Brexit View

[Jenny1]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And you think of this country goes down that road

> it will be good for the ordinary joe do you?

I don't think the welfare of the general population is of particular interest to Keano77 and TheCat, Sephiroth. It seems they favour a low wage, low tax, low regulation, minimal welfare model of Brexit. In that case one should have the courage of one's convictions and argue openly for a more unfettered form of capitalism, not neglecting to admit what the consequences for the vast majority of the population will be.

Incidentally I don't think Dulwich Fox would agree with them. He favours the 'Swiss model' of soft Brexit.

[Sephiroth]

Quite so Jenny

I imagine they would form a coalition just to spite us. But it?s all just a game to them. None of this is real. None of this has any root in reality. And when the reality bites they will blame us.

Spineless.

[Jenny1]

I agree that most of the current 'debate' (if you can even call it that) has no basis in reality, it's more like a concocted fever dream. But actually I think it's important that we don't lump supporters of the Singapore Model, such as Keano77 and TheCat, into the same category as those, like Dulwich Fox, who favour the 'Swiss Model' of Soft Brexit. One of the problems with our current situation is the myth that all these radically contradictory models are, in some way, the same thing. That someone who favours shaking off the shackles of regulation is in some way 'on the same side' as someone who wants to live in a country that is tightly aligned with the EU, like Switzerland. That's one reason why none of the alternative scenarios is ever scrutinised adequately.

Anyway, at least we can comfort ourselves with the knowledge that we are living through the most exciting period for constitutional law since the 1640s.

[TheCat]

Wow Jenny...it must be nice to live in your total fantasy land, where you can just completely fabricate what you believe other people's views to be.

I have never once referenced anything to do with a 'Singapore model', never once spoken about this low tax, low regulation environment you refer to. Not even mentioned it, let alone 'supported' it as you seem to have dreamt up.

Go and review my posts above and I think you may feel a bit of a prat for your total lies.

Looks like the people you disagree with aren't the only liars huh?

[Jenny1]

I don't need to look back very far TheCat. You referred approvingly above to what you regarded as the positive 'facts' referenced by Keano77 in the article he posted about the benefits of a 'Singapore Model'.

[TheCat]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't need to look back very far TheCat. You

> referred approvingly above to what you regarded as

> the positive 'facts' referenced by Keano77 in the

> article he posted about the benefits of a

> 'Singapore Model'.

More lies. I referenced Keano's comment stating that the operation yellowhammer paper was not 'fact'. It was a set of assumptions. Nothing to do with Singapore.

That's the second time now you've totally made something up based on your own prejudice. Third time lucky I guess......

[Jenny1]

OK. I see you did reference Keano77's dismissive comments about Yellow Hammer. But Keano77 had just above reinforced his argument with a link to the Singapore Model article. Does this mean that you put little store by the Yellow Hammer warnings, and agree with Keano77 on that, but disagree with his approval of the Singapore Model of Brexit? If so, fair enough, but you didn't make that clear. If you disapprove of the Singapore Model, what are your reasons for doing so, and what would your alternative model be?

[TheCat]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> OK. I see you did reference Keano77's dismissive

> comments about Yellow Hammer. But Keano77 had just

> above reinforced his argument with a link to the

> Singapore Model article. Does this mean that you

> put little store by the Yellow Hammer warnings,

> and agree with Keano77 on that, but disagree with

> his approval of the Singapore Model of Brexit? If

> so, fair enough, but you didn't make that clear.

> If you disapprove of the Singapore Model, what are

> your reasons for doing so, and what would your

> alternative model be?

Seriously? You've got some balls. You admit you blatantly misrepresented my comments. Don't even bother to apologise. And then imply that it's my fault because I didn't make 'that clear'.

All my comment says is that forecasts are not facts. My opinion on the yellowhammer papers has not in anyway been referenced. And I am not inclined to do so given all you seem to want to do is project what you think my views are.

Try listening a little more, and thinking you know a little less. And that way you might end up having an actual useful debate, rather than the 'fever dream' which you think it is.

[Jenny1]

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>You've got some balls.

Thank you.

