Convince me that Brexit wasn't a terrible act of self-harm

[SeanF]

It was the EU's own record that lost the vote for Remain.  Remain were trying to sell something which British voters really disliked.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

24 minutes ago, Maester of Valyria said:

ut simply, the NHS pledges and the other abandoned promises were what won the referendum for Leave. It is incredibly disingenuous for the government that came about because of the Leave vote to claim that they do not have a democratic mandate for, for instance, increasing the budget of the NHS by £350m/week, and then to claim that they have a mandate for any one 'sort' of Brexit.

Strictly speaking the only thing on the ballot was to Brexit (in some/whatever form) or not.

The ridiculous NHS number was written on Boris Bang bus, not on the ballot. 

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Maester of Valyria said:

Put simply, the NHS pledges and the other abandoned promises were what won the referendum for Leave. It is incredibly disingenuous for the government that came about because of the Leave vote to claim that they do not have a democratic mandate for, for instance, increasing the budget of the NHS by £350m/week, and then to claim that they have a mandate for any one 'sort' of Brexit.

I also take issue with your last sentence: it has been repeatedly shown that leaving will not, in the short to medium term (ie up to a decade from now) strengthen the economy. Almost every economic expert (I know you've 'had enough of' them) is united on this, including Mark Carney and Philip Hammond. Falls in employment leads to reduction in tax revenue leads to decreases in public spending and increases in borrowing. It's basic economics.

Not to mention that Theresa May has been very clear about there not being any extra funding for the NHS until 2020.

 

Oh he didn't want it: the whole thing was a publicity stunt to get more attention for his party. I'd hazard that most of the prominent leavers were actually pro-Remain: just look at Boris and Gove's faces the night the results came in.

But that doesn't answer my point. How could they "abandon" a promise when they were never in power to put it through? How can someone who isn't in government possibly give more money to the NHS? This criticism doesn't make sense.

You can't repeatedly show the future. What you mean is, it has been repeatedly claimed. Which is very different.

Yes, I've had enough of experts, but please note why- experts told us if we didn't join the Euro, it would harm our economy. It's now pretty much universally acknowledged they were wrong. Experts told us that if we voted Brexit, we would be in recession, NOW, so that's something that we can definitely say was wrong.

Now it would be one thing if the experts said "ah, we've learnt from our mistake in our previous prediction, this is what we got wrong, we've changed that from our forecasts", but I haven't heard any of them do that. It seems they are still using the same logic that we know to be false.

What qualfies someone as an expert, anyway? I have a degree in politics, I've studied the European Union at that level, maybe I want to call myself an expert? (To be clear, I said Corbyn would never win Labour leader, Trump would never be President, and we would vote Remain. I definitiely do not consider myself an expert). The only reason I can think that you would respect someone's predictions would be if they had a history of getting them right. If they consistantly get them wrong, the obvious answer is to disregard them entirely, and come to your own conclusions.

So that's what I did. I looked at the EU. Did it work efficiently? I didn't think so. Was money spent well, and in Britain's interest? I wouldn't say so. Were the popular foundations of a political union, a demos, apparant? No. So I voted Out.

Yeah, and which side of the debate was Theresa May on? And Phillip Hammond?

Have you ever thought than the experts, who are usually millionaires and buisness leaders, might actually be telling us what's in their interest, not in the countries interest? If you own a buisness with offices all over Europe, then yeah, being in the EU is probably in your best interest. That doesn't mean it's in the interest of all your employees.

[Hereward]

Nigel Farage is a dick and there are countless things to criticise him for that he has actually said. But as I've said again and again on these threads, could we not condemn him for things he hasn't said? The NHS claim was made by the official Leave campaign, which Farage was not a member of.

