Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Guardian newspaper is reporting a boost for Brexit. The ECJ has ruled on trade deals, and they're saying that national parliaments have less power to veto than was first thought.

I'd post the link but I'm on the move with an old phone.

Herzlos wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


We don't need it to be a win at any cost however. Yes I would prefer a deal with the EU (indeed I have said so multiple times), but only if it'll put us on a better footing than if we got no deal. Paying £80bn and potentially having nothing to show for it does not put us in a better position, plain and simple.

It depends on how much we value our world standing. How will we get on at the international stage if we get a reputation for ignoring debts? Everyone will be wary of us cheating them out of money.

Now if they are prepared to negotiate what we get for that £80bn then fair enough, but to pay it without that negotiation is something nobody anywhere in the world would do - and the UK shouldn't either.

They are prepared to negotiate the break payment, and what our ongoing benefits/liabilities are, but this comes before we agree the trade terms. Just like any contract where one party terminates it.

The EU aren't asking for 80bn as part of a trade deal; they are asking for it to settle our current obligations, and it will have no bearing on what deal we get later (though I'd be willing to put money on us getting a worse deal if we refuse to pay what we owe, and realistically 80bn is peanuts compared to what we make from the EU).

/sigh

We've been over this, the UK owes the difference between current liabilities and assets. It does Not 'owe' for future expenses that the EU has not begun yet. Based on this -according to the EU own accounts - the bill is 2.58bn

Nobody in the world is gonna care if we refuse to pay for things the EU would like to do but hasn't started yet - mainly because they wouldn't do the same either.

same old same old from the Murdoch rags.


https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/14/robert-mercer-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu-referendum-brexit-campaigns?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet

more dubious/worrying links between elements of the Trump campaign and some of the Brexit campaign.





Inflation has gone from 0.3% to 2.7% in past 12 months --devaluation of the £ one of the major causes of this.

....hmm ...

Whoa...
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/

•The Conservative vote share is up, sometimes dramatically so, since the last general election in every region of the UK.
•Labour are down on their 2015 vote haul in every region of the UK except the South West and South East where they were already performing poorly.
•The Liberal Democrat vote share is up in most regions, but only by small margins.
•UKIP’s vote share is down seven to ten points in all regions except Scotland and London, where they were already performing poorly.

Big shift... no?

Is it because the folks really likes Mays? Or is this more of a back-end referendum of Brexit?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The Guardian newspaper is reporting a boost for Brexit. The ECJ has ruled on trade deals, and they're saying that national parliaments have less power to veto than was first thought.

I'd post the link but I'm on the move with an old phone.

You mean this one.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/may/16/uk-brexit-boost-ecj-rules-trade-deals-parliament-ratification

Of course there are two sides to this and BBC have taken the opposite view.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-39934196

If you want some heavy bedtime reading you have the ruling is here:-

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessionid=9ea7d2dc30d63c5084083f7b49bd8e26e1cacbce1dfd.e34KaxiLc3qMb40Rch0SaxyLb3r0?text=&docid=190727&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=473213

The summary states:-

The Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore falls within the exclusive competence of the European Union, with the exception of the following provisions, which fall within a competence shared between the European Union and the Member States:

– the provisions of Section A (Investment Protection) of Chapter 9 (Investment) of that agreement, in so far as they relate to non-direct investment between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore;

– the provisions of Section B (Investor-State Dispute Settlement) of Chapter 9; and

– the provisions of Chapters 1 (Objectives and General Definitions), 14 (Transparency), 15 (Dispute Settlement between the Parties), 16 (Mediation Mechanism) and 17 (Institutional, General and Final Provisions) of that agreement, in so far as those provisions relate to the provisions of Chapter 9 and to the extent that the latter fall within a competence shared between the European Union and the Member States.

I'm not sure it adds that much. All it states is the EU does not *need* to get ratification of EU deals from each member states *parliaments* as it is in the domain of the EU to implement. However conversely it still does have to be agreed by the EU (and effectively the leaders of those states). Although I am not fully aware of all EU parliaments there may be those prime ministers or presidents where there remit is only to vote on the deal once they have taken it to parliament (for example issuing A50, the PM can do it, but still needs approval). In these cases the deal will still have to go to the respective parliaments. It's also a double edged sword, yes you might get some that you are glad not to have to go to a parliament; however on the other hand you may want some to go if you have a particularly awkward leaders (e.g. Spain over Gibraltar) who could then continually block the motion regardless until they get what they want.

Really all the ruling states is that once the trade deal is agreed it does not need to go to European parliaments as that could lead to variances of implementation (or being active in one country and not another). Simply it counts as EU legislation (i.e. applies immediately to all in the same way) instead of an EU Directive (which tells what states are to do but how they implement it is up to them).



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Whoa...
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/

•The Conservative vote share is up, sometimes dramatically so, since the last general election in every region of the UK.
•Labour are down on their 2015 vote haul in every region of the UK except the South West and South East where they were already performing poorly.
•The Liberal Democrat vote share is up in most regions, but only by small margins.
•UKIP’s vote share is down seven to ten points in all regions except Scotland and London, where they were already performing poorly.

Big shift... no?

Is it because the folks really likes Mays? Or is this more of a back-end referendum of Brexit?

There's a number of factors. Corbyn has been made out as weak (and is in some ways) but is his far left approach is pretty much abhorred by the right wing press (like the Daily Fail and the Scum) and hence they just attack him regardless of whether policies are good or bad (whilst at the same time praising Tory promises despite being copies of Labour promises that they abhorred at the last election). Unsurprisingly these are also the paper owners that have a vested interest in leaving the EU. Problem is that rational investigative journalism for these papers is well the stuff of nightmares for these papers. However Labour do have problems - although they have a vocal proportion of the very left people he is finding difficult to persuade middle England to vote for him as his policies mean more of the hard earned cash will go to support public services that they generally don't use but are happy to complain about when they do use then and aren't in a very good shape.

However most of the Tories support has come from the collapse of UKIP that set themselves as the far right anti EU party and now has been overshadowed by Tories (who now have swung so far right they are effectively newUKIP). Of course this is all going to come to a head when the EU steams on and the UK gets weaker and weaker economically/industrially/politically because of the decision, Scotland leaves, NI rejoins with Ireland and so on. Lots of businesses, science industry are now looking or actively shifting work to the EU to keep access to the EU funds and support.

Herzlos wrote:

The EU aren't asking for 80bn as part of a trade deal; they are asking for it to settle our current obligations, and it will have no bearing on what deal we get later (though I'd be willing to put money on us getting a worse deal if we refuse to pay what we owe, and realistically 80bn is peanuts compared to what we make from the EU).

Who is 'we' arent you in Spain?

The bill for 'current obligations' includes arbitrary sums that the EU tried to levy against Cameron prior to Brexit. It is not unusual to get these demands, remember this bill

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/24/david-cameron-refuses-pay-eu-bill-december-deadline

Cameron eventually didnt pay. The EU backed down. EU funding is very arbitrary and overcharging is rife unless action is taken. Remember La Handbag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

Thatcher negotiated a settlement for a refund of the UK because of our overcontribution. It happened because of thatcher, ot because the EU saw an accounting errors, there are no 'errors' the EU charges what it thinks it can, if you are France you pay less if you are Germany or the UK you pay more, and that is as a proportion of GDP, not absolute terms, with net returns from EU contributions.

Now as for our commitments, even if we were to agree to a bill in principle we would have to be very critical of its sum, as the sums are arbitrary, also our commitments are dependent on the UK having had full trade access and membership benefits, including a proportion of the funding back for Uk development as if we were in the EU. Anything less than that should come off ant bill. If we pay the full bill we get the full benefit of trade membership, with zero reductions. We would go with that that the UK has always wanted economic union, not political union. However this is not what the EU wants, they want us t pay a bill and then pay for trade.

It is this utter greed plus uncertainty which means that the UK is better off with a hard Brexit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:


There's a number of factors. Corbyn has been made out as weak (and is in some ways) but is his far left approach is pretty much abhorred by the right wing press (like the Daily Fail and the Scum) and hence they just attack him regardless of whether policies are good or bad (whilst at the same time praising Tory promises despite being copies of Labour promises that they abhorred at the last election). .

However you spin it, the hard fact about comrade Corbyn is that he wants to bring back the old left with full Trades Union power.
We have two options available:

A. A functional economy
B. A strong TUC with political power.

You can only pick one.

 Orlanth wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

The EU aren't asking for 80bn as part of a trade deal; they are asking for it to settle our current obligations, and it will have no bearing on what deal we get later (though I'd be willing to put money on us getting a worse deal if we refuse to pay what we owe, and realistically 80bn is peanuts compared to what we make from the EU).

Who is 'we' arent you in Spain?

The bill for 'current obligations' includes arbitrary sums that the EU tried to levy against Cameron prior to Brexit. It is not unusual to get these demands, remember this bill

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/oct/24/david-cameron-refuses-pay-eu-bill-december-deadline

Cameron eventually didnt pay. The EU backed down. EU funding is very arbitrary and overcharging is rife unless action is taken. Remember La Handbag:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_rebate

Thatcher negotiated a settlement for a refund of the UK because of our overcontribution. It happened because of thatcher, ot because the EU saw an accounting errors, there are no 'errors' the EU charges what it thinks it can, if you are France you pay less if you are Germany or the UK you pay more, and that is as a proportion of GDP, not absolute terms, with net returns from EU contributions.

Now as for our commitments, even if we were to agree to a bill in principle we would have to be very critical of its sum, as the sums are arbitrary, also our commitments are dependent on the UK having had full trade access and membership benefits, including a proportion of the funding back for Uk development as if we were in the EU. Anything less than that should come off ant bill. If we pay the full bill we get the full benefit of trade membership, with zero reductions. We would go with that that the UK has always wanted economic union, not political union. However this is not what the EU wants, they want us t pay a bill and then pay for trade.

It is this utter greed plus uncertainty which means that the UK is better off with a hard Brexit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Whirlwind wrote:


There's a number of factors. Corbyn has been made out as weak (and is in some ways) but is his far left approach is pretty much abhorred by the right wing press (like the Daily Fail and the Scum) and hence they just attack him regardless of whether policies are good or bad (whilst at the same time praising Tory promises despite being copies of Labour promises that they abhorred at the last election). .

However you spin it, the hard fact about comrade Corbyn is that he wants to bring back the old left with full Trades Union power.
We have two options available:

A. A functional economy
B. A strong TUC with political power.

You can only pick one.

The unions with heavy power sure helped various industries back in the olden days...
Thr unins can be a force for good but also can be used to turn thr economy into a failing mess.

And diane abbott at it again

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4511866/amp/Diane-Abbott-suffers-gets-lost-stage-addressing-police.html

Just think she would be home sec......

 Orlanth wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

The EU aren't asking for 80bn as part of a trade deal; they are asking for it to settle our current obligations, and it will have no bearing on what deal we get later (though I'd be willing to put money on us getting a worse deal if we refuse to pay what we owe, and realistically 80bn is peanuts compared to what we make from the EU).

Who is 'we' arent you in Spain?

No I'm in Scotland, but if it goes to gak and we don't leave the UK, I'll probably relocate to Spain or Germany (we have offices).

Skullhammer wrote:
And diane abbott at it again

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4511866/amp/Diane-Abbott-suffers-gets-lost-stage-addressing-police.html

Just think she would be home sec......

She seems to have rather alot of bad luck this election!

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


No, I do get that that is the process that the EU wants. I'm just saying that is not how negotiations work.

I've been involved I numerous negotiations in my life, both with new customers and leaving customers and I have never in my year of negotiations gone into a negotiation saying 'the fee is £xxx and once you agree to pay that we'll talk about what you get for that money'

I'm just saying that isn't how negotiations work - they never have and I'm prepared to say right now that is bet everything I own that they never will be done this way. If you dont legally owe anything (which even the EU lawyers agree we dont) then you need to discuss what you are prepared to offer for the money you want, if your not going to do that then why would anyone I their right mind agree to that?

If you wanted to buy Apple's from me and I said if you pay me £1 I may discuss selling you an Apple would you agree to that?

Again, I do agree that if we do get a deal on things like the EU space program and such we should pay into the EU budget - but to pay without knowing what we are getting, and with no legal obligation to pay would just be insane.

Again: no. EU lawyers have said they don't have the means to enforce any payments. That's why there is a negotiation (or rather there will be, because the UK hasn't provided anything beyond "we don't want to pay")

But this isn't paying for anything. That's an exit bill, a form of severance pay for compromises acquired during EU membership. What the UK gets for that is, basically, getting out of the EU debt-free and with the blessing of the bloc. The UK can walk out, or apparently not even walk in in the first place, but then trade defaults to WTO rules, and likely not going any further for an extended period.

Once that's settled, the UK has to decide what's the kind of deal they want from the EU. If it's trade in goods only (like Canada or South Korea) no further payments should be needed other than whatever European institutions the UK wants to participate in (ESA, EURATOM, CERN, etc.)

If they want to look further (for example, include services) it starts to look more like a Norway or Switzerland deal... which in addition of paying into the EU budget require freedom of movement which apparently are off-limits, so realistically are not going to happen.

The fact they they have no means to enforce payment means there is no debt anywhere but it their own head.

I could say right now that you owe me £40000 as my 'fee' for having this discussion with you, it doesn't actually mean that you do and since I couldn't enforce it then the debt only exists in my mind.

It doesn't work like that. If I leave my country for, say, the Bahamas and leave owed taxes they won't have any means to enforce the debt.

I'm sure I'll have problems any time I need to renew my passport or need consular assistance, though.

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

jouso wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:


No, I do get that that is the process that the EU wants. I'm just saying that is not how negotiations work.

I've been involved I numerous negotiations in my life, both with new customers and leaving customers and I have never in my year of negotiations gone into a negotiation saying 'the fee is £xxx and once you agree to pay that we'll talk about what you get for that money'

I'm just saying that isn't how negotiations work - they never have and I'm prepared to say right now that is bet everything I own that they never will be done this way. If you dont legally owe anything (which even the EU lawyers agree we dont) then you need to discuss what you are prepared to offer for the money you want, if your not going to do that then why would anyone I their right mind agree to that?

If you wanted to buy Apple's from me and I said if you pay me £1 I may discuss selling you an Apple would you agree to that?

Again, I do agree that if we do get a deal on things like the EU space program and such we should pay into the EU budget - but to pay without knowing what we are getting, and with no legal obligation to pay would just be insane.

Again: no. EU lawyers have said they don't have the means to enforce any payments. That's why there is a negotiation (or rather there will be, because the UK hasn't provided anything beyond "we don't want to pay")

But this isn't paying for anything. That's an exit bill, a form of severance pay for compromises acquired during EU membership. What the UK gets for that is, basically, getting out of the EU debt-free and with the blessing of the bloc. The UK can walk out, or apparently not even walk in in the first place, but then trade defaults to WTO rules, and likely not going any further for an extended period.

Once that's settled, the UK has to decide what's the kind of deal they want from the EU. If it's trade in goods only (like Canada or South Korea) no further payments should be needed other than whatever European institutions the UK wants to participate in (ESA, EURATOM, CERN, etc.)

If they want to look further (for example, include services) it starts to look more like a Norway or Switzerland deal... which in addition of paying into the EU budget require freedom of movement which apparently are off-limits, so realistically are not going to happen.

The fact they they have no means to enforce payment means there is no debt anywhere but it their own head.

I could say right now that you owe me £40000 as my 'fee' for having this discussion with you, it doesn't actually mean that you do and since I couldn't enforce it then the debt only exists in my mind.

It doesn't work like that. If I leave my country for, say, the Bahamas and leave owed taxes they won't have any means to enforce the debt.

I'm sure I'll have problems any time I need to renew my passport or need consular assistance, though.

Bit when the debt is on a country level you can't just go to the Bahamas - the international community will enforce it - the fact that this is unenforceable shows that there is no debt.

Also, Your tax example is wrong as the debt there is still enforceable, you might not be able to act on it whilst you are in the Bahamas but it still legally stands and if you ever come back they will enforce it.

Look into the EU accounts, they are freely available and I even posted a link to them on the last page. The UK debt to the EU from leaving is circa €2.58bn (accounts are only available from 2015 so it's probably a little higher than that). The rest of this 'debt' only exists in the EU head, and nobody anywhere (except maybe the EU) Is gonna give a damn if we don't pay it.

Stranger83 wrote:


Bit when the debt is on a country level you can't just go to the Bahamas - the international community will enforce it - the fact that this is unenforceable shows that there is no debt.

Again, not true. A coworker of mine was born an American citizen but has since taken up Spanish citizenship. He renounced American citizenship precisely because of taxes owed (whether it's right or wrong to tax your citizens abroad it's another thing entirely).

He still has a pending debt with the IRS, but as long as he stays away from the US the debt is unenforceable as per the US tax law it is absolutely legitimate.

Even for countries. There are billions in outstanding country debt, and countries default on their obligations all the time.

Which is exactly what I said - the debt is enforceable, it just isn't actionable.

If it wasn't enforceable he could just return to the US and suffer no consequences, because it is enforceable he has the consequence of not being able to return to the US.

As our 'bill' with the EU is not enforceable (read only exists in the EU head) then we too can walk away and nobody anywhere in the world would judge us as we do not actually owe them that money.

Stranger83 wrote:


If it wasn't enforceable he could just return to the US and suffer no consequences, because it is enforceable he has the consequence of not being able to return to the US.

As our 'bill' with the EU is not enforceable (read only exists in the EU head) then we too can walk away and nobody anywhere in the world would judge us as we do not actually owe them that money.

You said it: unless you want to do business with the EU, who happen to be your next-door neighbours where most of your trade comes and goes.

Good luck finding new markets for almost 50% of your trade.

What's this nonsense about "enforcing" payment of an international debt? What are the "International community" going to do - invade and repossess the television?

No. What happens is that the EU and UK work out what they feel would be a reasonable payment, in whichever direction. If the UK either doesn't negotiate it, or doesn't pay it, NO OTHER COUNTRY EVER TRUSTS US AGAIN.

Because we don't pay what the rest of the world and it's dog have looked at and decided is a reasonable amount. It's politics, not accountancy.

Enforceable - what would pass under international law as a debt and would be judged negatively by the international community if you didn't pay. Based on the EU own accounts this is in the region of 2.58bn (calculations for this are on this thread)

Unenforceable - a demand for payment that has no basis on actual facts or the assets/liabilities of the organisation and is not based on anything more tangible than what falls out of the EU head. No country would care if we walk away from this because not a single one of them would pay it either.


It's hardly rocket science

Got a page number for those calculations?

So I don't have to read a 143 page document on my phone?

Especially as it has tables talking about fundings for other stuff over a longer timeframe, that won't be included in a Nation has provided this much table.

I've been following the Labour party these past two weeks, and it feels weird to see them united and happy.

Corbyn and his supporters are happy, because Corbyn is right at home on the campaign trail.

The Blairites are happy, because they think Corbyn will be gone in a few weeks, so they've fallen into line, and are making a real go of going through the motions.

It's all very strange.

Stranger83 wrote:
Which is exactly what I said - the debt is enforceable, it just isn't actionable.

If it wasn't enforceable he could just return to the US and suffer no consequences, because it is enforceable he has the consequence of not being able to return to the US.

As our 'bill' with the EU is not enforceable (read only exists in the EU head) then we too can walk away and nobody anywhere in the world would judge us as we do not actually owe them that money.

Well. Guess that depends do you want to do business in EU or not. Would UK survive with zero sales with EU?

Stranger83 wrote:
Enforceable - what would pass under international law as a debt and would be judged negatively by the international community if you didn't pay. Based on the EU own accounts this is in the region of 2.58bn (calculations for this are on this thread)

Unenforceable - a demand for payment that has no basis on actual facts or the assets/liabilities of the organisation and is not based on anything more tangible than what falls out of the EU head. No country would care if we walk away from this because not a single one of them would pay it either.


It's hardly rocket science

It's not rocket science either that the EU wants to sit down and establish a methodogy to calculate that payment before firing up the excel spreahsheet.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/feb/24/eu-politicians-back-brussels-call-for-uk-to-pay-60bn-exit-bill-before-trade-talks

Of course the UK can choose not to show up but all negotiations stop at that point.

Your call.

Lib Dem manifesto out. I'm sure the people will be dancing in the streets in celebration

On the surface, it's the usual, wishy washy, pie in the sky stuff you'd expect from a party that will be miles from power on June 9th.

Another referendum on the EU? Not only has that shipped sailed, it's arrived at port, dropped of its cargo, sailed again for a few more years, and is now in a scrap yard waiting to be decommissioned.

A very interesting report from the BBC about how education is an important indicator of voting intentions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.

I think on the matter of the Brexit 'bill', there's a certain degree of disingenuity going on from the EU. Not, I hasten to add, the EU as an entity, but from certain aspects within it. Namely those who are obsessed with trying to make talks either break down or 'punish' the UK, the sorts who Juncker and his cohorts represent. I don't believe that they represent the EU in its entirety, and I don't even think they necessarily control affairs. But they do have quite a strong voice out there, and it is I think, important that their voice is not permitted to be the dominant one. Their voice is one of the reasons Brexit is occuring, and if it is allowed to sabotage future relations between the UK and EU, it will be catastrophic for all involved.

Nobody over here, I think, objects to a fair costed analysis of British commitments to the EU budget to date, and even to an extent post its departure. It is a fair thing to agree upon, and should help grease the wheels of future relations. By the same measure however, the EU should refrain from tacking on everything from Juncker's martini supplies to the holiday expenses of EU bureaucrats ten years hence as some form of punitive 'punishment' or attempt to extract as much as they can regardless of what is appropriate. Such a course of action would quite possibly lead to the British Government quite rightfully refusing to parley on such terms, which would be disastrous for all economies involved.

If a hard brexit occurs, it will damage our economy for a good half a decade. But trade can and will be built up elsewhere over time, and the EU would take substantial harm of their own. The euro is fragile enough that trying to pretend they are in a position of total strength, where it doesn't matter if we come to an agreement or not, is quite obviously untrue.

Brexit can work out reasonably well for all involved, given sufficient goodwill and careful thought. I simply hope that the overtly nationalistic morons on our side, and undemocratic plotters over in the EU do not have the final say on things, or they'll bring ruination and hardship to the detriment of all and the benefit of none.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A very interesting report from the BBC about how education is an important indicator of voting intentions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.

The question is whether this could also be an age issue as well. The older you are the more likely the lower education level. It's going to be interesting in the next 20 or so years to see whether the educated group continue to be more socially and liberally aware as that would indicate the Tories becoming less relevant in future politics (hurrah!)

There are similar results for Brexit too. So it only further indicates that older, less educated people are more conservative, right wing and nationalistic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


If a hard brexit occurs, it will damage our economy for a good half a decade. But trade can and will be built up elsewhere over time, and the EU would take substantial harm of their own. The euro is fragile enough that trying to pretend they are in a position of total strength, where it doesn't matter if we come to an agreement or not, is quite obviously untrue.

It depends on what type of trade though. They might be happy to let us have our cakes and biscuits if all the high tech, high value trade favours the EU. There will be damage to the economy whatever happens with Brexit (there are more than enough articles now about companies preparing to at least partially relocate). If the high tech businesses start seeing a drop in the high quality recruits coming to the UK then they may move abroad if they move to country where the those in charge approach immigration with a non punitive attitude (just to favour part of the electorate that are bigoted). That slowly will result in a brain drain in the UK making it even less attractive and the cycle continues. Instead of a country of shop keepers we may just become a country of farmers and bakers instead.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A very interesting report from the BBC about how education is an important indicator of voting intentions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.

It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.

 jasper76 wrote:
It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.

That is true, and it's no different here in the UK. My brother has been turned into an insufferably liberal arsehole by his drama course. And when I was in university they tried it on me too, but I was able to resist it. I'm not saying that UK universities are 100% liberal propaganda centers...but they're close to it.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A very interesting report from the BBC about how education is an important indicator of voting intentions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.

It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.

I assume that the better educated tend to have more exposure to other cultures. In most industries, any business above the coalface usually involves meetings with other people which quite often means other countries/cultures etc. I deal with foreign peers on a daily basis, but I didn't when I worked nightclubs.

There's probably some correlation between education level and curiosity / horizon expanding as well. Visiting different culture on holiday Vs just getting plastered in Costa Del Sol.

Well it appears Boris was wheeled out to today and like the sure footed, clever, foreign office diplomat he is (not), immediately managed to put his foot well and truly in it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/election-2017-39952616/boris-johnson-criticised-by-sikh-woman-over-whisky-comment-in-gurdwara



Good to know supposedly our top diplomat is just so eloquent when put under pressure.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.

That is true, and it's no different here in the UK. My brother has been turned into an insufferably liberal arsehole by his drama course. And when I was in university they tried it on me too, but I was able to resist it. I'm not saying that UK universities are 100% liberal propaganda centers...but they're close to it.

Alternatively perhaps he has just changed his mind and his horizons have changed and are different to yours and see the merit in a global society (that in the end we are going to need to solve the human race's problems)?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:


I assume that the better educated tend to have more exposure to other cultures. In most industries, any business above the coalface usually involves meetings with other people which quite often means other countries/cultures etc. I deal with foreign peers on a daily basis, but I didn't when I worked nightclubs.

There's probably some correlation between education level and curiosity / horizon expanding as well. Visiting different culture on holiday Vs just getting plastered in Costa Del Sol.

There is probably something to this. There is evidence to show that people become less hostile to people we know from different cultures/world views and so on. We are by our basic nature suspicious of anyone outside the 'tribe' because of the evolved trait of fighting for resources. As such outsiders are shunned and thought poorly of. However once such people become more exposed the 'us and them' instinctive behaviour becomes more challenged and perceptions change (effectively people once thought to be outside the tribe become part of it).

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A very interesting report from the BBC about how education is an important indicator of voting intentions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.

It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.

That's a circular argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.

That is true, and it's no different here in the UK. My brother has been turned into an insufferably liberal arsehole by his drama course. And when I was in university they tried it on me too, but I was able to resist it. I'm not saying that UK universities are 100% liberal propaganda centers...but they're close to it.

That's a No True Scotsman argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A very interesting report from the BBC about how education is an important indicator of voting intentions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39936927

The TL/DR is that the better educated you are, the more liberal you seem to get. We don't know why.

It could be something simple like professors at institutions of higher education are themselves disproportionately liberal and promote liberal agendas. That's certainly the case in the US, though I admit I don't know what its like in the UK.

I assume that the better educated tend to have more exposure to other cultures. In most industries, any business above the coalface usually involves meetings with other people which quite often means other countries/cultures etc. I deal with foreign peers on a daily basis, but I didn't when I worked nightclubs.

There's probably some correlation between education level and curiosity / horizon expanding as well. Visiting different culture on holiday Vs just getting plastered in Costa Del Sol.

Other studies have shown that higher educational attainment correlates with higher intelligence, and with increased ethical development.