Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Tacitus Kilgore

Tacitus Kilgore wrote: »

:pac: SNP Marxist :pac:

Alternative last line - is what will fast-track the UK to becoming The United Countries of England & Wales.

On Scotland, it's worth considering that the SNP got 977,569 votes (36.9%) at the last General Election, and 1,018,322 (38.00%) voted to leave the EU.

So, this idea that the SNP are the "voice of Scotland" is absurd.

Water John

So if the Tories get a majority Govn't on 40% of the vote, they don't represent the views of the UK? That's your logic.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

The Conservatives have lost the economic argument. They have no economic argument. They have no economic high ground.

Really!?

Compare the below with what was claimed would happen if a mere vote to Leave were made:

With the 0.3pc expansion reported on Monday, Britain has now had 13 quarters of economic growth since the Brexit referendum. The evidence is irrefutable: the UK economy has grown faster than Germany, France and the eurozone as a whole for most of the last two years. It is has outgrown several west European states even since the vote.

Totting up the exact numbers, it is no longer excusable for the Remainer establishment, the Liberal Democrats, and allied think tanks, to keep claiming that the UK economy is 3pc smaller than it would have been without Brexit, or that we are “3pc poorer” in Westminster parlance.

The total accumulated growth for the UK is 4.9pc. This compares with Belgium (4.7pc), or Germany (4.7pc) if we generously assume that there is no German contraction in the third quarter when the final result comes out later this week, not to mention Italy (3.2pc).

George Osbourne before the EU referendum:

Publishing Treasury analysis, he said a Leave vote would cause an "immediate and profound" economic shock, with growth between 3% and 6% lower.

David Cameron said it was the "self-destruct option" for the country.

But Boris Johnson dismissed the study as "more propaganda" from the Remain side which he claimed was "rattled".

And it's always the Leave side accused of "lies" during the referendum.

Boris Johnson turned out to be right, much to the chagrin of Remainers.

And this:

George Osborne will warn that he would have to fill the £30bn black hole in public finances triggered by a vote to leave the European Union by hiking income tax, alcohol and petrol duties and making massive cuts to the NHS, schools and defence.

Brexit Conservatives have been shown, consistently, to be on the right side of the economic argument - and are likely, with this track record, to continue to do so.

So if the Tories get a majority Govn't on 40% of the vote, they don't represent the views of the UK? That's your logic.

That's exactly right.

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

On Scotland, it's worth considering that the SNP got 977,569 votes (36.9%) at the last General Election, and 1,018,322 (38.00%) voted to leave the EU.

So, this idea that the SNP are the "voice of Scotland" is absurd.

Especially seeing as 1,661,191 (62.0%) voted to remain in the EU.

The SNP, a month before the Brexit vote got 46.5% of the popular vote in the Scottish Parliament elections.

What's your point?

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

Especially seeing as 1,661,191 (62.0%) voted to remain in the EU.

The SNP, a month before the Brexit vote got 46.5% of the popular vote in the Scottish Parliament elections.

What's your point?

That when it comes to the upcoming election, it's worth considering that more people voted to Leave the EU than support the SNP. The media, though, treats the SNP as the go-to voice as if it's somehow totally representative - and, given the statistics I cited, things are not that clear cut.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

On Scotland, it's worth considering that the SNP got 977,569 votes (36.9%) at the last General Election, and 1,018,322 (38.00%) voted to leave the EU.

So, this idea that the SNP are the "voice of Scotland" is absurd.

Maybe having a general election is a stupid way to figure out brexit then?

robinph

robinph wrote: »

Maybe having a general election is a stupid way to figure out brexit then?

I think that was true in 2017.

This time, the political choice is clear - Brexit, No Deal, 2nd Referendum, or Revocation.

Parliament will reflect the broad range of choices and act collectively.

Though I'd by lying if I didn't say that I hope Johnson secures a working majority and passes his new deal through parliament.

robinph

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think that was true in 2017.

This time, the political choice is clear - Brexit, No Deal, 2nd Referendum, or Revocation.

Parliament will reflect the broad range of choices and act collectively.

Though I'd by lying if I didn't say that I hope Johnson secures a working majority and passes his new deal through parliament.

It's not a clear choice in the slightest as brexit is a binary choice, but there are a multitude of different parties to pick from and only two of which with any chance of winning regardless of their brexit position which can have nothing to do with the opinion on Brexit of the people who voted for each party.

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

That when it comes to the upcoming election, it's worth considering that more people voted to Leave the EU than support the SNP. The media, though, treats the SNP as the go-to voice as if it's somehow totally representative - and, given the statistics I cited, things are not that clear cut.

Well, having 35/59 seats in Westminster, 3/6 in the Euro Parl, 62/129 in the Scottish Parliament and 418/1227 seats at local authority level in Scotland goes some of the way to showing how much of a voice they have. Remind me how many seats the BXP and LibDems have and you don't complain about their media coverage.

If the Scots don't want the SNP in charge then they'll vote them out. Simples.

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

That when it comes to the upcoming election, it's worth considering that more people voted to Leave the EU than support the SNP. The media, though, treats the SNP as the go-to voice as if it's somehow totally representative - and, given the statistics I cited, things are not that clear cut.

How can you try to rationalize that logic? What was the turnout for the election compared to the referendum?

And how can you compare the percentage of votes for a multi choice election to a binary choice in the referendum.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How can you try to rationalize that logic? What was the turnout for the election compared to the referendum?

And how can you compare the percentage of votes for a multi choice election to a binary choice in the referendum.

Quite simply because almost two-fifths of Scots are Leavers.

If you were to listen to the SNP all day (who, if Boris Johnson sneezed too loud, they'd claim to "have a new and refreshed mandate for Scottish independence"), you'd almost think that 90% of Scots voted Remain.

Furthermore, in the 2017 Election, with Sturgeon banging on about a Second Referendum, the SNP seats dropped from 54 to 35.

BonnieSituation

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite simply because almost two-fifths of Scots are Leavers.

If you were to listen to the SNP all day (who, if Boris Johnson sneezed too loud, they'd claim to "have a new and refreshed mandate for Scottish independence"), you'd almost think that 90% of Scots voted Remain.

Furthermore, in the 2017 Election, with Sturgeon banging on about a Second Referendum, the SNP seats dropped from 54 to 35.

62% did vote remain though.

---

Nice to see you brought up the 2017 election canard.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite simply because almost two-fifths of Scots are Leavers.

If you were to listen to the SNP all day (who, if Boris Johnson sneezed too loud, they'd claim to "have a new and refreshed mandate for Scottish independence"), you'd almost think that 90% of Scots voted Remain.

Uhhhh ... so you reject the legitimacy of the SNP as being representative of the Scots based on the fact that (only) 40% of the population voted to Leave, but you simultaneously reject the actions of MPs in Westminster subjecting the Brexit process to detailed scrutiny even though 48% of the population didn't vote for it.



Meanwhile, you're looking forward to one party gaining a majority on the back of about 40% of the vote and being able to ratify an agreement that has not been properly evaluated by Parliament.

Once again, you have a most peculiar interpretation of constitutes representative democracy.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite simply because almost two-fifths of Scots are Leavers.

If you were to listen to the SNP all day (who, if Boris Johnson sneezed too loud, they'd claim to "have a new and refreshed mandate for Scottish independence"), you'd almost think that 90% of Scots voted Remain.

Furthermore, in the 2017 Election, with Sturgeon banging on about a Second Referendum, the SNP seats dropped from 54 to 35.

An estimated 500k people in Scotland are English born.....I'd hazard a guess a lot of them were on board the Leave train (the Wales Leave vote would also have been skewed for this reason).

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

Quite simply because almost two-fifths of Scots are Leavers.

What are you trying to argue here?

If almost two fifths are leavers then more than three fifths are remainers. You do know that "more than three" is bigger than "almost two"?

CelticRambler

Anyone else notice the coincidence of talking points and news headlines over the last 48 hours:
- unemployment is at a record low (Tories say that's GREAT NEWS); employment is also at record low (Tories say look at the unemployment statistics instead);
- today's hot topic: immigration, freedom of movement (not), points-based permits (no, please don't ask us about the numbers, we don't do numbers)
- A&E waiting times: historically bad, worst ever. Nobody mention that the NHS is one of the major employers of immigrants, including well-qualified EU doctors and nurses whose numbers have dropped dramatically since Brexit.

So the immigrants aren't working in the fields picking fruit, and they're not working in the NHS. Will we soon hear that they're not working in the schools either? If unemployment is at a record low, wonder whose going fill all the new jobs that will be created by the post-Brexit boom?

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Anyone else notice the coincidence of talking points and news headlines over the last 48 hours:
- unemployment is at a record low (Tories say that's GREAT NEWS); employment is also at record low (Tories say look at the unemployment statistics instead);

Nice to see that you've overlooked my recent post on the economic lies Remainers told throughout the Referendum campaign - and how the economy is performing far, far better than any Remainer could hope for.

If anything, I think Remainers almost want the UK economy to crash, just to satisfy their self-made beliefs that the UK cannot prosper outside of the European Union.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice to see that you've overlooked my recent post on the economic lies Remainers told throughout the Referendum campaign

Speculative predictions, by definition, cannot be lies.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Speculative predictions, by definition, cannot be lies.

Ha, speculative predictions!?

If Leave voters engaged in the same type of scaremongering, you'd be the very, very first to point it out!

Speculative predictions! :rolleyes:

Doublespeak - deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language.

Joe_ Public

CelticRambler wrote: »

Anyone else notice the coincidence of talking points and news headlines over the last 48 hours:
- unemployment is at a record low (Tories say that's GREAT NEWS); employment is also at record low (Tories say look at the unemployment statistics instead);
- today's hot topic: immigration, freedom of movement (not), points-based permits (no, please don't ask us about the numbers, we don't do numbers)
- A&E waiting times: historically bad, worst ever. Nobody mention that the NHS is one of the major employers of immigrants, including well-qualified EU doctors and nurses whose numbers have dropped dramatically since Brexit.

So the immigrants aren't working in the fields picking fruit, and they're not working in the NHS. Will we soon hear that they're not working in the schools either? If unemployment is at a record low, wonder whose going fill all the new jobs that will be created by the post-Brexit boom?

I heard johnson earlier say he's always been a passionate supporter of free movement and that we need to control immigration in the same sentence.

Tories are being clever. Just focus on slogans and soundbites. Steer clear of policy and thus minimise the risk of another social care debacle of 2017. Any chance of a manifesto? You'll be waiting. Instead let labour focus on detail and then just attack them instead.

Will it ultimately work with voters? Sadly, with a lot of them, i think yes.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Ha, speculative predictions!?

If Leave voters engaged in the same type of scaremongering, you'd be the very, very first to point it out!

The difference between what Remainers said and what Leavers said - at the time of the referendum - is Remainers warned of potential damage, while Leavers deliberately misled the public about actual, provable costs, e.g. the infamous £350m.

Leavers such as Johnson continue to engage in the same deliberate misinformation, e.g. promising funding for "40 new hospitals" when the detail of the proposal reveals funding only for upgrades to 6 existing hospitals.

Whenever a Remainer is asked to justify their forecast/prediction/speculation, they can provide evidence in the form of current trade, the expected cost of losing EU market share, the cost of acquiring new deals elsewhere, etc.

Whenever a Leaver is asked to explain their belief in a Glorious New Economy for Britain, they usually go off on a rant about some perceived insult relating to the referendum campaign.

Your recent posts are the perfect (recurring) example.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

The difference between what Remainers said and what Leavers said - at the time of the referendum - is Remainers warned of potential damage, while Leavers deliberately misled the public about actual, provable costs, e.g. the infamous £350m.

Leavers such as Johnson continue to engage in the same deliberate misinformation, e.g. promising funding for "40 new hospitals" when the detail of the proposal reveals funding only for upgrades to 6 existing hospitals.

Whenever a Remainer is asked to justify their forecast/prediction/speculation, they can provide evidence in the form of current trade, the expected cost of losing EU market share, the cost of acquiring new deals elsewhere, etc.

Nice. No Remainer is without fault, right?

We all know - whether Leave or Remain - that the "speculative predictions" put forth by Osbourne and Co. was a form of weaponised economics designed to pressure the population into voting his favoured way. We're not talking about a minor difference of speculation here; we're talking about apocalyptic predictions based on a mere "vote to Leave".

If that's how bad Osbourne and his calculated predictions are, then good riddance to him as Chancellor is what I say!

As for the 350 million pound, yes, that should not have appeared on the side of the bus. The net figure I, I believe, around 200 million.

But here's the point:

I don't believe that even if 200 million were on the bus (or let's go lower, 150 million a week), it would have swayed voters opinions any differently. For instance, those who voted to Leave based on democracy and immigration controls, are unlikely to be swayed by the bus figure - whether it's 150M or 250M or indeed 350M.

Those who would not have voted Brexit because of 350M a week on the bus, would not have voted Brexit if it were 150M, and vice versa.

And if we're honest here, we'd both admit that it wouldn't make a difference because the larger arguments, about democracy and immigration and so forth, are the primary arguments that surrounded the referendum.

jimmycrackcorm

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice to see that you've overlooked my recent post on the economic lies Remainers told throughout the Referendum campaign - and how the economy is performing far, far better than any Remainer could hope for.

If anything, I think Remainers almost want the UK economy to crash, just to satisfy their self-made beliefs that the UK cannot prosper outside of the European Union.

Your logic defies rational thinking.
The UK is still in the EU so surely that is a factor in the economy?

As for prospering outside the EU, surely the market would agree and sterling would have gone higher instead of dropping like a stone since the referendum.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't believe that even if 200 million were on the bus (or let's go lower, 150 million a week), it would have swayed voters opinions any differently. For instance, those who voted to Leave based on democracy and immigration controls, are unlikely to be swayed by the bus figure - whether it's 150M or 250M or indeed 350M.

Well whaddyaknow - I agree with you on that point.

But then again the Leave campaign were dishonest about immigration controls: the UK has full control over immigration - even from EU states - but chooses not to exercise it.

And, as we've seen by Johnson's antics in Westminster, taking back control of "democracy" hasn't got off to a good start, has it?

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

The difference between what Remainers said and what Leavers said - at the time of the referendum - is Remainers warned of potential damage, while Leavers deliberately misled the public about actual, provable costs, e.g. the infamous £350m.

Leavers such as Johnson continue to engage in the same deliberate misinformation, e.g. promising funding for "40 new hospitals" when the detail of the proposal reveals funding only for upgrades to 6 existing hospitals.

Whenever a Remainer is asked to justify their forecast/prediction/speculation, they can provide evidence in the form of current trade, the expected cost of losing EU market share, the cost of acquiring new deals elsewhere, etc.

Whenever a Leaver is asked to explain their belief in a Glorious New Economy for Britain, they usually go off on a rant about some perceived insult relating to the referendum campaign.

Your recent posts are the perfect (recurring) example.

Also, all Remainers were promising was the status quo, nothing more, nothing less.

Leavers were promising a veritable utopia once the 50 year status quo was chucked in the bin. Ian Paisley Jr described Brexit as a "revolution", so there was an admission at least that Leavers were tearing everything down. As we know though, revolutions are often bloody and followed by civil war.

quokula

Deleted User wrote: »

As for the 350 million pound, yes, that should not have appeared on the side of the bus. The net figure I, I believe, around 200 million.

But here's the point:

I don't believe that even if 200 million were on the bus (or let's go lower, 150 million a week), it would have swayed voters opinions any differently. For instance, those who voted to Leave based on democracy and immigration controls, are unlikely to be swayed by the bus figure - whether it's 150M or 250M or indeed 350M.

Those who would not have voted Brexit because of 350M a week on the bus, would not have voted Brexit if it were 150M, and vice versa.

This is one of the reasons the lie was so effective. By deliberately deceiving the electorate, Boris was able to create a debate where people were just talking about whether it was 350m or 150m.

Had they used an honest number, then the other side would have been able to dedicate their time to pointing out all the benefits they get for that money and how the boost the EU gives to the economy dwarfs that figure by a large margin. Instead all that happened was the debate over the lie.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Your logic defies rational thinking.
The UK is still in the EU so surely that is a factor in the economy?

As for prospering outside the EU, surely the market would agree and sterling would have gone higher instead of dropping like a stone since the referendum.

That's not what Osbourne claimed.

A cursory glance at the links I provided shows that Osbourne and Co. claimed that a "mere vote to Leave" would cause untold economic catastrophe on a Biblical scale.

He was wrong. He knew that, and he peddled these lies to manipulate voters into opting for Remain.

It's so obvious, it defies belief that you're now defending a Tory!

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well whaddyaknow - I agree with you on that point.

But then again the Leave campaign were dishonest about immigration controls: the UK has full control over immigration - even from EU states - but chooses not to exercise it.

And, as we've seen by Johnson's antics in Westminster, taking back control of "democracy" hasn't got off to a good start, has it?

I don't think that sways voters either.

I mean, a vote to Leave is also a vote to control immigration more, even if government hasn't exercised those controls to date.

Seth Brundle

Deleted User wrote: »

Nice. No Remainer is without fault, right?

What have they done to create the mess that the UK is currently in?

Deleted User wrote: »

As for the 350 million pound, yes, that should not have appeared on the side of the bus. The net figure I, I believe, around 200 million.

Right, what independent evidence is there that the figure is £200 million?
As I understand it, the UK is haemmoraging money because of the uncertainty over the last number of years, not saving money!

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what Osbourne claimed.

A cursory glance at the links I provided shows that Osbourne and Co. claimed that a "mere vote to Leave" would cause untold economic catastrophe on a Biblical scale.

He was wrong. He knew that, and he peddled these lies to manipulate voters into opting for Remain.

It's so obvious, it defies belief that you're now defending a Tory!

You could be right that Osborne and Cameron lied to people about the impact of Brexit. Seems the moral of the story is not to believe a Tory politician if you are right.

It could also be that the impact of Brexit was mitigated by the Bank of England in the immediate aftermath of the result and in their desire to avoid causing harm to the UK they made themselves out to be liars in your eyes.

This is the Bank of England's all-action response to Brexit

Faced with the shock to the economy of the Brexit vote, the Bank of England had a choice. It could sit tight and hope the storm would quickly blow over, or it could assume the worst and act accordingly.

Perhaps understandably, Threadneedle Street has decided to go for the all-action approach. It was slow to react to the great recession of 2008 and 2009, and was not going to be accused of making the same mistake twice. The risks of doing nothing were higher than the risks of providing oodles of fresh stimulus.

To be sure, the Bank could have waited until it had more evidence of how the economy was doing post Brexit. But changes to policy take time to work, so the case for early and aggressive action is strong. As Mark Carney put it, there is a case for stimulus and there is a case for stimulus now.

Seth Brundle

Seth Brundle wrote: »

What have they done to create the mess that the UK is currently in?

Right, what independent evidence is there that the figure is £200 million?
As I understand it, the UK is haemmoraging money because of the uncertainty over the last number of years, not saving money!

It appears the figure may be around the 156 million mark:

That is why it is so maddening that this pledge has turned out to be a simple lie. Yesterday, the official Treasury figures for UK contributions to the EU budget came out. In 2016/17, it showed, the UK contribution to the budget was just £156m a week – less than half of what Vote Leave promised. The entire Vote Leave campaign was built on 200 million little lies.

As for what Remainers have done to create the mess in the UK, how about using every means possible to defy the will of the British people and the 2016 referendum result? If it wasn't for all their parliamentary shenanigans, the UK would have exited the EU by now.

Mod: No more silly nicknames please.