[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Teleros]

So you're ok with a Democracy having it in place where a party/guy with less votes getting a bigger representation in an elected house? Because that's not democracy at all.

Well if you want to get technical, nothing short of having the people vote directly on a policy is democracy. This is a representative system though, and it works out pretty well.

So you'd in reality rather have more of an absolute monarchy instead of Democracy due to wanting people in place because they came from the right sperm and were the eldest son. Such Democracy there

House of Lords, not Commons. The Commons has always had the power to ram bills through the Lords since the Parliament Act first came into force back in the early 20th century.

Party leader control over MPs? You mean like something called a whip.

Someone, you mean. And no, whips have only limited authority, as all these Tory rebels show.

Also very few people vote for their MP anyway, barely any more even know the name of their MP (unless they're living with a Front Bencher for an MP) most people look at the party and place their X.

Nothing unusual there, but you generally don't need that many people causing a fuss to make an MP's re-election that much harder. Maybe not the Ken Clarke types and others in rock solid safe seats, but a campaign against the local MP by his former supporters, especially if they can get the local party bigwigs to help, is a serious thing indeed.

Magna carter died quicker than Chequer's or the EU deal if predictions are correct. Everyone was going against it both lords and the King before the ink dried.

That's besides the point. Magna Carta is when the British system really began. Well, there was the Witenagemot back in pre-Norman times, but that wasn't quite the same thing.

Incidentally, much of Magna Carta was still in force up until Victorian times, and whilst many of its clauses were repealed because they were useless, four are still in force today.

England has pleanty of experience with Church having a final say. Whether it was through the Kings or through Puritan theocracy that was Cromwell era

The Church has indeed been powerful in the past, but we've not had much experience of it as "the ruling party", which is what I was responding to.

No it's the EU sticking to international laws which the UK decided to think didn't apply to them, small hint. The UK isn't some super special awesome country that deserves to be bowed to.

Who said anything about being "bowed to"? We're one of the top for military spending and defence related stuff though, so it seems sensible if you want us to help you out that you do a little give and take.

It's a small island off the smallest multi national continent

This rainy little island once ruled the largest empire in history. I'm not sure this argument of yours makes much sense.

that if it is lucky will just be a vassal with rights to the EU and not fucked over by the US, China, Russia, India or anyone else with a population over 100m which as they modernize will overtake the uk.

Using Europa Universalis IV to model this stuff is a bad idea, you know.

Please you're the one who wants to push inequality on others and basically want some just there to serve others without rights. (your own quote about equality a few pages back.)

I want others to serve without rights, eh? Huh. You have a quote for that I assume. Oh no, you're talking out of your posterior again. Let me make it simple for you:

Legally, I do not have (or want) the same rights as the monarch. The judicial system will treat a crime committed against me differently to one committed against, say, the PM. How much money I have in the bank will go a long way towards determining what quality of lawyer I have. As a man but not as a woman, I can be conscripted for service in the armed forces. Were I in MI5 or something, I could commit acts that, as a non-member, would be considered serious crimes.

Spiritually, I am a Christian, and therefore not equal to a non-believer. Intellectually, I am smarter than some people and less smart than others. As a man, I have physical and psychological advantages and disadvantages than women don't have. Materially, I am better off than some, and worse off than others. Morally, I behave better than some people and worse than others.

And on and on it goes. Equality does not exist, and to desire it in the face of reality and human nature is not a good thing. Do you begin to understand where I am coming from now?

Straight out of fascism instruction manual.

Lol.

= = =

This is just unashamed tribalism. Prior to Nu Labour's reforms, the revising chamber had been dominated by Conservatives since the 19th century.

Whereas now it's dominated by people who pay money for the privilege. Not really sure that's an improvement.

[Mormolyce]

No, sadly not, because it doesn't take into account tactical voting if a 2nd ref were based on a FPTP voting system.

E.g., the report author's conclusion is that after stripping away the 'would not votes' & 'don't knows' (who are less likely to turn out to vote) it's likely that many voters whose first preference is No Deal would vote tactically and swap to May's Deal, if they thought (in the weeks leading up to the vote) Remain was winning. May's Deal could win - it's very uncertain.

Do you guys use preferential voting for referenda?

[Noradin]

Again, see the IMF stuff about GDP growth.

IMF: GDP went down: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/GBR (current $ prices)
IMF: GDP grew: https://www.imf.org/external/datamap...P_RPCH@WEO/GBR (growth rate)
IMF: GDP grew: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPGDP@WEO/GBR (purchasing power parity)

Perhaps the IMF is in thrall to a secret Brexiteer cabal?

Perhaps you should read my post again and think about what it means?
Because your links do not contradict it. They demonstrate my point, in fact.
You, however, seem to misunderstand what those links should tell you

Maybe you should look up basis selection, basis transformation, and seperation of variables, it would probably help you understanding of statistics and what the numbers presented mean and why they are choosen that way.

- - - Updated - - -

Hell just for shits and giggles right now even the UK could veto it!

Clueless as always.

- - - Updated - - -

Hopefully this disproves that we are one and the same person... or does it???

Playing with yourself is natural, no worries

[Teleros]

Perhaps you should read my post again and think about what it means?
Because your links do not contradict it. They demonstrate my point, in fact.
You, however, seem to misunderstand what those links should tell you

All I'm saying is that the economy didn't contract 3.2% or similar, and that the IMF figures back up my point. Converting the UK GDP figures into dollars is a bad idea in this context because currency fluctuations will affect the dollar figure for GDP. Using PPP etc makes more sense because it avoids the issues that result from the fluctuating exchange rate.

[Noradin]

Well quite. I read this as the Japanese saying they'd prefer to use the UK as their base for doing business in the EU. Obviously if we're no longer in the EU / EEA then we'd no longer have that as a bargaining chip in any trade deal with Japan (or indeed anyone else). Does this even qualify as "news"?

Apparently your officials gave the Japanese government the impression that this would be news to them.

- - - Updated - - -

All I'm saying is that the economy didn't contract 3.2% or similar, and that the IMF figures back up my point. Converting the UK GDP figures into dollars is a bad idea in this context because currency fluctuations will affect the dollar figure for GDP. Using PPP etc makes more sense because it avoids the issues that result from the fluctuating exchange rate.

Yes, you tell me that you do sometimes pretend not to understand what the basis used for those statistics is and how they differ between the links you posted and sometimes you pretend you do understand--according to the point you want to illustrate. Or maybe you are just sloppy when looking at them and suffer from an extreme vulnerability to confirmation bias.

[Teleros]

Yes, you tell me that you do sometimes pretend not to understand what the basis used for those statistics is and how they differ between the links you posted and sometimes you pretend you do understand--according to the point you want to illustrate. Or maybe you are just sloppy when looking at them and suffer from an extreme vulnerability to confirmation bias.

Let's pretend it's the latter and I'm suffering from confirmation bias then. What should I be looking for exactly? Because literally all I see is the following:

• GDP growth numbers remaining positive, rather than zero or negative. For GDP to shrink, the growth numbers must be negative.
• GDP in current dollar prices going down. See my point about exchange rates.
• GDP going up if you use PPP.
• Real (ie, adjusted for inflation) GDP figures from the ONS going up.

I just fail to see how you can go from "positive, albeit low, GDP growth" to "GDP fell by 3.2%".

[Acidbaron]

Think others said it best already @Teleros but really if you wish to go back to the era of servitude. You really are for oppression of the people and while money buys you a lot of power this is nothing compared to the disgusting era you get a hard on for.

But bravo for coming out in support of slavery I suppose.

[Nigel Tufnel]

Do you guys use preferential voting for referenda?

No. There have only been 3 UK-wide referendums (1975, 2011 & 2016) - all were binary decisions.

But that's the problem here. If there were three options on the ballot paper, two of which resulted in Leave and one resulted in Remain, I don't see how there couldn't be a preferential / transferable vote system (could someone tell me - is this the same thing?).

[Teleros]

Was the projection a recession? I think the projection was a slowdown in GDP growth comparative to the remain scenario, not a recession.

It reads as a recession to me:

We already know the long-term effects of a vote to leave: Britain would be permanently poorer. Now we know the short-term shock too: an economy in recession, major job losses and a self-inflicted blow to living standards and aspirations of the British people.

...

The analysis in this document comes to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. That shock would push our economy into a recession and lead to an increase in unemployment of around 500,000, GDP would be 3.6% smaller, average real wages would be lower, inflation higher, sterling weaker, house prices would be hit and public borrowing would rise compared with a vote to remain.

...

In the shock scenario, a vote to leave would result in a recession, a spike in inflation and a rise in unemployment. The analysis shows that the economy would fall into recession with four quarters of negative growth. After two years, GDP would be around 3.6% lower in the shock scenario compared with a vote to remain.

...

In conclusion, the analysis in this document shows that a vote to leave the EU would result in a marked deterioration in economic prosperity and security. This is based on a widely-accepted approach, and is supported by the effects of uncertainty already evident in financial markets and the real economy. A recession would be expected to follow even in the more cautious scenario with a significant risk that the outcome could be far worse.

That's after two years, so middle of 2018 basically. Here's some key figures from the impacts of the "shock" & "severe shock" scenarios:

GDP: -3.6% / -6.0%
Unemployment: +520,000 / +820,000
Average Real Wages: -2.8% / -4.0%
House Prices: -10% / -18%

Here's the document itself (PDF), from May 2016. Just do a search for "3.6" (7 results) or "recess" (30 results) for example.

[Teleros]

So it is comparing two scenarios.

The 3.6% drop is predicated on the recession mentioned in the same section. Speaking of which...

It can mean recession

No it cannot, because "recession" has a specific meaning in economics - namely, two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth. It does not mean "the economy grew a bit slower" or anything of the sort.

[Nigel Tufnel]

/snip

Oh, c'mon.

I can't take this seriously - criticism of Project Fear when on the other hand you have the blatant lie that is The Brexit Dividend.

The truth is: currently, the UK is stagnating. After a no deal Brexit? You're pissing in the dark. You haven't got a clue. But you've made it abundantly clear you view any sort of economic downturn as a cost worth paying.

[Mayhem]

Oh, c'mon.

I can't take this seriously - criticism of Project Fear when on the other hand you have the blatant lie that is The Brexit Dividend.

The truth is: currently, the UK is stagnating. After a no deal Brexit? You're pissing in the dark. You haven't got a clue. But you've made it abundantly clear you view any sort of economic downturn as a cost worth paying.

Not just an economic downturn, but even people dying.

[Nigel Tufnel]

And - sorry:

I wrote "a cost worth paying", implying there are positive outcomes attached to leaving.

The more I read & the more I absorb, the more I believe the UK should stay in the EU. I am no fan of a European Federalism, however, leaving the EU entirely is not an appropriate or rational decision.

[Teleros]

The text you linked does not say that GDP would be 3,6% lower period per period, it says lower compared to the Remain scenario as I quoted above.

What do you think is behind the difference in the two scenarios, if not the recession the report keeps harping on about?

Report: There will be a recession due to a Leave win, and after two years GDP will be 3.6% lower because the vote will cause a recession.
Not the report: There'll be a recession, but even if there isn't, after 2 years GDP will be 3.6% lower than if we'd voted to Remain.

Since it discusses ANNUAL growth it most certainly can mean recession since we are talking all four quarters.

Again, read the report. The Treasury said that in the event of a Leave vote, there would be a recession (2+ quarters of negative growth). This did not happen, therefore there was no recession. Did growth slow? Perhaps - that seems reasonable if nothing else under the circumstances - but there was never the prophesied recession.

[Pann]

Bercow has ruled that the government may be contempt of parliament by not releasing legal advice.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46435128

Interesting times ahead.

[Acidbaron]

Bercow has ruled that the government may be contempt of parliament by not releasing legal advice.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46435128

Interesting times ahead.

This would be good if i'm understanding this correctly as this would mean those that seek to benefit of falsehoods and fake news take a blow. Does seem the sanctions are rather mild with at worst suspension but perhaps my taste for blood is greater than an actual sense of justice when it comes to politicians thriving on lies.

- - - Updated - - -

Good video:



Sorry if it was linked already.

Yes the EU has been the easy scapegoat for UK politicians because the EU does not get involved in national politics so it's an opposition that doesn't make any sound back.

In reality the UK political class has been very opportunistic and downright incompetent. The EU has nothing to do with the NHS yet it's structural failings was and still is blamed for it and that's just one thing. Another thing about immigration the UK can kiss our hands that Belgium and France are trying to control the flow into the UK and not simply easily open the floodgates.

[Mormolyce]

No. There have only been 3 UK-wide referendums (1975, 2011 & 2016) - all were binary decisions.

But that's the problem here. If there were three options on the ballot paper, two of which resulted in Leave and one resulted in Remain, I don't see how there couldn't be a preferential / transferable vote system (could someone tell me - is this the same thing?).

I think transferable voting is slightly different, if you mean STV, but I don't think that's really applicable here.

Do you use preferential or transferable voting for anything?

[Slant]

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-b...-idUSKBN1O30QQ
I like how May opposes a judgment that will grant more power to her country because she is unable to handle what it would mean politically. Oh wait, I don't like it, I scorn it deeply.

That is quite the monumental decision and I have to say, I'm both surprised and not surprised. I would've put more weight on the argument that this could be used for tactics, but when they started talking about sovereignity, there couldn't be another decision, really. In hindsight. I like that they added the good faith and cooperation bit, because the UK has done anything but. So... :P

Sneaky!

[Teleros]

I like how May opposes a judgment that will grant more power to her country because she is unable to handle what it would mean politically. Oh wait, I don't like it, I scorn it deeply.

It's not a judgement though, just a non-binding opinion. I'd be a bit surprised if the ECJ rules that A50 can be unilaterally revoked though, but maybe they're that desperate to stop Brexit.

Still, I can't see the government and/or the Tory party surviving any attempt to revoke Brexit like that, so it seems like a moot point. I'm sure Ken Clarke's seat would be safe, but he'd be about the only Tory left in the Commons by the time things calmed down :P .

[Slant]

I mean this is not the ruling just an opinion by someone whose opinion counts.
I honestly don't agree with it but A50 is just too vague. When you submit a tender of any form, you cannot withdraw it until it expires. While on the short term it seems useful to allow the UK this option, in the long term the entire article needs more certainty. Being able to invoke and revoke it unilaterally affects the stability of the Union.

I agree, they should take a hard look at A50 in the future and flesh it out. But for now, it's enough to keep the door open for the UK. Something we all prefer, I'd say. Even if we're irritated by Brexiteers. And I'm pretty sure the ECJ will follow this ruling. It makes sense and "sovereignity" is what we call a killer argument in Germany, ending the discussion.