[Yukle]

7 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I don't really understand this argument. As much as I dislike Nigel Farage, he was never going to be in power. So why would he have to "duck for cover"? This wasn't an election, the winning campaign don't get to run the country, or make terms. "Fund the NHS" is true, and if leaving saves us money and makes the economy stronger and more efficient, we will be able to better fund it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html

Farage is ducking for cover in that he is avoiding having any responsibility for Brexit. He never expected to win. Also, as he says in this article, the whole, "Fund the NHS" thing was a lie. And he avoided any part in claiming it was true, simply saying it was a mistake of the Leave Campaign.

[Werthead]

Interesting point raised today by the EU chief negotiator. It's not enough to just get the deal done in two years, we've got to get the deal done and get it ratified by all 27 member states in two years. He thinks the ratification process will take about 5 months, so we'll actually only have 19 months - from March 2017 to October 2018 - to get the deal done. Which seems a bit on the tight side of things.

Quote

Experts told us that if we voted Brexit, we would be in recession, NOW, so that's something that we can definitely say was wrong.

I don't think anyone too credible said this. I recall it being floated as a crazy possibility like WWIII breaking out, but I don't recall any serious economic arguments being made that a recession was likely in the immediate aftermath of simply a yes vote. I've seen some arguments that a recession is a possibility after we actually do leave the EU by Spring 2019 as the economy adjusts to the shock of leaving, but there were also penty of arguments that a downturn around then (given it'll be eleven years since the last once) is a possibility anyway.

[Chaircat Meow]

16 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Interesting point raised today by the EU chief negotiator. It's not enough to just get the deal done in two years, we've got to get the deal done and get it ratified by all 27 member states in two years. He thinks the ratification process will take about 5 months, so we'll actually only have 19 months - from March 2017 to October 2018 - to get the deal done. Which seems a bit on the tight side of things.

I don't think anyone too credible said this. I recall it being floated as a crazy possibility like WWIII breaking out, but I don't recall any serious economic arguments being made that a recession was likely in the immediate aftermath of simply a yes vote. I've seen some arguments that a recession is a possibility after we actually do leave the EU by Spring 2019 as the economy adjusts to the shock of leaving, but there were also penty of arguments that a downturn around then (given it'll be eleven years since the last once) is a possibility anyway.

Didn't you say that?

[Hereward]

Am I on Ignore? Once again, Farage never claimed that £350m could be spent on the NHS. That was the official Leave campaign.

Second, no-one credible said this? You mean, apart from the IMF, the OECD, the IFS, the OBR, and, though I doubt you think they're credible when it doesn't suit, the PM, the Chancellor, the Labour leadership, the LibDems, the SNP and the Green Party,

[mankytoes]

1 hour ago, Yukle said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html

Farage is ducking for cover in that he is avoiding having any responsibility for Brexit. He never expected to win. Also, as he says in this article, the whole, "Fund the NHS" thing was a lie. And he avoided any part in claiming it was true, simply saying it was a mistake of the Leave Campaign.

He claimed he never made that promise- which is true, as far as I'm aware. The official Leave campaign said it, and he wasn't a part of that.

The Remainers keep getting mixed up. We didn't vote for UKIP, or Farge, or Boris. All we voted for was to leave.

25 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Interesting point raised today by the EU chief negotiator. It's not enough to just get the deal done in two years, we've got to get the deal done and get it ratified by all 27 member states in two years. He thinks the ratification process will take about 5 months, so we'll actually only have 19 months - from March 2017 to October 2018 - to get the deal done. Which seems a bit on the tight side of things.

I don't think anyone too credible said this. I recall it being floated as a crazy possibility like WWIII breaking out, but I don't recall any serious economic arguments being made that a recession was likely in the immediate aftermath of simply a yes vote. I've seen some arguments that a recession is a possibility after we actually do leave the EU by Spring 2019 as the economy adjusts to the shock of leaving, but there were also penty of arguments that a downturn around then (given it'll be eleven years since the last once) is a possibility anyway.

It's almost like the EU is really inefficient and can't get anything done in a reasonable time period1

I'm afraid the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer said it, and I believe Mark Carney backed them up.

I think you're definitely right on the last point. Next recession, no matter when it is, will be blamed on Brexit.