We do seem to be talking at cross purposes though. I regarded the flow of comments, from everyone, as being part of a complete debate. So I read the article that Keano77 linked to about the Singapore Model, with approval, as being a reinforcement of his belief that we should not take the Yellowhammer warnings too seriously. The message seemed to be 'Look at this positive vision for the future of the UK - that's what I believe in - rather than the Yellowhammer warnings'. You, on the other hand, did not see it that way. You wanted to agree with Keano77 when he said he did not regard the Yellowhammer warnings as significant, while being careful not to express approval for the 'Singapore Model', which he cited to reinforce his argument. Fair enough. I misunderstood you. I can see your point of view, I would imagine you could also appreciate mine. This isn't really a cause for outrage, is it?

[TheCat]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >You've got some balls.

>

> Thank you.

>

> We do seem to be talking at cross purposes though.

> I regarded the flow of comments, from everyone, as

> being part of a complete debate. So I read the

> article that Keano77 linked to about the Singapore

> Model, with approval, as being a reinforcement of

> his belief that we should not take the

> Yellowhammer warnings too seriously. The message

> seemed to be 'Look at this positive vision for the

> future of the UK - that's what I believe in -

> rather than the Yellowhammer warnings'. You, on

> the other hand, did not see it that way. You

> wanted to agree with Keano77 when he said he did

> not regard the Yellowhammer warnings as

> significant, while being careful not to express

> approval for the 'Singapore Model', which he cited

> to reinforce his argument. Fair enough. I

> misunderstood you. I can see your point of view, I

> would imagine you could also appreciate mine. This

> isn't really a cause for outrage, is it?

Ahhh, sigh. Jenny, I'm not outraged. I'm just frustrated...I can appreciate that you want to have a robust debate about these issues, but I still don't think you're really reading whats written, and are more reading what you think I meant. I did not agree with keano that yellow hammer warnings were not significant. I agreed with keano that the yellow hammer warnings are not fact.

The point that keano, and myself, were making is that a few regular offenders on here seem to take FORECASTS which agree with their pre-existing views and try to dress them up as FACT. When they are clearly not.

I have made absolutely no representation as the validity or otherwise of the yellowhammer papers. Other than to say, let's all remember this is a forecast....it is not a fact.

[Jenny1]

I guess it's not unusual for people posting on internet forums to misunderstand each other.

But I am still struggling a little with your meaning.

I don't think anyone would claim that, as yet, we have a fully functioning crystal ball that allows us to see the future. To establish 'facts' about the future if you will. But of course that doesn't mean there's no value in forecasting and planning accordingly. If you believe the Yellowhammer warnings to be significant (while being clear that they are forecasts rather than facts), then that surely means you take them seriously. I also wouldn't claim they are 'facts', but I would say they are professionally produced forecasts that should be heeded. This presumably means we agree about that? Would I also be right in thinking that we agree that the 'Singapore Model' is not a particularly useful or desirable one for the UK to aspire to?

[exdulwicher]

TheCat Wrote:

-----------------------------------------------

> Other than to say, let's all remember this is a

> forecast....it is not a fact.

Yeah but you watch the weather forecast and plan activities, clothing etc around that because you know it'll be broadly factual.

You might watch the stock market and know that most of the stuff going on there is again reasonably forecast able (if you know what you're looking for).

Many games and sports you can sort of forecast the tactics if you're a keen follower of said sport and know the broad brush strokes of how it's played. Obviously there's a bit more luck involved but you can broadly expect a forecast in the right ball park from a decent sports pundit.

But here it's just Project Fear? Here it's only a forecast and can safely be ignored because if you believe hard enough it'll surely all be alright?

Weird.

[TheCat]

exdulwicher Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> TheCat Wrote:

> -----------------------------------------------

> > Other than to say, let's all remember this is a

> > forecast....it is not a fact.

>

> Yeah but you watch the weather forecast and plan

> activities, clothing etc around that because you

> know it'll be broadly factual.

>

> You might watch the stock market and know that

> most of the stuff going on there is again

> reasonably forecast able (if you know what you're

> looking for).

>

> Many games and sports you can sort of forecast the

> tactics if you're a keen follower of said sport

> and know the broad brush strokes of how it's

> played. Obviously there's a bit more luck involved

> but you can broadly expect a forecast in the right

> ball park from a decent sports pundit.

>

> But here it's just Project Fear? Here it's only a

> forecast and can safely be ignored because if you

> believe hard enough it'll surely all be alright?

>

> Weird.

FFS. For you and Jenny's benefit, let me walk you very slowly through what has actually been said, instead of what you guys think people said.....

