The Brexit Thread

[Bonny79]

12 hours ago, Mark frae Crieff said:

No as Advisory Referendums it was a pretty big one.. but if you look at the question asked on the ballot paper it should hold as much credance as the paper it was written on. 

 

What u mean?   Was it on cheap paper? 😂

Seriously,  the question was quite easy to understand. 

[Mark frae Crieff]

4 hours ago, Bonny79 said:

What u mean?   Was it on cheap paper? 😂

Seriously,  the question was quite easy to understand. 

Was it? 

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017/05/17/the-brexit-referendum-question-was-flawed-in-its-design/

[Bonny79]

Should Britain leave the EU.   2 options. 

 

 

Yes was a easy one 

[Orraloon]

16 minutes ago, Bonny79 said:

Should Britain leave the EU.   2 options. 

 

 

Yes was a easy one 

Except that wasn't the question. Could you not read it? You could get somebody to read it for you next time if you want.

Edited November 4, 2019 by Orraloon

[Bonny79]

Everyone else clearly isn't as thick as you because they understood it just fine. 

[exile]

It's clear that the majority voted Leave, but they only voted to leave the EU, i.e. what it said on the ballot paper.

17.4 million people did not vote for a clean break, no deal, WTO, EFTA, Norway, BrINO or any other particular kind of Brexit. 

The fact that people still claim they did, shows that it was (in that sense) not clear what they were voting for. 

[Eisegerwind]

38 minutes ago, exile said:

It's clear that the majority voted Leave, but they only voted to leave the EU, i.e. what it said on the ballot paper.

17.4 million people did not vote for a clean break, no deal, WTO, EFTA, Norway, BrINO or any other particular kind of Brexit. 

The fact that people still claim they did, shows that it was (in that sense) not clear what they were voting for. 

I don't buy that, I wouldn't expect the general electorate to be that informed or interested in nuances of a Leave vote. (and to be honest no reason why they should be, that's what we pay politicians for).

If you look at the EU referendum thread on this forum which is generally posted on by politically minded posters there are no references to any of the terms that you've used in the second sentence prior to the vote. It would appear that theses issues have only become relevant since leave won!

[exile]

8 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

I don't buy that, I wouldn't expect the general electorate to be that informed or interested in nuances of a Leave vote. (and to be honest no reason why they should be, that's what we pay politicians for).

If you look at the EU referendum thread on this forum which is generally posted on by politically minded posters there are no references to any of the terms that you've used in the second sentence prior to the vote. It would appear that theses issues have only become relevant since leave won!

There was extensive discussion about what kind of future scenario might mean in terms of things like EFTA, Norway, Switzerland, Canada models, etc. Those (especially Norway) were used to convince the voter that a Leave outcome needn't even leave all of the institutions (e.g. single market or customs union). I don't have time to find them right now (maybe later). I'd have thought Remainer sites will have them.* 

The suggestion that people in 2016 were generally not using terms like clean Brexit, no deal, WTO etc, supports my point that people were not thinking in those terms in that level of detail, therefore they can't turn round and say afterwards that 'people knew they were voting for them'

* e.g. 

 

Edited November 4, 2019 by exile

[Eisegerwind]

1 hour ago, exile said:

There was extensive discussion about what kind of future scenario might mean in terms of things like EFTA, Norway, Switzerland, Canada models, etc. Those (especially Norway) were used to convince the voter that a Leave outcome needn't even leave all of the institutions (e.g. single market or customs union). I don't have time to find them right now (maybe later). I'd have thought Remainer sites will have them.* 

The suggestion that people in 2016 were generally not using terms like clean Brexit, no deal, WTO etc, supports my point that people were not thinking in those terms in that level of detail, therefore they can't turn round and say afterwards that 'people knew they were voting for them'

* e.g. 

 

Still smacks of revisionism to me.

[exile]

5 minutes ago, Eisegerwind said:

Still smacks of revisionism to me.

Revisionism by whom?  Nigel Farage before the referendum holding up Norway as an example of what Leave could mean, and then after it, claiming that Brexit had to mean clean break / no deal / WTO. To me that is revisionism.

Similarly, Remainers claiming afterwards that Leave didn't mean no deal / clean break/ WTO could be considered revisionism. 

The Referendum question allowed both hard and soft Brexit options to be part of the Leave outcome, but the 17.4m mandate cannot be attributed to either on its own, just the sum of them.

 

[Eisegerwind]

2 hours ago, exile said:

It's clear that the majority voted Leave, but they only voted to leave the EU, i.e. what it said on the ballot paper.

17.4 million people did not vote for a clean break, no deal, WTO, EFTA, Norway, BrINO or any other particular kind of Brexit. 

The fact that people still claim they did, shows that it was (in that sense) not clear what they were voting for. 

I'd regard the above as revisionism, because you are using post vote terminology to analyse pre vote intentions.

26 minutes ago, exile said:

The Referendum question allowed both hard and soft Brexit options to be part of the Leave outcome, but the 17.4m mandate cannot be attributed to either on its own, just the sum of them.

 

I htink that's where we differ, for me the Leave vote was leave regardless of hard or soft, therefore the 17.4m applies to both or even all possible options.

[ParisInAKilt]

2 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

I don't buy that, I wouldn't expect the general electorate to be that informed or interested in nuances of a Leave vote. (and to be honest no reason why they should be, that's what we pay politicians for).

If you look at the EU referendum thread on this forum which is generally posted on by politically minded posters there are no references to any of the terms that you've used in the second sentence prior to the vote. It would appear that theses issues have only become relevant since leave won!

Agreed. At least how I seen it from my bunker in Wellington at the time. 

I’ve been fairly open in my general hatred for all things EU but this referendum was always going to be divisive and it’s proven that and more, maybe that was the point, I don’t know, in hindsight is an in / out vote with such a small majority enough to leave? 

[exile]

2 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

I'd regard the above as revisionism, because you are using post vote terminology to analyse pre vote intentions.

Eh, I literally just posted a video showing Farage talking about Norway and EEA. Before the referendum.

As for post-vote terms, their use after and not before the referendum is revisionism on the part of those who originally claimed we could leave the EU and still be in single market and customs union, but afterwards dismissed them as not really Brexit, or BrINO.

 

2 hours ago, Eisegerwind said:

I htink that's where we differ, for me the Leave vote was leave regardless of hard or soft, therefore the 17.4m applies to both or even all possible options.

I think the most that can be said is that 17.4m were prepared to vote Leave without knowing which kind of Brexit it would lead to, deal or no deal. But that is different from saying 17.4m voted for a clean break or no deal, as some claim. Which was my original point. 

A parallel could be: what did Yes voters think they were voting for, in terms of EU membership, in 2014? Some may have thought (hoped) that we'd get a deal to remain in the EU; others no doubt thought indy would mean a welcome clean break, getting shot of the EU. But of the 1.6m Yes voters,  all we can say is that they voted for indy, we surely can't claim that all 1.6m were all voting to stay in EU or all voting to exit the EU, neither of which option was on the ballot paper. Similarly, of the 17.4m, all we can say is that they voted to leave the EU, but they were not all voting for any particular soft or hard Brexit, which was not on the ballot paper.   

[thplinth]

Quote

 

 https://www.ft.com/content/35b27568-f734-11e9-bbe1-4db3476c5ff0

    
Gyorgy Matolcsy NOVEMBER 3 2019

The time has come to seek a way out of the euro trap. There is a harmful dogma that the euro was the “normal” next step towards unifying western Europe. But the common European currency was not normal at all, because almost none of the preconditions were met.

Two decades after the euro’s launch, most of the necessary pillars of a successful global currency — a common state, a budget covering at least 15-20 per cent of the eurozone’s total gross domestic product, a eurozone finance minister and a ministry to go with the post — are still missing.

We rarely admit the real roots of the ill-advised decision to create the common currency: it was a French snare. As Germany unified, François Mitterrand, then French president, feared growing German power and believed convincing the country to give up its Deutschemark would be enough to avoid a German Europe. The chancellor of the time, Helmut Kohl, gave in and considered the euro the ultimate price for a unified Germany.

They were both wrong. We now have a European Germany, not a German Europe, and the euro was un­able to prevent the emergence of another strong German power.

But the Germans also fell into the trap of the “too good to be true” euro. The inclusion of southern European economies in the eurozone led to an exchange rate that was weak enough to allow the Germans to become the strongest global export machine in the EU. This windfall opportunity made them complacent. They neglected to upgrade their infrastructure or to invest enough in future industries. They missed the digital revolution, miscalculated the emergence of China and failed to build pan-European global companies. At the same time, companies like Allianz, Deutsche Bank and Bayer launched fruitless efforts to conquer Wall Street and the US.

Most eurozone countries fared better before the euro than they did with it. According to analysis by the Centre for European Policy, there have been few winners and many losers in the first two decades of the euro.

The common currency was not needed for European success stories before 1999 and the majority of eurozone member states did not benefit from it later. During the 2008 financial crisis and the 2011-12 eurozone economic crisis, most members were badly hit, having piled up huge government debts. There is no free lunch and cheap loans often cost a lot later.

Alexandre Lamfalussy, the Hungarian-born economist, was right to tell us that a common currency was needed to strengthen the bond between European powers and defend the EU against the Soviets. There was only one snag: the final decision to create the euro was made in Maastricht in 1992, as the Soviet Union collapsed. The raison d’être of the currency ended precisely as it was being born.

The time has come to wake up from this harmful and fruitless dream. A good starting point would be to recognise that the single currency is a trap for practically all its members — for different reasons — not a gold mine. EU states, both in and outside the eurozone, should admit that the euro has been a strategic error. The aim of building a global western currency that vies with the dollar was a challenge to the US. The European vision of a United States of Europe has resulted in both open and hidden US warfare against the EU and the eurozone in the past two decades.

We need to work out how to free ourselves from this trap. Europeans must give up their risky fantasies of creating a power that rivals the US. Members of the eurozone should be allowed to leave the currency zone in the coming decades, and those remaining should build a more sustainable global currency. Let’s celebrate the 30th anniversary in 2022 of the Maastricht treaty that spawned the euro by rewriting the pact.

The writer is governor of the Hungarian National Bank

 

 

[Bonny79]

I do like the pound but hate the euro

[Rich NATA]

9 hours ago, Bonny79 said:

I do like the pound but hate the euro

What do you use to buy things when you go to a country, which uses the Euro?

[Bonny79]

7 minutes ago, Rich NATA said:

What do you use to buy things when you go to a country, which uses the Euro?

The dam euro sir.  Wish it wud die but no choice 

[Rich NATA]

If you hated it that much, you'd avoid it.

[Ally Bongo]

2 hours ago, Bonny79 said:

The dam euro sir.  Wish it wud die but no choice 

You are a fucking moron

[Bonny79]

6 hours ago, Ally Bongo said:

You are a fucking moron

Cheers ally.  Ya not read anything bout anything but come in with an educated comment at the end.  😂

[Eisegerwind]

On 11/4/2019 at 11:57 PM, exile said:

Eh, I literally just posted a video showing Farage talking about Norway and EEA. Before the referendum.

As for post-vote terms, their use after and not before the referendum is revisionism on the part of those who originally claimed we could leave the EU and still be in single market and customs union, but afterwards dismissed them as not really Brexit, or BrINO.

 

I think the most that can be said is that 17.4m were prepared to vote Leave without knowing which kind of Brexit it would lead to, deal or no deal. But that is different from saying 17.4m voted for a clean break or no deal, as some claim. Which was my original point. 

A parallel could be: what did Yes voters think they were voting for, in terms of EU membership, in 2014? Some may have thought (hoped) that we'd get a deal to remain in the EU; others no doubt thought indy would mean a welcome clean break, getting shot of the EU. But of the 1.6m Yes voters,  all we can say is that they voted for indy, we surely can't claim that all 1.6m were all voting to stay in EU or all voting to exit the EU, neither of which option was on the ballot paper. Similarly, of the 17.4m, all we can say is that they voted to leave the EU, but they were not all voting for any particular soft or hard Brexit, which was not on the ballot paper.   

Politicians taking a harder line after they've won a vote not that surprising, and yes there probably is revisionism on all sides.

However even after the post vote shitshow we've had to endure if that question was put to the electorate again do you not think the 17.4 million would vote the same way again. I guess the election will sort of establish that or not.

[exile]

1 hour ago, Eisegerwind said:

Politicians taking a harder line after they've won a vote not that surprising, and yes there probably is revisionism on all sides.

However even after the post vote shitshow we've had to endure if that question was put to the electorate again do you not think the 17.4 million would vote the same way again. I guess the election will sort of establish that or not.

I don't know how people would vote, it would depend on the question. Also, some pro-remainers while originally wanting remain originally would vote leave to honour the first referendum.

There is an argument for any second referendum only having alternative Leave options on the ballot. This would probably have to have a no deal option on it, and if so, it should have a soft Brexit option (e.g. single market and customs union), and maybe one in between (May or Boris deal). That would honour the 2016 result, and resolve whether people really wanted no deal or softer Brexit or whatever.   

I wouldn't bank on the present election sorting out the issue. Even a Boris majority could be tricky, if the new intake Tories are very Brexity, they may vote down the Boris deal and prolong the agony. A Boris slim majority could be tricky, a Boris minority would be back where we started, a Corbyn victory of any sort would open up new cans of worms, and could end up in another referendum anyway! 

Edited November 6, 2019 by exile

[Eisegerwind]

3 minutes ago, exile said:

I don't know how people would vote, it would depend on the question. Also, some pro-remainers while originally wanting remain originally would vote leave to honour the first referendum.

There is an argument for any second referendum only having alternative Leave options on the ballot. This would probably have to have a no deal option on it, and if so, it should have a soft Brexit option (e.g. single market and customs union), and maybe one in between (May or Boris deal). 

I wouldn't bank on the present election sorting out the issue. Even a Boris majority could be tricky, if the new intake Tories are very Brexity, they may vote down the Boris deal and prolong the agony. A Boris slim majority could be tricky, a Boris minority would be back where we started, a Corbyn victory of any sort would open up new cans of worms, and could end up in another referendum anyway! 

i don't know either but I suspect if the question was the same the numbers would be the same.

As a point of pedantry which was pointed out to me by a colleauge, a referendum is a vote on a single point. A 'referendum' on several leave options would be an absolute minefield in just about every way possible.

Nor would I but it's what's happening.

[thplinth]

On 10/29/2019 at 2:00 PM, ThistleWhistle said:

This is essentially why I can’t really get excited about Scotland becoming independent or not.  There’s folk in Hong Kong risking god knows to avoid losing sovereignty to China; Nepal, with barely a pot to piss in, are refusing to dilute their sovereignty despite China trying to essentially buy them...

Have you been following that. The violence now is horrendous. Here is the latest little incident...

https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1193864857994567680

It seems to have boiled down to one of these so called 'colour revolutions' and now lost a lot of support with the ordinary HK folk. Cop shot a guy the other day as well...

https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1193752539222560768

Note the truck driver applauding the cops at the end.

If the UK was on the US's shitlist I suspect the Scottish independence movement here would have received a lot of 'help'... Although they'd have a hell of job igniting Scots in any way. We are so docile.

Edited November 13, 2019 by thplinth

[ThistleWhistle]

6 hours ago, thplinth said:

Have you been following that. The violence now is horrendous. Here is the latest little incident...

https://twitter.com/dancohen3000/status/1193864857994567680

It seems to have boiled down to one of these so called 'colour revolutions' and now lost a lot of support with the ordinary HK folk. Cop shot a guy the other day as well...

https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1193752539222560768

Note the truck driver applauding the cops at the end.

If the UK was on the US's shitlist I suspect the Scottish independence movement here would have received a lot of 'help'... Although they'd have a hell of job igniting Scots in any way. We are so docile.

Read about the policeman one yesterday but fuck me the clip of the guy getting set alight is horrendous.  Do you think this is because it has been going on so long that anarchy was inevitable or that it has been helped along with outside interference - US maybe interfering or even possibly China to gain legitimacy in reasserting control?