Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
JPRouve said:
Well, we can discuss about it, it's a point that I actually find interesting. Succinctly, what is your POV?
Click to expand...

If free trade within the EU is good and generates wealth for everyone then why is it a good idea to prevent more free trade by ring-fencing the EU. (Thats the counter argument to putting up post Brexit tariff barriers as well)

The fastest growing markets are outside the western/developed world.

The EU has a shrinking slice of world trade.

The world isn't sat around waiting for the EU to decide it wants to think about trading with it, we are missing opportunities we will never get back.
 
Classical Mechanic said:
What do you by focusing on itself? Somehow reforming the internal politics of it member states with poor performing economies? If so that will likely destroy the EU too. It is suppossed to be a trading block not an all powerful political superstate. Brexit wouldn't have happened without the ever increasing political unification.
Click to expand...
the EU has many flaws. Its trade-policy is non of them.
The single market is reasonably accessible via WTO/GATT rules for other countries and where this is not the case it is mostly down to the EU setting higher standards, which is what its citizens want. People run riot against TTIP, despite it generally not undermining standards (you could argue that it would even promote global standards). The EU has to compromise between reducing trade barriers and maintaining standards, but the same is true for any developed economy.

The EU already has or is negotiating FTAs with most of the important economies (big exceptions are Russia, China, Australia). That takes time because it is complicated. Yet the UK won’t be any faster without abandoning crucial product and consumer standards.
 
PedroMendez said:
the EU has many flaws. Its trade-policy is non of them.
The single market is reasonably accessible via WTO/GATT rules for other countries and where this is not the case it is mostly down to the EU setting higher standards, which is what its citizens want. People run riot against TTIP, despite it generally not undermining standards (you could argue that it would even promote global standards). The EU has to compromise between reducing trade barriers and maintaining standards, but the same is true for any developed economy.

The EU already has or is negotiating FTAs with most of the important economies (big exceptions are Russia, China, Australia). That takes time because it is complicated. Yet the UK won’t be any faster without abandoning crucial product and consumer standards.
Click to expand...

What is the hold up with TTIP?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
If free trade within the EU is good and generates wealth for everyone then why is it a good idea to prevent more free trade by ring-fencing the EU. (Thats the counter argument to putting up post Brexit tariff barriers as well)

The fastest growing markets are outside the western/developed world.

The EU has a shrinking slice of world trade.

The world isn't sat around waiting for the EU to decide it wants to think about trading with it, we are missing opportunities we will never get back.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's me but I have noticed a common theme with people on your side(I apologize for the expression it's not meant badly), you seem to ignore a crucial part of trade which are goods, services, knowledge and workers. You can't and shouldn't expand free trade forever simply because of structural and sometimes legal inequalities, for example the EU already made the mistake to put countries with high work cost in competition with countries with low work cost within the same region, it could be fine if the EU was an actual federation and Brussels was in a position to actually have an influence on territory development but the EU isn't a federation.

What I'm saying is that when you expand free trade to countries with either lower standards or lower structural costs, the only way is the pauperisation of your own standards, for workers it's unemployment or lowered wages or lowered workplace safety and for the consumer generally lowered quality.
 
Whats starting to annoy me is this dithering regarding EU Citizens in the UK and UK Citizens in Europe, living in Germany I do not have a clue what is going to happen. As far as I am concerned those who have work, own houses etc. and pay into the system regardless of here in Europe or back in the UK should not have to worry about what is going to happen. I could go and get German Nationality in a worse case scenario but why should I, despite living in Germany this year for 30 years including time still in the army I am British and wish to stay British.
 
dogrob said:
Whats starting to annoy me is this dithering regarding EU Citizens in the UK and UK Citizens in Europe, living in Germany I do not have a clue what is going to happen. As far as I am concerned those who have work, own houses etc. and pay into the system regardless of here in Europe or back in the UK should not have to worry about what is going to happen. I could go and get German Nationality in a worse case scenario but why should I, despite living in Germany this year for 30 years including time still in the army I am British and wish to stay British.
Click to expand...

No one is suggesting you should be affected as far as I'm aware. On the contrary both the UK and EU have said the rights of existing immigrants will be a priority item to agree when discussions start. So, patience it is then.
 
dogrob said:
Whats starting to annoy me is this dithering regarding EU Citizens in the UK and UK Citizens in Europe, living in Germany I do not have a clue what is going to happen. As far as I am concerned those who have work, own houses etc. and pay into the system regardless of here in Europe or back in the UK should not have to worry about what is going to happen. I could go and get German Nationality in a worse case scenario but why should I, despite living in Germany this year for 30 years including time still in the army I am British and wish to stay British.
Click to expand...
You'll have to wait a bit, you're a bargaining chip at the moment. A strong and stable bargaining chip.
 
JPRouve said:
Maybe it's me but I have noticed a common theme with people on your side(I apologize for the expression it's not meant badly), you seem to ignore a crucial part of trade which are goods, services, knowledge and workers. You can't and shouldn't expand free trade forever simply because of structural and sometimes legal inequalities, for example the EU already made the mistake to put countries with high work cost in competition with countries with low work cost within the same region, it could be fine if the EU was an actual federation and Brussels was in a position to actually have an influence on territory development but the EU isn't a federation.

What I'm saying is that when you expand free trade to countries with either lower standards or lower structural costs, the only way is the pauperisation of your own standards, for workers it's unemployment or lowered wages or lowered workplace safety and for the consumer generally lowered quality.
Click to expand...

I voted to remain. I did not want this argument but since the Uk voted to leave and the debate on here is so one sided and dismissive of the other side I feel compelled to defend it because it does have a point.

Shallow and wide or narrow and deep.
 
dogrob said:
Whats starting to annoy me is this dithering regarding EU Citizens in the UK and UK Citizens in Europe, living in Germany I do not have a clue what is going to happen. As far as I am concerned those who have work, own houses etc. and pay into the system regardless of here in Europe or back in the UK should not have to worry about what is going to happen. I could go and get German Nationality in a worse case scenario but why should I, despite living in Germany this year for 30 years including time still in the army I am British and wish to stay British.
Click to expand...

You realise there's dual citizenship? You don't need to chose. Become part of the country of humour and cousine ;)
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
I voted to remain. I did not want this argument but since the Uk voted to leave and the debate on here is so one sided and dismissive of the other side I feel compelled to defend it because it does have a point.

Shallow and wide or narrow and deep.
Click to expand...

That's how I took it and why I didn't say brexiters, by "your side" I was only talking about the current conversation.:)
 
dogrob said:
I know I have even had post from where I live asking if I wanted to do it but dont want to pay the 255€ it will cost me, also what happens after Brexit? still Dual Nationality or one or the other.
Click to expand...

Only 255€ in exchange for having all your concerns about Brexit taken away? I'd bite your fecking hand off for a deal like that. As for dual nationality after Brexit, it shouldn't change in the slightest. There's no reason why either government would mess with it, it'd require stripping citizenship from people who have had it for decades, and create a huge fuss for absolutely zero gain.

Than again, so was Brexit I suppose..
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Laughing smilies. :lol:
Click to expand...

EU scepticism has been growing for years, based on the reasons the leave arguments were put forward.
The EU referendum should be considered a triumph of democracy because the people voted for Britain to go in the opposite direction recommended by Westminster and the media.
In so doing, it led to the primeminster resigning, and the opposition falling apart.
 
Nigel Farage told Peston on Sunday that Theresa May is draping herself in UKIP's cloak. Well, that's exactly the sort of argument the Lib Dems have been making - although naturally, they see it rather differently from Mr Farage.

The party's foreign affairs spokesman Tom Brake says:

A vote for Theresa May is now a vote for Nigel Farage. There's no need for UKIP because the Conservatives have become UKIP. Nigel Farage has admitted that they are using his words and standing on his manifesto and Paul Nuttall is standing down candidates against them. Conservative voters shouldn't be fooled. They are being asked to support a party that Farage feels at home in."

Courtesy of BBC
 
vidic blood & sand said:
EU scepticism has been growing for years, based on the reasons the leave arguments were put forward.
The EU referendum should be considered a triumph of democracy because the people voted for Britain to go in the opposite direction recommended by Westminster and the media.
In so doing, it led to the primeminster resigning, and the opposition falling apart.
Click to expand...
The article is a detailed piece of investigative journalism regarding the use of analytical models and social media to influence democratic elections by unelected super rich individuals. It is not a debate on whether either the leave or remain side were right, but that elections, especially tight ones where marginal swings can be critical, are being manipulated by wealthy self interested parties. Had you read the article you would know this, rather than simply assuming the articles content and position. Sorry to quote the Observer, but unfortunately the Mail is too concerned blaming benefit scroungers for Kim Kardashian's arse or something, whilst the Observer actually has some genuine journalists left.

Also, whilst I really don't want to go there, the people voting against the Government is technically correct, even though the leave campaign was actively backed and lead by key members of said govt, but the media being pro EU is a pretty difficult position to justify.
 
Sultan said:
Nigel Farage told Peston on Sunday that Theresa May is draping herself in UKIP's cloak. Well, that's exactly the sort of argument the Lib Dems have been making - although naturally, they see it rather differently from Mr Farage.

The party's foreign affairs spokesman Tom Brake says:

A vote for Theresa May is now a vote for Nigel Farage. There's no need for UKIP because the Conservatives have become UKIP. Nigel Farage has admitted that they are using his words and standing on his manifesto and Paul Nuttall is standing down candidates against them. Conservative voters shouldn't be fooled. They are being asked to support a party that Farage feels at home in."

Courtesy of BBC
Click to expand...
The Lib Dem's tactic won't work here. The Tory voters are, by and large, happily voting for a party with UKIP policies. It's what they believe in.
 
PedroMendez said:
@Jippy
The chairman of the supervisory board of UBS EuropeSE said, that he can't see how the UK can get any form of pass-porting/equivalence/agreement that allows it the freely access the EU.
Click to expand...
Makes sense if Switzerland couldn't even get it.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
The article is a detailed piece of investigative journalism regarding the use of analytical models and social media to influence democratic elections by unelected super rich individuals. It is not a debate on whether either the leave or remain side were right, but that elections, especially tight ones where marginal swings can be critical, are being manipulated by wealthy self interested parties. Had you read the article you would know this, rather than simply assuming the articles content and position. Sorry to quote the Observer, but unfortunately the Mail is too concerned blaming benefit scroungers for Kim Kardashian's arse or something, whilst the Observer actually has some genuine journalists left.

Also, whilst I really don't want to go there, the people voting against the Government is technically correct, even though the leave campaign was actively backed and lead by key members of said govt, but the media being pro EU is a pretty difficult position to justify.
Click to expand...

I was simply referring to the title -"The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked."
 
Fingeredmouse said:
The article is a detailed piece of investigative journalism regarding the use of analytical models and social media to influence democratic elections by unelected super rich individuals. It is not a debate on whether either the leave or remain side were right, but that elections, especially tight ones where marginal swings can be critical, are being manipulated by wealthy self interested parties. Had you read the article you would know this, rather than simply assuming the articles content and position. Sorry to quote the Observer, but unfortunately the Mail is too concerned blaming benefit scroungers for Kim Kardashian's arse or something, whilst the Observer actually has some genuine journalists left.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the article leads with the following headline :

The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked

Such is suggestive of a more than incidental level of influence upon the result. Now that's fine if you are an avid Brussels loyalist with the blinders firmly in place, but not so good if you're actually interested in why people voted the way they did. And to recognise the latter, you must first be prepared to accept that the political establishment screwed up rather badly over many years. A very similar brand of complacency helped to bring your own beloved populists in the SNP to power.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
To be fair, the article leads with the following headline :

The great British Brexit robbery: how our democracy was hijacked

Such is suggestive of a more than incidental level of influence upon the result. Now that's fine if you are an avid Brussels loyalist with the blinders firmly in place, but not so good if you're actually interested in why people voted the way they did. And to recognise the latter, you must first be prepared to accept that the political establishment screwed up rather badly over many years. A very similar brand of complacency helped to bring your own beloved populists in the SNP to power.
Click to expand...
I'm not an SNP voter (see the GE thread for prior evidence if you care enough).
The headline is clearly clickbait, but actually reading the article reveals a well researched and highly plausible (at least) attempted hijacking (I deliberately use that word) of democratic process. Given my line of work, I know that the power of such analytics if correctly deployed is enormous - I see the results in business. I find this concerning.

The fact that, in this case, the shadowy cabal of billionaires who represent the establishment happened to be backing your beloved populist leave cause, as well as the far right in several other countries including the US, is ,I'm sure, simply a coincidental alignment with the democratic voice of Britain's population.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
I'm not an SNP voter (see the GE thread for prior evidence if you care enough).
The headline is clearly clickbait, but actually reading the article reveals a well researched and highly plausible (at least) attempted hijacking (I deliberately use that word) of democratic process. Given my line of work, I know that the power of such analytics if correctly deployed is enormous - I see the results in business. I find this concerning.
Click to expand...

If i've mistaken you with another SNP poster, my bad on that. Although the point about Westminster/Labour complacency stands on its own merits i feel.

I have read 12 of the 21 pages thus far, and am yet to see any evidence to suggest that this voter profiling was a pivotal determining factor in the eventual result. Perhaps that is to follow later...
 
Last edited:
vidic blood & sand said:
EU scepticism has been growing for years, based on the reasons the leave arguments were put forward.
The EU referendum should be considered a triumph of democracy because the people voted for Britain to go in the opposite direction recommended by Westminster and the media.
In so doing, it led to the primeminster resigning, and the opposition falling apart.
Click to expand...
On what planet?
 
vidic blood & sand said:
EU scepticism has been growing for years, based on the reasons the leave arguments were put forward.
The EU referendum should be considered a triumph of democracy because the people voted for Britain to go in the opposite direction recommended by Westminster and the media.
In so doing, it led to the primeminster resigning, and the opposition falling apart.
Click to expand...

A yes/no vote, decided by a small majority of people, affecting the lives of generations to come is hardly a triumph of democracy.
People shouldn't fool themselves into believing there is anything democratic about a referendum that completely ignores the oppionion of an extremely large minority. That isn't democracy, that is dictatorship by the people.
Direct democracy is one of the worst ideas ever to be invented, it only leads to the division of society.
 
Nick 0208 Ldn said:
If i've mistaken you with another SNP poster, my bad on that. Although the point about Westminster/Labour complacency stands on its own merits i feel.

I have read 12 of the 21 pages thus far, and am yet to see any evidence to suggest that this voter profiling was a pivotal determining factor in the eventual result. Perhaps that is to follow later...
Click to expand...

Given the narrow margins resulting in the leave victory, even attempts, whether successful or not, of billionaire multi national cabals of billionaires to influence elections in this way is concerning. Even if it was marginal gains...and they'll get better and better at it.
 
fcbforever said:
A yes/no vote, decided by a small majority of people, affecting the lives of generations to come is hardly a triumph of democracy.
People shouldn't fool themselves into believing there is anything democratic about a referendum that completely ignores the oppionion of an extremely large minority. That isn't democracy, that is dictatorship by the people.
Direct democracy is one of the worst ideas ever to be invented, it only leads to the division of society.
Click to expand...

So the democratic vote to remain in the European Community in 1975 was not a triumph of democracy?
 
vidic blood & sand said:
So the democratic vote to remain in the European Community in 1975 was not a triumph of democracy?
Click to expand...
Complex constitutional decisions made on binary public votes are asking for trouble I'd argue, irrespective of outcomes. Too easily manipulated, too complex to expect the population to devote the time to fully understand and, in Britain, that's what parliament is for. So, no, not a triumph of effective democracy in either case.
 
fcbforever said:
A yes/no vote, decided by a small majority of people, affecting the lives of generations to come is hardly a triumph of democracy.
People shouldn't fool themselves into believing there is anything democratic about a referendum that completely ignores the oppionion of an extremely large minority. That isn't democracy, that is dictatorship by the people.
Direct democracy is one of the worst ideas ever to be invented, it only leads to the division of society.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of pluses to direct democracy too, even if this particular question might have been inappropriate to put to referendum.

The people elected the Cameron. Cameron said he'd put forward this referendum if he was elected again. Knowing this, the people elected him again. He then followed through and put the question to the people. Weighing up the options, the people then voted for Brexit. Cameron's party then responds by going back to the people, claiming to want a mandate to bolster their position in negotiating Brexit. The people now look likely to vote them into power again at a canter.

To me that reads like the people are the problem more so than the referendum. You get what you vote for, especially when you vote for it repeatedly.
 
sullydnl said:
There are a lot of pluses to direct democracy too, even if this particular question might have been inappropriate to put to referendum.

The people elected the Cameron. Cameron said he'd put forward this referendum if he was elected again. Knowing this, the people elected him again. He then followed through and put the question to the people. Weighing up the options, the people then voted for Brexit. Cameron's party then responds by going back to the people, claiming to want a mandate to bolster their position in negotiating Brexit. The people now look likely to vote them into power again at a canter.

To me that reads like the people are the problem more so than the referendum. You get what you vote for, especially when you vote for it repeatedly.
Click to expand...

There are zero upsides to direct democracy on a federal level. The only upside is the catering to idiots claiming their voice isn't heard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.