BREXIT Discussion, v4.0: The Back-Pedaling

[JDragon]

The mass migration waves were largely engineered in the first place, and Germany (along with Sweden and somewhat the UK was advertised. The bat signal went up.

You are confusing cause and effect. In order to assume a causal relation, at least in this universe, you need a time lag between the cause and the effect. However, the refugee stream was already in full effect when Merkel first spoke. Merkel may have exacerbated the problem, but she did not cause it. The war in Syria did. Who caused the war in Syria?

The reason why Sweden, Germany and the UK were interesting for refugees is 1) historically good treatment of refugees and uncle Abdul is already there, 2) historically good treatment of refugees and brother Ali is already there, and 3) language. Not a lot of bat signalling necessary.

 

[IDL]

You are confusing cause and effect. In order to assume a causal relation, at least in this universe, you need a time lag between the cause and the effect. However, the refugee stream was already in full effect when Merkel first spoke. Merkel may have exacerbated the problem, but she did not cause it. The war in Syria did. Who caused the war in Syria?

The reason why Sweden, Germany and the UK were interesting for refugees is 1) historically good treatment of refugees and uncle Abdul is already there, 2) historically good treatment of refugees and brother Ali is already there, and 3) language. Not a lot of bat signalling necessary.

I didn't say Merkel caused it. She hasn't the power to do such things. She merely played her part to go along with the larger globalist politics like a good worker.

She worked to amplify the situation, along with a concerted media propaganda campaign broadcasting the red carpet and demonizing resistance to go along with private NGO's working to facilitate the mass movements.

You have to look at the big private players like the George Soros' who were openly working to encourage and facilitate the migrations (he's big on open borders for select countries). Funnily enough, he is now pretending that Merkel screwed up even though he was working behind the scenes pushing it, because he is two faced like that.

 

[JDragon]

because he is two faced like that.

Yeah that is a classical antisemitic stereotype. Of course it can be true for certain individuals.

 

[Ruprecht]

Britain now delaying the procesure is a result of nobody knowing how to get a good deal. They want to pressure the EU into negotiating beforehand to ensure there will be no fuck up. But that is stupid, and it will not go that way. Britain needs to say they want out, and then negotiations will begin. They will be long and painful and lose / lose. There will be no slim and awesome deal for the UK at the end. Why not? Because the EU is not gonna set a precedent. The UK already had the Brit bonus for decades. There will be no getting all perks without paying.

I wonder if there's a strategy of trying to put further pressure on the EU, to provoke more leave referendums. The EU breaking up is about the only way the UK could gain an advantage from this. Being the first out and with enough economic clout to negotiate favourably in bilateral agreements.

 

[JDragon]

I wonder if there's a strategy of trying to put further pressure on the EU, to provoke more leave referendums. The EU breaking up is about the only way the UK could gain an advantage from this. Being the first out and with enough economic clout to negotiate favourably in bilateral agreements.

While this generally might be a smart idea, I do not believe it considering the state of disarray the British political leadership is in.

 

[whougonnacall]

Here is the original document the reports were based on

http://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument

The way I read it is a sales pitch for an EU army and intelligence services (And also talks about centralized planning for migrations/refugees and economics). I don't see in there that it would remove the right for member states to have their own military, but under such a framework they would likely wither over time, and an EU army and intelligence apparatus I would think would require some jurisdiction to work inside the member states.

So again ..like nato but not u.s led

 

[whougonnacall]

Here is the original document the reports were based on

http://www.tvp.info/25939587/europejskie-superpanstwo-zobacz-oryginalny-dokument

The way I read it is a sales pitch for an EU army and intelligence services (And also talks about centralized planning for migrations/refugees and economics). I don't see in there that it would remove the right for member states to have their own military, but under such a framework they would likely wither over time, and an EU army and intelligence apparatus I would think would require some jurisdiction to work inside the member states.

So again ..like nato but not u.s led

 

[whougonnacall]

So that article does acknowledge the desire for one, but says it isn't realistic at least in the short-mid term, and rather leans towards central cooperation and pooling of resources. There have been calls for an EU army but the question is how much control would Brussels have over it would the EU member states continue to maintain their own.

There is still the matter of following the trajectory though. Where might the trajectory take EU member states over the mid to long term. Where does it end?

I'll have to find the original documents that the reports were originally based on, and see what they say specifically.

Some have most seem to be describing a version of nato but without the need for u.s hand holding if they wanna do something

 

[Arkain2K]

I wonder if there's a strategy of trying to put further pressure on the EU, to provoke more leave referendums. The EU breaking up is about the only way the UK could gain an advantage from this. Being the first out and with enough economic clout to negotiate favourably in bilateral agreements.

Article 50 is like a nuclear warhead, they're best used as implicit threat to force changes and compromises, without actually being launched. Once you've backed yourself into a corner and forced by your own people to initiate that count-down, you are at severe disadvantage at the negotiation table with no way of backing down while still saving face.

I think all other governments who have flirted with the E.U Referendum idea immediately after the Brexit vote have since scrapped the idea, as they witnessed the jubilant celebration of National Sovereignty quickly gave way to Reality, as the Vote Leave's house of cards come crashing down, all their biggest promises exposed as lies, Scotland and Northern Ireland demands to go their own way, a political civil war is being waged in Westminster, and Britain is in full stalling mode when facing the E.U's unwavering stance on their Four Freedoms.

I think the E.U will eventually make the neccessary changes (many ideas were actually championed by Britain itself) and becomes a stronger economic union, but the U.K as we know it right now wouldn't be around to enjoy the fruit of their labor.

In fact, their cluster-fuck has just barely begun.

 

[JDragon]

Article 50 is like a nuclear warhead, they're best used as implicit threat to force changes and compromises, without actually being launched. Once you've backed yourself into a corner and forced by your own people to initiate that count-down, you are at severe disadvantage at the negotiation table with no way of backing down while still saving face.

I think all other governments who have flirted with the E.U Referendum idea immediately after the Brexit vote have since scrapped the idea, as they witnessed the jubilant celebration of National Sovereignty quickly gave way to Reality, as the Vote Leave's house of cards come crashing down, all their biggest promises exposed as lies, Scotland and Northern Ireland demands to go their own way, a political civil war is being waged in Westminster, and Britain is in full stalling mode when facing the E.U's unwavering stance on their Four Freedoms.

I think the E.U will eventually make the neccessary changes (many ideas were actually championed by Britain itself) and becomes a stronger economic union, but the U.K as we know it right now wouldn't be around to enjoy the fruit of their labor.

In fact, their cluster-fuck has just barely begun.

There is plenty of room for the UK to play divide et impera.

 

[TheGreatA]

You are confusing cause and effect. In order to assume a causal relation, at least in this universe, you need a time lag between the cause and the effect. However, the refugee stream was already in full effect when Merkel first spoke. Merkel may have exacerbated the problem, but she did not cause it. The war in Syria did. Who caused the war in Syria?

The reason why Sweden, Germany and the UK were interesting for refugees is 1) historically good treatment of refugees and uncle Abdul is already there, 2) historically good treatment of refugees and brother Ali is already there, and 3) language. Not a lot of bat signalling necessary.

The Syrian conflict started the refugee crisis, Merkel's comments (among others) poured fuel on the fire. The majority of the people who come in as refugees nowadays aren't even from Syria. Actual Syrians account to less than one fifth of the immigrants that are part of the wave of refugees.

If Merkel, and other European leaders, had constructed their comments to suggest that only Syrians are given a pass, we would've probably had far less of a refugee crisis on our hands.

 

[Codger]

Some biased assumptions that the leave campaigners want to back down and that's all doom and gloom for the UK now. There are pretty solid reasons for wanting to leave the EU other than just the, very important, immigration issue.

The direct, net costs of being in the EU: 11.2bn (EU audited figure from 2013) . Last year we sold 229billion worth of goods and services into the EU. So the payments into the EU amount to a 4.4% tariff on all goods and services sold. Countries outside the single market have to pay tariffs to sell into it. They average out at 2.4%. That's right, it costs us more to do the same amount of business than it does people outside the EU despite the tariffs. If we leave the single market at they charge us a percentage tariff then we'll charge them one which would amount to some fairly serious revenue into UK treasury whilst paying out less.

And that is just the direct costs, the indirect costs - the costs of the insane amount of regulation and red-tape which amounts to far more - these can only ever be estimates but they vary from the lowest I've seen being 69billion with the highest, Tim Congdon's estimate, being 185bn. Even accepting the lower estimates it's a significant part of our GDP. But of course the exact indirect costs are unknown because the EU certainly don't want to admit and such figures and nor have successive UK governments.
These numbers dwarf the "350m a week" figure that the remain camp seem to think made most leave voters believed.

On this basis even if we don't do a free-market deal with the EU we'll still be significantly better off and that's not even considering our new capabiilty of doing deals with the rest of the world that the EU has failed to come to agreements with despite years of trying. These should amount to significant increases in business in markets that are actually growing fast.

These are the points made by the leave camp but all the remainers focus on is a poster on a bus about spending money on the NHS. I've not spoken to a single remainer who knows these figures or ever bothered to look it up. Like most people, they just read whichever news outlet that confirms their existing views. Trying to make out the remainer made more educated choices for the best of the country is bullshit.

I don't buy the argument that the EU is going to change and the UK won't be in on it. Either the EU will change now whilst under the greatest pressure it's ever been under which will mean the UK get the trade and immigration situation they want, or they have no intention of changing because they're arrogant idealists and they'll march towards their own descruction and the UK will be well out of it.

 

[IDL]

Yeah that is a classical antisemitic stereotype. Of course it can be true for certain individuals.

huh? What does this have to do with anything?

 

[Kirku]

There are pretty solid reasons for wanting to leave the EU other than just the, very important, immigration issue.

Good post.

Regarding the, often accurate, accusation that leave voters voted more on emotion than rationale, how many similar posts have you from the Leave side?

All I come across is the typical rubbish we've seen in this thread.

 

[FIMN]

Some biased assumptions that the leave campaigners want to back down and that's all doom and gloom for the UK now. There are pretty solid reasons for wanting to leave the EU other than just the, very important, immigration issue.

The direct, net costs of being in the EU: 11.2bn (EU audited figure from 2013) . Last year we sold 229billion worth of goods and services into the EU. So the payments into the EU amount to a 4.4% tariff on all goods and services sold. Countries outside the single market have to pay tariffs to sell into it. They average out at 2.4%. That's right, it costs us more to do the same amount of business than it does people outside the EU despite the tariffs. If we leave the single market at they charge us a percentage tariff then we'll charge them one which would amount to some fairly serious revenue into UK treasury whilst paying out less.

And that is just the direct costs, the indirect costs - the costs of the insane amount of regulation and red-tape which amounts to far more - these can only ever be estimates but they vary from the lowest I've seen being 69billion with the highest, Tim Congdon's estimate, being 185bn. Even accepting the lower estimates it's a significant part of our GDP. But of course the exact indirect costs are unknown because the EU certainly don't want to admit and such figures and nor have successive UK governments.
These numbers dwarf the "350m a week" figure that the remain camp seem to think made most leave voters believed.

On this basis even if we don't do a free-market deal with the EU we'll still be significantly better off and that's not even considering our new capabiilty of doing deals with the rest of the world that the EU has failed to come to agreements with despite years of trying. These should amount to significant increases in business in markets that are actually growing fast.

These are the points made by the leave camp but all the remainers focus on is a poster on a bus about spending money on the NHS. I've not spoken to a single remainer who knows these figures or ever bothered to look it up. Like most people, they just read whichever news outlet that confirms their existing views. Trying to make out the remainer made more educated choices for the best of the country is bullshit.

I don't buy the argument that the EU is going to change and the UK won't be in on it. Either the EU will change now whilst under the greatest pressure it's ever been under which will mean the UK get the trade and immigration situation they want, or they have no intention of changing because they're arrogant idealists and they'll march towards their own descruction and the UK will be well out of it.

Is there any analysis that has been done suggesting the cost of business with the EU will be lower once article 50 is triggered?

Also, from memory, the link between education and brexit has been made is not only are those with higher education associated with remain, but there was a correlation between having no education and voting leave. Seems obvious to me.

Regardless of whether your arguments about us being better off /fine without the EU, the price we will pay is the destruction of the UK in the political sense. For supposed conservatives, that is hefty.

 

[Codger]

Is there any analysis that has been done suggesting the cost of business with the EU will be lower once article 50 is triggered?

Also, from memory, the link between education and brexit has been made is not only are those with higher education associated with remain, but there was a correlation between having no education and voting leave. Seems obvious to me.

Regardless of whether your arguments about us being better off /fine without the EU, the price we will pay is the destruction of the UK in the political sense. For supposed conservatives, that is hefty.

If we're not in the single market then we won't be paying the the direct costs at all as far as I can tell - the ones costing us more than the tariffs would cost us. The bulk of the indirect costs are apparently EU regulations and whilst some regulations will remain, we won't need to meet the same level if we're out of the single market. Just how much of the red tape could be cut is debatable, obviously pro-EU sources claim we'd have to keep more and pro-leave say we could get rid of most of it. Assuming the answer is somewhere in the middle, we'd save 10s' of billions a year.

My friends is a city analyst and he's had a phone call with Mervyn King, ex bank of England governer who said that as far as his analysis goes, there is no evidence that being in the EU has a net financial benefit at all. He's one of main people who accurately predicted what a costly mistake the Euro would be and thank goodness we didn't believe the claims of the pro EU people back then.

I'm not getting into the apparent education levels of voters. It's a red herring, pretty insulting to the people who voted and may well have other reasons. One that has been pointed out already is that more older people voted to leave. Back in the the decades when they were in secondary eduction - 50s-80s, a tiny fraction of the population could possibly go to university. Now almost anyone can. So comparing highest education levels is worthless unless you account for differences like that. The arguments I've heard from remain voters I know certainly do not required a degree in anything.

The constant insults of the remain camp to the leave camp are quite pathetic.

What does "the destruction of the UK in a political sense" actually mean? I've no idea. Change is the not the same as destruction.

 

[in the]

Disappointed in Farage. This looks like a rat fleeing a sinking ship. Brexit was his victory, the thing he centered his entire political being around... and he leaves right after achieving that?

I like Farage and I was pro-Brexit but I have to call bullshit out when I see it.

 

[FIMN]

If we're not in the single market then we won't be paying the the direct costs at all as far as I can tell - the ones costing us more than the tariffs would cost us. The bulk of the indirect costs are apparently EU regulations and whilst some regulations will remain, we won't need to meet the same level if we're out of the single market. Just how much of the red tape could be cut is debatable, obviously pro-EU sources claim we'd have to keep more and pro-leave say we could get rid of most of it. Assuming the answer is somewhere in the middle, we'd save 10s' of billions a year.

My friends is a city analyst and he's had a phone call with Mervyn King, ex bank of England governer who said that as far as his analysis goes, there is no evidence that being in the EU has a net financial benefit at all. He's one of main people who accurately predicted what a costly mistake the Euro would be and thank goodness we didn't believe the claims of the pro EU people back then.

I'm not getting into the apparent education levels of voters. It's a red herring, pretty insulting to the people who voted and may well have other reasons. One that has been pointed out already is that more older people voted to leave. Back in the the decades when they were in secondary eduction - 50s-80s, a tiny fraction of the population could possibly go to university. Now almost anyone can. So comparing highest education levels is worthless unless you account for differences like that. The arguments I've heard from remain voters I know certainly do not required a degree in anything.

The constant insults of the remain camp to the leave camp are quite pathetic.

What does "the destruction of the UK in a political sense" actually mean? I've no idea. Change is the not the same as destruction.

Do you have a link to the analysis you are referring to?

I think you have a pretty simplistic understanding of the cost of leaving the EU. Not claiming to be an expert, but I doubt so many industry federations and groups would suggest remaining in an over regulated and costly framework. Again, some analysis would be helpful.

The destruction of the UK in the sense of the breakup of the nations that constitute it. Scotland will likely leave, if not immediately then in the next 3-5 years.

I asked for a well reasoned and cogent argument for leaving the UK. Haven't had any responses yet.

 

[Arkain2K]

So long, Nigel Farage, the latest rat to jump from the sinking Brexit ship
Hot on the heels of 'Don't Be A Quitter' Dave and 'Stabbed In The Back' Boris, another politician leaves us to deal with the mess they created
Holly Baxter
Monday 4 July 2016

Remember back in those halcyon days before Brexit when David Cameron kept telling us we had to remain in the European Union because “we’re not a nation of quitters”? How spectacularly ironic that seems now after the resignation of Nigel Farage. Hot on the heels of Boris Johnson and Dave himself, Farage has now decided he’s “done his bit” for the country and should step aside.

What a truly noble politician he has turned out to be: happy to do the hard work when the country needs it (floating down the Thames in a boat decked out with colourful banners, exchanging light-hearted hose fights with Bob Geldof), but ready to lend his support to a (nameless) “Brexit prime minister” when the country has reaped the benefits of his honourable aims (a damaged currency, recruitment freezes, rumours of banks moving to Paris, an insecure future for our thousands of hard-working EU immigrants and British ex-pats living elsewhere in Europe, the looming possibility of a “Brexit bubble” in the housing market and intergenerational warfare).

A lot of unbelievable things have happened in UK politics in the past week and a half, but our three most prominent politicians from the EU referendum debate flinging themselves like rats off a sinking ship is probably the most astonishing.

“Don’t Be A Quitter” Dave, having dreamed up the referendum as an amazing idea to win an election with no long-term consequences, was the first to announce that he’d decided quitting wasn’t shameful or un-British after all, so see you later. Boris Johnson, who managed to change the global political landscape in the name of a career-boosting campaign he didn't appear to really believe in, seemed so devastated the gamble actually paid off that he decided he wasn’t the man to run the country either.

Now Nigel Farage, a man whose entire political career revolved around the push for UK independence, would rather not make any further public pronouncements about Brexit, thankyouverymuch.

After all, he just supported the idea of independence. Why should he stick around and dirty his hands with practicalities? It’s the UK Independence Party, not the What The UK Should Do After Independence Party!

