The Brexit thread

[DevonDamo]

What is truth?

We could spend hours discussing that as a philosophical point, but most of us have accepted that the nearest we'll get to 'truth' is a process known as the 'scientific method.' You remember from school? Propose something based on a theoretical model, use data, test it and then decide whether it's worth adding to our canon of knowledge.

Brexit will be an excellent example of the scientific method in action. The 'remainers' pointed out that leaving the EU was a very, very bad idea. They also claimed that anyone who was waving the flag about 'getting back our country' and freeing ourselves from the tyranny of Brussels are simply deluded folk who have been fooled into voting for economic suicide by a multi-million pound campaign of lies and social media manipulation orchestrated by treacherous oligarchs who stand to make billions from the ruination of our country.

We're in a very good position now. At the beginning of 2021, we're going to see the experimental data come rolling in. As our economy struggles to avoid collapse, as the all-important financial/services sector are destroyed, and our supply chains are paralysed, we'll finally be able to establish the truth about that vexed question: was the promise of a pineapple trade deal with Papua New Guinea a better prospect than remaining in a trading arrangement with our geographical neighbours who also happen to be the largest trading block on the planet?

The supporters of brexit have quietened down remarkably on social media etc. They're obviously too busy getting ready to apply their deep understanding of Economics to analysing the data that's about to come in. (Or alternatively they might just be keeping their heads down and thinking of ways to blame the disaster on the EU, the remainers and anyone other than themselves.)

[roubaixtuesday]

What is truth?

And so the logical conclusion of Brexit is reached.

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary.

Orwell's text, my bold.

[Jdsk]

We're in a very good position now. At the beginning of 2021, we're going to see the experimental data come rolling in. As our economy struggles to avoid collapse, as the all-important financial/services sector are destroyed, and our supply chains are paralysed, we'll finally be able to establish the truth about that vexed question: was the promise of a pineapple trade deal with Papua New Guinea a better prospect than remaining in a trading arrangement with our geographical neighbours who also happen to be the largest trading block on the planet?

Very good.

Can I just add that we already know a fair bit about the economic damage that has already been done.

Jonathan

PS: And in line with this forum's obsession with whataboutery... WHATABOUT the effects on our security, as recently expressed by Ricketts, Sedwill, and... May?

[Jdsk]

What is truth?

We could spend hours discussing that as a philosophical point, but most of us have accepted that the nearest we'll get to 'truth' is a process known as the 'scientific method.' You remember from school? Propose something based on a theoretical model, use data, test it and then decide whether it's worth adding to our canon of knowledge.

And, as it should be applied in public web forums... if you decide to assert a position answer questions about it when asked politely.

Jonathan

[mercalia]

The EU has made no moves to harden the border on the island of Ireland.

The UK decided to Leave. The UK and the EU agreed and signed a treaty that doesn't harden that border. Johnson promoted it as his personal achievement. He forced it through Parliament. He put it in his party's manifesto at the General Election. His Government introduced its provisions into domestic law.

What obligations is the EU not facing up to?

Jonathan

so you agree then the EU has suckered the UK into an untenable position allowing it, the EU, to avoid any consequences of being a guarantor of the GFA. ( eg having to accept it can't fully protect its internal market if it wants to be fair, having to treat the UK as a special case). good I am glad you now agree with me

[Jdsk]

Not sure what you mean by "suckered".

The UK's current position is the result of the 2016 referendum, the General Election and our Governments' actions.

If you think our position is untenable I'd suggest blaming the people who voted to Leave, voted Conservative, and those Governments.

The EU has acted in the interests of its Member States. As it should.

And it was all foreseeable and foreseen. Suckering only works when the other party doesn't know what's going to happen. We did.

Jonathan

[roubaixtuesday]

so you agree then the EU has suckered the UK into an untenable position...

The promises made of Brexit were untenable from the very start.

No suckering has been necessary.

[reohn2]

....The EU has acted in the interests of its Member States. As it should.

And it was all foreseeable and foreseen. Suckering only works when the other party doesn't know what's going to happen. We did.

Jonathan

About half of the country knew what would happen and weren't suckered by the likes of BoJo and Farage's lies and deceit.
It was the rest who were suckered,now we ALL have to pay the price of idiots!

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

....The EU has acted in the interests of its Member States. As it should.

