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.

 monarda wrote:
David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".

It's going to be deeply funny over the next few weeks reading Brexiteers working their way to the conclusion that following slightly rewritten EU rules, but not making them, is a triumph for British sovereignty, up yours Brussels, etc.

If it were that simple, I doubt any Remain voters would have any issues with Brexit, because it would just be business as usual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

It takes shift of less than two percentage points moving from leave to remain to change the result, though.

As it's been repeated often, the result was so thin as to fall within margin of error.

A shift of 5% in favour of Brexit would make it unarguable though, according to a poster earlier in this thread.

Trying to imply these disconnected polls of a few thousand people are representative of a larger trend would appear to be exceedingly iffy, let alone trying to base any kind of argument for the moral legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Brexit upon it.

 Ketara wrote:

Trying to imply these disconnected polls of a few thousand people are representative of a larger trend would appear to be exceedingly iffy,

That's what polls do by default, infer information from a big group using data from a representative sample. It's one of the best paying social sciences if you're good at it.

Back to DUP-litics, I saw this today. Karma and all that.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

That said, everything is still in too much of a state of flux for people to really see what they might want to react to. Just look at yesterday's events which concern nothing more than the NI border situation. Reflect that the "divorce bill" also is not yet resolved, or the details of EU citizens rights, and all this is before we've even started the main body of negotiation.

When the terms of the final deal are settled, it would not be unreasonable to refer them to the country for ratification by referendum, then a vote in parliament to make them law.

Aye. If they're generally reasonable (all this newspaper panic-mongering about red lines, exit bills, and so on aside) in the final draft, and everyone can get on with their lives for the most part, it'll be a rather damp ending to the whole affair. That's what I'm hoping for. Cameron's special sword sheathing maneouvre giving more power to Tory nutters combined with a stronger than expected nationalist/federalist element in Brussels has served to make it all as painful as possible to watch so far, but it may still well work out. These things always look terrible in slow motion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

That's what polls do by default, infer information from a big group using data from a representative sample. It's one of the best paying social sciences if you're good at it.

Eh.....inferences are made by interpreters of data. Not by the data itself.

Hence why nobody with any real understanding of them would try and start making announcements about the general trend in views of some 40 million people based off of a handful of polls showing (already contradictory) data gathered from a few thousand people. Not unless you're feasting upon some delicious confirmation bias whilst skimming through headlines.

Thing is, this is exactly the conversation I had with one of my conservative (small c) friends before the referendum; despite the fact that he was moderately in favour of leaving, he was voting for remain on the basis that if we stay harmonised with the EU (I.e. soft Brexit), we’ll still have to abide by the regulations, make contributions and all that will happen is we will have given up our democratic input to the system, so what’s the point in leaving. And if we go for what is now known as a hard Brexit, it will make a complete mess of our economy and global relationships, which he couldn’t conscience.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I'm on the move, so if anybody wants the link to this story, it's in The Guardian newspaper.

With probably the straightest face in political history, the EU have announced its tax haven blacklist. It seems Naminia is the place to go these days.

Personally, I'm very depressed. Where will I stash my loot?

I need a holiday. I was thinking Luxembourg, or Cyprus, or Malta...

Maybe I should stop off at Juncker's office en route for advice?

Seriously, this is why I can't be done with the EU. They're as two-faced as everybody else.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:

 monarda wrote:
David Davis is answering urgent questions in the Commons on the Brexit negotiations. He's claiming that "regulatory alignment" will apply to the whole of the UK (then why did the DUP object?) and that "alignment does not mean the same standards" it means regulations "that give similar results".

Regulatory alignment is the only way we'd be allowed to trade to the EU, so it was always going to happen. That means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say, for anything that goes to the EU" and in reality means "satisfy any EU regulations insisted on with no say" because almost no-one is going to follow a different set of regulations for the domestic market.

This is the one main reason I'm against Brexit - that it's entirely pointless.

In our dealings with the USA or say, Australia, which are also first world democracies, we'd need high standards as well. That's not unique to the EU.

High standards =/= same standards.

 welshhoppo wrote:


Whereas people like me view that as unwieldy and far more difficult than it should be.

The trade deal with Canada took a decade to work out. That's hundreds of thousands of man hours to work out a bloody trade deal.

