The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[tonyh29]

So in your own words he has no policy position as yet but he was making policy back in June

glad we've cleared that one up

 

 

[Awol]

35 minutes ago, peterms said:

He's part of an emergent administration that has no policy position as yet, other than a broad set of prejudices, the naked self-interest of its key figures, and a few half-baked notions expressed as tweets. 

With respect you have no more idea than Tony or I what the various policy positions of the new US Administration will be. As you have (rightly) pointed out in the past, the interests and actions of individuals or companies diverges widely from that of States. 

Is it in the US national interest at this moment to try and weaken a key ally? Maybe, if as it appears you expect the US Executive to run the economy as an oligarchy that benefits their own personal interests. 

However if you take an alternative view that the Congress will simply not allow that, or even that further personal enrichment isn't their primary motivation (simply unknowable at this point) then it's an unsupportable conclusion.

The only area where the President and his team have virtual free reign is in the field of foreign policy. The people he has stacked up in those roles are confirmed Anglophiles, as indeed is Trump himself.

FWIW I agree with Tony that some posters are so desperate for Brexit to be a catastrophe (and they may be correct) that they are jumping to some seemingly unlikely conclusions in the process. 

 

[Xann]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

... in any other circumstances you'd all be denouncing Ross as satan , instead he's proof that remainers were right even though he made that comment outside of any official capacity ...

You could strap a satellite to the 'Whoosh' on this

[blandy]

2 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

the point you are overlooking is the spectacular hypocrisy whereby Lord Kind is dismissed as a charlatan to be ignored but in an attempt to cling to anything to prove remainer supremacy over the ignorant  we will take the word of this crooked billionaire who exploited mine workers and made millions through equity funds as proof we were right

You could claim that if it were remotely true, or valid, but it's not.

The point being made re the American man is that he is in a position, or is about to be, where his world views, attitudes and such like are about to be acted upon, implemented or at least to have some tangible influence, due to his job as American man in charge of stuff to do with money and foreign trade and what have you, talking about a specific aspect of Brexit, and a specific downside.

The Banker man from England is a person of former influence, now retired from that position expressing a more nuanced view about optimism re Brexit generally.

They're not really comparable, other than neither is (IMO) really right.

[edit] just seen PMS response which says the same but better[/edit]

[peterms]

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

So in your own words he has no policy position as yet but he was making policy back in June

glad we've cleared that one up

I'm trying to make allowances, because you were open enough to share the news of your recent lobotomy.  So, slowly: he has a policy position regarding UK trade.  The administration, broadly speaking, as yet lacks a clear set of policy proposals on most things.  When the policies of the administration emerge, it seems reasonable to think that his policy preferences in the area for which he has been given responsibility may be reflected in what policy the administration follows.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Thanks Darren, have a biscuit. 

Cookies have been disabled.

[peterms]

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

With respect you have no more idea than Tony or I what the various policy positions of the new US Administration will be. As you have (rightly) pointed out in the past, the interests and actions of individuals or companies diverges widely from that of States. 

Is it in the US national interest at this moment to try and weaken a key ally? Maybe, if as it appears you expect the US Executive to run the economy as an oligarchy that benefits their own personal interests. 

In the context where a new nuclear arms race can be announced on twitter, I think it's fair to say no-one has any idea what policy positions will be pursued.

There has however been a theme of wanting to bring back to the US services and industries from overseas.  Enticing some to relocate from the UK would fit both that and Ross' statement.  So it seems a reasonable guess that it may be a policy they follow.

Does that weaken a key ally?  Well, it might slightly weaken an ally in a small number of industries.  I doubt that would be a reason to avoid doing it.  It might not happen, but if it doesn't, I doubt that consideration of the UK's best interests will have been the motivation.

[blandy]

6 minutes ago, peterms said:

There has however been a theme of wanting to bring back to the US services and industries from overseas.  Enticing some to relocate from the UK would fit both that and Ross' statement.  So it seems a reasonable guess that it may be a policy they follow.

There has, though I dunno if it kind of applies here. I'd sort of think more about US companies based in the UK, moving to the EU block after we leave, particularly Ireland, rather than going back to the US. They're currently based in the UK because they need to, or it's to their advantage to be based in the EU.

