BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

coopster_the_1st

ddraver wrote:

Coop that is absolutely not, in any way what he is saying...

What is SC saying then?

rick_chasey

Coopster the 1st wrote:

By denying the electorate in making a decision you are effectively endorsing a dictatorship

And you prefer this option because you may be better off because you have been told this by experts. This is from experts whose prediction has been hugely wrong in the past.

Ok. Now a) you're lying. EU is not a dictatorship in any way. If you actually think it is, then you are either deliberately obtuse, or really unbelievably thick.

And b) if they're experts, what does that make you?

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

By denying the electorate in making a decision you are effectively endorsing a dictatorship

And you prefer this option because you may be better off because you have been told this by experts. This is from experts whose prediction has been hugely wrong in the past.

Ok. Now a) you're lying. EU is not a dictatorship in anyway. If you actually think it is, then you are either deliberately obtuse, or really unbelievably thick.

And b) if they're experts, what does that make you?

A) If you deny the electoral the right to vote that is a dictatorship. I never implied the the EU was a dictatorship. Your view is clouding what you read and makes you look unbelievably thick (your words)

You've already discredited the experts who are predicting a recession by saying that is impossible. There is nothing more to add on that subject if we believe your views.

orraloon

Cthe1st. Are you Manc33 revisited?

ddraver

Coopster the 1st wrote:

ddraver wrote:

Coop that is absolutely not, in any way what he is saying...

What is SC saying then?

read it! It's really quite clear.

bendertherobot

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

By denying the electorate in making a decision you are effectively endorsing a dictatorship

And you prefer this option because you may be better off because you have been told this by experts. This is from experts whose prediction has been hugely wrong in the past.

Ok. Now a) you're lying. EU is not a dictatorship in anyway. If you actually think it is, then you are either deliberately obtuse, or really unbelievably thick.

And b) if they're experts, what does that make you?

A) If you deny the electoral the right to vote that is a dictatorship. I never implied the the EU was a dictatorship. Your view is clouding what you read and makes you look unbelievably thick (your words)

You've already discredited the experts who are predicting a recession by saying that is impossible. There is nothing more to add on that subject if we believe your views.

Right to vote for what?

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Well, after months of humming and hawing the decision in the end was fairly obvious.
I said earlier in some thread that who aligned themselves to what side would be an indicator. Game over.

If anyone is making their decision, either way, because of who is on one side or the other, that has to be the poorer reason for voting?

It's a huge negative for democracy and individuals taking responsibility for themselves

and that is how I feel about this whole process

By denying the electorate in making a decision you are effectively endorsing a dictatorship

And you prefer this option because you may be better off because you have been told this by experts. This is from experts whose prediction has been hugely wrong in the past.

this sneering attitude to experts (as expounded by Gove) is one of the worse things to come out of this process. If he ends up running Education and wants to change the school calendar because experts say it would provide a better education - guess what will be flung in his face.

A big gap between a dictatorship and our leaders doing what they were elected to do - ie lead.

The electorate is not qualified to make an informed decision on EU membership. That is why the process has become an undignified shouting of exaggerations and lies.

I believe 90% of the people in this country will be worse off, some will feel the pain far more than others. I work for a UK company with over half it's sales in USD - I will not be one of the hardest hit. But that is just the forecast of our CFO so you would presumably dismiss that

rick_chasey

https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status ... wsrc%5Etfw

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Well, after months of humming and hawing the decision in the end was fairly obvious.
I said earlier in some thread that who aligned themselves to what side would be an indicator. Game over.

If anyone is making their decision, either way, because of who is on one side or the other, that has to be the poorer reason for voting?

It's a huge negative for democracy and individuals taking responsibility for themselves

and that is how I feel about this whole process

By denying the electorate in making a decision you are effectively endorsing a dictatorship

And you prefer this option because you may be better off because you have been told this by experts. This is from experts whose prediction has been hugely wrong in the past.

this sneering attitude to experts (as expounded by Gove) is one of the worse things to come out of this process. If he ends up running Education and wants to change the school calendar because experts say it would provide a better education - guess what will be flung in his face.

A big gap between a dictatorship and our leaders doing what they were elected to do - ie lead.

The electorate is not qualified to make an informed decision on EU membership. That is why the process has become an undignified shouting of exaggerations and lies.