That's only because of how comprehensive it was and covers the majority areas of trade apart from a few. When it is individual countries you get much less simply because you hold less cards and clout with the other side.

Also, the idea that they have each others back doesn't always work out, and the larger nations just barge out the smaller ones. The whole agricultural model of the EU basically favours the French over everyone else.

I would have thought that they being supportive of Ireland in the current Brexit fiasco would show that's not really true at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


As it's been repeated often, the result was so thin as to fall within margin of error.

A shift of 5% in favour of Brexit would make it unarguable though, according to a poster earlier in this thread.

It depends on how many people turn out to vote again.

If only 20% of the populace vote but you get a 5% (or even 15%) shift in the vote there is not much you can say because of the potential votes vastly outweighs those that did vote and there is a greater probability that you have sampled a group that is further from than the true median value. On the other hand if there is a 99% turnout (unlikely but it is for example purposes only) then a 5% swing is completely significant because the voters left even if they voted in the opposite way could not change that actual result.

The difficultly with the 2016 referendum is within a small margin was split by 33% leave, 33% remain and 33% didn't vote. Regardless the government should consider the whole population, so with such a small margin in the result you only need a small shift in approach (from either those that didn't vote, e.g. the younger generation); or a change of heart in those that did vote; or simply a proportion of those that didn't vote thinking it would go there own way and preferred the status quo then there is a risk that you lead the country that relatively only significant minority actually support.

If I was to hazard a guess I would suggest that another vote would probably go to Remain slightly; the voting proportion would probably be lower however (lets say 60-65%) probably all on the back of a younger vote turning up and the slightly negative leave side not turning up because they just aren't that bothered about it.

I would suggest even hard line Brexiters can see another vote coming - my suspicion is this is why Rees Mogg was talking to Steve Bannon.

Trying to imply these disconnected polls of a few thousand people are representative of a larger trend would appear to be exceedingly iffy, let alone trying to base any kind of argument for the moral legitimacy (or lack thereof) of Brexit upon it.

Really you have to look at the trends overall from all polls to give an indication of direction. Any individual poll is subject to biases, methods of selection and weighting given to people of different age groups (and who knows how they work out the youth vote at the moment). As such any given poll is not a good indicator (it doesn't help they generally don't show the errors either). On the other hand you can draw some conclusions from the trends. So if you see a gradual softening over time from multiple polls towards the EU then it likely is real and by plotting these over time you can give yourself a good idea of how rapid that change is. It is similar to the employment figures. In any quarters data the result of slight decrease is generally statistically insignificant but when taken over several quarters it can be much more enlightening (although it is still liable to selection bias if for example you phone the same company each month).

Your also speaking to someone who believes that the EU is too bound by the smaller countries (the Canada deal was delayed due to an issue with a small part of Belgium) but also steamrollers past countries on other things.


Like I've said, the system doesn't work as is it. And won't work until every country gives up sovereignty and gets reformed into a state system like the US has.

A bit like the DUP holding ridiculous influence at the moment, yeah?

Funny how that bung to the DUP to get them onside didn’t seem to hold up well. I guess they’re only taking money to be Tory allies when it suits them anyway. That whole deal was a farce and May shouldn’t have been allowed to form a government on the back of it because it clearly wasn’t a genuine deal to form a stable majority with unity. She should admit now she’s running minority government.

Oh like she’s gonna do that.

Remember. What’s best for May is all that matters.

If you look into NI politics in more detail you find that the DUP hold power in the north-eastern counties which also tended to vote Leave. The DUP are representing their own constituents in voting against the EU regardless of the wishes of the NI population as a whole.

I'm happy for the DUP to represent their own people's interests, but when it comes to the "tail wagging the dog" effect on the rest of the UK, there is a point at which I'm going to say feth off.

To go back to the argument around the referendum, some of the key problems are:

Not binding but the government decided to take it as binding.

Didn't vote to leave the EFTA and customs union, etc but government decided to take it as that.

The Maybot obviously is in thrall to extreme right-wing elements of the Tory Party and its supporters, who mainly (I believe) want to stop the EU assault on UK facilitated off-shore tax havens.

