Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 14:56:05 GMT
So, yeah; if the Single Market's good for Northern Ireland, then why can't it be good for England, Scotland and Wales? Because it's not good, politically, for the Tories, maybe? I note with slight disappointment but much enlightenment that while Rishi Sunak prefers wearing sharp, narrow ties, slim fit suits and skinny ankle grazers beloved of city bankers, he is not that much different from his predecessor. Whereas Johnson was brazen, Sunak is refined. That's it! I mean, the man establishes the Sunakian Principle of Pragmatic Brexitism yet formulates his policies around the Brexit that he inherited from the sartorially hopeless one. Maybe Ursula VdL and Manny Macron know something we don't. www.theguardian.com/business/2023/mar/19/if-its-growth-the-chancellor-wants-heres-one-suggestion-rejoin-the-eu
If it’s growth the chancellor wants, here’s one suggestion: rejoin the EU
William Keegan
Jeremy Hunt says the economy is his priority; but it and he are still really in thrall to the ideological blight of Brexit
A budget for growth? Sorry, pull the other one. Below the spin, even the official forecasts are laden with gloom.
...The majority of the rightwing Tories who inflicted Brexit upon us consider themselves Thatcherites. They know that Thatcher enjoyed the huge support of her chief press officer, Bernard Ingham. Well, I have news for them: my brother Victor and I had a most interesting lunch with Bernard shortly before he died recently, at the ripe old age of 90.
Ingham himself was an unashamed Brexiter. But he, who knew Thatcher’s views as well as anyone, told us in no uncertain terms that his boss would have undoubtedly voted to remain in the European Union. She fought her – and our – corner in many an EU dispute, but she knew where our economic interests lay; and, of course, she was godmother to the single market.
It is the shadow of Brexit that hangs over current economic policy, and limits the chancellor’s room for manoeuvre. John Springford of the Centre for European Reform estimates that the negative impact of gratuitously imposing trade barriers on our nearest trading partners – via higher import prices, loss of vital immigrant workers, and general uncertainty affecting business confidence – had cost our economy 5.5% of GDP by the summer of 2022.
Our former partners in the single market are – surprise, surprise – faring a lot better because, not to put too fine a point upon it, they too may have problems, but do not believe in self-harm.
Talking of which, I should like to reiterate my wonder at the fact that Rishi Sunak, when arguing the case for the Northern Ireland deal – in which he was supported by Keir Starmer – emphasised that Northern Ireland could continue to enjoy the benefits of being part of the UK and the single market.
If that’s good for Northern Ireland, Mr Sunak and Sir Keir, what about the rest of us, who, in addition to the economic consequences of Brexit, have lost our freedom of movement within the single market we helped to set up? It is surely time that Sunak, whose Brexit position has been shown to be flawed by his own comments, demonstrated his reputation for pragmatism by owning up to the catastrophe.
As for Starmer, ...He is quite sphinx-like in his attitude towards Brexit; a remainer who rules out rejoining the EU and single market, notwithstanding all the palpable damage from Brexit.
Meanwhile we all await the ineffable Jacob Rees-Mogg’s list of the “benefits of Brexit”. Given the recent banking emergencies in the US and Switzerland, I greatly look forward to Rees-Mogg’s views on the putative benefits of a restoration of the light-touch regulation that brought us the financial crisis of 2008.
Talking of which, a senior banker recently told me that, when the prime minister was suggesting there was a clamour in the City for the relaxation of financial regulation, he – the banker – asked his counterparts in other financial institutions whether they were lobbying for it; nearly all of them said no. He said Goldman Sachs was the exception. This called to mind the wonderful, ironic chapter in JK Galbraith’s The Great Crash, entitled: “In Goldman Sachs We Trust.” |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 20, 2023 15:04:09 GMT
This argument is so disingenuous but oft repeated by ex remainers and rabid Scot indies.
It bleeding obvious that the UK government would love to take NI out of the situation that surrounds it but cannot because of external forces .
Sunak is trying to put a spin on the best of a bunch if bad choices .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 16:01:03 GMT
This argument is so disingenuous but oft repeated by ex remainers and rabid Scot indies. It bleeding obvious that the UK government would love to take NI out of the situation that surrounds it but cannot because of external forces . Sunak is trying to put a spin on the best of a bunch if bad choices . Really, what is dishonest about it -- that the UK government, as you put it, would love to take NI out of the situation but can't? That's just telling the truth, IMO. I don't think the NI dilemma is due to external forces. On the contrary, it is all internal. We placed ourselves in this situation with very little regard, if any, to the economic repercussions of leaving. But disappointingly, it turns out that we are not prepared to learn from our own mistakes. I mean, the DUP's intransigence plus the Brexit purists' and excuse finders' inability or unwillingness to compromise come to mind. We insisted then -- and continue to do so -- on this idea of prioritising "regaining" sovereignty over growing the economy even more. We were so wealthy we thought we afford a grand and very, very, very expensive delusion. Unfortunately, it has turned out that even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not immune to the fact that wealth and a great economy tend to blur the edges of territorial integrity. Particularly, when citizens have to start counting the pennies. I just thought that Sunak and his government would have learned and accepted it by now. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Mar 20, 2023 16:35:10 GMT
This argument is so disingenuous but oft repeated by ex remainers and rabid Scot indies. It bleeding obvious that the UK government would love to take NI out of the situation that surrounds it but cannot because of external forces . Sunak is trying to put a spin on the best of a bunch if bad choices . Really, what is dishonest about it -- that the UK government, as you put it, would love to take NI out of the situation but can't? That's just telling the truth, IMO. I don't think the NI dilemma is due to external forces. On the contrary, it is all internal. We placed ourselves in this situation with very little regard, if any, to the economic repercussions of leaving. But disappointingly, it turns out that we are not prepared to learn from our own mistakes. I mean, the DUP's intransigence plus the Brexit purists' and excuse finders' inability or unwillingness to compromise come to mind. We insisted then -- and continue to do so -- on this idea of prioritising "regaining" sovereignty over growing the economy even more. We were so wealthy we thought we afford a grand and very, very, very expensive delusion. Unfortunately, it has turned out that even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not immune to the fact that wealth and a great economy tend to blur the edges of territorial integrity. Particularly, when citizens have to start counting the pennies. I just thought that Sunak and his government would have learned and accepted it by now.So wrong again then eh? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 20, 2023 17:13:32 GMT
This argument is so disingenuous but oft repeated by ex remainers and rabid Scot indies. It bleeding obvious that the UK government would love to take NI out of the situation that surrounds it but cannot because of external forces . Sunak is trying to put a spin on the best of a bunch if bad choices . Really, what is dishonest about it -- that the UK government, as you put it, would love to take NI out of the situation but can't? That's just telling the truth, IMO. I don't think the NI dilemma is due to external forces. On the contrary, it is all internal. We placed ourselves in this situation with very little regard, if any, to the economic repercussions of leaving. But disappointingly, it turns out that we are not prepared to learn from our own mistakes. I mean, the DUP's intransigence plus the Brexit purists' and excuse finders' inability or unwillingness to compromise come to mind. We insisted then -- and continue to do so -- on this idea of prioritising "regaining" sovereignty over growing the economy even more. We were so wealthy we thought we afford a grand and very, very, very expensive delusion. Unfortunately, it has turned out that even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not immune to the fact that wealth and a great economy tend to blur the edges of territorial integrity. Particularly, when citizens have to start counting the pennies. I just thought that Sunak and his government would have learned and accepted it by now. I didn’t say dishonest , I said disingenuous. So you never made a very good start did you?. Its disingenuous because every ex remainer that mentions it doesn’t accept this. No it’s not internal . Since we left the EU it has become a matter of external forces finding obstacles… Yes NI was always going to be a problem but that isn’t the ex remainer to Scot indies first position . Their first position is “If NI can only manage to be half out the EU why can’t we be fully in?” |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Mar 20, 2023 18:18:53 GMT
So, yeah; if the Single Market's good for Northern Ireland, then why can't it be good for England, Scotland and Wales? Because it's not good, politically, for the Tories, maybe? simple - not enough people voted for it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 20:43:51 GMT
Really, what is dishonest about it -- that the UK government, as you put it, would love to take NI out of the situation but can't? That's just telling the truth, IMO. I don't think the NI dilemma is due to external forces. On the contrary, it is all internal. We placed ourselves in this situation with very little regard, if any, to the economic repercussions of leaving. But disappointingly, it turns out that we are not prepared to learn from our own mistakes. I mean, the DUP's intransigence plus the Brexit purists' and excuse finders' inability or unwillingness to compromise come to mind. We insisted then -- and continue to do so -- on this idea of prioritising "regaining" sovereignty over growing the economy even more. We were so wealthy we thought we afford a grand and very, very, very expensive delusion. Unfortunately, it has turned out that even the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not immune to the fact that wealth and a great economy tend to blur the edges of territorial integrity. Particularly, when citizens have to start counting the pennies. I just thought that Sunak and his government would have learned and accepted it by now. I didn’t say dishonest , I said disingenuous. So you never made a very good start did you?. Its disingenuous because every ex remainer that mentions it doesn’t accept this. No it’s not internal . Since we left the EU it has become a matter of external forces finding obstacles… Yes NI was always going to be a problem but that isn’t the ex remainer to Scot indies first position . Their first position is “If NI can only manage to be half out the EU why can’t we be fully in?” No, you didn't. But the term "disingenuous" connotes dishonesty. It means underhanded. False. Duplicitous. Two-faced. Insincere. Deceitful. Not honest. Dishonest. So? Part of the problem with Brexitism is that its followers can't decide whether they are a vindicated winner taking responsibility for every single thing associated with winning the referendum or an oppressed victim who is still at the mercy of the EU. And I see that in every Brexit purist and excuse finder on this board -- one minute you all smugly remind people who won the referendum; the next minute you blame "external forces" for the problems that you want others to solve for you. Ask yourselves this: who can make our problems go away? It's only us, isn't it? The EU can't and the EU won't. The US, the same. The ROW? So, how can it be external when it is only us who can solve all these problems which we brought upon ourselves in the first place. The thing is this: Johnson's Brexit gives what we want but what we want is no good to us. It does not serve our true and meaningful interests. I can see why the Scots want out of the UK to rejoin the EU. Either way, they are part of a union. Either way, they have to share sovereignty over the Scottish nation. The difference is, the EU is so much bigger, more successful, offers bigger potential and because it is only a quasi-political entity, it can not and does not interfere with international and diplomatic relations, military, taxation and general governance. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 21:07:20 GMT
So, yeah; if the Single Market's good for Northern Ireland, then why can't it be good for England, Scotland and Wales? Because it's not good, politically, for the Tories, maybe? simple - not enough people voted for it. Yeah. The Single Market can't be good for England, Scotland and Wales because not enough people voted for it. As if the number of vote defines and affects the quality of the issue voted upon. It's like asserting that what's popular is always right; that the more popular it is, the better it is.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 20, 2023 21:16:09 GMT
I didn’t say dishonest , I said disingenuous. So you never made a very good start did you?. Its disingenuous because every ex remainer that mentions it doesn’t accept this. No it’s not internal . Since we left the EU it has become a matter of external forces finding obstacles… Yes NI was always going to be a problem but that isn’t the ex remainer to Scot indies first position . Their first position is “If NI can only manage to be half out the EU why can’t we be fully in?” No, you didn't. But the term "disingenuous" connotes dishonesty. It means underhanded. False. Duplicitous. Two-faced. Insincere. Deceitful. Not honest. Dishonest. So? Part of the problem with Brexitism is that its followers can't decide whether they are a vindicated winner taking responsibility for every single thing associated with winning the referendum or an oppressed victim who is still at the mercy of the EU. And I see that in every Brexit purist and excuse finder on this board -- one minute you all smugly remind people who won the referendum; the next minute you blame "external forces" for the problems that you want others to solve for you. Ask yourselves this: who can make our problems go away? It's only us, isn't it? The EU can't and the EU won't. The US, the same. The ROW? So, how can it be external when it is only us who can solve all these problems which we brought upon ourselves in the first place. The thing is this: Johnson's Brexit gives what we want but what we want is no good to us. It does not serve our true and meaningful interests. I can see why the Scots want out of the UK to rejoin the EU. Either way, they are part of a union. Either way, they have to share sovereignty over the Scottish nation. The difference is, the EU is so much bigger, more successful, offers bigger potential and because it is only a quasi-political entity, it can not and does not interfere with international and diplomatic relations, military, taxation and general governance. Yes the difference is someone alluding to someone not bring sincere and them in turn accusing the other of accusing them of telling bare face lies . My point underlined by ….“Yes NI was always going to be a problem but that isn’t the ex remainer to Scot indies first position . Their first position is “If NI can only manage to be half out the EU why can’t we be fully in?” The rest of your post confirms it . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 21:35:20 GMT
No, you didn't. But the term "disingenuous" connotes dishonesty. It means underhanded. False. Duplicitous. Two-faced. Insincere. Deceitful. Not honest. Dishonest. So? Part of the problem with Brexitism is that its followers can't decide whether they are a vindicated winner taking responsibility for every single thing associated with winning the referendum or an oppressed victim who is still at the mercy of the EU. And I see that in every Brexit purist and excuse finder on this board -- one minute you all smugly remind people who won the referendum; the next minute you blame "external forces" for the problems that you want others to solve for you. Ask yourselves this: who can make our problems go away? It's only us, isn't it? The EU can't and the EU won't. The US, the same. The ROW? So, how can it be external when it is only us who can solve all these problems which we brought upon ourselves in the first place. The thing is this: Johnson's Brexit gives what we want but what we want is no good to us. It does not serve our true and meaningful interests. I can see why the Scots want out of the UK to rejoin the EU. Either way, they are part of a union. Either way, they have to share sovereignty over the Scottish nation. The difference is, the EU is so much bigger, more successful, offers bigger potential and because it is only a quasi-political entity, it can not and does not interfere with international and diplomatic relations, military, taxation and general governance. Yes the difference is someone alluding to someone not bring sincere and them in turn accusing the other of accusing them of telling bare face lies . My point underlined by ….“Yes NI was always going to be a problem but that isn’t the ex remainer to Scot indies first position . Their first position is “If NI can only manage to be half out the EU why can’t we be fully in?” The rest of your post confirms it . You have neither answered my original question nor clarified the vagueness of your statements. I must reiterate: What is dishonest about the whole thing? Where is the dishonesty. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 20, 2023 22:06:39 GMT
Yes the difference is someone alluding to someone not bring sincere and them in turn accusing the other of accusing them of telling bare face lies . My point underlined by ….“Yes NI was always going to be a problem but that isn’t the ex remainer to Scot indies first position . Their first position is “If NI can only manage to be half out the EU why can’t we be fully in?” The rest of your post confirms it . You have neither answered my original question nor clarified the vagueness of your statements. I must reiterate: What is dishonest about the whole thing? Where is the dishonesty. I never said it was dishonest and I never said the while thing was dishonest . My statements were not vague either . They were quite simple and easy to understand. Though not simple enough for you apparently . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 22:24:22 GMT
You have neither answered my original question nor clarified the vagueness of your statements. I must reiterate: What is dishonest about the whole thing? Where is the dishonesty. I never said it was dishonest and I never said the while thing was dishonest . My statements were not vague either . They were quite simple and easy to understand. Though not simple enough for you apparently . You said disingenuous. Same thing. So, why don't you start again. Clearly this time. When you said " This argument is so disingenuous but oft repeated by ex remainers and rabid Scot indies." ; to which argument were you referring, exactly? And what's dishonest or disingenuous about it? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 20, 2023 22:30:36 GMT
I never said it was dishonest and I never said the while thing was dishonest . My statements were not vague either . They were quite simple and easy to understand. Though not simple enough for you apparently . You said disingenuous. Same thing. So, why don't you start again. Clearly this time. When you said " This argument is so disingenuous but oft repeated by ex remainers and rabid Scot indies." ; to which argument were you referring, exactly? And what's dishonest or disingenuous about it? It’s not the sane thing . Disingenuous is a particular type of insincerity . Dishonest is a blunt term that you used to reframe my point . The argument was pointed out in the very next sentence . Are you bring disingenuousness too or just unable to understand simple concepts ? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2023 23:01:17 GMT
You said disingenuous. Same thing. So, why don't you start again. Clearly this time. When you said " This argument is so disingenuous but oft repeated by ex remainers and rabid Scot indies." ; to which argument were you referring, exactly? And what's dishonest or disingenuous about it? It’s not the sane thing . Disingenuous is a particular type of insincerity . Dishonest is a blunt term that you used to reframe my point . The argument was pointed out in the very next sentence . Are you bring disingenuousness too or just unable to understand simple concepts Disingenuity is insincerity. Insincerity is dishonesty. Ultimately, they're the same. It's just that "dishonesty" is a bit too blunt for you. Will you just stop being cagey and coy about this, please? I mean, what or which argument is so "disingenuous but oft repeated by ex remainers and rabid Scot indies?" Just quote me directly; cut and paste that argument, even. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Mar 20, 2023 23:10:10 GMT
It’s not the sane thing . Disingenuous is a particular type of insincerity . Dishonest is a blunt term that you used to reframe my point . The argument was pointed out in the very next sentence . Are you bring disingenuousness too or just unable to understand simple concepts Disingenuity is insincerity. Insincerity is dishonesty. Ultimately, they're the same. It's just that "dishonesty" is a bit too blunt for you. Will you just stop being cagey and coy about this, please? I mean, what or which argument is so "disingenuous but oft repeated by ex remainers and rabid Scot indies?" Just quote me directly; cut and paste that argument, even. Yes it is too blunt . I repeat ..Dishonest is a blunt term that you used to reframe my point . Im not being cagey or coy . This is something else you seem to have made up in your head . I quoted you directly ffs . Are you really this thick |
|
