To Brexit

[Cyberyeti]

"Efficiency" for taxation is a technical term in economics. Google if you want to discuss it.

 

And you were talking about lower GDP per head, so not, the lower money wouldn't be fully offset by fewer people. Just proudly stand in the shoot yourself in the foot corner, nothing wrong with that!

 

You are unsufferably patronising. Pure wealth is not everything if you can't enjoy it, and if the price of wealth/growth is ever shrinking green spaces, less clean air, lower quality of life etc it's not a price worth paying in his view. A reasonable view, not shooting himself in the foot.

[cherdano]

You are unsufferably patronising. Pure wealth is not everything if you can't enjoy it, and if the price of wealth/growth is ever shrinking green spaces, less clean air, lower quality of life etc it's not a price worth paying in his view. A reasonable view, not shooting himself in the foot.

LOL, this guy tells me more-or-less directly "you might even be still be allowed to stay in the country under my preferred regime" and your main worry is that *I* am patronizing to *him*? May I suggest that you are reading this thread with some coloured glasses?

 

Also, I set him straight on the meaning of economically efficient taxation *after* he made it clear he didn't know what this term meant. If I wanted to be patronizing I would have assumed from the start that this is above his head...

 

But all that aside, ok, let me take back the "shoot yourself in the foot" metaphor. Do I understand correctly that the Brexiter position in this thread is to accept lower material living standards in exchange for fewer people living in the UK? This is certainly not an illogical position, and it's quite a bit more honest and less dilusional than the standard Brexiter talking points...

[Cyberyeti]

But all that aside, ok, let me take back the "shoot yourself in the foot" metaphor. Do I understand correctly that the Brexiter position in this thread is to accept lower material living standards in exchange for fewer people living in the UK? This is certainly not an illogical position, and it's quite a bit more honest and less dilusional than the standard Brexiter talking points...

 

I don't know if it's the standard position, it appeared to be the one he was taking. It also tallies with the position some remainers/environmentalists take re: having less kids etc.

[Lovera]

This article cannot even quote article 50 correctly. Either brexitcentral has horribly incompetent editorial processes, or it takes its readers for fools.

 

Maybe. You could say that the narration of the article written by Austin Mitchell is eventually dramatized but when it brings the words in quotation marks (like those said by Michel Barnier) those things happened. And I don't think this is correct, seen in the context of implementing such an important agreement.

[Winstonm]

I don't know if it's the standard position, it appeared to be the one he was taking. It also tallies with the position some remainers/environmentalists take re: having less kids etc.

 

The main point IMO is to have honest discussions.

[Lovera]

I also read that several people sought ways to attack the Agreement. It would be interesting to know which parts were considered to be in serious defect. Any dispute, brought before a competent court, neutral and without conflict of interest, would require perhaps a few years before the sentence is reached and in this time there would be at least a blocking of the effects.

[cherdano]

Maybe. You could say that the narration of the article written by Austin Mitchell is eventually dramatized but when it brings the words in quotation marks (like those said by Michel Barnier) those things happened. And I don't think this is correct, seen in the context of implementing such an important agreement.

Come on. This is not a matter of opinion. The article quotes the lisbon treaty, in quotation marks, as saying

“a withdrawal agreement is negotiated setting out the arrangements for withdrawal and outlining the country’s future relationship with the union”

 

The actual Article 50 says

the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union

 

Why misquote this?

 

Well, IANAL but I'd argue the actual article 50 is much more vague about the negotiations about the future relations, essentially just saying that they shouldn't be ignored while setting out the divorce proceedings. Kind of undermines the whole point of the article.

 

I had never heard of Austin Mitchell before, but I know I won't trust anything he writes from here on. And it shows that brexitcentral is happy to post any crap that gets on their plate (every single person professionally dealing with Brexit would surely spot this misquote immediately - I did, and all I do is listen to Brexitcast...)

[Cyberyeti]

I had never heard of Austin Mitchell before, but I know I won't trust anything he writes from here on. And it shows that brexitcentral is happy to post any crap that gets on their plate (every single person professionally dealing with Brexit would surely spot this misquote immediately - I did, and all I do is listen to Brexitcast...)

 

Austin Mitchell is a massively respected former Labour MP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Mitchell

 

It strikes me that the two versions are similar enough that he probably quoted it from somebody who read it in a foreign language and then printed it with quotes in English or something similar.

[cherdano]

Austin Mitchell is a massively respected former Labour MP https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Mitchell

 

It strikes me that the two versions are similar enough that he probably quoted it from somebody who read it in a foreign language and then printed it with quotes in English or something similar.

Come on. Quotation marks have a meaning.

Maybe he deserves to be well-respected for his past career, but if he is not familiar enough with modern technology to google article 50 and copy-paste an actual quote, then maybe he isn't worth reading any more?

[Lovera]

Come on. This is not a matter of opinion. The article quotes the lisbon treaty, in quotation marks, as saying

 

 

The actual Article 50 says

 

 

Why misquote this?

 

Well, IANAL but I'd argue the actual article 50 is much more vague about the negotiations about the future relations, essentially just saying that they shouldn't be ignored while setting out the divorce proceedings. Kind of undermines the whole point of the article.

 

I had never heard of Austin Mitchell before, but I know I won't trust anything he writes from here on. And it shows that brexitcentral is happy to post any crap that gets on their plate (every single person professionally dealing with Brexit would surely spot this misquote immediately - I did, and all I do is listen to Brexitcast...)

 

I was referring to this:(...)"We believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal."

 

Legally correct. But EU law is observed only if it furthers ever closer union. This didn't. A conglomerate of 27 nations can't negotiate. So EU bureaucrats insisted on one negotiator who would not discuss future cooperation until tough terms for divorce were agreed. Their executioner was Michel Barnier, a man with a Gallic dislike of Britain who announced:

 

"My mission will have been a success when the terms are so brutal for the British that they prefer to stay in the union."(...)

[PeterAlan]

The second is simply because once the quota has been reached, the impact on resources and existing residents would cause too much strain.

The second part of this statement does not follow from the first unless the quota has actually been determined in terms of and by "the impact on resources and existing residents".

 

That has not been the recent case in the UK; instead, the nearest thing we have had to an immigration quota ("net (im)migration in the tens of thousands") was arrived at in a totally arbitrary and unstructured fashion, based, it would appear, solely on political perceptions of what would play best with certain sections of the press.

[cherdano]

What is the source for this Barnier quote? I could only find it on Brexit supportive webpages, and it seems a little out of character for Barnier (I have heard him speak a lot over the last year of listening to brexitcast).

[cherdano]

A: This one quote in this article is incorrect.

B: No, all quotes in the article are correct.

A: No check for yourself, see it is incorrect.

B: No, I meant *this* quote, it is correct!

 

Do we really have to be this dumb here? I mean, not reading posts people are replying to happens all too often, but not reading your own posts that you are referring to is an impressive new low.

[Zelandakh]

What is the source for this Barnier quote? I could only find it on Brexit supportive webpages, and it seems a little out of character for Barnier (I have heard him speak a lot over the last year of listening to brexitcast).

The actual quote is "J’aurais réussi ma mission si, à la fin, le deal est tellement dur pour les Britanniques qu’ils préféront rester dans l’Union." It was reported by Le Point to have been said by Barnier in 2016 to other EU leaders. As far as I know it has never been confirmed.

[Cyberyeti]

A: This one quote in this article is incorrect.

B: No, all quotes in the article are correct.

A: No check for yourself, see it is incorrect.

B: No, I meant *this* quote, it is correct!

 

Do we really have to be this dumb here? I mean, not reading posts people are replying to happens all too often, but not reading your own posts that you are referring to is an impressive new low.

 

Do you need to be that pedantic, there are way worse crimes than using quotation marks on something that is in my mind indistinguishable from the sense of the correct quote, and using this to give you the justification to ignore a point of view you don't like.

[cherdano]

Do you need to be that pedantic, there are way worse crimes than using quotation marks on something that is in my mind indistinguishable from the sense of the correct quote, and using this to give you the justification to ignore a point of view you don't like.

I think it'd actually be quite possible to have constructive discussions about Brexit here. E.g. while I often disagree with posts you write, I also often agree and almost always find them reasonable points of view.

But it's hard to have a discussion when people don't stand by what they wrote two posts ago. And of course the discussion would be more constructive without xenophobic cheeseheads splashing their trollish contributions all over them.

 

As for Austin Mitchell's alternative quote from article 50, this is a legal text, where small differences in wording can make a big difference, and in my view they do say genuinely different things. His version explicitly instructs the sides to outline the future relationship. The actual article 50 just says that the parties should "give consideration to" (Merriam-Webster synonym for "take account") the future relationship while negotiating the arrangements for the withdrawal. As this is more or less the main point of the article, he should owe the reader to be precise here.

It's all a bit moot since no one seems to consider it possible to negotiate a trade treaty within two years anyway.

[Lovera]

Come on. This is not a matter of opinion. The article quotes the lisbon treaty, in quotation marks, as saying

 

 

The actual Article 50 says

 

 

Why misquote this?

 

Well, IANAL but I'd argue the actual article 50 is much more vague about the negotiations about the future relations, essentially just saying that they shouldn't be ignored while setting out the divorce proceedings. Kind of undermines the whole point of the article.

 

I had never heard of Austin Mitchell before, but I know I won't trust anything he writes from here on. And it shows that brexitcentral is happy to post any crap that gets on their plate (every single person professionally dealing with Brexit would surely spot this misquote immediately - I did, and all I do is listen to Brexitcast...)

 

I would just like to tell you that it is not in dispute what was said about the Art. 50 being my "Maybe" wait on the proposed subject and moreover unexpected simply because I had missed even that quotation mark. I concentrated on the periods indicated in bold and then reported in # 85. This subject is very vast and presents various and also considerable complexities where we, as much as possible and in various ways, try to freely express our point of view also in the hope that, in its validity, it can be used anyway. It would not hurt to keep a quiet tone in a topic that in the past has kindled spirits.

[fromageGB]

.. the discussion would be more constructive without xenophobic cheeseheads splashing their trollish contributions ..

Is this the reasoned argument of an intelligent man? "Someone has an opinion which is different to mine, therefore he is a xenophobe."

 

I object to your tone.

 

I suggest you withdraw it.

[Cyberyeti]

Is this the reasoned argument of an intelligent man? "Someone has an opinion which is different to mine, therefore he is a xenophobe."

 

I object to your tone.

 

I suggest you withdraw it.

 

This was my take, I was also peeved by the previous bit of shooting the messenger without addressing the central point. What if the new tariffs did replace old ones, we still don't need the tariffs post brexit and will have the right to scrap them.

[cherdano]

What message are you referring to whose messenger got shot?

 

In any case, it's in everyone's right to proclaim that they would wish a significant number of foreigners to leave their beloved England. But I would argue that loses you the rights to complain about being called xenophobic...

[shyams]

Let me speak it then. Too many immigrants are a net negative on the country. Which pie you mean is critical here. The land pie is definitely only so big, and we are already a densely populated country. I moved to the north from the south to avoid being surrounded by so many people, so many big buildings, and so much traffic. I choose not to live in NewYork, Hong Kong, or similar. While we live on the edge of a town/city for the convenient facilities, open fields and woods are alongside the house, and it does not take long to walk out of sight of practically all habitation. I can drive on comparatively empty roads a short distance to be in open country. This is being destroyed by new housing that appears all the time, and each year immigration is equivalent to building a whole city.

 

Other pies, such as supply of water, sewage, health services and other necessities may be growable, but are limited and not capable of rapid expansion. Hence there has to be a quota. To my mind, a reasonable quota would be to keep the total population down to a steady level.

 

I see no purpose in increasing GDP, or even GDP per head, if it means more heads. If this is your definition of improving the economy, I do not want it improved. A reducing GDP and reducing headcount would be my choice.

I disagree with many of the points made by you in this message.

• "Too many immigrants are a net negative on the country" -- It has been proven in a variety of reports that immigrants are a net positive to the country. The decision of the (then) UK Govt. to allow Polish and other nationalities unrestricted access to move to UK actually helped the economy.
   
  
• "Which pie you mean is critical here. The land pie is definitely only so big, and we are already a densely populated country" -- We are not a densely populated country. If you compare UK to New Zealand (approx. same landmass, 1/15th population) we look bad. However, otherwise the population density in UK is not very high. Wikipedia indicates London is not in the top 20 most densely populated EU cities.
   
  
• "...each year immigration is equivalent to building a whole city". As per Google, the UK population grew from 61.3m in 2007 to 66.0 in 2017 --- a growth of 7.7% over 10 years. This is slower that global population growths and comparable to other large EU nations. In short, I disagree that immigration is driving accelerated population growth.
   
  
• "Other pies, such as supply of water, sewage, health services and other necessities may be growable".
  [1] Health Service constraints are not due to immigration. It is widely reported that NHS relies heavily on immigrants for its staffing. I wouldn't be surprised if privately run hospitals also rely on immigrants {My personal experience with private hospitals so far has been that only 2 of the 8-9 consultants I've used were British -- a white lady with a traditional English surname and a 2nd/3rd gen Brit with Asian ethnicity. All others were foreigners with non-native accents. If you think I prefer non-Brit doctors (sampling bias), rest assured that I don't}
  [2] I didn't find information on water or sewage to corroborate or contradict your assertion but my hunch is that water shortage is a world-wide issue not linked specifically to UK or immigration in UK.
   
  
• "A reducing GDP and reducing headcount would be my choice". Japan saw this occur for many years; it wasn't a success. If I recall, reducing population creates too many complications in the finances of a nation.

To summarise, many of the beliefs about immigration listed here are based on distorted narratives which, through sheer repetition, have morphed into 'facts'.

[Lovera]

https://youtu.be/8ZUl7lUbTkI

All this, however, leaves me skeptical because it ensures the exit on October 31st by giving only in exchange for the "promise" of a new agreement that should (but also could not) be better (it is like accepting something with a closed box).

[fromageGB]

I disagree with many of the points made by you in this message...

That is my point: it is a question of beliefs, desires and opinions, not of fact. Your "net positive" is a net negative to me, as I do not want a growing economy, which is your seeming measure of desirability. The country may not seem overpopulated to you (you could not live in a place like London otherwise) but it does to me. You cannot argue that there is no net increase in population caused by immigration. It is a question of desires, opinions and beliefs, and I accept that this forum does not share mine.

 

I imagine most people contributing here did not vote for brexit, but it seems some of them lack understanding.

[Winstonm]

That is my point: it is a question of beliefs, desires and opinions, not of fact. Your "net positive" is a net negative to me, as I do not want a growing economy, which is your seeming measure of desirability. The country may not seem overpopulated to you (you could not live in a place like London otherwise) but it does to me. You cannot argue that there is no net increase in population caused by immigration. It is a question of desires, opinions and beliefs, and I accept that this forum does not share mine.

 

I imagine most people contributing here did not vote for brexit, but it seems some of them lack understanding.

 

You make it sound to an outside observer that you have at best a disquiet about immigrants of whom you disapprove.

[Cyberyeti]

What message are you referring to whose messenger got shot?

 

In any case, it's in everyone's right to proclaim that they would wish a significant number of foreigners to leave their beloved England. But I would argue that loses you the rights to complain about being called xenophobic...

 

The one about the orange juice where you provided a lengthy discourse on why the article on OJ tariffs was inaccurate but failed to address why we would need OJ tariffs after Brexit.

 

Also foreigners already here if they could be bothered to apply would not be forced to leave, just new ones wouldn't be allowed to enter to settle.