BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

rick_chasey

It's a bit unfair; we all make contradictory statements, but if he doesn't wanna play ball we can play it without him.

rjsterry

All's fair on BR.

rick_chasey

I imagine there's plenty of stuff I've written which contradicts what I've also written.

kingstongraham

I know at one point I was considering the Coopster "vote leave to make the EU reform and then we'll stay in" tactic before realising it was probably stupid.

Stevo_666

bompington said:

Stevo_666 said:

bompington said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.

Go on Stevo, it'd be fun.

As one well known forumite recently told me on another subject: I've posted it several times, so go search

Stevo slippery tactic #17: either through ignorance or deliberately, fail to understand what the question is really asking, then swerve from answering the question you know wasn't really being asked.

Even if I've answered it already? As a teacher, you should know that multiple answers of the same question is bad exam technique.

Do tell me what the other 16 are...could some of them be related to the chip on your shoulder?

You need to go and look up what having a chip on your shoulder means.

You're right, you don't need to answer the question: but if your goal was to have a mutually beneficial discussion, you would.

If, on the other hand, your goal was to sit at your computer thinking "hehe, I owned those libtards that time" , then yes, I guess you might see some advantage in a snarky refusal to answer.

Not at all. But I can spot you having a dig for the sake of it. And making assumptions, which are wrong - as usual.

Better luck next time.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/19887002/#Comment_19887002

https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/19887896/#Comment_19887896

I've been in a meeting that didn't require my full attention.

Thanks.

So this is the post which I guess helps us guess what Stevo was thinking.

Stevo_666 said:

ddraver wrote:

Gregger wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

this is probably the best precis of the issues - well written and concise

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/ ... eferendum/

My annual post

That is a good summary, thanks for that link

Damned if we stay in, more damned if we leave?

Yep, thanks, that was good!

Not a million miles from my overall views on the subject.


Already stuck my vote in the post.

Specifically, this blog (if you expand the post) http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexitvote/2016/05/27/dear-friends-this-is-why-i-will-vote-remain-in-the-referendum.

So in that blog, he lists a number of reasons.

Here's the first:

There is little dispute that leaving would create short-term losses. A Treasury report (BBC 23 May 2016) on the short-run effects suggests a recession, a view confirmed by the respected independent Institute for Fiscal Studies who point to the resulting increase in the budget deficit and argue that ‘It is unlikely that government would respond with bigger spending cuts and tax rises in the short run. More likely “austerity” would be extended by another year (optimistic scenario) or another two years.’

There is also widespread agreement among economists that leaving would reduce economic growth over a longer time horizon, and that the loss could be large.

So I guess at the time, Stevo did believe in the value of forecasts. But let's carry on.

How large a loss depends critically on which trade regime is in place after we leave. The Treasury’s medium-term assessment models three options: ‘Norway’(remain in the single market); ‘Canada’ (a bilateral agreement with the EU); or based on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules without any specific agreement with the EU.

the inference being that 'canada' is more costly than Norway; - now if we believe Stevo felt that the economic case for staying was strong, presumably then he would be in favour of a 'Norway' style deal over a 'Canada' deal, as Canada is more costly. But nowadays he appears to be more concerned with the sovereignty challenges around that.

Let's carry on.

The argument that the UK will be able to negotiate good trade deals quickly is implausible.

The EU is more important to the UK than vice versa, so our bargaining power is limited.
Brexit risks a chain reaction, given rising nationalism across the EU (on which more below). Thus the EU’s rational response is to make a horrible example of the UK.
For non-EU countries (e.g. USA, China), negotiating with the EU offers access to a market of 500 million. The UK is much less of a magnet.
Thus,

‘The claim that the outcome will be fine because Britain is the fifth-largest economy in the world is technically wrong, a non sequitur and a fundamental misreading of history. It is hard to think of a worse argument’ (Chris Giles, Economics Editor, Financial Times, 4 May 2016).

I thin I've had this argument with Stevo a number of times, usually in the form of ' you don't understand proportions'. It's curious that Stevo would repeat such arguments when the blog he agreed with enough to summarise why he voted for Remain puts the argument to bed.

