Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:46 pm

dsr wrote:There was an American city (as they call it) a few years back that had an electorate of 14, and the two candidates got 7 votes each. (It was decided on toss of a coin.) But the turnout was 100%, so it was a bigger democratic exercise than the Brexit vote, if turnover is the criterion.

Turnout is a valid measure if you’re making comparisons within the same country (and for that purpose the Scottish Referendum shouldn’t be on the list).

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 4:56 pm

martin_p wrote:Turnout is a valid measure if you’re making comparisons within the same country (and for that purpose the Scottish Referendum shouldn’t be on the list).

It's certainly a valid measure. But to say it's the only valid measure and that comparing sizes of elections by counting the total votes is a gross distortion of the truth? That's nonsense.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:08 pm

The woman who described the kind of Brexit she wants to achieve as a "red, white and blue Brexit" has today warned us about populist language.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:14 pm

dsr wrote:It's certainly a valid measure. But to say it's the only valid measure and that comparing sizes of elections by counting the total votes is a gross distortion of the truth? That's nonsense.

It is, but the the link shows the EU referendum wasn’t the biggest using either measure.

That said, an increasing population and a shift in demographics toward an older population suggest the electorate should be growing in numbers. So i’d argue that of the two measures turnout is a better representation of engagement in democracy than pure numbers.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:22 pm

Greenmile wrote:Do you think it is less likely or more likely that we will be willing and able to curtail corporate interests post-Brexit?

Your argument - on this particular front - seems to be that the EU isn’t perfect so we should jack it in and leave. I’m not sure that’s a fair and logical stance to take, tbh.

The question shouldn’t be “has the EU curtailed corporate interests as much as I would like them to?”, but “have corporate interests been curtailed more or less than they would have been had the EU never existed (or included the UK)?”

More likely. Much more likely. There isn't any realistic chance Maastricht will be revoked, so there is no realistic chance we can rein in corporate excess, because Maastricht was designed as a corporate paradise. If we leave it could go either way, but at least I'll get a say. And I don't consider voting in the EU elections 'having a say' - I consider it pointless.

My answer to your last question is "I don't know", but then none of us do. I'd say a decent guide would be to ask the question "Has corporate excess increased or decreased since 1975?". My answer is a resounding 'increased'. What would yours be?

We shouldn't be dictated to by fear of what Boris or Farage may or may not do in the future, because at least we'll all get a genuine say in it.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:26 pm

CombatClaret wrote:Do you think the UK has suitably curtained the corporate interests of VW?

EU fine: $1.2 paid (actual fine was larger), potential $2b fine in 2021 if new emissions test failed.
US fine: $25b
UK fine: $0

U.S. authorities have extracted $25 billion in fines, penalties and restitution from VW for the 580,000 tainted diesels it sold in the U.S. In Europe, where the company sold 8 million tainted diesels, VW has not paid a single Euro in government penalties. If you want to see VW corporate interest curtailed and it seems like you do then you should support the EU for it's willingness to do things the UK, Germany, Italy etc wont even whilst being lobbied by the very same company.

Haven't you just proved exactly what I've been saying? That the EU did practically nothing to VW. 'Good on the USA' is the conclusion to be drawn from this, surely?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:33 pm

aggi wrote:I may have misinterpreted you, easy to do in writing.

By want another say I mean you want to have your own vote for appointments to things such as the Council of Europe, EU Commission, various treaties, etc rather than have whoever is leading the UK at that time decide for you.

Is that what you're saying?

Well not really. I'm saying 'I want to leave the EU'. I've repeatedly said, just recently on this thread, that I can understand the reasons why the EU is as undemocratic as it is - I actually get that - and also that it would probably be unworkable if it was made substantially more democratic.

That's why I want to leave it. Has this cleared up the confusion?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:39 pm

aggi wrote:Well that's part of it, and personally I don't have an issue with countries being taken to task when they aren't enforcing regulations that result in this kind of thing. Do you think enforcing these rules will help or hinder VW's interests? If the countries had done their job properly in the first place would this have been an issue?

There is nothing to stop individual countries taking action over VW. As others have pointed out, you're complaining that the EU is doing nothing (even though it's doing something) whilst ignoring the fact that individual countries did nothing until the EU forced them to. It's a balancing act. You complain that the EU aren't getting involved enough and then other posters complain that they get involved too much.

Also, this isn't over yet. There's another case at the moment which may result in a few more billion of fines for VW.

Let's take a step back. Among your list of examples where the EU had reined in corporate excess, you listed VW. I said the EU had barely done anything to take VW to task. Combatclaret's comparison with the US response dramatically illustrates this.

You are now saying it's up to individual countries to rein them in. So what's the EU's role in reining in corporate excess again? Telling independent nations they should be dealing with it on their own? Okay. Thanks a lot, EU. Great help.

timshorts · Post by **timshorts** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:07 pm

BBC, guilty of biased reporting again with chart showing the falling £ against the € which, of course, has nothing to do with Brexit at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49015116" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why would it matter when Blackpool is almost on the doorstep and Skegness and Cleethorpes not too far away.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:07 pm

dsr wrote:Of course I read the link. How could I have talked about what was in the link if I hadn't read it? That doesn't make any sense.

I was commenting on the poster's idea that turnout is the measure of the size of an election; not actual votes. Obviously the number of voters was only the second highest in history in the UK.

Incidentally, the poster draws what to him is the obvious inference that when Rees-Mogg and may said that it was the biggest ever in terms of votes, were liars; but he himself, when he said it was the biggest ever in terms of votes, was mistaken. Why does he think that he can be wrong and they can't?

I take it all back. It looks like not only did you read the link, but you also read a load of extra info in keith1879's post which hasn't appeared on my screen.

You see, on my screen he's just posted the link. Maybe my computer's on the blink.

Unless the info I'm missing comes from the post he's quote-replying to, which seems to say

"I see aggi is still struggling to accept the result of the largest single expression of democracy this country has ever witnessed.

Adults find it an easy to process to come to terms with."

Now when I saw keith replying with his link and no other info, I just thought he was dispelling the myth that the Brexit vote was "the largest single expression of democracy this country has ever witnessed", in either percentage terms or raw numbers of votes.

Yet, according to you, he wasn't only doing that, he was also drawing inferences about JRM lying and suggesting that turnout is the only measure of the size of an election; not actual votes.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:11 pm

Greenmile wrote:I take it all back. It looks like not only did you read the link, but you also read a load of extra info in keith1879's post which hasn't appeared on my screen.

You see, on my screen he's just posted the link. Maybe my computer's on the blink.

Unless the info I'm missing comes from the post he's quote-replying to, which seems to say

"I see aggi is still struggling to accept the result of the largest single expression of democracy this country has ever witnessed.

Adults find it an easy to process to come to terms with."

Now when I saw keith replying with his link and no other info, I just thought he was dispelling the myth that the Brexit vote was "the largest single expression of democracy this country has ever witnessed", in either percentage terms or raw numbers of votes.

Yet, according to you, he wasn't only doing that, he was also drawing inferences about JRM lying and suggesting that turnout is the only measure of the size of an election; not actual votes.

That's all I see too

Weird. Maybe i need to increase my broadband capacity to get all of peoples posts.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:18 pm

If it be your will wrote:More likely. Much more likely. There isn't any realistic chance Maastricht will be revoked, so there is no realistic chance we can rein in corporate excess, because Maastricht was designed as a corporate paradise. If we leave it could go either way, but at least I'll get a say. And I don't consider voting in the EU elections 'having a say' - I consider it pointless.

My answer to your last question is "I don't know", but then none of us do. I'd say a decent guide would be to ask the question "Has corporate excess increased or decreased since 1975?". My answer is a resounding 'increased'. What would yours be?

We shouldn't be dictated to by fear of what Boris or Farage may or may not do in the future, because at least we'll all get a genuine say in it.

I think you're living in fantasy-land if you think Brexit will result in less corporate excess (in the UK, at least), but it seems like a faith-based position that's not really worth arguing with. As does your personal view that voting in EU elections is "pointless" (I'm presuming you don't think the same about General Elections).

You've made a lot of good points on this thread and others, but I can never get my head 'round how lexiters think enabling the brainchild of folk like Johnson and Farage (supported by Trump and Putin et al) will actually acheive any of your goals. I mean I can sort of understand it as an abstract concept, but not one that could possibly translate into reality.

Maybe you're just more of an idealist than me - I do have fear of what Johnson and Farage may and probably will do in the future, not least because I think it will lead to a lot of unnecessary suffering for the poorest in our society - you know, those folk who "the left" are supposed to care about.

My answer to your question is also a resounding "increased", but blaming the EU for that seems almost Ringo-eque to me (ie - everything bad that has happened whilst we've been in the EU has happened because we've been in the EU). I take your point that you can't answer my question with any certainty, and that if you were to guess you'd probably guess differently from me, though.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:19 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:That's all I see too

Weird. Maybe i need to increase my broadband capacity to get all of peoples posts.

I'm glad it's not just me. Let me know if you figure out how to fix it.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:24 pm

If it be your will wrote:Let's take a step back. Among your list of examples where the EU had reined in corporate excess, you listed VW. I said the EU had barely done anything to take VW to task. Combatclaret's comparison with the US response dramatically illustrates this...

But Combatclaret's post shows the EU have done infinitely more than the UK, which is the default position that Bexit leads us to.

Could the US response not be attributed to Trump's protectionist stance? (genuine question - I have no idea)

Nobody's saying that the EU is perfect - just that it's better than the alternative.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:31 pm

timshorts wrote:BBC, guilty of biased reporting again with chart showing the falling £ against the € which, of course, has nothing to do with Brexit at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49015116" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why would it matter when Blackpool is almost on the doorstep and Skegness and Cleethorpes not too far away.

In what sense is it biased reporting when the same data and report is in all the news?
(Here's the FT (for example)) https://www.ft.com/content/38543942-a7b ... c8325aaa04" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In what sense has it nothing to do with brexit at all? (All the financial papers, news outlets say it is, and if you've followed currency fluctuations over the past 3 years, they are nearly always related to brexit news, (potentially positive or negative).
The increased likelihood of a no deal brexit following the comments by the prospective PMs over the past week will obviously have weakened sterling.

"Sterling is the worst performing major currency against the US dollar over the past one month, three months and 12 months. It has fallen more than 2 per cent so far in July as investors have repriced the likelihood of a hard or no-deal Brexit amid tough rhetoric from Mr Johnson in particular, the overwhelming favourite. He has promised to leave the EU at the end-of-October deadline “come what may”.

Taken from the FT article I linked, so it's not just the BBC.
[Not sure that foreign investors etc. even know where Skegness and Cleethorpes are]

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:33 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:In what sense is it biased reporting when the same data and report is in all the news?
(Here's the FT (for example)) https://www.ft.com/content/38543942-a7b ... c8325aaa04" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In what sense has it nothing to do with brexit at all? (All the financial papers, news outlets say it is, and if you've followed currency fluctuations over the past 3 years, they are nearly always related to brexit news, (potentially positive or negative).
The increased likelihood of a no deal brexit following the comments by the prospective PMs over the past week will obviously have weakened sterling.

Taken from the FT article I linked, so it's not just the BBC.
[Not sure that foreign investors etc. even know where Skegness and Cleethorpes are]

I think Tim was being sarcastic, but it is difficult to tell, these days.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:53 pm

I’d be getting on the markets, there are going to be some new millionaires coming out of this. Anyone Selling deserves to lose their fortunes, scare mongering is usually someone wanting to mop up.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:09 pm

Greenmile wrote:I think Tim was being sarcastic, but it is difficult to tell, these days.

Sure is.
It could so easily have been written by half a dozen posters on here, (in fact I'm surprised that he didn't get likes from the usual suspects).
(It certainly reeled me in!)

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:16 pm

I bought my house in Spain six years ago. The exchange rate then was €1,11 to the pound, a number you tend to remember when you transfer many, many tens of thousands of pound to Spain. Guess what the exchange rate today is €1,11 to the pound. Disaster or what?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:21 pm

Greenmile wrote:But Combatclaret's post shows the EU have done infinitely more than the UK, which is the default position that Bexit leads us to.

Could the US response not be attributed to Trump's protectionist stance? (genuine question - I have no idea)

Nobody's saying that the EU is perfect - just that it's better than the alternative.

We have to be careful not to mix two separate arguments. My argument wasn't that the current UK administration had sufficiently reined in VW's corporate excesses, it was that the EU hadn't. I'll make absolutely no defence of the Conservatives and their determination to rein in corporate excess.

Your other post is fair, just reflects a completely different outlook to mine.

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:21 pm

Vino blanco wrote:I bought my house in Spain six years ago. The exchange rate then was €1,11 to the pound, a number you tend to remember when you transfer many, many tens of thousands of pound to Spain. Guess what the exchange rate today is €1,11 to the pound. Disaster or what?

Depends if you look at what happened in the 6 years in between

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:23 pm

DA , what the f.ck does that mean?

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:31 pm

Since early 2013 the rate climbed steadily for nearly 3 years getting to around 1.42 by the end of 2015. Then came the referendum and Brexit and it took a nose dive back to where we were 6 years ago.

I think if you are going to use the exchange rate comparison from 6 years ago to that of today in relation to Brexit I think its useful to look at the period in between where the pivotal events took place connecting the two

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:38 pm

The exchange rate was at an exchange rate of1,42 for a very very short time and when it was I transferred quite a lot of sterling to Spain to enjoy the benefits of it. It's been around the 1,15 for most of the time I've been here. F.ck all to do be with Brexit or the so called "pivotal events" which took place connecting the two (as you say).

Devils_Advocate · Post by **Devils_Advocate** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 7:52 pm

Its been above 1.2 since Apr 14 to Jul 16. Its been above 1.25 since Jun 14 to Apr 16. Its been above 1.3 since Jan 15 to Feb 16.

It peaked in Nov 15 around 1.42 then slumped in Apr 16 back to 1.25 before finally hitting 1.11 again in Oct 16. To to say its been its been steady around 1.15 is just plain rubbish

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:15 pm

Vino blanco wrote:The exchange rate was at an exchange rate of1,42 for a very very short time and when it was I transferred quite a lot of sterling to Spain to enjoy the benefits of it. It's been around the 1,15 for most of the time I've been here. F.ck all to do be with Brexit or the so called "pivotal events" which took place connecting the two (as you say).

lol.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:15 pm

If it be your will wrote:We have to be careful not to mix two separate arguments. My argument wasn't that the current UK administration had sufficiently reined in VW's corporate excesses, it was that the EU hadn't. I'll make absolutely no defence of the Conservatives and their determination to rein in corporate excess.

Your other post is fair, just reflects a completely different outlook to mine.

So if the current govt are doing even less than the EU to rein in corporate excesses now (we can agree on that, can’t we?), what makes you think that will change post-Brexit? Particularly given we are likely to have a fairly substantial chunk of GDP to make up as a direct result of Brexit.

This is the bit I’m missing, I think. We can agree that the EU aren’t doing enough, we just don’t seem to agree whether a UK govt which has “taken back control” (

) would do any more.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:54 pm

Greenmile wrote:I take it all back. It looks like not only did you read the link, but you also read a load of extra info in keith1879's post which hasn't appeared on my screen.

You see, on my screen he's just posted the link. Maybe my computer's on the blink.

Oh, I see. Sorry, I have made things far too complicated again.

You see, there are two posters involved. One is keith1879, who has provided a link and has written nothing else on his post. You are absolutely correct there.

Where the confusion arises, is that I have referred to a poster writing things. Now, keith hasn't written anything, so obviously I wasn't referring to him. You probably realised I was referring to someone else, but couldn't work out who. I was referring to Ian Bartle, who wrote the article referred to in the link. There was no writing in keith's post, so I sort of assumed that anyone reading would assume that I was referring to the text in the link.

My apologies. I will try and name all posters rather than referring to "the poster" in future; that way it should prevent you and anyone else being any further confused.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 8:58 pm

dsr wrote:Oh, I see. Sorry, I have made things far too complicated again.

You see, there are two posters involved. One is keith1879, who has provided a link and has written nothing else on his post. You are absolutely correct there.

Where the confusion arises, is that I have referred to a poster writing things. Now, keith hasn't written anything, so obviously I wasn't referring to him. You probably realised I was referring to someone else, but couldn't work out who. I was referring to Ian Bartle, who wrote the article referred to in the link. There was no writing in keith's post, so I sort of assumed that anyone reading would assume that I was referring to the text in the link.

My apologies. I will try and name all posters rather than referring to "the poster" in future; that way it should prevent you and anyone else being any further confused.

Ian Bartle isn’t a “poster” though, is he? As in, he doesn’t “post” on here. The word you wanted was “author”.

Sometimes it’s better to just admit you’ve made a mistake, instead of doubling down and looking even more stupid.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:01 pm

Greenmile wrote:Ian Bartle isn’t a “poster” though, is he? As in, he doesn’t “post” on here. The word you wanted was “author”.

Sometimes it’s better to just admit you’ve made a mistake, instead of doubling down and looking even more stupid.

I did admit I made a mistake. I apologised fulsomely. Won't it do?

Yes, I should have realised that using the word "poster" for someone who writes (or "posts") on a website would only cause confusion, because there was no way for people like you and turtle to work out whether I was referring to Keith's blank post or Bartle's detailed post. And I Won't Do It Again! I will Keep It Simple! OK?

Vino blanco · Post by **Vino blanco** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:05 pm

Just taken the dog out for a walk. Turtles graph shows the exchange rate since 2015, which I said was a high for the exchange rate. I don't do graphs etc, but I have just looked at the Euro value from 2009 which shows me a Euro at 0,87, 2015 at 0,73 which I said was a high, 2018 at 0,87 and today at 0'9. No big difference.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:12 pm

dsr wrote:I did admit I made a mistake. I apologised fulsomely. Won't it do?

Yes, I should have realised that using the word "poster" for someone who writes (or "posts") on a website would only cause confusion, because there was no way for people like you and turtle to work out whether I was referring to Keith's blank post or Bartle's detailed post. And I Won't Do It Again! I will Keep It Simple! OK?

You didn’t admit you made a mistake, your apology was entirely sarcastic and hollow, and now - true to form - you’re lying about it.

One “posts” on a forum like this. If you write an article for a website, you are an author, not a poster, even if a poster subsequently links to that article.

Would you refer to Donald Trump as a “poster” because folk occasionally screen-cap his tweets on here?

Why can’t you admit you used the wrong word by mistake? - it’s easily done (both making the mistake and admitting to it).

android · Post by **android** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:18 pm

timshorts wrote:BBC, guilty of biased reporting again with chart showing the falling £ against the € which, of course, has nothing to do with Brexit at all.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49015116" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Why would it matter when Blackpool is almost on the doorstep and Skegness and Cleethorpes not too far away.

Lol. More truth in that than you realise I think. Good old BBC and their anti Brexit agenda.

This time last year the Euro rate was 1.12. And it is now 1.11. Hope the airports have enough nurses on hand to cope with all those tourists suffering the shock of a near 1% fall !!!

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:22 pm

If it be your will wrote:Let's take a step back. Among your list of examples where the EU had reined in corporate excess, you listed VW. I said the EU had barely done anything to take VW to task. Combatclaret's comparison with the US response dramatically illustrates this.

You are now saying it's up to individual countries to rein them in. So what's the EU's role in reining in corporate excess again? Telling independent nations they should be dealing with it on their own? Okay. Thanks a lot, EU. Great help.

I'm saying it's up to both. Regardless of what many believe there are still many areas where countries have individual freedoms. Car emissions testing was one.

It has been shown that the individual countries have been pretty pro-vehicle manufacturers (look at the furore around introducing safer lorries as another example) and so the EU has introduced stricter laws around vehicle testing, looked at penalising the individual countries who were seen to fail in those areas and is in the midst of a multi-billion dollar lawsuit against vehicle manufacturers.

Given that the EU is ultimately directed by the countries that are in it it's pretty decent that they've held motor manufacturers to account that much giving how unwilling the countries benefiting from it were.

As others have said, the question isn't just what is the EU doing. It's is the EU doing more than the countries would by themselves?,

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:27 pm

If it be your will wrote:More likely. Much more likely. There isn't any realistic chance Maastricht will be revoked, so there is no realistic chance we can rein in corporate excess, because Maastricht was designed as a corporate paradise. If we leave it could go either way, but at least I'll get a say. And I don't consider voting in the EU elections 'having a say' - I consider it pointless.

My answer to your last question is "I don't know", but then none of us do. I'd say a decent guide would be to ask the question "Has corporate excess increased or decreased since 1975?". My answer is a resounding 'increased'. What would yours be?

We shouldn't be dictated to by fear of what Boris or Farage may or may not do in the future, because at least we'll all get a genuine say in it.

This is somewhat akin to Ringo claiming that manufacturing jobs in the UK have fallen since 1975 due to us being in the EU. It's so incredibly simplistic and ignoring so many other factors as to be meaningless.

An entertaining website for you https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:29 pm

If it be your will wrote:Well not really. I'm saying 'I want to leave the EU'. I've repeatedly said, just recently on this thread, that I can understand the reasons why the EU is as undemocratic as it is - I actually get that - and also that it would probably be unworkable if it was made substantially more democratic.

That's why I want to leave it. Has this cleared up the confusion?

