Brexit and EU Predictions

by

It seems the odds are the Boris Johnson will be the next PM of the UK. He indicates he will try to renegotiate UK Brexit with the EU but will leave October 31, 2019 if there is no deal.

The Europian Union will not negotiate a better deal for the UK. The EU would have more countries leave if they gave better terms.

The US and China and other countries will create bilateral trade deals with the UK. The UK and EU trade will revert to WTO rules.

Betfair has even odds for a no-deal Brexit and the same odds for vote to successful 2nd vote to revoke article 50.

98 thoughts on “Brexit and EU Predictions”

  1. That would require unanimous approval of the EU as well. The UK already did the formal abrogation notice. And if you think any government can survive overturning the results of the referendum. Best of luck to them. They would also be tying themselves to a sinking ship. The EU by and large forgot long ago how to have kids and will do nothing but get poorer for at least 3 decades at a minimum.

  2. Well they should have come in years ago, and they show no sign of coming in. Especially considering the potential danger the EU faces, let alone its demographic nightmare.

  3. Those reasons are exactly why I’m for restarting the expansion of the United States. There was never set limit for the ultimate size and scope of the United States.

    There was even a political movement in the 1800s that wanted to rename the United States of America the United States of Earth, a bit extreme perhaps, and they obviously didn’t succeed, but that was an actual thing that happened.

    Then the Cold War turned us inward, and our growth as a nation was hindered as a result. Try imagining what America would like today if our fore bearers turned down the Louisiana Purchase, and had no ambitions for expansion. We would be a stretch of land on the East Coast of North America smaller than Alaska. We wouldn’t have the mythology of cowboys and pioneers that fundamentally shaped America going into the 20th Century. We would never have become a super power.

    Growing the United States again by bringing in the British Isles and more of the Americas will present us with an opportunity to write a new chapter in American history. It will give us a brand new perspective and a chance for the United States to grow more prosperous and powerful than anyone alive today ever imagined possible.

    Such an outcome to expanding the United States would not be a first.

  7. “NB. Even in your hypothetical extreme example concerning gays aids fund versus criminal pocket money, one could not conclude that JRM is truly _fundamentally_ against gays…..There would be various subproperties of the property “gay”, each of which he might oppose….”

    True, you can never show anything with 100% probability. But it would be a far better indication of JRM being “against” gays rights in general than a voting record where there may be other values to protect. You really have to make a case by case assessment, since the gay lobby brings a lot of crap to the table.

    In my example of a current “gays rights” issue with blood donation (see comment above), I would vote against changing the blood donation rules because I think it is an insane idea to trade patient safety in order for gays to feel more “included”. And if all the issues that the gay lobby brings forth are equally nutty (and selfish), then all of them should be rejected. Even by people that in general “for” gays rights….

  8. But is it possible to vote against gays rights and not be against gays rights in general? Absolutely. You can be fore non-discrimination of gays (which is a gays right) and still be against everything that the gay lobby brings to the table today. How so? Well, if the issues are really unreasonable, then any thinking person should vote no.

    Here is an example. The gay lobby in Sweden are on the war path since they have to show sexual abstinence for one year in order to donate blood. But it turns out that the prevalence of sexual diseases in the gay community is astronomical compared to the heterosexual community. If you do the math (and use google translate) [1], you will find that the prevalence of syphilis in the gays community (assuming ~5% of men are gays, probably too large a number) is ~60 (!!) times higher than in the heterosexual male community. And that is just syphilis, we also have aids, chlamydia, gonorrhea…

    So, the gays activists insists their “right” to donate blood supersedes any concern patient safety.

    (1)
    https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/folkhalsorapportering-statistik/statistikdatabaser-och-visualisering/sjukdomsstatistik/syfilis/?p=5991

  9. Let me give you an example. I am against violent crimes. That means that I would like to eradicate violent crime from the face of the world. If there were a method of turning violent criminals to non-crimals, I would support it. Likewise, I would support any preventive measures against violent crime, and I only see negatives in violent crime. I would like to see less violent crime in the world. See, that is an example of being “against”.

    Now, does JRM like to eradicate gays rights (or gays) from the face of the earth? Would JRM like to have less gays rights (or gays)? Would JRM support any measure to prevent gays rights to be discussed or expanded? Does JRM work actively to suppress or repeal legislation for gays rights?

    If you can show any or all of the above, then you have shown that JRM is against gays rights. So far, you have not.

  10. In your original comment, you stated the JRM was “incredibly against gays rights”, but in a later comment you stated:

    “It is not relevant at all whether he dislikes gays or not. Relevant are only his political actions, and those are evidently anti-gay, in the sense that they are against the interests of gays.”

    So, by that statement, you claim that JRM is against gays by virtue of being against gays rights.

    Now, you have not shown that he is actually against gays or against gays rights. Because, in order to be “against something”, you have to show his motivation. And you have not, neither in the case of gays rights nor in the general case of gays.

  11. NB. Even in your hypothetical extreme example concerning gays aids fund versus criminal pocket money, one could not conclude that JRM is truly _fundamentally_ against gays. There would be various subproperties of the property “gay”, each of which he might oppose, maybe even because he wants to protect something else. In their totality these subproperties would make JRM be colloquially against gays. But by your own logic and very strict definition of “against”, it would be sloppy to conclude that JRM is against gays.

  12. Now you are confusing “against gays” with “against gay rights”.

    Please read my replies more closely. If you do, you will notice that in fact I mostly agree with your arguments. However, they belong- I keep repeating this- to a <different discussion>, and thus bear no relevance to the issue at hand. This is the core property of the strawman; its goal is to divert attention to another issue and claim that you are right there, while raising the impression that you are right on the former issue. Yes, you are right, but you are right about something else and nobody cares about that other thing. We only care about the original issue. To exaggerate it, it is like me saying “Apples are green” and you replying “You are wrong, bananas are yellow!”.

    I have tried to explain this to you many times, and you still don’t show any glimpse of understanding. I conclude this is hopeless and you will never understand, and will probably keep using this debate technique in the future.

    I have a busy week ahead and won’t reply to this thread anymore. Sorry. Bye. No hard feelings. You are right. But about something else.

  13. Your knowledge of economics is manifestedly limited. Moreover, nationalism (or better: exceptionalism) is a lens through which you see reality that that can hide parts of it, be careful.

  14. Well, he hasn’t been elected yet and he is wavering already. First there was not going to be any extension of the delay of exiting the EU, and now there is not going “to be more than a few weeks”. So yeah, he is a pretty unreliable guy.

  15. And how much history do you have after the second world war saying it it is BS?
    Neither Norway nor Switzerland are in the EU. Are they bound to go to war? Please….

  16. If you’re going to have one symbol for each state, that’s 50 for the USA, 7 for Australia, probably one each for North and South Islands of NZ, 10 provinces in Canada, Scotland, Ireland, the 7 original kingdoms of England, Wales, Falklands… it’ll look like a giant pixelated image of some sort.

    Then you have a debate about what the overall pixelated image is to be…

  18. For christ sake, learn what the word strawman means! You cannot just call an opinion that you dissagree with a “strawman”. Read your own quote above! You can call it stupid, illogical, or bereft of meaning, but please learn the proper meaning of “strawman”.

    “…we colloquially say that he is against X.”

    No, that’s not what “we” colloquially say. People in general are not such sloppy thinkers, only you are. Furthermore, I would not care if that were the colloquial expression.

    You *can* show that JRM is truly against gay people. Say for arguments sake that JRM would hate criminals (I have no idea if this is true), but when a new case comes up where a fund is to be allocated either to criminals pocketmoney or to a gays aids fund, he would choose the former. In that case you would have a pretty good indication JRM hostility towards gays since he would prefer what he normally despises before gays.

    See, that is what is “colloquially” said to be against something. And it also coincides with what is the correct identification of being “against” means. Here is the Merriam-Webster definition, where only clause 1a applies [1]:

    a : in opposition or hostility to

    As you can see, “hostillity” or “opposition” is a necessary requisite for being “against” something. You have shown neither with respect to JRM and gays.

    [1]
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/against?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld

  19. You could really use a more distinguishing flag. I like the James Bowman one, though the silver fern needs some bend and maybe put a Kiwi in the space created by the bend. I like the D.A. Bale one too, but it does not make me think New Zealand.

    Is there an “old” Zealand?

    I like the “Golden Wattle flag for Australia: http://www.goldenwattleflag.com/#introduction

    The British flag and a constellation does not look very creative or inspiring. Australia and New Zealand having almost identical flags looks pathetically unimaginative.

    But, I hate my California State flag 🙁 We need a grizzly and cub, no red star or ground. And something other than white & red.

    The US needs a lot of work before we will be attractive enough for something like this. Some day maybe. Nonlethal, non physically traumatizing but just as effective firearms can bridge the second Amendment gap, I think. Recall unelections, easier Constitutional Amendments to keep up with the times, reduced influence of big money and other special interests, efficient government, effective reasonable safety nets, first rate infrastructure, less financial/social stress and ideological/racial hostility, low crime, fiscal responsibility, first rate education, elder care, child care, and healthcare, an emphatic rejection of political hawks, high degree of health and safety would all go a long way. Teaching our children to be polite and considerate rather rapping hate and profanity would be nice.

  20. (…continued…)

    Given any issue X, nobody is 100.0000% purely against X or 100.0000% in favour of X by itself. In practice, X is not a pure entity in an empty mathematical universe.  You balance its external effects on other issues in an incredibly complex world, you judge all the pros and cons, and in the end you decide which option outweighs the other. After the decision, we colloquially say that you are in favour of the one and against the other. In the case of JRM and X=”gay rights”, we colloquially say that he is against X.

    If you reject this, then it will be impossible to say that anyone is against anything at all. Philosophically interesting, but practically useless.

    Now, is JRM a moral person? Can we understand his final decision? Yes, in his reference frame – a particular christian reference frame that many of his voters no doubt share with him- he has made a good choice. Yet in many other reference frames – anno 2019 the majority, I would say- his decision is deemed immoral. This does not mean that people in the other reference frames cannot understand his thought process. It just means that they (possibly strongly) disagree with the weights that he assigned to the involved variables, and by extension disagree with his final decision. And they do not wish to be governed by such a person, because it means that they will face consequences which they deem immoral.

  21. Dear Jansson,

    You are still trying to have a discussion on a different issue (the strawman), namely a discussion on the morality of JRM’s choices rather than the factual choices (and their consequences) themselves. I don’t find this morality issue very interesting: with a bit of creativity, virtually every seemingly appalling viewpoint can be equipped with some twisted reference frame in which it is justified. That is why it’s so easy for you to refute your strawman.
    Your (1) vs (2) dilemma is a false dilemma, because it belongs to a different discussion.

    But fine, if you want to discuss this other issue so badly, I will share some of my thoughts.

    To judge the morality of JRM’s choices, or the morality of JRM as a person for that matter, it is indeed relevant to take his motivations for voting into account. Nobody votes against something out of pure evil, and indeed a vote ‘against’ is often motivated by the desire to protect something else.

    In the particular case of gay rights:

    JRM has balanced the options “gay rights” and “not gay rights”. He considered all confounding variables, such as the status of traditional marriage, the bible, legal implications, but also the influence on the happiness of gay couples. In the end his balance tipped to “not gay rights”, and he proceeded to vote accordingly. In short, his final decision is to be <against gay rights>.

    Given any issue X (… to be continued…)

  23. As a Kiwi, I’m happier for New Zealand to have our government on this side of the Pacific Ocean, thanks all the same. We had a referendum on a new flag here recently, too. There was a lot of enthusiasm for the Kiwi ( bird ) with laser beams coming out of its eyes, but the bureaucrats shot that one down, so we voted to stay with the old one.

  25. No it wouldn’t, referendums aren’t legally binding in the UK. If the PM can force leave, they can force remain too. Can’t have one without the other.

  26. I don’t think the right or the left in the US would know what to do with a monarchy. The US was quite opposed to monarchy in its founding. There was a Hawaiian monarchy when the US annexed Hawaii. But that was a fairly weak claim until the monarchy was overthrown, and it became a US territory.
    I do think the best fit is the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. The UK monarchy is not a good fit. Ireland and/or Scotland maybe. Though that would probably aggravate what is left of the UK. The vast majority of UK population is in England. Probably, just let the UK be. I think if Ireland or Scotland voted independence, they would not soon want to join the US and friends. Maybe after 50 or 100 years.

  28. Entire union jack dead center and undistorted. Just trimmed into a circle…which already is a common symbol. No part of the US flag faithfully represented. No 50 stars, stripes are distorted, the US is background.

    If the red and white strips were still horizontal and some stars in the corners…

    I think each country should have one of those small symbols: I like the Kangaroo, that plant thing for New Zealand, the Maple leaf, but the UK and the US each need one as well. The eagle holding the arrows and olive branch is a good one for the US. UK maybe the teapot or the 3 gold lions? The crown seems a bit much. I’d even be fine with 4 symbols representing England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales as long as they were reasonably simple attractive shapes. Perhaps instead of stars each US State should have a simple single symbol perhaps official land mammal unless there is a clear symbol they already use that is simple: https://statesymbolsusa.org/categories/mammal

  30. No they will NOT. Britain already has the Commonwealth agreements and anyone else who does not tow the U.S. line will face severe pain. And the odds are high that the UK will be invited into the USMCA after they meet our demands in regards to the financial sector and various other markets. When it comes to ag, safety product regulations look to the South Korea deal for what will be demanded of the UK.

  31. Except for the gutting of the London Financial market the UK WILL get a substantially better deal than the EU will get, because the EU cannot offer the U.S. what it wants and get the member nations to approve it. The decades of being a free rider to the U.S. economy are over for Europe. First America came for Iran and you can/could nothing. Then America came for Mexico and Canada and you could do nothing. Then America came for China and all you can do is watch and do nothing. Because you are all dependent upon access to the U.S. economy for the survival of your economies.

  32. Well since it is a contracting market that will never really grow again in our lifetimes. Just forcing balanced trade will do it and that has nothing to do with turning the Persian Gulf into a warzone, which would gut both the Chinese and EU economies.

  33. You do realize that would actually require Parliament to agree on a motion for a 2nd referendum. Labour already tried that and it failed. The next PM IF he is a Brexiteer can force a leave without Parliament approval.

  34. If anything, it is the other way around. Who owns the Federal Reserve Bank? A bunch of rich European aristocrats and bankers, most likely. Wilson effectively gave the US away. Whoever controls the Federal Reserve has a great deal of control over the US.
    This is a for profit bank, and it pays fat dividends to their owners…who are secret. They do not serve the US public interest, they serve the shareholders. The most crooked thing ever passed by Congress. Wilson went to his grave regretting that he had been so effectively duped.

    Now that we print the money, there is no need, if there ever was, for a private bank for the US to be dependent on. We need to completely remove their powers and make a new US bank that really is the government…and stop giving all these people money.

    It is like giving the power of attorney to some random rich people with no accountability.

  35. I don’t think the UK get’s more than a fair share. A lot more area is US flag elements than the Union Jack.

  37. Oh, I almost forgot. I think gay issues are really unimportant. With the notable exception of gay marriage and possible gay adoptions – gay issues are usually not of importance even to gays. They have all the rights of straight citizens have, we are just talking about minor or symbolic issues.. Fight against mostly non-existent discrimination and such… More gays in childrens books… More gay pride parades… Laws against slurs against sexual minorities… Uninteresting stuff of really minor importance and questionable value…

    So, I really don’t measure the worth of a politician on the basis of his politics on gays. Science, economics, national security, immigration, education, employment, health care, culture in general.. All those issues are much more important according to me.

  38. You are not replying to my arguments. If you claim that it is irrelevant why he voted against, for instance, gay marriage, you have two choices:

    (1) Explain how you can never vote against a proposal on the basis of protecting something else

    …or…

    (2) Explain how JRM vote against gay marriage would be fundamentally different than other voting cases where someone makes a prioritization between two worthwhile goals

    Please join the match, Nickname….

  39. “Rees-Mogg is voting against gay rights” is merely a factual statement that Rees-Mogg casts votes, as a result of which gays are deprived from certain rights. The website linked to by Icecream provides hard proof that Rees-Mogg indeed consistently votes against gay rights in this sense.

    However, you are STILL arguing about his motivations for voting the way he did. This is irrelevant. The reason why he votes ‘against’ does not magically change his ‘against’ vote to ‘in favour’. Furthermore: yes, his votes ‘against’ may be applauded by the minority that he represents, and yes you could argue that his choices are not immoral within their reference frame, but this does not alter the FACT that he voted ‘against’.

    (To tone this down a bit: his motivations COULD be relevant if they were such that he will change his voting behaviour in the very-near-future, once some minor temporary blockade is lifted. In the case of gay marriage, this blockade is formed by Rees-Moggs’ principle views, influenced by the traditional values of his catholic faith. Therefore it seems extremely unlikely that Rees-Mogg will soon change his voting behavior regarding this matter. In conclusion, the statement “Rees-Moggg is consistently voting against gay rights” has been true in the past and is very likely to remain true in the future.)

  40. ⊕1 for the flag as well … I really like it. Might be nice to work in either an American eagle, or a whole wreath of laurel leaves. Suggesting eternal peace. But I like it as it is.

  41. I did, but certainly not intentionally. Liberia has a lot going for it, actually. And she already enjoys a tacit preferred-nation trading status with the Good Old USofA. Perfect candidate.

  42. Well, Hubert … we ALL KNOW that you shill for The Chinese, in virtually every comment you post. But that’s OK, dude! Its absolutely fine to be a Chinese Nationalist at heart. Gotta love one’s heritage, right? Or at least “read the tea leaves” of the future as your goggles let the vision thru. 

    Thing tho’ is this: if WE are to be perfectly honest about the economic generator house that has powered China’s remarkable rise, and allowing for the fact that some 15 or so years ago, she (China, conventionally referred to in the feminine, in English) she realized that having her growth ENTIRELY derivative off the manufacturing-and-exports she flogged to the world would at some point (projected 2017…) would lead to a massive economic slow-down right now in the pre–2020s. 

    So, China focussed on her internal infrastructure, essentially “raising the culture up by its bootstraps”. Which worked. Massively. 

    Any unrequited demand for PV solar cells is then met by push-to-internal-project demand. Coolio! Likewise, the pent-up demand for small cars is met by internal manufacturing. Likewise, ginning up huge amounts of coal-and-nuclear power generation will have customers. And it generates millions of jobs. Again, on track. 

    She’s still only 35% or so the way to American/European per-capita economic standards. 

    But then what? International demand is saturating.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

  43. Well you are correct. The state cannot and should not be able to, impose marriage rules on churches.

    But, the legal issue is not clear. Why should two people get tax brakes, just because they form a .. club? If you do not believe that marriage exists to make a family with children, why not let anyone make any sort of “marriage arrangement”?

    Why not let 10 guys, 4 women and a dog form a club? They all inherit each other and they get the tax brakes due to marriage couples (here: marriage multiples) and the state should not care why they make this “club” or care about their sexual preferences (of course, the dog must be exempt from sex!).

    On the other hand, why should the people that don’t join such a “club” be forced to finance it by allowing them some kind of tax break? If the marriage unit does not – on an average – provide the society with children – that the society needs for its survival – why should the club members get special benefits over non club members?

    These are the kinds of questions you have to answer when you start to expand the definition of marriage to more than just a man and a woman.

  44. But what reason could there be for voting against gay marriage? Well, why don’t you ask them? From what I have heard, the proponents of marriage of heterosexual marriage only holds that marriage should be reserved for the man-woman relationship only.

    They also claim that if you allow just about any constellation to marry, you dilute the meaning of marriage. My comment is that of course this is correct, you would dilute the meaning of marriage by including gays, in the sense that it would to a lesser extent symbolize a family unit for making children.

    You can of course argue that this is not important to you, but it is very difficult for you to claim that *this is not important to the other side*. Being intellectually honest entails letting people express their own views and taking them at face value.

  45. Now, let us get back to the argument. You are plain and simple committing an error of though. Just because you vote against something does not mean you are necessarily against this.
     
    For instance, you may (assuming you sit on a council) vote against a particular road, since you know that the communications budget is better used to build another road. You love roads, but it is better to build road B than road A.
    So you save the budget for the more needed project.

    Or, let’s say, you are voting on the rules in public park. Should dog owners be allowed to have their dogs run free? Well you love dogs, but it turns out that there a lot of kids in this park, and there has been many incidents in the past where large dogs have frightened small children. So even though you love dogs, you vote against unleashed dogs in this particular park. The dog owners will have to take their dogs to a different park.

    Do you finally get it? Voting against an issue does not mean being against that…

  46. But, dear Mr Nickname, I did not say that *you* held the view that rejection of gay pride parades was the argument against Jacob Rees-Mogg, so *no* I did not use a straw man. At that point you had not buttressed your argument against Jacob Rees-Mogg with any concrete example of his “anti gay” stance. I brought these arguments up in order to prod you to be more specific.

    And I still maintain that these kinds of non-arguments are the usual reasons why this and that politician is called “anti-gay”.

  47. About the culture and education. China has a good culture with high work morale from the perspective of productivity, and *deserve* the success that this gives. Germany and Japan also has a good culture for production as well.

    USA has a good culture for making exceptional individuals, but the collective culture is not really optimal for production. In comparison with Germany, there is a lot more *politics* in an american firm. The germans just want to solve the technical problem, whereas the americans – I am simplifying for clarity here – want to solve the problem at hand but also position themselves internally. Sometimes, and american engineer can recommend doing something he knows is counter productive, just to appease his boss..

    Of course, there are exceptions on both sides, but in general, there is *more* politics in american firms, and *more* problem solving in german firms. And that is why Germany can export a lot of cars even though their labor costs are high and their taxes are higher. That is why the USA can grab a huge amount of nobel prizes in physics and chemistry, and still not outcompeete Germany.

    So, Vittorio, these are the things you should worry about when it comes to relative productivity of different countries and the fate of the worker in industry…

  48. Look, Vittorio, don’t fret over the workers in the industry, they are not the bottom of the barrel. No, I know you did not imply it, but they are better off than the average Joe simply because they have higher productivity. Gone are the days when you could pull a lever and be considered a productive worker. The ones who are left now are made of pretty good stuff.

    About the work hours. I think you are focusing too much on just one variable. The workers of one country could be disadvantaged by that countrys lending policy, the general culture, infrastructure and so on. The general salary level is just one variable, so I would not worry too much about it. And, the average chinese salaries are coming up rapidly too meet eastern european salaries in a not too distant future.

    As industries become ever more mechanized with more and more robots, the labor cost will become less and less important. The education and culture will become increasingly important.

  49. WTF? Britain will be Europe’s Mexico? Do you realize that millions of Mexicans risk their lives each year to escape Mexico by illegally crossing into the US?
    Why would citizens of India, Brazil, Turkey, Pakistan, China and Bangladesh want to emigrate to a post-Brexit Britain if their economy will be as bad as you predict?

  53. The British Isles could NOT easily join the USA.

    Just to start with, adding England as a state adds enough population to completely tear apart the existing political structure of the US electorate. The existing political powers would be extremely unlikely to end up on top after the complete reshuffle, and hence every US politician would be desperate to stop it.

    Do you think Trump would win the next election with 40 million English voters in the mix? How would people who regard butter knives as weapons of mass destruction deal with open carry of firearms. And having real live aristocracy won’t sell well on the left.

    The only upside is Americans might start driving on the correct side of the road.

  54. wasn’t the glory of england happend when they where indepent from the continent “I guess the holy roman empire still exist”

  56. Marriage is two tings. First is the legal stuff there marriage has an special protected status.
    Spouse inherit everything as couple shares everything. This is an non issue.
    Second is the religious part, this part get kinky.
    Again finding an christian priest in an group of good standing would be easy. Demanding the catholic church to do it is trolling.
    Again go for an Muslim marriage. How would polygamy work out if multiple males ?

  57. This, now its obviously very regional but in the west being gay is not an serious negative.
    Its an negative in mainstream politic but so is not looking nice. As in regional on of the leadership of the conservative in Noway had been known as being gay over 30 years ago. An none issue as none benefited of bringing it up.

    Gay rights today is only about fringe stuff like if you can become an priest. Boring go Iman as in hard mode 🙂
    Yes you have reactions from fringe groups majority who is migrants but also some boneheads.

  60. uk was never really part of eu anyway… they opted out of euro monetary union… everything else is just as Losing control of immigration policy and import/export regulations…. that’s always the stuff people give the middle finger on after awhile..

  61. EU will go down with in then years, question for UK is if they will follow.

    2000 realize the leader what they must do for the union if it should be long lived.
    -Until 2010 we must create the most dynamic region in the world by reformation of rules.

    The did the opposite and now you have to look deep to find that.

    If they had don what they then realize there had be no Brexit.

  62. Well, maybe that flag needs a little more work. Those kangaroos don’t appear to be giving much respect to Canada. And the maple leaf should still be red. And Perhaps the UK is getting an outsized chunk of that flag.

  63. I do think the US, Canada (western Canada at least), Australia, and New Zealand should merge. UK? I am not so sure. So much union baggage and class BS. And they look down on Americans in general.

    The best would be Canada annexing the US 😉 Their healthcare system could take over, their financial regulations could replace ours, and our 2 parties, well, they can just dissolve. The only negatives would be excessive forest harvesting, less competitors from our countries in the Winter Olympics and the ban on Rocky & Bullwinkle. And we might have to give up one of those 2 flags…but they are both pretty cool.

    Well, maybe we have to include the UK, because this flag is so cool: https://www.reddit.com/r/vexillology/comments/19vpi9/oc_canada_us_uk_australia_and_nz_combined_flag/

  64. “A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.” ~Wikipedia

    “straw man: a weak or imaginary opposition (such as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted” ~ Merriam-Webster

    The view of the opponent is that Rees-Mogg is voting against gay rights. But you attacked the non-expressed view, the strawman, that Rees-Moggs voting behaviour is motivated by anti-gay sentiments.

  65. @Nickname
    Thats the wrong use of the word “strawman”. Strawman means that you ascribe an unreasonable opinion to your enemy that he does not hold. Clearly, I did not do any such thing.

    And to get back to the issue.. No, he can vote “no” on gay marriage on the basis of being *for* marriage between a man and a woman. Perhaps you would not vote for making marriage between 23 women, 2 guys and a table legal on the basis of being for marriage as an institution of couples? And, if so, would that be proof that you be against polyamorous people in general?

    So it does not suffice to say that he voted against gay legislation. You have to be specific and you have to take into account his motivations.

  66. Britain will be Europe’s Mexico.
    First thing India will ask in free trade is 100,000 per year work visas.
    First thing Brazil will ask in free trade is 100,000 per year work visas, but you gave…
    First thing Turkey will ask in free trade is 100,000 per year work visas, but you gave…
    First thing Pakistan will ask in free trade is 100,000 per year work visas, but you gave…
    First thing China will ask in free trade is 100,000 per year work visas, but you gave…
    First thing Bangladesh will ask in free trade is 100,000 per year work visas, but you gave..
    …

    Without Germany and Austria to say Nien..

  67. Didn’t Boris Johnson help sell Brexit in the first place with blatant lies? So of course you shouldn’t trust him…

  68. I didn’t say dummies, nor imply it.

    Simplified example of what I meant: if nation A has the same technology (let’s call it productivity) of nation B, so it has also similar salaries, and there are no tariffs, but nation A has a 40h workweek while nation B has a 20h workweek, nation A is going to outcompete nation B.

    China is slowly becoming nation A (because it’s gaining in technology without increasing workers right) and the West it’s becoming nation B (because people want more free time, there isn’t much to produce with all this productivity anyways, nor someone to consume all this).
    As a matter of fact, China’s overcapacity is the reason why they’re dumping products and deflation to the rest of the world.
    By leveling workers’ rights everywhere, let’s say as a requirement to be in WTO, trade flows could start to gain back some sense.

    In the US-EU example for light vehicles, EU workers have better rights than their US colleagues.

  69. Allow me to defuse Jansson’s preposterous strawman.

    It is not relevant at all whether he dislikes gays or not. Relevant are only his political actions, and those are evidently anti-gay, in the sense that they are against the interests of gays.

  70. It really is an appealing idea on the one hand, and an odd idea once you dig into “how to do it”. Like art.

    As I see it, the most imposing problem is one of naming, and the histories of the countries involved.  

    What would the broader encompassing name be?

    United States of ANGLIA?

    It has a ring about it that’d work. USA initials are preserved. Anglia demonstrating that we’d be Anglophones of the Anglosphere, mostly. Thus kind of thwarting including México in the mix, but certainly hanging an extra fig leaf out for both Oceania and Canada, should they see the light.  

    Europe would shake in its boots: the collective unified geopolitical powerhouse of NZ, AUS, ENG, SCO, WA, IRE, USNA (us) and CAN would completely dominate international trade, technological advancement, demonstrating revolutionary and working democratic republic on the world-scale.  

    Could be done without a shot fired, too.  
    No visas between all these countries.
    No tariffs, surcharges, border fees.
    Unified currency.
    Unified phones, Internet, …

    Then, over the following 100 years, would come the bids from other prescient nation-states. Singapore, perhaps. Belize, Barbados, Bermuda, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Trinidad, … then the most though provoking: INDIA, Fiji, Pakistan, Philippines, South Africa, Sudan, Samoa.  

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy ✓

  71. So he voted against gay marriage. That is not necessarily anti gay. You can hold the position that a marriage should between a man and a woman without disliking gay. Inconclusive example. Do you have another one, or was that it?

  76. You don’t have to believe me, those are the facts.

    He voted against legislation to legalise gay marriage, as well as a whole heap of other things relating to homosexuality. It’s a matter of public record.

    You just need to look up how he votes in parliament. He’s not against elitists, he’s one of them himself.

    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/ This is a great site for this.

  77. No Vittorio, you are wrong. The workers that work in the export market are no dummies. The dummies are the unemployed or farm workers. Those are the ones you should be concerned about.

  78. Well thank you, you did explain it somewhat. Now, I don’t really believe you. Nobody is really against gays these days, I’ve heard that argument a gazillion times for a gazillion people and invariably, it’s been a straw man. Usually, if a politician does not support gay pride, the gay activists start talking about “homophobia”, as if gay pride was synonymous with gay interests.

    And I don’t believe that he is only for taxes for the poor. You will have to back that one up with relevant links. Frequently, if a right of the isle politician is against progressive taxes, this is characterized as “stealing from the poor” or “working class”, as if the money that someone earned belonged to the collective first and were meted out to the “rich” due to “injustices”.

    Though, I have to admit, I don’t know Jacob Rees-Mogg outside of his principled resistance to elitists, so I am willing to be convinced that he is “an awful human” if you can back it up.

  79. “Cos the EU…”

    That is not a reason why the trade deal would be better for the EU (compared to a UK-US deal), that’s only a reason why the US would be the stronger partner in the negotiation. And even if UK would have no product that the US could not produce itself, just making the market bigger is a win-win for both.

    About the British health care … It’s not really relevant for this discussion. The US cannot outcompete local hospitals since the health market is a local market.

    And, I am not sure the EU wants really free trade with the US. Perhaps there would simply be so many wishes from within the EU to protect a multitude of markets so that it would be really watered down. It could be that the number of markets to be protected is less numerous when comparing the aggregated EU with the UK. Perhaps.

    In any case, I don’t see the killer argument why the deal between EU and US would be better than a deal UK-US .

  80. The EU/Brussels is not going to renegotiate anything. They cannot, it would be political suicide. It will be a hard Brexit.

  81. Britain join the US as a state, along with Ireland, Scotland and Wales?!? Uh, first I have ever heard that idea floated. There would have to be safeguards so that, if any of them wanted to leave the US they could without disruption in case they changed their minds later. A lot of thought would have to go into it. That being said, if it was done voluntarily under a common referendum, we would be honored and love to have them join us as states. Interesting idea, but unlikely that the people would choose to give up their sovereignty that way.

  82. FYI: the EU has 10% tariffs on US cars and 4.5% tariff on US light trucks.
    The US has a 2.5% tariff on EU cars and a 25% tariff on EU light trucks.

    You can make it symmetrical either way. However, it’d be nice to have also symmetry in the way workers are treated: sooner or later we shall realize that without global workers rights, every trade battle is ultimately going to be fought on the skin of the people at the bottom of each country’s pyramid. In this way the US would set a score with China too. Level the field, for real.

  83. Cos the EU is twice the US population, whereas the UK is about a quarter. It is the world’s biggest economy, whereas the UK is 5th. It produces a wide range of products that the US likes to buy, whereas the UK does sell a lot of machinery but nothing the US can’t get elsewhere.

    Also, the beloved British NHS is viewed by the US (correctly) as a state funded, anti-competitive enterprise. It has special dispensation thanks to EU negotiation. The UK has not leverage at all to continue this without the US going complaining to the WTO that it is illegal. Trump told the truth that everything is up for negotiation, including British health care.

  84. Because he’s incredibly against workers rights, gay rights, taxes for anyone but the poor, public services, etc. He’s an awful human.

  86. So he is bad because he is victorian..? You would rather have someone unprincipled and dumb as a PM because this person would be more likely to, say, have casual sex? Explain how you think!

  87. Mogg? The victorian workhouse master? He can screw right off. Possibly the worst choice for PM since the 70s.

  88. How do you know that the UK will not get a better deal with the US than Europe will get? To me, it seems a lot easier to negotiate between two countries than between one country and one conglomerate of disparate countries. So I would expect a much quicker negotiation between the UK and the USA.

  89. Well, one can always hope. I think that Boris Jonson does the right thing politically to sell the idea of a re-negotiation along with a preparation for a hard Brexit. That way, he can gather more voters for him.

    But I don’t trust him. I think he might just plan to ratify the crap sandwich before October. Jacob Rees-Mogg would have been an infinitely better choice….

  90. What are you talking about? “The EU idea of a United States of Europe was a noble ideal..”?

    The EU was set up to avoid democracy as much as possible and is used to implement policies that can not find popular support in the individual countries.

    There is absolutely nothing “noble” about a EU federation, and never has been.

  91. Ha ha yes tax avoidance rewarding failure selling public property cheap to the rich MP expenses EU adminemployees paid for doing next to nothing and other absurd waste and corruptions you’re so right now all over EU the main parties have lost the confidence of the people I’m amazed it took so long just shows most people not well informed if they were would never have voted for these self-obsessed bloodsuckers in the first place.

  92. True David Cameron worst PM ever he and Merkel have destroyed the EU and caused the rise of nationalism that will delay the formation of a new EU if ever

  93. Teeth that all want to argue about what to chew on before they crumble from internal decay

  94. EU could never have become one country with its present population of politicians, too many mistakes too many rules and economists too stupid to understand that a system of many independent banks and currencies is inherently more stable

  95. The UK has more in common culturally with the US than with any EU country many of us think we should join the US. The EU idea of a United States of Europe was a noble ideal but their mistake has been to pursue it far too soon, if it were indeed ever possible. EU leaders have been shortsighted politically and blind economically

  96. The British Isles could fairly easily join the United States, which would be a better deal in terms of trade with the EU and the US than you had before or have now. As US states Ireland, Scotland, England, and Wales would have a lot of independence, as well as 8 Senate seats and control of a fifth of the House of Representatives, enough to effectively steer legislation. You would also become the most powerful country in the world again, which would allow you to negotiate from a position of strength with the EU.

  97. I disagree re a UK/US trade deal especially given that the drumbeat in the U.S. seems to be toward a more symmetrical trade relationship with the EU (read: placing tariffs on EU manufactured vehicles equivalent to EU tariffs on US manufactured vehicles).

  98. We won’t get a better deal with the EU than what we already had. We won’t get a better deal with the us and China that what the EU could negotiate. It’s a complete waste of time.

Comments are closed.