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.

Maybot doesn't have one.

To have a hidden agenda, you need to be capable of independent thought.

First we need to find out just who it is pulling her strings.

I mean, seriously. This is just getting worse by the day, if not by the hour. Leavers moan that the EU aren't playing fair - welcome to world politics. World politics is why Europe is a good thing to be a member of, because with diverse economies negotiating as one, you tend to get a better deal.

We're seriously about to light the 'Red White And Blue' touch paper on our economy for some ridiculous notion of 'sovereignty' - something those demanding it typically seem incapable of defining or explaining.

I think the fixed date is another attempt to placate the 20ish frothing anti-EU Tory MP's who are no doubt accusing her of stalling.

But I agree with Mad Doc - it's not her making these decisions or she wouldn't be flopping about so much. Figuring out who is telling her what to do would be a good step in figuring out what's going to happen.

We crapped out an election in, what, 6 weeks? I'm sure we could do the same with a referendum since we've got 16 months left

I think we need one - all but the most hardcore leavers (despite what Farage is saying) must be starting to have concerns.

This polling is a month old, but I think the broad outline is unlikely to have changed significantly.

YouGov wrote:Only a minority of Leave voters believe that Brexit will have any negative impact

In October 2016, YouGov asked both Remain and Leave voters what impact they thought Brexit would have on a variety of things – such as the economy, food prices, their personal finances, etc. The research revealed that, in contrast to Remainers, only a small minority of Leave voters believed that Brexit would have a negative impact on any issue.

Now, one year on, YouGov finds that the proportion of Leave voters with negative expectations of Brexit is almost completely unchanged. On 11* of the potential areas of impact we asked about, negative opinion among Leave voters has shifted so little that in all but one instance any changes are all within the margin of error.

The only issue that has seen an increase in negative sentiment among Leavers is the likelihood of the price of their weekly shopping going up, which has risen from 25% to 30% over the past year. This is still, however, far behind the 52% who think the cost of their shopping will remain much the same.

* for two additional measures – how immigration levels will change and whether Scotland will remain in the UK – the difference between what constitutes a good or bad outcome is less clear cut, and so we have not discussed these results in detail or included them in the chart. Leave voters have become less likely to think Scotland will leave, while their views on immigration levels remain the same.



By contrast, Remainers are now slightly more likely than a year ago to think that the impacts of Brexit will be negative. But it is also true that over the past 12 months the biggest changes in opinion across all expectations – positive, negative or that Brexit will make no difference – have occurred among Remain voters.

Fewer of them now believe that Scotland is more likely to leave the UK as a result of Brexit (53%, compared to 70% in 2016. They are also now more likely to think that there will be less immigration to the UK (35%, from 23%), that British companies will do worse outside the EU (73%, from 63%), and believe that British society will get worse (59%, from 50%).

Source.

But the first 4 have already happened thanks to the vote. They are still refusing to accept the damage. I would accept (although still disagree) I’d leave voters were saying they accepted the damage but felt it was worth it, but in general they deny it.

Yeah there's a lot of denial going on there.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
If this divorce bill works out cheaper than what our continued membership over the same period would have been, and keeps relations good and doesn’t result in us still remaining under the control of the EU after ‘leaving’ then I’ll accept it.

There are reports that the total bill will come to around £90bn. The first £50bn will be immediate liabilities and then there are long term liabilities (such as pensions etc).

The net cost to the UK at the moment after rebates etc is about £8.5bn but excludes EU money given direct to businesses, universities and so on. That's about another £1bn

So to pay off the £90bn at constant currency that's about 12 years.

However we've also lost that £90bn from being able to spend it so there is potential gains from that money we have lost. That is usually assumed to be about 2.5% per year so assuming this only applies to the first £50bn being conservative that's another £22bn in lost value.

However this doesn't cover the cost of soft issues as well. For example the reduction in the value of the £ means our interest payments are now about £15bn per annum higher. So working on the principle that over the next 10 years we work this £0 (and ignoring interest accrued on the interest) then that amounts to another £83bn over the 15 years (assuming a reduction of £1bn per year).

There are also things that like the loss of the Medical Authority and Banking Authority. Assuming a 1000 jobs each at a median wage of £40000 (probably conservative) that's £24 million pa so about £0.3bn tax over 15 years. There are also the visits which I understand is on the order of 100,000 per year. Assuming a £200 per night (central London rates) for three nights that's about £0.2bn over 15 years.

I'm going to ignore trade as there will be costs there both in managing it and any potential move across to the EU (e.g. banks) but that is all uncertain now. So over 15 years that is about £170bn cost and it's likely an underestimate as I'm ignoring things like setting up new agencies to replace those lost (e.g. Euratom) and assuming things will be back to normal after 15 years (unlikely in my view).

So in effect it will cost us about 23 years to pay off what would have been a 15 year cost.

Hence the net cost is about 8 years (again probably an underestimate), so we are paying about 1.5times conservatively more than we would have done.

Herzlos wrote:
Yeah there's a lot of denial going on there.

That said, it'd take less than 4% of leavers to change their minds to change the result. Or a modest increase in non-voters turning up to vote remain. Like the extra year or 2's worth of remain majority youth. Likely a combination of the above.

In some sense it is irrelevant to do polls on how people's attitudes have changed.

The closer Brexit comes, the more awesome it will be, and even stalwart Remainers will find it hard to deny the reality of the new sunlit uplands of boundless freedom and economic success that we will come to.

Alternatively the more gak that spins off the fan, the more Leavers will come to realise the danger they are leading the UK into.

Either way, a second referendum is pointless as long as the cabal of hardline Brexiteers supported by the DUP with a billion pound bribe feeds the Maybot the agenda they want and she thinks will hold the Tory Party together.

However, part of me agrees with the New Statesman. The Left should aim for a hard Brexit because the resulting economic chaos will plunge the UK into a bitter furnace of destruction that offers the potential for renewal on a large scale renewal of our social and political contracts.

In other words, let everything burn, make the Conservative Party own the burning, use this to crush their discredited system of the world, and establish a better one. It will take a generation to get any good results, but that's going to happen anyway.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
...However, part of me agrees with the New Statesman. The Left should aim for a hard Brexit because the resulting economic chaos will plunge the UK into a bitter furnace of destruction that offers the potential for renewal on a large scale renewal of our social and political contracts.

In other words, let everything burn, make the Conservative Party own the burning, use this to crush their discredited system of the world, and establish a better one. It will take a generation to get any good results, but that's going to happen anyway.

However much I would like to see the right wing split and fracture, and see the their ideology given a good hard reality check, I would absolutely hate for the rest of the country to have to suffer as a result of their hubris.

I don't think those that got us into this mess will be held to account; they are all wealthy enough to weather it or move away. They aren't going to go jobless, homeless or hungry.

I can see this killing the tory party for a term or 2 until labour gets blamed for not doing enough with what money is left.

Personally Im hoping it'll be bad enough that someone will face reality and pull the plug before the real damage starts, or that we rejoin (either as a whole or as a split kinhdom). My biggest concern is a middle of line decline that goes ahead and causes a slow decline but isn't severe enough for there to be an appetite to rejoin the eu cap in hand.

Herzlos wrote:
I don't think those that got us into this mess will be held to account; they are all wealthy enough to weather it or move away. They aren't going to go jobless, homeless or hungry.

I can see this killing the tory party for a term or 2 until labour gets blamed for not doing enough with what money is left.

Personally Im hoping it'll be bad enough that someone will face reality and pull the plug before the real damage starts, or that we rejoin (either as a whole or as a split kinhdom). My biggest concern is a middle of line decline that goes ahead and causes a slow decline but isn't severe enough for there to be an appetite to rejoin the eu cap in hand.

There does appear to be growing demand for a second referendum now that more information is being presented and the realities and lies have been exposed. I watched a few clips from channel 4 about Leave voters reactions to the 50bn, and a good third said they'd change their vote now if they could.

Could be part of May's "strategy" I suppose. Allow the hard core brexiteers to try and get their demands met, expose what a terrible deal that would be for the UK, and then put the final shambles to a second referendum knowing it'll get rejected, and then being able to cancel Brexit altogether.

I should get some sort of award for creative writing for coming up with that scenario. Still, you never know.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
and I'd prefer a European army to the damned warmongering NATO regime)

What makes you think the EU won't be just as warmongering?

Big military industrial complexes once established need to find ways to justify their continued existence. And the EU like most Empires is expansionist. It is inevitable that the EU will find itself in conflict with other nations.

It's just less bloody to sell warmongering equipment to third parties and let them blow each other apart than to start wars yourself. That's at least what german arms manufacturers are doing.

nfe wrote:We need someone with a law background to chime in here, but I'm going to wager that there are probably differences just as substantial between Scots and English law as between English and some other European systems

I don't have a law background but the big fundamental difference is common law in the US/UK (law derived from judicial decisions/precedent) vs. civil law in Europe (core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law).

Future War Cultist wrote:If this divorce bill works out cheaper than what our continued membership over the same period would have been, and keeps relations good and doesn’t result in us still remaining under the control of the EU after ‘leaving’ then I’ll accept it.

You are kinda ignoring all the extra cost related to not trading under the same union. Germany pays more into the EU than it gets out directly but also gets massive "invisible" benefits from being able to easily hire people from all over the EU, trade inside the EU without having to go through additional regulations in each country, and so on. That means more taxes for the government which overall create a positive balance when put against German's payments into the EU. The same goes for all the bigger nations that "pay more than they get out" and probably some of the medium/smaller ones too.

You might end up happy that the UK benefits from having to not pay the EU but are ignoring that this will create costs in all kinds of other departments. Stuff like this: https://www.ft.com/content/13e183ee-c099-11e7-b8a3-38a6e068f464 or this: http://theconversation.com/who-picked-british-fruit-and-veg-before-migrant-workers-63279 means that those fruits don't get sold, don't create more revenue, and don't create more taxes. Also the people who would have been employed would pay taxes and contribute to the economy while there (buy stuff like food and whatever they need). All that economic potential that will be reduced once the UK is out won't be shown on the Brexit balance sheet but will affect the UKs economy. Plus there's all the wasted produce.

Well, we may now have to close this thread as well, Donald Trump seems to have endorsed Britain First.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/world/europe/britain-first-trump.html

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, we may now have to close this thread as well, Donald Trump seems to have endorsed Britain First.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/world/europe/britain-first-trump.html

I’m glad to see various members of the UK government condemning him. I hope that they are clear that this kind of view is not acceptable and he is not welcome in the UK unless he apologises for spreading these divisive, hateful lies.

So, is the Irish sea border a thing now?

The UK is reportedly planning to devolve powers to Northern Ireland to avoid a hard border after Brexit
http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-devolve-powers-northern-ireland-avoid-post-brexit-hard-border-report-2017-11

The Times reports that Britain's proposal tries to avoid "regulatory divergence" between Northern Ireland and the European Union by giving more power to the Northern Irish government so it can ensure "convergence" with the Republic of Ireland on issues like agriculture and energy.

It means Northern Ireland could end up following European Union regulations long after Brexit, even as the rest of the United Kingdom moves away from them.

No regulatory divergence is a voter-friendly version of "staying in the customs union", and controls on goods flowing from NI to Britain (unless the rest of the UK stays as well). That's a defacto border between NI and GB.

Let's see how the DUP takes that, since they've been opposed to devolution all along.

That’s a massive fudge. Basically the UK government have realised there is no way they can both make their hardliners happy and keep any sensible agreement on Ireland. Thanks to Mays stupid election she is now at the behest of a small number of hardliners in safe seats.

 r_squared wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
...However, part of me agrees with the New Statesman. The Left should aim for a hard Brexit because the resulting economic chaos will plunge the UK into a bitter furnace of destruction that offers the potential for renewal on a large scale renewal of our social and political contracts.

In other words, let everything burn, make the Conservative Party own the burning, use this to crush their discredited system of the world, and establish a better one. It will take a generation to get any good results, but that's going to happen anyway.

However much I would like to see the right wing split and fracture, and see the their ideology given a good hard reality check, I would absolutely hate for the rest of the country to have to suffer as a result of their hubris.

Surprisingly it's not as bad as you'd expect, because so much of the bad policy that could happen has already been institutionalized for years. What does conform to expectations is how deeply amusing it is to watch them squirm.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, we may now have to close this thread as well, Donald Trump seems to have endorsed Britain First.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/world/europe/britain-first-trump.html

I’m glad to see various members of the UK government condemning him. I hope that they are clear that this kind of view is not acceptable and he is not welcome in the UK unless he apologises for spreading these divisive, hateful lies.

Not really the harsh rebuttal that should have been issued. We are so scared of damaging trade deals that even the backing of a far right hate group seems to be par for the course.

Another feather in Brexit's cap.

I watched a few clips from channel 4 about Leave voters reactions to the 50bn, and a good third said they'd change their vote now if they could.

In 10-15 years at least another third will be dead as well, leaving their families to pick up the pieces

True, but it’s more than I expected of them. Although I have seen since that the government have refused to cancel the offer of a state visit. Hopefully given Trumps refusals to back down they won’t just let it go. Although I doubt it.

Europe? It's dying in a trade sense.

As a side hobby, I sell miniature wargaming products. Thanks to the weak £ my sales are doing pretty good, and a lot of my customers are outside Europe.

Fortress Europe?

I'm getting into bed with the Australians, the Vietnamese, Thailand, India, China, you name it.

