Brexit Begins

[gogobongopop]

Maybe, maybe not.

Blimey, that's not like you.

You OK?

To be fair we should have had a vote on Lisbon [it was in all parties manifestos to have one on the Constitution] and probably prior agreements but we never did. Its funny to see people who were so opposed to giving the public a say in the original 2016 referendum or any previous treaties so desperate to get one now because they are desperate to reverse the last ballot. Whatever happened to not trusting the public and that the MPs should decide?

Hey, I'm all for another vote (which includes remain as an option) but I'll take it like a man if we don't get one. Remainers already lost, so I'm more worried about the Leavers who aren't getting what they wanted. I'm not sure why they aren't pushing for a vote with some new options on, tbh.

[Timbuk2]

Whatever happened to not trusting the public and that the MPs should decide?

Absolutely. If MPs realised that giving the braindead public a vote on complex issues is always a bad idea, which it is, then they should rescind the latest braindead public vote and reinstate the status quo to before this latest almighty fuck up.

[RandBlade]

Probably because the Leavers rightly suspect that this is an attempt to subvert the original vote and not a good faith proposal. Plus unless we're prepared to walk away and get no deal, the incentive is on the EU to give as s**t a deal as is imaginable.

[Unheard Of]

Or the projections are wrong.

How far wrong do think they are, and why?

[RandBlade]

Absolutely. If MPs realised that giving the braindead public a vote on complex issues is always a bad idea, which it is, then they should rescind the latest braindead public vote and reinstate the status quo to before this latest almighty fuck up.

The last "braindead public vote" was the General Election of 2017. If we reverse that it means going back to a Tory overall majority. I'm ok with the Tories having a majority but I'm not sure thats either what you meant, or how I'd want it to be achieved.

[RandBlade]

How far wrong do think they are, and why?

I imagine they are quite wrong.

As for why: GIGO.

Projections are only as good as the assumptions underpinning them.

[gogobongopop]

Probably because the Leavers rightly suspect that this is an attempt to subvert the original vote and not a good faith proposal.

Those pesky remainers, huh. If only they'd shut up, stop opposing things and making life difficult for everyone.

Next thing you know there'll be a political party created with only one policy: join the EU; who'll put pressure on the incumbent government to hold a referendum, and then large aspects of the press will print demonstrable lie after demonstrable lie about all the good things the EU is doing.

If only they would behave just like the Euro-sceptics did.

But anyway, what's actually wrong with having a vote with the following options:

1. May's deal
2. No deal
3. Remain

You seem willing to entertain the idea of a vote with 1 and 2 on it, providing there's time. So why not pop "remain" on there just to check The Will Of The People is still as we think? If people now want to remain, isn't it right to check now that we have a better understanding of the outcome and implications before we start on the next 30-50 of reshaping the country?

[Aimless]

The last "braindead public vote" was the General Election of 2017. If we reverse that it means going back to a Tory overall majority. I'm ok with the Tories having a majority but I'm not sure thats either what you meant, or how I'd want it to be achieved.

This is a stupid comparison. Elections are a different legal entity from advisory referendums. The outcome of an election imposes clear legal obligations. The outcome of an advisory referendum does not, unless such an obligation is specified by some other law.

[Aimless]

I imagine they are quite wrong.

As for why: GIGO.

Projections are only as good as the assumptions underpinning them.

The assumptions underlying your belief that projections are systematically and substantially wrong in a specific direction that makes brexit look much more dangerous than it is likely to be in reality... are garbage.

[gogobongopop]

We don't take kindly to experts and forecasts 'round here.

[Unheard Of]

I imagine they are quite wrong.

As for why: GIGO.

Projections are only as good as the assumptions underpinning them.

Thanks, that's more detailed and better reasoned than I expected. You should be in the cabinet.

[Timbuk2]

The last "braindead public vote" was the General Election of 2017. If we reverse that it means going back to a Tory overall majority. I'm ok with the Tories having a majority but I'm not sure thats either what you meant, or how I'd want it to be achieved.

This is a stupid comparison. Elections are a different legal entity from advisory referendums. The outcome of an election imposes clear legal obligations. The outcome of an advisory referendum does not, unless such an obligation is specified by some other law.

Precisely.

Elections to vote in those you believe are suitably informed, educated, intelligent and equipped to lead, rule, and govern on complex issues to the benefit of the country. Issues which are certainly too complex for the public to understand let alone make decisions on. Otherwise you end up with what we have now; stupid people voting to leave because of barely related shit like keeping the browns out of the country or bendy bananas or something utterly irrelevant they read in the Daily Mail.

I voted in the Tories to lead the country, not to delegate responsibility to those ill-equipped to do so.

[RandBlade]

Those pesky remainers, huh. If only they'd shut up, stop opposing things and making life difficult for everyone.

Next thing you know there'll be a political party created with only one policy: join the EU; who'll put pressure on the incumbent government to hold a referendum, and then large aspects of the press will print demonstrable lie after demonstrable lie about all the good things the EU is doing.

I think that party is called the Liberal Democrats. Probably right about the press, no doubt it will be led at the forefront by the Daily Mail who're already changing editorial line so fast its amazing they don't have whiplash.

But anyway, what's actually wrong with having a vote with the following options:

1. May's deal
2. No deal
3. Remain

You seem willing to entertain the idea of a vote with 1 and 2 on it, providing there's time. So why not pop "remain" on there just to check The Will Of The People is still as we think? If people now want to remain, isn't it right to check now that we have a better understanding of the outcome and implications before we start on the next 30-50 of reshaping the country?

I should have been clearer last time sorry, "No deal" must never be an option. The problem is no deal is both used as a euphemism and a literal phrase, but if you vote for it literally then that'd be insane. Rejecting this deal shouldn't mean rejecting all alternatives.

I said I don't want this deal and that no deal is better than a bad deal, but a good deal is better than no deal. If we vote for "no deal" and thus reject this bad deal, then we get an offer of a good deal giving us what we want and fixing the problems behind why we rejected the original one . . . would you want us to be bound ethically if not legally not to accept a good deal?

[RandBlade]

The assumptions underlying your belief that projections are systematically and substantially wrong in a specific direction that makes brexit look much more dangerous than it is likely to be in reality... are garbage.

The government's projections are systematically wrong in a specific direction and it is because of the bullshit assumptions used. If you put systematically absurd assumptions in a specific direction into your model, then the output will be systematically absurd too. The assumptions used have been ridiculed not simply by Brexiteers but also by serious economists who oppose Brexit like Paul Krugman. The assumptions include:

• There's no economic gain at all from controlling our own policy vs the EU doing it
• There's no gain from future policy change
• GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of the GDP gains the EU estimates from the same deals

As I said. Garbage In, Garbage Out. The idea there's absolutely no possible economic gains from us either controlling or changing our own policies is utter codswallop, why do we even bother having politicians if that's the case? But to claim that new trade deals are worth only 10% of what the EU estimates they're worth? You'd have to be a total sucker to think that's appropriate. So no doubt you do.

[gogobongopop]

I should have been clearer last time sorry, "No deal" must never be an option

I don't understand this. It's clear there's a large proportion of leavers who want a no deal, perhaps even the majority. It's also the position of some of the most prominent Brexiteers.

If it is the majority, shouldn't we accept the will of the people? It may not be the Brexit you want, but you'll need to go with it like the rest of us, right?

[RandBlade]

No its not clear. It's a linguistic misunderstanding.

No deal has become a catchphrase but it means different things to different people. It doesn't literally mean no deal. The most common interpretation is that we should sign (as we already are incidentally) minimalist subject by subject deals that are mutually agreeable as opposed to the current grand deal.

As a simple, uncontroversial one we should be able to agree pet passports. The UK should remain a country at low risk for rabies etc and a deal should be reachable for us to be listed as a "Part 1 listed country". This would make travel considerably easier than if we were to default to being an unlisted country which essentially ranks us as a third world nation. This is a deal but it's not meant by people when they say no deal.

The euphemism "WTO deal" has been used by some as an alternative phrase. Its ugly, absurd and not taken off but also more literally accurate than No Deal.

[Hazir]

No its not clear. It's a linguistic misunderstanding.

No deal has become a catchphrase but it means different things to different people. It doesn't literally mean no deal. The most common interpretation is that we should sign (as we already are incidentally) minimalist subject by subject deals that are mutually agreeable as opposed to the current grand deal.

As a simple, uncontroversial one we should be able to agree pet passports. The UK should remain a country at low risk for rabies etc and a deal should be reachable for us to be listed as a "Part 1 listed country". This would make travel considerably easier than if we were to default to being an unlisted country which essentially ranks us as a third world nation. This is a deal but it's not meant by people when they say no deal.

The euphemism "WTO deal" has been used by some as an alternative phrase. Its ugly, absurd and not taken off but also more literally accurate than No Deal.

No deal actually means no deal. Also you can forget about that 'same starting point' rubbish you have been trying to push for the last two years.

[RandBlade]

No it doesn't. The EU Commission and UK Government have already reached a number of agreements that will come into effect even in a No Deal scenario.

Most recently it has been announced that the UK will remain in the Common Transit Convention.

Even in a no deal scenario grown ups and not sycophants like you will reach sane deals. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...n-after-brexit

[Aimless]

Precisely.

Elections to vote in those you believe are suitably informed, educated, intelligent and equipped to lead, rule, and govern on complex issues to the benefit of the country. Issues which are certainly too complex for the public to understand let alone make decisions on. Otherwise you end up with what we have now; stupid people voting to leave because of barely related shit like keeping the browns out of the country or bendy bananas or something utterly irrelevant they read in the Daily Mail.

I voted in the Tories to lead the country, not to delegate responsibility to those ill-equipped to do so.

Elections could be completely braindead and still be more binding from a legal perspective than a well-informed by-the-numbers but not binding referendum.

[Aimless]

Rejecting this deal shouldn't mean rejecting all alternatives.

I said I don't want this deal and that no deal is better than a bad deal, but a good deal is better than no deal. If we vote for "no deal" and thus reject this bad deal, then we get an offer of a good deal giving us what we want and fixing the problems behind why we rejected the original one . . . would you want us to be bound ethically if not legally not to accept a good deal?

How many unicorns can dance on the head of a pin?

It is remarkable what lengths you'll go to in your denial of reality.

[Aimless]

The government's projections are systematically wrong in a specific direction and it is because of the bullshit assumptions used. If you put systematically absurd assumptions in a specific direction into your model, then the output will be systematically absurd too. The assumptions used have been ridiculed not simply by Brexiteers but also by serious economists who oppose Brexit like Paul Krugman. The assumptions include:

• There's no economic gain at all from controlling our own policy vs the EU doing it
• There's no gain from future policy change
• GDP gains from new trade deals with non-EU countries are only 10% of the GDP gains the EU estimates from the same deals

As I said. Garbage In, Garbage Out. The idea there's absolutely no possible economic gains from us either controlling or changing our own policies is utter codswallop, why do we even bother having politicians if that's the case? But to claim that new trade deals are worth only 10% of what the EU estimates they're worth? You'd have to be a total sucker to think that's appropriate. So no doubt you do.

Not only is this a crappy characterization of the consensus, it is also nonsensical.

[Aimless]

No it doesn't. The EU Commission and UK Government have already reached a number of agreements that will come into effect even in a No Deal scenario.

Most recently it has been announced that the UK will remain in the Common Transit Convention.

Even in a no deal scenario grown ups and not sycophants like you will reach sane deals. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...n-after-brexit

*shrug*

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidHeni...95286613901313

[RandBlade]

Not only is this a crappy characterization of the consensus, it is also nonsensical.

I didn't realise you had such a low opinion of critics like Paul Krugman. Any model is only as good as its assumptions underpinning it, fancy calculations don't improve on garbage inputs. Most Brexit calculations show Brexit to be bad, because it is assumed Brexit will be bad. All it shows is the bias of the data input. When you have such ludicrous assumptions as those quoted - well yes "nonsensical" is putting it politely.

*shrug*

https://mobile.twitter.com/DavidHeni...95286613901313

Who said this was a one stop fix? Not me. This is one of many mini deals that will need to be reached in a so-called no deal scenario. It is one of many that have already been reached despite Hazir's increasingly lame protestations to the contrary.

How many unicorns can dance on the head of a pin?

It is remarkable what lengths you'll go to in your denial of reality.

WTF are you talking about? Is the CTC a unicorn in your eyes?

[RandBlade]

A bit of light relief

Twitter Link

[Hazir]

A bit of light relief

Twitter Link

You joining some international convention doesn’t mean you have a no deal deal.

[RandBlade]

It is precisely what it means. Outside of the confines of the EU, nations operate primarily by working with international conventions. The issue the UK has is that we're not signed up to a lot of international conventions in our own right as those were delegated to the EU. The UK entering into these conventions requires deals to be made to smooth out the process (especially since many of the European-based conventions like this one revolve around the EU while not being a part of it). I do believe the EU could have vetoed us joining the CTC but they quite rightly haven't. The UK singing up to international conventions like these is part of the process of normalising our relations with the rest of the world as an independent nation.

[Hazir]

It is precisely what it means. Outside of the confines of the EU, nations operate primarily by working with international conventions. The issue the UK has is that we're not signed up to a lot of international conventions in our own right as those were delegated to the EU. The UK entering into these conventions requires deals to be made to smooth out the process (especially since many of the European-based conventions like this one revolve around the EU while not being a part of it). I do believe the EU could have vetoed us joining the CTC but they quite rightly haven't. The UK singing up to international conventions like these is part of the process of normalising our relations with the rest of the world as an independent nation.

Cool, you get a deal about the level of Albania. I guess it was in the secret book of 'things we voted for' that all Breximaniacs quote from. Is the sun rising in the east also in the list of brexit dividends?

[RandBlade]

Source: Real world, not your fiction: https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custom...ion-transit_en
The common transit procedure is used for the movement of goods between the 28 EU Member States, the EFTA countries (Iceland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Switzerland), Turkey (since 1 December 2012), the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (since 1 July 2015) and Serbia (since 1 February 2016).

I'm struggling to see Albania on that list. Perhaps you can highlight it?

[Hazir]

I'm struggling to see Albania on that list. Perhaps you can highlight it?

No. Key is in the word ‘about’. It is not relevant if Albania is actually a signatory. You agreed to use standard form for your exports, big fat deal that.

[RandBlade]

No, standard forms would be those Albania use. We decided to use integrated forms where appropriate here.

Merry Christmas.