Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[ceptimus]

Will remainers ever admit they were wrong? Most of them aren't even prepared to admit that they lost.

If and when Brexit is allowed to happen, and proves successful, then I suppose some remainers might grudgingly admit they were wrong - but I suspect that most of them will still cling to the idea that things would have been even better if we'd remained.

 

[fagin]

<snip>

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited in full for Rules 0/12.

 

[uke2se]

Will remainers ever admit they were wrong? Most of them aren't even prepared to admit that they lost.

If and when Brexit is allowed to happen, and proves successful, then I suppose some remainers might grudgingly admit they were wrong - but I suspect that most of them will still cling to the idea that things would have been even better if we'd remained.

Case in point.

 

[The Don]

Will remainers ever admit they were wrong?

Wrong about what ?

Most of them aren't even prepared to admit that they lost.

Remainers are quite clear that we lost the referendum. What is less clear to this remainer is that a small referendum majority gives the government of the day carte blanche to implement whatever kind of Brexit they eventually do, regardless of the negative consequences.

If and when Brexit is allowed to happen, and proves successful, then I suppose some remainers might grudgingly admit they were wrong - but I suspect that most of them will still cling to the idea that things would have been even better if we'd remained.

The great majority of the evidence is that a Hard Brexit (the outcome I believe you favour) will be the most damaging to the UK economy. If the Leave camp can clearly demonstrate that the UK economy has benefited as a result then this particular Remainer would eat humble pie and admit he was wrong*.

That evidence in my case would be that the UK economy has outperformed comparable economies still in the EU (Germany springs to mind) in terms of GDP growth, productivity, diversification whilst not dismantling human or workers' rights, workers' or environmental protections.

I have yet to see any evidence that this could be possible, not least because the free trade deals that Liam Fox was so proudly touting as being ready to go on day 1 are just the EU deals rolled over (if all parties agree - which is debatable). I don't see how that gives the UK an advantage - to deal on the same terms as we did before

* - I have already done this w.r.t. the Thatcher government in the 1980s. Whilst I can still not come to terms with their methods and the irreparable damage they did to society in general and industrial communities in particular, I now concede that the changes that they wrought were required (albeit I think they took a lot of things too far).

 

[ddt]

I have yet to see any evidence that this could be possible, not least because the free trade deals that Liam Fox was so proudly touting as being ready to go on day 1 are just the EU deals rolled over (if all parties agree - which is debatable). I don't see how that gives the UK an advantage - to deal on the same terms as we did before

Moreover, it's not simply possible to roll over these "free trade" deals as for many goods, they contain maximum quota, and it is not clear how these quota should be divided between the EU-27 and the UK after Brexit, but it would be outright ludicrous to expect that these quota would effectively be doubled between the two.

 

[GlennB]

If and when Brexit is allowed to happen, and proves successful, then I suppose some remainers might grudgingly admit they were wrong - but I suspect that most of them will still cling to the idea that things would have been even better if we'd remained.

There will be many elements making up success and failure, some of them major and some minor. Some might have happened anyway, but we find that the trend gets worse or better after Brexit.

An example of the latter would be house prices, where the existing trend was for the national rate of increase to be in decline (though actually falling in absolute terms in some places, such as London) , so if that continued at the same rate it shouldn't be put down to Brexit. If it accelerated dramatically then, in the absence of other factors, perhaps it should.

Shortages of food and medicine would be a failure, the severity of which would depend on how bad and for how long.

- Some farmers going out of business.
- Ongoing staff shortages in crucial sectors (already happening to a degree)
- More expensive food.
- Prices of imported goods rising as the £ weakens.
- Being in the 'very slow' immigration queue when traveling to the EU
- etc etc

Anyway - what would you consider as failure and success? Just a few major elements will do.

 

[Spanx]

I'm not sure why other countries will be rushing for a FTA when it has been said that we could have WTO zero tarriffs on certain products that we don't produce.

Wouldn't these countries be better off waiting to see if they can sell to us tarriff free why keeping tarriffs on their imports from the UK?

 

[ddt]

I'm not sure why other countries will be rushing for a FTA when it has been said that we could have WTO zero tarriffs on certain products that we don't produce.

Wouldn't these countries be better off waiting to see if they can sell to us tarriff free why keeping tarriffs on their imports from the UK?

Great point.

And if the UK after it crashes out of the EU with a no-deal Brexit, imposes no tariffs on various EU goods in order to forestall food or drug scarcity, then the UK will be obliged to let any such imports into the country tariff-free.

 

[ceptimus]

Remainers are quite clear that we lost the referendum. What is less clear to this remainer is that a small referendum majority gives the government of the day carte blanche to implement whatever kind of Brexit they eventually do, regardless of the negative consequences.

I suppose if remain had won the referendum by the same margin, you would have been happy to partly leave the EU so as to fairly treat the 48% that voted that way? No? Why not?

As to the rest of your post, the word you should be using is 'predictions', not 'evidence'. And it's predictions from groups whose predictions that we can check so far have been woeful.

 

[The Don]

Great point.

And if the UK after it crashes out of the EU with a no-deal Brexit, imposes no tariffs on various EU goods in order to forestall food or drug scarcity, then the UK will be obliged to let any such imports into the country tariff-free.

....apart from the "invisible tariffs" implicit in product standards

I suppose that way the government can claim to be free of Brussels' influence but by keeping relevant stands exactly the same as Brussels we can keep goods flowing in from the continent whilst putting some barriers in the way of other countries.

 

[Degeneve]

If and when Brexit is allowed to happen,

As a matter of fact Brexit is allowed to happen since March 2017. The only open question is when it will happen.

However due to the inconsistency of UK government proposals the most likely date for Brexit to happen is currently 30 March 2019.

 

[The Don]

I suppose if remain had won the referendum by a same margin, you would have been happy to partly leave the EU so as to fairly treat the 48% that voted that way? No? Why not?.

As so many things with the Leave campaign, your comment makes no sense.

The Remain position was a clear one - business as usual.

The Leave position was muddled with some just promising £350m a week for the NHS, others assuring us that we'd still be in the EEA and Customs Union and others saying that we'd be able to boot the wogs out.

As to the rest of your post, the word you should be using is 'predictions', not 'evidence'. And it's predictions from groups whose predictions that we can check so far have been woeful.

You seem impervious to explanation but I'll quote Tolls' post anyway just in case...

As for the Remain report on the economic outcome, it has been pointed out to ceptimus before (a number of times), including quotes from the relevant sections, that the predictions were based on not changing tack. That he refuses to acknowledge that £70 billion was pumped into the economy to offset the problems just shows how depserate he is to avoid accepting that, economically speaking, Brexit is a **** idea.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I suppose if remain had won the referendum by the same margin, you would have been happy to partly leave the EU so as to fairly treat the 48% that voted that way? No? Why not?

Because "remain" is a single choice, whereas "leave" isn't. The referendum offered a choice between two alternatives when opinion was, and still is, more or less divided into three camps: remain in the EU, leave the EU but remain in the customs union, leave both the EU and the customs union. Lumping 2 and 3 together resulted in both 2 and 3 believing they were in the majority, and since then the two factions have been fighting for control while both deny that the other has any legitimacy. For the most part our current predicament is due to the inability of politicians to count to three.

Dave

 

[Spanx]

Great point.

And if the UK after it crashes out of the EU with a no-deal Brexit, imposes no tariffs on various EU goods in order to forestall food or drug scarcity, then the UK will be obliged to let any such imports into the country tariff-free.

I believe that the surrender our negotiating power before we start was Mr Moggs idea.

He intends on negotiating free trade agreements after we have dropped tarriffs to zero. as to how this will work when we can only increase tarriffs I don't know? Maybe he intends to threaten to put tarriffs up if the rest of the world don't lower their tarriffs?

It sounds like a proper Brexit plan

 

[ceptimus]

Because "remain" is a single choice, whereas "leave" isn't.

Doesn't make sense. By your argument any slight majority for remain means definitely remain, but ANY majority for leave, and certainly a slight one, means 'only partially leave'.

Leave is clear to those of us who voted that way - it means leaving ALL EU institutions and then negotiating the best deal possible with the EU as an outside 'third country' in EU-speak. Because the UK does a great deal of trade with the EU, and will be 100% compliant with EU regulations to begin with, we would expect to get a better deal and faster than a third country usually would. But if not that's tough. Leave anyway, both sides suffer, and then hopefully a sensible deal can be negotiated some way down the track.

 

[Lothian]

As to the rest of your post, the word you should be using is 'predictions', not 'evidence'. And it's predictions from groups whose predictions that we can check so far have been woeful.

No, I have shown how the treasury predictions were qualified and turned out to be correct in the damage to the economy albeit underestimating the scale of damage . You mentioned a BofE prediction but have been unable to provide a link to acertain it's accuracy.

 

[ceptimus]

Why is "remain" a single choice? If I were to stoop to using remainer arguments, I would say, "We voted to remain - but we weren't clearly told exactly which parts of the EU we would remain in - so to fairly honor the will of the people, a large part of whom voted to leave, we should now leave at least some EU institutions."

 

[Dave Rogers]

Doesn't make sense.

Not if you snip out the bit where I explained exactly what I meant, no.

Leave is clear to those of us who voted that way - it means leaving ALL EU institutions and then negotiating the best deal possible with the EU as an outside 'third country' in EU-speak.

As I said, both factions are trying to deny the legitimacy of the other, and you're exhibiting the classic tactics; you claim, with a complete lack of evidence, that everybody who voted Leave interpreted it exactly the same as you did - which I know, from talking to several people who wanted to leave the EU but remain in the customs union, is not the case. And at the same time, everybody who voted Leave but only wanted to leave the EU will claim with equal certainty that the referendum only addressed leaving the EU, and saifd nothing of leaving the customs union; indeed, Norway was put forward as a possible post-Brexit model.

The two halves of the 52% have all along consistently claimed that the other half doesn't exist, while nevertheless fighting bitter political battles with them all the while. And all that demonstrates to the 48% is that most of the 52% are brazen, bare faced liars.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Why is "remain" a single choice? If I were to stoop to using remainer arguments, I would say, "We voted to remain - but we weren't clearly told exactly which parts of the EU we would remain in - so to fairly honor the will of the people, a large part of whom voted to leave, we should now leave at least some EU institutions."

I almost envy the lack of self-awareness that can lead you to think that's a coherent argument.

Dave

 

[ceptimus]

No, I have shown how the treasury predictions were qualified and turned out to be correct in the damage to the economy albeit underestimating the scale of damage . You mentioned a BofE prediction but have been unable to provide a link to acertain it's accuracy.

It isn't that I've been unable. It's that I've not bothered. I'm tired of the remainer tactic of asking for 'references' or 'proofs' of common English phrases and well-understood topics. If you don't understand a term you can look it up in a dictionary or use a search engine like anyone else.

Yours is a typical remainer argument. Arguing that wrong predictions were actually right. Square circles anyone?