I can’t help thinking that a decent leader in a sensible democratic should be able to hold a minority government in the current climate, and carry it through to Brexit. Both Labour and the Tory’s have said they will support it, so I feel a minority government could build a consensus and a deal that the country would like.

Unfortunately we have a poor leader and a Parliament that is to partisan so we have the loonies grabbing power.

£1,500,000,000 so some religious fundamentalist nut jobs can screw everything worse than it was before.

And all because Maybot is so shockingly incompetent.

At the moment, all I can see ihappening s a chaotic crash out of the EU while our political overlords squabble, bicker and blame each other for the mess.
Nobody voted for this.

Where is Guy Fawkes when you need him?

There's a number of people who would rather crash out chaotically than risk some kind of compromise Norway or Iceland style. It is the usual bunch of Tories from the right wing of the party, Rees-Mogg and so on, who keep advising us to walk away from the negotiations now and sit on our hands doing nothing for the next 16 months..

You think that a soft brexit could pick up a bunch of votes from the Labour party.

But if we crash out of this and go for no deal, we STILL break the Good Friday Agreement

 Ketara wrote:

Eh.....inferences are made by interpreters of data. Not by the data itself.

Hence why nobody with any real understanding of them would try and start making announcements about the general trend in views of some 40 million people based off of a handful of polls showing (already contradictory) data gathered from a few thousand people. Not unless you're feasting upon some delicious confirmation bias whilst skimming through headlines.

Well of course data doesn't infer anything because it's just a bunch of bits in a spreadsheet.

A properly conducted poll on a representative sample does give valuable info on trends. Politicians and companies pay handsomely to those companies with a proven record of accuracy.

It's a science, social but science nevertheless. But of course "experts" and all that.

I'll say this, and I'll say no more on it, for obvious OT reasons.

30 or 40 pages ago I said that Brexit is not happening in a vaacum. Whilst we are talking to the EU, the rest of the world is getting on with things.

He who shall not be named is just about to make a major Middle East annoumcement. The UAE are aligning with Saudia Arabia, and Qatar may be heading towards the Iran camp due to recent ME events.

Dynamics and power plays are changing here and God only knows what the result will be.

Bottom line is this: who knows what will hapen, anything could change the Brexit dynamic, and a week is a long time in politics, and all that...

https://twitter.com/iainjwatson/status/938339744400007169

David Davis tells the #brexit committee there has been no impact assessments by sector of leaving the EU

ermmm .. what ?

A.. well why aren't there ?

B. What happened to the ones you said existed several times previously ?

C. with regards to B.. is lying to parliament still a no no then ?

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=95

Examples of contempt include giving false evidence to a parliamentary committee,

what the hell happened to the 58 reports et al from the past few weeks ?

https://www.ft.com/content/da48bd00-bd91-11e7-b8a3-38a6e068f464



and if they do not/never existed.. what the hell has his department been doing ?

jouso wrote:

Well of course data doesn't infer anything because it's just a bunch of bits in a spreadsheet.

A properly conducted poll on a representative sample does give valuable info on trends. Politicians and companies pay handsomely to those companies with a proven record of accuracy.

It's a science, social but science nevertheless. But of course "experts" and all that.

Guv, believe me when I say I understand the basic concept of interpreting data to reach a conclusion.

Just accept that claiming that a few polls (I counted four) of around 2,000 people each (that's what they are) done in specific geographic locales (one was only in the North of England, for example) are a terrible set of data points to try and make any serious inferences regarding the changing moods of some 45 million people across an entire nation over the last several months; and any "expert" (as you put it) would collapse laughing at anyone who tried. There's a reason the results contradict even each other, you know?

Looking at the "expert" thing you put in quote marks though (to hearken back to that dumb Gove comment about "not needing experts", link what I'm saying to it, and thus dismiss me), I'm really not entirely sure why you feel this compulsive need to keep trying to slip little put downs inside your posts to me. I tried to get you to explain one when you last tried to argue with me, and you refused to even acknowedge you'd done it, let alone apologise for it. I could roll with it if we'd been debating for several posts and were getting tetchy with each other (it happens, and I'm as guilty as anyone there), but just shooting attitude out of the blue? Makes you look like a bit of a spanker, mate.

Could you do me a favour and just talk to me in a polite and friendly fashion? I can deal with the whole 'needing to argue compulsively over every little thing' aspect, but I really can't be bothered to deal with people who lack the basic manners to engage with me in a forthright, polite, and above all, well-intentioned way. Seriously guv, we're in the OT on a toy soldiers forum. Play nicely or find something better to do with your hours.

Better yet, he didn't do them as he's "not a fan of economic models since they're all wrong"

Well, no model will ever be totally right, but seriously? You didn't even try?

Honestly flabbergasted

The longer the delay, the more the suspicion grows that these sectoral analyses contain such frighteningly bad news that Davis, a core Brexiteer, is repressing them for fear it will cause a big mood swing among the people.

Dear Brexiteers.

Please...please pop off your Union Jack Waistcoats. Just for a moment.

This. Is. A. Mess.

It ain't what many of you voted for. And the Government haven't a clue what they want, or how to deliver it.

It's time to apply the breaks, have a good sit and a think. And likely, call a second referendum, before we're plunged over a cliff to the strains of Rule Britannia.

I don't know about the waistcoats, but it does look like David Davis has decided to take a running jump off Beachy Head because he doesn't believe in physical models of gravity and wind effects.

Unfortunately he's pulling all the rest of us along with him.

It's utterly inconceivable that the government should not have considered the economic impacts of Brexit in the past year. Everyone else has, and practically all of them look bad.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The longer the delay, the more the suspicion grows that these sectoral analyses contain such frighteningly bad news that Davis, a core Brexiteer, is repressing them for fear it will cause a big mood swing among the people.

I'm no fan of this Brexit nonsense but how bad can the predictions be? "By September the entirely of Kent will be on fire. Cannibalism will have become the staple food of Yorkshire and nothing has entered or left the pulsing radioactive cloud at the border of Scotland for three weeks."

 Graphite wrote:
I'm no fan of this Brexit nonsense but how bad can the predictions be? "By September the entirely of Kent will be on fire. Cannibalism will have become the staple food of Yorkshire and nothing has entered or left the pulsing radioactive cloud at the border of Scotland for three weeks."

I've seen estimates of as much as a £168bn/year hit to the economy from a hard Brexit, that's about 6.3% of the current economy*. Prices for almost everything will increase, further austerity will be required pushing lots of services from just-about-scraping-by to you've-got-to-be-kidding-me. Even longer hospital waiting times (and more deaths), police taking longer to attend where they even bother, worse roads, worse services, less school resources, and so on.

Then it gets even worse with a totally hard 'just stop negotiating' brexit, as we'll potentially lose access to all sorts of things.

I don't think we'll see regions burnt to the ground or turn feral, but we'll see a marked reduction in quality of life, lifespan and an increase in avoidable deaths and foodbank usage.

*banking sector is meant to be 11% of the economy, and if they lose access they'll need to move too. Our debt burden will get worse if we drop credit rating again, too.

No no no. That's business as usual

But we need to know the impact.

So much of the Leave campaign was based on wishful thinking, it needs to be exposed.

Whilst we can't deal with facts until, well, after the fact, we can be better informed about possibilities and likelihood.

People don't understand how fragile economies can be. In the UK, we're service industry lead for the most part. Only takes a couple of big players to ship their call centres overseas, and things start crumbling locally.

We're also big on banking. Except it looks like certain parts of Canary Wharf (which if I look to my right, I can see right now. JP Morgan and HSBC are my eyeline) may upsticks. And when The City catches a cold, it bodes ill for all of us.

Brexit sadly has been hijacked by the proverbial swivel eyed loonies in the Tory Party, demanding it be as hard as possible, for reasons of self interest (likely disaster capitalism).

As I understand it, the worst case scenario for a Hard Brexit is a 9% drop in GDP.

Assuming it's not that bad, we could be looking at a 4-5% fall in GDP assuming an average worth of bad effects.

Even that will be pretty bad.

I mean, no-one at all is predicting an upswing in the economy. That's all far in the future, even according to Brexiteers, because we need to get good trade deals worked out and ratified.

And we're not gonna get them, because seriously - WTF do we have to offer?

WE ARE NOT AN EMPIRE ANYMORE. Those days are long, long gone.