Politics, politics, politics

[SpurMeUp]

Indeed. If in 3 years time we have Ukraine deal with the EU and have joined the TPP, we'll be laughing all the way to the bank

The Ukraine model is interesting. I suspect it was given to Ukraine for geopolitical reasons mainly. The US wanted to move Ukraine out of Russia's orbit, and prompted the EU to 'lift its skirt' to Ukraine. The democratically elected, pro Russia corrupt president was undermined; without doubt with the help of funding from the US. Its on record they provided millions of $s to right wing Ukrainian groups, and when the maidan square protests were taking part doctors found the same sniper bullets were killing people from both sides - in other words an organised party was trying to insight violence and revolution.

So Ukraine fractured down the middle, with the pro-Europe west, and pro-Russian east, too many people lost their lives and the economy was devastated. After making welcoming noises to Ukraine the EU had to give them something back. The EU was never going to give them membership, but with the US and others pushing for Ukraine to break from Russia, the EU had to do something for the devastated nation. The trade deal was all Ukraine got. I think its another example of the 'big game' with Empire-like forces playing with poorer countries livelihoods, and like Libya etc etc it causes long term instability and harm rather than liberation. When will we learn?

Never the less the EU-Ukraine trade agreement exists. Will the UK be able to use it as a template, is it suitable for the UK, and will the EU assert that the Ukraine agreement was a one-off geopolitical move?

 

[Gutter Boy]

The Ukraine model is interesting. I suspect it was given to Ukraine for geopolitical reasons mainly. The US wanted to move Ukraine out of Russia's orbit, and prompted the EU to 'lift its skirt' to Ukraine. The democratically elected, pro Russia corrupt president was undermined; without doubt with the help of funding from the US. Its on record they provided millions of $s to right wing Ukrainian groups, and when the maidan square protests were taking part doctors found the same sniper bullets were killing people from both sides - in other words an organised party was trying to insight violence and revolution.

So Ukraine fractured down the middle, with the pro-Europe west, and pro-Russian east, too many people lost their lives and the economy was devastated. After making welcoming noises to Ukraine the EU had to give them something back. The EU was never going to give them membership, but with the US and others pushing for Ukraine to break from Russia, the EU had to do something for the devastated nation. The trade deal was all Ukraine got. I think its another example of the 'big game' with Empire-like forces playing with poorer countries livelihoods, and like Libya etc etc it causes long term instability and harm rather than liberation. When will we learn?

Never the less the EU-Ukraine trade agreement exists. Will the UK be able to use it as a template, is it suitable for the UK, and will the EU assert that the Ukraine agreement was a one-off geopolitical move?

Moldova and Georgia have the same deal too though

The EU say we need to pick from one of their existing models. Most look at Canada vs Norway, but Ukraine's actually the best - an FTA including services with no FoM for labour. It was even on Barnier's powerpoint slide the other day, so they've insinuated it's an option.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Moldova and Georgia have the same deal too though

The EU say we need to pick from one of their existing models. Most look at Canada vs Norway, but Ukraine's actually the best - an FTA including services with no FoM for labour. It was even on Barnier's powerpoint slide the other day, so they've insinuated it's an option.

Three former Soviet block countries trying to break out of the Russian empire. It'd be interesting to find out more about the FTA they have. Where did the EU say we have to pick from one of their existing models? I know Davies said he wanted a completely bespoke trade model for the UK. Is he really so incompetent that he's not aware of the Ukraine model, or is it not comprehensive enough for the UK?

 

[DTA]

How is it nonsense? It may well take years to reach a stable position with everything in place. Perhaps future trade deals that bring more wealth etc take some time to establish - until when Brexit looks bad, but from when suddenly it doesnt...

We will have a more informed decision, but still then not all the pieces on the table.

And it seems only logical we wont really be in a position to judge the whole thing until long enough after that we do have all the pieces on the table and can make an actual judgement.

I dont give a brick what forecasts say right now, because non of them know what the hell is going to happen with, so how can any be even close to accurate?
We are only just about to start talking EU future deal, nobody knows what it looks like at this stage. Just as nobody knows what other deals/changes/opportunities could be around the corner.

It a step into the unknown.

It's only a step in to unknown as much as everything is a step into the unknown.

 

[DTA]

It's boomed for most of the last 200 years, apart from a little while after each world war. There's also the 'at what price' argument. The social fabric of the country has largely been destroyed since the EU and Reaganomics in the mid 70s.

Sure if you want to take the plunder of other nations national resources in the form of colonialism as boom... its 200 years... but after empire ... we only really started booming after entering the EU? Is that not the case?

And as for 'at what cost'... be specific dude... And show countries going in a different direction that you want to emulate.

 

[scaramanga]

Sure if you want to take the plunder of other nations national resources in the form of colonialism as boom... its 200 years... but after empire ... we only really started booming after entering the EU? Is that not the case?

And as for 'at what cost'... be specific dude... And show countries going in a different direction that you want to emulate.

Most developed countries outside the EU have been booming too - something to do with a technology revolution most would suggest.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

It's only a step in to unknown as much as everything is a step into the unknown.

So which is it? We can make an informed decision based upon gloomy forecasts or we cant?

Forecasts based on one part of the picture, that hasnt even begun to form yet, by the way...

 

[DTA]

So which is it? We can make an informed decision based upon gloomy forecasts or we cant?

Forecasts based on one part of the picture, that hasnt even begun to form yet, by the way...

No one is 100% accurate.

But obviously you can make informed predictions with some/good accuracy. I would have thought that was obvious to everybody??????.

Its how a lot of people make a lot of money.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Firstly, we are still completely uninformed.

Secondly, RE the EU ongoing relationship, we are still virtually uninformed. We apparently know their opening position is "Pick a pre existing relationship" and thats it. We dont yet know how negotiations will follow.

Thirdly, conveniently relationships with the rest of the world is just not factored in at all. As I said, its quite possible we come out of the EU with a "meh" deal, but then supplement it with a second arrangement that leaves us in a great position (or, indeed, vice versa).

So, when you talk about a second referrendum with us knowing what life will be like on the other side, Im sorry but I just think its rubbish. We dont know, and chances are even at the due date we still wont have a full idea of the potential (or not) of Brexit. Only then what things look like with the EU.

Its not actually unreasonable to suggest to give Brexit a fair judgement would mean waiting years to see what actually comes of it.

Terrifying, I know, leaving the comfort of what you know for a complete unknown, but thats basically what it is.

And, as I think about it, its what people voted for inthe first place anyway.

 

[DTA]

Most developed countries outside the EU have been booming too - something to do with a technology revolution most would suggest.

I'm no economist. But wasnt, in terms of per capita GDP growth the uk lagging far behind most other developed nations, from 1870 until the 1970s. falling behind France and Germany in actual per capita GDP by the 1970s.

From the late 70s till 2007/8 haven't we grown in terms of per capia GDP faster than France Germany and even the USA?

What happened in the late 1970s to do with the EU and the UK?

 

[DTA]

Firstly, we are still completely uninformed.

Secondly, RE the EU ongoing relationship, we are still virtually uninformed. We apparently know their opening position is "Pick a pre existing relationship" and thats it. We dont yet know how negotiations will follow.

Thirdly, conveniently relationships with the rest of the world is just not factored in at all. As I said, its quite possible we come out of the EU with a "meh" deal, but then supplement it with a second arrangement that leaves us in a great position (or, indeed, vice versa).

So, when you talk about a second referrendum with us knowing what life will be like on the other side, Im sorry but I just think its rubbish. We dont know, and chances are even at the due date we still wont have a full idea of the potential (or not) of Brexit. Only then what things look like with the EU.

Its not actually unreasonable to suggest to give Brexit a fair judgement would mean waiting years to see what actually comes of it.

Terrifying, I know, leaving the comfort of what you know for a complete unknown, but thats basically what it is.

And, as I think about it, its what people voted for inthe first place anyway.

Things are clearer now. For example almost everyone knows that we won't be getting £350m a week to spend on the nhs if we leave the eu. Almost certainly the opposite will occur.

This and loads of other leave lies need to be rectified before we take the leap into the abyss.

This can only be done by a second referendum. When we actually know what the deal looks like.

fudge trying it for some years first while the economy tanks, everyone gets screwed by the super rich,
The NHS is privatised, we have to pay for our own social care (Again because we already pay through TAXES), interest rates go threw the roof loads lose their home. Etc etc etc.

Then we can elect to join the EU but on much worse terms than we already have.

And no people didn't got to give a try for some years and see if works... the voted based on leave lies... which one by one have been proven to be so... they also voted because the conservatives have been screwing everyone since 2007 but were able to deflect this.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

They voted to leave what they knew, because they didnt want to be part of it. Same difference.

£350m a week, I think most knew that was gonads. I only ever saw it as indicative of being able to spend money locally as we chose, rather than via EU grants etc. The point was the money, not the NHS.

Either way, what is actually clear at this point? Actually very little.

What will be clear in a years time? Our relationship with the EU.

Is that the full picture? No.

The more informed decision we can make with a second referendum will be "This is the state with the EU if we stay, and this is the state with them if we leave". Which itself is better than not knowing at all as with the first referendum, but is still far from the whole story.

We arent allowed to negotiate further trade deals until we leave. What happens if there is potentially a massive deal just around the corner?

You dont know, because like me you dont actually know anything. Not really. So what good is a 99% uninformed vote against a 90% uninformed vote?

It just smacks of remainers wanting their own way.


Think about it practically, and answer this. When do you think is the time to judge the success (or not) of Brexit?



And, what "worse terms" do you suppose would be applied upon re joining the EU if it all went wrong? Single currency I would assume. Anything else? Are you saying we would be punished somehow?

 

[DTA]

They voted to leave what they knew, because they didnt want to be part of it. Same difference.

£350m a week, I think most knew that was gonads. I only ever saw it as indicative of being able to spend money locally as we chose, rather than via EU grants etc. The point was the money, not the NHS.

Either way, what is actually clear at this point? Actually very little.

What will be clear in a years time? Our relationship with the EU.

Is that the full picture? No.

The more informed decision we can make with a second referendum will be "This is the state with the EU if we stay, and this is the state with them if we leave". Which itself is better than not knowing at all as with the first referendum, but is still far from the whole story.

We arent allowed to negotiate further trade deals until we leave. What happens if there is potentially a massive deal just around the corner?

You dont know, because like me you dont actually know anything. Not really. So what good is a 99% uninformed vote against a 90% uninformed vote?

It just smacks of remainers wanting their own way.


Think about it practically, and answer this. When do you think is the time to judge the success (or not) of Brexit?



And, what "worse terms" do you suppose would be applied upon re joining the EU if it all went wrong? Single currency I would assume. Anything else? Are you saying we would be punished somehow?

People believed the £350m. Maybe you didnt but people did.

99% vs 90% where is that from? I would say that once the deal is negotiated.... (and I used that loosly), we will know to an extent our short to medium term furture will be impacted by leaving the EU. Longer term it's impossible to judge... But we may all be dead by then, and leave a brickhole (ala trump) to our kids.

As for being let back in... we arguably have the best deal in the EU now.... we won' get that again

 

[glasgowspur]

Things are clearer now. For example almost everyone knows that we won't be getting £350m a week to spend on the nhs if we leave the eu. Almost certainly the opposite will occur.

This and loads of other leave lies need to be rectified before we take the leap into the abyss.

This can only be done by a second referendum. When we actually know what the deal looks like.

fudge trying it for some years first while the economy tanks, everyone gets screwed by the super rich,
The NHS is privatised, we have to pay for our own social care (Again because we already pay through TAXES), interest rates go threw the roof loads lose their home. Etc etc etc.

Then we can elect to join the EU but on much worse terms than we already have.

And no people didn't got to give a try for some years and see if works... the voted based on leave lies... which one by one have been proven to be so... they also voted because the conservatives have been screwing everyone since 2007 but were able to deflect this.

If we vote to return in a few years time would we not be on the same terms as everyone else? Or at worst any new other new member?
If so and they are as you state "much worse terms", then why we even thinking of staying in or returning?
Or, put it another way, if those terms are so bad why would the EU even exist, never mind have countries queing up join?

 

[DTA]

If we vote to return in a few years time would we not be on the same terms as everyone else? Or at worst any new other new member?
If so and they are as you state "much worse terms", then why we even thinking of staying in or returning?
Or, put it another way, if those terms are so bad why would the EU even exist, never mind have countries queing up join?

Now we have the best deal in the EU. We have better terms than France and Germany. We have as close to pick and mix as you can get. If we leave and decide to come back in 10 years. Not only will we lose all the additional benifits that we are getting now. Bur we will be treated as a completely new member that means the getting rid of the Pound and adopting EURO without a doubt, and probably being part of the EU non border zone.