There's a section about international effects and status, but, to be fair ,Stevo doesn't really argue those points, so I'll skip those.

next bit: Sovereignty:

Economic sovereignty. The Westminster government has less sovereignty than in the past. First, globalisation has reduced the independence of all countries. For example, the internet makes national boundaries more porous (music downloads, Netflix), making competition global and reducing the freedom of any country to have taxes and regulations too different from competing countries. That said, the UK retains significant sovereignty over fiscal policy (taxes and government spending) because of the opt-out from the Euro.

In addition, the UK shares sovereignty with the UN, NATO, the World Trade Organisation, etc. (the UK has signed 14,000 treaties (Financial Times, 3 May 2016)); and within the UK, central government has devolved significant powers to regions and cities.

This feels like it runs against his more recent arguments suggesting the EU *wants to control* the UK, but lets carry on.

International reach. Though there is room for disagreement about how strong the effect would be, it hard to see how the UK becomes a more powerful global actor by separating itself from its own continent.

Migration. For many, this issue is the crux. The question is not whether the issue is real (it is) but the choice of policies to address it.

In 2015, ‘Net migration of EU citizens was estimated to be 184,000 (compared with 174,000 in YE December 2014; change not statistically significant). Non-EU net migration was 188,000 a similar level compared with the previous year (194,000)’ (Office for National Statistics 26 May 2016).

Historically there have been great benefits from waves of immigration, from the Huguenots to today’s NHS workers. The best available evidence shows that current immigrants are net fiscal contributors and ‘[t]he contributions of those who stay in Britain may well increase. It is a new form of foreign direct investment’ (Economist, 8 November 2014).

Research by LSE’s Centre for Economic Performance (see Independent, 12 May 2016) finds that immigration from the EU does not harm wages, jobs or public services. The view that there is a fixed number of jobs, and hence that immigration reduces the number of jobs for Brits, is widely believed but mistaken (what economists call the ‘lump of labour’ fallacy). Immigrants to the UK add to domestic demand for goods and services which helps to generate employment.

Those findings, however, do not rule out local problems if numbers increase rapidly. The case for targeted action is strong; it does not follow that leaving the EU is a good answer.

Even if the UK were outside the EU, reducing immigration would not be easy.

So we've seen Stevo argue at various points that reducing migration would benefit the UK, specifically in relation wages as restricting supply of labour would, in his eyes, increase the price. Have a quick search and you'll see myself I've accused stevo of using the 'lump of labour' fallacy in his thinking (see here: https://forum.bikeradar.com/discussion/comment/20040235/#Comment_20040235)



TL:DR.

We don't all have all day at work to put our energies into 'campaigns' like this.

Stevo_666

Longshot said:

Whilst that's great work Rick (no sarcasm), I feel iike the final piece of the quotes - "However it's still a while to go and I am keeping an open mind." - provides enough of an out to negate most of your efforts.

Can you please add a follow up question - "So what changed your mind?".

While digging up posts going back several years shows Rick determination, what I don't understand is why he is pursuing this line of argument. It certainly won't change the fact that he will be sad and bitter about the eventual outcome for years to come.

Or why he appears utterly incapable of respecting democratic outcomes. To be fair, that's quite common on here.

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

While digging up posts going back several years shows Rick determination, what I don't understand is why he is pursuing this line of argument. It certainly won't change the fact that he will be sad and bitter about the eventual outcome for years to come.

Or why he appears utterly incapable of respecting democratic outcomes. To be fair, that's quite common on here.

Out of interest, do you think it conceivable that voters can make bad choices... such as (as would be, in your opinion) electing a Labour Government?

If you argued for the return of a Tory government in such circumstances, would you be just 'sad and bitter', and guilty of not respecting democratic outcomes? Should you just 'suck it up' and get on with accepting what the voters decided?

Or might you be angry, and want to reverse that democratic choice, through sticking to your principles and arguing your case?

morstar

Stevo_666 said:

Longshot said:

Whilst that's great work Rick (no sarcasm), I feel iike the final piece of the quotes - "However it's still a while to go and I am keeping an open mind." - provides enough of an out to negate most of your efforts.

Can you please add a follow up question - "So what changed your mind?".

While digging up posts going back several years shows Rick determination, what I don't understand is why he is pursuing this line of argument. It certainly won't change the fact that he will be sad and bitter about the eventual outcome for years to come.

Or why he appears utterly incapable of respecting democratic outcomes. To be fair, that's quite common on here.

You keep saying that. But it’s just more empty Brexit rhetoric.
The losing side in any campaign always dusts itself off and re-focuses on reversing public opinion at the next opportunity. That is what democracy is.
Brexit isn’t a holy scripture it was a decision at a moment in time. It hasn’t even happened yet and it is has been about the most fluid policy I’ve ever known.
Even it’s one true champion on this forum has completely changed its definition over time at his masters behest.

kingstongraham

It has happened.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

bompington said:

Stevo_666 said:

bompington said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.

Go on Stevo, it'd be fun.

As one well known forumite recently told me on another subject: I've posted it several times, so go search

Stevo slippery tactic #17: either through ignorance or deliberately, fail to understand what the question is really asking, then swerve from answering the question you know wasn't really being asked.

Even if I've answered it already? As a teacher, you should know that multiple answers of the same question is bad exam technique.

Do tell me what the other 16 are...could some of them be related to the chip on your shoulder?

You need to go and look up what having a chip on your shoulder means.

You're right, you don't need to answer the question: but if your goal was to have a mutually beneficial discussion, you would.

If, on the other hand, your goal was to sit at your computer thinking "hehe, I owned those libtards that time" , then yes, I guess you might see some advantage in a snarky refusal to answer.

Not at all. But I can spot you having a dig for the sake of it. And making assumptions, which are wrong - as usual.

Better luck next time.

If you just said what you mean instead of trying to score smartarse points every other post, people wouldn't need to make assumptions.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Longshot said:

Whilst that's great work Rick (no sarcasm), I feel iike the final piece of the quotes - "However it's still a while to go and I am keeping an open mind." - provides enough of an out to negate most of your efforts.

Can you please add a follow up question - "So what changed your mind?".

While digging up posts going back several years shows Rick determination, what I don't understand is why he is pursuing this line of argument. It certainly won't change the fact that he will be sad and bitter about the eventual outcome for years to come.

Or why he appears utterly incapable of respecting democratic outcomes. To be fair, that's quite common on here.

And when you don't have anything left go for the "it doesn't matter what you think; it's happening anyway" line. Always avoids having to actually say what you think.

To quote you: ATFQ.

morstar

kingstongraham said:

It has happened.

Technically, not in practical terms.

But semantics. Point taken.

Stevo_666

I see I have flushed out quite a few who are in the 'incapable of accepting a democratic outcome' category judging by the volume and tone of this morning's posts so far

No point wishing for something that won't happen folks - which is what a lot of you are still doing. The current position we find ourselves in given the EU's current position doesn't leave too many options for either side. Ultimately there may need to be a decision on whether it is more valuable long term to be free of EU regs and bureaucracy (which they want in place to keep us 'in line'), or a Canada style deal with major EU strings attached. I think you can make an case for either but it's not a no brainer. Although if the EU are going to be difficult then our hand may be forced.

Is that OK, or are you still holding on to the pitchforks and burning torches?

rick_chasey

It's not about accepting it or not, though to suggest I haven't is rather bizarre; where have I said I don't accept it's happening?

I just wonder what made you change your tune.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

Longshot said:

Whilst that's great work Rick (no sarcasm), I feel iike the final piece of the quotes - "However it's still a while to go and I am keeping an open mind." - provides enough of an out to negate most of your efforts.

Can you please add a follow up question - "So what changed your mind?".

While digging up posts going back several years shows Rick determination, what I don't understand is why he is pursuing this line of argument. It certainly won't change the fact that he will be sad and bitter about the eventual outcome for years to come.

