March 2017
Soft or Hard Brexit? Turkeys voting for Xmas?
The UK is crying out for enlightened liberals to accept Brexit and put forward their vision. A positive vision moulded by them that almost anyone could sign up for. The irony is their current, whining, denials and attempts to paint Brexiteers as evil is badly backfiring on them. Far from avoiding Brexit or being able to ‘soften’ the fall from their imaginary ‘cliff’ their current strategy is pushing the UK rapidly towards the hardest possible Brexit along with the early salvos from the EU themselves. They need to wake up and do it quickly, for the good of the whole country. Because whilst I am a very strong advocate of leaving the EU I think I would actually find it hard to disagree with any of the positive ideas that might be put forward once we can all accept we are on the same side - the truth is we really want pretty much exactly the same things.
Why doesn’t it happen? Because the likes of Clegg, Farron, Blair, Mandelson and co aren’t really in it for anything but themselves. They don’t have anything positive to say, no vision except for their determination to give the EU control and have their career paths laid out before them. The tragedy of the situation is that their dogma only drives the right to more extreme demands, emboldens the EU to make ever-more-crazy demands and stops the populous uniting and starting to move forward positively again. It was a rough campaign but it cannot have failed (I hope) to knock off a few of the hardest edges of militants on either side of the debate by the time it was finally over. Now we need to unite around a vision and although I think the majority of a ‘hard Brexit’ is what we basically have to accept ‘as is’ anyway, it would be better if everyone joined in the debate and shaped the finer points of it. Arguing their views and having them reflected when possible, fighting the battle to get the best possible deal for all of us. I believe this will not only serve them and the UK best, but also the EU. The current ‘war of words’ only stokes up more division and extremism. No one wants to make immigrants feel they are unwelcome or unappreciated. No one wants to increase any form of intolerance but there seems to be a whole lot of this ugly emotion being peddled hard from the place you would expect it least - the Left Wing.
Wake up. Look in the mirror. Smell the coffee. What are you? What do you claim your values are? What are you trying to achieve? Are you in denial? What do you want? Come up with some answers and go out and do something about it. For yourself, for your country and for the good of all of us. If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem. All sides of the political spectrum need to get on board and do something constructive, there’s a lot of work to be done.
Why doesn’t it happen? Because the likes of Clegg, Farron, Blair, Mandelson and co aren’t really in it for anything but themselves. They don’t have anything positive to say, no vision except for their determination to give the EU control and have their career paths laid out before them. The tragedy of the situation is that their dogma only drives the right to more extreme demands, emboldens the EU to make ever-more-crazy demands and stops the populous uniting and starting to move forward positively again. It was a rough campaign but it cannot have failed (I hope) to knock off a few of the hardest edges of militants on either side of the debate by the time it was finally over. Now we need to unite around a vision and although I think the majority of a ‘hard Brexit’ is what we basically have to accept ‘as is’ anyway, it would be better if everyone joined in the debate and shaped the finer points of it. Arguing their views and having them reflected when possible, fighting the battle to get the best possible deal for all of us. I believe this will not only serve them and the UK best, but also the EU. The current ‘war of words’ only stokes up more division and extremism. No one wants to make immigrants feel they are unwelcome or unappreciated. No one wants to increase any form of intolerance but there seems to be a whole lot of this ugly emotion being peddled hard from the place you would expect it least - the Left Wing.
Wake up. Look in the mirror. Smell the coffee. What are you? What do you claim your values are? What are you trying to achieve? Are you in denial? What do you want? Come up with some answers and go out and do something about it. For yourself, for your country and for the good of all of us. If you’re not part of the solution you’re part of the problem. All sides of the political spectrum need to get on board and do something constructive, there’s a lot of work to be done.
The Art of Negotiation
Let’s remind ourselves of the narrative. The UK, having voted for Brexit, to get out of the cozy protectionist club, are the baddies. The evil, foreigner-hating country who are only in it for themselves. Who want to cut themselves off and be unfair. Well that’s the story we are being told all the time but nothing is further from the truth. Far from it. The UK is the one who wants to start talking, put people’s minds at rest and reach an amicably beneficial divorce settlement. Hardly unreasonable I think. The EU on the other hand is the bitter, scorned woman whereas the UK is now the ‘beaten wife’ grateful to finally be breaking free from an abusive relationship and positive about our future at last.
When it comes to negotiating the divorce it’s important to take all that emotion out of it. It’s not about the past, it’s about the future. What is right for both parties in the future. That’s what Theresa May did yesterday with the 6 page triggering of Article 50 and she should be applauded for doing so. The response hasn’t been quite so encouraging though. To be fair there was some statesmanlike response from Donald Tusk and a feeling of regret which really is justified on both sides because ‘it just hasn’t worked out’ as they say. It’s no time for recriminations, it’s time to sort things out, for the good of the kids and the future.
The first responses have been…
- we need to agree a ‘pay off’ first before even talking? Really? You want us to effectively not only continue to pay for two years when there’s no future to the relationship and then pay for the next five years after that in advance? Would you feel the same if we were a net beneficiary? Be throwing 5 years of rebates our way? Somehow I think not. It makes no sense. Having invested something in the order of £500bn into this relationship we have no stake. We don’t have any equity at all? Really we have paid for more than a third of all the assets of the EU and have nearly 10 billion sitting in their bank account. At best we should be saying they can use that to pay for any on-going projects we are already signed up to as long as we still get whatever benefits there might be from them.
- we are not allowed to talk about any arrangements like trade deals going forward until we have completely agreed how to exit. Article 50 actually doesn’t say this and the two things are related. If they hold this very stupid line we might as well stop now. We have two years to reach an agreement. Not only do we need to talk to the EU about what comes afterwards but also talk to all other people we will be able to start trading directly with in 2 years time.
- despite us wanting to start talking before triggering Article 50 there was no dice. Even to settle the futures of nationals in each others territory. We wanted it but the EU were not interested. Now we start we should concede this, but nothing else, and invite them to dare not to do the same for about a third of the number of our expats on the continent.
There should be things we still want to work together on and in some cases can do better. The EU needs to wake up and realize that. They are not dealing with some mugs who will accept anything. We are not as lame brained as the Clegg’s and Farron’s of this world who couldn’t negotiate their way out of Swindon’s Magic Roundabout with any success. We know our value, we respect you and we know not only what is fair but what is right. You have been warned. If you choose not to listen on your head be it.
When it comes to negotiating the divorce it’s important to take all that emotion out of it. It’s not about the past, it’s about the future. What is right for both parties in the future. That’s what Theresa May did yesterday with the 6 page triggering of Article 50 and she should be applauded for doing so. The response hasn’t been quite so encouraging though. To be fair there was some statesmanlike response from Donald Tusk and a feeling of regret which really is justified on both sides because ‘it just hasn’t worked out’ as they say. It’s no time for recriminations, it’s time to sort things out, for the good of the kids and the future.
The first responses have been…
- we need to agree a ‘pay off’ first before even talking? Really? You want us to effectively not only continue to pay for two years when there’s no future to the relationship and then pay for the next five years after that in advance? Would you feel the same if we were a net beneficiary? Be throwing 5 years of rebates our way? Somehow I think not. It makes no sense. Having invested something in the order of £500bn into this relationship we have no stake. We don’t have any equity at all? Really we have paid for more than a third of all the assets of the EU and have nearly 10 billion sitting in their bank account. At best we should be saying they can use that to pay for any on-going projects we are already signed up to as long as we still get whatever benefits there might be from them.
- we are not allowed to talk about any arrangements like trade deals going forward until we have completely agreed how to exit. Article 50 actually doesn’t say this and the two things are related. If they hold this very stupid line we might as well stop now. We have two years to reach an agreement. Not only do we need to talk to the EU about what comes afterwards but also talk to all other people we will be able to start trading directly with in 2 years time.
- despite us wanting to start talking before triggering Article 50 there was no dice. Even to settle the futures of nationals in each others territory. We wanted it but the EU were not interested. Now we start we should concede this, but nothing else, and invite them to dare not to do the same for about a third of the number of our expats on the continent.
There should be things we still want to work together on and in some cases can do better. The EU needs to wake up and realize that. They are not dealing with some mugs who will accept anything. We are not as lame brained as the Clegg’s and Farron’s of this world who couldn’t negotiate their way out of Swindon’s Magic Roundabout with any success. We know our value, we respect you and we know not only what is fair but what is right. You have been warned. If you choose not to listen on your head be it.
The Enemy Within
We are now finally negotiating with the EU. All you hear from some people is what a bad deal we will get and how we should give away everything and ask nothing in return. Then how bad it will be... yes, if you were doing the negotiations I am sure it will be. These people really are the enemy within.
It’s perfectly ok to have the debate and a vote by all means, but when they then argue constantly against their own countries interests and try to constantly materially undermine it, you have to wonder where they are coming from. IMHO it explains a lot and shows that their original position is actually a reflection of whose side they are on rather than what is actually best for us. There's a big difference between arguing for what we should want from a negotiation and actually spending all your time and effort arguing FOR the position of those you are going to negotiate with. It'd be like Brexiteers arguing for a 'worse' EU so that it fails and people vote out rather than constantly trying to reform it because they didn't like it. All sides should want the best possible outcome for Europe, the UK and the world. Argue for what you want for sure, but when you're actually arguing against your country for some strange misplaced guilt, just just to win an argument you already lost or something, then it's verging on treason. I honestly think a fair proportion of remoaners are literally brainwashed and genuinely believe that the UK cannot survive outside the EU. That the EU knows what is best for the UK and is trying to do that more than we could for ourselves. For some unfathomable reason their loyalties lie with the EU and not their country. But not one of them can adequately explain to me why the hell this would be.
It’s perfectly ok to have the debate and a vote by all means, but when they then argue constantly against their own countries interests and try to constantly materially undermine it, you have to wonder where they are coming from. IMHO it explains a lot and shows that their original position is actually a reflection of whose side they are on rather than what is actually best for us. There's a big difference between arguing for what we should want from a negotiation and actually spending all your time and effort arguing FOR the position of those you are going to negotiate with. It'd be like Brexiteers arguing for a 'worse' EU so that it fails and people vote out rather than constantly trying to reform it because they didn't like it. All sides should want the best possible outcome for Europe, the UK and the world. Argue for what you want for sure, but when you're actually arguing against your country for some strange misplaced guilt, just just to win an argument you already lost or something, then it's verging on treason. I honestly think a fair proportion of remoaners are literally brainwashed and genuinely believe that the UK cannot survive outside the EU. That the EU knows what is best for the UK and is trying to do that more than we could for ourselves. For some unfathomable reason their loyalties lie with the EU and not their country. But not one of them can adequately explain to me why the hell this would be.
Genius Stupidity
His name is Clint, he calls himself Richard but to me he’ll always be a Dick. He might be a professor but Richard ‘Dick’ Dawkins is not very bright when it comes to his stance on Brexit. He displays all the intellectual depth of a puddle in the Sahara when he talks about how stupid the population were to vote for Brexit. The argument he puts forward is that the average person shouldn’t be able allowed to vote on something so complex, something apparently you need a PhD in economics to understand. He also claims that you need a two thirds majority on something so significant as Brexit.
So let’s think about this. Is it difficult to understand? Is it scientific? Quantitive or qualitative? He doesn’t have a clue. Certainly economics is extremely complicated but, like the vote itself, it’s colored by the prevailing ‘mood of the people’. Everyone knows about supply and demand and that something is worth ‘what someone will pay for it’ don’t they? Apparently not Dick. No. He thinks you can just ‘know enough’ to have the right answer. Why aside from the obvious - what about all the predictions of a meltdown pre-Brexit by the great and the good? Open your eyes Dick! OK, make the excuses. It hasn’t happened yet, etc. Sure. I heard all these qualifications pre-vote when tempering the fear with any reasonable considerations would not really ‘work’ would it? Nope, not a dickie bird. The fact is you can create very complicated models to try and predict the future but ultimately it comes down to people, just like the stock market. You can make more informed guesses of course but Dick would be able to make a fortune in his imagined world of economic certainty. This is self evident.
Secondly many economists with PhDs saw the benefit of Brexit for economic reasons alone, although it isn’t just about economics anyway. Quality of life comes into the equation and more widely issues of sovereignty that you cannot factor into any economic model. You’re a clever chap aren’t you Dick? Did you really think it was only about the complex economy? Is that all you thought about when making your arrogant proclamations? Back to those pessimistic economic models too. Whenever you run a model you have to make assumptions about a huge number of factors. Your point of view will have a HUGE impact on the the results you get. One of the main models that predicted assuming that the government would do nothing to respond to anything that happened in the economy and created a recession on the back of two consecutive quarters (I think it is) of negative growth of just 0.1%. The smallest possible margin. Basically making the model say exactly what you want and believe and then tweaking it to make the result appear as bad as it could possibly be. A minute tweak somewhere and recession would not enter into the equation. It’s not to say that any model can’t work and the assumptions cannot be fair and reasonable but they will be the result of the opinion of the person making them, however qualified. Dick Hawkins is supposed to be clever but he clearly hasn’t got a clue about the basics of economics and as for democracy…
Despite all his reservations about the requirement for qualifications to be able to make a decision on a very complex matter on purely economic terms what is his solution? That if there was a 3/3rds majority it would be OK? Seriously? So if there are enough stupid people then your initial point is moot? What an idiot. He can’t make the most simple point without putting forward two totally contradictory arguments. He certainly shouldn’t have voted leave. He lacks the balls, common sense or ability to consider the bigger issues of the day and the sentiment of the people. He’s an old enough person to have had time to figure this out for himself but he’s obviously a bit slow in addition to having a complete lack of self-awareness.
Lord protect us for simpletons like Dick Dawkins. Stick to what you know Clint. Whatever I think about your views on Brexit you picked the perfect name out of all those available though Dick.
So let’s think about this. Is it difficult to understand? Is it scientific? Quantitive or qualitative? He doesn’t have a clue. Certainly economics is extremely complicated but, like the vote itself, it’s colored by the prevailing ‘mood of the people’. Everyone knows about supply and demand and that something is worth ‘what someone will pay for it’ don’t they? Apparently not Dick. No. He thinks you can just ‘know enough’ to have the right answer. Why aside from the obvious - what about all the predictions of a meltdown pre-Brexit by the great and the good? Open your eyes Dick! OK, make the excuses. It hasn’t happened yet, etc. Sure. I heard all these qualifications pre-vote when tempering the fear with any reasonable considerations would not really ‘work’ would it? Nope, not a dickie bird. The fact is you can create very complicated models to try and predict the future but ultimately it comes down to people, just like the stock market. You can make more informed guesses of course but Dick would be able to make a fortune in his imagined world of economic certainty. This is self evident.
Secondly many economists with PhDs saw the benefit of Brexit for economic reasons alone, although it isn’t just about economics anyway. Quality of life comes into the equation and more widely issues of sovereignty that you cannot factor into any economic model. You’re a clever chap aren’t you Dick? Did you really think it was only about the complex economy? Is that all you thought about when making your arrogant proclamations? Back to those pessimistic economic models too. Whenever you run a model you have to make assumptions about a huge number of factors. Your point of view will have a HUGE impact on the the results you get. One of the main models that predicted assuming that the government would do nothing to respond to anything that happened in the economy and created a recession on the back of two consecutive quarters (I think it is) of negative growth of just 0.1%. The smallest possible margin. Basically making the model say exactly what you want and believe and then tweaking it to make the result appear as bad as it could possibly be. A minute tweak somewhere and recession would not enter into the equation. It’s not to say that any model can’t work and the assumptions cannot be fair and reasonable but they will be the result of the opinion of the person making them, however qualified. Dick Hawkins is supposed to be clever but he clearly hasn’t got a clue about the basics of economics and as for democracy…
Despite all his reservations about the requirement for qualifications to be able to make a decision on a very complex matter on purely economic terms what is his solution? That if there was a 3/3rds majority it would be OK? Seriously? So if there are enough stupid people then your initial point is moot? What an idiot. He can’t make the most simple point without putting forward two totally contradictory arguments. He certainly shouldn’t have voted leave. He lacks the balls, common sense or ability to consider the bigger issues of the day and the sentiment of the people. He’s an old enough person to have had time to figure this out for himself but he’s obviously a bit slow in addition to having a complete lack of self-awareness.
Lord protect us for simpletons like Dick Dawkins. Stick to what you know Clint. Whatever I think about your views on Brexit you picked the perfect name out of all those available though Dick.
Confused Democracy
What is democracy again? I forget. Or at least I’m having trouble remembering because of all the different interpretations of what it’s apparently about that suddenly seem to be all the vogue.
We all got the German-printed pamphlet we paid nearly £10m of our money to tell us what we were voting for and which way to vote and it was pretty clear. There was no mention of advisory, no one heard of Gina Miller or her very fine tuned sense of what is right and her inability to ‘cross the road’ and ignore any injustice. She had to intervene again and again, ultimately achieving nothing of course. Apparently there had never been anything in the decades previously that had shown up on her fine tuned radar apparently.
Hearing Tim Farron whine on about ‘not knowing the destination’ yet like a spoilt brat on the back seat of your car week after week was positively nausiating. We voted out. We elected our government to give us that choice and then see it through. We can give Timmy his vote. It’ll be a vote to go to the seaside whether or not the sun is shining or turn around the car and go back home, aka a hard Brexit, if he can’t behave and stick to what we agreed.
Brexit has revealed that there some very different ideas of what democracy is. It has revealed that these days people only expect the answer they want to hear and cannot accept anything else. I dread to think the response to the next election if it wasn’t going to be such a walkover.
We all got the German-printed pamphlet we paid nearly £10m of our money to tell us what we were voting for and which way to vote and it was pretty clear. There was no mention of advisory, no one heard of Gina Miller or her very fine tuned sense of what is right and her inability to ‘cross the road’ and ignore any injustice. She had to intervene again and again, ultimately achieving nothing of course. Apparently there had never been anything in the decades previously that had shown up on her fine tuned radar apparently.
Hearing Tim Farron whine on about ‘not knowing the destination’ yet like a spoilt brat on the back seat of your car week after week was positively nausiating. We voted out. We elected our government to give us that choice and then see it through. We can give Timmy his vote. It’ll be a vote to go to the seaside whether or not the sun is shining or turn around the car and go back home, aka a hard Brexit, if he can’t behave and stick to what we agreed.
Brexit has revealed that there some very different ideas of what democracy is. It has revealed that these days people only expect the answer they want to hear and cannot accept anything else. I dread to think the response to the next election if it wasn’t going to be such a walkover.