[Yukle]

14 minutes ago, mankytoes said:

He claimed he never made that promise- which is true, as far as I'm aware. The official Leave campaign said it, and he wasn't a part of that.

The Remainers keep getting mixed up. We didn't vote for UKIP, or Farge, or Boris. All we voted for was to leave.

I'm not even British, so I'm not a "Remainer". And there is no mix-up here, I am well aware of the fact that it's not a vote for Farage. But the Leave Campaign lied. Farage was in a position to correct the lies - his statement about the NHS should have come long before the hours following the vote.

The Leave Campaign's central platform was fraudulent and it's naive to say that it didn't have an impact on the result.

As for the claim that Farage never said it, well...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html

[Yukle]

22 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Am I on Ignore? Once again, Farage never claimed that £350m could be spent on the NHS. That was the official Leave campaign.

Second, no-one credible said this? You mean, apart from the IMF, the OECD, the IFS, the OBR, and, though I doubt you think they're credible when it doesn't suit, the PM, the Chancellor, the Labour leadership, the LibDems, the SNP and the Green Party,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html

[Hereward]

I don't see the problem. He said he would rather spend the money going on the EU in the UK, including the NHS, noting the rebate, but as he had never been involved in the £350m claim, that seems reasonable. He was then asked in a separate clip if he could guarantee that the £350m could be spent on the NHS, which he couldn't do as he never said made such a claim and he isn't in government and therefore able to make such a guarantee.

[mankytoes]

2 minutes ago, Yukle said:

I'm not even British, so I'm not a "Remainer". And there is no mix-up here, I am well aware of the fact that it's not a vote for Farage. But the Leave Campaign lied. Farage was in a position to correct the lies - his statement about the NHS should have come long before the hours following the vote.

The Leave Campaign's central platform was fraudulent and it's naive to say that it didn't have an impact on the result.

As for the claim that Farage never said it, well...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html

I didn't call you one.

What lie? He's saying we send billions to the EU. That's a fact. This is getting a bit Orwellian- the Truth is Lies.

The general leave argument was "we send billions to the EU, we could instead spend that money in our own country". That's a perfectly acceptable point. The Remain rebuttal was that we would actually be poorer if we left the EU, but that is pure speculation. Like I said, many of these exact same people also told us we would be poorer if we didn't join the Euro. Most of them now accept the opposite is true- we would have been poorer if we'd joined it.

If you want to talk about fraudulent campaigning, talk about the government spending £9 million on Remain propaganda, sending it to every household, and then claiming it wasn't part of the campaign because it was "just them stating their opinion" and giving information. The official limit for campaign spending was £7 million, so the Remain side over doubled what they were allowed to spend, typical Tory bullshit, and shame on Labour for turning a blind eye because it suited their interests. That was worse and more influential than anything the Leave campaign did, but everyone turned a blind eye because it suited their agenda. And people wonder why anti-establishment feeling is growing. We had exactly the same bullshit with the AV referendum. Cheating, lying Tories. Cameron and Osbourne were the worst of them, such a great Brexit bonus to see them out on their arses. May at least has a bit of integrity.

[Werthead]

 

16 hours ago, Chaircat Meow said:

Didn't you say that?

I remember pointing out severe economic uncertainty between the vote and Brexit itself would result (and hey presto, here we are) and that a recession was possible after Brexit itself took place, as the shock to the economy (especially moving from a low/no-tariff economy to one with tariffs present) would be quite high, but that's still some time off in the future and prone to the results of the negotiations.

Are people still having problems differentiating between "actual Brexit itself" (which won't happen until 2019) and "the vote narrowly in favour of Brexit" (which happened in June)? These are two distinct and different events.

Quote

Second, no-one credible said this? You mean, apart from the IMF, the OECD, the IFS, the OBR, and, though I doubt you think they're credible when it doesn't suit, the PM, the Chancellor, the Labour leadership, the LibDems, the SNP and the Green Party,

That we'd dip into recession immediately after the vote and the economy would crash instantly before we left the EU or knew the terms under which Brexit were happening? I think I might have noticed that whilst watching the news or working in Westminster over the last five months.

The closest I can find is Carney warning of a possible "technical recession", but no timeframe is given.

This is interesting though (from May this year):

Quote

 

The Bank warned a vote to leave the EU could:

• Push the pound lower, “perhaps sharply”.
• Prompt households and businesses to delay spending.
• Increase unemployment.
• Hit economic growth.
• Stoke inflation.

 

The unemployment figures are still being undercut by the underemployment rates, so working that out is difficult, but everything else seems...familiar.

However, prior to Brexit the pro-Leave camp were talking about Article 50 being triggered "within days" of winning, which stoked a lot more uncertainty and warnings over the consequences. The fact that the Leave campaign won and this nine-month interregnum period where we could sound out what will happen (a bit) was not really mentioned as a possibility.

[Liffguard]

19 hours ago, mankytoes said:

It's almost like the EU is really inefficient and can't get anything done in a reasonable time period1

The point is that two years isn't a reasonable time period. Even if you leave aside the ratification process, two years is an extremely tight deadline for a deal this complex. Much simpler deals concerning trade alone and involving fewer countries routinely take far longer to sort out. Brexit is going to be a huge undertaking and I'm very sceptical that it's even possible to work out the necessary details in two years.

[Maester of Valyria]

On 06/12/2016 at 4:50 PM, Notone said:

Strictly speaking the only thing on the ballot was to Brexit (in some/whatever form) or not.

The ridiculous NHS number was written on Boris Bang bus, not on the ballot. 

Yes. Your point?

People voted not for Brexit as a concept but because of the benefits that Brexit would (supposedly) bring: be that reduced immigration (which our economy relies upon), increased democracy (we could and should improve our own system before starting on Europe's) and sovereignty (which was wilfully misdefined and misused during the campaigning), or promises of connecting with the Commonwealth (as if this was the days of the Empire, and besides Theresa May's trip to India showed what the Commonwealth countries think of that). None of these benefits was trumpeted as loudly as the NHS figure, and to claim that that figure didn't influence the vote's result is incredibly disingenousat best and dangerously misleading at worst.

 

I'll be back to answer the rest later: this one's all I had time for.

[Maester of Valyria]

@mankytoes

Quote

But that doesn't answer my point. How could they "abandon" a promise when they were never in power to put it through? How can someone who isn't in government possibly give more money to the NHS? This criticism doesn't make sense

I understand your point. But the government should not claim that it has a (very slim and based on lies, but we've covered that before) mandate for Brexit and then completely ignore the NHS claim.

Quote

You can't repeatedly show the future. What you mean is, it has been repeatedly claimed. Which is very different.

Yes, I've had enough of experts, but please note why- experts told us if we didn't join the Euro, it would harm our economy. It's now pretty much universally acknowledged they were wrong. Experts told us that if we voted Brexit, we would be in recession, NOW, so that's something that we can definitely say was wrong.

...

It seems they are still using the same logic that we know to be false.

The choice to join the Euro or not was to choose between picking an uncertain/possibly positive future and a certain, status quo future. We picked status quo, and in hindsight I agree that we were right to do so. However Brexit was the opposite: a choice between an uncertain and extremely risky future, against a status quo/now with enhanced benefits (Cameron's deal) future. The situations are not comparable because we chose the status quo in one and the uncertain future in the other.

The economic logic that we 'know to be false' has been refined since the Euro vote, to take into account improved economic theories and the realities of the last few years. However that's not the point: the point is that the theories around the link between free trade and prosperity still stand and remain true (before you mention the people left behind by globalisation: yes that is a major issue but it is mainly a result of domestic policy failings, such as reduced benefit payments and inadequate supply-side policies to retrain and relocate workers).

Quote

To be clear, I said Corbyn would never win Labour leader, Trump would never be President, and we would vote Remain

I very much wish you had been correct in all three of those predictions

Quote

So that's what I did. I looked at the EU. Did it work efficiently? I didn't think so. Was money spent well, and in Britain's interest? I wouldn't say so. Were the popular foundations of a political union, a demos, apparant? No. So I voted Out.

To take those points individually:

1. Any large supranational organisation has inefficiencies. However all organisations strive for increased efficiency, and the EU does too.
2. This is such a small part of what we gain from the EU: I wish that people would understand the bigger picture. Yes, we are a net budget contributor to the EU. However we gain far more than even our gross contribution (which is still less than £350m/week thanks to our rebate), thanks to the benefits of free trade, FDI, passporting, companies setting up here, freedom of movement (yes even that), etc. These benefits lead to reduced prices and increased consumer choice, a large and prosperous export market, cheaper holidays and travel, cheaper and more labour, more jobs (with the multiplier effect that comes with), increased taxation revenue, international influence... The list goes on.
3. The EU has a problem with democracy. Everyone knows and admits that. However reform is possible, and we were ideally placed to get it. Cameron proved that one country was able to get unilaterally benefiting reforms in the face of near-total opposition. The demand for increased democracy in European affairs is growing in many different countries. We could have 'led the charge' against 'EU bureaucracy', but we had to go and throw it all away on June 23.

Quote

Yeah, and which side of the debate was Theresa May on? And Phillip Hammond?

Both (weakly and non-committally) on the side of Remain, but that's not really relevant. Aside from a Conservative desire to shrink the state (which I also disagree with here, but that's definitely another topic), the current government is working with a sharply decreased source of funds. Also, the new administration is full of Brexiteers.

Not that I'm defending their stance mind: they managed to find (I believe it was) £50m for new grammar schools (again, another topic I think).

Quote

Have you ever thought than the experts, who are usually millionaires and buisness leaders, might actually be telling us what's in their interest, not in the countries interest? If you own a buisness with offices all over Europe, then yeah, being in the EU is probably in your best interest. That doesn't mean it's in the interest of all your employees.

Just to point out: the bolded description includes the likes of Farage, Johnson, Rees-Morgan, Duncan-Smith, Gove, Fox, and many other prominent Brexiteers.

Yes, the interests of big business leaders often do not align with those of the citizenry. However here they largely do: firms want to make money. The best way for them to make money is for the UK to remain in the EU. These firms employ millions of people whose jobs may be put at risk by Brexit, by way of relocation, downsizing, reduced FDI, reduced investment, the resulting negative multiplier... That's the most basic way in which the interests of most firms are aligned with those of the citizenry.

Quote

Cheating, lying Tories. Cameron and Osbourne were the worst of them, such a great Brexit bonus to see them out on their arses

Glad there's something we agree on!

_____________________________________________________

 

5 hours ago, Werthead said:

The unemployment figures are still being undercut by the underemployment rates, so working that out is difficult, but everything else seems...familiar

Well this is a whole 'nother issue: the government shows off falling unemployment figures which only hide the often devastating underemployment beneath the surface. It's nearly as bad as when they claimed that child poverty has fallen just because they redefined it so the statistics would include fewer children.

3 hours ago, Liffguard said:

The point is that two years isn't a reasonable time period. Even if you leave aside the ratification process, two years is an extremely tight deadline for a deal this complex. Much simpler deals concerning trade alone and involving fewer countries routinely take far longer to sort out. Brexit is going to be a huge undertaking and I'm very sceptical that it's even possible to work out the necessary details in two years.

The nearly-precedent here is Greenland: only a partial seccession, only one major issue (fish), population the size of a decent town in the UK...it took three years.

The Canadian trade deal (not even 100% comprehensive) took 7 years and nearly fell at the final hurdle. And we all know the problems that TTIP is facing over here (not that I don't think TTIP is incredibly flawed, but it illustrates my point).

[mormont]

On 12/6/2016 at 4:25 PM, SeanF said:

It was the EU's own record that lost the vote for Remain.  Remain were trying to sell something which British voters really disliked.

Well, that 52% of them really disliked, at least. 48% were just fine with it.

On 12/6/2016 at 5:38 PM, mankytoes said:

Now it would be one thing if the experts said "ah, we've learnt from our mistake in our previous prediction, this is what we got wrong, we've changed that from our forecasts", but I haven't heard any of them do that.

It would be really weird if they did, because by and large they are different people, often in very different fields.

This lumping together of 'experts' into a single undifferentiated mass is bizarre. I understand that it makes it easier to shut one's ears, but it's ridiculous.

On 12/6/2016 at 5:38 PM, mankytoes said:

What qualfies someone as an expert, anyway?

Expertise, generally. You know, boring stuff like having read, written and published in an area, having experience, having your insight recognised by leaders in the field, and so on.

Usually, experts are recognised as such because they've been proven right about a lot of things in the past (and that their conclusions are based on evidence). Being wrong about one thing does not mean they should be dismissed out of hand from now on. Most of us are wrong sometimes.

Experts tend to be quite interested in finding out why they were wrong, by the way. Sometimes the media even invite them to come and talk about that.

On 12/6/2016 at 5:38 PM, mankytoes said:

I have a degree in politics, I've studied the European Union at that level, maybe I want to call myself an expert?

You are the second person I've seen here in two days suggest that undergraduate study makes you an expert: I hope that unlike the last guy, you're not serious.

23 hours ago, mankytoes said:

May at least has a bit of integrity.

I have yet to see any evidence of it.

[mankytoes]

19 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

It would be really weird if they did, because by and large they are different people, often in very different fields.

This lumping together of 'experts' into a single undifferentiated mass is bizarre. I understand that it makes it easier to shut one's ears, but it's ridiculous.

Expertise, generally. You know, boring stuff like having read, written and published in an area, having experience, having your insight recognised by leaders in the field, and so on.

Usually, experts are recognised as such because they've been proven right about a lot of things in the past (and that their conclusions are based on evidence). Being wrong about one thing does not mean they should be dismissed out of hand from now on. Most of us are wrong sometimes.

Experts tend to be quite interested in finding out why they were wrong, by the way. Sometimes the media even invite them to come and talk about that.

You are the second person I've seen here in two days suggest that undergraduate study makes you an expert: I hope that unlike the last guy, you're not serious.

So because they are different people, none of them should admit and discuss their error?

Well I was just replying to Remainer talking about how experts were nearly all on their side.

Politicians don't necessarily have things like publications. And they certainly don't have to be well read. America just elected a President with pretty much no experience.

Ok, well what has David Cameron successfully predicted, that means I should disregard my own feelings, and listen to him?

They certainly should do. I watch quite a lot of political tv, and I haven't seen any European experts talking about what they got wrong in the past. Have you?

Well, seeing as you deleted something I wrote that included "I definitiely do not consider myself an expert" when quoting me, I think you know the answer to that.

 

[mormont]

7 hours ago, mankytoes said:

So because they are different people, none of them should admit and discuss their error?

Because they are different people, it's not 'their' error.

7 hours ago, mankytoes said:

Politicians don't necessarily have things like publications.

And are politicians usually described as 'experts'? Do we draw the category as widely as necessary to discredit it?

7 hours ago, mankytoes said:

And they certainly don't have to be well read. America just elected a President with pretty much no experience.

Definitely not an 'expert', except perhaps in his own mind.

7 hours ago, mankytoes said:

They certainly should do. I watch quite a lot of political tv, and I haven't seen any European experts talking about what they got wrong in the past. Have you?

Yeah, I've seen lots of experts discussing why they failed to correctly predict the referendum result. You'll more rarely find people discussing why not joining the Euro wasn't a mistake, but that's because it's not really a very good news story. Also, you are exaggerating the extent to which 'experts' predicted that not joining the Euro would be detrimental. Unlike on the referendum, expert opinion on that subject was very much split: some felt it would be beneficial to join, many others warned that it was risky, and very few suggested that not joining would be a disaster.