[Davkaus]

I see that Gove has repeated and defended the "£350m each week for the Nhs" claim, and had a go at experts, again. 

He really is an unflushable turd.

 

[tonyh29]

39 minutes ago, peterms said:

I'm trying to make allowances, because you were open enough to share the news of your recent lobotomy.  So, slowly: he has a policy position regarding UK trade.  The administration, broadly speaking, as yet lacks a clear set of policy proposals on most things.  When the policies of the administration emerge, it seems reasonable to think that his policy preferences in the area for which he has been given responsibility may be reflected in what policy the administration follows.

You know the arguments been lost when  you've got to go down to that level so  I'm Out 

[peterms]

4 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

I see that Gove has repeated and defended the "£350m each week for the Nhs" claim, and had a go at experts, again. 

He really is an unflushable turd.

 

Take a look at his twitter exchange with Jonathan Portes, where Gove repeatedly refuses to answer whether he has read the Change Britain report, instead just asking Portes over and over how he voted in the referendum.

I suppose if you want something that shows what you can do without relying on experts, that report might be a good example.

Also worth noting a criticism from the right:

Quote

Why Change Britain’s Brexit numbers are complete rubbish

Most newspapers gave generous coverage to a report by Change Britain today that purported to show that leaving the EU’s Single Market and Customs Union would boost the UK ‘by £450 million a week’. It’s widely acknowledged in think tanks that you can get away with quite a lot if you release something in between Christmas and New Year, because newspapers are so desperate for stuff to write about, so it’s probably not surprising that this got a lot of coverage, including a couple of front page write-ups. The Express ran it as their front page splash, and I think most broadsheets covered it in some way as well.

As I’ve already tweeted, along with Jonathan Portes and a few others, the numbers are basically junk. What’s noteworthy is just how weak they are though. You can read all of the research here in the ’notes to editors’ section.

1. The figures come from adding up savings to the UK government from not paying into the EU any more with extra money from exports sold, and savings from regulations we might scrap. Jonathan Portes put it bluntly: “Adding increased exports and reduced government expenditure is literally meaningless. The results mean nothing. It isn’t research, it’s junk.”
2. The extra exports figures come from using EU projections about the benefits of trade deals with countries and blocs like India, China and Mercosur, and dividing by Britain’s share of extra-EU trade (15%). This is fairly misleading, because it assumes that the UK could get the same terms as the EU which is unlikely, since the UK is a much smaller economic bloc than the EU, so other countries will be less willing to give us what we want to get access to our market. It’s very much back-of-the-fag-packet stuff.
3. As Steve Peers has pointed out, some of the ‘gains’ are calculated on getting a free trade deal with South Korea — but the EU already has a trade deal with them in force, so even if we got exactly the same terms we would just be avoiding a loss, not making any gains.
4. The regulatory gains that Change Britain claims will come from leaving the Single Market and repealing some regulations are really, really small — adding £1.2bn to the UK economy as a whole, a fraction of a percent. But even more striking is the fact that £1bn of that £1.2bn comes from a single regulatory change — scrapping the Data Protection Act. This is the Change Britain case for leaving the Single Market, and creating big regulatory barriers to trade between the UK and the EU — all so that we can scrap the Data Protection Act?
5. The difference between the high & low estimates for regulation savings is the exact same as the difference between gross and net benefits. In other words, the ‘high estimate’ is based on the premise that these regulations have literally zero benefits whatsoever. Now, they might have greater costs than benefits — that is, they might be bad on net — but it’s absurd to claim that there are no good things about them at all. I have no idea what they were thinking in including this number, because it’s just very misleading.

I say this not to trash Change Britain but to highlight just how weak some of the numbers and claims that are floating around, and being given very kind press coverage, can be. Change Britain has some heavyweight backers — they can do better than this. Whether you’re a hard or a soft Brexiteer, a continuity Remainer or a die-hard Leaver, you should expect better than this.

(From Sam Bowman, Adam Smith Institute)

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

I see that Gove has repeated and defended the "£350m each week for the Nhs" claim, and had a go at experts, again. 

He really is an unflushable turd.

 

Great. The more he talks, the faster people will realise they've been had.

The man has negative credibility. 

