Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Brexiteers: even in victory they can't get the figures straight watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Indeed, but it did not concede sovereignty in a number of issues such as trade deals with non-EU members. This remains crucial for a country such as Switzerland that does nearly a quarter of its total trade with non-EU members.
    But from a Brexiter perspective, given Leave's campaign rhetoric, it doesn't matter whether such a compromise in one field or another matters more or less to you - it's the fact that it happens. Any compromise on 'sovereignty' is a betrayal of Leave's campaign promises - and who's to decide what constitutes an acceptable compromise? To me, the whole EU-UK relationship as it currently stands is acceptable, for example.

    I agree with this but again, to what extent Britain will need to concede depends, in my opinion, on how quickly Britain can establish preliminary agreements with non-EU members and therefore have more bargaining power.
    We are not allowed to engage in any such deals until we leave the EU. Such negotiations will have been finished by then.

    I do not deny that Britain will suffer. Where I have an issue is when either side appeals to an irrational extreme (e.g. "Britain is going to collapse!").
    The reason the economy is just about coasting right now is because Leave's political leadership committed mass suicide and May became Prime Minister, making hard Brexit unlikely. It's the prospect of soft Brexit that is making the economy less unattractive.

    If the Government came out in favour of full EU withdrawal, the economy will tank further. And given Leave's rhetoric in the campaign, it's natural that economic forecasts were based upon that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    If you are unsatisfied with small short term movements then I would suggest that the stock market might not be for you. I bought it 2 years ago by the way.
    If you bought it two years ago then I don't care*
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Again it's called the Buffett index, which I pointed out correlates GDP to Stock market capitalisation. It is also used to decide whether the stock market is over valued or under valued, by comparing it with GDP or GNP.
    and again,like I said before, *then show one economist or organisation that uses it as a sole measure of GDP growth like you did.*

    You won't because it doesn't exist
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    What are you trying to suggest here? * *
    That you are making it up. Thought it was obvious.*
    *
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    That 20% depreciation can also be viewed as a correction in the market. The current state of the pound is not necessarily bad for the economy.*
    Who said it wasn't a Brexit correction?

    * *
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    ** * *You're simply reiterating your previously fallacious point. 'Passporting' does not require membership of the common market, nor does it require the implementation of the free movement of peoples. 'Brexit' will require Britain to negotiate a bespoke treaty with the EU in order to continue with free access to the services market.
    Simply false. No country has access to the single market and passporting without free movement. You can keep on repeating the lie that you can get access otherwise though.

    **
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    and again,like I said before, *then show one economist or organisation that uses it as a sole measure of GDP growth like you did.*

    You won't because it doesn't exist
    As I said, it is an indicator the report seemed to ignore despite that there's a huge discrepancy. There is also no real data that the report can base on, because it has only been less than a month since the referendum.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    But from a Brexiter perspective, given Leave's campaign rhetoric, it doesn't matter whether such a compromise in one field or another matters more or less to you - it's the fact that it happens. Any compromise on 'sovereignty' is a betrayal of Leave's campaign promises - and who's to decide what constitutes an acceptable compromise? To me, the whole EU-UK relationship as it currently stands is acceptable, for example.
    Your conclusion is based on the assumption that everyone views sovereignty in the same manner. 'Brexiters' are not a homogeneous group and should not be viewed as such.

    (Original post by gladders)
    We are not allowed to engage in any such deals until we leave the EU. Such negotiations will have been finished by then.
    There is no restriction on a country entering talks or setting up preliminary discussions on the topic, especially once Article 50 is triggered. The restriction is placed on concluding and signing a trade deal.

    (Original post by gladders)
    The reason the economy is just about coasting right now is because Leave's political leadership committed mass suicide and May became Prime Minister, making hard Brexit unlikely. It's the prospect of soft Brexit that is making the economy less unattractive.
    I agree with this but I think you need to go further than that. Political stability is one thing, but the economy remains vibrant and a recovery from the 2008 financial crisis seems more stable now. As an investor, the U.K. seems far more appealing than most other nations in the EU.

    (Original post by gladders)
    If the Government came out in favour of full EU withdrawal, the economy will tank further.
    I don't see this happening. Such a move would be foolish and quite honestly reckless.

    (Original post by gladders)
    And given Leave's rhetoric in the campaign, it's natural that economic forecasts were based upon that.
    Economic forecasts should not be influenced by rhetoric.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    That you are making it up. Thought it was obvious.
    One would have thought that you had evidence to prove this belief. Do you?

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Who said it wasn't a Brexit correction?
    A correction does not imply a negative consequence; your statement does.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Simply false. No country has access to the single market and passporting without free movement. You can keep on repeating the lie that you can get access otherwise though.
    Just because a country does not have access to it does not mean it's not possible. There is no legal requirement and therefore it is feasible. The level of difficulty of such a deal being achieved is irrelevant in this discussion and that is where your argument is getting confused.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    There is no restriction on a country entering talks or setting up preliminary discussions on the topic, especially once Article 50 is triggered. The restriction is placed on concluding and signing a trade deal.
    Which doesn't mean in any way that the ensuing formal negotiations will go any faster, of course. Without a formal process in place they could be completely stopped in their tracks by new administrations taking over in foreign countries in the future.

    Your conclusion is based on the assumption that everyone views sovereignty in the same manner. 'Brexiters' are not a homogeneous group and should not be viewed as such.

    I don't see this happening. Such a move would be foolish and quite honestly reckless.

    Economic forecasts should not be influenced by rhetoric.
    Quite so!

    So your answer seems to be that the Government can interpret Brexit in any way they like. So what on earth was the referendum for? (that was a rhetorical question of course - the referendum should not have happened)

    Given what you say, I think it would be entirely permissible for the Government to now declare Article 50 will not be triggered as full EU membership is in the UK's best interests!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    As I said, it is an indicator the report seemed to ignore despite that there's a huge discrepancy. There is also no real data that the report can base on, because it has only been less than a month since the referendum.
    aka I can't find one economist or economic reports that is stupid enough to use the indicator to predict gdp growth
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    One would have thought that you had evidence to prove this belief. Do you?.
    Why would I be able to prove something that you made Up?

    (Original post by Aceadria)
    correction does not imply a negative consequence; your statement does.
    .
    Lol. *Yeh, record drop in the pound, worst manufacturing data in since the 09. Can't be negative at all.*
    *
    * * *
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    because a country does not have access to it does not mean it's not possible. There is no legal requirement and therefore it is feasible. The level of difficulty of such a deal being achieved is irrelevant in this discussion and that is where your argument is getting confused.
    My argument isn't getting confused. There won't be access to the single market without free movement. *That is obvious. *You seem to be the only person on the Remain or Leave side that is oblivious to that. **
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Which doesn't mean in any way that the ensuing formal negotiations will go any faster, of course. Without a formal process in place they could be completely stopped in their tracks by new administrations taking over in foreign countries in the future.
    Indeed. I very much doubt, however, that nations such as India and Australia would refuse to engage in talks with Britain, especially as that is the likely nation May will want her government to go.



    (Original post by gladders)
    Quite so!

    So your answer seems to be that the Government can interpret Brexit in any way they like. So what on earth was the referendum for? (that was a rhetorical question of course - the referendum should not have happened)
    If they're not legally binding, I don't see why a government should have to listen to referenda. I do think it's political suicide if one doesn't abide by the result, but the fact remains. Moreover, there was no mention in the referendum on what a post-Brexit Britain will look like. There were multiple interpretations by leading members of the movement, but this by no means reflects reality. Isn't this what both sides were doing during the campaign? :rolleyes:

    (Original post by gladders)
    Given what you say, I think it would be entirely permissible for the Government to now declare Article 50 will not be triggered as full EU membership is in the UK's best interests!
    Indeed, I don't believe there is any legal requirement for the result to be implemented. I very much doubt, however, May will engage in such an endeavour.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Why would I be able to prove something that you made Up?
    Well, if you believe something, the burden of proof lays with you, even if said belief is someone else's opinion.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Lol. *Yeh, record drop in the pound, worst manufacturing data in since the 09. Can't be negative at all.
    Re-read my post. I did not say it was only positive but economics is not about a single outcome. In other words, if something happens, it isn't always negative or positive. There are multiple factors in play.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    My argument isn't getting confused. There won't be access to the single market without free movement. *That is obvious. *You seem to be the only person on the Remain or Leave side that is oblivious to that. **
    You're simply stating a fallacious statement without understanding the core facts: there is no legal requirement of membership for nations to get access to 'passporting'. This doesn't mean Britain will continue to gain access to it, but to conclude that it won't happen, is incorrect. No member has ever decided to leave the EU so we are in no position to assert what the outcome will be.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Bremain said we'd be safer in the EU.

    A month after the ref, we've had 5 terrorist attacks in Mainland Europe from those of Middle Eastern background.

    Once again, Bremain lied.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Indeed. I very much doubt, however, that nations such as India and Australia would refuse to engage in talks with Britain, especially as that is the likely nation May will want her government to go.
    Well, that's not quite what I was saying. My point is that there is zero obligation to honour informal talks, and a newly-elected government in, say, Australia, could decide to throw years of work down the drain if it felt like it, particularly if it put the UK's toes in the fire and pressed it to more concessions.

    If they're not legally binding, I don't see why a government should have to listen to referenda. I do think it's political suicide if one doesn't abide by the result, but the fact remains. Moreover, there was no mention in the referendum on what a post-Brexit Britain will look like. There were multiple interpretations by leading members of the movement, but this by no means reflects reality. Isn't this what both sides were doing during the campaign? :rolleyes:
    Personally, I think Remain's warnings have been bang on so far, and given Leave's rhetoric in the campaign that the EU was the embodiment of the Fourth Reich and that Britain will become second-only to the US if it left the EU and placed its faith in the free market, their tack was pretty reasonable.

    Indeed, I don't believe there is any legal requirement for the result to be implemented. I very much doubt, however, May will engage in such an endeavour.
    Regrettably you are correct, although she'd get my vote for actually leading rather than following in that scenario.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Casserole)
    Bremain said we'd be safer in the EU.

    A month after the ref, we've had 5 terrorist attacks in Mainland Europe from those of Middle Eastern background.

    Once again, Bremain lied.
    So where in that does it indicate the UK is more vulnerable?

    It's more down to the Schengen Zone and German/French domestic policies rather than simple EU membership, as the UK hasn't had any (sod's law is that we do have one now I've said it!)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Well, if you believe something, the burden of proof lays with you, even if said belief is someone else's opinion. *
    Except I don't believe it.

    You are the one with the belief. *So you prove it.**Of course, you won't be able to because......it was made up.**


    (Original post by Aceadria)
    *my post. I did not say it was only positive but economics is not about a single outcome. In other words, if something happens, it isn't always negative or positive. There are multiple factors in play.
    *
    And like I said before. You must be stupid to not think that a 20 percent drop in the pound and the worst PMI numbers since 09 isn't a sign of a significant deterioration in the economy
    **
    ***
    *
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    * simply stating a fallacious statement without understanding the core facts: there is no legal requirement of membership for nations to get access to 'passporting'. This doesn't mean Britain will continue to gain access to it, but to conclude that it won't happen, is incorrect. No member has ever decided to leave the EU so we are in no position to assert what the outcome will be.
    *

    Hahaha

    I know what your argument is and I am saying you are deliberately trying to skirt the issue.

    No one cares about the legal argument. The question is what can THE UK realistically obtain .

    The answer is clear no free trade without free movement. *Of course, you will skirt the issue anyway with all.of this garbage about legal requirements which has nothing to do with my point. **
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    Well, that's not quite what I was saying. My point is that there is zero obligation to honour informal talks, and a newly-elected government in, say, Australia, could decide to throw years of work down the drain if it felt like it, particularly if it put the UK's toes in the fire and pressed it to more concessions.
    That's not really the point. It's about having leverage when negotiating bilateral deals.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Personally, I think Remain's warnings have been bang on so far, and given Leave's rhetoric in the campaign that the EU was the embodiment of the Fourth Reich and that Britain will become second-only to the US if it left the EU and placed its faith in the free market, their tack was pretty reasonable.
    I have no interest in debating this. It's getting tiring and quite honestly, pointless. There are far too many discussions on this topic on these forums.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    Except I don't believe it.

    You are the one with the belief. *So you prove it.**Of course, you won't be able to because......it was made up.**
    Your belief or lack thereof is irrelevant. You've made an accusation that I made up a statement and so the burden of proof lays with you. Unless making ad hominem attacks on an individual is your only retort to my initial question?

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    And like I said before. You must be stupid to not think that a 20 percent drop in the pound and the worst PMI numbers since 09 isn't a sign of a significant deterioration in the economy
    And I stated before that the economy does not work in that way. You cannot take one piece of data and assume that it is the same across the board. A drop in a currency, for example, is not necessarily bad for an economy. Your assumption is that a drop in the pound will have a detrimental effect on the economy.

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    I know what your argument is and I am saying you are deliberately trying to skirt the issue.


    No one cares about the legal argument. The question is what can THE UK realistically obtain .

    The answer is clear no free trade without free movement. *Of course, you will skirt the issue anyway with all.of this garbage about legal requirements which has nothing to do with my point. **
    Actually, it has everything to do with your point. You very clearly stated in your previous posts that the U.K. cannot engage in 'passporting':

    (Original post by DorianGrayism)
    And like I said before, no access to the single market without free movement. That includes the Swiss. Do their banks have passporting? No. So let'snot pretend that they are a "good" example.
    This is not about skirting the issue, DorianGrayism. It's about you not being able to address the issue you have raised: there is no precedent set by the E.U., which prevents a non-EU nation from having access to the EEA. Whether the E.U. refuses to do so during negotiations is a different issue all together.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Your belief or lack thereof is irrelevant. You've made an accusation that I made up a statement and so the burden of proof lays with you. Unless making ad hominem attacks on an individual is your only retort to my initial question?.
    Nothing to do with Ad Hominem.

    What you wrote was obviously nonsensical

    " many of the same economists and institutions said that Switzerland would become a developing nation if it didn't join the EEA"

    Simply the lack of evidence is enough. Number of economists that said that Switzerland will become a developing nation = 0. Number of institutions that said that Switzerland will become a developing nation = 0.

    So you not only made something up.... You also made something up that was really stupid.

    (Original post by Aceadria)
    And I stated before that the economy does not work in that way. You cannot take one piece of data and assume that it is the same across the board. A drop in a currency, for example, is not necessarily bad for an economy. Your assumption is that a drop in the pound will have a detrimental effect on the economy.
    Stop changing what I wrote.

    I clearly stated that the drop in the pound and etc is secondary to a deterioration in the state of the economy. I didn't say it WILL be detrimental

    You are just trying to change the subject to suit your agenda.

    (Original post by Aceadria)
    Actually, it has everything to do with your point. You very clearly stated in your previous posts that the U.K. cannot engage in 'passporting':
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This is not about skirting the issue, DorianGrayism. It's about you not being able to address the issue you have raised: there is no precedent set by the E.U., which prevents a non-EU nation from having access to the EEA. Whether the E.U. refuses to do so during negotiations is a different issue all together.
    Yes. The UK won't have passporting or access to the single market without freedom of movement. That is the EU position.

    I addressed the issue. I didn't say it was legally impossible and etc. I said the EU won't give single access without freedom of movement. They have stated that. They would also be stupid to agree to something like that as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Brexiteer here: we took the country back from being an irrelevant county in an EU ran by Brussels and Germany, and prostituted to whichever end the latter two felt was important (and utopian) enough NOT because of any Economic concerns whatsoever, and since we're as integrated into the EU economy as much as a homosexual into a woman....we don't lose anything and only stand to gain by getting the hell out of dodge ASAP before you and I have to march under EDL banners in a Civil War against the terrorist religion (Guess which? "A-lalalalalalalalalala" - that's a hint ) which is spreading at a dangerous rate.

    We are net importers by a long shot, so the EU will bend over backwards to give us a prefarable trade deal capitulating to any of our demands

    And devolution is a good thing by definition. Hope that one makes you "laugh" little pup because the anti-Brexit people's lack of arguments on sovereignty is more than a little telling (it's not that they haven't any, it's that there AREN'T any which would support their position)

    PS You nitpicking some aspect of some irrelevant minister's speech shows you to be exactly what you are - a butthurt loser who himself doesn't really understand why being in the EU is such a good thing if, and wait for it, we are better than the average country, which means that tying us to other countries will on average weaken us and strengthen them, which means, yes you're right, being in the EU is a TERRIBLE idea for us.

    PPS The establishment is against Brexit stupid. If we had Farage in charge we would be making incredible headway to Brexit ASAP, but even the Conservatives were against Brexit, so May will now drag her feet on calling 50.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.