In reference to the Yellowhammer papers, Sephiroth said:

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Just last week on this very thread Lou was

> accusing me and others of doom mongering and we

> weren?t basing anything on facts. And yet here we

> are

And in reponse to that, Keano77 wrote:

> How are these facts? They are planning assumptions - short term possible downsides.

and in response to that I said:

>Come on Keano77, you know the rules mate..."facts" are anything bad that might happen post-brexit; "lies" are anything good that might happen.....

YES.....it was a tongue in cheek comment. But it was directed at Sephiroth's referencing of forecasts as facts (which he/she has a history of doing on this thread). Thats it. How you can both extrapolate from that I am 'dismissing' the value of using forecasts is beyond me.

For reference, I make financial and economic forecasts for a living, and have made a pretty successful career out of it. So I am intimately aware of the use of forecast to plan for all sort of different scenarios and outcomes. And this is the entire point. Of course it is valuable to stress test the possible outcomes so that one is prepared - that is just prudent risk management.

At the end of the day, I said it wasn't a FACT in response to a comment suggesting it was. You guys seemingly agree with that. Please dont extrapolate any more meaning that this. end of.

[Sephiroth]

None of them can possibly facts until they happen

But given their are a reasonable compilation of predictions of what will happen - it?s no longer a case of remainers ?just being emotional?

The question remains - if these predictions happen (and it?s reasonable to assume they will) what then? What does the country do? What do the people who hand waved us away say?

I?m fed up of us driving towards a wall only to be told I?m being alarmist

[Alan Medic]

Would someone please remind me of what the benefits of Brexit are supposed to be? And don't tell me it's a plot by the very rich to avoid tax when new EU laws come in to place. I've heard that one before. I'm sure it's nonsense. I've also heard about controlling our borders, money and laws. It can't be those either, surely. There must be something else. Anyone?

[Hemingway]

The only argument I have any slight empathy with is the sovereignty one; 'I believe in a nation state with an accountable government'- it's simplistic (individual sovereignty is not really a reality in 2019 and pooled sovereignty isn't that bad), ignores all the economic pain and assumes that the journey of the EU is inevitably towards increased federalism...but it does have some validity. The rest pie is pie in the sky idiocy, at best.

[TheCat]

What started out as jotting down some quick thoughts, has turned into an essay, this will take you 5 mins if you get started, sorry!

8 REASONS I'M VOTING TO LEAVE

So this EU debate has been a shambles on both sides. One of the worst public campaigns I?m old enough to remember. Poor presentation of facts, and mud-slinging all round. The Leave camp in particular is tarred with the brush of Farage?s banner of brown immigrant faces, and accusations of bigotry, which are frustrating for those of us that try to look at this from a more informed viewpoint.

I will be voting to Leave. And shock, horror, I?m not racist/bigot/xenophobe/little Englander just pining for the ?way things used to be? (I actually don?t even know how things used to be here, because I?m an immigrant myself), and I don?t think a foreigner has stolen my job.

There?s no doubt that there are those sort of people supporting the Leave campaign, but to tar all those considering Leaving with the same brush is displaying almost as much ignorance of the issues as the racists themselves.

As the campaigning started, I was in a genuinely neutral position, and wanted to find out more before coming down on either side. Please vote whichever way you like, but at least understand that there are real reasons for voting to Leave other than bigotry. So, for those that are perhaps interested in how I reached my decision, a few comments on the debate as I see it?.

1. The Economy: A huge issue. What?s That? How can I vote Leave when ?9 out of 10 economists? say we would be worse off under a Brexit scenario? Well, having had some time on my hands of late, I?ve taken it upon myself to read a number of the economic reports published on the issue from cover to cover (e.g. PwC report, IMF report) and yes, they all basically say we would be ?worse off? under Brexit. However, digging a little deeper, most economists are referring to the next 3-4 years, when the uncertainty generated by Brexit would likely cause a slowdown, perhaps even a recession. But as we look out further, towards 2025-2030 most forecasts have a Brexit scenario seeing the UK GDP/Capita somewhere between 0.5% and 4% lower than under a Remain scenario. Now for me, I?m making the decision for the long term, not the next 3-4 years, and as far as I?m concerned a differential of a few percent on a 15 year forecast is well within rounding error. So the simple conclusion for me is that 15 years out, there is very little to separate the economic outlooks under each scenario. Of course, if you?re not prepared to wear a slowdown for the next few years then vote the other way, but for the benefits in other areas, I think it?s a price worth paying. As an aside, I would flag that most economists? forecasts for Brexit assume we would lose trade with the EU, and not gain at all outside the EU, which is probably an overly pessimist assumption, so I think there is some upside to many Brexit economic forecasts. All that being said, to be clear, the economic argument is the weakest that Brexit has, and I wont deny that, but I think that longer term Brexit will actually be beneficial for the UK overall, as discussed below.

2. Immigration: Aha! You cry. This is where you catch me out as the racist I really am!!! Well, my thoughts here are simple, I hope the UK will still continue to welcome people from all over the world, of all races and religions. But the ability to control these numbers for the sake of being able to PLAN public infrastructure surely is crucial. With an aging population, having more migrants strengthens our economy, so I?m all for immigration. But being able to plan the numbers and communicate this information to those departments that invest in our schools, hospitals, roads, housing etc etc so the appropriate forward planning can be done surely makes sense. Also, going back to the economic reports which I mentioned earlier, how is it actually possible for economists to accurately make longer term GDP forecasts when there is very little visibility on the size of the population? Finally, a controlled immigration system is not just about attracting doctors, teachers, lawyers and engineers, if we need more low skilled workers to pick fruit for example, then a sensible Home Office will ensure visas are issued to the people the UK requires to do this.

3. EU bureaucracy: Can you even name the ruling bodies of the EU? (For the record, they are the European Council, the Council of the European Union, the European Parliament, the European Commission, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the European Court of Auditors.). Only two of those bodies are elected by the people. The rest are appointed. The European Council and the European Commission make most of the rules in the EU - and yet they are not elected bodies. So for example, if you think the British government should support British steel works or that the railways should be nationalised again, you're in for a shock: EU law literally bans countries from nationalising certain industries.

4. One size does not fit all: The German economy and the Greek economy are at opposite ends of the spectrum. For years, the Germans saved their money, balanced their books, and grew their economy. And for years, the Greeks borrowed money, ran deficits, and their economy has shrunk. Now the Germans must extend the Greeks credit to keep the country functioning, and the Greeks have to go on paying that debt forever unless they want to leave. If the Greeks were independent, their problems would be none of Germany's business. You can see why they're enraged by each other. But the two economies are yoked together, despite their mismatched sizes and fiscal policies. The UK as a large, strong economy is more toward the German end of the spectrum.

5. Sovereignty: The people of Greece, Portugal and Spain all voted-in governments in the last few years who?s plans/election promises have been over-ruled by the EU. Greece, twice voted in a government on an Anti-Austerity platform, but the EU/IMF twice ignored the public vote and imposed onerous austerity. Doesn?t sound democratic to me. Furthermore, while there is uncertainty of Leaving, I think there is also uncertainty of staying in. Who knows what the EU will decide to impose next. Say, Italy defaults, then the EU ask for another few billion in contributions, there is very little the UK can do about it, other than comply. At least by Leaving, our uncertainty is our own, not the uncertainty of 27 other countries as well. The counter argument to this would be the strength in combining resources, well, I take the view that the UK is one of the stronger parties in the EU, so will more often than not be the giver, rather than the receiver of the benefits of the pooled resources of the EU.

6. Shutting the UK off from the world: Many of the comments I?ve read from the Remain camp warn us that Leaving will mean closing ourselves off from the rest of the world. I mean, come on? So are they seriously saying that if we are not in the EU, the UK will become North Korea? We will still trade with EU countries, we?ll still cooperate on things like security (do we not share intelligence with the USA because they?re not in the EU?), we?ll still welcome folk from all over the world to the UK, and vice versa. I simply ask myself how is it that other developed economies like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan all manage to play their part on the world stage without being part of the club?

7. Losing workers? rights: So apparently if we leave the EU all those workers rights which we cherish (like annual leave, paid maternity leave, unions etc) are at risk. Yes, many of the workers rights in UK law were originally driven by the adherence to the Social Chapter of the EU Maastricht treaty, but they are now written into UK law, the law will not disappear if we Leave. I personally just can?t see any reasonable government trying to repeal these sorts of basic rights without risking a huge backlash at the following election. It just seems rather far fetched to me that any government could get voted in again after repealing paid maternity leave, for example. The question I ask to people who may be worried about this issue, is ?Would you be less worried if left-wing Jeremy Corbyn was the Prime Minister today?? If the answer is ?yes? then I think you might be conflating two separate issues of long term EU membership with who?s in government right now.

8. Its not about the individuals: My decision has absolutely nothing to do with liking or disliking Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn or anyone else. It?s got nothing to do with whether I like this Tory Government or think they?re Tory scum. Because this decision has very little to do with the politicians of the moment, and much more to do with the next 20-30+ years for the UK. Farage will be a humorous footnote in Wikipedia by the time we reflect on this decision in 30 years, no matter which way we vote.

So to quote from an article I?ve read. ?Yes, leaving the EU might hurt economically in the short term. But in the long term, something more important is at stake: whether our democracy should be real. The UK recently devolved power to Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and it continues to devolve power to its larger cities and regions. There is broad agreement that this has been a good thing. This is the best argument for Brexit: We should extend that devolution of power to our entire nation, too? And by devolving power, this doesn?t mean that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland no longer ?talk? to each other, just as the UK would still be an active member of the European continent, even if not in the European Union.

Neither Leave nor Remain are perfect. Each has its respective positives and negatives. Leaving is not the ?silver bullet?, but on balance it?s where I?m leaning. If you want to Remain, that?s cool, I respect that view and see how that makes sense to some people. Either way I just hope the majority of people are considering all the issues and not getting caught up in the mud-slinging and insults of this terrible campaign.

[TheCat]

It's in no way bulletproof . It's raw thoughts from 2016. But it shows I had thoughts, and you could vote for leave and not be a racist twat

[diable rouge]

I'm glad you added that caveat at the end...:)

[TheCat]

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm glad you added that caveat at the end...:)

Ha. Sure. No argument is bulletpRoof. Remain or leave or anything......

[Sephiroth]

The fact that you would repost all of that from 2016 despite the last 3 years doesn?t really show you in a good light tho. At least actual racists have their racism for voting leave

The thing about leave voters is they continue to project this air of ?noble cause? that just doesn?t exist anywhere else really. Sovereignty. Immigration. Blah blah blah

Why don?t the Irish, the French, the Portuguese (etc etc) care about these mighty principles in the same way? Why don?t they come up with the same ?solution??

[TheCat]

Sephiroth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The fact that you would repost all of that from

> 2016 despite the last 3 years doesn?t really show

> you in a good light tho. At least actual racists

> have their racism for voting leave

>

> The thing about leave voters is they continue to

> project this air of ?noble cause? that just

> doesn?t exist anywhere else really. Sovereignty.

> Immigration. Blah blah blah

>

> Why don?t the Irish, the French, the Portuguese

> (etc etc) care about these mighty principles in

> the same way? Why don?t they come up with the same

> ?solution??

Seriously. Sephiroth. F#ck off.

All you want to do is sh-t on anyone who doesn't agree with you. You're a small minded embarrassment. Take a leaf out of someone like Diablo Rouge' book. Who clearly disagree violent with me, but can still be a normal person and engage with someone who disagree with them.

[Sephiroth]

?All you want to do is sh-t on anyone who doesn't agree with you.?

Not true. Brexit isn?t some intellectual disagreement. It?s a fundamental rift with serious real world outcomes. Notable in your repost was no attempt to address Northern Ireland for example. You can tell me to f@@@ off all you like

But the problems caused by your arrogance won?t go away. And that?s nothing to do with my opinion

[Sephiroth]

?

The thing about leave voters is they continue to project this air of ?noble cause? that just doesn?t exist anywhere else really. Sovereignty. Immigration. Blah blah blah

Why don?t the Irish, the French, the Portuguese (etc etc) care about these mighty principles in the same way? Why don?t they come up with the same ?solution???

This question isn?t aimed at the cat specifically. It?s a general question - why is it that no other eu country seems to worry about these issues AND think leaving the eu is then answer? (Although I don?t think enough Brits still think this way. The remainernow website shows a bunch of genuinely thoughtful leave voters currently trapped by an insistence they aren?t allowed to change their minds)

[diable rouge]

Some Brexiters like Roland Smith (

) tried to intellectualise Eurosceptism/Brexit, but gave up as it metamorphosed into the extreme version you see today with the No Dealers. He's no Remainer but now advocates revoking...

''No way back for the Leave movement - they'll just keep going 'at all costs' which is why I got off the bus quite some time ago. They aren't riding a tiger - they are the tiger.''

ETA: link added