 is 1.2 majority
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
6 - 5 is 1.2 majority
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
Of course, it would carry the decision, but I'm just asking our expert how it would go down in legal circles if the court's constitutional experts were overruled by lesser justices and both ended up on the dissenting side. As it happens I think it is a long shot since if both are on the side to rule against the high court decision then the it will be carried 11-0, but in the long shot scenario it would be interesting to know what the reaction would be.
How much influence will the Mayor of Greater Manchester have in the Brexit affair? It will be interesting to see whether people vote on a local matter according to their European worldview.
Of course it's the way they intend to behave, for pity's sake! Why would you think they would act differently? I've been saying this for years, including before the vote. The LEAVEr delusion that the UK could dictate its own terms and cherrypick what it wanted was simply that: a delusion. Even the article above is based on the assumption that we can decide on the deal, whether in detail or timescale. I have a horrible feeling that one of my best lines on this board ("when they've worked out what the deal is, they'll tell us") will turn out to be the plain unvarnished truth.
The Remainer delusion was that the UK could stay in the EU and dictate the way in which the whole edifice operated in defiance of the wishes of the other 27 countries.
Why would we want to dictate the whole thing? And why would we always be against the combined wishes of the 27?
In one sentence the whole Brexit mixture of post imperial delusion and paranoia is laid bare.
That was our stance for 40 years, I don't see why it would change. It was Britain vs everyone else for the most part and then Britain plus the occasional ally vs the rest sometimes. Take the decision on Juncker as an example. By all accounts Merkel wasn't keen but didn't want to veto his appointment and overrode Dave's valid concerns about his suitability for the position. In that case it was the UK and Hungary vs the rest, if Germany had backed us she would have swung Austria, NL, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Poland behind her and we'd have had a much more suitable commission president.
A very poor understanding of history. You have been gulled by years of anti-EU press.
I'll give you Juncker, but you can't win them all.
The UK's preferred candidate(s) recently lost their bid to be UN Sec-Gen. Should we withdraw?
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
6 - 5 is 1.2 majority
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
6 - 5 is 1.2 majority
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
I'll give you Juncker, but you can't win them all.
Mr Walker, don't blame yourself for that. It was the EU gave us the tax dodging Nazi Saluting piss artist. They alone bear the responsible for the utter disaster that is his presidency. You have no responsibility in the matter, for which you may thank the deity of your choice.
If I had voted Leave, Juncker would have been an unanswerable reason for doing so.
Of course it's the way they intend to behave, for pity's sake! Why would you think they would act differently? I've been saying this for years, including before the vote. The LEAVEr delusion that the UK could dictate its own terms and cherrypick what it wanted was simply that: a delusion. Even the article above is based on the assumption that we can decide on the deal, whether in detail or timescale. I have a horrible feeling that one of my best lines on this board ("when they've worked out what the deal is, they'll tell us") will turn out to be the plain unvarnished truth.
The Remainer delusion was that the UK could stay in the EU and dictate the way in which the whole edifice operated in defiance of the wishes of the other 27 countries.
Why would we want to dictate the whole thing? And why would we always be against the combined wishes of the 27?
In one sentence the whole Brexit mixture of post imperial delusion and paranoia is laid bare.
We spent our whole existence in the EU trying to turn it into something that would be acceptable to the British. The whole British Europhile elite based their relationship with the EU on the idea that it would be an automatic replacement for the lost Empire and that the rest of Europe would bow to our innate superiority when to came to leadership. It was an arrogance that still exists amongst pro Europeans and is a sure sign of just how deluded they are.
Europhilia is a byword for arrogant Post Imperial delusion .
Key question on Greater Manchester Mayorality ( which I don't know the answer to ). The Met Boroughs elect in thirds three years out of four. So which year is next May ? Will Burnham have swathes of Labour councillors out from him working in elections in their own areas ? That will be fantastic for the Labour machine ( and the Tories to a lesser extent ) and bad for the Lib Dems and UKIP with withered or non existent councillor bases. If it's the gap year they'll be lower turn out, much less of a ground campaign and PV will be more important.
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
6 - 5 is 1.2 majority
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
A rare case where I agree with Bromptonaut. If these judges are not competent to rule on such a matter, they should have refused to hear the case. As they have not and the government have not challenged their competency, a simple majority should suffice.
Moreover, we ignored experts to vote Out, why should we not ignore them in a similarly democratic process here?
Key question on Greater Manchester Mayorality ( which I don't know the answer to ). The Met Boroughs elect in thirds three years out of four. So which year is next May ? Will Burnham have swathes of Labour councillors out from him working in elections in their own areas ? That will be fantastic for the Labour machine ( and the Tories to a lesser extent ) and bad for the Lib Dems and UKIP with withered or non existent councillor bases. If it's the gap year they'll be lower turn out, much less of a ground campaign and PV will be more important.
The LD will probably do well in Stockport for historical reasons, but will get pulverized in the rest of Greater Manchester, where they have zero strength and zero roots.
Not entirely true - the Lib Dems have some record in Oldham East and Saddleworth, Rochdale, and parts of Bolton.
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
6 - 5 is 1.2 majority
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
Small number statistics.
Mathematics doesn't lie.
Clearly you have never read the work of Richard Carrier on Bayes' Theorem.
People on here are far too obsessed with Brexit. It will not be the key issue that determines how people vote!
Unless we have an election on it, although I don't think that's very likely as that would be electoral suicide from Labour.
Indirectly it will affect the next election because it will affect the economy - or if it doesn't Labour are still more shafted as the ambivalent party.
If you're still on, can I address your contention that a Hard Brexit would painlessly solve our Balance of Payments/Current Account issue.
I think there is a constant misunderstanding about the nature of trade among non-economists. Imagine that you are a company, Acme Ltd., and you need to acquire widgets to make your diggers.
There are two suppliers of widgets: Francois SA, based in France, and Nippon Inc., based in the US (yeah, yeah). Without tariffs, the two products would have identical prices. Because there are tariffs on imports from the US (2.8% on average) and not on those from the EU, Francois SA's widgets are cheaper.
Hard Brexit arrives. Suddenly, both EU and US products are subject to the same tariff schedule. You now choose to buy your widgets from Nippon Inc rather than Francois SA. The UK now runs a smaller current account deficit with the EU (yay!). But it's overall position hasn't changed, merely where goods are imported from.
There is a simple correlation, with a very high R^2, between current account deficits, and savings rates. Countries with high savings rates (Germany, Switzerland, China) have current account surpluses. Countries with low savings rates (the UK, the US) have current account deficits.
If you want to solve the UK's imbalances, you need to raise the UK's savings rate. (This is something that will need to happen at some point irrespective of Brexit.) The only problem is that this process is likely - in the short term - to be painful.
Key question on Greater Manchester Mayorality ( which I don't know the answer to ). The Met Boroughs elect in thirds three years out of four. So which year is next May ? Will Burnham have swathes of Labour councillors out from him working in elections in their own areas ? That will be fantastic for the Labour machine ( and the Tories to a lesser extent ) and bad for the Lib Dems and UKIP with withered or non existent councillor bases. If it's the gap year they'll be lower turn out, much less of a ground campaign and PV will be more important.
Of course it's the way they intend to behave, for pity's sake! Why would you think they would act differently? I've been saying this for years, including before the vote. The LEAVEr delusion that the UK could dictate its own terms and cherrypick what it wanted was simply that: a delusion. Even the article above is based on the assumption that we can decide on the deal, whether in detail or timescale. I have a horrible feeling that one of my best lines on this board ("when they've worked out what the deal is, they'll tell us") will turn out to be the plain unvarnished truth.
The Remainer delusion was that the UK could stay in the EU and dictate the way in which the whole edifice operated in defiance of the wishes of the other 27 countries.
Why would we want to dictate the whole thing? And why would we always be against the combined wishes of the 27?
In one sentence the whole Brexit mixture of post imperial delusion and paranoia is laid bare.
We spent our whole existence in the EU trying to turn it into something that would be acceptable to the British. The whole British Europhile elite based their relationship with the EU on the idea that it would be an automatic replacement for the lost Empire and that the rest of Europe would bow to our innate superiority when to came to leadership. It was an arrogance that still exists amongst pro Europeans and is a sure sign of just how deluded they are.
Europhilia is a byword for arrogant Post Imperial delusion .
The generation who wanted to replace Empire with the EU are dead, Richard. Long gone.
Most remainers just want to maintain the significant benefits of a free trade area with our closest neighbours, both geographically and culturally. An arrangement which the entire economy has grown up around, and a key plank of our geopolitical architecture.
You Brexiters want to tip it all over, for what?
You're paranoid that the 27 don't like us. If it were really so, what hope do we have with the rest of the world, most of whom are much more culturally distant.
Nobody much seems to talk of the Singapore of the North Atlantic anymore. Perhaps because it was nothing more than a chimera, as David Davis seems to have realised.
Brexit success these days seems to be about escaping unscathed. What an impoverished vision for our country!
"I suspect the Leavers are gripped by a sense of paralysis: whatever happens next is unlikely to be pretty, and they'll be expected to justify it, so better to stick with dreamland for as long as possible."
Nope. I'm happy, verging on elated.
But it must be horrible to be a demented Remainer; hoping against hope that your country crash-dives and somehow the impossible dream happens. Sorry, but it's done and dusted. We're embarking on a new and thrilling challenge.
And I'll be sorry if you spend the next twenty years raging against the dying of the Federal Europe light. But not half as sorry as you will be.
Step forward, blinking in the daylight, rather than withdraw into the gloom.
@RobD Hmm. If their are no other elections that day other than for a new post most voters won't properly understand yet I'd expect turnout to be quite low. I think the one thing you can say is PVs will be key and that favours established parties. I suppose the limited amount of local media coverage will be entirely focused on the Mayorality which will shift focus onto personalities.
Does anyone know if these Metro Mayors are getting the tax payer funded Candidate booklet that standard Mayoralities get ?
And is it *really* true that we don't know yet if they are using FPTP or SV ? On the last thread it was said this was undecided. But the elections in less than 5 months.
The LD will probably do well in Stockport for historical reasons, but will get pulverized in the rest of Greater Manchester, where they have zero strength and zero roots.
Not entirely true - the Lib Dems have some record in Oldham East and Saddleworth, Rochdale, and parts of Bolton.
Yes, as a not Labour/Tory vote. The LD vote in these areas swung to UKIP leading up to GE15. These were not the core europhile suburbanites of their heartlands in Stockport that they are now chasing.
There is a simple correlation, with a very high R^2, between current account deficits, and savings rates. Countries with high savings rates (Germany, Switzerland, China) have current account surpluses. Countries with low savings rates (the UK, the US) have current account deficits.
If you want to solve the UK's imbalances, you need to raise the UK's savings rate. (This is something that will need to happen at some point irrespective of Brexit.) The only problem is that this process is likely - in the short term - to be painful.
I'm doing my bit, but only because buying a place of my own is a non-starter.
Of course it's the way they intend to behave, for pity's sake! Why would you think they would act differently? I've been saying this for years, including before the vote. The LEAVEr delusion that the UK could dictate its own terms and cherrypick what it wanted was simply that: a delusion
The Remainer delusion was that the UK could stay in the EU and dictate the way in which the whole edifice operated in defiance of the wishes of the other 27 countries.
Why would we want to dictate the whole thing? And why would we always be against the combined wishes of the 27?
In one sentence the whole Brexit mixture of post imperial delusion and paranoia is laid bare.
We spent our whole existence in the EU trying to turn it into something that would be acceptable to the British. The whole British Europhile elite based their relationship with the EU on the idea that it would be an automatic replacement for the lost Empire and that the rest of Europe would bow to our innate superiority when to came to leadership. It was an arrogance that still exists amongst pro Europeans and is a sure sign of just how deluded they are.
Europhilia is a byword for arrogant Post Imperial delusion .
The generation who wanted to replace Empire with the EU are dead, Richard. Long gone.
Most remainers just want to maintain the significant benefits of a free trade area with our closest neighbours, both geographically and culturally. An arrangement which the entire economy has grown up around, and a key plank of our geopolitical architecture.
You Brexiters want to tip it all over, for what?
You're paranoid that the 27 don't like us. If it were really so, what hope do we have with the rest of the world, most of whom are much more culturally distant.
Nobody much seems to talk of the Singapore of the North Atlantic anymore. Perhaps because it was nothing more than a chimera, as David Davis seems to have realised.
Brexit success these days seems to be about escaping unscathed. What an impoverished vision for our country!
A great many Leave voters also wish to see continuing trade with our closest neighbours, we just don't want to be involved in the political project to ultimately create a single European country, with all that entails.
We also don't like the way that a significant amount of taxpayers' money is spent, in a way that is unaccountable and by those who we cannot vote from office, and we wish to see the law made and enforced by British MPs and judges respectively.
Gardenwalker, if you were looking for an impoverished view of our future you could do no better than remaining shackled to a failing and unreformable EU, which is why your side failed to make any sort of positive case for doing so.
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
6 - 5 is 1.2 majority
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
Small number statistics.
Mathematics doesn't lie.
Clearly you have never read the work of Richard Carrier on Bayes' Theorem.
That being said, you are not missing much.
Thanks for the recommendation, a quick Wikipedia suggests the theorem is fairly basic stats (although that was never my strong point - I was always more into applied maths and physics, pulleys and levers and that kind of thing).
And thanks for the upthread agreement - it's the nature of this place that it artificially magnifies differences, it seems to me.
And is it *really* true that we don't know yet if they are using FPTP or SV ? On the last thread it was said this was undecided. But the elections in less than 5 months.
Hmm. Googling suggests they really haven't decided whether the Manchester Metro Mayor will be elected under FPTP or SV - less than 5 months before the vote.
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
6 - 5 is 1.2 majority
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
Small number statistics.
Mathematics doesn't lie.
Clearly you have never read the work of Richard Carrier on Bayes' Theorem.
That being said, you are not missing much.
Thanks for the recommendation, a quick Wikipedia suggests the theorem is fairly basic stats (although that was never my strong point - I was always more into applied maths and physics, pulleys and levers and that kind of thing).
And thanks for the upthread agreement - it's the nature of this place that it artificially magnifies differences, it seems to me.
The theorem is. It's Carrier's...ummm...novel interpretation of it I was referring to.
You apologised for our argument a while back and your apology is accepted. I often disagree with people on here, but it's never personal spite and I will always try to tell the truth as I see it.
If you're still on, can I address your contention that a Hard Brexit would painlessly solve our Balance of Payments/Current Account issue.
I think there is a constant misunderstanding about the nature of trade among non-economists. Imagine that you are a company, Acme Ltd., and you need to acquire widgets to make your diggers.
There are two suppliers of widgets: Francois SA, based in France, and Nippon Inc., based in the US (yeah, yeah). Without tariffs, the two products would have identical prices. Because there are tariffs on imports from the US (2.8% on average) and not on those from the EU, Francois SA's widgets are cheaper.
Hard Brexit arrives. Suddenly, both EU and US products are subject to the same tariff schedule. You now choose to buy your widgets from Nippon Inc rather than Francois SA. The UK now runs a smaller current account deficit with the EU (yay!). But it's overall position hasn't changed, merely where goods are imported from.
There is a simple correlation, with a very high R^2, between current account deficits, and savings rates. Countries with high savings rates (Germany, Switzerland, China) have current account surpluses. Countries with low savings rates (the UK, the US) have current account deficits.
If you want to solve the UK's imbalances, you need to raise the UK's savings rate. (This is something that will need to happen at some point irrespective of Brexit.) The only problem is that this process is likely - in the short term - to be painful.
Is that always the right way round? Or does a current account surplus lead to saving?
Bromptonaut 8:01PM Ad hominem as usual when logic fails. Yawn.
No no no, I was illustrating apples and oranges with statistics. That rather oddly you took it so personally says more about your state of mind than anything else.
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
6 - 5 is 1.2 majority
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
Small number statistics.
Mathematics doesn't lie.
Clearly you have never read the work of Richard Carrier on Bayes' Theorem.
That being said, you are not missing much.
Thanks for the recommendation, a quick Wikipedia suggests the theorem is fairly basic stats (although that was never my strong point - I was always more into applied maths and physics, pulleys and levers and that kind of thing).
And thanks for the upthread agreement - it's the nature of this place that it artificially magnifies differences, it seems to me.
The theorem is. It's Carrier's...ummm...novel interpretation of it I was referring to.
You apologised for our argument a while back and your apology is accepted. I often disagree with people on here, but it's never personal spite and I will always try to tell the truth as I see it.
Bromptonaut 8:01PM Ad hominem as usual when logic fails. Yawn.
No no no, I was illustrating apples and oranges with statistics. That rather oddly you took it so personally says more about your state of mind than anything else.
The generation who wanted to replace Empire with the EU are dead, Richard. Long gone.
Most remainers just want to maintain the significant benefits of a free trade area with our closest neighbours, both geographically and culturally. An arrangement which the entire economy has grown up around, and a key plank of our geopolitical architecture.
You Brexiters want to tip it all over, for what?
You're paranoid that the 27 don't like us. If it were really so, what hope do we have with the rest of the world, most of whom are much more culturally distant.
Nobody much seems to talk of the Singapore of the North Atlantic anymore. Perhaps because it was nothing more than a chimera, as David Davis seems to have realised.
Brexit success these days seems to be about escaping unscathed. What an impoverished vision for our country!
No, that generation still has a few dying representatives but they informed the whole pro-EU movement and through them informed our whole relationship with the EU for 40 years or more. Of course they had to. They could not bring themselves to admit that the EU does not share our aims and values. This is not, as you claim an anti-Europe view. I have great sympathy for the Europeans and for what the EU wants to achieve even if I do not share their vision. This is a clear criticism of the pro EU politicians in the UK who spent 40 years telling the public that the EU would change to our view on all manner of issues and were arrogant enough to even believe that.
And I am sorry but it is frankly moronic to claim that we are culturally closer to the Europeans than we are to the Anglosphere or to much of the rest of the world. To be honest I think the only people who could seriously think that are those who have never really spent much time overseas both in Europe and in the rest of the world.
It is the Europhile vision that is impoverished. Seeing us as nothing more than a region of Europe rather than a country independent enough to able to make our own decisions and grown up enough to accept the consequences.
A great many Leave voters also wish to see continuing trade with our closest neighbours, we just don't want to be involved in the political project to ultimately create a single European country, with all that entails.
We also don't like the way that a significant amount of taxpayers' money is spent, in a way that is unaccountable and by those who we cannot vote from office, and we wish to see the law made and enforced by British MPs and judges respectively.
Like it or lump it. We can either be in, with a major voice (and architect of some of the best features of the EU, like the single market) or out - with none of the boring compromises of multi-lateral agreement but with fewer, or none, benefits either.
The idea that the world should work as we'd like to is juvenile. Engage, or be engaged - as Osborne nearly said.
As for your poujadiste gripe about the money, the amount is a pittance in the grand scheme of things, and largely goes to development efforts in poorer European countries.
As we have rehearsed to death on here, it certainly ain't going to be repatriated to the NHS.
Yes by chance I just came back for a look (while the missus insists on watching the Strictly Final).
Actually, I wasn't trying to make the argument that hard Brexit would in fact painlessly solve the UK's balance of payments crisis, although I certainly consider that it would help.
My point was that the Polling Matters "Hard Brexit" v "Soft Brexit" question is incredibly leading by taking as read all the economic arguments being put forward by the Remain campaign. To show that, I put forward just as leading a question, this time putting the economic arguments in the way the Leave campaign would have crafted it, from an equally extreme position.
Without going into detail on the substance of the argument, no, I don't think that Brexit will be painless economically. That's because in the short term economies take time to adjust to changes in their competitive position. In the medium and long term though, suppliers do adjust to changes in competitiveness over the cycle of investment decisions. The pace of that change will probably be accelerated in the UK's favour if the devaluation of the past few months is sustained for a few years further.
I expect that we will indeed in the end by default end up with something close to a hard Brexit position. That's because the EU iinstitutions are so incapable of satisfying all of its members competing positions collectively that the default is to agree nothing, combined with the political desire of the Brussels elites to punish the UK even if it means punishing the EU citizens they purport to represent far more. In that I consider that the EU is vastly overplaying its hand.
They could not bring themselves to admit that the EU does not share our aims and values.
Even when the deep divisions on this question are staring you in the face, you still write as if you speak for everyone. The EU's aims and values are perfectly in harmony with a large part of the country.
Gardenwalker, if you were looking for an impoverished view of our future you could do no better than remaining shackled to a failing and unreformable EU, which is why your side failed to make any sort of positive case for doing so.
The only thing shackled is your brain. As you've got it into your head that the EU is failing and unreformable, logically you will not be persuaded by any positive case.
Not that the Remain campaign made any attempt to provide that case.
They could not bring themselves to admit that the EU does not share our aims and values.
Even when the deep divisions on this question are staring you in the face, you still write as if you speak for everyone. The EU's aims and values are perfectly in harmony with a large part of the country.
Tyndall has made it his life's work to leave the EU. He has an admirable and acute understanding of its deficiencies, but unfortunately he's a monomaniac and can no longer see the wood for the trees.
Gardenwalker, it's a bit early for personal insults is it not? And you are quite wrong, I certainly could have been persuaded by a positive case to stay in the EU. I did not hear one though, nor any attempt to make one. If you know of one go ahead and make it.
What I did hear was lots of Project Fear. It did not wash then and does not do so now.
For £65 a head, I want the director to be in the room to answer any questions I might have.
To be fair, that price does include the four course set menu. - The movie on its own is £25 without the food.
And it doesn't include 200 selfish f***ers who don't understand that 'switch off your phone' means 'switch the damn thing off and watch the movie you paid to see, you moron'.
Voters hostile towards same-sex relationships and the rise in the number of women in the workplace were also consistently more likely to have voted leave.
Gardenwalker, it's a bit early for personal insults is it not? And you are quite wrong, I certainly could have been persuaded by a positive case to stay in the EU. I did not hear one though, nor any attempt to make one. If you know of one go ahead and make it.
What I did hear was lots of Project Fear. It did not wash then and does not do so now.
I responded to your language.
You described the UK as "shackled" to a "failing and unreformable" EU. It seemed safe to assume your mind was quite closed on the subject.
If one starts from that position, there is surely no persuading?
Voters hostile towards same-sex relationships and the rise in the number of women in the workplace were also consistently more likely to have voted leave.
Hmmm, I could be wrong. Opinium don't do their layouts the way the other firms do, watch makes it harder to work out exactly what's going on.
It's weird. The survey size was 2000, but the data seems to imply they weighted up the sample from 1541 to 1945.
The difference with November is interesting. They've had to weight UKIP up 35 instead of down 19 in November. Labour were weighted up over 126 compared to just 8 in November. Tories weighted up 96 compared to 31.
Gardenwalker, being part of the EU makes sense if you're a true believer, that is, you think we should be part of a new nation called Europe.
That may be what you believe, and that's a coherent intellectual position , albeit one I totally disagree with.
Being a grudging member of the EU, constantly trying to slow down and frustrate the process of integration seems a bit pointless to me. It's better to leave than be a grudging member.
Remain voters believe there will be bad economic consequences from Brexit; whilst Leave voters don't. But if there actually are economic consequences - and people link them to brexit - then what people say now will be a poor guide to how they feel then.
On the court case, and I'll defer to @AlastairMeeks on this one, how would this scenario play out, 6-5 to uphold the High Court decision but Lords Sumption and Neuberger on the dissenting side? I was getting the feeling that those two in particular seemed displeased with case. A decision like that could well cause a crisis within the SC itself if the pre-eminent experts on constitutional affairs are over-ruled by lesser justices. A low chance, but Brexit hasn't been without its long shots so far.
Suspect they will defer judgement until there is a unanimous view
No surprises there. The govt have killed by-to-let with stamp duty and the removal of mortgage interest relief, and the banks are scared to lend to owner-occupiers who don't have 20% deposits. There's also the distant hope of planning reform and immigration controls, both of which will have a negative effect on demand for housing. The perfect storm, really.
Comments
Until the 2015 election...
You might as well stop there. The rest is irrelevant.
52 - 48 is 1.08 majority.
I'd call that convincing, and I'm sure as a democrat you would too.
His brazeness is a wonder to behold, or is it Labour listening?
You have been gulled by years of anti-EU press.
I'll give you Juncker, but you can't win them all.
The UK's preferred candidate(s) recently lost their bid to be UN Sec-Gen. Should we withdraw?
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/17/robotic-technology-advances-ousting-white-collar-workers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
If I had voted Leave, Juncker would have been an unanswerable reason for doing so.
Europhilia is a byword for arrogant Post Imperial delusion .
Moreover, we ignored experts to vote Out, why should we not ignore them in a similarly democratic process here?
Small number statistics.
Bromptonaut:
Mathematics doesn't lie.
But apples/oranges does lie.
Only 52% of your brain works, Bromptonaut, but don't worry - its a convincing and democratically acceptable margin.
Looks like the gap year.
That being said, you are not missing much.
Indirectly it will affect the next election because it will affect the economy - or if it doesn't Labour are still more shafted as the ambivalent party.
If you're still on, can I address your contention that a Hard Brexit would painlessly solve our Balance of Payments/Current Account issue.
I think there is a constant misunderstanding about the nature of trade among non-economists. Imagine that you are a company, Acme Ltd., and you need to acquire widgets to make your diggers.
There are two suppliers of widgets: Francois SA, based in France, and Nippon Inc., based in the US (yeah, yeah). Without tariffs, the two products would have identical prices. Because there are tariffs on imports from the US (2.8% on average) and not on those from the EU, Francois SA's widgets are cheaper.
Hard Brexit arrives. Suddenly, both EU and US products are subject to the same tariff schedule. You now choose to buy your widgets from Nippon Inc rather than Francois SA. The UK now runs a smaller current account deficit with the EU (yay!). But it's overall position hasn't changed, merely where goods are imported from.
There is a simple correlation, with a very high R^2, between current account deficits, and savings rates. Countries with high savings rates (Germany, Switzerland, China) have current account surpluses. Countries with low savings rates (the UK, the US) have current account deficits.
If you want to solve the UK's imbalances, you need to raise the UK's savings rate. (This is something that will need to happen at some point irrespective of Brexit.) The only problem is that this process is likely - in the short term - to be painful.
What do we know about the Conservative candidate, are they well known locally and likely to put up a good fight?
Will the LDs really be able to target an area where they (mostly) have no experience of winning elections?
Most remainers just want to maintain the significant benefits of a free trade area with our closest neighbours, both geographically and culturally. An arrangement which the entire economy has grown up around, and a key plank of our geopolitical architecture.
You Brexiters want to tip it all over, for what?
You're paranoid that the 27 don't like us. If it were really so, what hope do we have with the rest of the world, most of whom are much more culturally distant.
Nobody much seems to talk of the Singapore of the North Atlantic anymore. Perhaps because it was nothing more than a chimera, as David Davis seems to have realised.
Brexit success these days seems to be about escaping unscathed. What an impoverished vision for our country!
"I suspect the Leavers are gripped by a sense of paralysis: whatever happens next is unlikely to be pretty, and they'll be expected to justify it, so better to stick with dreamland for as long as possible."
Nope. I'm happy, verging on elated.
But it must be horrible to be a demented Remainer; hoping against hope that your country crash-dives and somehow the impossible dream happens. Sorry, but it's done and dusted. We're embarking on a new and thrilling challenge.
And I'll be sorry if you spend the next twenty years raging against the dying of the Federal Europe light. But not half as sorry as you will be.
Step forward, blinking in the daylight, rather than withdraw into the gloom.
Does anyone know if these Metro Mayors are getting the tax payer funded Candidate booklet that standard Mayoralities get ?
And is it *really* true that we don't know yet if they are using FPTP or SV ? On the last thread it was said this was undecided. But the elections in less than 5 months.
We also don't like the way that a significant amount of taxpayers' money is spent, in a way that is unaccountable and by those who we cannot vote from office, and we wish to see the law made and enforced by British MPs and judges respectively.
And thanks for the upthread agreement - it's the nature of this place that it artificially magnifies differences, it seems to me.
http://tinyurl.com/jzugtf8
So can the Lib Dems make the top 2 and then pick up enough second preferences?
You apologised for our argument a while back and your apology is accepted. I often disagree with people on here, but it's never personal spite and I will always try to tell the truth as I see it.
http://opinium.co.uk/political-polling-13th-december-2016/
Lab on same percentage as Miliband got 18 months ago, really?
Ad hominem as usual when logic fails. Yawn.
No no no, I was illustrating apples and oranges with statistics.
That rather oddly you took it so personally says more about your state of mind than anything else.
Yes the Lib Dems are far too low.
Low in what sense? Lack of morals? Ethics? Standards in general?
Just South Dakota to certify according to @Redistrict:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19
Neither ahead of Corbyn.
And I am sorry but it is frankly moronic to claim that we are culturally closer to the Europeans than we are to the Anglosphere or to much of the rest of the world. To be honest I think the only people who could seriously think that are those who have never really spent much time overseas both in Europe and in the rest of the world.
It is the Europhile vision that is impoverished. Seeing us as nothing more than a region of Europe rather than a country independent enough to able to make our own decisions and grown up enough to accept the consequences.
beggedasked nicely by the missus toget dragged to the cinemago and see it next week.Who can forget Opinium's 2014 Christmas classic - Labour 36, Tory 29?
The idea that the world should work as we'd like to is juvenile. Engage, or be engaged - as Osborne nearly said.
As for your poujadiste gripe about the money, the amount is a pittance in the grand scheme of things, and largely goes to development efforts in poorer European countries.
As we have rehearsed to death on here, it certainly ain't going to be repatriated to the NHS.
Yes by chance I just came back for a look (while the missus insists on watching the Strictly Final).
Actually, I wasn't trying to make the argument that hard Brexit would in fact painlessly solve the UK's balance of payments crisis, although I certainly consider that it would help.
My point was that the Polling Matters "Hard Brexit" v "Soft Brexit" question is incredibly leading by taking as read all the economic arguments being put forward by the Remain campaign. To show that, I put forward just as leading a question, this time putting the economic arguments in the way the Leave campaign would have crafted it, from an equally extreme position.
Without going into detail on the substance of the argument, no, I don't think that Brexit will be painless economically. That's because in the short term economies take time to adjust to changes in their competitive position. In the medium and long term though, suppliers do adjust to changes in competitiveness over the cycle of investment decisions. The pace of that change will probably be accelerated in the UK's favour if the devaluation of the past few months is sustained for a few years further.
I expect that we will indeed in the end by default end up with something close to a hard Brexit position. That's because the EU iinstitutions are so incapable of satisfying all of its members competing positions collectively that the default is to agree nothing, combined with the political desire of the Brussels elites to punish the UK even if it means punishing the EU citizens they purport to represent far more. In that I consider that the EU is vastly overplaying its hand.
Not that the Remain campaign made any attempt to provide that case.
https://uae.voxcinemas.com/ways-to-watch/theatre-by-rhodes
Bloke with bluebox and long scarf just told.me exactly how Brexit pans out. Was going to share, but since you insist I'll keep it to myself.
Hmmm, I could be wrong. Opinium don't do their layouts the way the other firms do, watch makes it harder to work out exactly what's going on.
What I did hear was lots of Project Fear. It did not wash then and does not do so now.
A character says 'I have a bad feeling about this' when they hear about BREXIT
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/17/socially-isolated-voters-more-likely-to-favour-brexit-finds-thinktank?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
And it doesn't include 200 selfish f***ers who don't understand that 'switch off your phone' means 'switch the damn thing off and watch the movie you paid to see, you moron'.
Voters hostile towards same-sex relationships and the rise in the number of women in the workplace were also consistently more likely to have voted leave.
You described the UK as "shackled" to a "failing and unreformable" EU. It seemed safe to assume your mind was quite closed on the subject.
If one starts from that position, there is surely no persuading?
The difference with November is interesting. They've had to weight UKIP up 35 instead of down 19 in November. Labour were weighted up over 126 compared to just 8 in November. Tories weighted up 96 compared to 31.
http://opinium.co.uk/political-polling-15th-november-2016/
That may be what you believe, and that's a coherent intellectual position , albeit one I totally disagree with.
Being a grudging member of the EU, constantly trying to slow down and frustrate the process of integration seems a bit pointless to me. It's better to leave than be a grudging member.
Remain voters believe there will be bad economic consequences from Brexit; whilst Leave voters don't. But if there actually are economic consequences - and people link them to brexit - then what people say now will be a poor guide to how they feel then.
Pause.
I'M HERE ALL WEEK, FOLKS!
LEAVE 52%
REMAIN 48%
*runs and hides*