You think the majority actually looked up expert opinion?
Nige & Boris are experts to the majority that voted leave.
Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
You think the majority actually looked up expert opinion?
Nige & Boris are experts to the majority that voted leave.
http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/briefing_newdeal.html
Look at the second bullet point. It says we would remain as part of a European free trade zone. We will not.
This is a leave website. You can't put that up given its obvious bias. Anyone with more than 2 brain cells should be seeking out independent information and not basing their decision on anything that either side campaigning presents to you. Outside of obviously biased websites, there was an enormous input from the economists, the banks, members of the EU, EU authorities etc.
But that's the problem, the UK were never in a position to anticipate that since only the EU can give that.
OK that is what I said. The Leave side were saying we would still have European free trade, a lot of people may have voted on that basis, trusting them and believing the other side was "project fear." That was exactly my point.
The "experts" all said we wouldnt be able to, but they were decried as being biased, being Remainers, being part of the establishment, being part of project fear.
And Nazis, don't forget Nazis.
So we're supposed to leave the EU and sit there with our hands tied? No thanks. Besides which, it's not like the UK is about to become a larger version of the Caymans or BVI. However if we wish to implement a more attractive introductory tax framework to bring business to the country, coupled with other state intervention (a mandated training/apprenticeship scheme for example), then why shouldn't we?
I know that the many partisan economic reports released prior to the vote assumed that we were going to make stupid decisions after Brexit, yet that doesn't mean we'll oblige.
We should have a mechanism by which constituents (locally and nationally) can trigger referenda, i do agree, although you'd lose that one on the monarchy i'd suspect. The bloated mess that has become the Lords, however, would be more interesting perhaps.
Definitely not, but don't make threats to become a tax haven and then just 48 hours later slag off big cooperations for not paying enough tax.
You're proving my point if anything, that this is the peoples fault. They should have known better. Experts are experts because they know what they are talking about. It doesn't take much to grasp that concept and so people should have known that Boris Johnson and Michael Gove did not know more than 90% of the economists in the UK for example. They should have sought the advice of experts rather than listening to the remain or leave side.
OK that is not a point I ever disagreed with. It is the people's fault. Well, to a point. It is the Tories' fault because it gave people a decision to make that they were not equipped to make, because they were never going to pore over reams and reams of in depth studies and they were always going to basically trust what they were being told in simple soundbites. Its what people do. As I said I am now very much against referendums because it is clear the public as a whole cannot make informed decisions about something as complex as this.
You're making it out to be a lot more than it was. It didn't require any poring over reams and reams of studies. The information was everywhere. Read a paper and the facts were there, 2 second Google search and the facts were there, turn on your TV and the facts were there in all the discussions. You're making out that finding the information required some kind of monumental effort and in reality it required next to none.
I do agree that it's clear people can't make informed decisions on anything, the Trump vote reinforced that. People will just vote whoever says something that makes sense to them at any given second, even if that changes day to day.
I would say that people will vote for whoever that says something that validates their uninformed opinion. And the EU has a lot of topics where people have strong opinions but don't know anything.
OK I hear you and I agree in some ways. I mean, it was easy for me to find it out. I didnt read any studies. I didnt do any time consuming research, and I knew. I think most educated people would have been in that position.
But then you had a small group of, mainly rich Tories and kippers, who had somehow cast themselves as being anti establishment, who said over and over again that "the establishment" was lying to them. I keep saying it but remember "project fear"? That was the idea that all that stuff that people were hearing from the papers, from the TV, from the discussions, from the IMF or the OECD or whoever, it was all propaganda, all lies. People were told there was a gravy train, there were special interests, that the experts were either, at best, wrong, or actually lying because it was in their interests that the UK remain as part of the EU - but not the public's. And I am sorry to sound elitist, but actually no, Im not really, a lot of people who are not very well educated, but are very angry, and do hate immigrants, either because they are racist - but also maybe because they cant get a job and resented it when they saw immigrants who did have jobs - those people believed it, hook line and sinker.
And that is the point at which we do agree, I think. Those people dont make informed decisions. And there are a lot of them. And for some reason, those people always seem to be much more susceptible to the right wing's propaganda than to the left's, as we saw in the US. Which is probably because the left is generally far more divided - but that is a different discussion.
The main point, my TL/DR version, is that while the information was out there, people didnt trust it. And they did, in some cases, trust what the Leave camp was telling them - which was that they could have free trade. And yes its their fault, but its also Cameron's fault, because actually the public wasnt screaming for this referendum, it was his party, and UKIP.
Tax haven is rather a dramatic description of what she is likely suggesting. It also isn't necessarily the case that the two are mutually exclusive policies: for instance, we could have a lower rate for new start-ups and new ventures, but a less blasé approach toward the multinationals as a whole. Time will tell of course, however Theresa May's rhetoric as PM has certainly been less friendly.
It's pure little man syndrome. If the combined economic power of 27 of our neighbors start making threats in return, then we'll see how much May's rhetoric is worth.
Bang on.
If you are going to have a referendum then it should only be passed if an overwhelming majority is in favour. Otherwise the status quo should remain. Bananas that a near 50:50 split can have such profound consequences for Britain.
I think we should bin them off altogether.
The principle of our democratic system is you vote for an MP affiliated to a party. If you don't like what that party did, and you think that another party could do better, you can vote for someone else next time round.
There's no scope to kick out the people that have got it wrong with referendums, and it is in the best interest of whoever wins to use the oft parroted phrase 'you can't just keep voting until you get the answer you want'.
They encourage nonsense politics as well. If Cameron thought leaving the EU was a good idea, which he didn't, then he should have run the 2015 GE campaign on the promise of leaving the EU; if he didn't then he shouldn't. We're in half the mess we're in because people that don't believe in what they're offering the public are promising to do things because it makes them electable.
I would certainly not have been arguing that if electoral reform had passed by 52% to 48%. But what you are saying makes sense.
Like I said I just dont think we should have them at all. If you want to leave that much (or whatever the question being asked is) vote for a party that promises to deliver it, if they get in they can just do it.
Under the current system there was never any possibility of continuing single market membership. This was stated clearly during the campaign, which is why the objections of many MPs regarding A50 were rather peculiar.
I also note that posters are tacking towards the 'thick Leave voter' angle once again. So far as i can gather, there is no evidence to suggest that Remain voters were inherently less lazy and more assiduous with their preparation prior to voting. Indeed, given the admitted deceit of the Government the chances are that many people found themselves driven by unfounded fears.
In America citizens can cast their ballot on propositions, in European states there are procedures for referenda, yet Britons should be denied the same rights? If access to the democratic process remains as distant and restricted as at present, engagement with the issues is unlikely to increase further. So whether it is an affirmation of a person's liberal identity or not, it can't but sound elitist to the reader.
You are aware that EU states already corporate rates considerably lower than the UK's at present?
I also note that posters are tacking towards the 'thick Leave voter' angle once again. So far as i can gather, there is no evidence to suggest that Remain voters were inherently less lazy and more assiduous with their preparation prior to voting. Indeed, given the admitted deceit of the Government the chances are that many people found themselves driven by unfounded fears.
In America citizens can cast their ballot on propositions, in European states there are procedures for referenda, yet Britons should be denied the same rights? If access to the democratic process remains as distant and restricted as at present, engagement with the issues is unlikely to increase further. So whether it is an affirmation of a person's liberal identity or not, it can't but sound elitist to the reader.
You are aware that EU states already corporate rates considerably lower than the UK's at present?
Last edited:
That is a nicely sounding term, but the problem is that the only action I heard about so far to make it more attractive is lowering corporate taxes. Corporate taxes take up a significant part of the state´s budget (as of 2016 around 50 billion Euro).
Now, decreased income from that position while keeping the state running (that is what the budget is for after all) has normally consquences and calls for different options to balance it out, off the top of my head I would count three major ones:
1. The state does not balance out the lower income and simply adds it to the already existing budget deficit (the newest figure I found was around 10 billion Euro as of the end of 2015), meaning borrowing more money from foreign countries and banks (taking back control indeed...)
2. The balancing is made by increasing taxes for the citizen, people who will already face higher costs of living because of increasing inflation (devaluation of the pound) and import tariffs, which will IMO undoubtly land in the laps of the consumers.
3. The balancing is made by decreasing costs of running the country, in short cuts in public services. In a time when the NHS is already underfounded probably not the wisest move. Just as option two the majority of the load has to be carried by the countries citizen.
Right now, I don´t see either of the options as being realistic, which is why I view handing freebies to large companies as just an empty threat (a bluff that has been called out pretty much instantly by the EU) and negotiation tactic.
To put it simply, the UK is for it´s size (especially in terms of population) simply not wealthy enough tp pull it off without pissing off their citizen and lowering their standart of living.
Absolutely they should be denied that 'right'. In America is has led to such insanity as the California proposition that required ANY tax increase to need a 2/3rds vote by either legislature or public.
People are not educated on the details and putting up propositions or referendums that ask them to decide on extremely complex issues with a simple yes/no vote is idiotic.
You are aware that none of those countries is anywhere even close to being an economic rival or threat to the UK right? Unless we'll slumped so low that we're afraid of a trade war with Bosnia and Liechtenstein? If France and Germany started undercutting us, THEN perhaps there would be something to worry about.
Let's consider the hypothetical that a London borough had the capacity to hold legally binding referenda on policies locally, why would this not be an improvement? The legality of cannabis, sex work, moving from council tax to a local sales levy, renewables...countless issues which might be discarded nationally would be given a voice.
Personally I wouldn't want to vote because I don't have enough knowledge, I don't know how I could have an educated opinion on sex work and cannabis.
This is 'No one ever said there would be £350m for the NHS' all over again.
Which of Leave's main objectives did not require an end to our single market membership or that of the customs union?
Countries of similar sizes, which build their nation´s budget on corporate taxes to a similar extend?
Germany stands at somewhere around 30% and France at 33% compared to UK´s 20% (Source: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/germany/corporate-tax-rate).
It makes no sense to compare the UK to less populated and smaller economies.
Leaving the Custom Union wasn't necessary.
It calls for an open mind and some minutes out of your day, not a degree telling you how to vote.
It requires a little bit more than that, I have heard and read a lot of arguments from both sides and I'm unable to tell if Cannabis is dangerous or not, I don't know if legalizing sex work will actually reduce human trafficking and then there is the moral and sometimes religious POV.
Perhaps we should pick these specific points up in another thread some time, so as not to detract from the existing topic. In short though, i would legalise both quite happily, for moral and practical reasons.
So why were they so reluctant to spell that out to voters then?
I mean the answer is obviously that they wanted to be everything to everybody, but the idea that anything they said was 'clear' is laughable.
It's not discussed enough, how David Cameron royally fecked this country. All to save his own skin. Even in that, he failed miserably.
Could it be said that the extent of our post-Brexit access (but not membership necessarily) was an unknown and something Leave didn't always like to dwell on? Sure. That continued single market membership was a cast iron guarantee of the campaign, no i don't believe so. Two of the most prominent concerns were sovereignty and immigration, neither of which could be achieved through Britain's existing single market status.
You never lost control of immigration or your sovereignty though. Repeating it won't make it true.
Yet your fully informed vote could be cancelled out by someone who never gave it a moments thought other than being influenced by a cynically misleading advertising campaign. Sound familiar?
How is that a defence?
As I'm currently in hospital just had my sinus es opérated on, and trying to post with french suggested text on, which is nigh on impossible, i will be quiet for à Day or two' hoorah they say but will be back with a vengeance short ly
P s french hospitals are wonderful
P s french hospitals are wonderful
Of my use of the word 'clearly' or the notion that single market membership wasn't on the line during the EU Ref? To me it was pretty damn clear, and i knew that walking into the polling station. The unknown back then, and it remains so now, is the level of access we have once the dust has settled. An idea our suggested last year, was a more modest annual fee in maintain certain aspects of existing cooperation (May hinted at such in her speech).
Get well soon and come back fighting.