That to me would be much worse.

Where as if we don't leave we don't ever have to accept the Euro as our currency, or be part of borderless Europe or give back our rebate. Etc etc.

Also if we leave and tank... there is no obligation for them to let us back in. they would be within there rights to say.... um no thanks you can't join.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

People believed the £350m. Maybe you didnt but people did.

99% vs 90% where is that from? I would say that once the deal is negotiated.... (and I used that loosly), we will know to an extent our short to medium term furture will be impacted by leaving the EU. Longer term it's impossible to judge... But we may all be dead by then, and leave a brickhole (ala trump) to our kids.

As for being let back in... we arguably have the best deal in the EU now.... we won' get that again

"People" believe all sorts of things, on all sides of an argument. And many people, on either side, are plain fudging stupid as well.

Whether people voted for the "£350m to the NHS" or not, they still voted AGAINST the EU. Even with undefined "What does that even mean?" at the time.

We know more now than then, but even at this point only marginally.

99% vs 90% is illustrative, not literal. Its trying to point out that we arent actually particularly informed now, and its not likely to improve any time soon. So the only measure of a new referendum would be how much either propoganda campaign has worked since the original vote.

And, Ill quote you again - because this is pure truth:

we will know to an extent our short to medium term furture will be impacted by leaving the EU. Longer term it's impossible to judge...

And this is the point.

We have no idea how successful Brexit will be, and will not be in a position to judge that until long after being out. So what is a second referendum if not just another chance for Remain to win?


And, I would have thought, the remainers who are so in love with the EU would be quite happy to rejoin. THAT would be far more conclusive than a second referendum, even if its years down the line.

We would be choosing to join knowing full well what it is. We would be a full participant/member. Remainers rejoice.

And, of course, should we hit that point and not want to rejoin - well - good job we saw through the result of the original referendum...

 

[scaramanga]

I'm no economist. But wasnt, in terms of per capita GDP growth the uk lagging far behind most other developed nations, from 1870 until the 1970s. falling behind France and Germany in actual per capita GDP by the 1970s.

From the late 70s till 2007/8 haven't we grown in terms of per capia GDP faster than France Germany and even the USA?

What happened in the late 1970s to do with the EU and the UK?

Thatcher.

 

[DTA]

Thatcher.

She was a fan of the EU I believe. But take your time and answer my question.

 

[DTA]

We know more now than then, but even at this point only marginally.

Why marginally? The point is the leave campaign was making ridiculous claims, almost every single one of which has been disproven. Some people who voted leave believed those claims, and therefore should have a revote

You say that both sides made brick up- it wasn'
Even close.... give me some examples of remain lies.

If it was close as you say give me just 5 remain lies.
With links please. Big ones though like the 350mil.

And, I would have thought, the remainers who are so in love with the EU would be quite happy to rejoin. THAT would be far more conclusive than a second referendum, even if its years down the line.

Why do we want rejoin on worse terms than we have now? I would rather we didn't leave unless someone can convince me that it' good for us

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Why marginally? The point is the leave campaign was making ridiculous claims, almost every single one of which has been disproven. Some people who voted leave believed those claims, and therefore should have a revote

You say that both sides made brick up- it wasn'
Even close.... give me some examples of remain lies.

If it was close as you say give me just 5 remain lies.
With links please. Big ones though like the 350mil.

I didnt say both sides make brick up, and Im not getting drawn into that sort of pointless trading.

A second referendum doesnt "fix" anything about the first except - perhaps - the result, if you didnt like it.

As I said, ultimately people voted against a known quantity and FOR the unknown. And before thats even had a chance to come to pass you want to flip it on its head? Sorry, but no. We should honour the vote, and we should leave.

Why do we want rejoin on worse terms than we have now? I would rather we didn't leave unless someone can convince me that it' good for us

If we leave, and it doesnt go well, and we rejoin - thats it - end of conversation. We will (finally?) be properly on board with the whole thing, for better or worse. I would think those so passionate about remaining would rather like that. Its conclusive, and we can all get on with being good Europeans instead of the suspicious co-habitors we seem to be now.

Alternatively, if we leave, and it works out rather well for us - such that we are happy not rejoining, then what would be so bad about that?

You cant be told what will happen on leaving, because we simply cant know yet. It might not actually be all bad though.