Brexit negotiations

[KM-Tiger]

Is suing the government of interest to most people?

Not to me, but perhaps Cyndy has some examples of where this has been used to the general good?

 

[Newchodge]

Is suing the government of interest to most people?

Not being able to do so, whatever the reason you need to do it, should be of interest to everyone.

 

[Mr D]

Not being able to do so, whatever the reason you need to do it, should be of interest to everyone.

Then you need to get people interested.

 

[Mr D]

Not to me, but perhaps Cyndy has some examples of where this has been used to the general good?

Do not know about the general good. I would have said government paying out extra money is not for the general good.

 

[Newchodge]

Do not know about the general good. I would have said government paying out extra money is not for the general good.

On that basis the government should stop all social security payments, all state pension payments, all salaries to civil servants, all payments to local authorities for the provision of services to local communities.

Suppose the government, in defiance of the law, refused to pay state pensions to anyone, because the state could not afford it. Don't you think every current and future pensioner (ie everyone) should be able to invoke the law to force the government to fulfill their legal obligations?

 

[Mr D]

Government pays out small amounts to lots of individuals. Bit different than paying out 80 billion plus to 4 people, none of whom reside in Britain.

If state cannot afford something how do you get the state to afford it?
Has that worked in any state?

 

[Newchodge]

Bit different than paying out 80 billion plus to 4 people, none of whom reside in Britain.

Please quote any court case that has required our government to pay 20 billion to each of 4 people. Or even 20 million. Or even 2 million.

 

[Mr D]

I can once it gets to court. That will be at the end of the process not the early days.
Personally I have a tenner on for it to be £100 billion plus by the time its finally decided. Late payment charges, interest etc all adds up.

Now for the general good, is it better for government to pay out to people only what is required or for government to pay out to people more than is required and have to borrow money to do so / raise taxes to do so?

 

[Newchodge]

If state cannot afford something how do you get the state to afford it?

This state can afford anything it wants to pay for. HS2, Trident renewal, Quantitative easing, refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, refurbishment of the Houses of Parliament, £400,000+ as a universoty vice chancellor's salary, £7,000,000+ to refurbish Jacob Rees Mogg MP ancestral home (or his wife's), invasion of Iraq, creation of theNHS.

Anytime the government wants to pay for something it can afford it.

 

[Mr D]

This state can afford anything it wants to pay for. HS2, Trident renewal, Quantitative easing, refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, refurbishment of the Houses of Parliament, £400,000+ as a universoty vice chancellor's salary, £7,000,000+ to refurbish Jacob Rees Mogg MP ancestral home (or his wife's), invasion of Iraq, creation of theNHS.

Anytime the government wants to pay for something it can afford it.

No need for people to sue the government then as you say they can afford it.

Oh and its the Queen paying for refurbishing Buckingham Palace. Just a reduction in her taxes to do it.

 

[Newchodge]

Oh and its the Queen paying for refurbishing Buckingham Palace. Just a reduction in her taxes to do it.

How is the government not paying for it if the money comes from areduction in money paid to the government?

 

[Newchodge]

No need for people to sue the government then as you say they can afford it.

Do you specialise in non sequiturs?

 

[Cobby]

What a load of coblers by one person

There is no way we will relax regulations on anything to do with food safety or animal welfare

I really don't care if you believe me, but I went back and checked the schedule; it was Farming Today (this episode http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07gctdz) and it was Owen Patterson MP who made the claim about relaxing animal welfare to compete globally (he mentioned South America specifically).

It's unsurprising he would talk on this topic as he has registered interests with food companies and meat exporting companies. He's also a climate-change denying, human dumpster-fire (as can be seen by his voting here).

If you take issue with the claim about animal welfare, I suggest you take it up directly with him.

 

[Mr D]

How is the government not paying for it if the money comes from areduction in money paid to the government?

Because she is reducing her tax on her income from 85% to 75% for a few years to pay for it.
Otherwise it would be remaining at 85%. Her money.
We don't live in a country where the government simply give you money and you get to keep part of it with government taking the rest back.

 

[Mr D]

Do you specialise in non sequiturs?

No.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Cobby

just because you have a trade deal free or otherwise it does not mean you need to accept everything into the trade deal, just like any other deal anyone makes you can exclude things

Things do not always follow the same law making reason's, South American beef are range bred whilst the uk has small number in small herds and high risk from disease due to this whist the range bred are not confined to small area's so maybe different regulations are required for different methods of production

 

[Cobby]

Cobby

just because you have a trade deal free or otherwise it does not mean you need to accept everything into the trade deal, just like any other deal anyone makes you can exclude things

Things do not always follow the same law making reason's, South American beef are range bred whilst the uk has small number in small herds and high risk from disease due to this whist the range bred are not confined to small area's so maybe different regulations are required for different methods of production

Let's not turn this into hypothetical debate about who has the leverage to put what into trade deals. I'm simply quoting a member of the current government, talking about the repercussions of Brexit and saying "animal welfare standards may have to be relaxed to compete" (and then following up on that). If you want to argue about animal welfare standards, I suppose you could start another thread?

 

[Chris Ashdown]

OK we will just accept what you say as fact for the future and not bother questioning what you think is the way forward

 

[Cobby]

OK we will just accept what you say as fact for the future and not bother questioning what you think is the way forward

I was simply highlighting something said by a government minister. If you want to argue about the effect of animal welfare standards, go for it, but that's not a valid or even relevant defence of what Patterson said so I don't understand why you're getting so mardy about it.

edit: Went back and listened to it; he didn't say that, it seems like it was a guy from the National Farmer's Union who was on immediately after him. Whoops. :/

 

[Chris Ashdown]

I am getting so mardy (whatever that is) because the remainer's as making every thing so negative and don't seem to understand the damage they are doing the country as a whole

Maybe both sides could just report facts and not gossip and wishful thinking

 

[Mr D]

I am getting so mardy (whatever that is) because the remainer's as making every thing so negative and don't seem to understand the damage they are doing the country as a whole

Maybe both sides could just report facts and not gossip and wishful thinking

The media would not have as many viewers / readers.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

But those viewers may stand a better chance of keeping their jobs further down the line. Its a fact that a single negative comment has brought down companies , remember Ratners Jewellery, the same happens all over the stock markets

 

[Newchodge]

There are no facts about Brexit. It hasn't happened. What facts there are about the economy, exchange rates, stock market levels, growth figures, are facts, but the causes are speculation.

 

[Mr D]

But those viewers may stand a better chance of keeping their jobs further down the line. Its a fact that a single negative comment has brought down companies , remember Ratners Jewellery, the same happens all over the stock markets

The media apparently do not have pensions to worry about. Based on some of the stuff they come up with.
Other people losing a chunk of pension money is not the media's problem.
Bad news / bad predictions is preferred by them over good.

 

[Cobby]

I am getting so mardy (whatever that is) because the remainer's as making every thing so negative and don't seem to understand the damage they are doing the country as a whole

Oh come on, hahaha.

"STOP SCREAMING AT ME, I'M TRYING TO SAFELY CRASH LAND THIS PERFECTLY FUNCTIONAL AEROPLANE! IF YOU KEEP SCREAMING YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THE CRASH MUCH WORSE!"

 

[Clinton]

Has everyone forgotten about Brexit? Tut, tut!

No mention of the estimated £135 billion per year boost to our GDP if we go for a hard Brexit?

Or the Brexit Position Papers (which all seem reasonable aims)?

No mention of even the farting in the wind by the PM of Slovenia (covered, of course, in the Remainers' bible, the Guardian)?

Or Bloomberg's piece on how desperate the EU are for the Euro to have the great success that Britain so efforlessly (and accidentally) achieved with the devaluation of GBP?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

No mention of the estimated £135 billion per year boost to our GDP if we go for a hard Brexit?

The one which was put forward by a pro-Brexit economist and debunked by an independent research institute?

I'm still struggling to understand how relieving all tariffs for importers into the UK, while every country continues to impose tariffs on UK exporters, somehow makes the UK richer and the EU poorer.

This part is particularly amusing:

The EU would then be under pressure to offer Britain a free trade deal, otherwise its producers would be competing in a UK market "flooded with less expensive goods from elsewhere", his introduction says.

There's no mention of the UK producers facing the exact same situation.

Very few EU-based businesses take the majority of their trade from the UK alone, whereas many UK-based businesses take almost all of their trade from the UK alone. The impact of this is so obvious that I thought I was on a BBC News spoof site for a second.

I enjoyed this, too:

He argues UK businesses and consumers would benefit from lower priced imported goods and the effects of increased competition, which would force firms to raise their productivity.

Ahh yes, that old magic bullet. Firms wouldn't cut staff and/or collapse. They'd just "raise their productivity" (with methods they hadn't bothered using before) and then everything would be fine.

Oh, and let's not forget that this doesn't apply to EU producers. The UK producers would benefit from this by increasing their productivity, while EU producers would struggle and pressure the EU into a favourable FTA. The impact would be entirely different for some reason.

 

[STDFR33]

'Debunked by an independent research institute'.

Give over Scott, you're crippling me!

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

'Debunked by an independent research institute'.

Give over Scott, you're crippling me!

You don't bat an eyelid at a boastfully pro-Brexit economist suggesting that a hard Brexit would skyrocket the UK economy, but suggesting that NIESR is independent cripples you. I see.

This isn't subjective. The proposal by the pro-Brexit economists does indeed ignore decades of basic evidence on how trade works. I've illustrated a few of the issues above.

Please feel free to explain how this:

The EU would then be under pressure to offer Britain a free trade deal, otherwise its producers would be competing in a UK market "flooded with less expensive goods from elsewhere", his introduction says.

would happen to crush EU industries into submission while leaving British businesses unscathed.

I'll wait.

 

[Mr D]

Not sure the EU would be under any more pressure to offer Britain a trade deal, never mind a free trade deal, more than they have been in past few months.

They decided not to discuss trade until other issues are sorted. Those issues are still on the table so no discussion yet of trade deal. If we want to discuss a trade deal we have to sort those other issues out. If we can do that in next 12 months I will be surprised.
Then get onto trade afterwards.

The EU signed a trade deal with Japan recently. How long did that take to negotiate? More than a few months?

 

[The Byre]

 

[Clinton]

The proposal by the pro-Brexit economists...

Anybody who says Brexit will be a disaster is an economist.

Anybody who says Brexit can be made successful is a pro-Brexit economist.

Okay, we get the definitions

 

[Cobby]

Anybody who says Brexit will be a disaster is an economist.

Anybody who says Brexit can be made successful is a pro-Brexit economist.

Okay, we get the definitions

It's quite normal to differentiate members of a particular group by adding qualifiers when identifying r specifying minority members. Welcome to the English language.

 

[Cobby]

'Debunked by an independent research institute'.

Give over Scott, you're crippling me!

Okay, well, check it yourself. Here ya go:
http://www.economistsforfreetrade.c...ct-Prosperity-An-Introduction-15-Aug-17-1.pdf

It's an incredibly speculative document that discards decades of economic data on trade trends and uses quote marks like they're going out of style. It's weak.

If the factual nitty-gritty isn't enough to invalidate this claim in your eyes (you seem more concerned with the group debunking it than the data itself), check out this paragraph:

Border Controls. A final worry concerns the movement of people across the border. This particularly is invoked for the Irish-Northern Ireland border. Yet, today everyone has to show identification at these borders since the UK is not in the Schengen agreement. It is a matter of detail what identification is needed and how it is controlled – eg, at the Northern Ireland border where currently it is light and, in practice, may even be largely suspended on particular roads. In practice, this could continue - it is a matter for the UK and Irish governments how to manage their borders. It is worth remembering that there is no EU border agency: EU governments each provide the border service on its behalf.

See if you can spot the error here. Do you think the opinion of someone with this level of knowledge should be given any weight?

Or, as I suspect, is this document put out without much care for such details because really its only goal - which it achieved - was to generate a big headline for Brexiteers to hang onto?

 

[Scott-Copywriter]

https://inews.co.uk/essentials/news...ory-contentious-economists-pro-brexit-claims/

Professor Minford has made a number of pro-Brexit forecasts which economists have said are based on data that is years out of date and models that were popular in the 1970s.

Economics professors from the London School of Economics said Professor Minford “misunderstands the nature of regulations and product standards” and produces forecast that are “really far-fetched” and “crazy”.

His suggestion that the UK’s GDP could be boosted by four per cent if it left the EU without a trade deal and unilaterally dropped all tariff barriers on imports was widely cited but made some “bizarre assumptions”, according to the Director of the UK Trade Policy Observatory Professor Alan Winters.

Professor Winters said: “Unless the UK and EU sign an FTA [Free Trade Agreement] that explicitly removes all EU non-tariff barriers to exports from the UK, WTO rules prevent the EU from eliminating barriers on the UK alone. If achieved, eliminating all tariffs and non-tariff barriers between the UK and the EU would imply deeper integration than the EU Customs Union and Single Market currently deliver, but coupled with a race to the bottom on standards!”

Shock.

 

[Mr D]

Economists disagreeing is nothing new. Stick 6 of them in a room with some data and get 7 predictions.
Look at who reports the figures to the public. Do they have anything to gain by what they are reporting? Do they cater to their customers or in opposition to what their customers declare they want?

 

[Chris Ashdown]

If as often quoted, the majority by far of teachers are to the left in their thoughts and actions, then if follows that more advanced teachers like professors will also be biased to the left

If this is true then the views of the majority of professors will be the same way; and not offering a balanced view of the academic minds, who teach subjects like Economics and closely related subjects

 

[Cobby]

If as often quoted, the majority by far of teachers are to the left in their thoughts and actions, then if follows that more advanced teachers like professors will also be biased to the left

If this is true then the views of the majority of professors will be the same way; and not offering a balanced view of the academic minds, who teach subjects like Economics and closely related subjects

That's a pretty crazy set of "ifs" you've got there.

"Everyone in academia is liberal and therefore unreliable" is a remarkably wild assumption and distinctly in line right-wing anti-intellectualism.

 

[quikshop]

If as often quoted, the majority by far of teachers are to the left in their thoughts and actions, then if follows that more advanced teachers like professors will also be biased to the left

If this is true then the views of the majority of professors will be the same way; and not offering a balanced view of the academic minds, who teach subjects like Economics and closely related subjects

I don't think this is about left or right leaning positions; leaving the EU crosses traditional boundaries - the Alt Left in charge of Labour are as much anti-EU as the Tory Right.

It continues to frustrate me that the pro-EU fraternity fail to put across any coherent argument around a grand vision of why the current EU formula is the right model for our collective nations, a shared journey for the betterment of Western Civilisation... no, it's all spurious financial wailing with passive-aggressive comments about racism. Tiresome and intellectually lacking.

 

[Newchodge]

Tiresome and intellectually lacking.

Good description of most of our politicians.