Brian Kirby Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 RogerC - 2017-02-25 1:56 PM I find it increasingly difficult to reconcile the two sides of the fence.....In or Out....with the arguments/reasons for staying/leaving the EU. Brian said: "Given that no-one knew what Brexit meant.......All the predictions I saw were hedged around with provisos and were stated to be based on assumptions." Surely Brian those comments both go to illustrate that 'both' sides were/are effectively 'in the dark'? Therefore why should one have voted at all as both sides were delivering 'assumptions'? As I said, speaking for myself, because I could not see any compelling argument for leaving. I still can't. You said 'hedged with provisos'....simply a way of 'sitting on the fence' then as we all know provisos are an excellent way of enabling the 'expert' to sway one way or the other when the time for 'I told you so' comes along. No Sir! A proviso is not that. A proviso is a pre-condition for the occurrence of an event. If the condition does not arise, it follows that the forecast event will not occur, or will not occur as expected. They are an essential way of allowing for uncertainty in forecasting, not an escape route for the forecaster. Only a fool would publish a forecast without stating the assumptions on which it is based. It is, after a forecast, not a guarantee of an event. Expecting to be told the 'terms' negotiated relative to our exit and future relationship with the EU and then looking to have the option to 'decide' which way to go, stay or go, isn't going to happen. So you say. But I can't see why not. Didn't we have the referendum based on something similar with Cameron going to the EU wanting changes/concessions with regard to our membership? I really can not imagine those concerned sitting around the 'metaphorical table' discussing our exit with the caveat that if we don't like the terms we can stay in 'the club'. Essentially Cameron has been there, done that and the referendum is a thing of the past. He wanted the EU to make changes in certain areas to try to improve the chances of a remain vote. It didn't work. That was then. I'm talking about reviewing the leave decision once we know what the actual terms for leaving, and for trading with, the EU are to be. That will be in the future. Cameron did not do that, because he quit before the event. The referendum is indeed in the past, but in the future we shall have further and better evidence upon which to base our verdict. So, we should be able to review our earlier decision. Any court would do this on presentation of new evidence. Should not an entire nation, when considering its future, do so? What matters now is those concerned obtaining the best deal they can, the'knockers and doom and gloom merchants' stop doing Britain down.... Haven't seen anyone doing Britain down. Who is doing this? and get on with the job of ensuring Britain is 'on the up' and in doing so to realise those 'rest of the world' trading terms we were not 'allowed' to negotiate under the EU straitjacket. I assume most of us are doing exactly that. Are you aware that 66% of Britain's exports are to countries outside the EU? That strait jacket doesn't seem too restrictive to me. In fact, according to Fullfact, taking the UK as being outside the EU, the EU collectively exports 16% to the UK, 15% to the US, 8% to China, 6% to Switzerland, 6% to Russia, 4% to Turkey, and 45% to the rest of the world. The story is different if one takes the EU states individually, but the point is that they all, including the UK, conduct considerable trade with non-EU countries. Any such straight jacket is tempered by the tariff free access we now have to the EU market. We do not yet know on what terms we shall trade with EU states post Brexit, so cannot begin to forecast how much additional trade we should have to do with the non-EU world just to stand still. That is a gambol. Gambolling with a nation's future prosperity is, to me, reckless and irresponsible. That is why I think we should have a second look at membership once the terms are established. I'm mildly surprised that anyone thinks otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 ."Given that no-one knew what Brexit meant" is what you actually said Brian.Nothing there about 'speaking for myself'................it was a generalised statement not a personalised one so my comment still stands. Regardless of your intent though there is a general thread running through the 'remain' camp argument that those who voted 'out' didn't know what they were voting for. Did those voting 'in' have any idea what would be the outcome of remaining or is it too based on what they 'think' the outcome will be?You said everything was based on 'predictions'....well an awful lot of those predictions have been found to be baseless......the worst example being Mark Carney....who also happens to be one of the 'doing Britain down' with his fiscal doom laden predictions.:BANK of England boss Mark Carney has again admitted the economy is growing faster than forecast after the Brexit vote.Please note in the extract it says 'again'!Yet another:.....but his comments to the Commons Treasury Select Committee about a possible positive outcome to Brexit stand in stark contrast to the dire warnings he issued before the referendum that the UK could slip into recession.So there is a man of great influence pouring doom and gloom on the UK economy etc which when delivered by those of influence and power have been proven to be instrumental ....even a self fulfilling prophesy. However in this case the damage appears to be negligible, if any at all given the BoE has gone back on it's predictions so often of late.'Proviso'......yes I am aware of the definition however when used as the politicians/pundits etc use them they are 'get out of jail free' statements.......if this happens then this will be the case....if not then this or that will be. It is simply nothing more than guesswork with a caveat that one will be right whichever side of the fence one eventually gets off.I said:Expecting to be told the 'terms' negotiated relative to our exit and future relationship with the EU and then looking to have the option to 'decide' which way to go, stay or go, isn't going to happen.You say you can't see why not. Well looking back on the concessions Cameron is reported to have 'obtained' there was a legal consensus prevailing at the time that despite assurances to the contrary those concessions were not set in concrete, the acceptance and implementation reportedly being subject to ratification by the member states. Additionally the process was understood to be in jeopardy from the outset because Belgium, (arch prevaricators) threatened to drag out the process for years because of it's own deeply entrenched internal political issues.Yes Cameron went to the EU looking for changes favourable to returning a remain vote....but.....he didn't. Those in positions of power and influence within the EU were clearly unable to envisage the UK voting to leave despite growing unrest with the establishment across a number of countries. Basically I consider they were sufficiently arrogant as to feel invincible thereby effectively giving Cameron nothing, or at least nothing of note. So with reference to the 'honesty' and 'solidity' of any agreement intended to convince the population that it is better to remain I see no reason why things should be any different during the exit negotiations. Known as 'double dealers' it will be somewhat difficult for the EU negotiators to shake off the reputation. Regarding export.......are you aware that the UK export market is determined by the mandarins in Brussels....or wherever they migrate to at enormous public expense. CBI extract: While being in the EU means that the UK doesn’t sign its own trade deals,That 66% you quote is under the trade deals negotiated en bloc by the EU. Post Brexit the UK will be free to negotiate with the whole world on it's own terms.Here's an interesting extract from Lawyers for Britain:The EU is seriously encumbered in trying to negotiate trade agreements by the large number of vociferous protectionist special interests within its borders. After Brexit, the UK would be able to negotiate new trade deals unencumbered by these special interests much faster than the EU, and with a higher priority for faciliting access to markets for our own export industries including services.It is completely untrue that you need to be a member of a large bloc like the EU in order to strike trade deals. The actual record of the EU compared to that (for example) of the EFTA countries demonstrates the direct opposite.The baseline of our trade relationship with the remaining EU states would be governed by WTO rules which provide for non-discrimination in tariffs, and outlaw discriminatory non-tariff measures. From this baseline, and as the remaining EU's largest single export market, we would be in a strong position to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal providing for the continued free flow of goods and services in both directions.So you see the straitjacket is well and truly fastened and as a member of the EU if we don't accede to their rules etc they will be in a position to tighten the straps.Lastly reading your, and others in the remain camp, comments the thread running through is always about being ill informed and not knowing what the future holds. Well surprise surprise exactly the same could be said about an organisation that is ever growing, ever expanding in terms of power, influence and legislation, appears to be accountable to no one but itself (accounts not signed off etc etc), forces member states to accede to it's demands regarding internal political placement in return for financial bail outs, forces countries to hold referendum after referendum until it gets the answer it wants, wants it's own defence force (which will be useless as the EU takes so long to come to a majority decision any crisis would be over before they got there) etc etc. So you see the ideals of expansionism are well and truly entrenched with the political elite served by the organisation ergo what would happen if we stayed? As I have said before....no one knows so isn't that equally a 'gamble'(gambol as you put it)?......or is the remain gamble better because both sides are in the 'what if' camp if all the accusations are to be applied fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-02-25 5:15 PM pelmetman - 2017-02-25 2:48 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-02-25 1:04 PM I know you want to leave