Discussion in 'Present & Current Events' started by nivek, Oct 4, 2017.
Oops I lost my place in the world.
What have I forgotten?
You did not put in a closing quote mark, but the The Sun article linked below attributes something similar to Oliver Letwin, a remainer Tory MP, in December of 2016, some six months after the referendum. He was not then, nor has he been since, Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Sunday immediately following the Referendum was George Osborne, an arch remainer. I don't think Osborne has ever attempted to cast Brexit in positive terms, which is what is implied by your quote. Why should Letwin or Osborne's words have any power in deciding what the country should do?
How Remainer MPs promised to respect Brexit and broke vow to voters
Furthermore, on a technical note, we are leaving the EU Customs Union regardless. Even if Labour gets its customs union demand (as irrelevant to the needs of the situation that is) this still holds true. That will be a bilateral customs union between Britain and the EU, not the EU Customs Union. We would also be leaving the Single Market under May's negotiated Withdrawal Agreement.
I am equally disgusted by Parliament, probably more so. You were sticking up for MPs a few weeks ago, when you said that Theresa May had 'insulted' them. I pointed out to you that they were worthy of being insulted.
May has not saved us from the abyss. For one thing, as I said in the last post, a no deal exit seems as likely as ever. For another, May bears a significant responsibility for bringing us to the edge of the abyss, where we currently sit. She has been completely wrong-headed from the very beginning. I bemoaned this fact on the other forum at the time of her Lancaster House speech in January of 2017, where she announced a doomed strategy for negotiating Britain's exit from the EU that any knowledgeable person could see was going to lead us to misery.
This was after she had already promised MPs a vote on any agreement with the EU for Britain leaving. I could foresee then that whatever miserable deal May was going to get was not going to get through the Commons, and that MPs had only been given the right to bring about a no deal exit, which I was very keen then to avoid.
That is not a useful refutation of anything, I am afraid. Brexit does not begin until we actually leave the EU. And when we actually do leave, especially with no deal, our relationship to it is completely different and unprecedented, as so much of our international trading relationships are dependent on it, even with third countries who are outside of the EU. But really, it is not leaving the EU that is the problem at all, but leaving the European Economic Area (or Single Market). There is no WTO rulebook to fall back on that is going to make everything just fine, as many leavers like to make believe there is, with no regard for the facts.
Suffering a severe economic shock does not leave us in a position to negotiate with the EU, but in a position of great weakness. We can either deal in an orderly fashion, before leaving, or in a disorderly fashion afterwards, when we would likely have to take whatever we can get, and not just from the EU.
Don't believe the doom merchants, they have been wild wrong before.
Let's take a look.
Commencing with an early example of gross forecasting error.
1931 just about the whole of the UK establishment favoured remaining inside the Gold standard which was exerting severe deflationary pressure on the UK economy. The great and the good told us that if we leave all hell would break lose, we left and all heaven broke out with the fastest sustained growth of output in our industrial history.
Fast forward to 1992. The UK was again trapped in an exchange rate regime, this time the ERM which again was exerting pressure on the economy. The treasury, aided and abetted by the usual suspects who claimed if we leave it will amount to a catastrophe, inflation would sky rocket, interest would soar and the economy would tank. On September 16 we were forced out of the ERM dispite efforts to remain. Resulting in lower inflation, low interest rates and a sudden burst of growth that brought unemployment and the budget deficit sharply lower.
Not too many years later, the establishment was at it again, trying to get the UK to join the euro, this time the treasury was on the side of the angels and we were saved but the overwhelming majority of the establishment, including the BBC, business bigwigs and establishment news papers were in favour of taking it. Indeed they forecast dire consequences for not joining. Since the euro started in 1999, the German and French economies have grown by 32pc, Italy by 9pc and the poor old UK, self excluded from the enormous benifits of the euro has grown by 44pc. How strange..lol.
If we leave without a deal and trade on WTO terms there will surely be a period of some disruption and uncertainty.
Do not confuse this short term transitionary period with the many decades after and that is surely on the basis of what we should make this momentous decision.
There are sound reasons for believing that not only will we be fine but we will have the opportunity to shine and prosper. This is precisely why M. Barnier and his merry men are so keen that we shouldn't have the chance.
Truth is we can't predict but history does show a pattern I just can't ignore.
Nigel and the Brexit party are officially open for business.
Don’t believe the doom merchants - they’ve been wildly wrong before
Delusional optimists have got us into trouble many times, too.
Please give an example of this here in the UK.
WW1, WW2, the Suez Crisis, joining the Common Market, signing the Treaty of Maastricht, the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, the Libyan intervention, they wanted to intervene in Syria but were stymied. Joining the Eurozone is also something optimists wanted to do, it was largely thanks to the reviled Gordon Brown that we did not.
I don't understand your mentioning of WW1 or WW2 as both resulted in a far more optimistic outcome than the opposite.
Your Arabian examples are not very good exhibits as it is known what comes from either dealing or not dealing with those nations. Humanitarian reasons trump politics in the modern world.
The common market I will grant you was a mistake but does not resemble what it was when the few were inside. Hardly a good example as it has morphed into another beast.
Care for another spin ? Excluding the ironic example of European links and wartime.
For WW1, really? A million British lives lost, a generation of young men wiped out. National bankruptcy and impoverishment. A lasting and monumental increase in state power over the individual. What, if anything, did we gain by it? Really the decision to enter the First World War is what precipitated Britain's collapse as a great nation.
Had we stayed out, then Germany would have dominated the European continent. That happened eventually, anyway. It was pointless to prolong a conflict to prevent the inevitable dominance of Germany, and of course to sow the seeds of the eventual Second World War, which cost even more lives around the world.
As for the Second, Germany was defeated, but Britain was not among the victors. Impoverished once again, it lost its empire and further international standing. In a conflict between the worst and second worst national regimes in history, Britain had to ally itself with one of them. In the simplistic version of history taught to most through popular media, Chamberlain was an appeaser from whom we were saved by Churchill once Hitler finally started a war with us, which he had been meaning to do all along.
However, Chamberlain was the one who took us to war with Germany. He had been angling for a war with Germany, under the advice of the Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, because the two thought it would be a swift affair in which Britain could mount a successful blockade and force Hitler into making terms. They thought that this would improve Britain's standing among nations. As it was, it lead to a protracted global conflict costing tens of millions of lives. The moment we chose to enter the war was extremely disadvantageous, over a useless guarantee to Poland that we had no ability to make good on. Hitler was dumbfounded by Britain's decision to declare war.
Chamberlain had thus committed us to a European land war without much in the way of an army. Our lack of preparedness caused us to lose the Battle of France, and to lose many men and much equipment during the evacuation of Dunkirk, bringing us to the verge of defeat.
Your arguments are a classic 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. In that you say there are no examples of the thing that the other person is saying, and when provided with examples, you caveat all of them. Yes people make incorrect predictions of doom, but people also make incorrect predictions of good.
It is fatuous to imply that because people have made incorrect predictions of bad things happening in the past, all subsequent predictions of bad things happening are therefore dead wrong. This is not a calculus by which sensible decisions are made, but rather one by which stupid, disastrous decisions are made.
What matters in making a good decision are the facts surrounding the specific issue under discussion, and not those around irrelevant issues from the past.
It is interesting that the article you quoted mentioned the abandonment of the gold standard in 1931, but did not mention why this was necessary at this point. After all, the British government had first abandoned the gold standard in the First World War, nearly twenty years earlier.
It was because Churchill, the great optimist, in his role at the time of Chancellor of the Exchequer had re-committed us to the gold standard in 1925, against the warnings of others, such as the economist John Maynard Keynes. This decision by Churchill caused much economic misery, which is why people were only too glad to be rid of it again in 1931.
Shouldn't money be based upon something of value?...If not then over time money would lose its inherit ability to maintain value?...
Was it not a forcing to abandon during the great depression caused by our market crash. The earlier abandonment was due to hoarding during wartime.
We benifited apparently as we could then use monetary policy to stimulate growth.
May I remind you we are not in a wartime crisis and our growth doesn't resemble black Tuesday, or was it pancake day.
Anyhow I apologise for not quoting your posts AD1184 as I am mobile and can not quote or link or present an image.
Join the Brexit party as i'm sure you must be having doubts about the rest.
Experience would suggest that this is a bad idea. I know it is something many American conservatives cling to, always criticizing the US government for not using the gold standard, but I do not understand it myself. I do not think that the US would benefit from a return to the gold standard and there were good reasons the gold standard was abandoned.
Yeah I'm not a financial guy, I really do not understand how monetary values are maintained, nor the pros and cons of a gold standard set up...It just seems logical to me there should be a foundation of value or standard which keeps the honest honest and the crooks from taking advantage by artificially inflating values or deflating values, I don't know...
Armed police open fire on silver Mercedes as it TWICE 'deliberately rams' Ukrainian ambassador's vehicle outside embassy in London's exclusive Holland Park
Armed Police opened fire on car speeding towards Ukrainian ambassador Natalia Galibarenko's (inset) vehicle. A silver Mercedes (left) repeatedly rammed the Ukrainian ambassadors car as police shot at the driver through the window. Metropolitan police say a man in his 40s has been arrested following incident. Neighbours told MailOnline: ‘The Mercedes was sat outside with music blaring for hours - from 7:30ish.'
At first I suspected a Russian op. But it seems like he was just a lone nut. (The Russians would be deadlier.)
'We are lions being led by donkeys': Ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage whips up hardline Eurosceptics at rally for new Brexit Party
The arch-Leaver told a packed auditorium in Birmingham at the party's first rally that 'we are lions being led by donkeys' as he tried to galvanise his supporters before expected European Parliament contests next month. The former-Ukip leader, who has since turned his back on the party, tore into the government for its handling of Britain's departure and also prominent Remainers for refusing to honour the referendum result. He also hit back at claims that Brexit has divided the nation and instead blamed fractures on the 'political class' who he claims are ignoring the 2016 vote.
What I find amazing is that almost 3 years have passed since the Brexit vote took place. Here the British politicians are still spinning their wheels and haven't accomplished much of anything, in my mind.
We're donkeys being led by donkeys and have the leaders we deserve, sorry to say.
All of the things that Farage complains about were not thrust upon us all of a sudden, but gradually by a succession of governments voted-in democratically by the electorate. The electorate has been passive, taking little interest in developments, and voting largely by moronic tribal divisions (i.e. always Labour or always Conservative) regardless of what the result is. Suddenly, many are are fanatics in a cause they cared little about a few years ago.
Separate names with a comma.