Brexit negotiations
- Thread starter Scott-Copywriter
- Start date
Or if anyone espects their business to benefit from Brexit if it happens? and if so, how?
Upvote
0
Oh look, come on. This is getting ridiculous now.
If you throw a ball into the air, you expect it to come back down. It "hasn't happened yet", but you still expect it. Why? Because evidence suggests it will. Empirical evidence is part of it, sure; we've seen a billion people throw a billion things and a billion times those things have gone up and then come back down.
But even without that empirical evidence, there are the physical laws themselves and the theories that describe them. We have the (if you excuse the pun) weight of expertise that can describe the functions of gravity and its effects.
You can throw the ball up and describe the ball's future descent as "Project Fear!" but that won't stop the ball falling down.
The Government warns that Brexit is harmful.
Manufacturers warn that Brexit is harmful.
Financial Services companies warn that Brexit is harmful.
Legal sectors warn that Brexit is harmful.
International trade experts warn that Brexit is harmful.
Experts from dozens of sectors and diverse industries all offering their expertise (e.g. based on experience, training, education, or some/all of each), and even the government - who are trying to enact Brexit at any cost - are collectively providing evidence of the harm Brexit will cause.
None of it proves what will happen because only a five-year old that has difficulties with object permanence would demand such proof before making any decision, but the weight of the evidence is there. It's been a pretty much constant stream and has appeared dozens of times in this thread alone.
"Project Fear" is the proverbial fingers-in-the-ears when logic, reason or evidence is brought up.
https://www.ft.com/content/72ead180-229a-11e7-8691-d5f7e0cd0a16
David Davis, when told the EU Medicines Agency (and the 900+ jobs) would leave because of Brexit, called it "Project Fear" and said it would be part of the "exit negotiations".
https://twitter.com/EMA_News/status/1088844259934064640
"Today, EMA staff lowered the 28 EU flags and symbolically said goodbye to their London offices. Guido Rasi expressed his thanks to the UK for its contribution to the work of the Agency and for having been a gracious host of EMA since 1995."
What evidence is enough for you? Where is the line that gets crossed and you say, "Well this information finally convinces me that Brexit will hurt too many people!"?
Upvote
0
Here's a well sourced thread of the harm Brexit has and continues to cause.
https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1087666286648283136
But by all means, keep calling it "Project Fear".
Upvote
0
Gotta love an analogy havnt you.
Throwing a ball up knowing it will come back down is physics. There is absolutely no other other outcome no matter how many times you throw that ball up.
Nobody actually knows what will happen with brexit. Chances are there will be downsides, but there will be upsides - British drinks industry is benefiting from Wetherspoons for example.
Will the upsides work out better in the long run? Possibly, possibly not. The only thing we do know is that in the short term it will probably hurt, but people tend to have a way of figuring things out and making things better - You go back 100 years and there was no way we could generate enough food or energy for everyone in the world today.
Factories 50 years years ago could not cope with the demand put on them today.
My mobile phone is more powerful than the ones used to send people in to space in the 70s.
Your analogy would have been better if you had said throwing a ball forward. You know it will go forward, but you have no idea how far, where it will stop and so on.
Throwing a ball up knowing it will come back down is physics. There is absolutely no other other outcome no matter how many times you throw that ball up.
Nobody actually knows what will happen with brexit. Chances are there will be downsides, but there will be upsides - British drinks industry is benefiting from Wetherspoons for example.
Will the upsides work out better in the long run? Possibly, possibly not. The only thing we do know is that in the short term it will probably hurt, but people tend to have a way of figuring things out and making things better - You go back 100 years and there was no way we could generate enough food or energy for everyone in the world today.
Factories 50 years years ago could not cope with the demand put on them today.
My mobile phone is more powerful than the ones used to send people in to space in the 70s.
Your analogy would have been better if you had said throwing a ball forward. You know it will go forward, but you have no idea how far, where it will stop and so on.
Upvote
0
Sorry to disappoint. :{
I hereby acknowledge that there may be (and probably are) valid counterpoints to my arguments. It's just that I have yet to see any deployed here that hold up to scrutiny. :/
Terms like "protectionist" are unhelpful without context of your intent. That isn't a helpful term unless you are interested in particular points of international diplomacy or foreign policy. What aspects do you see as "protectionist" and what are their positive and negative effects? Why is that justification for putting the UK through the harm of Brexit?
What political elitist system?
How does the EU *definitely* add to it?
How do you know 17.4m people all voted with one mind to "kick them in the teeth"?
When did 'The Rich People' warn folk not to vote Leave?
My reply would be: how does being a puritan about any of these prevent the harm that Brexit will deliver to the poorest and most vulnerable in our society?
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
How many hospitals or schools could have been built with the money wasted on Brexit? Those negatives will never turn into positives even in a very long time.
Upvote
0
Sorry, I don't understand that comment. Benefitting in what way, and how is that related to Brexit?
Upvote
0
This is the exact b/s that Remain go on about. You can not argue about should/would/could without any facts.
How much WOULD have been spent on schools and hospitals if there was no brexit? Probably the exact same as has been.
Dont forget as a country we have been doing very well over the last 2 years despite what people said would happen the day after the bexit vote if we voted leave which emphasizes the fact that nobody really knows.
Upvote
0
The owner of wetherspoons basically stopped buying french wine and champagne instead opting for British wine/prosecco. He also stopped serving some lagers and spirits in exchange for British equivalents.
Upvote
0
Im sure he also switched to an American brandy? I assume there must still be European drinks but I know he is a massive brexit supporter (cant bring myself to say brexiteer), so he has tried to lead the way in showing we can live without the EU where he can.
You can never do too much research
It is Saturday as well so its a good day to start.
Upvote
0
If we are going to be pedantic, then your suggested analogy is no better than @Cobby ’s. It is just as easy to model a ball going forward as vertically, the only difference is that there is no vertical acceleration due to gravity. You would model the ball’s motion using the SUVAT equations (not too difficult- top end GCSE/ A level maths or physics)
Ah, but wasn’t it that nice man Mr Gove who said people in this country had had enough of experts?
Upvote
0
*sigh*
Some Brexiters have retreated to a defence of "you can't know until it's over", because they've got no rational arguments left. That analogy was the simplest I could come up with to demonstrate that you don't have to wait for the outcome to know what it will be.
The evidence from all sectors and a mounting number of experts, tells us that Brexit, especially "No Deal"/Cliff-Edge Brexit, will be extremely harmful.
That's it. That's all that was. That's as far as the analogy goes. The ball isn't Brexit.
In the short term, No Deal will be anywhere on a scale from "Recession" to "People Dying". The COBRA committee have apparently met to make "National Emergency" plans in place for unrest after a No Deal Brexit. Is martial law honestly what you voted for?
What's your point here? If it's that "we'll manage, we always do", then that's little better than sticking your head in the sand and abdicating your responsibility as a Brexiter.
Oi, my analogy was great.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Hospitals are relevant because that is what was painted on the side of the infamous bus.
I agree we have been doing very well over the last 2 years. Homeless up, hospital waiting lists up, earnings gap up, crime up.
What we do know is that money spent on one thing is not available to be spent on something else.
Upvote
0
There has been a pretty consistent stream of facts and mounting evidence. Evidence of harm done and harm to come.
It's just that you ignore the evidence until you can't, then label it as "Project Fear" until it comes to pass, then it's just "what 17.4m people voted for."
You think we've been doing "Very well?" That's a little out of touch.
How have we been doing?
Our reputation has been shredded. We're an international laughing-stock. There are 25,000 more people homeless since the referendum. Hate crime has doubled in the last 5 years.
ON JUST THE LAST PAGE, I've linked to a thread full of well-sourced examples of the economic and social harm that Brexit is causing:
https://twitter.com/uk_domain_names/status/1087666286648283136
GDP Growth has gone from one of the strongest in the EU to the weakest:
Predictions
Most of the predictions about a post-Leave vote were pretty good.
Here's a Sunday Times article talking about the economic growth over the last 2½ years:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-smith-a-downbeat-year
"The EU referendum, in contrast, was expected to have a bigger short-term negative effect on growth than turned out to be the case, although the broad impact on the economy over the past 2½ years has proved close to expectations."
"So who got closest to the story of 2018 with their predictions?...One was Pantheon Macroeconomics, in the form of its chief UK economist Samuel Tombs. His tone about Britain’s economy has been downbeat since the referendum and in 2018 he called it correctly."
"At the other end of the scale from Tombs and the OBR sits the Liverpool Research Group in Macroeconomics, founded by Patrick Minford, now a professor at Cardiff University, but previously at Liverpool. He is perhaps the most prominent Brexit-supporting economist. Optimism about the impact of the referendum vote did not serve him well this year or, it should be said, in 2017."
(Actual Outcomes: GDP: 1.4%, Inflation: 2.3%)
What I'm saying is Tony, the evidence is there, but when it's presented to you, you have to actually read it. Pretending it doesn't exist simply reduces the Signal-to-Noise Ratio for the debate, making it harder to have a rational conversation (shoutout to Mr. D for doing specifically this).
I'm not saying there haven't been any upsides in the last 2½ years, but you can't rebut huge losses to our economic growth with empty rhetoric about pulling together and trying harder.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
Did anyone really vote for this?
https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/martial-law-no-deal-brexit-civil-unrest/
https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/martial-law-no-deal-brexit-civil-unrest/
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #4,704
In my view, this kind of thing indicates how unlikely a no deal eventuality is.
We must remember that no one capable of significantly influencing the outcome of Brexit is sympathetic to the idea of no deal. Even in private, I suspect May is also vehemently against it, but she's just trying (unsuccessfully) to use the threat as leverage to get the outcome she wants.
So if the deal does struggle to pass, it will boil down to a choice between placating the minority of no-deal advocates, or acting in the national interest (which she was elected to do first and foremost).
Personally, I think the national interest will win. If MPs fully understand the ramifications of no deal, they will consider it something that is simply not acceptable on their watch.
We must also remember that, as the country stands today, about 24% of the British population voted to leave. In a few years' time it'll be nearer 20%, and from there, only a portion will have extremely strong feelings about it. Calling off Brexit entirely would probably be a step too far, but I think any delays would not have much of a lasting impact.
We also can't forget that delivering Brexit on time is hardly a political slam dunk. The attention of the electorate will quickly shift back to the issues that have been most important for decades. And as no deal would make those issues much worse, MPs will be very wary of setting themselves up for a fall at the next general election and beyond.
"Hey! Wages are falling, the economy is stagnating and the NHS is under more pressure than ever before!"
"Yes, but this was the outcome of no deal that you wanted."
"Oh yeah. That's fine then. It's not your fault. Carry on."
I don't think so...
Upvote
0
It would be a foolish govt that did not have contingency plans drawn up. For all sorts of eventualities.
Upvote
0
24% you say?
Decisions aren't made by the population. The referendum asked voters, and of them over half that voted decided to vote leave.
So 24% is a red herring. Those that do not vote do not get to change the decision, nor does it change the decision made by those who vote. Nor do we ask 3 year olds, part of the population, which way they want the country to go.
Upvote
0
With the exception of George Osbourne who bare-faced lied to Andrew Neil about the result of the referendum immediately costing every family in Britain £4000 in an emergency budget, the funniest misuse of statistics I've heard a wailing remainer use was the population of Europe is 750 million so actually only 2.5% of the European population voted for Brexit... so it should be cancelled because it affects Europe
The sad thing is some of the usual remainer suspects on this board will be thinking "Well that makes sense to me... cancel Brexit!!"
Upvote
0
With the exception of George Osbourne who bare-faced lied to Andrew Neil about the result of the referendum immediately costing every family in Britain £4000 in an emergency budget, the funniest misuse of statistics I've heard a wailing remainer use was the population of Europe is 750 million so actually only 2.5% of the European population voted for Brexit... so it should be cancelled because it affects Europe
The sad thing is some of the usual remainer suspects on this board will be thinking "Well that makes sense to me... cancel Brexit!!"
Wow, 750 million.
And here was the EU touting it at 450 million for so long. How did the EU ever get the figures so wrong...? No wonder their accounts don't get signed off by auditors with such a major population error.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #4,710
Yes. About 24%.
Re-read my post carefully. I said about 24% of the population voted to leave. It does not invalidate the referendum, but it's a very important point to keep in mind.
Even if we only based it on the population of people who are capable of understanding Brexit, talking about it, and voting in the near future (say 14/15 onwards), the total percentage of people in the country today who voted for leave is around 28%.
The reason this is so important is because we instinctively assume that more than half the country will be in uproar if Brexit is delayed or even stopped altogether. But in reality, 7 out of every 10 people between the ages of 15 and 112 either didn't vote for Brexit, weren't able to vote yet, or simply don't care.
So put yourself in the shoes of the politicians, and you'll find that while you may feel it's right to respect the decision to leave three years ago, a form of Brexit that annoys those who voted leave could actually be preferred, or merely accepted, by over 70% of people in the country. Include the "soft leave" voters, of which there are many, and that figure could be 75%-80%+.
Put everything together, and you'll find that forcing through Brexit, on-time and at any cost, will not pick up as many political brownie points as people think it will. Depending on the ramifications of a hypothetical no deal, it could even be looked back on as a grave mistake in domestic political strategy.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
On any measure of fairness the only way you can include "the rest of the population" when discussing the referendum result is to extrapolate the way people actually voted to those that didn't. So, 52% of the population support Brexit.
The idea that all or the majority that chose not to vote wanted to remain is yet another clutching at straws and shows again the intellectual deficiency at the heart of the remain position.
The idea that all or the majority that chose not to vote wanted to remain is yet another clutching at straws and shows again the intellectual deficiency at the heart of the remain position.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #4,713
You didn't absorb a word I said, did you?
Forget the referendum. Non-votes don't count for that, but they certainly count when it comes to politicians deciding what to do next, such as the terms of the deal, no deal, delaying Article 50, second referendums etc etc.
So when politicians are deciding what to do, when balancing the "mandate", domestic politics, national interest and so on, they would be very wise to factor that in. And in doing so, it's clear that as much as 80% of the population capable of understanding Brexit and alive today either didn't vote for it in the first place, don't want a hard Brexit, or don't care what happens, But crucially, many of them could (and many will) become voters in future elections.
This is about politicians caring about what's best for the country, and also for themselves. And in this situation, marching on with a rushed and damaging form of Brexit does not provide the safety net of popular support many think it does. In fact, doing that, and opening up the consequences, could result in a backlash of epic proportions from a huge majority of the pubic the next time we head to the polls.
I suspect that most MPs have twigged on to this already.
PS: This is also why the idea of "civil disobedience" in the event of an anti-Brexit move is largely overblown. Take the above figures, and exclude those who will grumble but eventually move on, and you'll be hard pushed to find more than 5% of the population willing to "take to the streets". And if they did cause problems, the other 95% wouldn't be happy about it.
Upvote
0
Politicians delegated the decision to voters. Voters decided (much to the annoyance of some voters and MPs) what is best for the country, and expect that to be carried out.
You are quite right that quiet leavers are unlikely to take to the streets, they are too busy leading their lives or simply disinclined.
But they will be voting at the next GE, so it's my view we could see some very unusual results.
Upvote
0
Why do non-voters count when it comes to national policy? The likelihood is that a reasonable percentage of those that didn't vote in the referendum don't vote in local or national elections.
If you don't vote you choose not to have a voice, and your MP only has a duty to listen to the extent of serving all of her local constituents on local issues.
The angry vocal self-disenfranchised remainer or brexiteer is the social media warrior / pub bore, nothing more.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #4,716
You're both missing my point.
Forget the referendum. Forget what's right and wrong. Forget who should or should not be taken into account based on whatever principles you believe in.
Politicians are trying to make the right post-Brexit decisions right now. They're factoring in the referendum result, the national interest, and their own self-interests too.
Whatever we believe, the fact remains that out of every person in this country - those you work with, those you see in pubs and shops, those you pass by on the street - about 1 in 4 voted for Brexit, give or take.
MPs have a duty of care to the other 3 in 4, whether they vote or not, and may of them have (or will have) the ability to vote, so based on political self-interest alone, they cannot be taken out of the equation.
And let me tell you this: people don't care about politics until they have a reason to care. And as of this moment, when it comes to people who can vote or will be able to soon, who didn't vote in the referendum, there are far more of them than there are leave or remain voters.
I'd suggest to any politician that they avoid rattling that cage. Pandering to the 20% (or less) who want a hard Brexit bang on time, which then results in lower levels of satisfaction amongst the other 80% (assuming even some of the scare stories come true) will be a recipe for disaster in domestic politics.
Upvote
0
And by the same token slightly less than 1 in 4 voted against Brexit, give or take.
Not 3 out of 4. You are presuming what the other 2 out of 4 would decide based on not actually asking them.
So we have a majority of those who voted deciding the issue. As tends to happen in any straight 2 choice vote. You get that bit? Or do you disagree with that bit?
Upvote
0
I think you're confusing yourself Scott. Mr D made the obvious point above and I would add that your argument is no different to Momentum moaning about the last national election because in several seats the Tory margin of victory was in the tens of votes.
The closeness of those local results doesn't mean that Labour should be given a voice in Government, we don't have PR and you should be thankful of that otherwise UKIP would have had 50+seats in the last but one election.
And the gap between Brexiteers and Remainers does not mean the latter should be given a decision on whether Brexit happens... which is what all this is about after all, remainers trying to make a case for not doing the will of the British people (remember extrapolation).
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Whose Job Was It? What Two Threads Say About Accountants and FeesShould Your Bookkeeper Tell You Your Accountant Is Too Expensive? There's a polite argument...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
Guilty until proven authorised: fighting a false counterfeit reportA UKBF member posted something that will make the stomach drop for anyone who sells on a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 12 min read
-
Growth Britain: what's actually in it for the smallest businesses?John Healey gave his first big speech as chancellor this morning, standing in front of a row of...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
AI can do the typing. It can't sign the accounts.Back in January, a UKBF member called @Byzantium put up a complaint that'll sound familiar to a...- Lord Moore
- Updated:
- 6 min read
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read