What disaster?Originally Posted by Loki
More like people have had a shock but once that wears off and our economy is still strong this fear won't work.
What disaster?
More like people have had a shock but once that wears off and our economy is still strong this fear won't work.
Rubbish, you are still in the EU so there's no way of telling what life is like outside. For all we know 'project fear' is the rosy scenario.
Congratulations America
And why would the EU officials not notice the popular support? It's not like Brexit even came FROM a national parliament, if it had been up to Westminster, the UK would not be withdrawing. Maybe, just maybe, you're just throwing every negative thing along with the kitchen sink and blaming it on Brexit, while simultaneously sneering and saying that it did not and cannot have any effect on the EU and does nothing but make the UK irrelevant. Which is what I expect from someone who is doing nothing but letting his prejudging do his thinking. You know your answer before you even know the topic, much less any details or context.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
That's just speculation. For all we know "project hope" is a negative scenario. There's not been a disaster yet though.
It's not obvious that the commission would have had time to notice this "surge" of support before the decision to implement this as a mixed agreement.
Further, even if they had noticed it, it should not be expected to have a significant impact on their decision. These possible signs of increased popular support are not reassuring enough. The so-called "surge" seems to be small, and, given the methodology, it's also fair to question whether or not it is even real (could be that moderately pro-EU panelists have just become more slightly more inclined to actually participate and express their views). Meanwhile, things still seem uncertain in France, the Netherlands and Austria.
Finally, while there may be signs of increased support for the EU now, this may be a risky attempt to shore up support for the future. The EU can hope to improve its image somewhat wrt democratic rule. Strong-ish pro-EU governments may hope to use this as a part of their election-campaign ("vote for us or these idiots will ruin this amazing trade-deal").
If that is the case I believe they are underestimating their opponents and the power of foolishness as well as the strength of the real "Project Fear" which has been able to capitalize on the fear of the outside world fairly effectively.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Because the British parliament did listen to the people by having the referendum and then losing it? Ditto for the Swiss (though that was obviously more expected). Plus, the article makes clear that the surge in support isn't equally distributed. France and Italy are still major problems. Making policy on the basis of averages is stupid.
And sorry, but when I see just about every expert on a topic on one side and all the racists on the other, I tend to take a dim view of the other side. At this pace, you're on track to being a Trump apologist come November. But things might not get worse!
Hope is the denial of reality
Only if you're wilfully blind is "just about every expert" on one side and even then that is insufficient.
I see nothing from you to address why you wouldn't have in the 80s backed "the experts" and opposed Thatchers reforms. Would we still be mired in 1970s socialism if it was up to you and "the experts"?
If you're incapable of thinking for yourself you're no better than a parrot.
Bullshit. There was no consensus on Thatcher's reforms.
If "thinking for yourself" means ignoring everyone you disagree with, that's called narcissism. Have you ever read an academic publication? You know, the part with the literature review? Acknowledging the contributions of other experts is a key part of science. Ignoring those experts is the mark of an idiot.
Hope is the denial of reality
As mentioned previously, this is a mischaracterisation. There was a group of experts who represented one interpretation of a dominant theory, not a general consensus. Both their analysis and subsequent idolization of Thatcher overlooks the fact that other factors--both things she did and things that just happened elsewhere--also likely influenced the outcome. "Always disregard any and all experts you dislike" is not the right lesson to learn from that event. Being cautious and sceptical is a better lesson to learn.
The argument you use is a little weird because it doesn't take into consideration the possibility that we may have learned some other things since the 80s in addition to learning about the problems with expert opinion. Do you generally prefer to base your decisions on state-of-the-art knowledge from the 50s rather than from the 80s, all else being equal?
