Brexit discussion thread II

oscarBravo · 15-08-2017 06:47PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The authoritarian left would never stand for that. Look at how many of them have denigrated the very concept of democracy after the election of Trump and the passing of Brexit.

They'd either oppose it outright, or they'd demand some set of criteria to be eligible for voting, which would conveniently (and totally coincidentally of course :rolleyes:) bar right-leaning folk from voting. This was also widely discussed on social media after the Brexit vote - everything from an upper age limit ("because old people don't have to live too long with the consequences of their votes") to minimum established education requirements, etc.

Ah, democracy: the last unassailable sacred cow.

Some of us who have "denigrated the very concept of democracy" have proposed something less drastic than eligibility for voting: not relying on an underinformed electorate to make a simplistic decision about an almost incomprehensibly complex topic.

It puzzles me how people who put democracy on a pedestal are so blind to its feet of clay. Seriously: in a post arguing for democracy, you cite Trump and Brexit. Don't those two results cause you to question your slavish devotion to the idea that large groups of underinformed people can't make bad decisions? Or does that slavish devotion extend to the idea that bad decisions made democratically are better than good decisions made any other way?

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 07:15PM

Calina wrote: »

Personally I think Macron and Merkel are seriously underpaid, May is worth about 5 pence on the basis of calling the election which she didn't have to, and I haven't made up my mind on Varadkar yet.

There aren't really 4 presidents though - they have specific institutional roles rather than generic EU roles.

This is one of the things which troubles me and why I attach a lot of importance to detail and getting things right (which you dismiss as nitpicking). We don't say the UK has a president when we are talking about the Speaker of the House of Commons, but to be honest, Tajani's role is pretty much Speaker of Parliament and not president of the EU. It's worth looking at his role in Parliament for that reason. And Juncker is pretty much the chairman of the Commission and Tusk the chairman of the Council. Partly the issue is actually linguistic - the term in French is Président and depending on context, you could translate it to President (cf America, leader thereof) or chairman (cf committee of your local golf club).

So I think it's lazy to talk about the EU having four presidents in the tone of voice that suggests it's an awful waste because in the context of political leadership, their roles are not as Presidents as such but as leaders of their institutions, and in any case, none of them are President of the EU because that role does not exist.

I didn't say any of them was President of the eu, I said there are four presidents in the european union, as in people who work in the european union who have the title president.

ok, so, Tajani is president of the european parliament, but apparently that only equates to the speaker.

yet he still earns more than Macron, May and Merkel.

is that a good thing?

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 07:23PM

jm08 wrote: »

No. Those civil servants are exclusive of councils, etc. The EU has as many government dept. as the British Gov., You brexiteers complain about losing your sovereignty to the EU (i.e., EU are making too many decisions for you).

how many claims for welfare do the eu handle? how many claims for NI numbers do they handle? how many people's tax affairs do they have to manage? How many claims for asylum has the eu handled in the last twelve months?

I think you'll find the answer to the above is somewhere between zero and none

jm08 wrote: »

Don't ignore it, just don't commit economic suicide over it when it isn't necessary.

so what you're saying is that although parliament voted overwhelmingly (with only the SNP voting against) in favour of holding a referendum, they voted to agree the wording and they voted on the manner in which the referendum would be held, but they should then turn around and decide to ignore the result of that referendum because the people were too stupid to vote the correct way?

and that is how democracy should work, but doesn't in the UK because there is a democracy deficit?

I would be interested in hearing your views on how a dictatorship should work.:rolleyes:

Samaris · 15-08-2017 07:38PM

Just to comment, it wasn't even a binding referendum, it was intended to be advisory. Frankly, I find it rather amazing that they will go ahead with a deeply destructive deal (or no deal!) based on an advisory referendum that only scraped through and was based on a pack of lies so monstrous that the leaders of the pro-Brexit camp ended up mostly stabbing each other in the back and/or fleeing to the US (again, hi Farage, you cowardly windbag).

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 08:00PM

Samaris wrote: »

Just to comment, it wasn't even a binding referendum, it was intended to be advisory. Frankly, I find it rather amazing that they will go ahead with a deeply destructive deal (or no deal!) based on an advisory referendum that only scraped through and was based on a pack of lies so monstrous that the leaders of the pro-Brexit camp ended up mostly stabbing each other in the back and/or fleeing to the US (again, hi Farage, you cowardly windbag).

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

If Scotland had voted for independence, should parliament then have said no, it is financial suicide, the Scots were lied to by the SNP so we won't pass it?

Of course not, if you vote for legislation to hold a referendum, you have to honour that commitment, you can't just decide some of the arguments were dodgy and therefore nullify the result.

steddyeddy · 15-08-2017 08:24PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

If Scotland had voted for independence, should parliament then have said no, it is financial suicide, the Scots were lied to by the SNP so we won't pass it?

Of course not, if you vote for legislation to hold a referendum, you have to honour that commitment, you can't just decide some of the arguments were dodgy and therefore nullify the result.

Em I seem to remember May telling the Scottish parliament now was not the time for a referendum following a vote by the Scottish parliament. She's also aligned herself with homophobes, terrorist supporters and climate change skeptics to stay in power. Somehow I don't think she's above the nullifying the result.

Lemming · 15-08-2017 08:35PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

Cabinet papers say otherwise ... Or does the cabinet lie to the public? Take your pick.

steddyeddy · 15-08-2017 08:41PM

Samaris wrote: »

Just to comment, it wasn't even a binding referendum, it was intended to be advisory. Frankly, I find it rather amazing that they will go ahead with a deeply destructive deal (or no deal!) based on an advisory referendum that only scraped through and was based on a pack of lies so monstrous that the leaders of the pro-Brexit camp ended up mostly stabbing each other in the back and/or fleeing to the US (again, hi Farage, you cowardly windbag).

I don't understand it. I'd be more centre leaning than the Tory party but I secretly harboured the belief that they were safe hands for the economy. One might say they took a conservative approach.

Since the leave side was pursued and this path was followed I consider them to be the most crack pot party I have heard in recent times. Jacob Reece Mog and Boris Johnson, two highly educated men spout deluded economics about the EU needing Britain more so will be begging to offer them a trade deal. I don't understand it.

jm08 · 15-08-2017 08:50PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how many claims for welfare do the eu handle? how many claims for NI numbers do they handle? how many people's tax affairs do they have to manage? How many claims for asylum has the eu handled in the last twelve months?

Well, they manage CAP - (12.2m farms in EU in 2010), they doled out about 18 billion for research & growth last year, and they gave 4 bn to help countries deal with the refugee crisis.

I think you'll find the answer to the above is somewhere between zero and none

Some call CAP farmer's dole

so what you're saying is that although parliament voted overwhelmingly (with only the SNP voting against) in favour of holding a referendum, they voted to agree the wording and they voted on the manner in which the referendum would be held, but they should then turn around and decide to ignore the result of that referendum because the people were too stupid to vote the correct way?

I think actually the real problem is that the UK does not have a codified Constitution which allows the politicians to make it up as they go along.

and that is how democracy should work, but doesn't in the UK because there is a democracy deficit?

Worth a look at how Denmark (who has a monarchy) does things. They rewrote their Constitution in 1952.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Denmark

I also think that if the UK had a codified Constitution there would be less concern about keeping sovereignty.

Edit: missed this bit

I would be interested in hearing your views on how a dictatorship should work.

You'd need to get rid of Parliament & Lords to operate a dictatorship.

Samaris · 15-08-2017 09:05PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

If Scotland had voted for independence, should parliament then have said no, it is financial suicide, the Scots were lied to by the SNP so we won't pass it?

Of course not, if you vote for legislation to hold a referendum, you have to honour that commitment, you can't just decide some of the arguments were dodgy and therefore nullify the result.

British referenda are ALL advisory, as of seven years ago. It is up to the MPs to take note of it or not as they wish. That is the law. It was very specifically decided that they cannot be legally binding. It was made clear to the British people that it was advisory.

Also, quite a lot of the arguments were dodgy in some way or another, but that's a different matter. That blasted bus will go down in history for one.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-08-2017 09:47PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how would the eu stop the UK from having access to the eu internal market?

You don't need to block access, even reduced access would have knock on effects. At best there'd be a race to the bottom as more competitors are chasing fewer opportunities. If you've seen pictures of the 1973 oil crisis remember that most oil still flowed. It's just that demand was a little higher than supply.

Quotas
Change in regulations so products have to be recertified (sharp practice)
Anti-dumping tariffs
Delays at customs would ruin fresh fruit and veg
Dropping hints to other countries that giving the UK a good deal won't be well received (done with diplomacy) thus reducing the benefit of UK access

As a third party the UK has no automatic rights to EU access. Yes there are mechanisms that could be used but the UK is burning goodwill with a sense of an unbelievable sense of entitlement.

If you need to rely on loopholes, remember they can work two ways

View · 15-08-2017 09:48PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

there is no such thing as an advisory referendum, it is either pre legislative, or post legislative.

If Scotland had voted for independence, should parliament then have said no, it is financial suicide, the Scots were lied to by the SNP so we won't pass it?

Of course not, if you vote for legislation to hold a referendum, you have to honour that commitment, you can't just decide some of the arguments were dodgy and therefore nullify the result.

A majority of the people of Scotland voted for devolution in 1979 (by a similar margin to last year's referendum on the EU). Parliament though discarded that result, so clearly Parliament does not have to honour the results of a referendum - either politcally or legally speaking - if it so chooses.

Jaggo · 15-08-2017 09:51PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

There's a lot of positive arguments for leaving and there were and are no good arguments for staying in at this point. Fearmongering isn't a reason to stay in the EU. The hard remainers need to give clear positive and good reasons as to why the UK should rejoin the EU.

Great things about the EU:

1. Common cross border solutions to common problems. These include environmental issues like nuclear/waste water pollution in the Irish Sea: Acid rain across northern England and Europe.
2. The Principles behind most EU legislation are excellent. The REACH regulations on chemicals is excellent accepted by China and other non-EU counties, and the environmental protocols where the adoption of precaution and polluter pays were a world first and are much beloved by environmental organisations.
3. Reduced administration burden. The pooling of administration processes particularly stuff like chemical, medicine, products etc. means that each country in the EU gets the BEST administered safety standards while only paying a fraction of cost.
4. The EU verses Corporations, due to the size of the EU market the EU are capable of fighting off monopoly undue influence of large corporations. It was the EU that got Microsoft to split Internet explorer from Windows; that put limits on the use of data by facebook/google and reduced mobile rates - wasn't it Rupert Murdock who said that he didn't like EU as he couldn't influence decisions like he could in London?
5. I like the freedom to travel and live right across the EU.
6. I like being European, I like being an EU citizen. I like the idea that I am part of a block of countries that could put aside their differences and work for a common and worthwhile purpose. (Never mind the neighbourly bickering)

I have a few more but would anyone like to add to this list?

steddyeddy · 15-08-2017 09:53PM

Well Guy Verhofstadt, the EU's chief negotiator weighed in on the UK's proposal to have a transition arrangement in the customs union:

To be in & out of the Customs Union & "invisible borders" is a fantasy. First need to secure citizens rights & a financial settlement - Guy Verhofstadt

https://mobile.twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt/status/897411698939883520

Capt'n Midnight · 15-08-2017 10:22PM

jm08 wrote: »

In comparison to the British Civil Service though, it seems to be relatively efficient. Something like 46,000 EU employees (this includes organisations like Medicines Board (1K), Court of Justice (2K), European Parliament (7K), Commission (24K) etc.

British Civil service Employs 418,343 (this excludes NHS Staff, Police, Army etc) and lets not forget that 33% of people in NI are public servants!

Jobs for the boys up North is one of the biggest costs involved in a united Ireland.

Also
Yes Minister is still funny because it's true. Here's what the UK can do with half of that 46,000.

Hacker: How many people do we have in this department?
Sir Humphrey: Ummm... well, we're very small...
Hacker: Two, maybe three thousand?
Sir Humphrey: About twenty-three thousand to be precise.
Hacker: TWENTY-THREE THOUSAND! In the department of administrative affairs, twenty-three thousand administrators just to administer the other administrators! We need to do a time-and-motion study, see who we can get rid of.
Sir Humphrey: Ah, well, we did one of those last year.
Hacker: And what were the results?
Sir Humphrey: It turned out that we needed another five hundred people.

Fratton Fred · 15-08-2017 10:23PM

jm08 wrote: »

Well, they manage CAP - (12.2m farms in EU in 2010), they doled out about 18 billion for research & growth last year, and they gave 4 bn to help countries deal with the refugee crisis.

so they managed a sum around 10% of the UK's social welfare bill. Glad we got that sorted.

jm08 wrote: »

I think actually the real problem is that the UK does not have a codified Constitution which allows the politicians to make it up as they go along.

that is not so. the Uk does have a codified constitution, it just isn't written down in one place and like every constitution, is open to interpretation.

but where is the problem?

jm08 wrote: »

You'd need to get rid of Parliament & Lords to operate a dictatorship.

why get rid of them, when you can just have someone completely ignore any rulings they make, which is what you are suggesting

Samaris wrote: »

British referenda are ALL advisory, as of seven years ago. It is up to the MPs to take note of it or not as they wish. That is the law. It was very specifically decided that they cannot be legally binding. It was made clear to the British people that it was advisory.

Also, quite a lot of the arguments were dodgy in some way or another, but that's a different matter. That blasted bus will go down in history for one.

they are advisory in as much as Parliament is sovereign and no parliament can bind a future parliament to a decision. Advisory is only a figure of speech, it is not a legal basis.

If Parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, whether that is for eu membership, Scottish independence or changing the national anthem, it can't ask the people to make a decision (and promise to stick to whatever decision is made) and then ignore it.

That is an afront to democracy.

I think the simple answer with regards the bus, is to make Boris and Nigel cough £350m per week for the NHS.

ancapailldorcha · 15-08-2017 10:26PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That is an affront to democracy.

The whole bloody thing was an affront to democracy with the fact that the likes of Farage were hedging their bets with talk of a second referendum. The referendum was a glorified opinion poll and nothing more. You're right in that Parliament is sovereign and has proceeded to go with the wishes of 52% of the public. It's ultimately academic in that regard.

Samaris · 15-08-2017 10:31PM

Jaggo wrote: »

Great things about the EU:

1. Common cross border solutions to common problems. These include environmental issues like nuclear/waste water pollution in the Irish Sea: Acid rain across northern England and Europe.
2. The Principles behind most EU legislation are excellent. The REACH regulations on chemicals is excellent accepted by China and other non-EU counties, and the environmental protocols where the adoption of precaution and polluter pays were a world first and are much beloved by environmental organisations.
3. Reduced administration burden. The pooling of administration processes particularly stuff like chemical, medicine, products etc. means that each country in the EU gets the BEST administered safety standards while only paying a fraction of cost.
4. The EU verses Corporations, due to the size of the EU market the EU are capable of fighting off monopoly undue influence of large corporations. It was the EU that got Microsoft to split Internet explorer from Windows; that put limits on the use of data by facebook/google and reduced mobile rates - wasn't it Rupert Murdock who said that he didn't like EU as he couldn't influence decisions like he could in London?
5. I like the freedom to travel and live right across the EU.
6. I like being European, I like being an EU citizen. I like the idea that I am part of a block of countries that could put aside their differences and work for a common and worthwhile purpose. (Never mind the neighbourly bickering)

I have a few more but would anyone like to add to this list?

7. That countries can pool resources that are difficult, dangerous or require very specialized knowledge-bases to produce - such as nuclear material for chemotherapy as well as nuclear power plants.
8. That Europe has been extremely well-behaved about not having pan-European wars in the last seventy years. Given Europe's natural state is fighting itself, that is actually one hell of an achievement and I am not convinced that it would have happened with the formation of the EU bloc.

Samaris · 15-08-2017 10:35PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

they are advisory in as much as Parliament is sovereign and no parliament can bind a future parliament to a decision. Advisory is only a figure of speech, it is not a legal basis.

Uh, well, no, it isn't. This was decided by the Supreme Court. It is a legal basis. This is ..a thing as what is. I can't really say anything more on that. British referenda are advisory and not legally binding. That's...just how it is.

steddyeddy · 15-08-2017 10:40PM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so they managed a sum around 10% of the UK's social welfare bill. Glad we got that sorted.

that is not so. the Uk does have a codified constitution, it just isn't written down in one place and like every constitution, is open to interpretation.

but where is the problem?

why get rid of them, when you can just have someone completely ignore any rulings they make, which is what you are suggesting

they are advisory in as much as Parliament is sovereign and no parliament can bind a future parliament to a decision. Advisory is only a figure of speech, it is not a legal basis.

If Parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, whether that is for eu membership, Scottish independence or changing the national anthem, it can't ask the people to make a decision (and promise to stick to whatever decision is made) and then ignore it.

That is an afront to democracy.

I think the simple answer with regards the bus, is to make Boris and Nigel cough £350m per week for the NHS.

Lying to your electorate so you can get one up on a party colleague is an affront to democracy.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-08-2017 10:45PM

Has anyone actually read the UK paper on
Future customs arrangements: a future partnership paper

It's long on aspirations but very short on specifics.

Just skip down to page 13 onwards. It's very clear that that they will be requesting submissions from more interested parties to see where to go. This is stuff that should have been done and dusted and the implications digested long before the triggering of Article 50.

BTW Just in case anyone missed it. Brexit means the Isle of Man will leave the customs union.
63. The Crown Dependencies of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, are part of the EU
Customs Union. As we leave the EU, the Government will work with the Governments
of the Crown Dependencies and ensure their priorities are taken into account as we
progress negotiations with the EU.

steddyeddy · 15-08-2017 11:04PM

Jaggo wrote: »

Great things about the EU:

1. Common cross border solutions to common problems. These include environmental issues like nuclear/waste water pollution in the Irish Sea: Acid rain across northern England and Europe.
2. The Principles behind most EU legislation are excellent. The REACH regulations on chemicals is excellent accepted by China and other non-EU counties, and the environmental protocols where the adoption of precaution and polluter pays were a world first and are much beloved by environmental organisations.
3. Reduced administration burden. The pooling of administration processes particularly stuff like chemical, medicine, products etc. means that each country in the EU gets the BEST administered safety standards while only paying a fraction of cost.
4. The EU verses Corporations, due to the size of the EU market the EU are capable of fighting off monopoly undue influence of large corporations. It was the EU that got Microsoft to split Internet explorer from Windows; that put limits on the use of data by facebook/google and reduced mobile rates - wasn't it Rupert Murdock who said that he didn't like EU as he couldn't influence decisions like he could in London?
5. I like the freedom to travel and live right across the EU.
6. I like being European, I like being an EU citizen. I like the idea that I am part of a block of countries that could put aside their differences and work for a common and worthwhile purpose. (Never mind the neighbourly bickering)

I have a few more but would anyone like to add to this list?

Science funding. The EU contributes to all forms of research through fostering collaborations and direct funding.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-08-2017 11:18PM

Samaris wrote: »

Uh, well, no, it isn't. This was decided by the Supreme Court. It is a legal basis. This is ..a thing as what is. I can't really say anything more on that. British referenda are advisory and not legally binding. That's...just how it is.

The Irish solution is of course to have another referendum :pac:

The UK constitution is precisely three words long.

Parliament is God.

Even then the House of Lords can only delay things, so it's really down to the House of Commons, though at present the upper chamber is anti-Brexit and the clock is ticking so the dynamic may be a little different.

However, the UK has already received a lot of concessions, so they have to loose this preferential treatment to arrive to the level of other EU members and then have to fall further to loose preferential treatment relative to other countries more closely integrated into the EU like EFTA members and Turkey.

joeysoap · 15-08-2017 11:30PM

Guy Verhofstadt @GuyVerhofstadt
To be in & out of the Customs Union & "invisible borders" is a fantasy. First need to secure citizens rights & a financial settlement

Wonder why he didn't mention Ireland? We are on the list before trade talks can begin?

Jim2007 · 16-08-2017 12:10AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Science funding. The EU contributes to all forms of research through fostering collaborations and direct funding.

The importance of this aspect should not be under rated. The loss of access to these programs lead to the Swiss compromise on the recent FMOP vote. We now have a temporary agreement until we vote on the issue again. The original vote was carried on a majority of 20k. It was no expected to pass and there was a low turn out. Even the winning party admitted they did not expect it to pass and no they had no idea how to implement it!

Once students started to be reject for the Erasmus program and companies found their access to research work blocked, people quickly came to their senses.

Jaggo · 16-08-2017 01:19AM

Good points on the science funding.

The EU pooling of resources allows irish involvement in the development of large scale projects such as CERN and the european space programme.

CERN (the large hadron collider) discovered the higgs boson and during the development phase an english researcher developed the world wide web.
The space programme broke nasa and the U.S. military's control over launching satellites leading to cheaper gps, telecommunication networks and google earth satellite images.

solodeogloria · 16-08-2017 06:20AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

If Parliament votes overwhelmingly to hold a referendum, whether that is for eu membership, Scottish independence or changing the national anthem, it can't ask the people to make a decision (and promise to stick to whatever decision is made) and then ignore it.

That is an afront to democracy.

I think the simple answer with regards the bus, is to make Boris and Nigel cough £350m per week for the NHS.

Good morning!

Yes, there's no way to justify your view as a democrat and oppose implementing the result of the referendum. There's no way to claim referenda don't or haven't had a place on the British electoral system when they have been used for decades either.

Let's be fair the remain side sold some shocking lies. The Treasury said there would be unemployment and a recession in the immediate aftermath of leaving the EU.

[URL=
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/08/brexit-hit-house-prices-significantly-george-osborne-eu-referendum]George Osborne said house prices would plummet and mortgage costs would increase[/URL].
This didn't happen. Borrowing costs are lower. House prices are broadly stable and rising in most areas.

Barack Obama told us that the UK would be at the back of the queue in respect to trade with the US.

The IMF warned the UK would be in recession in 2017. Not true.

Edit: The IMF again on a prophesied stock market crash after the referendum and severe crash in house prices. Didn't happen, wasn't going to happen. Manipulative fear mongering.

David Cameron told us he would be prime minister after the referendum and he would pull Article 50 after the referendum.

Where was ancapailldorcha during the referendum campaign? He'll probably make some excuses for these now. I don't particularly mind if he does.

The fact is Brexit is happening. The people voted for it. Get over it.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 16-08-2017 06:44AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Let's be fair the remain side sold some shocking lies. The Treasury said there would be unemployment and a recession in the immediate aftermath of leaving the EU.

[URL=
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/08/brexit-hit-house-prices-significantly-george-osborne-eu-referendum]George Osborne said house prices would plummet and mortgage costs would increase[/URL].
This didn't happen. Borrowing costs are lower. House prices are broadly stable and rising in most areas.

Barack Obama told us that the UK would be at the back of the queue in respect to trade with the US.

The IMF warned the UK would be in recession in 2017. Not true.

Edit: The IMF again on a prophesied stock market crash after the referendum and severe crash in house prices. Didn't happen, wasn't going to happen. Manipulative fear mongering.

David Cameron told us he would be prime minister after the referendum and he would pull Article 50 after the referendum.

I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "lie" there, solo. A prediction as to future events which is not born out is not a "lie"; if it were, all those who predicted a comfortable win for May in the recent election, for example, would be liars. Nigel Farage, who predicted a remain win in the Brexit referendum, would be a liar. I dare say that if I were to trawl through the archive of your posts on board I could make you a liar. And I am certain that you coul dmake me one.

I think we need to reserve terms like "lie" for statements that are untrue at the time they are made, and that are known by the person making them to be untrue.

Samaris · 16-08-2017 06:47AM

Er, Solo, you realise that Britain hasn't actually left the EU yet, right? I wouldn't dismiss potential results too quickly, because it's not actually reached that point yet.

Recession in 2017 was expected and didn't happen, the stock markets are on an unprecedented bubble. We'll...see if the end of that cycle is a slow deflation or a burst though.

Don't be too quick to dismiss all the worried arguments though.

solodeogloria · 16-08-2017 06:50AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think you're stretching the meaning of the word "lie" there, solo. A prediction as to future events which is not born out is not a "lie"; if it were, all those who predicted a comfortable win for May in the recent election, for example, would be liars. Nigel Farage, who predicted a remain win in the Brexit referendum, would be a liar. I dare say that if I were to trawl through the archive of your posts on board I could make you a liar. And I am certain that you coul dmake me one.

I think we need to reserve terms like "lie" for statements that are untrue at the time they are made, and that are known by the person making them to be untrue.

Good morning!

I don't share your view. I think these were clearly wrong and clearly intended to manipulate voters.

If they weren't certainly true they shouldn't have been said.
It's fair to ask the remain side to acknowledge the clear untruths from their side of the campaign.

Aside from complaining about the result some details on the NI paper in the Guardian - The UK have published their paper on Northern Ireland strongly advocating for no border infrastructure to be put in place and for there to be an open border and for the CTA to be maintained.

Samaris - all these predictions were about the immediate aftermath. You don't get to whitewash these.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments