Yah, and after control you have to actually sell the fish (UK prefers cod, or can’t you read?).
Yah, and after control you have to actually sell the fish (UK prefers cod, or can’t you read?).
Vote leave was not in government and had very little presence in the front benches. It was not for vote leave to layout a detailed blueprint of how the result should be implemented. However it had to respect the result and honour getting out of the core EU institutions as promised. When Labour and the Liberals Democrats reneged on this in their manifestos they got crushed, and rightly so.
jesseriley wrote:
Yah, and after control you have to actually sell the fish (UK prefers cod, or can’t you read?).
80% of cod caught in our waters as defined by international regulation are caught by EU vessels.
You can’t read.
Ultramarkus wrote:
He is probably payed by EU subsidies but he doesn't know it. (yet)
In 2020 we will see reality kick in, in this whole Brexit Saga. Until now it was just about what would happen. This year the first things will start happening and 2021will be the year of "I told you so".
You have to take a longer term view to decide on whether it was worth it. It will be. The countries on the fringes of the EU have done much better than those fully integrate in recent years and no suprise.
I remember a similar level of pessimism if the UK did not join the euro currency 15 years ago. Well guess what, the sky did not fall in, there were no plagues of locusts and the UK prospered. Now you would be hard pushed to find one person that would want to join.
UK imports 80% of its cod from Norway & Iceland (non-EU), and they certainly get a good deal as part of an indispensable trading bloc.
Actually pound sterling has declined vs euro & dollar since...they were invented.
The euro being even stronger than the dollar initially, then maintaining the gain basically.
jesseriley wrote:
UK imports 80% of its cod from Norway & Iceland (non-EU), and they certainly get a good deal as part of an indispensable trading bloc.
Ask yourself why we have to do that in the first place.
jesseriley wrote:
Actually pound sterling has declined vs euro & dollar since...they were invented.
Are you seriously going to make a case for the Euro. Being pegged to a currency you have no control of is suicide, ask Greece, Italy, Ireland how that is going.
Because UK is high-tech and fishing is difficult & dangerous & a minuscule part if the UK economy. Have you ever even been to the UK?
Don’t worry, Americans have little control over the dollar. No one voted for Bush Jr to try & destroy our currency & economy, but he almost did it anyway. Many heads are better than one.
roscoe. wrote:
You have to take a longer term view to decide on whether it was worth it. It will be. The countries on the fringes of the EU have done much better than those fully integrate in recent years and no suprise.
I would love to know which countries would that be?
Ultramarkus wrote:
roscoe. wrote:
You have to take a longer term view to decide on whether it was worth it. It will be. The countries on the fringes of the EU have done much better than those fully integrate in recent years and no suprise.
I would love to know which countries would that be?
Chill out and have a beer for New Years, I’ll get back to dismantling your doomsday mentality tomorrow.
Leave means leave, believe in the UK.
Thought they didn’t chill their beer in UK, which I’m not sure you’ve ever been to.
I am just opening the Champagne as we speak :-)
Happy new year!
Leave means “believe!” Not relieve, ha ha.
Pray to boris each night before bed. This will be more likely to work, roscoe.
Whether push or pull, it looks like you are helping me argue against public referendums due to public misinformation, highlighting the need for a proper information environment, perhaps even reform, to help get referendums right.
Speaking of arrogance, you speak as though you, or perhaps your local fishing village, can accurately represent the inner thoughts and motivations of most "leave" voters.
I'm sure many people could cut through invalid mis-information. But I'm also sure that a significant number people voted based on a lifetime of fear and resentment without supporting information. Many people want to believe that the EU, and/or the influx of refugees, are to blame for their problems, when in many cases, it is those who control the message who helped cause these problems, as they say "hey -- look over there!", while reaching into your pocket. History has a long list of examples where unfortunate people blame immigrants for their woes. In the case of Brexit, the influx of refugees, and a quota to accept a proportion of refugees coming from the EU, played right into these fears.
The lesson learned from Cambridge Analytica, is that when a vote is nearly split, it only takes a small number of "persuadables" to tip the vote. Even if I had the highest confidence in 95% of the population making an informed choice, a significant shift in the remaining 5% would be enough to change the outcome. Cambridge Analytica claimed they only need to be effective on small percentage of the population. Similarly in America, the way voting works by state, many states are already pre-decided, effectively cancelling the voice of other states: California will vote left, while Texas and Alaska vote right. Politicians always target a very small percentage of the population in swing states because that is where the best return on campaign investment is.
In my lifetime, I have seen the emergence of Fox News (did someone mention Rupert Murdoch before?) convince a rather large population of many things without information, for example things like Saddam Hussein being involved in the attack on the twin towers.
"A post-2008 election poll by FactCheck.org found that 48% of Americans believe Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks; the group concluded that "voters, once deceived, tend to stay that way despite all evidence.""
"And voters, once deceived, tend to stay that way despite all evidence. Nearly half in our poll (46 percent) agreed that Saddam Hussein played a role in the attacks of September 11, even though no solid evidence has ever emerged to support this notion."
https://web.archive.org/web/20090208021648/http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/our_disinformed_electorate.htmlYour hypothetical scenario would make more sense if America was a comparatively tiny nation like Britain joining a proportionally larger group like the EU.
In America, something similar already happened, where post-Civil War, individual member states gave up much more of their power to a strong centralized federal government.
In America, much moreso than in Britain, I would not trust the American people to a referendum (see above about what nearly half the US population, in hindsight, still believe about Saddam Hussein).
Rather than joining Pan-American blocks on others' terms, Americans are focused on building walls for Mexico -- in fact, ignoring their bigger border:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOR38552MJA
roscoe. wrote:
So let’s say the Democrats win in 2020 and Biden wants to join a pan American block where powers, finances and trade are devolved away from nation control in favour of collaboration. Would you be happy with this if it was what he ran on, or maybe a referendum on this single issue would be better in this circumstance. Consider the policy getting through based on factors such as an overall emotional hatred for Trump.