Or why he appears utterly incapable of respecting democratic outcomes. To be fair, that's quite common on here.

FWIW, I didn't dig up your posts as I no longer know how to!

rick_chasey

Noticed the OBR will downgrade UK growth prospects because of the new immigration policy, since a smaller population means lower growth.

https://www.ft.com/content/76f1e376-5efc-11ea-b0ab-339c2307bcd4

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

I see I have flushed out quite a few who are in the 'incapable of accepting a democratic outcome' category judging by the volume and tone of this morning's posts so far

No point wishing for something that won't happen folks - which is what a lot of you are still doing. The current position we find ourselves in given the EU's current position doesn't leave too many options for either side. Ultimately there may need to be a decision on whether it is more valuable long term to be free of EU regs and bureaucracy (which they want in place to keep us 'in line'), or a Canada style deal with major EU strings attached. I think you can make an case for either but it's not a no brainer. Although if the EU are going to be difficult then our hand may be forced.

Is that OK, or are you still holding on to the pitchforks and burning torches?

So if you're not sure - I assume, as you still haven't said which option you think is best - why the Daily Express parody posts?

briantrumpet

Stevo_666 said:

I see I have flushed out quite a few who are in the 'incapable of accepting a democratic outcome' category judging by the volume and tone of this morning's posts so far

RU OK, hun?

bompington

Stevo_666 said:

bompington said:

Stevo_666 said:

bompington said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.

Go on Stevo, it'd be fun.

As one well known forumite recently told me on another subject: I've posted it several times, so go search

Stevo slippery tactic #17: either through ignorance or deliberately, fail to understand what the question is really asking, then swerve from answering the question you know wasn't really being asked.

Even if I've answered it already? As a teacher, you should know that multiple answers of the same question is bad exam technique.

Do tell me what the other 16 are...could some of them be related to the chip on your shoulder?

You need to go and look up what having a chip on your shoulder means.

You're right, you don't need to answer the question: but if your goal was to have a mutually beneficial discussion, you would.

If, on the other hand, your goal was to sit at your computer thinking "hehe, I owned those libtards that time" , then yes, I guess you might see some advantage in a snarky refusal to answer.

Not at all. But I can spot you having a dig for the sake of it. And making assumptions, which are wrong - as usual.
Better luck next time.

I can only call it like we all see it.

Kind of funny that you reply in a manner that nicely demonstrates what I'm saying.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

It's not about accepting it or not, though to suggest I haven't is rather bizarre; where have I said I don't accept it's happening?

I just wonder what made you change your tune.

Nobody is saying that.

He is stuck in Brexit rhetoric mode.

morstar

Stevo_666 said:

I see I have flushed out quite a few who are in the 'incapable of accepting a democratic outcome' category judging by the volume and tone of this morning's posts so far

No point wishing for something that won't happen folks - which is what a lot of you are still doing. The current position we find ourselves in given the EU's current position doesn't leave too many options for either side. Ultimately there may need to be a decision on whether it is more valuable long term to be free of EU regs and bureaucracy (which they want in place to keep us 'in line'), or a Canada style deal with major EU strings attached. I think you can make an case for either but it's not a no brainer. Although if the EU are going to be difficult then our hand may be forced.

Is that OK, or are you still holding on to the pitchforks and burning torches?

Many months ago I praised the fact you were the only one posting consistent, coherent and positive arguments for Brexit despite your remain vote.
These days you’re just spouting b@llox.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Noticed the OBR will downgrade UK growth prospects because of the new immigration policy, since a smaller population means lower growth.

https://www.ft.com/content/76f1e376-5efc-11ea-b0ab-339c2307bcd4

It's growth/GDP per capita that should matter. It's one of the misrepresentations of the Remain side that a certain amount of the difference in growth forecasts between Brexit/Remain is simply due to population increase.

rick_chasey

Tend to agree.

I would say though that immigrants are much more likely to be of working age than joe public, so there is a correlation there.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

Tend to agree.