[Grasshopper]

Having lived in both UK and Europe.I would strongly recommend anyone who has the possibility to Emigrate from UK (job, family & commitments permitting) to do so.

Comparing the standard of living in Scadinavia, Benelux, and  central Europe to UK is like Steak being the norm over McD being the norm

Forget Brexit as UK exiting Europe

Brexit yourself - leave UK

[tonyh29]

3 minutes ago, Grasshopper said:

Having lived in both UK and Europe.I would strongly recommend anyone who has the possibility to Emigrate from UK (job, family & commitments permitting) to do so.

Comparing the standard of living in Scadinavia, Benelux, and  central Europe to UK is like Steak being the norm over McD being the norm

Forget Brexit as UK exiting Europe

Brexit yourself - leave UK

We could all emigrate to the scandie countries and work as Au pairs 

but ive seen the price of beer over there and it's like McDonald's at steak prices , so for that reason I'm out ....

[Grasshopper]

1 hour ago, tonyh29 said:

We could all emigrate to the scandie countries and work as Au pairs 

but ive seen the price of beer over there and it's like McDonald's at steak prices , so for that reason I'm out ....

Taking into consideration that British beer tastes not only like weak piss but that continental Beer is a world better in taste & strength?

[chrisp65]

ahh, the whole Brexit debate in a nutshell.

Brexiteer: British beer is the finest in the world and zee Germans will want to buy loads of it once we are free.

Remainer: I'd like to point out that Fosters is actually australian franchised piss owned by a pan european mega brewery. Amstel is much nicer.

Brexiter: I think you'll find Amstel is Belgian piss sold in tiny bottles because 250ml is the most you can legally drink in that France.

Remainer: You can drink all day in France.

Brexiteer: Maybe, but then Russian criminals run in to the square and steal our little flags. Better to drink all day in Slough.

Remainer: Most pubs in Slough are run by Bulgarians.

 

[mjmooney]

48 minutes ago, Grasshopper said:

Taking into consideration that British beer tastes not only like weak piss but that continental Beer is a world better in taste & strength?

Whoa, whoa, woooaaa there. 

By "British beer", I take it you mean "mass produced British lager"? Well, yes, of course it does. 

But why even drink it when we have centuries of brewing tradition, and a colossal range of draught and bottled ales to choose from? 

A serious reason I would not want to live abroad. 

EDIT: I'm not disparaging good continental beers. They are something I drink rarely, but many are available here. Could I get a pint of Bathams in Paris or Oslo? Nope. 

Edited December 29, 2016 by mjmooney

[Enda]

You know how certain social events can be predicted, like when community services are poorly funded then you can predict petty crime will be higher ten years down the line? (Obviously this doesn't mean one condones or justifies that crime, just predicts it.)

If a border is reinstated in Northern Ireland, and the UK reneges on its commitment to the European-based institutions up there, expect bombs. But you'll save money on the EU bananas regulations, innit?

The whole thing is really short-sighted madness IMHO.

Consider the world in 1800, and consider it today. Now look forward 200 years and think what the world will be like in 2200. Do you think it will be more international, more globalised, more "EU-ish"... or do you want it to look more like 1800 with hard borders and countries shaking fists at each other? I'm heavily predicting it will look like more the EU with free movement and breaking down of national barriers, with men from Birmingham marrying babes from Bratislava more regularly than they do today.

In 2200, Brexit will be viewed as a nasty, retrograde step.

[StefanAVFC]

5 minutes ago, Enda said:

In 2200, Brexit will be viewed as a nasty, retrograde step.

Retrograde is the perfect word to describe brexit. 

Millions wanting the country to be back to wot it used to be tens of years ago. 

[chrisp65]

29 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

 But why even drink it when we have centuries of brewing tradition, and a colossal range of draught and bottled ales to choose from? 

A serious reason I would not want to live abroad. 

italian beer

that was simply the top item from a single random google entry

I know there are a small number of interesting breweries on Malta, a country with a population of about 300,000. It's not just Cisk Lager once you move away from the holiday resorts.

I'd be quietly confident even the Germans, Poles, Belgians and Czechs might have one or two decent beers between them.

It's truly taking the blinkered piss to try and argue one side has better beer than the other. Which kind of sums up the whole debate really.