The world's population is what, 7 billion? Europe is what? 600 million?

So most of the world's trade is outside of Europe. That's common sense. Asia is booming.

The usual cry from Remainers will be the EU's political clout etc etc

But not if it takes years to negotiate a deal. We'll all be dead by then.

The main stumbling block for a UK/India trade deal is Visas, but I say let the Indian students in. We can't keep people out in this globalised world, so let's choose the cream de la cream.

They will be drawn from the middle classes, a lot of whom are Anglophiles, will be young, have their own cash, and young people are less likely to be ill = less strain on the NHS.

And a lot of them will probably stay on as doctors, nurses, dentists, etc etc anyway

Roll out the red carpet for them.

The future is Asia, not these deadbeats in Europe rolling around in red tape.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Europe? It's dying in a trade sense.

As a side hobby, I sell miniature wargaming products. Thanks to the weak £ my sales are doing pretty good, and a lot of my customers are outside Europe.

Fortress Europe?

I'm getting into bed with the Australians, the Vietnamese, Thailand, India, China, you name it.

The world's population is what, 7 billion? Europe is what? 600 million?

So most of the world's trade is outside of Europe. That's common sense. Asia is booming.

The usual cry from Remainers will be the EU's political clout etc etc

But not if it takes years to negotiate a deal. We'll all be dead by then.

The main stumbling block for a UK/India trade deal is Visas, but I say let the Indian students in. We can't keep people out in this globalised world, so let's choose the cream de la cream.

They will be drawn from the middle classes, a lot of whom are Anglophiles, will be young, have their own cash, and young people are less likely to be ill = less strain on the NHS.

And a lot of them will probably stay on as doctors, nurses, dentists, etc etc anyway

Roll out the red carpet for them.

The future is Asia, not these deadbeats in Europe rolling around in red tape.

Very convenient you have a side hobby that also allows you to back up your political views. Ironically, it also exposes that typical 'Well I'm alright jack' attitude that seems to be at the rotten core of the Brexit baby boomer vote.

If you have any understanding of how student visas work, and their rampant abuse, then you'll realise how stupid the cream de la cream comment is as well.

Common sense but wrong.

Look at the GAT 7 and see how many European countries are in it.

Also the EU has got trade deals in place or coming with countries like South Korea and Canada. Post-Brexit UK will have to negotiate all of those over again.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Common sense but wrong.

Look at the GAT 7 and see how many European countries are in it.

Also the EU has got trade deals in place or coming with countries like South Korea and Canada. Post-Brexit UK will have to negotiate all of those over again.

Yeah, but Kilkrazy, you know as well as I do that nothing stays the same for ever. As Asia and Brazil continues to develop, these countries will eventually overtake Europe in terms of raw economic clout.

The world is 'shrinking' in the sense that air and sea travel will get better and better every year. The internet has obviously 'shrunk' the world.

Most of the world is out side Europe. That's a fact, so no source needed.

Our commonwealth partners are outside Europe, with the exception of Cyprus and Malta.

The Africa/Asia/Pacific zone is where the action is. Let's set sail



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Thebiggesthat wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Europe? It's dying in a trade sense.

As a side hobby, I sell miniature wargaming products. Thanks to the weak £ my sales are doing pretty good, and a lot of my customers are outside Europe.

Fortress Europe?

I'm getting into bed with the Australians, the Vietnamese, Thailand, India, China, you name it.

The world's population is what, 7 billion? Europe is what? 600 million?

So most of the world's trade is outside of Europe. That's common sense. Asia is booming.

The usual cry from Remainers will be the EU's political clout etc etc

But not if it takes years to negotiate a deal. We'll all be dead by then.

The main stumbling block for a UK/India trade deal is Visas, but I say let the Indian students in. We can't keep people out in this globalised world, so let's choose the cream de la cream.

They will be drawn from the middle classes, a lot of whom are Anglophiles, will be young, have their own cash, and young people are less likely to be ill = less strain on the NHS.

And a lot of them will probably stay on as doctors, nurses, dentists, etc etc anyway

Roll out the red carpet for them.

The future is Asia, not these deadbeats in Europe rolling around in red tape.

Very convenient you have a side hobby that also allows you to back up your political views. Ironically, it also exposes that typical 'Well I'm alright jack' attitude that seems to be at the rotten core of the Brexit baby boomer vote.

If you have any understanding of how student visas work, and their rampant abuse, then you'll realise how stupid the cream de la cream comment is as well.

Sadly, I'm not a millionaire, and you'll find that most of the middle-class voted Remain. I'm not middle-class either.

I think that everybody, and I mean everybody on dakka, is in complete agreement that most Brexit support came from Britain's working-classes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Sadly, I'm not a millionaire, and you'll find that most of the middle-class voted Remain. I'm not middle-class either.

I think that everybody, and I mean everybody on dakka, is in complete agreement that most Brexit support came from Britain's working-classes.

Not sure why you thought that a meaningful reply to Thebiggesthat's post, which didn't make reference to your wealth or social class in any way, but people vote against their own interests all the time, so the fact that the bulk of leave voters were working class isn't very meaningful without a wealth of additional data.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Common sense but wrong.

Look at the GAT 7 and see how many European countries are in it.

Also the EU has got trade deals in place or coming with countries like South Korea and Canada. Post-Brexit UK will have to negotiate all of those over again.

Yeah, but Kilkrazy, you know as well as I do that nothing stays the same for ever. As Asia and Brazil continues to develop, these countries will eventually overtake Europe in terms of raw economic clout.

1.- is, of course, that by the time those countries' citizens have similar purchasing power as Europe everyone in this board will probably be dead.

2.- is that the EU as a good head start (at least a decade) on having deals with those countries. Better deals, too, because of clout and leverage the UK will lack post-Brexit.

It's an almost textbook definition of shooting yourself in the foot then try to run a marathon.

You're also making the mistake of assuming that growth numbers will stay constant ad infinitum. Brazil, China, India etc. are growing rapidly because they had, and still have, a really low standard to start with. It's much easier to have double digit GDP growth when the GDP gonsists of a stick and two leaves than when you're dealing with advanced electronics.

Also, you'd think there's been enough instances of being laughably wrong in this thread that common sense would have been brought behind the proverbial shed and taken out of its misery by now. It's getting to the point where "common sense" is now short-hand for "I haven't actually got a clue, but I'll argue my point anyway!"

For all aspects of the political spectrum. You may want to ask for clarification and evidence whenever you read the following statements in someone's political musings...

1. Everyone knows

2. It's common knowledge

3. Stands to reason

4. It's just common sense

5. It's obvious that

6. Tells it like it is (this is a great time to play a quick game of 'spot the bare faced liar')

Chances are they're signs of someone trying to present wild opinion as popular opinion, and from there trying to make it a 'fact'.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
For all aspects of the political spectrum. You may want to ask for clarification and evidence whenever you read the following statements in someone's political musings...

1. Everyone knows

2. It's common knowledge

3. Stands to reason

4. It's just common sense

5. It's obvious that

6. Tells it like it is (this is a great time to play a quick game of 'spot the bare faced liar')

That sounds like a great soundtrack, can you get it in HMV?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Common sense but wrong.

Look at the GAT 7 and see how many European countries are in it.

Also the EU has got trade deals in place or coming with countries like South Korea and Canada. Post-Brexit UK will have to negotiate all of those over again.

Yeah, but Kilkrazy, you know as well as I do that nothing stays the same for ever. As Asia and Brazil continues to develop, these countries will eventually overtake Europe in terms of raw economic clout.

The world is 'shrinking' in the sense that air and sea travel will get better and better every year. The internet has obviously 'shrunk' the world.

Most of the world is out side Europe. That's a fact, so no source needed.

Our commonwealth partners are outside Europe, with the exception of Cyprus and Malta.

The Africa/Asia/Pacific zone is where the action is. Let's set sail


... ...

Your premise seems to be that the EU will not make free trade deals with BRICS countries and that Europe has no scientific or engineering capability.

These points are both clearly rubbish.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're also making the mistake of assuming that growth numbers will stay constant ad infinitum. Brazil, China, India etc. are growing rapidly because they had, and still have, a really low standard to start with. It's much easier to have double digit GDP growth when the GDP gonsists of a stick and two leaves than when you're dealing with advanced electronics.

Also, you'd think there's been enough instances of being laughably wrong in this thread that common sense would have been brought behind the proverbial shed and taken out of its misery by now. It's getting to the point where "common sense" is now short-hand for "I haven't actually got a clue, but I'll argue my point anyway!"

So when I say that most of the world's population doesn't live in Europe, please tell me which part of that is wrong.

When I say that Asia's economic growth is outstripping that of Europe's, please tell me which part of that is wrong.

It's gotten to the stage where I can't even say a basic fact such as most of the world lives outside Europe, without you querying it.

It's been a familiar pattern from you these past months. If I say grass is green, you say no. if I say snow is white, you say it's black.

I'm giving you notice now that I'm putting you on ignore. I no longer wish to engage in conversation with you.

Good day to you sir.