I would say though that immigrants are much more likely to be of working age than joe public, so there is a correlation there.

Yes, but I think I read somewhere that the unskilled ones are still essentially a cost. Attracting skilled workers works well on all counts.

rick_chasey

I guess I'll post this blog post from an economist again:
https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2020/02/immigrants-as-scapegoats.html

In reality, their estimate implies only a tiny actual effect on the earnings of the low-skilled. As Jonathan says, it suggests that:

the impact of migration on the wages of the UK-born in this sector since 2004 has been about 1 per cent, over a period of 8 years. With average wages in this sector of about £8 an hour, that amounts to a reduction in annual pay rises of about a penny an hour.

This tallies with the general consensus, that migration has little impact on the wages of natives. A survey by the Migration Advisory Committee concluded (pdf):

Migrants have no or little impact on the overall employment and unemployment outcomes of the UK-born workforce…Migration is not a major determinate of the wages of UK-born workers. We found some evidence suggesting that lower-skilled workers face a negative impact while higher-skilled workers benefit, however the magnitude of the impacts are generally small.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

I guess I'll post this blog post from an economist again:
https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2020/02/immigrants-as-scapegoats.html

In reality, their estimate implies only a tiny actual effect on the earnings of the low-skilled. As Jonathan says, it suggests that:

the impact of migration on the wages of the UK-born in this sector since 2004 has been about 1 per cent, over a period of 8 years. With average wages in this sector of about £8 an hour, that amounts to a reduction in annual pay rises of about a penny an hour.

This tallies with the general consensus, that migration has little impact on the wages of natives. A survey by the Migration Advisory Committee concluded (pdf):

Migrants have no or little impact on the overall employment and unemployment outcomes of the UK-born workforce…Migration is not a major determinate of the wages of UK-born workers. We found some evidence suggesting that lower-skilled workers face a negative impact while higher-skilled workers benefit, however the magnitude of the impacts are generally small.

I only got as far as the first few paragraphs (last time you linked to it, the link was broken) and looks like they have misinterpreted the Bank of England's report, so I read no further. The impact of 10% immigration on a specific sector results in a reduction in wages of 2%

tailwindhome

Stevo_666 said:

The current position we find ourselves in given the EU's current position doesn't leave too many options for either side. Ultimately there may need to be a decision on whether it is more valuable long term to be free of EU regs and bureaucracy (which they want in place to keep us 'in line'), or a Canada style deal with major EU strings attached. I think you can make an case for either but it's not a no brainer. Although if the EU are going to be difficult then our hand may be forced.

Is that OK, or are you still holding on to the pitchforks and burning torches?

The Ulsterisation of UK politics is going well I see.
The word you are looking for is "them'uns"

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

rick_chasey said:

Hey Stevo remind us what persuaded you to vote remain.

Go on Stevo, it'd be fun.

As one well known forumite recently told me on another subject: I've posted it several times, so go search

I just did as requested.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

I guess I'll post this blog post from an economist again:
https://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2020/02/immigrants-as-scapegoats.html

In reality, their estimate implies only a tiny actual effect on the earnings of the low-skilled. As Jonathan says, it suggests that:

the impact of migration on the wages of the UK-born in this sector since 2004 has been about 1 per cent, over a period of 8 years. With average wages in this sector of about £8 an hour, that amounts to a reduction in annual pay rises of about a penny an hour.

This tallies with the general consensus, that migration has little impact on the wages of natives. A survey by the Migration Advisory Committee concluded (pdf):

Migrants have no or little impact on the overall employment and unemployment outcomes of the UK-born workforce…Migration is not a major determinate of the wages of UK-born workers. We found some evidence suggesting that lower-skilled workers face a negative impact while higher-skilled workers benefit, however the magnitude of the impacts are generally small.

I only got as far as the first few paragraphs (last time you linked to it, the link was broken) and looks like they have misinterpreted the Bank of England's report, so I read no further. The impact of 10% immigration on a specific sector results in a reduction in wages of 2%

Not sure you necessarily need to write off the rest of the studies he links to (including the one I quoted).