Granted science has, in all its more or less strict forms, taken a lot of detours over the centuries. Nevertheless, for the most part, I believe it's moved forward towards better understanding rather than the opposite. I presumed, from your faith in humans' ability to neutralize any harmful consequences of our folly through science, that you were of a similar opinion.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
If that's the case, than Loki is off-base and a horse's ass due to the way he's crowing about these results.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Even if the increase in support is real it shouldn't be expected to have any real influence on the commission's decision one way or the other. The decision came before opinion-poll findings and the anti-EU sentiment remains strong. I can't see how either of you are particularly right on this one. Maybe we all need a nice stiff drink or something.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm not the one ignoring everyone I disagree with, you are. I'm disagreeing with those I disagree with. Shocking, right. I've also given the reasons why I disagree with them, I disagree with their assumptions and thus disagree with their conclusion. Considering what has happened since, the evidence is mounting that I was right to question the assumption that we would get no new trade deals we don't currently have given that we have had expressions of interest from lots of nations already in the weeks post-Brexit and our Business Secretary has already gone to India to start negotiations on a new trade deal with the world's soon to be most populace nation. A trade deal we would not have inside the EU, a trade deal not modelled by the unreasonably small-c conservative "experts".
You are the one acting like the long term head of the CBI, the long term Governor of the Bank of England etc either don't exist or are not experts (not sure which you refuse to even acknowledge they exist so it seems the first). Along with the many expert institutions that said that Leaving could be a positive for us.
I am being serious, acknowledging other points of view and saying why I think they are wrong. You are just acting like "well everyone agrees with me so I'm right so there" while point blank ignoring the many people who disagree with you. So you under your own definition are being an idiot.
I do think we have progressively moved on and I think leaving the EU is a part of that progress. Regional Trade blocs may have made sense in the 1950s to 1970s when the world was massive and expensive to travel around so what primarily mattered was just your neighbours.
The world has moved on since then. When the foundations for the EU were laid there was no internet, no world wide web, no globalisation, no fast and cheap transatlantic flights and no World Trade Organisation. Life has moved on in the past 60 years and we are moving on too.
The Americans aren't just doubling down on NAFTA seeking "ever closer union" within NAFTA while turning their backs on the rest of the world. They're doing the exact opposite, they've signed the TPP (which a member of the Obama administration has now suggested we could sign post-Brexit) while NAFTA consequently is diminishing, not increasing, in significance. Far from seeking ever closer union in NAFTA it is being moved on from as a stepping stone to better and greater things.
But as long as we are in the EU we are trapped and can't move on. We're not going backwards, we are leaving an antiquated, sclerotic and inward looking bloc and instead globalising and learning the lessons of recent decades and doing what the rest of the world (including America) is doing.
Embracing the world and not a tiny corner of it. Embracing globalisation and not religionalisation. There is a reason no other bloc in the world is replicating what Europe is doing, not one.
PS had as I hoped the EU been open to reform we could have embraced the world and remained in the EU but that isn't possible so we have no choice but to leave to progress.
I think the support is a transient reaction to the shock of Brexit actually being voted for, resulting as shocks often do in a surge of "cling to nurse for fear of something worse". However when our economy is not killed and metaphorically eaten by a lion as the poem goes, that fear will go away. If we succeed in our experiment then rather than being frightened by our experience it could dispel Project Fear altogether and turbocharge Project Hope.
So it would be a good idea to build something to positively believe in while there is still a chance as fear is no bulwark against a stiff upper lip.
The question was about science and/or expert opinion.
Froman is the same official who previously said, very clearly, that the UK would find itself at the back of the queue because the Obama administration is more interested in making large multilateral deals and of course because the UK would have to begin from square 1. This is believable based on the administration's efforts and of course because there are currently no trade negotiations with the UK.The Americans aren't just doubling down on NAFTA seeking "ever closer union" within NAFTA while turning their backs on the rest of the world. They're doing the exact opposite, they've signed the TPP (which a member of the Obama administration has now suggested we could sign post-Brexit) while NAFTA consequently is diminishing, not increasing, in significance. Far from seeking ever closer union in NAFTA it is being moved on from as a stepping stone to better and greater things.
His more recent comments aren't a reversal of that position. What he's said is that the US would obv. want to have some sort of beneficial trade relationship with the UK. He speculated that the UK may join the TTIP depending on how their negotiations with the EU go. He didn't rule out the alternative of joining the TPP instead, and said he'd "heard of some people" suggesting it, but that's not something to inspire confidence.
The TPP, though it has been signed, is far from ratified. The Obama administration is on its way out. You have one presidential candidate apparently strongly opposed, another who seems to be opposed to the agreement in its current form, almost all Democratic congressmen opposed and a number of senior Republicans who have serious reservations. The opinions of the other countries who'll be party to the agreement are unclear. At best you might be looking at a couple of years of uncertainty and renegotiations and that's without the prospect of the UK seeking to join. The TTIP, similarly, is far from a done deal.
All Froman's comments do is confirm something we already know (the US will trade with the UK), not rule out something that can't be ruled out (we don't know if the UK will or will not be able to join the TPP or the TTIP), reduce investor-anxiety (similar to Obama's recent comments) and signal, once again, that they think of the future in terms of the UK joining a larger agreement rather than in terms of striking a bilateral deal.
As for NAFTA, I'm not sure why you're comparing NAFTA to the EU because the two do not have the same purposes.
The phrase "ever closer union" doesn't represent some sort of sneak attack on the UK, it has appeared in treaties relating to the EU and its predecessors from the very beginning and the sentiment underlying that phrase has been made clear time and time again. It's clear that what has always been sought is political and social union. The notion of the EU and its predecessors all being steps on the way to a form of European Federation has also been there almost from the very beginning. Your leaders and representatives could read and use their brains. They apparently welcomed that "ever closer union" long before there was a single market.
To imply that the UK actually joined a free trade agreement and then was somehow tricked by tricksy isolationist European tricksters into a political union is inaccurate. The union is the point. The free trade is a feature of that union, an important perk. It's kinda like how sex or shared finances may be important features in a committed, loving relationship. No-one's gonna buy the story that you were actually only signing up for regular sex and convenient financial cooperation and was later tricked into the whole relationship thing.
The remarks about embracing the rest of the world are also extraordinarily ironic considering the attitudes that drove and ultimately enabled the UK to leave the EU.
Last edited by Aimless; 07-10-2016 at 02:17 AM.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I know that, hence my response. There is no solid state of permanent expert opinion which is why we're moving on from a failed 1950s based institution.
What they show is that we have moved on from America trying to bully the UK into remaining in the EU as Obama tried to do (which I think probably backfired, just as it would have if the UK PM had tried to threaten the American electorate) and onto determining how a new trade deal will be signed rather than if.Froman is the same official who previously said, very clearly, that the UK would find itself at the back of the queue because the Obama administration is more interested in making large multilateral deals and of course because the UK would have to begin from square 1. This is believable based on the administration's efforts and of course because there are currently no trade negotiations with the UK.
His more recent comments aren't a reversal of that position. What he's said is that the US would obv. want to have some sort of beneficial trade relationship with the UK. He speculated that the UK may join the TTIP depending on how their negotiations with the EU go. He didn't rule out the alternative of joining the TPP instead, and said he'd "heard of some people" suggesting it, but that's not something to inspire confidence.
The TPP, though it has been signed, is far from ratified. The Obama administration is on its way out. You have one presidential candidate apparently strongly opposed, another who seems to be opposed to the agreement in its current form, almost all Democratic congressmen opposed and a number of senior Republicans who have serious reservations. The opinions of the other countries who'll be party to the agreement are unclear. At best you might be looking at a couple of years of uncertainty and renegotiations and that's without the prospect of the UK seeking to join. The TTIP, similarly, is far from a done deal.
All Froman's comments do is confirm something we already know (the US will trade with the UK), not rule out something that can't be ruled out (we don't know if the UK will or will not be able to join the TPP or the TTIP), reduce investor-anxiety (similar to Obama's recent comments) and signal, once again, that they think of the future in terms of the UK joining a larger agreement rather than in terms of striking a bilateral deal.
Realistically though negotiations won't commence in earnest until the current lame duck has had his successor elected.
Really? The purpose of one being to remove trade barriers and increase trade, the purpose of us being in the other is to remove trade barriers and increase trade. Not remotely the same purpose is it?As for NAFTA, I'm not sure why you're comparing NAFTA to the EU because the two do not have the same purposes.
We were explicitly told in the 1970s that is NOT what was meant.The phrase "ever closer union" doesn't represent some sort of sneak attack on the UK, it has appeared in treaties relating to the EU and its predecessors from the very beginning and the sentiment underlying that phrase has been made clear time and time again. It's clear that what has always been sought is political and social union. The notion of the EU and its predecessors all being steps on the way to a form of European Federation has also been there almost from the very beginning. Your leaders and representatives could read and use their brains. They apparently welcomed that "ever closer union" long before there was a single market.
No we were interested in the trade only, which is what we were told we were buying.To imply that the UK actually joined a free trade agreement and then was somehow tricked by tricksy isolationist European tricksters into a political union is inaccurate. The union is the point. The free trade is a feature of that union, an important perk. It's kinda like how sex or shared finances may be important features in a committed, loving relationship. No-one's gonna buy the story that you were actually only signing up for regular sex and convenient financial cooperation and was later tricked into the whole relationship thing.
Besides which, a mistake years ago should be fixable. I was interested in a trading organisation, I'm not interested in a political union. So what are we supposed to do in your eyes? Are we supposed to go "whoops we've signed up for a political union, oh well a union it is" or do we say "this isn't what we want so let's leave".
You've already made it abundantly clear you haven't the foggiest idea the attitudes that drove and ultimately enabled the UK to leave the EU. Without people like me who want to embrace the rest of the world and leave a protectionist political union behind there isn't a chance the leave side would have got anywhere close to 52%.The remarks about embracing the rest of the world are also extraordinarily ironic considering the attitudes that drove and ultimately enabled the UK to leave the EU.
So it is exactly that attitude that enabled the UK to leave.
This will inevitably get less attention than Farage's bombastic nonsense in the European Parliament, but is much more sensible, serious and pleasant:
What makes you think it matters? Our relationship with you will be ruled by our interests, not by the choice of words of the people who represent you.
Congratulations America
Our relationship with you will be ruled by the intersect of your interests and our interests.
Our interests will be represented by those who are sane like Hannan and not stark raving fruitcakes, nuts and loons like Farage.
Then you were bloody morons. The purpose of the EU is listed in its founding documents. Don't you guys read what you sign?
And I'm pretty sure that's not what you were told, also.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
There are different ways to interpret guff like that phrase. Nowhere does it say political union or single nation.
I've just provided a quote where its exactly what we were told, did you not read it?And I'm pretty sure that's not what you were told, also.
Either way its moot. A decision was made in the 1975 referendum to stay in an economic union (not political union) and then it became a political union. Whether that was always the intention or not is moot. If we want an economic trade area and not a political union then what is the logical thing to do in your eyes? Stay in the political union we don't want because we joined it years ago, or say so long and thanks for [taking] all the fish?
There was never a doubt that there would be some sort of trade relationship. What this shows is that the US now has to do what little it can to assuage investors' anxiety brought on by this daft move and that the UK's position is about as unfavorable as Obama and Froman said it would likely be. Sure, you're in the queue, but you're at the back of it.
Pretty much every single treaty of the EU and its predecessors made it perfectly clear that this was a political project with political and social union as its ultimate goal. That has been the guiding principle pretty much right from the outset, since long before the single market came into being. Like I said, it's like saying regular sex and better finances are the purposes of establishing a loving, committed relationship. The loving relationship part is the point. Sex and finances are important features.Really? The purpose of one being to remove trade barriers and increase trade, the purpose of us being in the other is to remove trade barriers and increase trade. Not remotely the same purpose is it?
Oh god. You really believe that, don't you. Jesus.We were explicitly told in the 1970s that is NOT what was meant.
No we were interested in the trade only, which is what we were told we were buying.
Earth to echo-chamber. No, you really weren't misled. Your political representatives had brains. They knew how to read. They knew what they were doing.
If anyone was misled, it was the rest of Europe, by the Brits. You guys wasted a good thing.
Yes yes I realize you've suddenly fallen out of love after a lifetime together, and maybe there never was any true love from your side to begin with, and certainly you should be allowed to file for divorce if you're so unhappy and so certain that this can't be fixed. But that doesn't mean you get to lie about how this went down.Besides which, a mistake years ago should be fixable. I was interested in a trading organisation, I'm not interested in a political union. So what are we supposed to do in your eyes? Are we supposed to go "whoops we've signed up for a political union, oh well a union it is" or do we say "this isn't what we want so let's leave".
No, you have made it abundantly clear that you don't know what your own side really thought. You keep making the mistake of thinking that everyone voted for the same reason as you. Unfortunately, they did not. I can see how you might have gotten a different impression from previous discussions. You've concluded that only a small portion of your electorate are outright racists and that that must mean that the attitudes that enabled Brexit must be good. Unfortunately, racism is just the extreme end of the spectrum and that small portion is likely also an underestimation. Xenophobia is far more widespread. Islamophobia is more widespread. Opposition to immigration is more widespread. And, surprise surprise, a desire to reduce immigration was one of the most important reasons--if not the most important--given by voters for choosing to leave the EU. The implied promise (lie) was to drastically reduce immigration down to the tens of thousands. Oops.You've already made it abundantly clear you haven't the foggiest idea the attitudes that drove and ultimately enabled the UK to leave the EU. Without people like me who want to embrace the rest of the world and leave a protectionist political union behind there isn't a chance the leave side would have got anywhere close to 52%.
So it is exactly that attitude that enabled the UK to leave.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
"... and enabling us to become one of the world's strongest economies in exchange."
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Unlike most people here, I was in the UK in the seventies of the 20th century. It felt a bit like stepping into a third world country. Pleasantly affordable though, I remember chauffeur driven Bentley's on that trip. I wonder if it's going to be like that again.
Congratulations America
Probably not, certainly not in major cities. The situation in the 70s developed over a long time of mismanagement and general decline. The UK today, having grown fat on the benefits of being in the EU, is likely to be more resilient as a country. Many people will be hurt by this but the country as a whole should be able to manage. Londoners will be upset about the flight of European "masseuses" but Brits will be there to take their place.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Then you're bloody morons for having to have everything spelled out for you.
Could we have a source from someone else but your own bloody prime minister who, as we have seen, is obviously unable to read a document (or simply lied, something your politicians seem to have a very good track record in.)?I've just provided a quote where its exactly what we were told, did you not read it?
And if you don't want a political union then don't bloody join one, you idiots!
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
There was no lying involved. Both the PM and the MPs who debated the matter at the time knew they weren't just joining a trade agreement. The newspapers realized it. Commentators realized it. Presumably any voters who could read understood it. Previously the federalist ambitions had been acknowledged. A closer political and social union was always the goal.
However, I believe it's reasonable to say that few people really foresaw the extent to which the EU would come to influence even domestic matters and esp. legislation. I can see why one might object to laws--or precedent-setting interpretations thereof--being made by an institution over which one can exert little direct and meaningful influence.
At the same time, it's not as if British MEPs have voted against the EU very often until recently. When the UK has been so inclined, it's helped shape a lot of EU policy, presumably in good ways. Unfortunately it has also very often--right from the beginning--been inclined to just bitch and moan and squander its political capital on nonsense instead of forging good relationships that could help it improve the EU.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It's not like the UK signed a series of treaties that pretty explicitly called for ever closer union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
Maybe the Brits can learn to read the treaties which they sign? Or perhaps the British government should stop lying to its own people about the obligations it willingly entered into.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm pretty certain the British government was the driving force behind some of the developments contained in those treaties. The biggest lie of all is that the referendum was needed to settle the relationship with the rest of the EU. Its only purpose was to end internal divisions in the conservative party. Well that worked out just fine.It's not like the UK signed a series of treaties that pretty explicitly called for ever closer union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_European_Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maastricht_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Treaty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Nice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lisbon
Maybe the Brits can learn to read the treaties which they sign? Or perhaps the British government should stop lying to its own people about the obligations it willingly entered into.
Congratulations America
Ya gotta remember one important thing though: it's never been all that clear just to what extent the British govt. actually represents the British people
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote