@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
I BINO
Continuing the arguments in the referendum is so stale now and a new positive vision close to the EU is more likely to gain support, than constant moaning about the result
Actually I think you started by saying we were facing the biggest loss of rights in our history, a startling statement give such things as DORA, conscription and rationing that happened during the last century.
Not to mention that a majority of voters voted to lose those rights (although most probably didn't see them as 'rights' but 'disadvantages')
When you start a family, you lose the freedom to go out on the piss as often as you used to, but seeing as it is an outcome that people desired when they decided to start a family, the loss is outweighed by the new addition. It seems quite bizarre and futile to bang on about people losing 'freedoms' and 'rights' when they didn't want them, and feel they have gained something better by losing them
17.4 million people did not want those freedoms and rights, millions of others did and many more did not get a choice. But they are going and that is that. It seems a bit silly, though, to say that they are not going when they are.
I haven't said they weren't going, I am glad they are
The majority of voters were prepared to give them up or, more likely, actively wanted rid of them. When you get married, you lose the freedom to go out on the pull, but no one gets to chat up your wife either, and you've made the choice that the security of the latter outweighs the loss of the former freedom. To describe it as the loss of rights, while technically true I guess, would be ridiculous, and people would think you were a bit of a weirdo to omit the second part of the deal when criticising the choice made.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
I BINO
Continuing the arguments in the referendum is so stale now and a new positive vision close to the EU is more likely to gain support, than constant moaning about the result
Actually I think you started by saying we were facing the biggest loss of rights in our history, a startling statement give such things as DORA, conscription and rationing that happened during the last century.
Not to mention that a majority of voters voted to lose those rights (although most probably didn't see them as 'rights' but 'disadvantages')
When you start a family, you lose the freedom to go out on the piss as often as you used to, but seeing as it is an outcome that people desired when they decided to start a family, the loss is outweighed by the new addition. It seems quite bizarre and futile to bang on about people losing 'freedoms' and 'rights' when they didn't want them, and feel they have gained something better by losing them
17.4 million people did not want those freedoms and rights, millions of others did and many more did not get a choice. But they are going and that is that. It seems a bit silly, though, to say that they are not going when they are.
I haven't said they weren't going, I am glad they are
The majority of voters were prepared to give them up or, more likely, actively wanted rid of them. When you get married, you lose the freedom to go out on the pull, but no one gets to chat up your wife either, and you've made the choice that the latter outweighs the former. To describe it as the loss of rights, while technically true I guess, would be ridiculous and people would think you were a bit of a weirdo to omit the second part of the deal when criticising the choice made.
When I got married I made a positive decsion to do so. I was not forced to accept it because other peopel had decided they wanted me to get married.
Basically - 1) if you don't carefully rig the ship to make everything go bang, very little does. 2) The weight of actual explosive is a small proportion of the total weight 3) Water does a great job in dampening underwater explosions.
All the stuff about tidal waves wiping out the locality around the Montgomery are horse manure.
Um, from your own link, in CHASE 2 "Village was loaded with 7348 short tons of munitions at the Naval Weapons Station Earle and towed to a deep-water dump site on 17 September 1964. There were three large and unexpected detonations five minutes after Village slipped beneath the surface. An oil slick and some debris appeared on the surface. The explosion registered on seismic equipment all over the world."
I think that for the Boris Bridge, CHASE 3 is of interest. It involved 4,000 tonnes of muntions and was detonated at 1,000 ft depth (the same as the deepest part of Beaufort's Dyke) and produced a 600ft waterspout.
4,000 tonnes = 600 ft waterspout. Beaufort's Dyke has 1,500,000 tonnes of ordnance or nearly 400 times as much
Boris's bridge has been dwarfed this week by a Danish Government scientist calling for the damming of the north sea with dams between Lands End and France and Scotland to Norway at a cost of 500 billion and 100 year construction time
And I do not jest
I know you do not jest. I have read the article. Oddly enough, it makes no mention of the fact that they propose to enclose the busiest shipping route in the world.
Hard to imagine there is a bigger loony than Boris walking the streets
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
I BINO
Continuing the arguments in the referendum is so stale now and a new positive vision close to the EU is more likely to gain support, than constant moaning about the result
Actually I think you started by saying we were facing the biggest loss of rights in our history, a startling statement give such things as DORA, conscription and rationing that happened during the last century.
Not to mention that a majority of voters voted to lose those rights (although most probably didn't see them as 'rights' but 'disadvantages')
When you start a family, you lose the freedom to go out on the piss as often as you used to, but seeing as it is an outcome that people desired when they decided to start a family, the loss is outweighed by the new addition. It seems quite bizarre and futile to bang on about people losing 'freedoms' and 'rights' when they didn't want them, and feel they have gained something better by losing them
17.4 million people did not want those freedoms and rights, millions of others did and many more did not get a choice. But they are going and that is that. It seems a bit silly, though, to say that they are not going when they are.
I haven't said they weren't going, I am glad they are
The majority of voters were prepared to give them up or, more likely, actively wanted rid of them. When you get married, you lose the freedom to go out on the pull, but no one gets to chat up your wife either, and you've made the choice that the latter outweighs the former. To describe it as the loss of rights, while technically true I guess, would be ridiculous and people would think you were a bit of a weirdo to omit the second part of the deal when criticising the choice made.
When I got married I made a positive decsion to do so. I was not forced to accept it because other peopel had decided they wanted me to get married.
That's because individuals aren't forced to get married dependent on the result of a national referendum.
Basically - 1) if you don't carefully rig the ship to make everything go bang, very little does. 2) The weight of actual explosive is a small proportion of the total weight 3) Water does a great job in dampening underwater explosions.
All the stuff about tidal waves wiping out the locality around the Montgomery are horse manure.
Um, from your own link, in CHASE 2 "Village was loaded with 7348 short tons of munitions at the Naval Weapons Station Earle and towed to a deep-water dump site on 17 September 1964. There were three large and unexpected detonations five minutes after Village slipped beneath the surface. An oil slick and some debris appeared on the surface. The explosion registered on seismic equipment all over the world."
I think that for the Boris Bridge, CHASE 3 is of interest. It involved 4,000 tonnes of muntions and was detonated at 1,000 ft depth (the same as the deepest part of Beaufort's Dyke) and produced a 600ft waterspout.
4,000 tonnes = 600 ft waterspout. Beaufort's Dyke has 1,500,000 tonnes of ordnance or nearly 400 times as much
Boris's bridge has been dwarfed this week by a Danish Government scientist calling for the damming of the north sea with dams between Lands End and France and Scotland to Norway at a cost of 500 billion and 100 year construction time
And I do not jest
I know you do not jest. I have read the article. Oddly enough, it makes no mention of the fact that they propose to enclose the busiest shipping route in the world.
Hard to imagine there is a bigger loony than Boris walking the streets
I have driven in any number of European countries on my UK licence. I have lived in Spain. I have brought in cars full of food and drink for my personal use. I have organised and run events in Spain, France, Germany and the Netherlands as if I had been doing them in the UK, etc, etc, etc.
Will you no longer be able to do those things, or are some of them just a bit more difficult?
They will no longer be rights.
But you'll still be able to do them?
Possibly, possibly not.
That's the thing about rights: you can do them without permission. I went into the difference between rights and options a few weeks back. Prior to EU departure we had rights: we could do things without asking permission[1]. Now we have options: we can do the same things with permission. This imposes costs - bureaucracy and delay - and raises the possibility that permission is denied. Such denial has already happened in one famous case - Nigel Lawson's application to live in France - and will no doubt continue to less celebrated people.
I observed some time ago that people had a genuine difficulty between distinguishing between the two. Leaverism appeared to be concentrated amongst those who did not want such rights or did not intend to use them, and amongst those who were sufficiently wealthy to not be disadvantaged of the change[2]. For such people the need to understand the difference is less and frequently do not. For those who did want them or hoped to use them, the difference is now excruciatingly apparent.
[1] Or more precisely, without asking more permission than the locals, and not being denied on grounds of nationality. [2] A rather sad fact is that if you have sufficient money you can live almost anywhere...
I'd argue we had benefits from our membership, not rights. But I guess it's an issue of perspective at this point.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
I BINO
Continuing the arguments in the referendum is so stale now and a new positive vision close to the EU is more likely to gain support, than constant moaning about the result
Actually I think you started by saying we were facing the biggest loss of rights in our history, a startling statement give such things as DORA, conscription and rationing that happened during the last century.
Not to mention that a majority of voters voted to lose those rights (although most probably didn't see them as 'rights' but 'disadvantages')
When better by losing them
17.4 million people did not want those freedoms and rights, millions of others did and many more did not get a choice. But they are going and that is that. It seems a bit silly, though, to say that they are not going when they are.
I haven't said they weren't going, I am glad they are
The majority of voters were prepared to give them up or, more likely, actively wanted rid of them. When you get married, you lose the freedom to go out on the pull, but no one gets to chat up your wife either, and you've made the choice that the latter outweighs the former. To describe it as the loss of rights, while technically true I guess, would be ridiculous and people would think you were a bit of a weirdo to omit the second part of the deal when criticising the choice made.
When I got married I made a positive decsion to do so. I was not forced to accept it because other peopel had decided they wanted me to get married.
That's because individuals aren't forced to get married dependent on the result of a national referendum.
Indeed, so I am not quite sure what your point is!
I *think* we actually agree: we are losing rights but those who voted to leave the EU don't care.
Happier news: 8 of the 9 positive UK coronavirus patients have been released. And all 94 people who were being quarantined at Arrowe Park hospital on the Wirral have left the site.
I have driven in any number of European countries on my UK licence. I have lived in Spain. I have brought in cars full of food and drink for my personal use. I have organised and run events in Spain, France, Germany and the Netherlands as if I had been doing them in the UK, etc, etc, etc.
Will you no longer be able to do those things, or are some of them just a bit more difficult?
They will no longer be rights.
But you'll still be able to do them?
Possibly, possibly not.
That's the thing about rights: you can do them without permission. I went into the difference between rights and options a few weeks back. Prior to EU departure we had rights: we could do things without asking permission[1]. Now we have options: we can do the same things with permission. This imposes costs - bureaucracy and delay - and raises the possibility that permission is denied. Such denial has already happened in one famous case - Nigel Lawson's application to live in France - and will no doubt continue to less celebrated people.
I observed some time ago that people had a genuine difficulty between distinguishing between the two. Leaverism appeared to be concentrated amongst those who did not want such rights or did not intend to use them, and amongst those who were sufficiently wealthy to not be disadvantaged of the change[2]. For such people the need to understand the difference is less and frequently do not. For those who did want them or hoped to use them, the difference is now excruciatingly apparent.
[1] Or more precisely, without asking more permission than the locals, and not being denied on grounds of nationality. [2] A rather sad fact is that if you have sufficient money you can live almost anywhere...
Happier news: 8 of the 9 positive UK coronavirus patients have been released. And all 94 people who were being quarantined at Arrowe Park hospital on the Wirral have left the site.
This is the reason why I disagree with Herdson, it's in his own article.
Johnson himself last July, he writes about approval ratings, he didn't realise the exception from the rule that he found.
He missed that Boris is following the typical road of PM's in reverse, he takes his party from it's lowest point to it's highest point, he replaces his government at the start not the end, he becomes bold now not later.
And so far it's working, because people want a bold leader at a time of crisis and malaise.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
Actually I think you started by saying we were facing the biggest loss of rights in our history, a startling statement give such things as DORA, conscription and rationing that happened during the last century.
17.4 million people did not want those freedoms and rights, millions of others did and many more did not get a choice. But they are going and that is that. It seems a bit silly, though, to say that they are not going when they are.
I haven't said they weren't going, I am glad they are
The majority of voters were prepared to give them up or, more likely, actively wanted rid of them. When you get married, you lose the freedom to go out on the pull, but no one gets to chat up your wife either, and you've made the choice that the latter outweighs the former. To describe it as the loss of rights, while technically true I guess, would be ridiculous and people would think you were a bit of a weirdo to omit the second part of the deal when criticising the choice made.
When I got married I made a positive decsion to do so. I was not forced to accept it because other peopel had decided they wanted me to get married.
That's because individuals aren't forced to get married dependent on the result of a national referendum.
Indeed, so I am not quite sure what your point is!
I *think* we actually agree: we are losing rights but those who voted to leave the EU don't care.
Yes we agree on that. My point is that you keep saying we are less free etc, which sounds bad, without acknowledging that the majority of voters wanted to be "less free", and would consider it as being "more secure".
That lack of acknowledgment, especially on a forum where everyone knows it, seems a bit of a waste of time. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but it seems you're basically just saying you think its bad we are leaving the EU, and maybe trying to make people who are glad of it feel a bit guilty about it
Last year I was involved in a project where we compared the hopes and ambitions of 14 year olds in our community today with the memories of their hopes and ambitions when 14 of some 85 or year old citizens in our community. The older people had no memory of wanting to travel; however, one of todays 14 year olds has come to my mind reading all this. She plans to do drama 'and if I do I will be able to work anywhere in the world'. Leaving the EU seems to have made that just a bit more difficult for her.
Last year I was involved in a project where we comp[ared the hopes and ambitions of 14 year olds today with the memories of their hopes and ambitions when 14 of some 85 or year old citizens in our community. The older people had no memory of wanting to travel; however, one of todays 14 year olds has come to my mind reading all this. She plans to do drama' and if I do I will be able to work anywhere in the world'. Leaving the EU seems to have made that just a bit more difficult for her.
So it'll just be like traveling to any other non-EU country? Which thousands do every year.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
Actually I think you started by saying we were facing the biggest loss of rights in our history, a startling statement give such things as DORA, conscription and rationing that happened during the last century.
17.4 million people did not want those freedoms and rights, millions of others did and many more did not get a choice. But they are going and that is that. It seems a bit silly, though, to say that they are not going when they are.
I haven't said they weren't going, I am glad they are
The the choice made.
When I got married I made a positive decsion to do so. I was not forced to accept it because other peopel had decided they wanted me to get married.
That's because individuals aren't forced to get married dependent on the result of a national referendum.
Indeed, so I am not quite sure what your point is!
I *think* we actually agree: we are losing rights but those who voted to leave the EU don't care.
Yes we agree on that. My point is that you keep saying we are less free etc, which sounds bad, without acknowledging that the majority of voters wanted to be "less free", and would consider it as being "more secure".
That lack of acknowledgment, especially on a forum where everyone knows it, seems a bit of a waste of time. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but it seems you're basically just saying you think its bad we are leaving the EU, and maybe trying to make people who are glad of it feel a bit guilty about it
I do think it's bad we are leaving the EU. But I accept it is happening. I don't know why anyone who voted for it to happen should feel guilty right now. I certainly don't expect them to.
This is the reason why I disagree with Herdson, it's in his own article.
Johnson himself last July, he writes about approval ratings, he didn't realise the exception from the rule that he found.
He missed that Boris is following the typical road of PM's in reverse, he takes his party from it's lowest point to it's highest point, he replaces his government at the start not the end, he becomes bold now not later.
And so far it's working, because people want a bold leader at a time of crisis and malaise.
I think that the key issue with Johnson is that right now he is not just popular with those he is popular with, he is immensely popular. That may take a lot longer to wear off than the "he's an OK kind of bloke" popularity that Blair had in his heyday. But I also think that if it does wear off it will be very quick and very decisive.
Instead of Boris being overthrown in a couple of months or by 2023 like David Herdson predicts (which I laughed in the ludicrousy of it), I say it will be Cummings who will be out by 2023. The excuse is there: "Poor choice of henchmen".
He wont last that long. Doubt he'll make the end of 2020.
Instead of Boris being overthrown in a couple of months or by 2023 like David Herdson predicts (which I laughed in the ludicrousy of it), I say it will be Cummings who will be out by 2023. The excuse is there: "Poor choice of henchmen".
He wont last that long. Doubt he'll make the end of 2020.
What happened about that operation he was going to have?
Instead of Boris being overthrown in a couple of months or by 2023 like David Herdson predicts (which I laughed in the ludicrousy of it), I say it will be Cummings who will be out by 2023. The excuse is there: "Poor choice of henchmen".
He wont last that long. Doubt he'll make the end of 2020.
What happened about that operation he was going to have?
He found out he could get along perfectly well without a soul...
One thing we can be sure of is that Brexit will leave its mark on the EU. Indeed, the European Commission’s proposal for a two year-long conference (that’s right, a two-year long conference!) on the Future of Europe is specifically designed to counter the damaging impact of a “Brexodus”.
Two years? Let me save them the trouble. The answer they are looking for is "More Europe".
Last year I was involved in a project where we comp[ared the hopes and ambitions of 14 year olds today with the memories of their hopes and ambitions when 14 of some 85 or year old citizens in our community. The older people had no memory of wanting to travel; however, one of todays 14 year olds has come to my mind reading all this. She plans to do drama' and if I do I will be able to work anywhere in the world'. Leaving the EU seems to have made that just a bit more difficult for her.
So it'll just be like traveling to any other non-EU country? Which thousands do every year.
Not as easy to work around Europe though. Separate application in each country, whereas now there are no barriers. As I say, just a little bit more difficult.
I thought that British journalistic cottage industry of EU bashing - invented and honed by Boris Johnson - would have met its final demise a few Fridays ago. Obviously not.
anyone with a brain knows that Brexit is a calamity
Way to go, murali_s, winning people round who voted Leave with the persuasive power of your argument......
Actually as you won and Brexit is now upon us isn't it a tad more important that the leavers persuade the other half of the country that we have made the right decision. I see absolutely no sign of that whatsoever.
Brexit didn't win the argument conclusively as the pro-EU forces did in the 70's. If leavers had any political nouse they would be trying to win people over to their cause not throwing rocks at every available opportunity. Johnson might seem very secure just now but we are in a post-Brexit honeymoon where nothing has really changed even though we have left.
Political fortunes change very rapidly and the levers seem to be making very little attempt to consolidate their fragile victory.
I thought that British journalistic cottage industry of EU bashing - invented and honed by Boris Johnson - would have met its final demise a few Fridays ago. Obviously not.
You think it's an inaccurate account of her experience?
This is the reason why I disagree with Herdson, it's in his own article.
Johnson himself last July, he writes about approval ratings, he didn't realise the exception from the rule that he found.
He missed that Boris is following the typical road of PM's in reverse, he takes his party from it's lowest point to it's highest point, he replaces his government at the start not the end, he becomes bold now not later.
And so far it's working, because people want a bold leader at a time of crisis and malaise.
I think that the key issue with Johnson is that right now he is not just popular with those he is popular with, he is immensely popular. That may take a lot longer to wear off than the "he's an OK kind of bloke" popularity that Blair had in his heyday. But I also think that if it does wear off it will be very quick and very decisive.
But many people - including many traditional Tory voters - see him as a complete and utter shyster and little better suited to being PM than one of the Kray twins.
I thought that British journalistic cottage industry of EU bashing - invented and honed by Boris Johnson - would have met its final demise a few Fridays ago. Obviously not.
You think it's an inaccurate account of her experience?
Basically - 1) if you don't carefully rig the ship to make everything go bang, very little does. 2) The weight of actual explosive is a small proportion of the total weight 3) Water does a great job in dampening underwater explosions.
All the stuff about tidal waves wiping out the locality around the Montgomery are horse manure.
Um, from your own link, in CHASE 2 "Village was loaded with 7348 short tons of munitions at the Naval Weapons Station Earle and towed to a deep-water dump site on 17 September 1964. There were three large and unexpected detonations five minutes after Village slipped beneath the surface. An oil slick and some debris appeared on the surface. The explosion registered on seismic equipment all over the world."
I think that for the Boris Bridge, CHASE 3 is of interest. It involved 4,000 tonnes of muntions and was detonated at 1,000 ft depth (the same as the deepest part of Beaufort's Dyke) and produced a 600ft waterspout.
4,000 tonnes = 600 ft waterspout. Beaufort's Dyke has 1,500,000 tonnes of ordnance or nearly 400 times as much
Boris's bridge has been dwarfed this week by a Danish Government scientist calling for the damming of the north sea with dams between Lands End and France and Scotland to Norway at a cost of 500 billion and 100 year construction time
And I do not jest
I know you do not jest. I have read the article. Oddly enough, it makes no mention of the fact that they propose to enclose the busiest shipping route in the world.
The project would take the best part of a century. Replacing a couple of Europe’s busiest ports would be a minor part of the infrastructure project. And of course the dams would provide massive land bridges.
But I wouldn’t worry about it as it’s unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.
I thought that British journalistic cottage industry of EU bashing - invented and honed by Boris Johnson - would have met its final demise a few Fridays ago. Obviously not.
You think it's an inaccurate account of her experience?
I thought that British journalistic cottage industry of EU bashing - invented and honed by Boris Johnson - would have met its final demise a few Fridays ago. Obviously not.
You think it's an inaccurate account of her experience?
Who's bothered about her experience?
Because it speaks to the growing gap between the Optimates and the Head Count. The Optimates congratulate themselves on their processes, their finely wrought arguments, their glorious intellectual achievements.
The Head Count are upset because they see the governing system as a vast engine that exists, apparently, to spite them, while providing Overfinch owning pissants anthills to piss from.
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
I have driven in any number of European countries on my UK licence. I have lived in Spain. I have brought in cars full of food and drink for my personal use. I have organised and run events in Spain, France, Germany and the Netherlands as if I had been doing them in the UK, etc, etc, etc.
Will you no longer be able to do those things, or are some of them just a bit more difficult?
They will no longer be rights.
But you'll still be able to do them?
Possibly, possibly not.
That's the thing about rights: you can do them without permission. I went into the difference between rights and options a few weeks back. Prior to EU departure we had rights: we could do things without asking permission[1]. Now we have options: we can do the same things with permission. This imposes costs - bureaucracy and delay - and raises the possibility that permission is denied. Such denial has already happened in one famous case - Nigel Lawson's application to live in France - and will no doubt continue to less celebrated people.
I observed some time ago that people had a genuine difficulty between distinguishing between the two. Leaverism appeared to be concentrated amongst those who did not want such rights or did not intend to use them, and amongst those who were sufficiently wealthy to not be disadvantaged of the change[2]. For such people the need to understand the difference is less and frequently do not. For those who did want them or hoped to use them, the difference is now excruciatingly apparent.
[1] Or more precisely, without asking more permission than the locals, and not being denied on grounds of nationality. [2] A rather sad fact is that if you have sufficient money you can live almost anywhere...
Flip that for what was wrong with the EU for many: EU residents had the right to come here - regardless of what they offered the UK. Now we have the option again to let them in - or not. Determining who comes inside our borders is a VERY happy state of affairs for 17.4m people.
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm irritated by the europhile posse who are still putting out their (entirely synthetic) crocodile tears on here and demonstrating more loyalty to the EU than their own country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
Another stupid and unnecessary post.
No, of course I don't own the country. But I do recognise split and conflicted loyalties when i see it and I absolutely get to call it out.
Want to change my mind? Start talking about Britain and British interests rather than constantly whinging about abstract EU "rights" you've never actually used as if that's all you actually care about.
I believe it is in British interests for British citizens to enjoy the rights that EU membership conferred on them. I think it made us a better country.
I accept that these rights will be missed by many but we are leaving the EU and those who value these benefits need to campaign to re-join or at the very least try to influence the debate to a BINO
Continuing the arguments in the referendum is so stale now and a new positive vision close to the EU is more likely to gain support, than constant moaning about the result
I accept the result. This entire conversation began because CR objected to the notion that next year UK citizens will be losing rights and freedoms that they currently have. I don't understand why he finds that self-evident truth so hard to admit, but he does.
Actually I think you started by saying we were facing the biggest loss of rights in our history, a startling statement give such things as DORA, conscription and rationing that happened during the last century.
But were they RIGHTS ? Or were they delusions of "rights" ? And even if they were rights the biggest loss of rights came in 1949 with the Town and Country Planning Act which effectively nationalised all land use in the UK.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
I am sure you have a very long, fulfilling and happy life ahead of you at 81. But you won't live to see us go back in to the EU, and nor will I, or anyone else here. We are now on a divergent path.
I thought that British journalistic cottage industry of EU bashing - invented and honed by Boris Johnson - would have met its final demise a few Fridays ago. Obviously not.
You think it's an inaccurate account of her experience?
Who's bothered about her experience?
Because it speaks to the growing gap between the Optimates and the Head Count. The Optimates congratulate themselves on their processes, their finely wrought arguments, their glorious intellectual achievements.
The Head Count are upset because they see the governing system as a vast engine that exists, apparently, to spite them, while providing Overfinch owning pissants anthills to piss from.
Seems an odd thing for her to obsess about, considering she aggressively campaigned for us to relinquish any leverage we might have had to address it.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
Another stupid and unnecessary post.
No, of course I don't own the country. But I do recognise split and conflicted loyalties when i see it and I absolutely get to call it out.
I believe it is in British interests for British citizens to enjoy the rights that EU membership conferred on them. I think it made us a better country.
I BINO
Continuing the arguments in the referendum is so stale now and a new positive vision close to the EU is more likely to gain support, than constant moaning about the result
I accept the result. This entire conversation began because CR objected to the notion that next year UK citizens will be losing rights and freedoms that they currently have. I don't understand why he finds that self-evident truth so hard to admit, but he does.
Actually I think you started by saying we were facing the biggest loss of rights in our history, a startling statement give such things as DORA, conscription and rationing that happened during the last century.
Not to mention that a majority of voters voted to lose those rights (although most probably didn't see them as 'rights' but 'disadvantages')
It seems quite bizarre and futile to bang on about people losing 'freedoms' and 'rights' when they didn't want them, and feel they have gained something better by losing them
17.4 million people did not want those freedoms and rights, millions of others did and many more did not get a choice. But they are going and that is that. It seems a bit silly, though, to say that they are not going when they are.
They are under threat but we cannot be certain of the actual loss until the end of the year and of course on going negotiations could see relaxation in these areas
However, I do accept and understand your sense of loss but never say never
My worry is that in ten months we'll again be facing a crash out WTO Brexit, as Boris wanted to give us, and this time there'll be nobody to stop him.
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
Isn't it a bit late in the day for you to be seeking reassurances that your view was correct?
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
I am sure you have a very long, fulfilling and happy life ahead of you at 81. But you won't live to see us go back in to the EU, and nor will I, or anyone else here. We are now on a divergent path.
I agree. The EU will not be there (in an acceptable format) to go back to in the sort of timescales discussed here.
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
Practically the definition of Cognitive Dissonance - the avoidance of anything that might indicate we made a bad decision.
Basically - 1) if you don't carefully rig the ship to make everything go bang, very little does. 2) The weight of actual explosive is a small proportion of the total weight 3) Water does a great job in dampening underwater explosions.
All the stuff about tidal waves wiping out the locality around the Montgomery are horse manure.
Um, from your own link, in CHASE 2 "Village was loaded with 7348 short tons of munitions at the Naval Weapons Station Earle and towed to a deep-water dump site on 17 September 1964. There were three large and unexpected detonations five minutes after Village slipped beneath the surface. An oil slick and some debris appeared on the surface. The explosion registered on seismic equipment all over the world."
I think that for the Boris Bridge, CHASE 3 is of interest. It involved 4,000 tonnes of muntions and was detonated at 1,000 ft depth (the same as the deepest part of Beaufort's Dyke) and produced a 600ft waterspout.
4,000 tonnes = 600 ft waterspout. Beaufort's Dyke has 1,500,000 tonnes of ordnance or nearly 400 times as much
Boris's bridge has been dwarfed this week by a Danish Government scientist calling for the damming of the north sea with dams between Lands End and France and Scotland to Norway at a cost of 500 billion and 100 year construction time
And I do not jest
That's one way of rejoining. I hope the new inhabitants of Doggerland like their huge windturbines.
I thought that British journalistic cottage industry of EU bashing - invented and honed by Boris Johnson - would have met its final demise a few Fridays ago. Obviously not.
You think it's an inaccurate account of her experience?
Who's bothered about her experience?
Because it speaks to the growing gap between the Optimates and the Head Count. The Optimates congratulate themselves on their processes, their finely wrought arguments, their glorious intellectual achievements.
The Head Count are upset because they see the governing system as a vast engine that exists, apparently, to spite them, while providing Overfinch owning pissants anthills to piss from.
Seems an odd thing for her to obsess about, considering she aggressively campaigned for us to relinquish any leverage we might have had to address it.
The problem is not just with the EU - though they are particularly remote from the people.
This is what politicians really mean (as opposed to what they think they mean) when they talk about "making government like John Lewis" - an organisation with a human face, who's job it is to get things sorted out. As opposed to a voice on the TV who tells you that things will be worse in 5 years for the low low price of 111 Trillion pounds.
Plenty of people are aware of this phenomenon: One recent academic study noted that so-called secret voters supported Trump over Hillary Clinton by a two-to-one (54 percent to 27 percent) margin in 2016. That statistic should be every bit as alarming to Democrats this time around, not least because it suggests that polls may be dramatically underweighting the scale of Trump’s support.
@Casino_Royale is still obsessed with the EU. The Pope is Catholic. What else is new?
I'm not obsessed by the EU.
I'm country.
You do not own this country or get to define what loyalty to it consists of.
Another stupid and unnecessary post.
No, of course I don't own the country. But I do recognise split and conflicted loyalties when i see it and I absolutely get to call it out.
I believe it is in British interests for British citizens to enjoy the rights that EU membership conferred on them. I think it made us a better country.
I BINO
Continuing the arguments in the referendum is so stale now and a new positive vision close to the EU is more likely to gain support, than constant moaning about the result
I accept the result. This entire conversation began because CR objected to the notion that next year UK citizens will be losing rights and freedoms that they currently have. I don't understand why he finds that self-evident truth so hard to admit, but he does.
Actually I think you started by saying we were facing the biggest loss of rights in our history, a startling statement give such things as DORA, conscription and rationing that happened during the last century.
Not to mention that a majority of voters voted to lose those rights (although most probably didn't see them as 'rights' but 'disadvantages')
It seems quite bizarre and futile to bang on about people losing 'freedoms' and 'rights' when they didn't want them, and feel they have gained something better by losing them
17.4 million people did not want those freedoms and rights, millions of others did and many more did not get a choice. But they are going and that is that. It seems a bit silly, though, to say that they are not going when they are.
They are under threat but we cannot be certain of the actual loss until the end of the year and of course on going negotiations could see relaxation in these areas
However, I do accept and understand your sense of loss but never say never
My worry is that in ten months we'll again be facing a crash out WTO Brexit, as Boris wanted to give us, and this time there'll be nobody to stop him.
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
Itll take a decade before we know how it will pan out and even the result could be a score draw
all we know is the fear mongering didn't work out as forecast
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
Isn't it a bit late in the day for you to be seeking reassurances that your view was correct?
I’m not sure Robert is. The form of Brexit he advocated for certainly isn’t happening.
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Will you no longer be able to do those things, or are some of them just a bit more difficult?
They will no longer be rights.
But you'll still be able to do them?
Possibly, possibly not.
That's the thing about rights: you can do them without permission. I went into the difference between rights and options a few weeks back. Prior to EU departure we had rights: we could do things without asking permission[1]. Now we have options: we can do the same things with permission. This imposes costs - bureaucracy and delay - and raises the possibility that permission is denied. Such denial has already happened in one famous case - Nigel Lawson's application to live in France - and will no doubt continue to less celebrated people.
I observed some time ago that people had a genuine difficulty between distinguishing between the two. Leaverism appeared to be concentrated amongst those who did not want such rights or did not intend to use them, and amongst those who were sufficiently wealthy to not be disadvantaged of the change[2]. For such people the need to understand the difference is less and frequently do not. For those who did want them or hoped to use them, the difference is now excruciatingly apparent.
[1] Or more precisely, without asking more permission than the locals, and not being denied on grounds of nationality. [2] A rather sad fact is that if you have sufficient money you can live almost anywhere...
I'd argue we had benefits from our membership, not rights. But I guess it's an issue of perspective at this point.
The issue of temporary exports is a right we will lose. We will still be able to do it but it will be a hassle and boy was it a hassle every time I did it. I can think of one occasion if it wasn't for our competition having the same issue the company I worked for would have lost a huge deal. This was pre Cyprus being in the EU.
The solution to this problem will be for non UK companies to move their European HO out of the UK to Europe to avoid this problem (amongst other reasons). It will be the same for other organisations that move stuff around on a temporary basis particularly if speed is important eg Formula 1, Rock bands on tour, etc. They will move their logistics to Europe. Yes they still have the problem when they go elsewhere, but not in the EU.
So there are two legal chains of command in the civil service: Since after the Khan sacking, Johnson -> Cummings -> special advisers -> civil servants; and the old chain, Minister -> Permanent Secretary -> civil servants. So a civil servant must legally accept "government" instructions on hearsay from 2 layers of unelected political appointees no better than the EU Commission!
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
FTAs might not take seven years on average, but they usually take a long time to conclude.
Maldives-China, which one would have thought would have been one of the easiest in history (Maldives export fish and tourism, and import everything else) took five years, for example.
Usually, the issue is one of concentrated losses and diffuse gains. So, the losers (a locally protected industry) lobbies hard to be carved out of the FTA.
But that shouldn't be an issue here. However, there are some things that complicate a UK-EU agreement.
Firstly, the existing agreements include things that matter a lot to the UK, such as treatment of double taxation and holding taxes. These aren't EU competences, and so the EU cannot offer something the UK wants as part of negotiations. There needs to be primary legislation passed at the individual country level.
Secondly, there are industries - like autos - which depend on just in time supply chains. In the US, the auto industry on the Canadian border has a special system where trucks carrying parts from suppliers in Ontario drive along a special lane, and are precleared. They barely slowdown as they cross the border. We want creation of these things to be part of an FTA, and that requires arguments over who pays for it, and who specs it. And it requires trust in areas like data privacy.
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
"We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality"
Will you no longer be able to do those things, or are some of them just a bit more difficult?
They will no longer be rights.
But you'll still be able to do them?
Possibly, possibly not.
That's the thing about rights: you can do them without permission. I went into the difference between rights and options a few weeks back. Prior to EU departure we had rights: we could do things without asking permission[1]. Now we have options: we can do the same things with permission. This imposes costs - bureaucracy and delay - and raises the possibility that permission is denied. Such denial has already happened in one famous case - Nigel Lawson's application to live in France - and will no doubt continue to less celebrated people.
[1] Or more precisely, without asking more permission than the locals, and not being denied on grounds of nationality. [2] A rather sad fact is that if you have sufficient money you can live almost anywhere...
I'd argue we had benefits from our membership, not rights. But I guess it's an issue of perspective at this point.
The issue of temporary exports is a right we will lose. We will still be able to do it but it will be a hassle and boy was it a hassle every time I did it. I can think of one occasion if it wasn't for our competition having the same issue the company I worked for would have lost a huge deal. This was pre Cyprus being in the EU.
The solution to this problem will be for non UK companies to move their European HO out of the UK to Europe to avoid this problem (amongst other reasons). It will be the same for other organisations that move stuff around on a temporary basis particularly if speed is important eg Formula 1, Rock bands on tour, etc. They will move their logistics to Europe. Yes they still have the problem when they go elsewhere, but not in the EU.
That was a right and a benefit.
And EU companies will locate to UK to protect their UK business. It will not be all one way
I heard a lady today saying that London fashion houses are to relocate their manufacturing to the UK and away from China
How do you scrutinise government nowadays? Ministers -> permanent secretaries -> civil servants: ministers get questioned in the House of Commons every month or more frequently Cummings -> SpAds -> civil servants: nursery rhymes, rants about PJ Masks
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Google is your friend.
I did and it came up with the following
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
"We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality"
Well I'm glad somebody noticed
Have you read Superforecasters?
It's a great book. Basically, don't trust anyone who doesn't regularly change their mind, and who doesn't admit to regularly changing their mind.
The people who performed best were people who were constantly changing their expected outcomes as new information came in. The people who performed worst were people who started off with one call, and kept looking for reasons why it was right, even as evidence kept coming in that it was wrong.
Let me start by saying that I was wrong about Michael Bloomberg. I assumed that the early Primaries would have resulted in a rapid winnowing of the Democratic field, and therefore a moderate champion going into Super Tuesday.
How wrong I was.
With two states down, we still have every meaningful player in the moderate track still in the game. This gives Bloomberg an opportunity to be the candidate nearest to Sanders after Super Tuesday, and then to consolidate the moderate vote. I have cashed in a lot of my other profits to bring me broadly flat on Bloomberg. I just wish I'd changed my mind sooner. (Don't worry guys - the buys on Klobuchar and Buttigieg and the sells on Biden, Warren, Yang and Clinton gave me a lot of profits that could be absorbed in this market.)
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Google is your friend.
I did and it came up with the following
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
"We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality"
Well I'm glad somebody noticed
Have you read Superforecasters?
It's a great book. Basically, don't trust anyone who doesn't regularly change their mind, and who doesn't admit to regularly changing their mind.
The people who performed best were people who were constantly changing their expected outcomes as new information came in. The people who performed worst were people who started off with one call, and kept looking for reasons why it was right, even as evidence kept coming in that it was wrong.
Let me start by saying that I was wrong about Michael Bloomberg. I assumed that the early Primaries would have resulted in a rapid winnowing of the Democratic field, and therefore a moderate champion going into Super Tuesday.
How wrong I was.
With two states down, we still have every meaningful player in the moderate track still in the game. This gives Bloomberg an opportunity to be the candidate nearest to Sanders after Super Tuesday, and then to consolidate the moderate vote. I have cashed in a lot of my other profits to bring me broadly flat on Bloomberg. I just wish I'd changed my mind sooner. (Don't worry guys - the buys on Klobuchar and Buttigieg and the sells on Biden, Warren, Yang and Clinton gave me a lot of profits that could be absorbed in this market.)
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Google is your friend.
I did and it came up with the following
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
Which was about US free trade deals, and said it typically took 18 months to negotiate a deal, but three and a half years before all the hurdles were completed and deals implemented.
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
"We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality"
Well I'm glad somebody noticed
Have you read Superforecasters?
It's a great book. Basically, don't trust anyone who doesn't regularly change their mind, and who doesn't admit to regularly changing their mind.
The people who performed best were people who were constantly changing their expected outcomes as new information came in. The people who performed worst were people who started off with one call, and kept looking for reasons why it was right, even as evidence kept coming in that it was wrong.
Let me start by saying that I was wrong about Michael Bloomberg. I assumed that the early Primaries would have resulted in a rapid winnowing of the Democratic field, and therefore a moderate champion going into Super Tuesday.
How wrong I was.
With two states down, we still have every meaningful player in the moderate track still in the game. This gives Bloomberg an opportunity to be the candidate nearest to Sanders after Super Tuesday, and then to consolidate the moderate vote. I have cashed in a lot of my other profits to bring me broadly flat on Bloomberg. I just wish I'd changed my mind sooner. (Don't worry guys - the buys on Klobuchar and Buttigieg and the sells on Biden, Warren, Yang and Clinton gave me a lot of profits that could be absorbed in this market.)
What makes you think we would have been worried?
Well, if I run out of money, who's going to pay the hosting bills for pb.com?
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Google is your friend.
I did and it came up with the following
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
Underused or not used enough more than misused I'd say.
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
"We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality"
Well I'm glad somebody noticed
Have you read Superforecasters?
It's a great book. Basically, don't trust anyone who doesn't regularly change their mind, and who doesn't admit to regularly changing their mind.
The people who performed best were people who were constantly changing their expected outcomes as new information came in. The people who performed worst were people who started off with one call, and kept looking for reasons why it was right, even as evidence kept coming in that it was wrong.
Let me start by saying that I was wrong about Michael Bloomberg. I assumed that the early Primaries would have resulted in a rapid winnowing of the Democratic field, and therefore a moderate champion going into Super Tuesday.
How wrong I was.
With two states down, we still have every meaningful player in the moderate track still in the game. This gives Bloomberg an opportunity to be the candidate nearest to Sanders after Super Tuesday, and then to consolidate the moderate vote. I have cashed in a lot of my other profits to bring me broadly flat on Bloomberg. I just wish I'd changed my mind sooner. (Don't worry guys - the buys on Klobuchar and Buttigieg and the sells on Biden, Warren, Yang and Clinton gave me a lot of profits that could be absorbed in this market.)
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Google is your friend.
I did and it came up with the following
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
Behind "could"?
Point taken 😊 but I stick by "all" or "every" or a similar expression of totality and now you're going to tell me that that makes "most" much further down the field than second and I'll agree with you now.
That's the thing about rights: you can do them without permission. I went into the difference between rights and options a few weeks back. Prior to EU departure we had rights: we could do things without asking permission[1]. Now we have options: we can do the same things with permission. This imposes costs - bureaucracy and delay - and raises the possibility that permission is denied. Such denial has already happened in one famous case - Nigel Lawson's application to live in France - and will no doubt continue to less celebrated people.
I observed some time ago that people had a genuine difficulty between distinguishing between the two. Leaverism appeared to be concentrated amongst those who did not want such rights or did not intend to use them, and amongst those who were sufficiently wealthy to not be disadvantaged of the change[2]. For such people the need to understand the difference is less and frequently do not. For those who did want them or hoped to use them, the difference is now excruciatingly apparent.
[1] Or more precisely, without asking more permission than the locals, and not being denied on grounds of nationality. [2] A rather sad fact is that if you have sufficient money you can live almost anywhere...
Flip that for what was wrong with the EU for many: EU residents had the right to come here - regardless of what they offered the UK. Now we have the option again to let them in - or not. Determining who comes inside our borders is a VERY happy state of affairs for 17.4m people.
Indeed. And I think this was the calculus that many people employed. Quite a few people made as accurate an assessment as they could given the facts at the time and voted accordingly. Remainers find it difficult to understand that Leavers may have - entirely correctly - voted in their best interests. Leavers similarly find it difficult to understand that Remainers did likewise. We will no doubt hear from Leavers irate that situation X isn't to their liking post-Brexit, and had the decision gone the other away there would be similar buyer's remorse. But we chose between two options, and here we are.
Will you no longer be able to do those things, or are some of them just a bit more difficult?
They will no longer be rights.
But you'll still be able to do them?
Possibly, possibly not.
That's the thing about rights: you can do them without permission. I went into the difference between rights and options a few weeks back. Prior to EU departure we had rights: we could do things without asking permission[1]. Now we have options: we can do the same things with permission. This imposes costs - bureaucracy and delay - and raises the possibility that permission is denied. Such denial has already happened in one famous case - Nigel Lawson's application to live in France - and will no doubt continue to less celebrated people.
[1] Or more precisely, without asking more permission than the locals, and not being denied on grounds of nationality. [2] A rather sad fact is that if you have sufficient money you can live almost anywhere...
I'd argue we had benefits from our membership, not rights. But I guess it's an issue of perspective at this point.
The issue of temporary exports is a right we will lose. We will still be able to do it but it will be a hassle and boy was it a hassle every time I did it. I can think of one occasion if it wasn't for our competition having the same issue the company I worked for would have lost a huge deal. This was pre Cyprus being in the EU.
The solution to this problem will be for non UK companies to move their European HO out of the UK to Europe to avoid this problem (amongst other reasons). It will be the same for other organisations that move stuff around on a temporary basis particularly if speed is important eg Formula 1, Rock bands on tour, etc. They will move their logistics to Europe. Yes they still have the problem when they go elsewhere, but not in the EU.
That was a right and a benefit.
And EU companies will locate to UK to protect their UK business. It will not be all one way
I heard a lady today saying that London fashion houses are to relocate their manufacturing to the UK and away from China
Somehow I did not have you down as someone who attended runway shows, @Big_G_NorthWales ...
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
To me, maybe uniquely, we are now entering the interesting phase of Brexit, and the one I have been anticipating for the last three years. Having decided to go ahead we have no good choices, but very important choices have to be made. It's a shame the debate has all but dried up.
On whether Leave choice was the right one, I would have thought the fact Brexit won't deliver what Leavers said it would deliver suggests an answer to that question
T Such denial has already happened in one famous case - Nigel Lawson's application to live in France - and will no doubt continue to less celebrated people.
[1] Or more precisely, without asking more permission than the locals, and not being denied on grounds of nationality. [2] A rather sad fact is that if you have sufficient money you can live almost anywhere...
I'd argue we had benefits from our membership, not rights. But I guess it's an issue of perspective at this point.
The issue of temporary exports is a right we will lose. We will still be able to do it but it will be a hassle and boy was it a hassle every time I did it. I can think of one occasion if it wasn't for our competition having the same issue the company I worked for would have lost a huge deal. This was pre Cyprus being in the EU.
The solution to this problem will be for non UK companies to move their European HO out of the UK to Europe to avoid this problem (amongst other reasons). It will be the same for other organisations that move stuff around on a temporary basis particularly if speed is important eg Formula 1, Rock bands on tour, etc. They will move their logistics to Europe. Yes they still have the problem when they go elsewhere, but not in the EU.
That was a right and a benefit.
And EU companies will locate to UK to protect their UK business. It will not be all one way
I heard a lady today saying that London fashion houses are to relocate their manufacturing to the UK and away from China
I think you are missing the order of magnitude in the difference. Many will be here already, they wont have to move here, but their Europe Africa HO will move out.
For example the two companies I was referring to were huge US companies. They had both a UK operation and EMEA organisations based in the UK. The UK ones stay the EMEA one move.
I know of a large Pharma organisation that has both a UK and EMEA operation in the UK and was to merger its Irish operation into the UK operation. EMEA moving out, Irish operation staying where it is. Uk operation stays.
And anyway none of this solves the temporary export issue. For any organisation where this is an issue just move your logistics out of the UK. You immediately solve 27 problems and gain just 1.
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Google is your friend.
I did and it came up with the following
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
Which was about US free trade deals, and said it typically took 18 months to negotiate a deal, but three and a half years before all the hurdles were completed and deals implemented.
How many trade deals have been done "after BREXIT"? I just enquired generally (nothing about USA or BREXIT) since that was the basis of the statement I queried - i.e. most trade deals take 7 years or so. However you look at it the timescale was over egged, and how.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
I am sure you have a very long, fulfilling and happy life ahead of you at 81. But you won't live to see us go back in to the EU, and nor will I, or anyone else here. We are now on a divergent path.
I agree. The EU will not be there (in an acceptable format) to go back to in the sort of timescales discussed here.
Nevertheless any sensible leaver should be wishing the ex-UK EU well, as the surest way to provide a following economic wind to help make a success of Brexit.
Too many leavers are still stuck in the mindset of seeing the EU as the enemy, as if its collapse would somehow be to this country’s benefit.
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Google is your friend.
I did and it came up with the following
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
Underused or not used enough more than misused I'd say.
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
I am sure you have a very long, fulfilling and happy life ahead of you at 81. But you won't live to see us go back in to the EU, and nor will I, or anyone else here. We are now on a divergent path.
I agree. The EU will not be there (in an acceptable format) to go back to in the sort of timescales discussed here.
Nevertheless any sensible leaver should be wishing the ex-UK EU well, as the surest way to provide a following economic wind to help make a success of Brexit.
Too many leavers are still stuck in the mindset of seeing the EU as the enemy, as if its collapse would somehow be to this country’s benefit.
I am wishing them well. And I don't long for the collapse of the organisation - now that we've left, none of our business.
I thought that British journalistic cottage industry of EU bashing - invented and honed by Boris Johnson - would have met its final demise a few Fridays ago. Obviously not.
You think it's an inaccurate account of her experience?
That's the thing about rights: you can do them without permission. I went into the difference between rights and options a few weeks back. Prior to EU departure we had rights: we could do things without asking permission[1]. Now we have options: we can do the same things with permission. This imposes costs - bureaucracy and delay - and raises the possibility that permission is denied. Such denial has already happened in one famous case - Nigel Lawson's application to live in France - and will no doubt continue to less celebrated people.
I observed some time ago that people had a genuine difficulty between distinguishing between the two. Leaverism appeared to be concentrated amongst those who did not want such rights or did not intend to use them, and amongst those who were sufficiently wealthy to not be disadvantaged of the change[2]. For such people the need to understand the difference is less and frequently do not. For those who did want them or hoped to use them, the difference is now excruciatingly apparent.
[1] Or more precisely, without asking more permission than the locals, and not being denied on grounds of nationality. [2] A rather sad fact is that if you have sufficient money you can live almost anywhere...
Flip that for what was wrong with the EU for many: EU residents had the right to come here - regardless of what they offered the UK. Now we have the option again to let them in - or not. Determining who comes inside our borders is a VERY happy state of affairs for 17.4m people.
Indeed. And I think this was the calculus that many people employed. Quite a few people made as accurate an assessment as they could given the facts at the time and voted accordingly. Remainers find it difficult to understand that Leavers may have - entirely correctly - voted in their best interests. Leavers similarly find it difficult to understand that Remainers did likewise. We will no doubt hear from Leavers irate that situation X isn't to their liking post-Brexit, and had the decision gone the other away there would be similar buyer's remorse. But we chose between two options, and here we are.
I think Mark, and Casino earlier in a reply to me, make a very valid argument on the rights issue. I disagree with them but their logic is solid.
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Google is your friend.
I did and it came up with the following
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
Underused or not used enough more than misused I'd say.
I'll stick by misused if that's alright by you.
Well of course it is, why even ask? I didn't bother to ask if it was alright that I took a contrary view, and why would I?
It seems to me, and has seemed so since the 1960’s, that the economies of scale are driving businesses to become larger, and it therefore being more and more difficult for any individual country of 60m or so to be able to ‘manage’ them, legally. Hence some sort of supranational organisation is necessary, and the UK has just announced, in effect, that it doesn’t need any help from anyone, and is perfectly capable of dealing with the Amazons and Googles of this world on its own.
I believe this is hopelessly wrong. I have supported EU membership all my adult life, including campaigning in the 1975 and 2016 referendums.
I just hope to live long enough to see the return to the EU, but at 81 am not very optimistic.
Too wee and too stupid?
First yes, second no.
I am sure you have a very long, fulfilling and happy life ahead of you at 81. But you won't live to see us go back in to the EU, and nor will I, or anyone else here. We are now on a divergent path.
I agree. The EU will not be there (in an acceptable format) to go back to in the sort of timescales discussed here.
Nevertheless any sensible leaver should be wishing the ex-UK EU well, as the surest way to provide a following economic wind to help make a success of Brexit.
Too many leavers are still stuck in the mindset of seeing the EU as the enemy, as if its collapse would somehow be to this country’s benefit.
I certainly do not wish our neighbours ill, for economic or any other reason. I understand how in the process of debate/ argument that kind of impression can be created (in both directions) but I don't think that signifies enmity.
I come on here and find the same people repeating the same Brexit arguments.
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
Why? Do you seriously imagine that Brexit and the EU will NOT colour every political decision for the next 5 years or more?
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
What is this "deal which might be scuppered" of which you speak?
Brexit Part 2 is negotiating the fabled and much vaunted Free Trade Agreement. The EU has made it known that they want to start with Fishing and retaining access to UK waters. Boris has promised UK fishermen that UK waters are for UK fishermen.
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
This is how ALL negotiations start otherwise they're not negotiations. Like to see some evidence for your last sentence.
Google is your friend.
I did and it came up with the following
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
Underused or not used enough more than misused I'd say.
I'll stick by misused if that's alright by you.
Well of course it is, why even ask? I didn't bother to ask if it was alright that I took a contrary view, and why would I?
I can see now my post looks a bit angry. It wasn't intended to. I apologise.
And EU companies will locate to UK to protect their UK business. It will not be all one way
I heard a lady today saying that London fashion houses are to relocate their manufacturing to the UK and away from China
To some extent that will happen. It is nevertheless remarkable how little salience access to the UK market has had in negotiations so far. The negotiating points have been entirely about what access the EU will offer to its markets and what concessions the UK is willing to make to get that access. Third countries haven't been particularly interested in access to the UK market either, preferring to see what relationship the UK sets up with the EU.
When I read the Claire Fox piece, which is very enjoyably written, my initial reaction was not "the EU hasn't learned" but "Claire Fox knows what her readers want to read".
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
"We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality"
Well I'm glad somebody noticed
Have you read Superforecasters?
It's a great book. Basically, don't trust anyone who doesn't regularly change their mind, and who doesn't admit to regularly changing their mind.
The people who performed best were people who were constantly changing their expected outcomes as new information came in. The people who performed worst were people who started off with one call, and kept looking for reasons why it was right, even as evidence kept coming in that it was wrong.
Let me start by saying that I was wrong about Michael Bloomberg. I assumed that the early Primaries would have resulted in a rapid winnowing of the Democratic field, and therefore a moderate champion going into Super Tuesday.
How wrong I was.
With two states down, we still have every meaningful player in the moderate track still in the game. This gives Bloomberg an opportunity to be the candidate nearest to Sanders after Super Tuesday, and then to consolidate the moderate vote. I have cashed in a lot of my other profits to bring me broadly flat on Bloomberg. I just wish I'd changed my mind sooner. (Don't worry guys - the buys on Klobuchar and Buttigieg and the sells on Biden, Warren, Yang and Clinton gave me a lot of profits that could be absorbed in this market.)
I haven't read it, but I will put it on the list!
Doesn't help people who have to make decisions now costing billions with outcomes in 20 years time (eg HS2). Helps pundits.
Comments
The majority of voters were prepared to give them up or, more likely, actively wanted rid of them. When you get married, you lose the freedom to go out on the pull, but no one gets to chat up your wife either, and you've made the choice that the security of the latter outweighs the loss of the former freedom. To describe it as the loss of rights, while technically true I guess, would be ridiculous, and people would think you were a bit of a weirdo to omit the second part of the deal when criticising the choice made.
Have you read down this thread?
I *think* we actually agree: we are losing rights but those who voted to leave the EU don't care.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-51514628
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-51515557
Johnson himself last July, he writes about approval ratings, he didn't realise the exception from the rule that he found.
He missed that Boris is following the typical road of PM's in reverse, he takes his party from it's lowest point to it's highest point, he replaces his government at the start not the end, he becomes bold now not later.
And so far it's working, because people want a bold leader at a time of crisis and malaise.
That lack of acknowledgment, especially on a forum where everyone knows it, seems a bit of a waste of time. Forgive me for putting words in your mouth, but it seems you're basically just saying you think its bad we are leaving the EU, and maybe trying to make people who are glad of it feel a bit guilty about it
The older people had no memory of wanting to travel; however, one of todays 14 year olds has come to my mind reading all this.
She plans to do drama 'and if I do I will be able to work anywhere in the world'.
Leaving the EU seems to have made that just a bit more difficult for her.
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/dont-expect-the-eu-to-learn-any-lessons-from-brexit/
I liked this bit.
One thing we can be sure of is that Brexit will leave its mark on the EU. Indeed, the European Commission’s proposal for a two year-long conference (that’s right, a two-year long conference!) on the Future of Europe is specifically designed to counter the damaging impact of a “Brexodus”.
Two years? Let me save them the trouble. The answer they are looking for is "More Europe".
Come on guys, it's boring.
Let's find something else to discuss for a change.
As I say, just a little bit more difficult.
Brexit didn't win the argument conclusively as the pro-EU forces did in the 70's. If leavers had any political nouse they would be trying to win people over to their cause not throwing rocks at every available opportunity. Johnson might seem very secure just now but we are in a post-Brexit honeymoon where nothing has really changed even though we have left.
Political fortunes change very rapidly and the levers seem to be making very little attempt to consolidate their fragile victory.
Replacing a couple of Europe’s busiest ports would be a minor part of the infrastructure project. And of course the dams would provide massive land bridges.
But I wouldn’t worry about it as it’s unlikely to happen in our lifetimes.
I can well understand why its enthusiasts want to move on. If I’d made such an epic error, I’d try to change the subject too.
The Head Count are upset because they see the governing system as a vast engine that exists, apparently, to spite them, while providing Overfinch owning pissants anthills to piss from.
It is the elephant in the room Robert. Ignoring it does not really work. In a few weeks time Boris and the EU start on the next bit and fishing will be the opener. That will be a battle royal and might be sufficient to scupper the whole deal.
Schrodinger's Border up the Irish Sea needs sorting.
31st Jan 2020 was only the end of Brexit Part 1. Brexit is not over yet.
We all want to know we made the right decision. And that means people (like me) who campaigned for us to leave the EU want to look for evidence that supports that view. Likewise, those who campaigned against are constant constantly looking for news items that suggest either the EU is doing better, or the UK is doing worse.
The reality is that we don't know.
And reading the Claire Fox piece, I thought "if the EU had had a tightly focused meeting on how to ensure that it changed so that other countries wouldn't want to Brexit, then her piece would have been EU leaders in panic as they fear further exodus." There was no set of events that would have resulted in her writing a piece that contradicted her existing narrative.
Which makes it a bit boring. And not very insightful.
And it makes me fear for humanity. We are all so desperate to me seen as right, we care more about the argument than the actuality.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/man-who-went-never-ending-17753605?fbclid=IwAR3uKIsqX04n8CXuuZF50PMcJkq8WZbqQzgalqJDO4YBO-pLKcDXISpUXcw
If Boris holds on to his promise, the negotiations may well stick at that stage and there are only 6 to 8 months to conclude them on the existing timetable.
Most FTA's take 7 years or so.
I hope the new inhabitants of Doggerland like their huge windturbines.
This is what politicians really mean (as opposed to what they think they mean) when they talk about "making government like John Lewis" - an organisation with a human face, who's job it is to get things sorted out. As opposed to a voice on the TV who tells you that things will be worse in 5 years for the low low price of 111 Trillion pounds.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/14/opinion/trump-voters-2020.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
all we know is the fear mongering didn't work out as forecast
The solution to this problem will be for non UK companies to move their European HO out of the UK to Europe to avoid this problem (amongst other reasons). It will be the same for other organisations that move stuff around on a temporary basis particularly if speed is important eg Formula 1, Rock bands on tour, etc. They will move their logistics to Europe. Yes they still have the problem when they go elsewhere, but not in the EU.
That was a right and a benefit.
Maldives-China, which one would have thought would have been one of the easiest in history (Maldives export fish and tourism, and import everything else) took five years, for example.
Usually, the issue is one of concentrated losses and diffuse gains. So, the losers (a locally protected industry) lobbies hard to be carved out of the FTA.
But that shouldn't be an issue here. However, there are some things that complicate a UK-EU agreement.
Firstly, the existing agreements include things that matter a lot to the UK, such as treatment of double taxation and holding taxes. These aren't EU competences, and so the EU cannot offer something the UK wants as part of negotiations. There needs to be primary legislation passed at the individual country level.
Secondly, there are industries - like autos - which depend on just in time supply chains. In the US, the auto industry on the Canadian border has a special system where trucks carrying parts from suppliers in Ontario drive along a special lane, and are precleared. They barely slowdown as they cross the border. We want creation of these things to be part of an FTA, and that requires arguments over who pays for it, and who specs it. And it requires trust in areas like data privacy.
Well I'm glad somebody noticed
I heard a lady today saying that London fashion houses are to relocate their manufacturing to the UK and away from China
Ministers -> permanent secretaries -> civil servants: ministers get questioned in the House of Commons every month or more frequently
Cummings -> SpAds -> civil servants: nursery rhymes, rants about PJ Masks
On average, trade negotiations take 28 months, but there is large variation in the length of negotiations.
"Most" is the second most misused word on this site. 😇
It's a great book. Basically, don't trust anyone who doesn't regularly change their mind, and who doesn't admit to regularly changing their mind.
The people who performed best were people who were constantly changing their expected outcomes as new information came in. The people who performed worst were people who started off with one call, and kept looking for reasons why it was right, even as evidence kept coming in that it was wrong.
Let me start by saying that I was wrong about Michael Bloomberg. I assumed that the early Primaries would have resulted in a rapid winnowing of the Democratic field, and therefore a moderate champion going into Super Tuesday.
How wrong I was.
With two states down, we still have every meaningful player in the moderate track still in the game. This gives Bloomberg an opportunity to be the candidate nearest to Sanders after Super Tuesday, and then to consolidate the moderate vote. I have cashed in a lot of my other profits to bring me broadly flat on Bloomberg. I just wish I'd changed my mind sooner. (Don't worry guys - the buys on Klobuchar and Buttigieg and the sells on Biden, Warren, Yang and Clinton gave me a lot of profits that could be absorbed in this market.)
Which was about US free trade deals, and said it typically took 18 months to negotiate a deal, but three and a half years before all the hurdles were completed and deals implemented.
On whether Leave choice was the right one, I would have thought the fact Brexit won't deliver what Leavers said it would deliver suggests an answer to that question
For example the two companies I was referring to were huge US companies. They had both a UK operation and EMEA organisations based in the UK. The UK ones stay the EMEA one move.
I know of a large Pharma organisation that has both a UK and EMEA operation in the UK and was to merger its Irish operation into the UK operation. EMEA moving out, Irish operation staying where it is. Uk operation stays.
And anyway none of this solves the temporary export issue. For any organisation where this is an issue just move your logistics out of the UK. You immediately solve 27 problems and gain just 1.
Too many leavers are still stuck in the mindset of seeing the EU as the enemy, as if its collapse would somehow be to this country’s benefit.