I believe 90% of the people in this country will be worse off, some will feel the pain far more than others. I work for a UK company with over half it's sales in USD - I will not be one of the hardest hit. But that is just the forecast of our CFO so you would presumably dismiss that

The government only agree with experts when it matches their view. Look at the view experts take on where drug laws should be compared to the governments view(I'm not making my view known on this!). The UK government are already dismissing experts views on other subjects.

With the voting trends of the UK electorate, it is obvious there is support to be asked the referendum question. If our leaders do not listen to the electorate that is heading towards dictatorship.

If the electorate is not informed enough on the EU that is the fault of remain to sell the benefits, not the fault of the electorate.

My view is not myopic, as I hope yours isn't, to see that both sides having been shouting exaggerations and lies e.g "£4300 worse off" verses "£350m EU payment", "punishment budget" verses "Turkey joining the EU". Despite us disagreeing I hope we can agree on this

bobmcstuff

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/744806990325506049/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Saw that - Sarah Wollaston swapped sides the other week as well.

Anyone gone the other way (i.e., Remain to Leave)?

rick_chasey

bobmcstuff wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/744806990325506049/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Saw that - Sarah Wollaston swapped sides the other week as well.

Anyone gone the other way (i.e., Remain to Leave)?

It's the abuse she gets that worries me.

I've said it before. It feels like leave has become more than a desire to leave the EU but a vehicle for nativists to claim a mandate. By campaigning for leave on a nativist and populist basis, they can use a leave victory to push on.

I've heard a lot more ugly things said to people re xenophobia and race (some to me on the former) since the campaign started. It feels like those monsters are being unleashed.

Beyond my job security and the legal limbo my family would be left in, I do fear what a leave vote would signal to people who have been espousing such intolerance.

rolf_f

bobmcstuff wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/744806990325506049/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Saw that - Sarah Wollaston swapped sides the other week as well.

Anyone gone the other way (i.e., Remain to Leave)?

I despair at the knowledge that, at this late stage, presumably intelligent people are still capable of changing their mind. Such people probably ought not to be in public office - this really isn't something you should still be confused about after all this time.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/744806990325506049/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Saw that - Sarah Wollaston swapped sides the other week as well.

Anyone gone the other way (i.e., Remain to Leave)?

It's the abuse she gets that worries me.

I've said it before. It feels like leave has become more than a desire to leave the EU but a vehicle for nativists to claim a mandate. By campaigning for leave on a nativist and populist basis, they can use a leave victory to push on.

I've heard a lot more ugly things said to people re xenophobia and race (some to me on the former) since the campaign started. It feels like those monsters are being unleashed.

Beyond my job security and the legal limbo my family would be left in, I do fear what a leave vote would signal to people who have been espousing such intolerance.

A Lithuanian girl at work got abused by Essex girls in a West End bar for her nationality - was the first time in the years she has lived here.

Bo Duke

Passions are high, its not a normal situation, surely everyone would understand that?

Rick, you're getting all domineering again, people ARE entitled to views different to yours.

coopster_the_1st

This Week on BBC2 today had an interview with the former Norwegian government minister Anna Tvinnereim regarding the Norwegian EU referendum in 1994. (iPlayer - about 46 minutes in)

This was the economic argument from the 'In' campaign:

- Prime Minister and economic elite said they would lose 100,000 jobs
- Biggest businesses would leave Norway and be no more investment
- Interest rates would increase significantly
- Economic downturn would be a disaster for the welfare state, heavy welfare loses and they would lose several benefits and pensions
- Came up with an economic calculation where every Norwegian family would lose £3000*


Does that sounds depressingly familiar?


* I'm guessing converted from Krone for the UK audience.

surrey_commuter

Bo Duke wrote:

Passions are high, its not a normal situation, surely everyone would understand that?

Rick, you're getting all domineering again, people ARE entitled to views different to yours.

No I do not understand somebody in London being abused for their country of origin

kingstongraham

Rolf F wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/744806990325506049/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Saw that - Sarah Wollaston swapped sides the other week as well.

Anyone gone the other way (i.e., Remain to Leave)?

I despair at the knowledge that, at this late stage, presumably intelligent people are still capable of changing their mind. Such people probably ought not to be in public office - this really isn't something you should still be confused about after all this time.

I'm more worried about the people who are certain. Some of them are very wrong - but I don't know which.

pblakeney

KingstonGraham wrote:

I'm more worried about the people who are certain. Some of them are very wrong - but I don't know which.

Probably all.
Anyone who is certain of the future is deluded.

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

This Week on BBC2 today had an interview with the former Norwegian government minister Anna Tvinnereim regarding the Norwegian EU referendum in 1994. (iPlayer - about 46 minutes in)

This was the economic argument from the 'In' campaign:

- Prime Minister and economic elite said they would lose 100,000 jobs
- Biggest businesses would leave Norway and be no more investment
- Interest rates would increase significantly
- Economic downturn would be a disaster for the welfare state, heavy welfare loses and they would lose several benefits and pensions
- Came up with an economic calculation where every Norwegian family would lose £3000*


Does that sounds depressingly familiar?


* I'm guessing converted from Krone for the UK audience.

Always beware anybody who uses Norway as an example to justify Brexit.

" Norway's wealth fund is worth around £565 billion ($810 billion), more than £200 billion more than the country's total GDP, and is largely used to invest in infrastructure projects in the country, as well as funding pensions and social security measures"

As a comparison the UK GDP is £1.8 trillion so it would be equivalent to us having national savings of £2.5 trillion. In reality we have a national debt of £1.6 trillion. As this lands us with a £46bn per annum interest payment it would be reasonable to assume that a surplus 50% higher would give us an investment gain of £60bn per year making us £100bn per year better off than we currently are.

surrey_commuter

KingstonGraham wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/744806990325506049/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Saw that - Sarah Wollaston swapped sides the other week as well.

Anyone gone the other way (i.e., Remain to Leave)?

I despair at the knowledge that, at this late stage, presumably intelligent people are still capable of changing their mind. Such people probably ought not to be in public office - this really isn't something you should still be confused about after all this time.

I'm more worried about the people who are certain. Some of them are very wrong - but I don't know which.

It does seem strange that somebody could go from fronting one side to supporting the other. Surely a person of average intelligence could have looked at their fellow travelers and guessed the likely future tone of the debate. Almost makes you think she was a "sleeper" always intending to defect.

NB: I do not think that justifies personal abuse through any medium

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Always beware anybody who uses Norway as an example to justify Brexit.

" Norway's wealth fund is worth around £565 billion ($810 billion), more than £200 billion more than the country's total GDP, and is largely used to invest in infrastructure projects in the country, as well as funding pensions and social security measures"

Almost makes one wonder what state the UK would be in if it had set up a fund instead of.....?
Anyone?

coopster_the_1st

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

This Week on BBC2 today had an interview with the former Norwegian government minister Anna Tvinnereim regarding the Norwegian EU referendum in 1994. (iPlayer - about 46 minutes in)

This was the economic argument from the 'In' campaign:

- Prime Minister and economic elite said they would lose 100,000 jobs
- Biggest businesses would leave Norway and be no more investment
- Interest rates would increase significantly
- Economic downturn would be a disaster for the welfare state, heavy welfare loses and they would lose several benefits and pensions
- Came up with an economic calculation where every Norwegian family would lose £3000*


Does that sounds depressingly familiar?


* I'm guessing converted from Krone for the UK audience.

Always beware anybody who uses Norway as an example to justify Brexit.

I was comparing the campaigns and what the PM/Financial experts were saying then and now. It's like a 22 year old echo.


p.s. I'm fully aware of the Norwegian Wealth Fund. I think the irresponsibility of our politicians will have seen it spent by now!

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Always beware anybody who uses Norway as an example to justify Brexit.

" Norway's wealth fund is worth around £565 billion ($810 billion), more than £200 billion more than the country's total GDP, and is largely used to invest in infrastructure projects in the country, as well as funding pensions and social security measures"

Almost makes one wonder what state the UK would be in if it had set up a fund instead of.....?
Anyone?

This report is compiled by experts so by all means think the opposite!!!

UK has produced slightly more than Norway but has only generated $11 per barrel in govt revenue as against $29.8 for Norway. In rough terms this would mean we could have been £375bn better off. This would reduce our national debt by 25% so reducing annual interest payments by £11bn per annum.

http://www.resourcegovernance.org/blog/ ... il-revenue

bobmcstuff

Rolf F wrote:

bobmcstuff wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

https://twitter.com/SayeedaWarsi/status/744806990325506049/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Saw that - Sarah Wollaston swapped sides the other week as well.

Anyone gone the other way (i.e., Remain to Leave)?

I despair at the knowledge that, at this late stage, presumably intelligent people are still capable of changing their mind. Such people probably ought not to be in public office - this really isn't something you should still be confused about after all this time.

Not necessarily, as they've both cited behaviour of the Leave campaign as a main reason for switching - something which couldn't be predicted in advance (although with Nigel Farage involved you'd think some people might have twigged).

surrey_commuter

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

This Week on BBC2 today had an interview with the former Norwegian government minister Anna Tvinnereim regarding the Norwegian EU referendum in 1994. (iPlayer - about 46 minutes in)

This was the economic argument from the 'In' campaign:

- Prime Minister and economic elite said they would lose 100,000 jobs
- Biggest businesses would leave Norway and be no more investment
- Interest rates would increase significantly
- Economic downturn would be a disaster for the welfare state, heavy welfare loses and they would lose several benefits and pensions
- Came up with an economic calculation where every Norwegian family would lose £3000*


Does that sounds depressingly familiar?


* I'm guessing converted from Krone for the UK audience.

Always beware anybody who uses Norway as an example to justify Brexit.

I was comparing the campaigns and what the PM/Financial experts were saying then and now. It's like a 22 year old echo.


p.s. I'm fully aware of the Norwegian Wealth Fund. I think the irresponsibility of our politicians will have seen it spent by now!

As a self confessed expert denier why don't you do a quick bit of research and see if you can figure out if the Norwegian economy really did do better outside of the EU and if so why?

Things to look for;
Oil/gas production levels
Would they have been even better off inside the EU
Oil/gas prices
Performance of the global economy

chrisaonabike

bobmcstuff wrote:

.... as they've both cited behaviour of the Leave campaign as a main reason for switching - something which couldn't be predicted in advance (although with Nigel Farage involved you'd think some people might have twigged).

Thing is, I thought that Farage's poster the other day was a cheap shot and very tasteless, but it doesn't make my view of the EU any different. So why would others change their view based on not liking the opposition's campaigning style? It makes no sense.

Whether you like it or not, 330,000 net migration per year is equivalent to a city the size of Birmingham every three years. Immigration is an issue, and you don't have to be a racist to be concerned about it.

Making the Leave campaign overall out to be about racism is an equally cheap shot, as is claim after claim after unsubstantiated claim about all the disasters that will ensue if we leave.

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

This report is compiled by experts so by all means think the opposite!!!

My point was that our past Governments have collected a wad of oil revenue and pissed it up against the wall.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

This report is compiled by experts so by all means think the opposite!!!

My point was that our past Governments have collected a wad of oil revenue and pissed it up against the wall.

Expert denier was general exasperation so don't take it personally.

I have always heard that we wasted oil revenues on benefit payments to pay for Thatcher's reception. That report says we could have collected three times as much with a different approach to exploration and revenue collection. Did not read in detail but sounds like Thatcher sold the rights for instant gain rather than licensing.

surrey_commuter

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

This report is compiled by experts so by all means think the opposite!!!

My point was that our past Governments have collected a wad of oil revenue and pissed it up against the wall.

Expert denier was general exasperation so don't take it personally.

I have always heard that we wasted oil revenues on benefit payments to pay for Thatcher's reception. That report says we could have collected three times as much with a different approach to exploration and revenue collection. Did not read in detail but sounds like Thatcher sold the rights for instant gain rather than licensing.

it seems the UK politicians did not listen to the so-called experts who were forecasting that oil prices were almost certain to rise - 30 year echo?

The UK government's decision to end its direct participation in oil and gas equity was controversial at the time. In 1980, the Central Policy Review Staff with the UK cabinet office raised the following concerns “Privatising BNOC and selling £1 billion of BNOC's assets benefits the PSBR (public sector borrowing requirement) in the years in which the assets are sold, but the £1 billion gained is purchased at a high price in terms of the PSBR benefits stretching out into the future.” Oil assets “are almost certain to rise in price in the years ahead”.[9]

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Did not read in detail but sounds like Thatcher sold the rights for instant gain rather than licensing.

Agreed. Following Governments went on to follow the lead. Only interested in themselves and the next election.
Maybe Westminster losing control isn't such a bad idea...