Fair enough. I can see why that position would lead to the conclusion of "I want to leave the EU". I personally think it's the wrong way to solve the problem but it is a solution.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 10:26 pm

Greenmile wrote:You didn’t admit you made a mistake, your apology was entirely sarcastic and hollow, and now - true to form - you’re lying about it.

One “posts” on a forum like this. If you write an article for a website, you are an author, not a poster, even if a poster subsequently links to that article.

Would you refer to Donald Trump as a “poster” because folk occasionally screen-cap his tweets on here?

Why can’t you admit you used the wrong word by mistake? - it’s easily done (both making the mistake and admitting to it).

All right, I made a mistake. Two actually. One was to describe the author of a website as a poster, and the other was to assume that you were just being argumentative when you claimed you couldn't understand what I was on about.

I mean to say. You knew I was talking about somebody's comments. You knew I wasn't talking about Keith's comments because he didn't make any. How big a jump is it to work out that I must be talking about the comments in the link? It wouldn't have been hard - a primary school child could have worked that out. Even if you couldn't.

So yes, my apology was taking the mick. I gave you credit for a modicum of intelligence. And while I won't apologise for giving you credit for intelligence, I do apologise for taking the mick out of someone who is clearly doing his best.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:17 pm

If it be your will wrote:Haven't you just proved exactly what I've been saying? That the EU did practically nothing to VW. 'Good on the USA' is the conclusion to be drawn from this, surely?

If you think fining VW was a good punishment then take away is:
The US did a lot of good
The EU did some good
The UK did nothing

So why pull ourselves out of the thing which at least took some action, as the quote says 'Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good'.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:21 pm

aggi wrote:This is somewhat akin to Ringo claiming that manufacturing jobs in the UK have fallen since 1975 due to us being in the EU. It's so incredibly simplistic and ignoring so many other factors as to be meaningless.

An entertaining website for you https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm wincing on your behalf, now. Have you really reduced yourself to intentionally and willfully ignoring my actual, honest answer of "I don't know", instead underlining a suggested possible guide, then flourishing it with an insult of you are being so simplistic you sound like Ringo, you know?

I've debated in good faith the last 2 days.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:24 pm

keith1879 wrote:https://bathforeurope.com/2018/12/10/wa ... s-history/

No single party in a general election, or binary choice in a
referendum, secured a greater number of votes than the number of votes received by Leave in the 2016 EU referendum.

Fact.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:29 pm

martin_p wrote:I’ve pointed these things out to Wrongo before and he replies with a very specific definition of ‘single expression of democracy’ to mean the most people that have voted for a single thing. It’s not a definition that anyone else would recognise of course, but facts and words mean different things on planet Wrongo.

The reason why I use the phrase, " the largest single expression of democracy this country has ever witnessed " is because the Leave vote in the 2016 EU referendum was the largest single expression of democracy this country has ever witnessed.

I find its always good to remind democracy deniers of this simple fact.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:35 pm

CombatClaret wrote:If you think fining VW was a good punishment then take away is:
The US did a lot of good
The EU did some good
The UK did nothing

So why pull ourselves out of the thing which at least took some action, as the quote says 'Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the Good'.

Everybody seems to want to keep telling me that the current UK administration has done even less than the EU did. But that was never the point that was being made. It went like this: I said the EU acts primarily in the corporate interest, that its rules are primarily geared towards the interest of business over the interests of people. Aggi then provided a list of companies to prove this wasn't so. I asked in what way have the EU acted against VW's interests? The answer was 'not a lot'. So VW made use of all the pro-corporate rules embodied in the EU, and even when they willfully went out killing people with the emissions they tried to hide, the EU did practically nothing about it.

That sounds like a very pro-corporate organisation. I don't doubt that the current Conservative government is every bit as pro corporate as the EU is. I never claimed otherwise.

If we leave the EU, then we leave this pro-corporate institution, with all its neoliberal rules, behind. What happens after that will be up to us. It could be worse, it could be better. That all depends on who we vote into government.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:36 pm

If it be your will wrote:I'm wincing on your behalf, now. Have you really reduced yourself to intentionally and willfully ignoring my actual, honest answer of "I don't know", instead underlining a suggested possible guide, then flourishing it with an insult of you are being so simplistic you sound like Ringo, you know?

I've debated in good faith the last 2 days.

I agree with the I don't know, I don't either, but I didn't really understand why you caveated it with the meaningless comparison between 1975 and today as if to suggest the EU was the cause.

The Ringo comparison was harsh. Apologies for that. As you say, you're happy to discuss in good faith, take stuff on board and come back with reasonable arguments.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:43 pm

If it be your will wrote:Everybody seems to want to keep telling me that the current UK administration has done even less than the EU did. But that was never the point that was being made. It went like this: I said the EU acts primarily in the corporate interest, that its rules are primarily geared towards the interest of business over the interests of people. Aggi then provided a list of companies to prove this wasn't so. I asked in what way have the EU acted against VW's interests? The answer was 'not a lot'. So VW made use of all the pro-corporate rules embodied in the EU, and even when they willfully went out killing people with the emissions they tried to hide, the EU did practically nothing about it.

That sounds like a very pro-corporate organisation. I don't doubt that the current Conservative government is every bit as pro corporate as the EU is. I never claimed otherwise.

If we leave the EU, then we leave this pro-corporate institution, with all its neoliberal rules, behind. What happens after that will be up to us. It could be worse, it could be better. That all depends on who we vote into government.

What would you have wanted the EU to do? They've introduced a variety of new laws around emissions and are in the midst of a court case against VW and a number of other car manufacturers on the same topic. What else would you have expected?

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:37 am

aggi wrote:I agree with the I don't know, I don't either, but I didn't really understand why you caveated it with the meaningless comparison between 1975 and today as if to suggest the EU was the cause.

The Ringo comparison was harsh. Apologies for that. As you say, you're happy to discuss in good faith, take stuff on board and come back with reasonable arguments.

Oh, it doesn't matter.

Okay. There doesn't seem to be any dispute that the power of corporations has increased since we joined the EU, and the power of labour has declined. So I could reasonably theorise that being a member of the EU certainly hasn't prevented this. So the question becomes did it actively cause it? Not a single person anywhere can answer this with complete certainty because we can't repeat the experiment with us being outside the EU since 1975.

First, I'd say that in the 80s, we'd have followed a similar trajectory (under Thatcher) whether or not we were members. Being a member didn't obviously hold Thatcher back, mind. Then we entered the 'end of history' period: the USSR collapsed and it was widely assumed the markets always knew best, and provided they were allowed to function without too much government interference, we would all be better off.

It was in this period members ratified Maastricht.

Then there was the expansion of the EU in 2004. For the first time the EU was a balanced mix of very wealthy countries and very poor countries, rather than a group of fairly equally developed countries. Now, locked into Maastricht, the markets ran amok. The result was mass labour arbitrage - cheap labour moving West, with communities and families in the East torn to pieces. Capital moved East to seek cheap labour. It was a capitalist's dream. The bargaining power of labour collapsed in the West, and manufacturing moved East.

It was at this point Lisbon was ratified, which basically rendered the EU unreformable.

Then came the crash of 2008. The neoliberal model we'd assumed unassailable when we cemented it in with Maastricht, suddenly looked completely flawed. Living standards fell. Tensions rose. Wealthy asset-owners were bailed out by QE, and escaped largely intact. The Greeks were thrown under a bus as their bondholders were bailed out in order to save the banks from collapse. Turned out the markets didn't have all the answers after all.

It was at this moment we desperately needed to completely restructure the economy. We needed massive state intervention, and a complete reorganising of the rules in favour of people over corporate interests. Unfortunately EU members couldn't do this because Maastricht locked them in with its neoliberal model, and Lisbon meant the EU couldn't be reformed. And now we're staring down the barrel of far-right extremists telling us they have the solution instead.

So my answer is: up to 2004, it mattered little whether we were members or not. Between 2004-2008, being members laid bare the power we had handed to the markets, and the corporations that ran them. Post 2008 our hands were tied, and had we not been members I think things might have been different. Had Corbyn won in 2017, or if he were to win now, it would matter enormously if we are members. That's because Corbyn wants a dramatic break from the neoliberal consensus, but the EU rules prevent this.

That's how I believe being members of the EU has contributed to the imbalance of power between corporations and people.

Now obviously, there are a lot of debating points there, and assumptions that might be incorrect. But as a short analysis, it does carry a degree of logic. And that's why I don't think I've made a 'meaningless comparison', as you put it.

If it be your will · Post by **If it be your will** » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:43 am

aggi wrote:What would you have wanted the EU to do? They've introduced a variety of new laws around emissions and are in the midst of a court case against VW and a number of other car manufacturers on the same topic. What else would you have expected?

I would suggest that if the EU are going to provide a perfect arena for companies like VW to become enormously profitable - which they have - then the least we should expect is for the EU to be exceptionally robust with their punishments when they break the rules. It seems to me VW benefited from the former, and the response to the latter was truly pathetic. Their shareholders gained from favourable EU rules, so their shareholders should have suffered enormously when they broke the law. (I'd have locked up those responsible, too, but accept that really isn't the EU's job.) As it is, VW escaped with barely a scratch (except in the US).

Like I say. The EU primarily serves corporate interests.

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Thu Jul 18, 2019 11:13 am

martin_p wrote:I’ve pointed these things out to Wrongo before and he replies with a very specific definition of ‘single expression of democracy’ to mean the most people that have voted for a single thing. It’s not a definition that anyone else would recognise of course, but facts and words mean different things on planet Wrongo.

Good point ...and to be honest I don't normally read his posts because I just skate past them ..... but this isn't just RM it's a widely reported argument and I just got extra fed-up with it. Of course one could respond by pointing out that possibly the second greatest expression of democracy in the history of the known universe (or whatever he calls it) was a vote for the exact opposite .....and that the margin was somewhat narrow....but the internet really isn't the place for such niceties is it?

I've mostly given up on this thread ..... endless name-calling, lying, back-biting, vitriol throwing and deliberate misinformation is always entertaining but there's so much more in the House of Commons and the White House that Up The Clarets has become a bit tame by comparison.

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:06 pm

If it be your will wrote:I would suggest that if the EU are going to provide a perfect arena for companies like VW to become enormously profitable - which they have - then the least we should expect is for the EU to be exceptionally robust with their punishments when they break the rules...

...Like I say. The EU primarily serves corporate interests.

Why are you singling out the EU for a claim that could be made against almost any western, democratic, developed nation? Including the UK which you could claim serves corporate interests to a greater extent by refusing to punish any rule breaking.
You just dismiss this saying, oh we can just elect a different government who will take companies to talk. We could elect EU MEPs use the UK veto to strive toward the same things in the EU.

That a company suffered a large scandal and is still standing, nay even seeing large growth is nothing new, these companies are so big they can absorb these hits.
Boeing; a US company has caused two fatal crashes due to faulty software and sensors including a possible cover up; the stock price took short term hit but continues to grow without any kind of fines or punishment. So the environment you claim the EU causes is no different from one happening the world over.

EDIT:
Here's a summery by an EU institution on it's response to dieselgate and how it plans to ensure greater corporate scrutiny and increase consumer protections/compensation.
https://www.eca.europa.eu/lists/ecadocu ... ons_en.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Again showing how the EU is trying to do the right thing while individual countries drag their feet or the UK's case do nothing positive at all.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:12 pm

Surprise, surprise.
Either Boris Johnson was totally wrong about his kippers, or he was lying.
You decide.
[There's no EU directive or law that applies to Boris's kipper. The regulations he was referring to when he waved the kipper above his head are entirely of the UK's making. But why would this shock anyone?]

CombatClaret · Post by **CombatClaret** » Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:49 pm

Project Fear at it again in the form of the Office for Budget Responsibility

Uses the least severe of the IMF’s two no-deal Brexit forecasts, the OBR assumes:

- Net migration into the UK is lower by 25,000 a year out to 2030.
- The UK enters a year-long recession in the fourth quarter of 2019.
- The pound immediately plunges by 10%, towards $1.1 against the US dollar
- Unemployment rises, peaking at just over 5 per cent in 2021 (compared with 3.8% today)
- Inflation rises, and wage growth slows, meaning real wages are “significantly lower” – by 2.5 per cent by the start of 2024.
- House prices fall by almost 10% between the start of 2019 and mid-2021.
- The Bank of England cuts interest rates to around 0.2% by the end of 2020.
- Business investment falls a cumulative 15 per cent below the OBR’s March forecast by the end of 2021

This all adds up to higher borrowing, up around £30bn a year higher on average from 2020-21 onwards. That’s because:
- Income tax and national insurance receipts fall, pushing up borrowing by around £16.5bn a year
- Capital tax receipts fall sharply thanks to the falls in asset prices, especially in the housing market, adding around £10 billion a year from 2020-21 onwards
- VAT falls by £3bn a year, due to lower consumer spending
- Lower profits take around £3bn off onshore corporation tax receipts

https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Fiscalr ... rt2019.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

OBR clearly not believing enough.