Anyone devastated about seeing the back of Farage can comfort themselves with the fact that this isn’t the first time he’s quit, so he might well rejoin politics when it seems like an easy job again.

In this post-satire political landscape, our own Prime Minister quit because he didn’t want Brexit, the two most vocal Brexiteers have decided not to continue on either, and everyone is up in arms about why the Leader of the Opposition won’t quit as well. Remember when taking responsibility for one’s actions was part of the job description of politicians – particularly prime ministers? Me neither, but I have a dream that one day that might become part of our cultural reality.

Cameron, Farage and Johnson collectively crafted one of the most tumultuous weeks in the history of modern British politics. Every one of them is responsible for the uncertain future we now face and we’re watching them remove themselves from positions of responsibility, one by one. Financially battered, racially divided, politically damaged and chronically demoralised, we’ve been left marooned on a tiny island by a bunch of bickering schoolboys waving off Farage as he sails away into the sunset.

So long, Nigel, and thanks for all the fish.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...son-david-cameron-eu-referendum-a7118806.html

 

[Arkain2K]

George Osborne is trying to turn post-Brexit Britain into a tax haven - and it won't benefit anyone except the elite
Kirsty Major
Monday 4 July 2016

The UK is finally catching up with its Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies by inching ever closer to becoming a fully-fledged tax haven. And that’s without any of the sunshine to ease the pain.

Despite ongoing concern over corporate tax avoidance, George Osborne has announced that he plans to slash corporation tax from 20 to 15 per cent. The aim of the measure is to signal to multinational corporations that in spite of the uncertainty over Brexit, the UK is “open for business”. The new rate, if implemented, would give the UK the lowest corporation tax of any major economy.

In response to the announcement, the OECD’s head of tax Pascal Saint-Amans said: "A further step in that direction would really turn the UK into a tax haven type of economy.” Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has similarly warned that Osborne is "offering up Britain as a tax haven".

This isn’t just political point-scoring. According to Nicholas Shaxson, the definition of a tax haven is a country which offers low tax rates, refuses to cooperate with other jurisdictions in exchanging information, and where local politics is beholden to financial services – which sounds an awful lot like the UK right now. Back in 2007, when corporation tax came in at 20 per cent, the IMF identified Britain as an offshore jurisdiction. The lower rate set by Osborne this week is sure to compound the problem.

This would be of great benefit to the UK if companies taking up residence here meant increased business investment, GDP, jobs and tax revenues in the long term. However, rather than creating “a competitive economy”, as the Chancellor hopes, the lower corporation tax levies won’t increase labour productivity or efficient use of resources.

According to the New Economics Foundation: “The UK already has one of the lowest corporation tax rates of all the major developed economies. Yet since the 2008 financial crisis, the UK has continued to suffer low growth in productivity, and a lack of sufficient fixed capital investment. There is no serious economic evidence that suggests lowering tax rates for business actually leads to improved private sector performance and overall economic competitiveness. In fact the evidence is inconclusive with some studies even suggesting that the opposite may be true."

In fact, any gains would be restricted to London’s financial sector where high-value services from the city are bought and the highest paid jobs are located. The whole point of a tax haven is that the local economy is kept from benefiting from the financial fertile off-shore rules. In fact, this is the measure used by the IMF to spot tax havens.

Ordinary workers will have to pay higher income tax to compensate for low corporation tax. It is worth noting even at this point that income tax stands at 20 to 45 per cent, compared to the 20 per cent rate for corporation tax. This means an ever-increasing shift in income from workers to multinational companies. It also means cuts in government spending and therefore public services, a tune we’ve all heard before. The Tax Justice Network told The Independent: "It will create a bigger wedge between the rates of corporate and personal income tax, providing even greater incentive for high-income people to re-label their income as corporate income. That in turn, of course, will reduce income tax revenues – which is likely to result in lower revenues for public services, and a more unequal income distribution. People who voted for Brexit in part as a response to economic marginalisation, and the sense that public services were under great pressure, are likely to find this policy exacerbates exactly those issues."

The policy would also serve to increase inequality globally as countries compete to offer the lowest tax rates in order to attract investment opportunities.

In the words of ActionAid: “Poor countries are the big losers in this race to the bottom as they are particularly dependent on corporation tax. Healthcare, schools and other key public services are left starved of resources as they are deprived of tax revenues, hitting women and children hardest.” Osborne’s efforts to turn us into a tax haven are hardly revolutionary – and they can hardly be expected to benefit anyone except the elite few.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...aven-and-it-wont-benefit-anyone-a7119211.html