Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Which begs the question of what exactly he was expecting, because I really don't think he actually had any solutions to how to leave the EU.
 
Well, apart from that.
:)

I get the impression that was what they all expected to achieve (Farage, Rees-Mogg, etc).
I live in hope they all got shafted, but I expect they managed to make a nice profit sadly.
 
Wudang said:
Aaron Banks now says he would vote Remain.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/pol...e-would-now-vote-to-remain-1.3686226?mode=amp
Click to expand...

Darat said:
To personally profit from it.
Click to expand...
At the moment he, according to the press, benefits from UK owned tax havens, which we sort of leave alone on the basis that although they rip off the EU they are "our" tax havens, and we get some benefit. Once out of the EU and it is only us that are being ripped off I suspect that will change.
 
Lothian said:
At the moment he, according to the press, benefits from UK owned tax havens, which we sort of leave alone on the basis that although they rip off the EU they are "our" tax havens, and we get some benefit. Once out of the EU and it is only us that are being ripped off I suspect that will change.
Click to expand...

Do we? I was under the impression that crown dependency, etc. tax havens only benefit themselves and the people who use them. It's not like the UK Treasury gets any sort of kickback. If anything, they're bad for the UK.
 
Lothian said:
Yes, but I guess we don't have to fund them as much if they are earning money themselves.
Click to expand...

There's probably not much in it. Tax havens by definition have to very low or non-existent tax regimes, but they wouldn't necessarily otherwise be places we'd have to be pouring a huge pile of cash into all the time. Without naming names, many seem to have very agreeable climates and hence a lot of tourist income.
 
Thought people might be interested in some research on the referendum vote. Anyway the FT has reported on some interesting research on age and other factors on pro and anti EU sentiment that people may find interesting. A summary of the findings is given here. In summary and maybe not that surprisingly:

First, both ageing and cohort effects are present in the data.
•Second, UK voters grow more Eurosceptical as they age. This is consistent with studies showing that individuals as they age become less ‘open’ or more ‘conservative’ (e.g. Donellan and Lucas 2008).
•Third, the most UK recent cohorts are more pro-EU than their immediate (baby boomer) predecessors. This has been referred to, variously, as the Ryanair, Bologna Process, and Italian barista effect. However, the earliest cohorts, which lived through WWII as adults, are also relatively pro-EU. Thus, the attitudes of cohorts trace out a U-shaped pattern.
•Fourth, education is positively associated with pro-Europeanism. Because average educational attainment has increased noticeably over the period, this effect is important. Most of the pro-Europeanism of relatively recent cohorts is accounted for by greater educational attainment.
•Fifth, there have also been large nationwide swings in sentiment toward the EU over time that have little do with seasoning or cohort effects
Click to expand...

I suppose the interesting one is that baby boomers are generally more anti EU than the generation just older than them, which does go against the whole hypothesis of it just being an aging/wisdom (depending on which side of the argument you're on) affect explaining the age split of the referendum vote.
 
Mid said:
Thought people might be interested in some research on the referendum vote. Anyway the FT has reported on some interesting research on age and other factors on pro and anti EU sentiment that people may find interesting. A summary of the findings is given here. In summary and maybe not that surprisingly:



I suppose the interesting one is that baby boomers are generally more anti EU than the generation just older than them, which does go against the whole hypothesis of it just being an aging/wisdom (depending on which side of the argument you're on) affect explaining the age split of the referendum vote.
Click to expand...

Just a small point: obviously the observation that current day older people tend to have view x and current day younger people tend have view y does not mean that the older people had view y when they were younger and that they changed their view (due to wisdom or whatever). The older people may always have had view x and never changed. In fact this is very likely. To fully document a change the very same poll worded in the very same way must have been held over multiple years using absolutely comparable populations (obviously very difficult for most issues, many of which may not have even been an issue a few years ago). Even asking a person if their own view changed over time is typically not good polling because most issues are themselves time-sensitive and/or is fraught with imperfect or idealized memories of prior held views.

I'll go away now...
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
Just a small point: obviously the observation that current day older people tend to have view x and current day younger people tend have view y does not mean that the older people had view y when they were younger and that they changed their view (due to wisdom or whatever). The older people may always have had view x and never changed. In fact this is very likely. To fully document a change the very same poll worded in the very same way must have been held over multiple years using absolutely comparable populations (obviously very difficult for most issues, many of which may not have even been an issue a few years ago). Even asking a person if their own view changed over time is typically not good polling because most issues are themselves time-sensitive and/or is fraught with imperfect or idealized memories of prior held views.

I'll go away now...
Click to expand...


Good points but the research did use various long term polls (although obviously different people would have been polled each time); and the general conclusion from the research was although baby boomers have got more eurosceptic as they aged they've been generally more eurosceptic at the same points in their life as other generations (or at least that's my reading of the research).
 
From Carole Cadwalladr a "list of crimes committed during the referendum &/or under investigation..."
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1059847376104574976

Or whole thing via @threadreaderapp
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1059847376104574976.html

10/ So that's 9 investigations into crimes committed in EURef or suspected crimes involving National Crime Agency (x2), Met police (x3), ICO (x3). Note this Sunday @observerUK & @openDemocracy published new stories about new allegations, new crimes
Click to expand...
 
Interesting article at http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/11/06/backstop-breakdown-is-a-product-of-the-oldest-brexit-lie

I especially like
There was then a monstrous panic attack when people realised what this entailed, which was a trading border down the Irish Sea. It was a telling moment, because it answered the vexing question of whether Tory Brexiters were idiots or liars.

If they were idiots, they would have accepted the backstop. After all, it only applied if all the solutions they'd spent the previous year defending did not work. If they were really confident about them, they'd have signed up that very day. But they didn't. They condemned it. Because they were not idiots. They were liars.
Click to expand...
 
The backstop applies if the EU decides that it won't allow the other solutions to work. That's the problem - it allows the EU the option to continue to control the UK even after the UK has left.
 
Obviously there are other solutions. That's why the backstop is called the backstop. Even the EU don't call it the only solution.
 
ceptimus said:
Obviously there are other solutions. That's why the backstop is called the backstop. Even the EU don't call it the only solution.
Click to expand...

It isn't a backstop though, it is one possible way to resolve the issue.

See fundamentally there are 3 solutions.

1.No hard border between the UK and EU(this is the point of brexit apparently so a non starter)

2.A Hard Border Between Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. (This violates the GFA and is also apparently a total non starter and would get vetoed by Ireland in the EU so it can not happen, but it is what will happen because the other options will not be accepted)

3. A hard border between the UK and Northern Ireland. (This is apparently enough to cause the government coalition to collapse).

Pick one. This has been the whole problem with the "planning" of brexit since article 50 was enacted.

Which one of those three was even the goal to get resolved in negotiations?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom