Printable View
You're ignoring the obvious fact that you're not going to get a new trade deal with the US any time soon. :bored:
Incidentally, the pound is now at a 35-year low, and the Bank of England is pumping 150 billion pounds (whatever that's worth in monopoly money) into the economy.
Does only soon matter? I voted for our long term best interests. Will we in the long term get a trade deal with the US that US Presidential candidates and Leader of the House etc have said should now be possible?
Also the US is only one of the many nations we can now make a deal with. One nation worth more than the entire EU27 combined of course.
Bank of England doing its job. Good, glad we kept it and are not relying on the sclerotic ECB.
It would be extremely valuable for any country to have a trade deal with the USA. However, to get a good deal having a deal with you has to be extremely valuable for the USA as well. If you're offering not quite so much, in the end you may feel hoodwinked when the deal is ratified. Example; China - Switzerland.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
As for the effectiveness of the actions by the BoE; given that the last serious weapons have been used a long time ago it's somewhat difficult to see if the economy is really going to be fired up by yet another wad of cash.
I don't think the intention is to fire-up the economy, I think it is to prevent it drying up.
It is inevitable that the costs of leaving the EU/uncertainty are more immediate while the bonus of self-governance and free trade are more long term. It is short-term cost versus long-term opportunity.
If the short-term cost can be minimised then that just leaves the long-term opportunities.
The US doesn't need the UK. The UK, however, needs access to some kind of market.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If you think that you'll get any kind of favourable deal out of this, you're deluded. Also, how fast exactly do you think such trade deals are enacted? Talks for something like that usually take an amount of time measured in years. And not a number you can usually count on one hand either.
And "the bonus of free trade"? You morons just turned your backs on "free trade". What exactly makes you think that the US won't want some kind of strong assurance that you won't break off a trade deal when you feel uncomfortable with it once again?
... and the long-term costs...Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Don't bother him with such real-life consequences. He'd rather be high than sane.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Well, we can't exclude the possibility that they pull this off. However, trying to copy Singapore may be a trifle difficult if you are not just London City.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Lonxit?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
A little too black and white for my taste. You know you don't need a single market for trade. How do you think those iPhones and Galaxy S are getting to your Media Markt and Saturn?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
Singapore is much larger than the City of London. Maybe you mean Greater London, that would be comparable in size.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Right. So, all this talking about "Access to markets" is unneccessary. Because they already have access to markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Remind me again why there's a crisis then if trade deals are such a small deal like you try to make it out to be?
The fun part: You're talking about things being "too black and white". And then promptly commit the same sin by essentially stating that all market access is equal and there are no such things as tariffs and import taxes. Bravo!
Where did I said that :confused:
You can't just simple rise your import taxes the way you want. You have to obey WTO rules while doing so. And opposite to China you will have to apply the tariff rules for free market economy.
So what? Just because it doesn't need it doesn't mean they won't want it. We are a well off, comparably cultured nation with a large economy. There is opportunity for both sides. You may be used to turning your nose up at opportunities that are not geographically proximate but it doesn't mean everyone has to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I'm reasonably confident we could have a number of deals within a decade from now and that is being conservative. Life doesn't end tomorrow.Quote:
If you think that you'll get any kind of favourable deal out of this, you're deluded. Also, how fast exactly do you think such trade deals are enacted? Talks for something like that usually take an amount of time measured in years. And not a number you can usually count on one hand either.
No you moron we turned our back on a political union. You gleefully pointed out to me that the EU is not just a trade agreement days before the vote to which I rolled my eyes and thought yes and that's what's wrong with it. So don't try and change your story now and say it's just a trade agreement.Quote:
And "the bonus of free trade"? You morons just turned your backs on "free trade". What exactly makes you think that the US won't want some kind of strong assurance that you won't break off a trade deal when you feel uncomfortable with it once again?
At this point it's prudent to ask what Randblade would take as evidence that Brexit was a poor decision.
Like, what hypothetical event or chain of events would convince him that it was an error?
I probably should just have said London. But the point is not the difference in size between the two cities, but the fact that one of them is dragged down by a country well left behind in economic terms, where the other isn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
You could say that all the north, wales and the south west need is a good dose of undiluted capitalism to get them back in shape. And I might even agree with you, but I don't know if the people of those regions have the stomach for it. They might punish a government going that way at the ballot box.
About five years hindsight and we have no trade deal with the EU, no trade deal with anyone else, an economy that's depressed and unemployment like that in the Eurozone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
Right now nothing had happened yet.
Scottish independence would give the reality jolt that part of Northern Britain needs. They'd have to take responsibility for themselves rather than blame every ill on London.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
At this point probably nothing. The reality is that the fact that there is no answer to what the UK will look like in 10 years from now, but that models show that it's not likely that it will be much better off should have been enough reason not to risk it. We're not talking about putting some extra money in stocks, it's betting the entire future of the nation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
That may be so, but in elections they are also voters. So a government could be elected which is not all about people standing on their own feet and a lot more about re-distribution. Not every leader is Maggie Thatcher.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I believe I can help you out here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Utd4wKUU06M
That's a high threshold to pass. :rolleyes: Is that what you think would have happened to Britain had it stayed in the EU? Considering that you claim Brexit is in Britain's interest, surely you should expect the outcome to be better than what was going to happen? Or is that too logical?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
The bottom line is that Brexit is not going to get anybody his or her country back. The sovereignty will no longer be pooled, but the UK will be subservient.
That's cowardice and managed decline, we've had enough of that in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Why should there not be a high threshold either direction? What would have to happen for you to consider as proof that Brexit was a good idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The very nature of this change means that costs/uncertainty is likely to be "front loaded" and the opportunities that we are seeking are more long-term. So long-term I view the outcome as being better, which is why it will take a few years at least to judge. Judging after a week is ridiculous. What I said would be a failure because we'd have paid the costs without getting any of the expected benefits and with no sign of benefits to come.
If Brexit turns out to be economically cost/benefit neutral then it would still be a good thing as more democratic control and accountability is in itself a good thing. You have said in the past that you would not countenance EU style free migration into the USA calling the very idea "insane". You have refused to ever say you'd support other nations writing your laws, in the same way as under QMV the Eurozone can write our laws.
A quick Google search brings up this post from four years ago of Hazir gleefully gloating that QMV means we don't get a say over the writing of laws and the Eurozone will turn on the financial sector. That is not the first time or last either, it has been a repeated theme for years from Hazir that the UK is powerless within the EU and the Eurozone will use QMV to write our laws without us. I didn't think that was true and Hazir was wrong, but statistics in recent years that I saw during the campaign showed Hazir to be right. QMV laws is a bad thing in itself so if the cost/benefits are neutral then Brexit was a good idea. The EU has to be a positive in its own right to justify an end to democratic accountability. Leaving the EU is the only solution to the problem Hazir was gloating about here.
How much would you value your democracy for? How much better off (or neutral) would you have to be to allow non-Americans to write your laws against your democratic wishes? How many pieces of silver would you require to allow Mexico to be given free reign over changing your laws at will? For any discussion of the EU, consider the UK which is my nation to be America and the rest of the EU which is our neighbours Mexico. If you wouldn't give those powers away to your neighbours, why should we?
No it won't any more than Japan is subservient to China. I'd rather be Japanese than Chinese.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Loki perhaps here is a more pertinent to you issue of a proposed devastating regulation that was brought in to damage the city, that you personally brought up (at the end of page 1).
Timbuk2 called it "catastrophic"
You personally said "who the hell is coming up with these regulations" that "would ensure all corporate headquarters move out of Europe".
While Hazir again gloated that "@Timbuk; it's a QMV issue, 'ratification' is not really an issue. As far as I know the UK is the only country opposing the regulation, which means it can't stop it."
How much do you think we should value our own democracy? How much should we measure the "cost" of QMV were at will foreign nations can pass "catastrophic" regulations on us against our will?
The problem with you europhobes you get all emotional when somebody points out a glaring truth to you. I say that the relevance of the UK is limited and am accused of gloating, experts say that Brexit is a leap into the dark and they are accused of engaging in fear mongering. You never come with substantial arguments, everything you say first has to be draped in the flag of 'being the 5th largest economy' (well not any longer) , 'growing faster' (in a very specific timeframe) and the likes. Usually hardly relevant to the issue, but very effective in pulling the wool over an electorate that has been told lies, and bigger lies about the EU for 3 to 4 decades.
So much so that even your socalled 'europhiles' have this funny idea that the EU is un-democratic and Commission run. If there's one thing we have seen over the last years that the fact that the EU is too democratic and not enough centrally run is exactly what's wrong with it. We can't enforce a continent wide policy in quite the same way the US government can. Leaving us behind in the dust as we try to recover from the financial crisis that started in 2008. Whatever reform the EU needs is up in the air, what is obviously clear the needed reform is not any roll-back that is the stuff of chauvinist cavemen's wet dreams.
The EU is undemocratic. My nation can be outvoted by foreignors without my electorate getting a say. You may call that democracy, hundreds of years of decolonisation disagree. The Americans had a revolution to be able to control their own laws and not have them dictated to them by those overseas. With power should come responsibility to your electorate.
The US is a country, the EU is not. Unless you want to come out as having a country called Europe why should anyone be "running" a continent?
As has been pointed out many times before; the fact that you can be outvoted doesn't mean something is undemocratic. 48% of your voters chose to stay in the EU, yet they are dragged to the exit. Democratic or not ?
They're my compatriots who lost a vote in my nation.
Even if 100% of my compatriots vote the same way my nations law can be changed against our wishes. How is that democratic?
The American colonies wanted to rule themselves not be ruled by the British Parliamentarians. That was a desire for democracy too. The British Parliamentarians were elected (sort of, for that era) but not by American colonists.
If you voted differently to me then that is as irrelevant as if Loki votes different to me. You're not my compatriot.
Again if you think Europe is a country then that'd be different. But that is not what was sold to us.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland can be outvoted by England too, the UK is therefore undemocratic?
On a side note you say that it's in the USAs interest to have a trade deal with you. That may be so, but since you need it, I think you can expect them to dictate terms in their favour. After all, you need it, and trade deals aren't charity. Plus you're much smaller. The Chinese deal with Switzerland is also pretty lopsided for a reason.
Let's face it, if one party needs the deal far more than the other your negotiating position is hampered.
Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have all chosen to be in a country called the United Kingdom. If Scotland wants to control its own destiny it will have to become an independent country. They had a vote on that a couple of years ago and voted to be a part of the UK.
England and the UK have never chosen to be in a country called Europe. We were never asked to join a country called Europe. Again if we were voluntarily members of a country called Europe it would be different, but then we would need to determine if we want to be a part of a country called Europe. We were asked to join an Economic Community that morphed into a political union.
China has a population of 1.357 billion, Switzerland has a population of 8 million. China has 170 times as many people as Switzerland.
America has a population of 301 million, the UK has a population of 64 million. America has less than 5 times as many people as the UK.
I think I see a slight difference there. Plus we will be negotiating directly as ourselves to represent our 64 million people, not be represented by French farmers and German industry etc
I could imagine us reasonably swiftly signing a deal along the lines of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
Prior to the referendum, did you believe that, in five years' time, if the UK chose to remain in the EU,Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
- you wouldn't have unrestricted access to the single market?
- you wouldn't be party to trade deals with any countries or regions outside the EU?
- your economy would be depressed?
- your unemployment situation would be like that of the Eurozone?
It would be surprising to say the least if you answer any of those questions with a "yes".
As a member of the EU you would be guaranteed free access to the single market.
You would also continue to benefit from all association-agreements the EU has with third countries/regions including current and upcoming FTAs.
Given your recent boasts in the discussions leading up to the referendum you cannot have expected the UK's economy to be unreasonably depressed in five years' time or for the coming five years.
For the same reason, you cannot have expected the UK's unemployment situation to have worsened to the point of matching that of the Eurozone today.
None of these factors should have any bearing on your future assessment of whether or not Brexit was a good idea.
All those things being equal, you should believe--as you appear to--that Brexit was a good idea regardless because in some way it lets you regain some of the sovereignty you handed over to the EU.
Ironically, by listing the aforementioned criteria in your response to Steely, you implied that the matter of sovereignty was trumped by issues pertaining to trade, the health of your economy, unemployment etc. In principle that's like acknowledging that selling your sovereignty would be acceptable to you if you were offered thirty-one pieces of silver and a half-off coupon at McDonald's. I'm pretty sure you didn't intend to imply that your sovereignty was for sale (and that it's only a matter of price) so perhaps it would better to be honest and say what you really believe.
Because I don't believe you really feel that any of the above would actually change your opinion on Brexit, I won't ask you to give us a more precise idea of how much depression and unemployment would be okay, how many and how good trade deals you'd require etc.
I thought you conquered them all :p Northern Ireland in particular is there due to war IIRC. Have they ever voted about being a part of Ireland or the UK?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You didn't vote for it directly but you voted for politicians who approved the European position you were in. Which incidentally is also how your new trade deals will be negotiated.
Sure, but like I said you need them more than vice versa which hurts your negotiating position. Why wouldn't they go for a better deal for them if you're desperate, after all? Or do you have a particular reason why they would be nice for you? There's not much kindness in trade deals usually. For your country's sake I hope you're right, but I definitely wouldn't bet on it.Quote:
China has a population of 1.357 billion, Switzerland has a population of 8 million. China has 170 times as many people as Switzerland.
America has a population of 301 million, the UK has a population of 64 million. America has less than 5 times as many people as the UK.
I think I see a slight difference there. Plus we will be negotiating directly as ourselves to represent our 64 million people, not be represented by French farmers and German industry etc
I could imagine us reasonably swiftly signing a deal along the lines of the Trans Pacific Partnership.
No, yes, maybe and no.
Of course we would have access to the single market, that is the sole main benefit for remaining. If we lose that benefit without any new benefits then we've hurt ourselves. If we keep that benefit in our negotiations (which I think we will) and gain new benefits from our independence then that would be a prize worth winning.
As discussed the EU lacks meaningful agreements with third party nations outside of Europe. The opportunity to sign our own is the main economic benefit for leaving. If the benefits don't come to pass then we'll have taken a big risk without the reward.
I don't expect the economy to be depressed. If I did, then it wouldn't count as a reason Brexit had failed. For Brexit to fail then the situation must become worse than the status quo ante.
Again I do not expect our unemployment rate to match that of the failed Eurozone. If it does, we have failed.
I was asked what would represent failure. Each of these failures would represent failure, I don't know what is confusing about that. If there is no failure then Brexit was a good thing for extricating ourselves from the political morass without paying an economic price.
As for whether economics could trump sovereignty, I do rate economics very highly. Enough silver could tempt me, yes. There would have to be a clear economic benefit and or a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers. A case could be made for the latter, it never was in this campaign and the last few years have shown how far away we are from that naive ideal as ever before. Greeks are quite evidently Greeks and not the same as Germans.
Sure, and an economy over six times as large and growing. That will put you on a slightly more equal footing and it will perhaps even make it as easy for you to get a beneficial bilateral trade agreement as it was for Japan and the US to agree to a bilateral agreement despite their economies and population-sizes being much closer to each other. Oh wait, that didn't happen, instead we got a giant multilateral agreement in the form of the TPP.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't think that the ability to switfly get FTAs with the US is simply a matter of relative size wrt population and GDP. There has to be sufficient interest from both parties and a willingness to make concessions. The willingness to make concessions is likely to be greater for the smaller party (in this case the UK), and I believe, historically, the larger party (eg. the US or China) has tended to use that to its advantage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northe...ferendum,_1973Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Agreement
We actually elected a government that promised a referendum on what was then the European Constitution (later the Lisbon Treaty) that gave away a lot of our vetoes and turned a lot of areas into QMV but that promise was reneged on and we ended up with it being ratified without a referendum that would have rejected it. Under traditional Parliamentary democracy "no Parliament can bind its successors" but no future government could reverse the betrayal of the last one by undoing Lisbon.Quote:
You didn't vote for it directly but you voted for politicians who approved the European position you were in. Which incidentally is also how your new trade deals will be negotiated.
I don't think we are desparate, I think it would be nice to have, but not necessary. It is something that would not have rapidly happened within the EU so is a potential added bonus if we get it.Quote:
Sure, but like I said you need them more than vice versa which hurts your negotiating position. Why wouldn't they go for a better deal for them if you're desperate, after all? Or do you have a particular reason why they would be nice for you? There's not much kindness in trade deals usually. For your country's sake I hope you're right, but I definitely wouldn't bet on it.
As we are two similar nations with a similar level of development and similar cultures I think a mutually beneficial deal should be reasonably uncomplicated to reach.
As I've already said I expect the TPP to form a reasonable starting point for negotiations, if we don't simply join that outright.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
What I'm saying is that, as far as economic criteria go, you're setting the bar for Brexit's success very low and the bar for failure extremely high, to the point where we may as well disregard those criteria along with outcomes like "global economical collapse" and "nuclear holocaust" and focus on the one thing that does seem to matter. None of this "heads, I win; tails, you lose, unless London is destroyed by a giant meteor-strike," business.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This too is inconsistent as well as verging on dishonest. On the one hand, you say that enough silver could tempt you to pool some of your sovereignty. On the other hand, you simultaneously add the criterion "willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers".Quote:
As for whether economics could trump sovereignty, I do rate economics very highly. Enough silver could tempt me, yes. There would have to be a clear economic benefit and or a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers. A case could be made for the latter, it never was in this campaign and the last few years have shown how far away we are from that naive ideal as ever before. Greeks are quite evidently Greeks and not the same as Germans.
What you're saying is that there would have to be:
EITHER
a clear economic benefit
AND
a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers
OR
just a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers
In other words, a clear economic benefit would clearly not be enough. Unless of course you're trying to say that for yet more silver you would be willing to disregard the willingness to become a European citizen as well, which I don't believe to be the case.
The comparison with the US is a little puzzling considering how a significant portion of people living in England think of themselves as either "English, not British" or "More English than British".
As for this:
As noted previously, in addition to the many association agreements the EU has with a large number of small countries, it also has FTAs in force with South Korea and Mexico, concluded negotiations on agreements with Canada and Singapore (undermined by your Euroskeptic pals but still on track for provisional implementation awaiting signing and ratification, good job btw on trying to sabotage that) and is hopefully nearing the conclusion of an agreement with Japan.Quote:
As discussed the EU lacks meaningful agreements with third party nations outside of Europe. The opportunity to sign our own is the main economic benefit for leaving.
I am setting the bar for failure of Brexit higher than what the Project Fear projected Brexit would cause. I haven't mentioned World War 3 or any of the other bullshit that was threatened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Considering Remain were arguing that Leaving would cause an economic disaster if not war, I don't think suggesting an economic disaster would be a failure of Brexit is that unreasonable.
Yes. That's not dishonest. It's why the Scots joined the UK, they were economically bankrupt and needed bailing out following the failure of the Darien Scheme. Following Darien they agreed voluntarily (not via war) to merge with England and form a single United Kingdom and a single Parliament in Westminster. The pooling of sovereignty was explicitly agreed to as well as the economic advantages of getting bailed out post-Darien.Quote:
This too is inconsistent as well as verging on dishonest. On the one hand, you say that enough silver could tempt you to pool some of your sovereignty. On the other hand, you simultaneously add the criterion "willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers".
Indeed.Quote:
What you're saying is that there would have to be:EITHER
a clear economic benefitAND
a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New YorkersOR
just a willingness to embrace European citizenship in the same way Americans are Americans and not simply New Yorkers
Case 1 If you already consider yourself a "citizen of Europe" then you likely voted Remain already. You're already there and economic advantages or disadvantages are moot.
Case 2 If you see yourself as British/English etc currently but if you could see an economic advantage to embracing Europe then you are willing to embrace European citizenry in order to receive that advantage then that is an alternative. Both though in this instance are what I would call independently Necessary but Insufficient Criteria. Only if both conditions are met (since you don't view yourself as European already) is being a citizen of Europe appropriate.
Case 3 If you see an economic advantage but refuse to embrace European citizenry in order to get that advantage then that is a die-hard Leave supporter. The economics is neither here nor there in that instance.
I view myself and most of Britain as being in position two. We're willing to embrace Europe if it's worth it. Pure cynical seeking of what is best, not a matter of die hard ideals either way. There are extreme supporters of 1 and 3 but they are a minority. I supported the EU for as long as I saw an economic advantage, earlier this year once I could no longer see an economic advantage* it was no longer worth it.
* The critical turning point in my thinking was learning that the EFTA nations could be in the Single Market AND sign free trade deals rather than wait for French farmers to agree to the lowest common denominator.
You'll have quite a bit of fun with that one, what with the Brexit being a bit incompatible with parts of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade