UKH

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brex...

This was covered in a thread on Friday but it really is significant and far exceeds anything produced by those arguing for the benefits of leaving the EU - I think it deserves a thread on its own.

It is very long and doesn't provide any solutions, but it does explain very clearly how we have got where we are and also lays bare many of the claims made by those supporting leave for what they really are.

If you have less time then this PDF article by Edwin Hayward (apologies if this has already been posted) exposes the WTO deal myth for what it is - https://www.docdroid.net/m3YvOS5/brexit-truth-revised.pdf

Alan

The Ivan Rogers speech is very impressive in its thoroughness and cool-headedness.

It would be interesting to read something similar that argues a more pro-Brexit position with such clarity and credibility, if such a thing exists.

I posted this - http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/theleftcaseforbrexitphilipbwhyman.p... - in another thread (https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/facts_vs_fear-696740?v=1#x89004...)

I agree, so thanks for the seperate posting. Just been reading it. Its always been highly concerning for me knowing where the real power lies in such negotiations for such a highly service centred economy, intricately tied in to the EU system but now trying to leave it. Its always been much more about such complexity, especially around non tarrif issues (and arguing with the EU on these from a pretty weak base) than this dumb obsession with tarrifs (sure they are a problem but a much smaller one). Such arguments are the main reason I was so firm in voting remain, despite being highly suspicious of EU power structures biased towards big business and the biggest member countries (which, remember,  included us)  and stuck on monolithic approaches in the face of sensibly argued alternatives, like the economic obsession with austerity (vs Keynsian or other models). It may be 'honest' for the leftist brexiteers to claim that their ideal is that fairness for ordinary people could improve under Labour outside Europe but that can't ignore the bigger truth that the economy will take a hammering, and that with  the very large political chance that, with the rise of poplarism, a 'Boris style' Tory win playing to that is a big possibility and having taken back control they might hammer individual  rights and protections, currently controlled by the EU, in any hard brexit scenario (and do it quite plausibly in their own terms out of claimed economic hard-times neccesity) . The only route to sensible EU reform I can see is inside, the biggest dangers to the UK I can see are outside.

The article is refreshingly neutral on recognising some brexit arguments and highlighting campaign stupidity on the remain side. I get particularly annoyed with some remainers making accusations of most brexit voters being stupid and/or racist (those that are, are a small minority and were never in play as campaign marginal voters).  You certainly don't change minds by insulting people and ignoring their real concerns, just the opposite in fact. The biggest real stupidity in this mess has  been on the remain side campaign, with well-informed intelligent people, insulting the intelligence of the electorate in overly simplistic messages and so failing to deal with most of the biggest brexit issues properly in the public sphere (as outlined in this excellent article), and not using such arguments to put a more positive EU message (and more easily dismiss the more stupid lies like £350 million a week for the NHS). It's scandalous that the debate on what I see as some of the biggest key issues,  such as non tarrif barriers, where the UK service industry ends up,  the near certainty of a very hard-line EU position (irrespective of how much it will damage them)  and the woeful lack of preparation for a no-deal scenario (that resultingly looks likes like a bluff on viewable cards to the EU ... the UK can't really be that dumb can it?). These arguments are almost absent from headlines in the mainstream media where it would most influence sensible ordinary people in the middle ground to consider them: this is firmly a remain side fault (it was always in the 'hard brexit interest' to not debate these issues).

Pretty sure you couldn't have found less partisan articles if you tried.  The first is from a well publicised remainer, largely just repeating the same crap he was coming out with prior to the vote.  The second I got bored with when it started talking about "falling to the sharks".

Only required reading if you're a remainer and you want to confirm what you already think.

Ah yes the porridge solution. The article says the EEA porridge is too hot, WTO porridge is too cold and the FTA model is just right and ignores the fact that the easiest and cheapest porridge to buy is EU membership., presumably as its not leftist hipster enough. It completely ignores many of the key issues we need to face, as raised and discussed in the article in the OP.

Why not demolish Sir Ivan's arguments if they are so weak. The lack of intelligent debate from the extremes on both sides is to me the reason we have this crisis. How something with clear 'give and take' can be the most partisan remain position is beyond me.

Why not answer post No.2?

There's no point going over old ground again and again.  We've already had the vote, there are no new arguments being made just restatement of beliefs from partisan commentators.

Offwidth - how talk about "falling to the sharks" can possibly be seen as non partisan I don't know...well I do, confirmation bias.

Another good read: 

https://theconversation.com/brexit-groundhog-day-as-eu-leaders-stand-firm-i...

'The challenge for the EU is that, despite the skillful negotiating strategy demonstrated throughout the Brexit process, there is very little it can do when its negotiating partner’s position is seen as “nebulous” and does not command the support of parliament or that of the wider public. Only 19% of the UK population support May’s Brexit deal, according to a recent YouGov study, while the majority of the population in Northern Ireland support the Irish backstop.'

Plenty of reading around the subject to be done on the same site.

To be clear I'm talking about Sir Ivan's speech as you seem to think I'm talikng about the second, Haywood, article which interests me much less. Those sharks in the seond article look pretty real to me: its naive in the extreme to think countries and multinationals will be queuing up to maximise benefits for UK citizens after brexit. ... the tacit support the EU already provides for sharks is one of the reasons I think it desperately needs reform, despite its protections for citizens.

I don't see how not discussing very real and highly urgent current issues is at all sensible, especially just because of some sense  that they are just covering old ground. In fact hardly any of the old ground dealt with the most severe problems... the chaos no deal will provide in the short term as despite waving it in the EU and public face we have had woeful lack of preparation if it actually happens... the highly complex and expensive situation on non tariff barriers... the need for the EU to continue to buy UK services as its by far the biggest sector in our economy and where we have a trade surplus (while we worry way more in the media about manufacturing... a much smaller part of  the UK economy where we have a big trade deficit). The fact that the EU followed austerity,  unlike the US (which talked it up and did almost the opposite) shows that they are already willing to endure major self harm, much bigger than any impact of the UK leaving.  

Thank you for the link. While noticing it was notably light on practical reality, and reliant to a large degree on cakeism, I also was curious as to why relatively little of it, given the title, seemed to be concerned with left wing politics. Until I realised it's published by Civitas, the right wing 'think tank' (a.k.a. lobby group) that's based at the same address as, and shares similarly opaque funding, with such other esteemed purveyors of alternate reality as The Institute for Economic Affairs, The Taxpayers Alliance and The Global Warming Policy Foundation!

Come on, they want the right to the best porridge and to eat it. Not cake

"Why not demolish [the] arguments if they are so weak."

I put the link to the Ivan Rogers speech in the other thread and encouraged people to read it then. I can only take this thread as an opportunity to further encourage folks to read it.

It really is worth putting the effort in and unfortunately, I think, it shows how woefully inadequate the Remain Campaign was. They should have been saying this all along.

Thanks for the other links, I'll have a look.

Dave

Well there's a massive 350 million a day argument, that we were told we were getting and now we know we're not, so that one thing we know isn't going to happen.

Unless you can bring some facts to the debate, saying "it's not worth it" doesn't really make me think that's a good reason not to put it to the people again.

Many people say this as a way to rescue the NHS, if anything it's likely to make things worse, should we end up with WTO rules and Donald getting his hands on it.

There's nothing to argue against.  He's just asserting that the EU have all the power and then his conclusions flow from that false assertion.  The idea that the differing possible deals, goods vs services, etc, weren't discussed prior to the vote is ridiculous.

Not at all surprised that you see the sharks comment as reasonable, it fits your bias.

The figure that was factually correct as the gross sum which was owed to the EU (it's higher now) and was explained (repeatedly) to be including the rebate and any money they kindly send back to us?

I've explained elsewhere why I think that's a bad idea, that's not what this thread is about.  Personally I don't think you can possibly be convinced, but there are plenty of remainers out there you'd be far more likely to listen to than me.

Cause Donald will immediately be in charge of the country, Parliament will vacate and just let him take over!

Come off it there is a massive amount of information in the article. Unlike Rob's linked article which is consistent ideology but has nothing at all on the areas Im most worried about in brexit (that I detailed above)

The ad hominen is cheap. I find real sharks interesting and much maligned creatures but they are predators. Most western economies  and multinationals have predatory self interests. That's what capitialism is about. It doesn't make them evil: they just are what they are and need regulatory restraint.  

I think we will have to disagree on how well the bus denizens advertised the rebate and money sent back.... its a fact you dont get £350 million a week to spend if you include them. Maybe there was hidden small print under the wheel arches?

I can't believe people are still trotting out the same old lies about this. £350 was never 'owed', nor was it ever 'sent'. That figure, among others - mainly the rebate value - formed the basis of a calculation to determine UK financial commitment - the actual value owed. To suggest that £350m ever went anywhere is disingenuous in the extreme, and could only ever have been done to mislead people who may not then have gone on to fully appreciate the rest of the equation.

It has absolutely no place being trotted out again now. 

That figure was agreed by the House of Lords, I'll take their word for it over yours.

I'm happy to agree that the bus was misleading and I would have used net (less the rebate), the explanations weren't though.

Again... where were these explanations visible on the bus? I know people who voted brexit listing that as one of their main reasons for doing so. The brexit vote impact on the NHS is already horrendous just due to EU staff leaving and a sharp drop in EU work applications.

Pharmacists were complaining about unpredicted cost increases in common drugs on the news this am (that they pass on to the NHS).

If I were you I'd put the spade down.

Who said they were?

Sir Ivan Rogers vividly demonstrates that his mind is closed by
the assertion that :

Means such people want to Remain in one way or other !

His overall thesis appears to be that we are completely defeated
and therefore must surrender.

If you believe something is bad, and will not end well,
immediate costs, difficulties, or benefits should not lead your
decision.

Generally Leavers think the EU is a bad thing in its current
form, whereas Remainers see it as good and are agast at the
prospect of costs.

How do you go from what's in quotes to your conclusion just above?

Another good read - a generally Euro-sceptic lefty on how the Remain camp is setting itself up to lose a second referendum before it's even got one:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/13/remain-mistakes-brexi...

Not how I read it. He speech explains the mistakes the government has made that has led to it negotiating a deal with the EU that no one in Britain wants.

Do you think the deal is a good one?

I expect you worked it out by now. The continuation just below.

"For many people I have talked to, especially outside the metropolitan elite circles who obsess about post Brexit models, that sense of “we only ever joined a Common Market, but it’s turned into something very different and no-one in authority down in London ever asked us whether that is what we wanted” is actually probably the closest to capturing their reasons for voting “leave”.
One can’t now suddenly start denouncing such people as Quisling closet remainers who do not subscribe to the “only true path” Brexit."

No.

Reason enough for another referendum, I'd say.

In reality that just demonstrates that your mind is closed to the idea that a substantial number of people voted leave for a different reason to you. I’ve certanly heard the view widely expressed. It also something that the leave campaign were aware of, propagating stories of creeping federalisation and democratic over-reach. I don’t agree with the view, but it is something that it is possible to have a sensible debate about.

Thanks.

Neither do I. ????

Only older people would worry about what was said before a referendum in 1973.  To be old enough to vote in 1973 you'd need to be born in 1955 or earlier.     

How so ?   I've not made any judgement on other people's views.  Sir Ivan Rogers has.  He seems to have decided that those who had agreed to join "The Common Market" a lifetime ago, want to partially Remain. He didn't say "some of".   It seems very counter intuitive.  My only explanation for his conclusion, is that he is unable to see beyond his own opinion.

Yes, you're correct that his argument is based on the idea that the EU has a much stronger negotiating position because they are a group of 500 million people, their trading relationship with every major world economy bar will be unchanged, and they only have a single trade agreement which urgently needs to be renegotiated. Whereas our trade agreements with every major country will need to be renegotiated.

If you dispute this, then you can happily ignore all his conclusions.  You can also dispute his conclusions with regard to every other country in the world we may want to do business with.

What I'm asking is, why does this make you think he's saying such people want to remain one way or the other?

I haven't slept enough, it has to be said, but I don't get how you've reached that point of view.

In that case you have completely misinterpreted what you quoted.

He say's they should not be denounced because they are "closet remainers who do not subscribe to the only true path (leaving).

Please explain it for me.

Ivan Rogers explains it perfectly well, but in a nutshell voting leave covered a range of views and don’t demonise people who think differently to you, that last point applies to leave and remain voters.

He could mean that they actually are remainers, or that their reason for voting leave shouldn't mean they're closet remainers, I see it as being open to being taken in two ways,  my interpretation was along the lines of ' Just because I voted leave for this reason, doesn't mean I'm a remainer',  but I see what you mean now. Language can be nuanced by what precedes and comes after it sometimes - now I'm wondering which is correct. 

That really does not fit with his words.

 "One can’t now suddenly start denouncing such people as Quisling closet remainers who do not subscribe to the “only true path” Brexit."

There is no doubt the "such people" are those he described in his preceding sentence.  It is not aimed at all at remain voters. Only the EU ex-official implying that those "who voted for the Common Market" do not really want to leave the EU.

As a remainer , addressing ,  I expect , a mostly remain audience ,  does it make any sense to say that  ?

I did that clever trick of reading that paragraph in the context of the whole speech.

It didn't help me.

But the point was not important. It just seemed the best example of the one sided view he was , and obviously would take on leaving the EU which has been his life's work.

My main point was a reply to the daily whining that nobody will ever give a good reason for leaving the EU.

That is because Leavers think the EU is a bad thing and only want out.  (If the EU falls into chaos that will have been a good reason.)

His overall thesis appears to be that we are completely defeated and therefore must surrender.

If you believe something is bad, and will not end well, immediate costs, difficulties, or benefits should not  lead your decision.

Generally Leavers think the EU is a bad thing in its current form, whereas Remainers see it as good and are aghast at the prospect of costs.

I am so glad you have told us all what we think!

Do you see it differently ?

Yes, there are a range of views from one extreme to the other, on a range of different EU and sometimes non-EU related issues that influence the voting preferences of voters in the 2016 referendum or potentially any future referendum. Some people are very certain in their position, other less so, we are seeing changes in voting intention outside of standard margins of error, some people are definitely changing there minds, in both directions, but currently more towards remain, however that could change. One thing I can be certain about, this has never been the binary decision that you are portraying it as.

I was trying to come up with an explanation why we get the constant demands for leave advantages. With the suggestion that there are none.

I was proposing that it was because "leaving" was seen as the advantage.  I'm sorry if you find the idea of commenting  on this as wrong.   I don't see how your text below helps.  How is it incompatible with "Generally Leavers think the EU is a bad thing in its current form, whereas Remainers see it as good and are aghast at the prospect of costs."

"Yes, there are a range of views from one extreme to the other, on a range of different EU and sometimes non-EU related issues that influence the voting preferences of voters in the 2016 referendum or potentially any future referendum. Some people are very certain in their position, other less so, we are seeing changes in voting intention outside of standard error allowances, some people are definitely changing there minds, in both directions, but currently towards remain, however that could change. One thing I can be certain about, this has never been the binary decision that you are portraying it as."

Thanks, I'll try and trawl through that later on although I do note John's scepticism about its true origin.

I have become very aware of the Radio4/Guardian bubble I have been living in for the last 2 years but I simply can't handle the Express/Sun/Mail shite that might at least give some perspective on alternative opinions. However recently I have become somewhat addicted to LBC where they seem to manage a wide-ranging balance of leavers and remainers, both presenters and public callers, and it is quite enlightening. I don't hear anything that will change my mind, but it does reveal the thinking behind many of the leave voters which I otherwise find so difficult to comprehend when faced with fact-based assessments like the Ivan Rogers piece.

Having said that by far the most entertaining of the presenters is James O'Brien simply because he is not afraid to take anyone on and he is incredibly good at it. Sadly the politicians are all afraid of him it seems which is why we only end up with him humiliating idiots like this classic from this morning - https://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/james-obrien-caller-vot... (stick with it, the best bit is at the end)

Alan

I'll make a start. To go through the whole turgid piece would be soul destroying, but here's the first section of supposed substance:

"How might the UK eliminate this trade deficit? Well, there are two approaches. The first is the ‘hair shirt’ form of economics that would prioritise reducing imports by squeezing consumption and as a result causing the UK economy to shrink. This would reduce imports but at a substantial cost in terms of lost output and wasted human potential."

So, #1 is admittedly a lost cause. Let's see about #2:

"The second is to seek to increase exports. Part of this can be through striking favourable trade deals with other countries in order to sell more of what we currently produce. A future trade arrangement with the EU would be a significant part of this, since the UK currently sells around 44% of its total exports to EU member states. For some, protecting this current trade is what is most important."

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but if we lose what we have already, we're already playing catch-up big time. Is he seriously suggesting that 44% of UK exports can be diverted to the USA without very serious 'quid pro quo' concessions? Or will Malawi, Guyana and the Maldives pick up the slack?

"For them, the most advantageous form of Brexit is one which limits any loss of trade with our largest single market, presumably through forming as close an association with the EU as possible (such as the EEA or perhaps a customs union) or alternatively remaining a full member of the organisation. This might involve the UK agreeing to implement whatever rules and regulations the EU decides to introduce."

Very conveniently ignoring the fact that, by remaining, we have a great deal of say in what these rules are and how they affect the UK, so not exactly 'agreeing to', so much as 'benefitting from'.

"Essentially, this is the ‘bird in the hand is worth two in the bush’ type of argument. However, this alone will not solve the trade deficit problem for two rather obvious reasons. Firstly, because the trade deficit with the EU has been persistent and increasing during our time as members of the organisation. Therefore, the act of remaining as close to full membership as possible will not, by itself, solve a problem that emerged during our period of membership. Part of this trade balance deterioration may be due to the fact that the EU single market is primarily focused on goods and is only patchy in terms of services, yet it is in the latter where the UK has a current competitive advantage. A customs union would do little in this regard, since it is similarly focused on goods rather than services, whereas EEA or a FTA would fare better, but these options would still not, by themselves, be able to narrow the trade gap."

Note the absence of any credible plan to do so, simply attempting to rubbish alternative Leave options.

"Secondly, those that argue for close alignment with the EU do so to minimise short term costs arising from potential loss of trade arising from an increase in the costs of carrying out this trade. However, this is only one side of the balance sheet. One of the potential advantages that Brexit brings is the ability for the UK to negotiate future trade relationships with other countries throughout the world. Even now, with our focus being upon the European market, the UK still sells 56% of its exports outside of the EU. Moreover, there is an expectation that a large majority of future global growth will occur outside of the EU (HMG, 2018:48)."

Well that's only to be expected, since the EU is responsible for some way short of the majority of world trade, yet it's misrepresented here as some limitation of EU potential that it isn't single handedly going to be responsible for a majority of world economic growth.

"The ability to explore future trading arrangements with non-EU nations should help to grow exports further, thereby improving the overall balance of trade. It is difficult to estimate the likely benefit that might flow from such possibilities, since most economic studies have not (to date at least) successfully modelled the likely result."

Several studies have attempted this. Referring to then as not successful merely betrays a dislike of the reported outcomes.

"Nevertheless, it is safe to surmise that there would be some additional gains to be made from any such new trade agreements, which would need to be balanced against maintaining existing trade links with the EU.

This is the cake option, such as no-strings USA trade, or the illusion of former colony markets being anywhere near big enough.

I could go on, but it's too depressing reading so much deliberately misleading guff that seems to be presented as reasonable argument.

The 'scepticism about its true origin' is just a kneejerk - unless you are suggesting that something phoney is going on. But I don't think so: the article doesn't seem to be hiding its origins, does it?

However that kneejerk (and other comments above, like 'leftist hipster') exemplify the problem here: positions are so entrenched that people instinctively applaud anything which 'takes their side', and instinctively dismiss anything which presents the reverse view. Hardly grounds for any sort of discussion.

The Guardian has (like every other newspaper) an editorial line on this general question, but it is not a monoculture: its economics editor Larry Elliott has frequently written in favour of leaving the EU. His pieces should all be available online.

I read most of it. My overall impression is that it is a 20 year plan that the essential first stage in implementing is to get into power. Starting by leaving the EU to make the country poorer makes no sense - there are so many things bigger and more important that need to happen and this would definitely be taking two steps backwards before setting off on a course which realistically has no chance of ever being fully realised. That doesn't mean you don't try, and much of the ideology is extremely worthy, but the EU is not the main thing blocking such a plan from achieving even some of its aims.

Yes I have read some of his pieces. I still find that it is easy to lose a grip on why people voted the way they did though since he really doesn't deal with much of that. He is hardly a Rees-Mogg style Brexiteer.

When I listen to LBC and hear someone ringing in who has had to leave their job as a bricklayer because their company have employed cheaper east European workers and used this to push down the wages of the local employees to a point where they can't live on what they earn any more, I find it harder to come up with a convincing argument than when faced with some Tory liar going on about how easy trading under WTO rules will be. The problem for the bricklayer is with the company and the government that allowed them to behave in that way, and leaving the EU is not going to put their wages back up, but it does illustrate the disproportionate impact it has had in certain areas and how arguments about long term trade deals are not going to convince the bricklayer.

Alan

My leftist hipster comment was part of a joke based on hipster obsessions with 'fancy' porridges. That you raise it with any import shows you are guilty of the very thing you unfairly imply:  a rhetorical ad hominum  to avoid answering a vaild question in the debate on what's missing in that article... what was so bad with the EU porridge in the first place?

I understand the 'lexit' viewpoints but irrespective of my view on their merits (see below) the idea has nothing like enough political capital to be relevant, as nothing like enough people on the left believe in it. What would be more useful for the left to take from the 'lexit' arguments is fighting back harder together against the false logic of the economics of austerity in the UK and EU  (there are intellectually respectable alternative economic views and better fit with relative national recoveries from 2008). This failure to face the arguments for austerity was arguably Labour's greatest failure under Milliband,  and almost certainly the spin doctors' fault. Now that concern is out of the way, under Corbyn the party power bases sadly seem too divided to fight together properly, as a party, let alone with other partys of the left and centre left.

I saw 'lexit' as politically uninfluential and economically dubious (being strong on ideology and weak on economic detail). However the worst issue for the left is arguably it's selfish isolationism. Abandonment of the political collaboration of the left and centre left across the EU and their efforts towards reform; all for cheap nationalist gains.

Well of course he is not - as indeed neither is Dennis Skinner, nor was Tony Benn, etc.

But that's what's unique (in my experience in the UK, anyway) about the EU/Brexit debate: the initial aim has united people from both ends of the traditional political spectrum. It's what would take place afterwards that then needs to be fought for. But that's democracy.

The irony for the bricklayer is that the drop in rates had virtually nothing to do with EU immigration. It was a lack of building, particularly housebuilding. Rates are currently sky high and there is a shortage of bricklayers and we are still in the EU. The big challenge has been getting the bricks, a problem in part as a result of Brexit, as most of the bricks that we use to build houses come from mainland Europe, although that has started to change.

But that also illustrates the huge problem with the binary vote in the first place. People were voting for totally different outcomes that are more at odds with each other than they were to the EU.

48% voted for Remain

52% voted for one of the following:
Hard no deal
Managed no deal
'Cake and eat it' deal of some description
Norway-style deal with a plus or two
Canada-style deal with a plus or two
Some strange Corbyn deal which we aren't quite sure about but it will be great
and, let's be honest, many voted just to keep the foreigners out be they ones who speak funny, or have dark skin.

Alan

Sure.

However our question now is how to sort out the current mess.

Edit: As I remarked recently in https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/the_pub/tories_in_meltdown__48_names-6972...:

"The Act to authorize the referendum was passed by 544 to 53 votes in the Commons. Those voting in favour included Caroline Lucas of the Green Party. One might wonder now why such a vocal critic of the result agreed to the vote in the first place."

You might think that all of this should have been considered just a little more carefully beforehand!

Full agree.

The only solution is to have a second vote. A decent majority in favour of Remain would cause some unrest but a year down the line we would be proceeding as normal and much of the unrest would have become history. A second vote for leave would confirm the country's opinion, I strongly suspect that lots of remain voters, including myself, would accept this and parliament would work towards some deal although there would certainly be pitfalls and economic disruption.

May's deal is not a deal at all it is just an agreement to try and make a deal. All it does is postpone the angst and the cliff-edge for 20 months, and removes the UK's bargaining power as explained by Hayward in his piece linked to above.

No Deal even the so-called 'managed' option would be a disaster. There is actually no such thing as no deal, it is just lots of little emergency crap deals organised at very short notice in order to keep things working.

Alan

That's one idea, obviously being heavily trailed now. Unfortunately, among the various parties calling for it, there is no agreement at all about what the question(s) should be.

No, but that isn't a reason for not doing it, which is being used along with a load of other nonsense by those arguing against it.

Against the will of the people/undemocratic - how can it be against the will of the people to ask the people what their will is?

The only reason to argue against it is the one you bring up above about it not being presented as a two-stage vote initially, but I think that can be countered but the various misrepresentations, illegal campaigns and generally moving goal posts. 

What I'd like to ask anyone against a second referendum is what they think a vote of say 55-45 in favour of remain would represent?

Alan

That Remain had been successful in scaring  enough people of the immediate consequences.

The immediate consequences are not the issue.

Would it have more or less legitimacy than the first vote? 

Would it represent a more or less accurate reflection of the opinion of the voters?

Alan

Perhaps you don't care about having immediate access to employment, food, medicine etc. but I think for many they are the issue.

I had read somewhere that O'Brien has developed successful interviewing techniques for calling out the bluster associated with Brexit and he has written a book on it.It is down to really interrogating people as to their beliefs and why they have taken up such a stance.Here is a link to the book

https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/How_To_Be_Right.html?id=QmVPDwAAQBAJ...

so if we are not worrying about immediate consequences and we "are all right, Jack" it will not matter if some people are made unhappy by a 2R or NOT(Brexit)

We tried, nobody cared.

It's just too complicated , people don't want to hear that the world is complicated and full of painful necessary compromises, they gravitate to simple messages that don't leave them feeling powerless. Leave promised change and they will deliver it in spades, the problem is it's not the change leave voters need but by then it's all too late.

People focus on manufactured goods and supply chains for example not because it's the biggest part of our export economy or where the most intractable problems lie but because it's tangible, reasonably easy to explain, it's part of the everyday lives of those who we need to understand the risk we're taking, it is what puts bread on the table of leave voting communities. Talk about finance or legal services and you run into the crude but understandable 'fu*k those posh cun*s, if they're for it I'm against!' protest. Still, even the relatively simple and alarming SM supply chain issue appears not to cut through.

May and Johnson with their 'no deal better than a bad deal' and 'have our cake and eat it' nailed the level of messaging that really cuts through and in so doing doomed our country to an agonising decline, tragically in May's case apparently by accident!

jk

You tell that to the people it makes homeless.

jk

It's brutal. Why so many continue to call in full of rage and half baked ideas escapes me. He exposes the nonsense like a surgeon but to what end, nobody changes their mind?

jk

Kim Yong Un gets 100% every time.   Does that have legitimacy ?

No.   It's because of threats, intimidation and social pressure.

MG promptly applies social pressure :

"Perhaps you don't care about having immediate access to employment, food, medicine etc. "

Wercat       "   we "are all right, Jack"

jkarran      "You tell that to the people it makes homeless."

Remainers say you are an idiot and a bad uncaring person if you have the opinion we are better off outside the EU.  How many people do you think give in to that   ?   Are you happy with it  ?

There are credible possibilities for severe shocks to employment, health and food supplies with no deal.  You explicitly said this wasn't the issue.  So yes, I do think you are uncaring because of what you wrote just a few posts higher.  What do you expect me to say - just ignore you because you don't like the message?

I expect you to say why it is the issue, or agree it's not.  But instead you get personal.

Kim wins 'elections' because he imprisons, tortures and kills potential threats. We're watching with horror as our country tears itself apart, desperately looking for a democratic way out of this cataclysmic mess.

Don't feel bad, murderous totalitarianism and people frustrated by your apparent disconnect with reality are very easy to confuse.

jk

You expect me to explain why people find employment, food and medicine an issue??? 

Honestly there is no point discussing or trying to persuade you if that's the level you are at.  Hopefully pointing out your character may make some others reconsider things however, and whether they actually want support the position you have.  Some of your fellow traveller blocking an ambulance the other day.  No doubt caring souls too.

https://inews.co.uk/news/brexit/brexit-supporters-knocked-for-trying-to-blo...

Is that the best you can do?

Any chance you could properly answer the question rather than use a totally inappropriate situation to essentially say that legitimacy in election isn't even worth striving for?

Alan

Your response is confirm what I just said by posting that I am disconnected with reality.

"Some of your fellow traveller blocking an ambulance the other day."

What is the point of posting that ?

Because it highlights, like you have above, the nature of those supporting brexit.

Honestly David I think you're either a callous prick or hiding from the harsh reality of what you've wrought. I'm feeling generous leaning to the latter but sick to the back teeth of being polite in the face of your thin skinned evasion.

jk

Sorry Alan.

I think it would have less legitimacy because of the overwhelming climate of fear and intimidation.  A less accurate reflection of the opinion of the voters since many would be voting against their true beliefs just to get it over with.

I did not.

That is pure nastiness.   Just attacking the person, not what they said.    Do I do that  ?    Evasion  ?

This isn't some abstract debate.  It is something that is already affecting many peoples lives very directly and negatively, that will have much greater effects if there is no deal, and something you are supporting while openly saying you don't care the effects it will have on people.  If someone steals,  you form a judgement about them, you don't have an abstract discussion about the merits of property ownership with them.  Likewise with you and brexit.

I did not say that.

You said "The immediate consequences are not the issue."  The immediate consequence may well include those I listed, so you did indeed say that.  If you in fact do regard them as an issue you can of course withdraw your comment.

No.  "The immediate consequences are not the issue."  is not the same as  "openly saying you don't care the effects it will have on people".

Can you give me an example of where the remain message is being promoted with an air of fear and intimidation?

Why would someone change their leave vote to remain 'just to get it over with'? Are you suggesting that Remain offers stability and a way out of this mess?

Alan

I believe the concern of "immediate consequences" would disappear if they were going to occur on a path back to full membership.

No David, that is ill tempered frustration, trust me you really don't want to know how angry and frustrated I am today. I've given in and spent the morning looking at visa requirements to escape the country I've loved calling home for the last decade because of this stupid shit.

What you said, about the consequences of no-deal not being an issue, that's reprehensibly callous or dangerously deluded, frankly I no longer care which it is in your case. My criticism of the position either way is very clearly implied in my first reply.

jk

"David  you're a callous prick"  (jkarran)        Not enough for you ?  

No. Just an end to the intimidation and endless efforts to reverse the vote. 

That isn't what I said as anyone with a scroll wheel can clearly see.

David, you are a liar. < That I did just say.

jk

You did say that  "David I think you're either a callous prick"

or...

I know you can understand basic conditionals.

jk

Well I was thinking more on a national scale perpetrated by the media, or parliament or something like that. I mean you can't seriously be suggesting that the Remain side are more aggressive in asserting their opinions than the Leave side in these online bear pits?

I admit that on UKC the Leavers are thin on the ground and hence it can be quite an intimidating place to come. You have chosen to do that and I admire you for doing so. If you wanted to avoid jkarran's responses then there are plenty of places on the internet you could go to avoid that but you have chosen to put yourself in this bear pit. You wouldn't need to change your vote to remain to put an end to that (although I'd be glad if you did, but only because that is what you believed).

See above.

Alan

When you talk of a climate of fear and intimidation, do you recall the intimidation and worse in the months before and after the referendum - the murder of Jo Cox, the death threats against Gina Millar, the Daily Mail's "Enemies of the people" headline, the Daily Telegraph's "Mutineers" headline, the string of attacks on immigrants immediately after the referendum. 

Like it or not, there have been shocking displays of behaviour by Leave supporters. Is this the climate of fear and intimidation to which you are referring?  

The media, parliament (78% ?) , the civil service and education mostly voted remain. Jon Snow on channel 4 news has constantly ridiculed leaving the EU.  Robert Peston's program is also blatant propaganda.  Laura Kuenssberg seems the most even handed.  I can only think of Andrew Neil and Michael Portillo that give any credence to Leave viewpoints on TV. Which is most peoples main news source.

You answered that one.

It's not in your interest, or mine, for it to be a bear pit that just talks rubbish.

If I talk rubbish. Tell me what is wrong with my reasoning , instead of something random like "that means you want World War 3 so you are a horrible person".

Do you approve of that ?  No.  Neither do I.

Is that what counts as fear and intimidation in your world? 

So we are happily agreed that death threats and headlines as I cited are not good to see, and yet there they were, fear and intimidation writ large, by Leave-supporting media outlets, so please don't play the snowflake and pretend that it's all the nasty Remoaners who are to blame for all the fear and intimidation. 

A very divided country. Another argument for the UK to leave the EU but to stay economically close.

this is exactly the same as 45-55 favour of leave. It should require a 2/3 majority for remain with clear campaign that is pro FOM and european integration to stay and it should require a 2/3 majority for leave with a clear reasonable plan to leave and not to stay economically close.

A physics analogy: the problem is not with the measurement (the 2016 referendum) but with the interpretation of the measurement (May's red lines, etc). Redoing the measurement will get approximately the same result and does nothing to solve the problem.

I recommend this interview: youtube.com/watch?v=c5meNt0NRYo&

I disagree. The People's Vote is, in effect, the real version of the vote we had in 2016. It is an affirmation that what was voted for then is close enough to emerging reality to still want to vote for it. The 50% threshold should therefore stay.

That's not to say that 50% should ever be enough for constitutional change in general, nor in future, but now we're in this 50% mess we should really stick to the stupid rules we set for it.

Should certainly reconsider who gets to vote though; there are lots of people potentially badly affected who have no say at all right now.

Well even if that is the case, it is not an example "an overwhelming climate of fear and intimidation". Can you give me an example of which effects the entire electorate and not just someone who has chosen to post on UKC? 

Incidentally LBC have Farage, Ferrari, Andrew Castle, Ian Paine and Iain Glen to counter O'Brien, Sheila Fogerty and Madjid Nawaz.

You said that a second referendum would have less legitimacy because of "an overwhelming climate of fear and intimidation". I asked you for examples and so far your reply has been to cite the response to you on this thread. This is bad reasoning because the entire electorate is not reading this thread and this is obviously a place where Leave voters are out numbered. If I went to a UKIP meeting I would expect an aggressive response to my views, but I wouldn't assume that meant there was an overwhelming climate of fear and intimidation which endangered the legitimacy of a vote should there be one.

So at the moment, I do think you are talking rubbish, however I am willing to be persuaded by some evidence to back up your statement.

Alan

I listened to that interview as it happened. Rory Stewart is indeed a decent man and his argument has some weight as O'Brien acknowledges. 

My problem is that May's deal doesn't solve anything, it is just a stop-gap and we will be here again in 20 months time. It isn't a deal, it is an agreement to have a deal. Voting for it, as Rory Stewart advised, doesn't solve the problem.

We are already a very divided country so that is hardly a good reason for not having a second referendum. I can see that a vote to Remain would create a lot of pissed off people but little economic damage. A No Deal exit (which is realistically the only other thing on the table) would create a lot of pissed off poorer people with resentment going on for years as the economic disaster of the whole project unfolds. Give me the first lot of pissed off people any day.

Alan

That is not logical .  We have moved to leave based on faulty unfiltered signal processing.  So we have a faulty command signal to leave.

We would need to confirm and validate that command signal (resulting from evident faulty design) by at least sampling again to check for an overriding justification for constitutional change.  Given the current Mark 1 system was cobbled together by bad engineers with no theoretical knowledge we should not regard the command signal we currently have as being the default setting, as the contrlos are set for the heart of the Sun.

Our designers have used a schmitt trigger without understanding the need to account for the actual amplitude of the deviation from centre of the detected signal. 

Imagine trying to steer a guided missile that was steered by a joystick designed like that

I don't think there is a quick solution to the problem. Voting for the deal means a baseline for citizen's rights is finalized, the Irish border problem is taken out of the equation and the UK gets a lot more time to develop a concensus. So it is working towards a solution.

accepting the deal also involves little economic damage up to the point where the UK wants to diverge economically.

The UK should then have a democratic vote (either by referendum or by general election with clear manifestos on the EU-UK relationship) during the transition on whether to continue in the EU, stay close but out of political integration or diverge for sovereignty reasons.

No deal is not an option.

nice post

I don't agree that the 2016 measurement was that far off. I think a large part the UK has been against european integration and the EU for the last 20 years. 

Examples:

the rise UKIP was never countered by a pro EU political movement.

how much objection was there in the UK when Cameron annoyed the EU for 5 years during his renegotiation?

I immediately gave you an example of intimidation. You say that's not an example of an overwhelming climate of fear and intimidation.  But jkarran seems pretty scared.   I'll quote some of his doom mongering if you really want me to.   He is not alone.  What he is saying is coming at everybody from all sources.  I understand that seems fair to you.  But to me it does not.  To jkarran it is fact.  The end of his world.   All those that voted remain agree, and many are experts.    But suppose it were not so.   Suppose it was all the creation of wishful thinking and echo chambers.  If there was not going to be severe immediate consequences of leaving the EU. Then would the constant saying that they will happen,  not be "a climate of fear" ?    Remember it is only based on opinion not fact.

Suppose the moon was made of cheese after all. Nobody would need to go hungry then.

Edit: In case the message wasn't clear enough. Just because you'd like to believe something to be true, doesn't give it any credibility whatsoever of actually being true.

Which is what I was saying.

I rather think not.

Are you suggesting that you are dealing with facts and anyone who thinks that Brexit will have significant negative impact is just dealing with opinion?

Give me a couple of facts. Be fairly specific!

You were saying that my opinions are not fact. Neither are yours.

No

Roses are red, violets are blue(ish).

If you think some comment on UKC is overwhelming intimidation, you are nuts. (And no, calling you nuts is no intimidating, overwhelmingly or otherwise).

I was hoping I wouldn't need to spell it out quite so clearly, but sadly I seem to have misjudged.

The moon could indeed be made of cheese. All the expert evidence, including scientists and people who have actually been there, seem pretty convinced otherwise, but it's nonetheless still technically possible that substantial parts of the moon are pure Camembert. Nobody can actually prove otherwise.

Your 'believing' that a no-deal Brexit will be anything other than catastrophic goes against a similar proportion of informed opinion (i.e. all of it) as does believing the moon is made of cheese.

Do you still believe the moon is full of cheese or that a no-deal Brexit will be fine, and if so, what makes you so sure that all the pesky experts are so wrong? Do you know something they don't? Or is wishing it to be true enough?

As usual. I didn't say that.

However, you do think that your opinion is more valid than, the opinions of pretty much everyone who has looked at the evidence.

Even as a Lancastrian, I acknowledge that other coloured roses exist, even white ones.

WTF!? I quoted you saying it the post!

Denying something doesn't mean it didn't happen. 

There's a very good chance of your opinion of leaving without a deal being tested.

Why do you think that  ?

"I immediately gave you an example of intimidation."

Is what you quoted.  It was intimidation.

But you claimed I said :

"If you think some comment on UKC is overwhelming intimidation,"

As you see. I didn't.

If you don't think that, why are you suggesting that a no deal Brexit won't be catastrophic?

Because that is my opinion.

So are you saying that people who have looked at the evidence, and done the economic models and come to their evidence-based opinions that leaving the EU with no deal will be bad for the economy should say nothing because doing so might intimidate people who believe differently and hence undermine the legitimacy of the vote?

Can't the people who believe differently just present their evidence-based opinions to counter it and then we can hear both sides and make up our own minds?

Why are there so few experts producing evidence-based opinions in support of Leave?

Alan

And of yours, unfortunately for all of us.

So tell us why you think all the people who actually know about these things are wrong? On what are you basing your optimism, if it isn't merely wishful thinking?

No it isn't.  That's half of what I quoted as is publicly visible to everyone.

Interesting that the National Farmer's Union, which in the run up to the referendum decided to remain neutral and not lend support to either campaign, are now saying that a no deal Brexit will be a catastrophe.

That sounds like a pretty good cross section of people who have the knowledge and expertise to examine both sides of the argument carefully and come to a reasoned, evidence-based conclusion.

Or are you recommending we follow Michael Gove in ignoring  the opinions of experts?

Martin

Is it really worth it ?

You said "If you think some comment on UKC is overwhelming intimidation, you are nuts. (And no, calling you nuts is no intimidating, overwhelmingly or otherwise)."

Because I had said it was intimidation (it was).  I had not said it was overwhelming intimidation.

You quoted :

"I immediately gave you an example of intimidation. You say that's not an example of an overwhelming climate of fear and intimidation.  But jkarran seems pretty scared. "

That does not say some comment on UKC is overwhelming intimidation as you claim.

It sounds like a pretty good cross section of people who have a vested interest.

I bet all conservative voters think we'd be better with a conservative government and all labour voters think we'd be better with a labour government.  I bet they both say they are evidence based.

In reply to MG:

You just insult me.  For what reason ?

Tell you what, let's have a reboot. Why don't you start your own thread where you explain, clearly and concisely, why you believe the benefits of Brexit outweigh the disadvantages and dangers. I'll give you a starter:

'I believe we should leave the EU because ...'

(Obviously I struggle beyond this point.) Speaking for myself I will review your argument(s) as dispassionately as I can, and any comments I make will be based, as far as I can manage, purely on logic and reasoning.

As I explained "You are within inches of f*cking up millions of lives and seem to revel in it." 

I suspect there's more hard evidence that the moon landings never happened, or that human have had no effect on climate change whatsoever, than there is that a no-deal Brexit could go smoothly.

Perhaps David also chooses to believe those things too. I wouldn't be completely surprised, given the reasoning employed in this thread.

Like this amazing set of predictions from someone who was in a position to know and have the evidence to present you mean?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/22/project-fears-brexit-predic...

I'm not saying that predictions from the leave sides would necessarily fare any better, but it is a good illustration of the culture of fear that some on the remain side try to build.
 

I think you make a good point, and it's one that never much addressed in these discussions/arguments/slanging matches. The UK has been a permanently unwilling member of the EU: the arch-Federalists in France will probably be glad to be rid of us.

But, if we were to remain in the EU, what's the vision? Enthusiastic membership of the Eurozone? Or membership of that if and when - and only if and when - it suits our own interests? Enthusiasts for full political and economic integration? What exactly? And why?

What are your plans? And what timescales?

The facts are that the pound has fallen by 15%, growth has halved and is half that of the G7 and of course we haven’t left yet.

I really don't know, I lack skills I want to be tied to by a visa, have a house to finish renovating and a lovely old dog who wouldn't survive quarantine. All part of why I was unreasonably angry today. I'd like to see a future here but I don't any more.

Jk

Yes, there have been negative consequences to the economy, I'm not arguing otherwise.  What I'm saying is that George Osborne's predictions (a massive fall in employment, an immediate recession, etc) from someone in a position to know, 'evidence-based' was so far out.  Far enough out in fact for me to believe he was being dishonest.  This is the culture of fear being created by some on the remain side.

There's no question that Osborne's predictions/threats before the referendum were dishonest, stupid, and counterproductive. None of that helped the debate at the time; it really was a rotten campaign from both sides.

I posted something similar the other day - see https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/off_belay/a_no_deal_brexit_or_mrs_mays_de... - and the depressing thing to me was that another poster (MG in that case) refused to see any truth at all in my claim: he described it as 'childish' and 'quibbling.' That shows how entrenched peoples' positions are.

These effects were mitigated though by a massive injection of new money by the BoE, extended ultra-low interest rates, a slump in the value of the pound that delivered a temporary increase in export profits (while driving up living costs as a nett importer) and surprisingly strong growth in the global economy totally beyond our control. Employment figures in this era of insecure work are nearly meaningless, people on zero hours contracts or notionally self employed remain 'employed' whether they're struggling to eat or thriving. Had these things which are either out of our control or not signs of a healthy economy not happened Osborne's predictions probably wouldn't have looked too far out. Sure, it was a worst case scenario crafted to clearly convey the risk we were and still are taking but it wasn't pure fantasy. Nobody can know for sure how an economy will respond to a severe shock like brexit, the reality is it could equally have triggered something worse than Osbourne described but what we do know is the reaction was very unlikely to be positive.

jk

You make a good point - claims need to be credible or they become counter productive. However that claim by Osborne was made before the referendum. 2/3 years later we are in a much better position to appreciate the reality of where we are.

There could well still be unrealistic claims being made but articles like the one by Ivan Rogers don't put numbers on unrealistic claims, they just explain how complicated everything is. The outcomes that the Leave campaign relies on to work all involve everything being incredibly simple and quick -  surely we can all see now that it won't be. 

The rhetoric from the Leave side has almost completely morphed from 'these are the benefits of leaving', to 'it is not going to be the disaster that the remain camp make out'. 

Resorting to describing Remainers opinions as scare mongering is a characteristic of a campaign that has lost its credibility  - "we have no positive arguments left so we will just trash yours as being Project Fear." 

Surely the best way to counter this perceived culture of fear is by providing sound evidence-based policy that shows it is wrong, not just saying it isn't fair, you guys keep making claims that leaving would be bad.

Why is there is no culture of positivity around the Leave campaign?

Alan

It was stupid of Osborne to say that these things would happen immediately after the vote, because in reality the only thing that changed following the vote was perception. Apart from those looking to buy cheap, Britain was no longer seen as somewhere to do business. As a consequence we have seen the big falls in the pound and the fall in real investment (as opposed to buying assets cheaply) and a consequent fall in growth. Any proper analysis of the employment figures, which appear cheery at first, show something rather illusionary, as you would expect with the major slowing of economic growth.

The big impact will be if we leave, the level of impact will depend on how we leave. We are looking at the worst case scenario i.e. WTO. Given that indicating that we will leave several years in the future devalued the currency by 10% (now 15%) and halved growth; creating huge barriers to trade, forcing businesses to close or relocate, increasing costs to all businesses and ultimately consumers and creating huge instability in Northern Ireland is going to have a much more significant impact. Forecasts of 8%+ falls in growth against status quo forecasts do not seem at all like scaremongering if we follow the WTO route and on 30th April are the only county in the world that trades only on WTO terms.

Martha Gill in the Guardian has done a summary piece on Ivan Roger's speech here 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/18/ivan-rogers-brexit-bo...

Those stats are meaningless and confusing . Are you saying 8% drop in gdp or 8 % of the annual growth which is approx 1to 2 % ?

I'm sorry that you are confused, but my figures are not meaningless. Official growth figures are currently 1.2%, lets use that as a base figure, despite that fact that many of our EU and OECD partners are experiencing 2.5-3% growth. A fall in growth of 8% against a status quo prediction, 1.2% in this case, does mean a negative growth figure, a contraction in the economy, a fall in GDP (6.72% based on exactly 8%). 

No, we're not.  No deal has been done, we've no idea what our arrangement with the EU will be after/if/when we leave.  You're still reliant on dodgy forecasts.

No they don't, that's a strawman.

A response has to be made to remainer claims of disaster and pointing out where remainers' predictions have been shown to be incorrect and asserting that they will continue to be incorrect is the only response to make.  Leavers do not feel a need to make the case any more - we won the vote.

It's not resorting to - it's what leavers have been doing since before the vote, and as with Osborne it's been shown that they were absolutely correct to do so.  Remain were, and are, very deliberately scare mongering.

People could make up models like remainers do, but they're frankly meaningless except as rhetoric.  Jkarran above says that Osborne's model was wrong because of events afterwards - the pound dropping, the bank of England reacting, why weren't these foreseen?  The reality is that they weren't included due to Osborne's model intentionally being the worst (im)possible things that could happen.  The same is true of the BofE (and other) models now.

There is.  However whenever anyone says anything positive on here they immediately get attacked...so why bother.  There's a huge amount of negativity - all coming from your side.

I think Leave voters - in the main - struggle to differentiate between a model that was overly pessimistic and a campaign waged using outright lies that were criticised as such by the UK's statistics authority. The Treasury model relied on some assumptions - namely immediate triggering of Article 50 and no stimulus - that clearly were wrong, as well as the assumption that the prospect of becoming poorer would lead to people reining in their spending dramatically. The later may, of course, still come about. 

Bear in mind that the Economists for Brexit forecast was also way out, in the other direction of course. I'm not going to call the Leavers' main economic and intellectual fig-leaf dishonest, but I sincerely hope you do, out of a sense of fair play and consistency. 

Also have you read the FT's take on post-referendum forecasts,  which is here: https://www.ft.com/content/a3a17eac-4a0b-11e8-8ee8-cae73aab7ccb (Paywall avoidable if you use private browsing.) Again, the pro-Brexit economists' forecast come out considerably more inaccurate. 

I think the issues around forecasting in the short run are just fabulous for Leavers, because there is so much uncertainty here.  However in the long run everyone serious (note that EfB use old, outdated models and I'm not sure anyone considers them serious) believes Brexit will make us poorer. There's very little debate about that.  

As for the "culture of fear" - daily I hear stories of transport grinding to a halt, medicines delayed, etc. I'm not sure why I should be sanguine about this. It's a worse-case scenario, but you'd have to be getting some mighty pay-offs to make risking trashing your economy like this worthwhile. The right to set our own regulations for vacuum cleaners and improving fishing  - that lynch pin of modern Britain - seem paltry gains for such huge risks. Especially when the  pay off for  avoiding those risks is, erm, loss of freedoms and being a bit poorer. 

Please explain how 8 % of 1.2 % growth in GDP ( which is usually revised upwards anyway)  leads to a fall in overall GDP of 6.72%

Is that *all* economic models, and if so, can you explain why the pro-Leave economists also use models? Or do any escape your ire? How do you think we should develop economic policy if not using the methods developed over decades in order to do just this?

I should have thought 'why bother' was obvious. People want to be reassured that their livelihoods aren't going to be adversely affected, and that life in the UK is not going to be adversely affected, and that all the functions that currently rely on the existing relationships with the EU will not be adversely affected. 

For example, a hotel near where I live employs a significant number of EU nationals, employed at below the £30k threshold. Many of these workers come for a year or so and move on. The hotel is strongly reliant on those workers. Without freedom of movement, this labour pool will be removed and the hotel will struggle to offer the levels of service it currently provides. This has been well known for some time, and yet there has been no satisfactory answer to any queries which ask how the impending shortfall in labour will be addressed. 

Perhaps you might enlighten us as to how the hotel should proceed? 

Actual against a status quo forecast. Come on it’s not difficult. It’s not 8% of 1.2%, it’s 8% of 101.2%.

What I am ignoring of course is that success would be growth of at least 2.5% and that the effect of growth is cumulative.

That is just a ridiculous statement. Of course we are in a better position now to know where we are. We have a much better idea of a possible arrangement with the EU - the basis of it is written down on paper in an agreement!

The improved trade outside the EU argument relies on us doing better trade deals with the rest of the world and arranging them faster than we can do within the EU. Why else would it be worth it? To assume that we can do this by starting off by throwing away 70 trade deals and still manage, firstly to get back to our current trading position, and then to improve it, relies on speed and simplicity. "Easiest trade deal in the world", and all that rhetoric. That still is the hardcore leaver argument hence refuting it is not strawman.

That is one of the most bizarre things that anyone has said to justify the Leave campaign. You won the vote. Was that for a Norway, Canadian, No deal, Cake deal, in the CU, in the FTA - which one of those was on the ballot paper again?

So how do you present an evidence-based argument without you crying scare mongering? Surely the best way to counter such an argument is to produce something yourself with some alternative evidence. Do you feel this happens? Can you give me an example of someone producing an argument to support the case for improved trade, or do you feel that isn't necessary because "you won the vote"?

Is that completely meaningless? All of them? Doesn't that sound a bit like 'we've had enough of experts'?

As we discussed yesterday, this is a microcosm of Remainers and you guys coming on here are putting your heads into the lions den. I state again that I am impressed at you doing that. It doesn't reflect wider society though.

I was trying yesterday to get examples from the wider world of this "overwhelming climate of fear and intimidation" that was being suggested. We didn't really get anywhere beyond probably realising that anything , no matter what evidence it is based on, that characterises leaving the EU as negative, can be said to be scare mongering. What I would like to hear from Leavers is better arguments countering the substance, not attacking the sentiment behind it with crap statements like "Leavers do not feel a need to make the case any more - we won the vote."

Alan

The estimate is 8% of growth in GDP.

It is a big difference in numbers.

We both agree on the 8%. We just have different views on where the 8% comes off. You say its GDP and I say its growth. I have never read its GDP, I have always read its off growth. Which is why I say its meaningless, it is one of PMP's views.

I think you've got some kind of persecution complex.

Junker has said this is like a divorce.  We have decided (voted) to leave.

You are demanding we prove there is an upside to the process of leaving.  There is no upside in the process of a divorce.  You do it because you believe things will be better in the future.  You don't grudgingly stay together if the legal bill is a lot .

I’m saying it’s growth, but for your benefit, I gave an indication of what it meant in GDP. I’m struggling to understand your confusion.

There are upsides to a divorce, however it can be a traumatic process and financially damaging. I can tell you the upside to my divorce, you tell me the upside to this one.

I will when it's happened.

We have an idea of one possible arrangement with the EU.  We do not know what actual arrangement we'll end up with.  All sides (at the moment) seem to think there's no chance of that deal getting through Parliament.

This is a *long term* argument.  Faster than with the EU is faster than the EU, e.g. 8 years for Canada.  Incredibly simple and quick is either a serious overstatement or a plain strawman.

Why else?  Well all the other reasons.  Leaving the EU is not, for most, primarily an argument about economics.  You'll know from the polls most leavers think there will be a cost, and that they think it's worth it.

Throwing away all arrangements is a strawman.  The argument was that it *ought to be* the easiest trade deal, not that it would be.  You're just rewriting the leave arguments and then attacking what you're rewritten.

It was for leaving the EU.

Not including ridiculous assumptions in your models (like the BofEs no deals at all for 5 years) would be a start.  Honestly though I don't think that there are any economic forecasts that I'd trust.

I feel like it did, before the referendum, and I'm sure you can google and find people making that argument (on this forum, certainly) from the time.  Why do you think that those who want to leave should be trying to convince those who didn't?  Why should we be rerunning the argument perpetually?  What was the point of the vote if not to make the decision?

Models can be useful for trying to predict outcomes in specific situations.  Models that try to predict the future in general, knowing bugger all about the parameters that will decide the future outcomes, are meaningless.  Leavers could run a model that assumes we'll get great trade deals with all countries, to counter the BofE stuff - except that remainers would (rightly) rubbish their assumptions.  Gove's "had enough of experts" statement is perfectly reasonable, taken in full.

The BBCs reporting of the BofE report is a bloody good example. 

This just isn't true.  Leaving the EU means that UK citizens will no longer have the right to move there.  That's negative and is just accepted as fact by all.  It means the EU can put tariffs on UK goods, that's negative and is accepted also.

Why should leavers do this?  We did win the vote.  We then had an election where the major parties promised to leave.  Their term in power is not yet up.  We're not on an election footing.  What I would like is for those elected to keep their promises, and for remainers to accept that the vote happened and that it actually means something.

I am sorry David but your arguments are rubbish. You produced nothing yesterday and this is such a stupid analogy that it is barely worth responding to if you really think that the Leave side don't need to prove, or at least produce some evidence, that there is an upside to leaving.

Alan

I am also struggling with your numbers as you are with mine .

Which is it that the forecaster are saying is the correct version?

You say it’s 8% of 101.2%. I say its 8 % of 1.2%.

I have always read its the latter.

If you don't trust any economic forecasts, on what basis do you think there will be a cost?

And why is the assumption that there will be no trade deals for five years ridiculous? Everything I'm reading from trade experts says they take a long time. What do you know that the BoE doesn't?

You may have had enough of them. Doesn't mean that ignoring them is sensible. Also old Govey has kept plenty of experts in post in his ministries, hasn't he? One might say he works surrounded by experts. 

Why should we accept this bad policy though? 

The vote was won but why stop fighting? What Leave promised isn't going to happen. The reality is it's going to be worse than what we have now. Why should we roll over and accept your dire little vision of a shrunken, poorer and less powerful country? Why should we accept the removal of our rights? 

I said we know more about where we are now, you said no we don't. Obviously we do know more if only because many of the alternatives we might have had, are no longer viable. I maintain we are much further on and in a much better position to make a decision. To me that is obvious. You can dispute it but don't dispute it because you think that the country might vote differently now if we asked them.

So how long do you think it will be before these new trade deals replace the current trading arrangements we have? Do you think we will improve on the 70 deals we currently have?

Was that explained to people before the vote though?

Might it have had an impact on the end result if it had been?

So did you vote happy that it might mean leaving with no deal?

Do you think everyone did, or might the result have been different if it was presented as 'stay in the EU' or 'leave as soon as possible with no deal, or managed no deal'?

Because it is such a huge decision and most of us remainers are far from convinced that the reasons for leaving, and the benefits of leaving, are sound. We believe that it is the best interests of our futures, and our children's futures, that we stay in the EU and we will continue to fight for that for as long as it takes. This isn't scaremongering, it is fighting for something we believe in.

Tell me why you believe it will be better outside the EU and we are obviously starting at a deficit in your reasons as you acknowledge below....

I'll ask you the same question I did yesterday - if we had a second referendum and the vote was 55-45 in favour of remaining, what would that represent to you?

Alan

Its 8% of GDP, not 8% of the growth in GDP.

Logic.

See the swiss action.  I think it likely that others will do the same.  The BofE did, in fairness, say in their report that they do not think that their model is a likely outcome - they just presented it quite differently, as did those (like the BBC) reporting on it.

Ignoring some is not the same as ignoring all, not following advice is not the same as not listening to it at all.

It's not a bad policy, and we voted to.

Carry on doing as you like - but you (or Alan) are insisting that it's incumbent on me to keep trying to convince people that are inconvincible.  I don't at all see that it is.  Why should you accept the results of votes?  Because accepting results that don't go your way is the essence of democratic decision making.

Governments have a duty to uphold the welfare of their citizens. Part of this should be a duty to make the necessary efforts to take the most appropriate measures to grow the economy (until such time as we decide that continued growth is not appropriate). Growing the economy is not simply an abstract concept, but underlies everything about public spending - our education systems, the NHS, our armed forces and police, our provisions for the old, frail and vulnerable all bear the brunt of weak economic growth. Over the past decade we have a stark illustration of the impact on the lives of ordinary people of weak economic growth. Under Brexit, the Government's own analyses suggest that our economy will be smaller than it would otherwise be if we remained in the EU. This will have impacts on the quality of services that can be funded by the government. 

There is therefore, to my mind, a perfectly valid argument for the government to say that its primary duty is to prioritise the economic well-being of the country, and to put the referendum result to one side, in order to reduce the damage to our economy. Lord knows it's taken long enough to recover from 2008 (and there are those who would argue that we still haven't recovered fully). 

The only sensible reason to reduce one's income is to improve the quality of one's life. There appears little evidence that leaving the EU will bring about a satisfactory improvement to the quality of life in the UK. 

As is campaigning to change a result.

“If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”.

David Davis 2012 

Why would I produce evidence there is an upside to leaving  ?   You say I produced nothing yesterday. Although it still attracted considerable abuse and there was little sign anyone was interested in anything but confrontation for the sake of it. You replied with barely worth responding to, stupid analogy, rubbish.  It was Junkers analogy, and was to illustrate the point you didn't understand about leavers not feeling the need to counter claims it's going to cost money to leave.   I don't insult people and try to make my posts as simple and short as I can since the most straightforward statement is misinterpreted.  Apparently I'm like Pol Pot although I don't suppose you can find anything bad that I've said.

To convince yourself that it is worth it, but surely you have already done that so enlighten us with what you found?

Alan

You don't strike me as a man looking for enlightenment.

Explain this to me. I see the inevitable worsening of conditions for us all as based on an understanding of the world and how things are set up, not logic -  care to enlighten me?

Can you explain in a bit more detail please?

It's remarkable that the ones you've chosen to ignore are all those giving very good advice on why your darling dream is damn stupid. This isn't making you guys look sensible or rational, and as the bad outcomes start to stack up,  you're going to lose supporters very quickly. Indeed,  that's already the case. 

Literally everyone on this forum has been asking you guys for good reasons, and we never get any. 

An official opposition exists to scrutinise government policy, attempt to block it, stop it or water it down, and to say as often as possible that the government is doing something stupid and damaging. Sometimes governments even back down, like with the Poll Tax which was most definitely voted for but also totally not accepted by the nation. Likewise, it's  the government's job to keep on giving  good reasons for doing what it is doing. You're in fact arguing against democratic processes, failing to understand that democracy is a process and way of life rather than an event. 

Because you are busy looking for rocking horse shit and drinking tea from your chocolate teapot?

The latter has already fallen by 50%. Its the former.

Well, okay, with every day that passes we gain more information - I don't think we know at all right now what we'll end up with.  I think, as previously argued, that having a referendum will change that outcome, the knowledge that there will be a referendum will change that outcome in a negative way.

Far too broad a question.  Yes, we'll improve long term.  Again though, economics is not at all the reason for voting to leave!

Yes, and polls from the time showed that people believed there would be a cost.  We then voted to leave.

Yep.  That was part of the range of options that might happen if we voted leave.  A new referendum was not.  Remaining in the EU was not.  Remaining in the single market was not.  Remaining subject to the ECj was not.

Do I think the result would have been different if a different question had been asked?  Yes, of course.  We haven't left as soon as possible, of course, we're currently over 2 and half years since the vote!

Yes, you believe that and you argued it, and you lost.  Nothing at all has changed in that respect, your views haven't changed - and they won't change!  Until we leave, anyway.

No, we're not.  Just go back to threads before the vote.  There are lots archived on here.  You read them at the time, I'm sure, you posted on them.

It would represent a deliberately rigged vote, put in place by people who had promised not to do it before they were elected.

A bit of a tl:dr on the thread so you may have answered this already.  But can you tell me (or link to a post that gives) the advantages of Brexit?

Changing systems (especially suddenly, if that's necessary) always entails costs.  If you're not using logic/reasoning to come to your conclusions I've no idea what you are using.

See the other thread, or look up what the swiss have done re no deal.

The rest is just repetition.

.  That was part of the range of options that might happen if we voted leave.  A new referendum was not.  Remaining in the EU was not.  Remaining in the single market was not.  Remaining subject to the ECj was not.

Actually remaining in the single market was one of the options. Don't let the facts get in the way tho. 

No, we are leaving as soon as possible. This is what "as soon as possible" looks like, out in the real world. 

Not sure how it would be "rigged" but given that you lot were talking about taking your own pencils into the vote in 2016, you'll believe just about anything. 

More seriously, we are deadlocked. There is no good way forward. This wasn't an outcome expected before the election as no one expected a hung parliament with the DUP as queen-makers. So we have a situation that wasn't foreseen in the election campaign that we have to deal with. The risk of not dealing with it is a social and economic catastrophe. In that situation, we can't rule anything out. Or would you prefer the catastrophe?

So what are the costs? How are you going to assess them, given that you don't trust any forecasts? 

It's usually considered polite to put in a link, but hey ho. 

No, it wasn't, everyone who matters made clear that wasn't an option.  This has been done to death on here.

Soon as possible would have been Article 50 the day after the vote.  That did not happen.

Childish, but that is to be expected I suppose.

Would you prefer to keep beating your wife?  If you think this passes for reasonable/serious I really can't see the point in responding any further.

The current GDP is £509,120 million.( this is trillion) The forecast by the 2nd  referendum campaign is £100 billion reduction in 2030.One trillion is one million times one billion for the sake of clarity.

My view has always been its 8% growth not gdp.And when you read the news articles they always talk about growth not GDP..

Or to put it another way in zeros ( hope I have got this right!)

                100,000,000,000,000 in 2030 reduction

5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 plus growth

Is it?  Campaigning to change who is elected next time is, that doesn't amount to changing the result though.  Referendums are unusual here, so there's not much history to go on, but so far at least people in the main have just accepted the results of them.

Yes, and while we're in the EU we cannot change our minds about many, many, things.  They're not within our control.  Which was the point he was making, of course.

Role on a General Erection then!

He's asking isn't he. As I have countless times before with the same result.

This is why I called you evasive. Simple question about something you believe passionately in and you can't or won't make the slightest effort to explain your thoughts, instead you bleat about being misunderstood.

jk

Opposition and representation of diverse opinions are essential. Democracy is not a single ruling party or single opinion.

I'm not convinced. Companies are still going to have to obey EU rules (that we will no longer influence) to export into the EU. Within the EU we agree a compromise position which is definite a compromise of UK sovereignty. However the EU block has greater clout to represent UK interests resulting in better UK control of UK interests against the whims of other EU members and other blocks or countries.

See the discomfort for some Tories about Ireland

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46528952

It's a concrete example of how within the EU, the UK and Ireland were officially equals (UK had greater clout) but we are now finding that the UK is no longer an equal to Ireland resulting in greater compromises  and less UK control. 

See the caveat at the end of my sentence. You're saying that instead of doing something quite stupid (trigger a time limited process with no plan and no idea of the end state) we should have done something really stupid. 

What I've written is a brief outline of the situation we find ourselves in and as such is extremely serious. We have to avoid a very,  very bad outcome. What are your suggestions?

A trillion is one THOUSAND times one billion.

UK GDP for 2017 was $2.62tn. The Bank of England are saying a reduction of 8% GDP next year (not growth, not 2030), worse than the figure I used, but not by too much.

8% of GDP is $210,000,000,000 that is equivalent to the NHS and Defence budgets combined. 

I took my GDP of £ 5 trillion figure from the Office of National Statistics

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp

So its reasonably reliable!!

And I took my £100 billion from a pro remain camp .

I have never read that the Bank of England said 8% GDP fall next year.

That is for Q3 not the whole year, it’s also £0.5trillion, not £5trillion.

£100bn has been mentioned, but there are a range of senarios. I’m using the BoE forecast for No Deal, other forecasts and senarios exist.

I really wish you were right, but alas our GDP per capita is not £83,000.

Is that what you call a prediction?

Fair do's.

As a follow up on our discussion, you do understand why Brexiters treat such forecasts with contempt?

Of course, but some (many) things you need to make a decision and then carry it through.  In this case after a decade of talking about it, and with parties on all sides (Greens, Lib Dems, some Tories, some Labour and of course UKIP) saying that the way to decide membership or not was a referendum we had one.  It was not a quick decision, it wasn't the result of a year of opinion polls, it was a result of sustained pressure that resulted in a government that promised to have one.  We don't have referendums very often, but when we do they've been seen as decisive.  The only difference I can see here is that the establishment are radically in favour of the option that lost.

It's a straightforward statement of fact.  Right now, if the UK passes law and it conflicts with EU law the UK law is disapplied.  Until March.  Or December 2020 if the deal is agreed and another is agreed, or perpetually if no second deal is agreed, or until that second deal is agreed, or perhaps when another deal is agreed instead of the transition deal, who knows really.

Yes, when you export to a country you have to obey their rules.  No to bigger being better, no to the EU being better able to represent our interests than we are.

It's a story about an MP who's irritated with what they see as the Irish bullishly blocking the deal.  They, above all, must know how the DUP will react to the backstop and they know the position the DUP are in.  They will also know how the ERG will react too.  I'm assuming they're an MP that wants a deal (or else they wouldn't be irritated).  Mostly though it's a spin piece.  We don't know what will happen, and if it results in no deal (and we now know for sure no deal means some arrangements, not none at all) it won't show anything about the Irish having greater power (except power over the EU, which is a given).

I don't really get the reaction to the deal from remainers.  Surely if you accept the vote this is as good as it can get, right?  We're effectively in the single market for 2 years.  No decision has been made on the future, that can's been kicked down the road, leaving the leave/remain argument live for the foreseeable and the only downside is that the EU now have a legal right to prevent us from acting without their say so - and you guys trust them.  So what's the problem?  Obviously for some the only outcome that's acceptable is remain, but that's ignoring the vote completely.

Surely if you're sure the vote was fair and square, and people knew what the ultimate outcome of their choice was going to look like, you'll be delighted to see that ultimate outcome rubber stamped by the people?

Or not.

Why would I think it was a good use of money, time, and resources?  Why would I think that MPs explicitly going back on promises made is a good thing?

Others will speak for themselves of course, but for my part, I have considerable misgivings about proceeding on a path which will leave the country worse off than it currently is in economic terms. The Treasury analysis is clear that even under the terms of the May deal, the economy will grow more slowly than with continuing membership of the EU.  That being the case, there will be less money for essential public services, such as health and education, the Armed Forces, the police, help for the old and the vulnerable. I fail to see how anyone can be satisfied with that outcome. 

Mainly because they don’t understand them,  part of the problem is that the politicians quoting them often don’t understand them either. A dollop in heresy in some cases as well.

IThe Bank of England completely failed to forecast the 2007/2008 collapse of the banking sector ( along with just about every other financial institution apart from a  few hedge funds who went short on cdo's etc).

Their credibility is shot in the eyes of alot of people who financially suffered as a result.

Crikey  heaven forbid the Queen was well know for asking " why did you not forecast this".

Which is why I say the figures are meaningless.

You can argue that generally they get it right ( and there is substantial proof of that). But the really big one, they failed on.It haunts the political system.

The decision is going to effect two or three generations down the line. This isn't a general or local election where the flavour gets changed at regular time periods. This decision is massive in its scope. And not every MP wanted it. Not everyone in the country wants it (whatever 'it' is), so no one is going back on anything. This is far more complicated than some people thinking it's about straight bananas/blue passports/three pin plugs/Muslim immigration etc. I don't see that making absolutely sure has a downside. That can't be a waste of money or resource. 

And of course there are no suggestions. 

Because it would, at a stroke, remove most of the opposition to a Brexit that, with some justification, is seen by many as not being a true reflection of the people's wishes.

Surely that much is obvious.

Precisely why we had a referendum about it.

Given that you, voting remain, "knew" prior to the vote that we would be worse off all that shows is that there's no version of leave you would have ever accepted.  The difference if we sign the withdrawal agreement is marginal according to your experts' forecasts.

(a) I doubt it (b) that doesn't deal with the waste of time, effort and money and the damaging effect that having the vote will have on country - both in terms of having a referendum at a terrible time in the negotiations and in terms of loss of trust.  MPs promised to effect the result, not to have a referendum because they don't like it.

There was no analysis prior to the vote on the economic impact of the current deal, for the very simple and obvious reason that the current deal had not been worked out at the time of the vote. Indeed, no adequate version of a future arrangement had been worked out, which is, to my mind, why we now find ourselves in such a state. I do recall one famous assertion that we would be £350 million a week better off. 

They are not 'my experts'. They are the Treasury civil servants charged with such work. Trying to cast them aside as 'my experts' is weak stuff. The Government has a responsibility to the country to act in the national interest. Do you think it is in the national interest to wilfully reduce our ability to pay for decent levels of public services? 

There was analysis.  The analysis lead you to vote to remain.  Despite the analysis showing economic loss the country voted to leave - we, as a country, clearly accepted that loss, at the very least we accepted the risk of some loss.

They're experts that you say you believe, I say I don't believe them and that they're partisan towards your side.  They say that the economic affect is marginal, you say that given the economic affect you think we shouldn't do it.  Do you not see the issue there?  Even a marginal effect is too much for you.

I note you failed to answer the question: Do you think it is in the national interest to wilfully reduce our ability to pay for decent levels of public services? 

Actually figures for a post-Brexit hit to the economy are based mainly on trade theories which are really, really well backed up by empirical evidence. They aren't general forecasts (which are vague to the point of uselessness) but conditional ones, ie "everything else being equal, if you change this one thing, this is the likely result". That's quite a different thing to being able to pinpoint with any accuracy when the next financial crisis will happen. Medicine also has poor predictive power: think how much work has been done on eyes, but still my optician can't tell me when I'll need a new pair of glasses! My doctor can't tell me either if I'll get cancer, but if he says cigs and pies are going to make me less healthy he's probably onto something.  

If you're interested, this is a good and only a five minute read:

https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2015/04/for...

To take the argument in that post forward, we can't necessarily accurately predict what will happen to the economy overall, but we can explain what the likely effects of Brexit are. The figures aren't meaningless - but people's understanding of the figures is poor. 

I don't believe the premise.  I do believe that some things are more important than money.

I note you've not explained at all your position, or answered any of my questions.  If we cannot make any decision that "experts" think is less than positive economically then we're hamstrung, we cannot make any decisions.  The IMF at first told us that Osborne's path was wrong, then right, then wrong again.  Are we to change tack any time an expert (or a consensus) says we ought to?  Does economics trump everything else?

I would have thought my position was very clear. I believe we would be better off as members of the EU. We have developed an economy over the past decades which exploits our membership and derives considerable advantages from membership. I see nothing in the Leave proposals which outweighs these benefits and advantages.

When it comes to the ability to pay for public services, the economy is a very significant factor. I would hope you might agree with that. 

It will be worse after Brexit. UK law will have to comply with whatever trade deals we sign up to. In my opinion we will have to compromise more when negotiating from outside of major trading blocks.

DUP, ERG ....  that's all very interesting but of no interest to foreigners. International trade means paying attention to foreigners and the realpolitik of power.

Remain is a better option.

Disagreeing or campaigning against the result of a vote is not ignoring a vote. 

Yes, you want to remain.  I mean your position on the questions I've asked, how much you think economists should be followed, whether there's ever any scope for a decision that is predicted to lead to reduced growth in GDP.  Whether the referendum result had any meaning to you at all - it doesn't seem to.

That's a politicians answer that entirely avoids the question.

So the Leave voters get no say on what flavour? You're quire happy for that? No room for reflection that the £350 million might not actually be forthcoming etc? Fair enough.

One is a belief (yours), the other is a factual statement (mine).

The Irish have no interest in Northern Ireland!?

Can you explain how you've not ignored the result of the vote?  How has your position altered?

You have no need to tell me all this as I agree with it. 

I am pointing out why a large sector of the uk population chooses to say such things are useless. They have been bitten by useless info in the past. 

Of course it has meaning to me. It means we will be leaving the EU. I happen to believe that will bad for the country, but there isn't much I can do about that. I would hope that the brave new Britain will still allow for such differences of opinion. If not, the outcomes will be far worse than I fear.

No, it is a matter of fact. The nature of our economy has a significant bearing on the public services we can deliver. The last decade should have provided an adequate demonstration of that. 

Do you think we will be signing up to trade deals that don't require our laws to respect the terms of those trade deals?

Do you think we should sign up to trade deals that don't require the other country's laws to respect the terms of the trade deals?

I suggest that you are are not considering the realpolitik of power between the UK and larger countries or trading blocks.

No I can't explain that because whenever I write "disagree" you read "ignore".

My apologies.

Actually they've seen saved by this sort of knowledge from suffering a far worse crisis in 2007-8. But you know, no need to listen to experts because they sometimes disagree on complex things. 

That's a quite different thing to having UK courts being given the power to overrule UK law made in Parliament.

If following the vote your position on what we ought to do next did not alter at all I can't see how that's not ignoring the vote.

Fixed that for you Dixie Chick. 

Well that's the answer to one question, fair enough.  You're pushing for us to remain though aren't you?  So it means we might leave, but if you can make it happen we won't.  Or did I get that wrong?

It ignores the more interesting questions - you've made the point that we ought to follow experts advice, and you've also said that we shouldn't make decisions where the experts say we'll have less growth - what room does that leave for democratic decisions?  How do we deal with the IMFs changing advice?  Was George Osborne wrong to ignore them the first time - in retrospect they, the experts, thought not.

Yes, of course.  It doesn't address the question though.

And there's a brilliant example of why it's pointless replying to you any further.  Nothing of interest, just silly games.

Not silly games at all. I'm asking a serious question which you are evading. Let me try this again - the question is at the end, if you want to jump straight to it.

No one is saying we must have rule by technocrats. However all decisions are pay offs and we need to examine those. We're going to be poorer and will have had our rights removed - but for what? You claim we'll be free of EU laws but that's clearly unlikely*: we'll still have to obey them to keep our economy functioning, but we'll have gone from being one of the key players in the biggest regulatory bloc in the world, to a mere by-stander. 

It's that kind of lose-lose pay off that makes Brexit such a silly idea. 

Now, I've answered your question nice and politely. How about you answer mine?

*According to what I've read from people who know their stuff. 

Okay, so it's not reasonable to say that as experts say there will be a loss we must necessarily not do it.  Experts can be wrong, on this particular issue they've been shown to be wrong previously (most likely due to deliberate bias).

It's that kind of assertion that makes conversation with you pointless.  I say I think X because of X, you say well given that you're definitely wrong why do you think it.

The answer is that I don't agree with your outline.

You did get it wrong. I can't make it happen, and I don't believe anything I do or say will make an iota of difference. I do, however, believe strongly that I have a right to express an opinion.   

That is a very fair question, as to how to balance the referendum result against the overall national interest. I believe, that as a result of what we are now told by the Government, the balance has swung away from favouring the referendum result. You clearly believe that the referendum result trumps everything else. We differ - so be it. 

One further point to note about democratic decisions. There is no difficulty in changing the outcomes of democratic decisions. We do it at every election, and we do it in response to actual and perceived understandings of the abilities of the different parties to deliver our preferred outcomes. It is not clear to me why we can make changes in these elections but not to results of referendum. Simply bleating "the will of the people" as some of our more simple-minded commentators and newspapers are wont to do, does not convince me. 

That is the whole point. The crises of 2007-2008 was not forecast/modelled etc by all the economists /B of E/Federal bank//ECB etc etc.

The effects were financially devastating on large swathes of the UK population - most of them probably voted for Brexit.

Quite rightly in their view such analysis/ forecasts are to be frank useless. Credibility around those has been shot to pieces in their view. If you cannot get the big one right in 2007-2008, why on earth believe/listen to what is being said now.

I totally agree that if you look at the B of E forecast over Brexit its with a high degree of certainty reasonable. But it has no credibility with a large % of the voting public.

Switch it round and see it from their side...not yours.Until you can do that you will continue to lose the argument to those people.

As I said above, the "most wrong" were the experts who supported this idea. We can never be sure, but the weight of expert opinion is that we'll have less money for schools, hospitals, etc. In which case we ought to have very good reasons for doing this. 

Well present it to me as a win, with good reasons. 

Please explain this in more detail.

Okay, sorry.  Fair enough.

I think a referendum trumps (inconclusive) polls, absolutely.

We can make changes in those elections.  We had one of those recently, and we'll have more in the future. 

That doesn't make some sorts of forecasts wrong. Much of the future is unknowable but that doesn't mean all of it is. 

Not sure I buy this explanation given the popularity of Brexit amongst well-off Conservative voters in the South East who saw their wealth rocket due to post 07/08 policy, but that's for another time. 

Well, they may believe that, but that doesn't make their view right. A large swathe of Americans believe in UFOs but not climate change. 

I can completely see it from their side, but I believe the best way to combat this is to explain what is actually going on and why this situation is different. I can't see that pandering to their views will help anyone - least of all people who are really poor and are going to get shafted again. 

Except that it was; it took a particular set of circumstances to set the whole domino effect off, but the potential had been recognised, but there was too little political will for any on nation to point out the lack of emperors clothes. I've posted before about attending an event in london at which a senior international banking figure was giving a speech on what was starting to unfold; she basically invited us all to think of the worst case scenario we could think of, and then pointed out that the potential was for far worse than whatever anyone had come up with. We got away relatively lightly in 2007/08 because actions taken internationally mitigsted against some of the potential effects, and a concerted/coordinated effort was then made by various central banks, using QE, etc etc

I agree with you. You are just going to have to think of a way of rebranding and remarketing the message.

You can whistle in the wind otherwise. 

I don't think there's ever been any real doubt among experts that Brexit - in any of its guises - would be economically harmful, just disagreements about the scale of the damage.

Certainly not, but it does underpin quite a few other things in our modern political society, such as the ability to fund socially responsible policies, so it cannot easily be dismissed as just one factor among several.

Also, if economics is discounted as a factor, what does that leave as Brexit benefits? Which laws do you want to change that can't be changed already? Which people do you want to prevent living in the UK?

I think time will change people's minds and has already begun to do so, if polling is to be believed. Hopefully those people will be receptive to the idea that there's something in the forecasts.

I also believe there's a core group of people who won't change their minds at all and that they are basically unreachable. 

You mean you got away lightly!

Others did not.Therein lies the issue.

I also went to a session by a top economics guru from the HSBC at the time, who predicted it was a minor blip, after it all kicked off... a minor housing crises.

Yes the coordinated efforts prevented things going seriously pear shaped - agreed.

And did not the B of E after the event say it had to beef itself up as it did not have the resources at the time to model/forecast etc.

And you wonder why people do not believe you.

Do not disagree.All I can say is you have a seriously long way to go to restore credibility.Its very easy to lose and difficult to gain.Ask the jewelry man or anybody who has seen their reputation damaged.

I'm no legal expert but most countries have courts that enforce constitutional limits on laws made by the parliament. This is generally a good thing and a feature of most democracies. 

I don't see how Brexit will change the relationship between UK Supreme Court & Parliament.

My position has gone from "vote remain" to "remain is still in my best interests for personal reasons, remain is still in the UK's best interests for economic reasons, brexiteers have had two years but have been too busy resigning to produce something that other countries will agree to so they really don't deserve to be in charge of a whelk stall let alone a country".

as one of the others who did not, I am with Ian, shafted by the establishment, NOT the EU

Economists and sludgy programmes on R4 were warning of something like 2008 coming for at least a couple of years.   Sub prime was mentioned well before the US crash

Remember the old Donald Rumsfeld quote, I’m not a fan of the man, but I always liked the quote:

Known, knowns;

Known, unknowns; and

Unknown, unknowns.

The reliability of any forecast is going to depend quite heavily on those factors. I would say the mix is quite different in the example you give.

Of course plenty people did predict it, Preston was one, although whilst he is providing some quite insightful observations on the current state of Brexit, isn’t really allowed to express an opinion, another would be Vince Cable, we all know his view.

Lol. Of course since 2007/2008 Economists have been racked with guilt by what happened.

And some people made very serious money from it. But they were to a large extent a very tiny number . Otherwise if it was mainstream acceptance at the time it would have been dealt with earlier. 

But that is beside the point. People lost trust and faith .

It will take years of getting it right before that trust is restored. 

I

It's not a feature of ours.  I don't agree that it's a good thing - for example look at the furore over Supreme Court appointments in the US.

As said, the UK Supreme Court will no longer be able to disapply law passed by Parliament.  That's a major change, they'll have to enforce the laws Parliament makes.

Notable that at no point did your position go to "okay, I don't like this but the vote went against me so I've got to accept the result".  Seems to me the vast majority of the people pushing for a new referendum skipped that step too.

Assuming a solid prediction implies political willingness to act is a mistake. Exhibit number one: climate change.

Ahhh, but not everyone. The question is why some people lost trust and how to win it back. As I said, it's unlikely: there is loads of good evidence around climate change science but the committed disbelievers simply ignore it. Ditto vaccines. There is a rump of people have no interest in trusting experts, of any stripe, and I think the best we can do with such people is harm-reduction. 

Serious question: do you think the fact that the Leave campaign broke the law makes it less legitimate? 

Not everyone gives up their beliefs just because of the outcome of a vote. Surely that is the very essence of a democracy, the ability to allow dissent and to accommodate differing points of views? 

In sharp contrast to the multitude of countries where top judicial appointments are non-contentious.

How does a change in the UK's relationship with the EU change the relationship between the UK Supreme Court and Parliament?  

At no point have I accepted that democracy decisions are not subject to democratic change.

It was an example that's been in the news recently.  If you give judges the power to overrule elected representatives, to effectively make the law, then at some point you're going to get into an argument about who gets to pick the judges - because how those judges think decides what the law is.  There are other problems with constitutions - they're certainly not a definite Good Thing.

As before...  Are you talking semantics, that technically Parliament could always scrap the EU enabling acts?  In practise the relationship changes substantially.

Eh?

In reply to Harry Jarvis - I'm not saying you have to change what you believe(d) on the day of the vote about what the right course of action is.

In reply to seankenny - Nothing's perfect and admin errors are just not that big a deal.  Remain were fined too, for similar errors, and the upshot of the additional Leave money is that the difference between Leave and Remain overall spending was not as great, Remain still ahead.  I have far more of a problem with our government spending our money to support one side.

Those who were worst affected financially lost faith. Not difficult nor unreasonable .

If you are in the financial bubble of London then it’s different. 

If one believes that a lack of faith in experts - driven by the personally experienced fallout of the GFC - was a big driver of voting Leave, then you have to square that with the widespread support of Brexit from the wealthy SE of England and opposition to Brexit from poor voters in Scotland, Ireland and Liverpool. 

London has higher than average UK poverty rates. To characterise all London residents as living in a bubble is silly. 

This can and does happen. It doesn't happen in most countries.

I am not aware of parliament having any plans to take back power from the UK Supreme Court. 

Do you accept that democracy is not in the past which that means any decision is up for argument and change?

Don't tell that to Uncle Vlad - he wanted the best referendum money could buy. 

Yes they were. Remain campaigners were fined about £2,000 (ignoring a fine the LibDems got) and Leave was fined £61,000 and referred to the police. Broadly similar. 

As for the government spending money to persuade the electorate, you have a problem with this? Part of the Leave psychology is to be the plucky underdog fighting the man - for Harry, England and St George! To revel in that fantasy and then complain that someone made it real for you is kind of churlish. 

What?

Then you've not been paying attention.  The EU enabling acts give the UK Supreme Court the power to disapply new legislation passed by Parliament.  The plan is to scrap those.

I'll agree with that very vague statement.

This (read your own words above) can and does happen. It doesn't happen in most countries.

I just twigged the bit in the middle here - "terrible time in the negotiations"

The negotiations concluded some time ago. Theresa May and the rest of the EU agreed as much. What we're left with now is not negotiating, it's either begging for scraps sufficient to call off the hounds (May's deal) or collecting broken pieces from the floor to try to supplement meagre WTO rations and pretend they could yet be presented as something worth having (while at the same time openly acknowledging they aren't worth having by being desperate to forge new deals in order not to have to live on the WTO handouts any longer than actually necessary.)

It's one inherent problem in systems that place constitutions above all else, it's not the only one.  The US is really quite old and it's the change in the world, the distance between what people think that's developed, that the constitution wasn't written for, that it can't deal with.  It exposes the power that judges have and means that when the appointers claim that there's no bias (that there can be no bias) it's not believable.  Most countries don't last very long - when the countries you're referring to are over 200 years old, and have lasted through major changes like the US has we'll look at them again.

Anyway, as said, we don't have one, thankfully.

John Arran - The negotiations are not at all over.  Theresa May doesn't get to decide, she's not got the power.  Surely you know that?

She gets to negotiate, along with her Brexit cabinet team, and to decide when there's no further progress to be made and the negotiations have concluded.

Which she did.

Surely you know that?

Can you explain what other negotiations are going to happen?

She then tried to get it through Parliament, because it's they who get to decide, not her, and failed.  Your assertion that they're over because TM and the EU say so is nonsense.

seankenny - they're happening now, e.g. see the EU's published intentions the other day.