Hard or Soft Brexit?

[callan]

.........and a second one.......
http://news.sky.com/story/brexit-plan-is-chaotic-government-warned-10659199

What's interesting about this one Yogi, is that it is penned by a chap called Joe owen....Now Joe hasn't been working for The institute of Government that long , but has had enough time to write a blog on his thoughts post Brexit, which is where your Sky news link.. takes it story story from.

Now in fairness to Joe he has reached many of the same conclusions as those made in Deloittes original 'leak', that we will need extra civil servants, and that silence on the brexit plan is not a strategy etc etc

In fact Joes blog is so remarkably similar to Deloittes, we could be forgiven for thinking that this isn't a second leak at all but a rehash of the original.

I'm sure the fact that Joe worked at Deloittes prior to his new role at the Institute of government, is purely coincidence.

 

[Supernaut]

In fact Joes blog is so remarkably similar to Deloittes, we could be forgiven for thinking that this isn't a second leak at all but a rehash of the original.

So you're saying that Joe's blog could, in fact, have been written by any old Joe Bloggs? :high five:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

What's interesting about this one Yogi, is that it is penned by a chap called Joe owen....Now Joe hasn't been working for The institute of Government that long , but has had enough time to write a blog on his thoughts post Brexit, which is where your Sky news link.. takes it story story from.

Now in fairness to Joe he has reached many of the same conclusions as those made in Deloittes original 'leak', that we will need extra civil servants, and that silence on the brexit plan is not a strategy etc etc

In fact Joes blog is so remarkably similar to Deloittes, we could be forgiven for thinking that this isn't a second leak at all but a rehash of the original.

I'm sure the fact that Joe worked at Deloittes prior to his new role at the Institute of government, is purely coincidence.

What I find interesting is that the Brexiteers are concentrating on discrediting the source rather than the contents. We already know they have no time for experts, but on the actual contents they seem to have rather less to say.

 

[callan]

What I find interesting is that the Brexiteers are concentrating on discrediting the source rather than the contents. We already know they have no time for experts, but on the actual contents they seem to have rather less to say.

What is it about about Joe Owens that you think Qualifies him as an expert?

 

[rigsby]

What I find interesting is that the Brexiteers are concentrating on discrediting the source rather than the contents. We already know they have no time for experts, but on the actual contents they seem to have rather less to say.

Why can't you except the majority of the Great British public know what's best for the country. Once another 2 countries vote out and the EU and the Euro starts falling apart you will be so glad that we made that choice for you.

About 15 years ago all the 'experts' said if we never joined the Euro Britain would be a back water in 10 years time.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

What is it about about Joe Owens that you think Qualifies him as an expert?

Still nothing on the points it raised.

 

[southendkid]

Why can't you except the majority of the Great British public know what's best for the country. Once another 2 countries vote out and the EU and the Euro starts falling apart you will be so glad that we made that choice for you.

About 15 years ago all the 'experts' said if we never joined the Euro Britain would be a back water in 10 years time.

It remains to be seen whether Brexit will be a good thing or not (and we honestly won't know either way for some time) but the idea that the majority opinion must be the right one is ridiculous. A few decades ago the majority opinion was that gay people should be locked up, clearly in hindsight that wasn't right at all. The fact is most people (on both sides) have no idea about the ins and outs of Brexit and voted based off imperfect information. The whole reason governments exist is because the public doesn't really know the right answer to most important issues, a true democracy where every issue was voted for by the public would lead to the country collapsing very quickly. Imagine if we had to vote on economic policy, everyone would just vote for less taxes etc without considering how the NHS, army, education etc are going to be funded.

 

[callan]

Still nothing on the points it raised.

Yes mate, there's much I would agree with in Allens Blog, you however might want to take him to task over some of his conclusions.

Centrally I agree that the Civil service will need more resources and that the Autumn statement will give us some insight as to whether that will happen or not....it will not however be the fantasist claims of 30,000 extra staff.

That more should be known on our negotiating process (this contrasts with your own view which is to know our position).

That the DExEU has provided some very impressive work so far, and that there is a lot to be positive about.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

It remains to be seen whether Brexit will be a good thing or not (and we honestly won't know either way for some time) but the idea that the majority opinion must be the right one is ridiculous. A few decades ago the majority opinion was that gay people should be locked up, clearly in hindsight that wasn't right at all. The fact is most people (on both sides) have no idea about the ins and outs of Brexit and voted based off imperfect information. The whole reason governments exist is because the public doesn't really know the right answer to most important issues, a true democracy where every issue was voted for by the public would lead to the country collapsing very quickly. Imagine if we had to vote on economic policy, everyone would just vote for less taxes etc without considering how the NHS, army, education etc are going to be funded.