at any price (though you've yet to say what price you would actually be prepared to pay) but I don't, unless there is a comprehensive argument in favour. To date, I haven't seen that. I'm still waiting for someone to reveal it. There is no cost to leave the EU. Had i not seen that comment in print i wouldn't believe anyone could be so naive to think that let alone believe it. Your right that's not quite correct ;-) ..... If we leave the EU and revert to WTO rules we will be better of on tariffs.......So I should of said we'll be in profit when we leave the EU :D ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted February 25, 2017 Share Posted February 25, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-02-25 10:00 PM Bulletguy - 2017-02-25 5:15 PM pelmetman - 2017-02-25 2:48 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-02-25 1:04 PM I know you want to leave at any price (though you've yet to say what price you would actually be prepared to pay) but I don't, unless there is a comprehensive argument in favour. To date, I haven't seen that. I'm still waiting for someone to reveal it. There is no cost to leave the EU. Had i not seen that comment in print i wouldn't believe anyone could be so naive to think that let alone believe it. Your right that's not quite correct ;-) ..... If we leave the EU and revert to WTO rules we will be better of on tariffs.......So I should of said we'll be in profit when we leave the EU :D ....... You are living in a state of denial and wishful dreaming. It's going to cost billions. May wants tariff free cross border trade with EU countries. That will certainly involve free movement. What May wants and what she ends up with will be quite different. You appear to relish the prospect of exiting at any cost and i saw further up thread someone asked how much you are prepared to pay. As yet you've never said....no doubt because you've never given it any serious thought at all. You have fanciful ideas that leaving the EU is going to pour masses of money into the Exchequer to bursting point, yellow brick paved streets suddenly appearing full of dreamy Dorothy's skipping happily off to the Emerald city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 Bulletguy - 2017-02-25 11:59 PM pelmetman - 2017-02-25 10:00 PM Bulletguy - 2017-02-25 5:15 PM pelmetman - 2017-02-25 2:48 PM Brian Kirby - 2017-02-25 1:04 PM I know you want to leave at any price (though you've yet to say what price you would actually be prepared to pay) but I don't, unless there is a comprehensive argument in favour. To date, I haven't seen that. I'm still waiting for someone to reveal it. There is no cost to leave the EU. Had i not seen that comment in print i wouldn't believe anyone could be so naive to think that let alone believe it. Your right that's not quite correct ;-) ..... If we leave the EU and revert to WTO rules we will be better of on tariffs.......So I should of said we'll be in profit when we leave the EU :D ....... You are living in a state of denial and wishful dreaming. It's going to cost billions. May wants tariff free cross border trade with EU countries. That will certainly involve free movement. What May wants and what she ends up with will be quite different. You appear to relish the prospect of exiting at any cost and i saw further up thread someone asked how much you are prepared to pay. As yet you've never said....no doubt because you've never given it any serious thought at all. You have fanciful ideas that leaving the EU is going to pour masses of money into the Exchequer to bursting point, yellow brick paved streets suddenly appearing full of dreamy Dorothy's skipping happily off to the Emerald city. My only concern is there wont be a EU for us to leave in 2 years time >:-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 RogerC - 2017-02-25 8:26 PM Given that no-one knew what Brexit meant" is what you actually said Brian............... Nothing there about 'speaking for myself'....................it was a generalised statement not a personalised one so my comment still stands. Doubtless my fault, but my reply was actually to your question "Therefore why should one have voted at all as both sides were delivering 'assumptions'?" Hence, "speaking for myself": I was giving my reason for voting. Regardless of your intent though there is a general thread running through the 'remain' camp argument that those who voted 'out' didn't know what they were voting for. Did those voting 'in' have any idea what would be the outcome of remaining or is it too based on what they 'think' the outcome will be. Of course. How could it be otherwise, given that no facts were available. You said everything was based on 'predictions'....well an awful lot of those predictions have been found to be baseless......the worst example being Mark Carney....who also happens to be one of the 'doing Britain down' with his fiscal doom laden predictions. The BoE lowered the base rate to fend off some of the potential downsides. That also caused £ to fall, which resulted in exports rising. If people are to be accused of "doing Britain down" for stating what risks they see ahead, and acting to ameliorate them, we shall all go to hell in a handcart. ...........yes I am aware of the definition however when used as the politicians/pundits etc use them they are 'get out of jail free' statements.......if this happens then this will be the case....if not then this or that will be. It is simply nothing more than guesswork with a caveat that one will be right whichever side of the fence one eventually gets off A forecast is a stab at predicting the future. To do so there has to be a basis for the prediction, or it would indeed, be a guess. The basis must, inevitably, be assumed. So, any sane mortal, asked to make such a prediction, will state the assumptions on which it is based. What else should they do? ..............................Well looking back on the concessions Cameron is reported to have 'obtained' there was a legal consensus prevailing at the time that despite assurances to the contrary those concessions were not set in concrete, the acceptance and implementation reportedly being subject to ratification by the member states. Additionally the process was understood to be in jeopardy from the outset because Belgium, (arch prevaricators) threatened to drag out the process for years because of it's own deeply entrenched internal political issues Yes Cameron went to the EU looking for changes favourable to returning a remain vote....but.....he didn't. Which well illustrates the risks for the Brexit negotiations, don't you think? ...............................Regarding export.......are you aware that the UK export market is determined by the mandarins in Brussels....or wherever they migrate to at enormous public expense. CBI extract: While being in the EU means that the UK doesn’t sign its own trade deals That 66% you quote is under the trade deals negotiated en bloc by the EU. Some, but not all. I think you may be assuming that the UK only trades outside the EU on the basis of trade agreements. We actually trade quite widely with countries with which we have no trade agreements, and neither does the EU. See here for countries with which we trade http://tinyurl.com/zz3u6wc, and here for Free Trade agreements signed and under consideration by the EU http://tinyurl.com/oknw2oy If you compare the two, you will see what I mean. .............................It is completely untrue that you need to be a member of a large bloc like the EU in order to strike trade deals. I have made no such claim. ...................The baseline of our trade relationship with the remaining EU states would be governed by WTO rules which provide for non-discrimination in tariffs, and outlaw discriminatory non-tariff measures. From this baseline, and as the remaining EU's largest single export market, we would be in a strong position to negotiate a mutually beneficial deal providing for the continued free flow of goods and services in both directions. To gain which, by all accounts, we should have to accept free movement of people. My understanding is that free movement is not acceptable to the Brexiteers, so whatever terms may emerge, they seem unlikely to be free of trade tariffs. That, to me, is a disadvantage. So you see the straitjacket is well and truly fastened and as a member of the EU if we don't accede to their rules etc they will be in a position to tighten the straps Rules to which we contribute as members. As non-members we shall be where Norway is, and will be told by the EU what their terms of business are. Again, as I see it, a disadvantage. .......................As I have said before....no one knows so isn't that equally a 'gamble'(gambol as you put it)?......or is the remain gamble better because both sides are in the 'what if' camp if all the accusations are to be applied fairly. Pardon the typo! :-) That will depend on the individual. Either one sees the EU as a malevolent force, which seems to be your stance, or one sees it as an evolving project that, for all its undeniable faults, offers more in future benefit than we shall gain by leaving, which is my stance (subject to someone being able to persuade me otherwise). As I said at the outset, I have yet to see those arguments, so remain of the opinion that we are better off in - on the proviso that we engage fully and play an active role - which to date we have signally failed to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted February 26, 2017 Share Posted February 26, 2017 A considered and well presented opposing position Brian. We are getting into areas where I simply don't have the time at present to delve much further. I will simply say in response to your last:"or one sees it as an evolving project that, for all its undeniable faults, offers more in future benefit than we shall gain by leaving,......"Agreed it is evolving.....how long before it either breaks up altogether or morphs, because of political ambition (not public will), into the United States of Europe.....democratic entity or to all intents and purposes a communist dictatorship? Over time it has introduced a currency that instantly fuelled inflation in a number of countries and has been the instrument of fiscal disaster in a number of countries. It has allowed countries to join when it was clear they did not meet the financial stability required for membership, it still has not had it's accounts signed off at audit with a clean sheet..(criminal accountability in many other places), it has exhibited somewhat unpalatable bullying traits (from those spokespersons such as Juncker) although it might be his 'comeuppance' time with Ted Malloch appointed as US ambassador to EU: He said: “Mr Juncker was a very adequate mayor I think of some city in Luxembourg and maybe he should go back and do that again.”Extract from The Guardian :The EU faces an upsurge in nationalism within its own borders. It will do its leaders good to hear some unwelcome versions of it from within their walls.So there are clearly arguments for and against....all in all each is based on, until things really start to happen, supposition. You say you have yet to see evidence of our being better off out whereas there are those of us who have yet to see or hear any evidence that continued membership of a club, a club that is known to be fiscally irresponsible, unable to manage it's own accounts, reverts to publicly verbally bullying a country that dares to stand up to it, that can not manage it's own currency, that cannot exercise control over it's member countries which are introducing their own 'illegal' border controls....is worth remaining a member of.The Centre for European Reform published after it's own conference:November’s conference, which brought together 50 leading economists, considered whether the euro was a failure.There was broad consensus that the euro had been a disappointment: the currency union’s economic performance was very poor, and rather than bringing EU member-states together and fostering a closer sense of unity and common identity, the euro had divided countries and eroded confidence in the EU.Now surely that reinforces the feeling that the EU is a vehicle with which those who wield the power can do so as they see fit. Had they acknowledged that the Euro was a divisive and unrealistic tool in their search for unity there might have been room for partly accepting that these 'mandarins' do listen. However to date I have yet to see anything other than diktats emanating from Brussels and am therefore of the mindset that unlike the 'remain' camp I have yet to see anything that persuades me that remaining would be the better option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-02-26 7:51 PM The BoE lowered the base rate to fend off some of the potential downsides. That also caused £ to fall, which resulted in exports rising. If people are to be accused of "doing Britain down" for stating what risks they see ahead, and acting to ameliorate them, we shall all go to hell in a handcart. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-kingdom/gdp-growth Judging by these figures our handcart is looking in pretty good shape :D .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Brian Kirby - 2017-02-26 7:51 PM That will depend on the individual. Either one sees the EU as a malevolent force, which seems to be your stance, or one sees it as an evolving project that, for all its undeniable faults, offers more in future benefit than we shall gain by leaving, which is my stance (subject to someone being able to persuade me otherwise). As I said at the outset, I have yet to see those arguments, so remain of the opinion that we are better off in - on the proviso that we engage fully and play an active role - which to date we have signally failed to do. Which is exactly why we should leave ;-) .....if after 40 years if we haven't committed to the project...... We never will :-| .......For example :D ....... On 1 May 1707, the united Kingdom of Great Britain came into being, the result of Acts of Union being passed by the parliaments of England and Scotland to ratify the 1706 Treaty of Union and so unite the two kingdoms. After 310 years the Scots are not exactly committed to the United Kingdom.......So considering the EU is trying to do that with 27 other countries.......they haven't got a hope in hell of it ever working (lol) ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candapack Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 pelmetman - 2017-02-27 9:29 AM Brian Kirby - 2017-02-26 7:51 PM That will depend on the individual. Either one sees the EU as a malevolent force, which seems to be your stance, or one sees it as an evolving project that, for all its undeniable faults, offers more in future benefit than we shall gain by leaving, which is my stance (subject to someone being able to persuade me otherwise). As I said at the outset, I have yet to see those arguments, so remain of the opinion that we are better off in - on the proviso that we engage fully and play an active role - which to date we have signally failed to do. Which is exactly why we should leave ;-) .....if after 40 years if we haven't committed to the project...... We never will :-| .......For example :D ....... On 1 May 1707, the united Kingdom of Great Britain came into being, the result of Acts of Union being passed by the parliaments of England and Scotland to ratify the 1706 Treaty of Union and so unite the two kingdoms. After 310 years the Scots are not exactly committed to the United Kingdom.......So considering the EU is trying to do that with 27 other countries.......they haven't got a hope in hell of it ever working (lol) ...... It's taken us that long to realise it's not actually a Union. Some still don't realise that, but their numbers are reducing. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.