Brexit bedfellows

[newcastle]

Although I've no firm views on the in/out debate over Britain's membership of the EU, I'm intrigued at the way Brexit supporters are now reviewing their opinions of certain individuals based solely, it appears, on that individual supporting an 'out' decision.

First we had Boris, not everyone's cup of tea. Even his likening of the EU project to Nazism can be applauded apparently.

Now El Trump wades in . Formerly viewed by many as a dangerous lunatic, he's now a successful and astute businessman whose views should be followed. Let's quietly forget his track record of bankruptcies and bizarre utterances re immigrants and muslims.

It only remains for Kim Jong-un to indicate his view that Britain should vote NO to EU, et voila, North Korea becomes a state to admire.

President Sisi could do with a boost in his popularity amongst many Brits. The way is now obvious!

Brexit supporters have the edge on St. Paul when it comes to Damascene conversions.

[Horus]

The problem with all of this is that both sides tell half truths and certainly from my perspective here in the UK the 'remain' camp seem to be getting more and more desperate to scare everyone into staying in. Neither side actually give any pros and cons detailing the benefit of either choice and we certainly see some strange long term predictions from the remain camp. Even good old Boris's remark was taken out of context as he was stating his opinion that several people had tried to create a greater Europe from the Roman Empire, Napoleon and even Hitler and that none of them had succeeded. There is a theory that says that once anyone brings Hitler into a debate then the debate has run its course, although why mentioning Hitler in this context of people who tried to rule Europe should be deemed so offensive is a mystery to me. The latest was Mark Carney from the Bank of England giving his predictions, the problem with all of these esteemed groups from the CBI, the IMF, G20 and the bankers is that all of these organisations also predicted doom and gloom previously if we did not join the Euro or stay in the ERM and quite the reverse happened.

President Obama speaks from what is best for America and not what may be best for the UK, he too made the gross mistake in saying that Europe has been free from war due to the EU and failed to mention the real reason that it was NATO that had kept the peace. Donald Trump when asked if the UK would as Obama stated be at the back of the queue for any trade deal gave his reply was that it would not be the case if he were to be elected. When you consider that none of these organisation could predict the disaster of 2008 and George Osbourne himself has been unable to get any of his own forecasts correct, yet we are expected to take him on his word as to what would happen in the future should we leave the EU. Is it any wonder that most people are confused by all this rhetoric and such long term predictions that quite honestly no one can really say what will happen or have happened in 15 years time and at my age I have yet to see any chancellor get it right.

So one prediction I think we can make with reasonable certainty is that it will be very close, but with a last minute surge in support to stay in as people suppress their instinct to get out of Europe due to the fear campaign being run at the moment and the lack of any rationally argued debate for in or out. So like the Scottish Referendum the people will vote to stay in out of fear of the unknown, but like that particular referendum I doubt it will settle the future calls to leave and it will only take one example of the EU working to our detriment, say unbridled immigration and it will start all over again.

[newcastle]

I agree with Horus that confusion and uncertainty are powerful factors and may swing the vote in favour of staying in. Time will tell.

It's also true that an exit would be pretty well irrevocable. I can't see a scenario in which UK would be readmitted.

On the other hand, a decision to stay can always be revisited at some future time...if the dire forecasts of the Brexit supporters prove to be accurate.

Procrastination is not always a bad thing

[Who2]

I just completed a London Evening Standard questionnaire 79% of Londoners are for leaving,
Me ? Well we never should have joined in the first place, ruddy obvious for an Englishman I'd have thought.....
Ps: A complete waste of money allowing Germans & French telling us what to do..f*** them all, 'johnny bloody foreigners.
Pss: I'm not an ex-pat either, I just have long holidays!

[newcastle]

I just completed a London Evening Standard questionnaire 79% of Londoners are for leaving,
Me ? Well we never should have joined in the first place, ruddy obvious for an Englishman I'd have thought.....
Ps: A complete waste of money allowing Germans & French telling us what to do..f*** them all, 'johnny bloody foreigners.
Pss: I'm not an ex-pat either, I just have long holidays!

But then London is different to the rest of UK

[Who2]

That's why I live there, being honest Margate, Morecombe or Manchester just doesn't do it for me....

[carrie]

I don't know what I would vote, my inclinations would be to leave my grand daughter though and her friends are all for staying in and not from fear of leaving. They are idealistic, as we all were at their age and believe that the EC has brought the countries of Europe closer together, they are all going to go to university and welcome the freedom to travel and work anywhere in Europe they wish when they have finished their education. Perhaps those who want to leave are "little Englanders" as she accused me of being.

[Who2]

Why on earth would any sane person want to be closer ?
God gave us an English Channel which for many years served Blighty quite well ,keeping out the invaders, then bloody Maggie went and built a ruddy tunnel. What's the point of living on an island if it's not ?....

[newcastle]

An unfortunate consequence of the referendum is that, whatever the outcome, and judging by the rhetoric flying about, a significant proportion of the UK electorate are going to be seriously miffed.

With hindsight, it wasn't the best of calls on the part of Cameron.

[Zooropa]

Im getting bored with the "comparing to Nazi, Isis and any other unpleasant thing" routine.

Boris Johnson (im no fan) was not (as most people don't) equating the EU to the Nazi's.

He was using a metaphor and metaphor's by their very nature need to be colourful to make the point and to leave people in little doubt.

If I was to say that putting David Cameron in charge of the Conservatives was akin to putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank I would not be directly comparing Cameron to a mythical undead being that likes to feed on the blood of humans (preferably virgins).

The comparison is in the wisdom of making such decisions.

Because my hypothetical metaphor was colourful, most people would realise that a vampire in charge of a blood bank is not a good idea and thus would be left in little doubt as to what I thought about Cameron's leadership skills.

If I had compared Cameron to putting a doctor in charge of sick people it would have been equally clear but in a positive sense.

Johnson's comparison was that previously, people tried to unite Europe under single rule - he went further by saying that the methods used were different.

I would have steered clear of Hitler in any case because it was always going to draw "progressive" people out of their caves to point and scream.

Hes very intelligent by most popular opinion and I can only think he did this knowing full well what the reaction would be from certain quarters - perhaps it got people talking about Brexit more than they otherwise would?

If people are looking for a reason to leave then how about DEMOCRACY?

The ability to elect and remove those who make decisions that impact on our lives?

What other reason does one need?

You have comedians like Corbyn who, for the last thirty plus years been the most Eurosceptic MP telling us Europe is bad in many ways but we are better off in.

Im going to use my own colourful metaphor and say that's like advising someone in an abusive relationship to stay put because on balance they have a roof over their head and food in their belly so better off as they are.

Just for clarity, the metaphor here is accepting something fundamentally bad because there is some good is a bad idea rather than equating the EU to a wife beater.

[newcastle]

I can understand the "democracy argument" (for Brexit).....up to a point. The EU certainly isn't a one man-one vote entity like, say UK. But nor is it a self- perpetuating unelected oligarchy as some would portray.

There's some resemblance to USA, where you have individual states electing their own governors, officials etc. and setting their own laws...but within the overall framework of a federation, and a federal government which can impose supra-state legislation.

It seems to me that France & Germany, plus several other members favour an arrangement of this kind....whilst others, like the UK , are unenthusiastic. Abrogating authority (or rather some authority) to a wider plebiscite, such that our own views can be (and usually are) overruled is not a comfortable proposition for a sovereign state which has enjoyed untrammeled independence for nigh on a 1000 years.

[Zooropa]

I take your point Newcastle but as far as im concerned there are no degrees of democracy, you either have it or you don't.

I accept some democracies are better than others but the EU is closer to an unelected oligarchy than it is a democracy.

The committee that sits and proposes laws is untouchable by the electorate and so is "unchecked".

This frees them to propose whatever they like free from the threat of removal.

Lobbying to this committee and the EU in general is rife and makes the fewer cases of it happening in the UK seem a trifle.

In any case, why waste money lobbying in the UK when the decision nearly always comes from the EU.

I hope we have heard the last of Jeremy Corbyn being a man of political principle, as I stated in my original post, the man is as Eurosceptic as it gets and yet hes saying opt in.

There is a lot of EU legislation that people mistake for UK legislation.

Corbyn's position is made all the more farcical when you realise that whole rafts of his economic plan were he to be elected would simply be unimplementable because it breaches EU spending limits.

I think the Corbyn economic plan would be ruinous for the UK but that's besides the point, if that's what the people vote for then that's democracy.

As I said, we could debate how undemocratic the EU is or is not but when an elected government cant even implement an economic plan because of EU controls then as far as im concerned that's already crossed the line.

A little different than the "common market" it was sold to us as.

[Zooropa]

And my friend, I must correct you re Trump, he did not support the UK leaving, he said he couldn't care less which isn't the same thing.

[newcastle]

And my friend, I must correct you re Trump, he did not support the UK leaving, he said he couldn't care less which isn't the same thing.

I haven't got a recording of his full interview with Piers Morgan (there are limits to how much of either gentleman I can stomach!) but the following was reported (and I'm assuming that words in parentheses were verbatim quotes):

He also doubled-down on his proposed Muslim ban and again insisted large parts of Britain were "no-go" areas following a takeover by Islamic hate preachers.

Trump, who spoke of his "great love for Britain", believed migrants "pouring in all over the place" would be the final straw for many when it comes to the EU referendum

Trump thinks Britain WILL vote to leave Europe in order to regain control over the country's border
He said: "I think maybe it's time, especially in light of what's happened, with the craziness that's going on with the migration, with people pouring in all over the place.

"I think that Britain will end up separating from the EU, that's my opinion. I'm not endorsing it one way or the other but that's my opinion. I think a lot of people want to see that happen."

He also confirmed his commitment to ban all Muslims from the US - and insisted there was a "massive Muslim problem" in Britain.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/655219 ... -migration

OK....not a vote for Brexit ( he does have a way of mangling his words and hedging his bets) but a pretty clear indication of how he would vote if he could! And not, as far as I can see "couldn't care less".

I have no problem with him, or anyone else, expressing an opinion....it was the sudden volte-face by the advocates of Brexit, regarding the man's credentials, which stuck in my throat

[Zooropa]

Well I share your opinion on Piers Morgan.

I was referencing an interview he did on Fox News when he was asked to comment on the "back of the cue" comment made by that staunch Anglophile Barack Obama.

And no, it wasn't the Megyn Kelly interview either - another one I cant abide.

I cant quote directly but he said words to the effect of, regardless of whether the UK votes to leave or not it would make no difference to him and as an important ally we would most definitely not be at the back of the cue.

Ive spent many years trading with the States in the military/aerospace markets primarily and I can tell you that the States regard us as probably the safest country in the world to trade with when it comes to preventing components that could be used in the construction of WMD's ending up on an Isis controlled automatic heat seeking missile launcher.

I bought many items that were ultimately destined for the British Army/Navy/Airforce and it was a lot easier for me, working for a known and trusted defence contractor in the UK to obtain these items than it is/was for some of the state's other "allies".

Ive argued this elsewhere, governments don't trade, companies do.

It would be a shot in their own foot not to ensure we had good trade deals.

The idea, as Obama suggested, that it could take ten years to agree a trade deal between us goes beyond fantasy.

This is put out there in the knowledge that most people don't know enough about such things to be able to fact check it.

It smacks of a statement made by a person who wouldn't know a trade deal if it smacked him in the face or the rhetoric of a man who wants to scare the electorate into voting the way he wants.

Or both.

[newcastle]

I think Trump referred to the "back of the queue" in the cringeworthy interview with Piers Morgan.


“I am going to treat everybody fairly but it wouldn’t make any difference to me whether they were in the EU or not,” Mr Trump said in an interview with Piers Morgan, due to be aired in full on ITV on Monday. “You would certainly not be back of the queue, that I can tell you.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk ... -1.2648657

The queue for the current US-EU deal is already 2 years long...and some economists think it'll take another 3-4 years to finalise...if it ever is. I don't know enough about these things to say how a separate deal with UK would fare but I doubt it would be as straightforward or timely as the Brexit supporters seem to assume.

Having just read a bit more of the interview I fear for the US, if not the world, if Trump ever gets to the White House. And it's a distinct possibility if there's only Hilary Clinton in his path.

[Zooropa]

There are two main reasons (amongst several others) why trade deals between the EU and other countries take for ever.

1. The EU is negotiating on behalf of nearly 30 countries, all with diverse economies and industries. There are many potential points in a trade agreement where two or more member states would be at the opposite end of the spectrum to each other in terms of it being beneficial/detrimental to their respective interests. Not only does the EU have to negotiate with the country with whom they are trying to set the deal up with but they also have to "horse trade" with the individual EU member states in order to get agreement. Accept this point of the trade even though its not in your interests and in return we will have this other point agreed in your favour etc.

One such example is trade tariffs, the French would favour a high import tariff on incoming dairy products to the EU because this would be protectionist to their huge dairy industry. Not so good for countries like Romania, Hungary and to a lesser extent Germany who have little or no Dairy industry to speak of compared to France, low import tariffs would force France to be more competitive in the market and Romania, Hungary and Germany etc could benefit from reduced prices as a result of increased competition.

So what level do you set the import tariff at?

And that's before you factor in how that would sit with the country you are negotiating with.

The same argument applies to the Auto industry and Germany, they would favour high import tariffs on cars to give them a strangle hold on the EU car market.

It is more than fair to speculate that the UK negotiating in only its own interests free from having to consider the interests of all the EU member states would have significantly less obstacles to overcome and would have a much better chance of securing a much better overall deal, how much better, of course, is down to the calibre of the people who are negotiating on your behalf, in a much quicker time frame.

Again, it is buffoonery beyond belief when the Remain camp say the Leave camp are light on the details of the deals they would be able to strike.

Any idiot who has ever taken part in a trade or any other deal knows that you don't publicly announce ahead of time what you think you can negotiate, that's a sure fire way of coming away with less than you otherwise could have got.

In any case its impossible ahead of time to say exactly what deal you are going to get, again, its much dependent on the skills of the other side as to what sort of deal you get.

If you are selling a second hand car, would you be able to reliably guess what final price you will get for it and furthermore would you consider it wise to state before the negotiation starts the lowest price you would accept?


2. The people negotiating on behalf of the EU are useless, I could carve a better set of negotiators out of a banana (however EU conforming or not it is!).

One of the harder major countries to negotiate a trade deal with is Australia, they are very protectionist towards their wildlife, understandably so.

For example, they will only accept into their country wooden crates of a certain type treated in a certain way to prevent the spread of disease to their limited tree life.

The USA and Australia managed to agree and sign a trade deal in 10 months.

You will also find that the more trade there is between two countries the faster the trade deal can be agreed.

They are under immense pressure from their industries to get the deal done.

Of course, no one can say, on either side how long a specific trade deal will take to set up but by the same token it doesn't seem to stop the Remain camp from giving us the worst possible case scenario x 2.

Nicky Morgan, laughably our Secretary Of State For Education announced that leaving the EU "could devastate the life chances of the young".

If that's true then she should resign immediately, because if she thinks a country like Britain is not capable of educating our young and making them competitive in the jobs market without the guidance of an unelected bunch of grey suits on the continent telling her what to do then she has no business in politics let alone the key post of Secretary Of State For Education.

I don't for one minute think it will be plain sailing, there may well be a cost to Brexit, most things do cost but im prepared to accept that cost in return for democracy with the confidence that we have enough talent in this country (even if its not adequately present in the current government) to make leaving the better option.

Anybody in government or politics on the Remain side who truly thinks that we risk wars or world wars, costs to go ruinously through the roof, tens of thousands of jobs to be lost if we leave the EU is not only taking people for complete potato heads but they also have no business in any kind of representative office, and what is more we would be able to democratically remove them that being the case, something we cant do reliably with membership of the EU.

[Zooropa]

As for Trump, well, that's what you get as a reaction to decades of the Clintons in office.

What a choice, beheading of stoning?

Trump is a political opportunist appealing to the disaffected and the fed up of the current political class.

I don't for one moment think the reality of him being president will come anywhere near the rhetoric in his election campaign.

At least I hope not!

[newcastle]

Mercifully, in democracies like USA or the UK, the president/PM doesn't have much in the way of absolute power. Government decisions are made by cabinets of ministers and are then subject to approval by the elected body of congressmen/senators (US) or commons/lords (UK).

Nevertheless, the stature of the "chief executive" on the world stage does have some relevance and I wonder if Trump could ever live down some of his rhetoric....even if it is just posturing. I find it hard to imagine such a figure of fun being elected president of the world's richest and most powerful nation.

Then again, who would have imagined Leicester City winning the premiership

I think what we're seeing in the US, and what we see periodically in the UK, is an all-too-human desire for change for change's sake......the gut belief that somehow a change will lead to better things. It's akin to the "grass is greener...." syndrome.

[Zooropa]

Im not sure I agree re change for changes sake.

In some case yes, but:

We are, by habit, creatures of continuity.

It generally takes a lot for people to vote for change.

Im not sure people vote for change for the sake of it much of the time or even because, necessarily because they think it will be better (more hope so).

Sometimes I think its a case of the people being utterly sick of what is on offer.

As for being surprised at his election, I discount nothing being possible or even probable in politics, even more so stateside.

I mean, you are talking about a country that wont elect to president anyone who does not have an imaginary friend.

Its generally considered political suicide to "come out" as an atheist.

How mad is that!?