Very naive, very patronising, simplistic AND very wrong as regards to the given opinion that "Everyone" would vote a certain way.
And a very poor attempt at making an example of yesteryears stance on Gay issues with those on the EU; unless you are suggesting that all those that voted "leave" are bigots?

 

[rigsby]

It remains to be seen whether Brexit will be a good thing or not (and we honestly won't know either way for some time) but the idea that the majority opinion must be the right one is ridiculous. A few decades ago the majority opinion was that gay people should be locked up, clearly in hindsight that wasn't right at all. The fact is most people (on both sides) have no idea about the ins and outs of Brexit and voted based off imperfect information. The whole reason governments exist is because the public doesn't really know the right answer to most important issues, a true democracy where every issue was voted for by the public would lead to the country collapsing very quickly. Imagine if we had to vote on economic policy, everyone would just vote for less taxes etc without considering how the NHS, army, education etc are going to be funded.

Are you one of those people who think some are more equal than others.

 

[southendkid]

Are you one of those people who think some are more equal than others.

No I'm not, I even made sure to point out Remainers on a whole don't know much about Brexit either, and that's my whole point, it's two camps of people who have no idea how any of this really works acting superior to each other. Democracy works best in broad 'do you think this candidate would be a good leader' topics, stuff that even if you don't know all the facts isn't disastrous because the people who know what they're doing still have the final say, it doesn't work so well for setting actual policies. Even Trump being elected is fine with me, I don't like the guy but he's still going to have to sit down and understand how to run a country before making decisions.

If I want advice on a complex issue then I'm likely to seek out an expert rather than ask a group of random people what they think, that doesn't stick to politics it works for almost any field. The idea that an expert who has studied the field for years should have the same say as someone who has likely done at most a couple of hours research (which applies to most people who voted, I'm sure some did the proper research but most didn't) makes no sense to me. Even in court where we rely on the public to deliver a verdict we make sure everyone fully understand the facts first, we don't say 'listening to the evidence is optional you can still decide if he's guilty', not to mention you need a lot more than. 51% of the vote to deliver a guilty verdict. I know not everyone likes Phil Brown but would you want to sack him and replace him with a system where every fan gets to vote for the lineup and tactics every match? Of course not, and football is a hell of a lot simpler than Brexit.

Very naive, very patronising, simplistic AND very wrong as regards to the given opinion that "Everyone" would vote a certain way.
And a very poor attempt at making an example of yesteryears stance on Gay issues with those on the EU; unless you are suggesting that all those that voted "leave" are bigots?

If you seriously think me pointing out an example of where the consensus was wrong is me claiming all Brexiters are homophobic then I'm not sure how you can claim I'm the patronising one with a straight face.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

If you seriously think me pointing out an example of where the consensus was wrong is me claiming all Brexiters are homophobic then I'm not sure how you can claim I'm the patronising one with a straight face.

Homophobic is YOUR word, mine was BIGOTS (as in anti foreigner in a voting option) so please don't mix the issues other than your poor analogy which you have not explained, and as such the bigot was my thought on your statement, if not what was it..............are the Brexit voters dumb, stupid, ignorant? or what were you meaning?
And I suggest if you are going to research issues then rather than using "AN expert" would not several, as many and varied be better; AND after that sometimes it is an educated guess as recent and less modern history has evidenced that experts can, and often do, get some major issues wrong.

 

[rigsby]

If we must use your poor football analogy.....I looked at my team and decided I didn't like the way it was being managed. I was not impressed with the latest signings of Romania and Bulgaria.... Greece is proving to be a disastrously expensive flop.
Then I hear the management want to sign Turkey who I have never rated.

So for those reasons I voted to for a change of manager. I certainly don't want to pick the team every week neither do any of my mates who voted him out. We just no we were going nowhere with Dick 'Claude Junker' Bate in charge, no matter how many FA coaching badges he has or how many 'experts' tell me he is a great coach.

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

No I'm not, I even made sure to point out Remainers on a whole don't know much about Brexit either, and that's my whole point, it's two camps of people who have no idea how any of this really works acting superior to each other. Democracy works best in broad 'do you think this candidate would be a good leader' topics, stuff that even if you don't know all the facts isn't disastrous because the people who know what they're doing still have the final say, it doesn't work so well for setting actual policies. Even Trump being elected is fine with me, I don't like the guy but he's still going to have to sit down and understand how to run a country before making decisions.

If I want advice on a complex issue then I'm likely to seek out an expert rather than ask a group of random people what they think, that doesn't stick to politics it works for almost any field. The idea that an expert who has studied the field for years should have the same say as someone who has likely done at most a couple of hours research (which applies to most people who voted, I'm sure some did the proper research but most didn't) makes no sense to me. Even in court where we rely on the public to deliver a verdict we make sure everyone fully understand the facts first, we don't say 'listening to the evidence is optional you can still decide if he's guilty', not to mention you need a lot more than. 51% of the vote to deliver a guilty verdict. I know not everyone likes Phil Brown but would you want to sack him and replace him with a system where every fan gets to vote for the lineup and tactics every match? Of course not, and football is a hell of a lot simpler than Brexit.



If you seriously think me pointing out an example of where the consensus was wrong is me claiming all Brexiters are homophobic then I'm not sure how you can claim I'm the patronising one with a straight face.

Indeed, a referendum on an issue as complex as leaving the EU is perplexing and incomprehensible (in it's consequences) for even those interested and versed in politics and economics. Add to that a campaign that rarely lifted itself out of the gutter and contained misinformation and untruths from both sides. It, in the end, didn't do anything for the advancement of democracy and it didn't (in the long run) save Cameron's arse, which was certainly one of it's primary objectives. Of course we still have a Tory government with a new leader and unless they commit political suicide, which is always a possibility over Europe, they are likely to be a fixture for the forseeable future.
I'm not one for halting the procedure of invoking article 50, no more than I was one for the whole idea of a referendum. Imperfect as the whole process was, now we have entered on this course of action, I certainly don't see why we end it now. In June we elected to sign a blank check and I feel sure many voted without fully understanding the consequences and outcome of their actions. That is why I firmly believe that when (if) an agreement is drawn up, the British people should have their chance, with the full facts in front of them, on voting for or against that agreement. Surely that should be their democratic right?

 

[southendkid]

If we must use your poor football analogy.....I looked at my team and decided I didn't like the way it was being managed. I was not impressed with the latest signings of Romania and Bulgaria.... Greece is proving to be a disastrously expensive flop.
Then I hear the management want to sign Turkey who I have never rated.

So for those reasons I voted to for a change of manager. I certainly don't want to pick the team every week neither do any of my mates who voted him out. We just no we were going nowhere with Dick 'Claude Junker' Bate in charge, no matter how many FA coaching badges he has or how many 'experts' tell me he is a great coach.

So basically you're saying if you don't like the manager people should campaign for a new manager instead of trying to do the job themselves? Doesn't that mean you agree with me saying democracy is fine for broad things like electing a leader, but not good for deciding on complex issues like setting policies?

Brexit wasn't voting for a new manager, it was voting to rip up all our existing trade agreements and a lot of our laws, it's a completely different thing.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Civil servants now forecasting that the Great Repeal Bill will consist of circa 2,000 statutory instruments. Looking forward to seeing how long they'll take to vote through.

 

[rigsby]

So basically you're saying if you don't like the manager people should campaign for a new manager instead of trying to do the job themselves? Doesn't that mean you agree with me saying democracy is fine for broad things like electing a leader, but not good for deciding on complex issues like setting policies?

Brexit wasn't voting for a new manager, it was voting to rip up all our existing trade agreements and a lot of our laws, it's a completely different thing.

Again, nobody is trying to do the job themselves. With a new manager you have new players, backroom staff, training regime, and a different style of play.

Perhaps you could think of Brexit as a change of ownership rather than manager. I'm sure fans of Charlton and Orient have found out, letting Europeans run your club is not the best option.

Either way if you or I don't like the new policies then at least we have the chance to change that at the next GE. Even most Remainers see that as a plus point.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Again, nobody is trying to do the job themselves. With a new manager you have new players, backroom staff, training regime, and a different style of play.

Perhaps you could think of Brexit as a change of ownership rather than manager. I'm sure fans of Charlton and Orient have found out, letting Europeans run your club is not the best option.

Either way if you or I don't like the new policies then at least we have the chance to change that at the next GE. Even most Remainers see that as a plus point.

Is this a post-truth comment? :winking:

 

[yogi bear up the cagire]

Looks as if the NHS could be waiting until 2030 for its £350million! :winking:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...cades-germany-wolfgang-sch-uble-a7424441.html

Will it still exist then or will we be giving the money to private health companies???

 

[callan]

Looks as if the NHS could be waiting until 2030 for its £350million! :winking:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...cades-germany-wolfgang-sch-uble-a7424441.html

Will it still exist then or will we be giving the money to private health companies???

Why would this have any impact on the NHS?

Were we staying in the EU and TTIP came into fruition then of course you could be right:winking: