Brexit: the referendum

[quadraginta]

The claim from Darat was that there was no EU bureaucracy, it was all UK bureaucracy. I went to the government's own report on the problems caused by EU bureaucracy and posted part of its executive summary to demonstrate that not only there is bureaucracy from the EU (who'd've thought it, hey?), but that it has a deleterious effect on our economy. If you think that there is a better way to deal with straight forward assertions of fact than to cite evidence showing it wrong, then I'm all ears.

If you believe it is evidence then you believe it is true.

The statement I highlighted is, to put it politely, pure, unadulterated bull hockey. One does not need to be an expert in the economics of any country to realize this.

And yet, you consider it to be, in your own words, "evidence".

So it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you for some examples of this assertion which you have chosen to put forward as "evidence" in this discussion. You may not have made the assertion first, but you chose to make it here.

I'm guessing you don't have any.

 

[Lothian]

£100, right now by Paypal, if you can quote me saying that this would be a good outcome.

So what is the point in raising Norway?

I have never denied we could negotiate a deal. I bet we would have no problem negotiating a deal where we have free trade, open borders, give up our EU votes and we triple our financial contribution.

The question is whether we can negotiate a better deal than we have now.

I don't think we can. I don't think a Norway style deal is better than the one we have. You keep raising Norway, would you be happy with a Norway style deal for the UK?

You said (post 464) that the EU would go out of their way to assist a country who left the EU, doesn't contribute and doesn't allow EU citizens free movement because "it would be in their best interests".

So what would that deal look like? If we managed to get a deal where

We can deny the rights of EU citizens the right to come and work here
Uk businesses could trade with the EU tariff free and
We paid no contribution to the EU

What realistically do you think would we have to give them in return? Or if in Hindsight you think we can't get that deal what do you think the best deal we can realistically get is in terms of free movement of citizens to live and work, trade tariffs and financial contribution?

I am fully open to leaving the EU if we can get a better deal. I can't realistically see us getting one. If you can show me one it would be persuasive.

 

[Information Analyst]

Why do you think BMW might want to release a story like that? Hmm?

Because it is in their interest to have the UK remain a member. It is nothing to do with the subject of a post-Brexit negotiation. This is nothing other than propaganda.

Well, it would seem logical, then, that BMW see Brexit as bad for their business in the UK, hence it will have an adverse effect on their employees here, as well as the business in general. Why is it "wrong" for them to say so?

 

[Information Analyst]

There's the trade that happens just within the UK which should be slightly less costly due to not having to comply with EU bureaucracy - remember that many small firms here don't export anything.

Can you quantify this? A common whinge from small businesses is about "EU red tape," but they never seem to elaborate beyond that, nor to explain why said red tape are not merely regulations that would have a UK equivalent if the EU version didn't exist.

 

[quadraginta]

Well, it would seem logical, then, that BMW see Brexit as bad for their business in the UK, hence it will have an adverse effect on their employees here, as well as the business in general. Why is it "wrong" for them to say so?

Because it is propaganda, apparently.

For some reason that is supposed to be a devastating rebuttal.

It hasn't been made clear exactly why yet.

 

[MikeG]

So what is the point in raising Norway?........

Because you insisted that there is no way that Britain can negotiate a tariff-free trading arrangement, and yet Norway have (pretty much). No more, no less than that.

 

[MikeG]

If you believe it is evidence then you believe it is true.

The statement I highlighted is, to put it politely, pure, unadulterated bull hockey. One does not need to be an expert in the economics of any country to realize this.

And yet, you consider it to be, in your own words, "evidence".

So it is perfectly reasonable for me to ask you for some examples of this assertion which you have chosen to put forward as "evidence" in this discussion. You may not have made the assertion first, but you chose to make it here.

I'm guessing you don't have any.

Yeah, yeah, whatever.

 

[MikeG]

Because it is propaganda, apparently.......

Selective release of opinion at a time designed to influence people's behaviour. You'll be able to tell me how that isn't propaganda, won't you.

Now, if I had said that Boris was releasing propaganda every day*, you wouldn't be quite so sarky, or quite so perjorative, or quite so quick to get into word play. The term "one-eyed" describes your attitude quite nicely.

Most days, at least.

 

[MikeG]

Well, it would seem logical, then, that BMW see Brexit as bad for their business in the UK, hence it will have an adverse effect on their employees here, as well as the business in general. Why is it "wrong" for them to say so?

Please quote where I said it was wrong.

 

[MikeG]

......The question is whether we can negotiate a better deal than we have now.......

No it isn't. That's frankly ridiculous.

The question is whether our post-Brexit position with respect to world trade would be at least as good as now.

 

[Lothian]

Because you insisted that there is no way that Britain can negotiate a tariff-free trading arrangement, and yet Norway have (pretty much). No more, no less than that.

Where did I say that? As far as I can tell I qualified that comment to say we can't negotiate tariff free without a cost or we can't negotiate it on the terms the Brexit supporters suggest (no free movement, no Eu finding). I stand by that and it has nothing to do with Norway.

 

[Lothian]

No it isn't. That's frankly ridiculous.

The question is whether our post-Brexit position with respect to world trade would be at least as good as now.

I am glad you agree it is ridiculous to think brexit will leave us better off as far as our trade with the EU (47% of exports and 53% of imports as of Jan 2106).

So what better deals do you think we can negotiate with the rest of the world to compensate?

 

[quadraginta]

Selective release of opinion at a time designed to influence people's behaviour. You'll be able to tell me how that isn't propaganda, won't you.

Now, if I had said that Boris was releasing propaganda every day*, you wouldn't be quite so sarky, or quite so perjorative, or quite so quick to get into word play. The term "one-eyed" describes your attitude quite nicely.

Most days, at least.

You are the one who applied the word "propaganda" in what could only be received as a pejorative, not me.

Your usage suggested quite clearly that because you viewed it as propaganda it must somehow be wrong.

I never suggested it wasn't propaganda, only that your labeling it as such was a method commonly used to try and discredit what was said.

"This is nothing other than propaganda"
​

Suggesting you believed it to be not true.

Do you or don't you believe it to be true? If not then offer your explanations why. Don't resort to (as you term it) a "perjorative" [sic] as your sole argument against.

The statements offered by BMW which you chose to quote seem to be very reasonable to me. Offering reasons in defense of a position isn't necessarily propaganda, unless the fault you find with it is ideological, and not any more based in fact than you seem to be suggesting their statements are.

 

[quadraginta]

Please quote where I said it was wrong.

This is an implication intrinsic to your choice of the descriptor "propaganda", which is commonly understood to mean;

derogatory
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature , used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
"he was charged with distributing enemy propaganda"

Perhaps your choice of words was less than well considered.

 

[Garrison]

Can you quantify this? A common whinge from small businesses is about "EU red tape," but they never seem to elaborate beyond that, nor to explain why said red tape are not merely regulations that would have a UK equivalent if the EU version didn't exist.

There's also the not so small matter of whether employees/consumers would actually benefit from the repeal of such regulations. I'm sure there's any number of employers who would like to see the back of the Working Time Directive but I doubt it would be popular with many of their employees.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Because you insisted that there is no way that Britain can negotiate a tariff-free trading arrangement, and yet Norway have (pretty much). No more, no less than that.

No that's not what he said.

Bringing up Norway as an example is just deceptive as they are all but defacto EU members in that pretty much everything that people complain about applies to them. Where it doesn't they don't get the benefit either.

So they aren't part of the CAP, but their food exports get tariffs applied.

Their oil and gas can be traded with the EU freely but they need to meet all the EU regulations too.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. You also have to remember that the Norwegian economy is very different to the UK one. Some EU countries might decide its in their interests to not allow free trade on certain items. For example the Germans might decide that stopping imports of UK built cars would be advantageous.

 

[MikeG]

This is an implication intrinsic to your choice of the descriptor "propaganda", which is commonly understood to mean;

​

Perhaps your choice of words was less than well considered.

No. Perhaps your understanding of some words in English is less than adequate. Which bit of "biased" are you struggling with, from your own definition? BMW's output was propaganda. So is most of the stuff put out by both parts of the Leave campaign, and by the Remain campaign. You've wasted too much of my time piddling about with the meaning a very well understood word without making a single substantive point yourself. Sneering at others is clearly your forte.

 

[MikeG]

Where did I say that?........

Here:

....... because there will be tariffs of some kind..........

Here:

........Our goods and services will be more expensive for Europeans post Brexit........ no developed country has tarrif free trade with Europe..........

Implied here:

........Are you aware of any agreement the EU has with any developed country that has no tariffs?

Implied here:

.........post Brexit it will be more expensive for UK businesses to trade with the EU than businesses inside. Disagree?

And more here:

.......There is practically no chance of UK businesses being able to trade with the EU and vice versa in the same way with the same costs as they do now post Brexit.........

 

[Information Analyst]

Because you insisted that there is no way that Britain can negotiate a tariff-free trading arrangement, and yet Norway have (pretty much). No more, no less than that.

Except that for that Norway had to agree to other terms Brexiters reject, e.g. free movement, Eu regulations, etc.

 

[MikeG]

I am glad you agree it is ridiculous to think brexit will leave us better off as far as our trade with the EU (47% of exports and 53% of imports as of Jan 2106).
..........

You're doing it again. That isn't what I said was ridiculous. What was ridiculous was you saying that the only question was whether a post-Brexit deal on trading arrangements between Britain and the EU was better than the existing one. That's probably a straw man, and is patently just a debating device for you.