And it was all foreseeable and foreseen. Suckering only works when the other party doesn't know what's going to happen. We did.

Jonathan

About half of the country knew what would happen and weren't suckered by the likes of BoJo and Farage's lies and deceit.
It was the rest who were suckered,now we ALL have to pay the price of idiots!

But is that any different from voting for a party that did not get into government.

Scenario- I vote for a party that did not win an election, and you vote for a party that does win an election, can I say now that the winning voters were hoodwinked?

[mercalia]

Not sure what you mean by "suckered".

The UK's current position is the result of the 2016 referendum, the General Election and our Governments' actions.

If you think our position is untenable I'd suggest blaming the people who voted to Leave, voted Conservative, and those Governments.

The EU has acted in the interests of its Member States. As it should.

And it was all foreseeable and foreseen. Suckering only works when the other party doesn't know what's going to happen. We did.

Jonathan

even to the extent of trying to avoid consequences to international treaties like the GFA? It wasnt all forseeable, as I said before and when the W.A was made there was the expectation in the UK that customs issues could be solved electronically ( that was the former head of customs in the UK believed), but the EU later shot that idea down.

[mercalia]

Not sure what you mean by "suckered".

The UK's current position is the result of the 2016 referendum, the General Election and our Governments' actions.

If you think our position is untenable I'd suggest blaming the people who voted to Leave, voted Conservative, and those Governments.

The EU has acted in the interests of its Member States. As it should.

And it was all foreseeable and foreseen. Suckering only works when the other party doesn't know what's going to happen. We did.

Jonathan

even to the extent of trying to avoid consequences to international treaties like the GFA? We have heard alot in the UK of Johnsons internal market bill that breaks International Law and how it damages our reputation and isnt honourable. So those sort of things dont matter to the EU. Its all matter of what it can get away with?

It wasnt all forseeable, as I said before and when the W.A was made there was the expectation in the UK that customs issues could be solved electronically ( that was the former head of customs in the UK opinion), but the EU later shot that idea down

[Jdsk]

The EU has acted in the interests of its Member States. As it should.
And it was all foreseeable and foreseen. Suckering only works when the other party doesn't know what's going to happen. We did.

even to the extent of trying to avoid consequences to international treaties like the GFA?

You keep saying this. None of the other parties to the GFA saw the 2019 Withdrawal Agreement as being a threat to the GFA. The EU only signed it because it contained a solution that wasn't. The monster only raised its head again when the UK Government produced the Internal Market Bill threatening to undermine it.

Jonathan

[mercalia]

The EU has acted in the interests of its Member States. As it should.
And it was all foreseeable and foreseen. Suckering only works when the other party doesn't know what's going to happen. We did.

even to the extent of trying to avoid consequences to international treaties like the GFA?

You keep saying this. None of the other parties to the GFA saw the Withdrawal Agreement as being a threat to the GFA. The EU only signed it because it contained a solution that wasn't. The monster only raised its head again when the UK Government produced the Internal Market Bill threatening to undermine it.

Jonathan

Only because the UK was taking the potential hit that the UK thought at the time wouldnt materialise. The EU was able to carry on as before: The EU signed it as it suffered no debilitating consequences to its internal market, what ever happened.

[Jdsk]

even to the extent of trying to avoid consequences to international treaties like the GFA?

You keep saying this. None of the other parties to the GFA saw the Withdrawal Agreement as being a threat to the GFA. The EU only signed it because it contained a solution that wasn't. The monster only raised its head again when the UK Government produced the Internal Market Bill threatening to undermine it.

Only because the UK was taking the potential hit that the UK thought at the time wouldnt materialise.

Who in the UK thought that it wouldn't? The Government?

Jonathan

[mercalia]

You keep saying this. None of the other parties to the GFA saw the Withdrawal Agreement as being a threat to the GFA. The EU only signed it because it contained a solution that wasn't. The monster only raised its head again when the UK Government produced the Internal Market Bill threatening to undermine it.

Only because the UK was taking the potential hit that the UK thought at the time wouldnt materialise.

Who in the UK thought that it wouldn't? The Government?

Jonathan

who ever thought that customs could be handled electronically. ie the UK govt presumably as advised by its pet experts. All this talk of honour and reputation, it was assumed the EU operated under the same mentality, clearly shown to be false, its what they can get away with.