UK to warn public every week over 'no-deal Brexit': The Times

[nauseus]

36 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

 

Yes, under the wonderful system of 'democracy' that is the United Kindom they became and sustained an empire... but unfortunately, the winds of 'democratic reform' blew through the United Kingdom and the entire empire fell apart.

 

The system was originally designed (and still functions in some ways) to make sure the right people made the right decisions... not the general masses.  Up until 1918, they made sure only responsible (male adult property owners who have demonstrated their responsibility -- and thus limiting the chances of having irresponsible governments) were able to make the decisions.  But then they let the general irresponsible masses vote and worse women over 30 (and eventually all women) and the Empire that was the UK ... was no more...  

 

I am sure if you asked the people at the time -- they all thought that since it was conceivable that they could eventually own property that the system was democratic.  

 

But two world wars and the Atlantic Charter had nothing to do with it. ?

[bkkcanuck8]

29 minutes ago, nauseus said:

But two world wars and the Atlantic Charter had nothing to do with it. ?

Practically every major country in the world was fighting wars on at least two fronts.  Back in the Empire days of 'democracy' the United Kingdom (who was regularly at war with other major powers) would not have been in such a weakened state that they would have to basically send their King begging to drum up alliances etc.  The world has of course changed, and most countries are better served by strong alliances of countries that have common vested interests rather than trying to go it alone (unless of course, you are a ruthless and strategic ruler of a bygone era).

[bkkcanuck8]

55 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

@bkkcanuck8I enjoyed your post immensely.

 

If you are interested in a more comprehensive account of empire, I would heartily recommend The Age of Empire: 1875–1914, a book by the British historian Eric Hobsbawm, published in 1987.

 

Hobsbawm is considered by many (including himself) to be a Marxist. Although I am not a Marxist myself, I have found Hobsbawm's historical writings to be absolutely second to none. The scope of his analysis and depth of detail in his work ranks him among the greatest of intellectuals. I could point you towards more popular writers if you'd prefer.

 

I assume from your moniker that you are a Canadian, or perhaps you just enjoy the epithet "canuck". If you are Canadian, could you point me to any recent account of the native peoples of the territory, and how they are faring under your system?

 

Thanks.

1

Sounds like an interesting read, though I am not overly a historical nerd ...  I just think that we often view things through a static lense of how things are now... and things are never the same.  I am definitely not a Marxist either, I just see them as a way to gain power for a different click group... BTW, I would actually define myself of more of a libertarian but with the pragmatism to understand that under the current system you have to make compromises (towards the middle of the electorate).   

 

I have no real knowledge of our native history (our school history tended to be European focused)... plus the fact the native history would actually be pre-history since all the stories were not written down.   History has not generally treated the natives that well, and many of the current issues are probably rooted in the total destruction of the society as a whole.  i.e. first by plague level proportions of diseases they were not immune to between the original landings and the first real settlement eras (estimates are greater death percentage wise than the worst of the plagues in Europe).  Then by waves of settlers who had vested interests in the land, and well... did not see natives as anything other than savages... to be quite honest I don't think there is much of a solution to many of the issues right now since the reserve system of segregation has become a noose around the natives still living on reserves (i.e. vested interests making sure their own people do not excel).  My sister's husband would not even take advantage of many of the programs that are available to those that are native because as far as he was concerned the reserves were so messed up and he was much too proud to be treated any different than any other Canadian.  

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Practically every major country in the world was fighting wars on at least two fronts.  Back in the Empire days of 'democracy' the United Kingdom (who was regularly at war with other major powers) would not have been in such a weakened state that they would have to basically send their King begging to drum up alliances etc.  The world has of course changed, and most countries are better served by strong alliances of countries that have common vested interests rather than trying to go it alone (unless of course, you are a ruthless and strategic ruler of a bygone era).

But there were no other countries with a comparably vast empire to hold together through these wars. And there were no other countries under pressure from the US to disband the empire after these wars were won, with the US assistance that Churchill knew that we needed. Was this due to democratic reform? I don't think so. 

[sandyf]

On 8/7/2018 at 6:38 PM, nauseus said:

Well if you have really been that privy 20 years, I'm surprised that you don't remember the Santer Commission scandal.  

Your politicians are more corrupt than my politicians.

Bit childish, unless you actually believe there has never been any corruption among UK politicians.

[nauseus]

30 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Your politicians are more corrupt than my politicians.

Bit childish, unless you actually believe there has never been any corruption among UK politicians.

The discussion was about EU Commission corruption, not a comparison of that versus British Government corruption.  

[Nigel Garvie]

16 hours ago, Grouse said:

Ha! Edinburgh driek (?) weather is back. Going to the fringe? Bannermans whiskey and rock bar on Cowgate is recommended. Duchers is good but try Holyrood at Deacon Brodie's.

 

To answer your points

 

1) I think the EU is absolutely flexible with time. Ask for 5 years

 

2) Free movement of labour is a key issue. Much more control is already available, we just don't apply what's available. On top, I think EU wide limitations could be negotiated. 10k per country per annum?

 

3) The EU does want us to remain because of economic might, reputation, international clout, respectability, history and a host of other reasons but NOT cash. We can negotiate keeping our rebates and opt outs

 

4) I think that trade that protects our own population is better achieved through the EU

 

5) EU immigration is already falling rapidly 

 

Rational solutions ARE available 

Whilst practicing "Sabai sabai" in CM I am taken back to Bannermans where I played music 2 nights a week for 4/5 years in the 1980s - thanks for that memory. I still play in Sandy Bells where my first Edinburgh pub gig was in 1979!  (It's dreich BTW) Enough of this idle banter though.......

I think that this " trade that protects our own population is better achieved through the EU" is an absolutely key issue, Britain standing together with/in the EU is a powerful force, and hopefully will force the twisted bully in the white house (DDD Draft dodger Donald) to think again over issues like trade with Iran.

 

Meanwhile I still want to believe in Santa and get the presents!  - see below

[Grouse]

12 hours ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

But then they let the general irresponsible masses vote and worse women over 30 (and eventually all women) and the Empire that was the UK ... was no more...  

Great idea!?

[aright]

Exporters to the EU under WTO rules often outperform those exporting to the EU with FTAs – and they even outperform EU members trading with each other

–         Report supports earlier studies that have found “no evidence” EU membership has boosted UK economic growth

 

Despite the Treasury and government economists claiming that trading under WTO rules is the “worst possible option”, Burrage says that UK goods exports to 111 countries under WTO rules with the EU over 23 years 1993-2015 grew at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 2.9 per cent, three times faster than UK exports to the EU14 (0.9 per cent). They also grew much faster than those exporting to the 62 countries that had some kind of trade agreement with the EU (1.8 per cent).

Burrage slams the Treasury analysis of the economic consequences of a WTO rules exit for making predictions on “what might perhaps happen” to the UK, instead of analysing “what has in fact happened” to countries that trade on WTO terms over the past 15 years and more.

 

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/News/civil-servants-are-wrong-only-wto-rules-will-ensure-a-successful-brexit-top-economist-warns-pm/

[candide]

47 minutes ago, aright said:

Exporters to the EU under WTO rules often outperform those exporting to the EU with FTAs – and they even outperform EU members trading with each other

–         Report supports earlier studies that have found “no evidence” EU membership has boosted UK economic growth

 

Despite the Treasury and government economists claiming that trading under WTO rules is the “worst possible option”, Burrage says that UK goods exports to 111 countries under WTO rules with the EU over 23 years 1993-2015 grew at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 2.9 per cent, three times faster than UK exports to the EU14 (0.9 per cent). They also grew much faster than those exporting to the 62 countries that had some kind of trade agreement with the EU (1.8 per cent).

Burrage slams the Treasury analysis of the economic consequences of a WTO rules exit for making predictions on “what might perhaps happen” to the UK, instead of analysing “what has in fact happened” to countries that trade on WTO terms over the past 15 years and more.

 

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/News/civil-servants-are-wrong-only-wto-rules-will-ensure-a-successful-brexit-top-economist-warns-pm/

Quite interesting report which deserves to be fully read.

My comment:

- There is a causal ambiguity: do the differences in trade reflect the rules governing trade (I.e. TWO rules or special agreement) or simply the growth rate of the countries concerned? Obviously a large share of the WTO countries are developping countries (it includes China and India, for example). A proper article would have to provide the detailed tables by country

- Developping trade outside EU is not in contradiction with the European economic integration. Actually, one main objective of the European economic integration was to allow European firms to reach a sufficient level of economies of scale in order to be more competitive against non-EU firms. For this reason, and combined with higher growth rates in developping countries,  t is not surprising that trade grows more extra-EU than intra-EU

[aright]

19 minutes ago, candide said:

Quite interesting report which deserves to be fully read.

My comment:

- There is a causal ambiguity: do the differences in trade reflect the rules governing trade (I.e. TWO rules or special agreement) or simply the growth rate of the countries concerned? Obviously a large share of the WTO countries are developping countries (it includes China and India, for example). A proper article would have to provide the detailed tables by country

- Developping trade outside EU is not in contradiction with the European economic integration. Actually, one main objective of the European economic integration was to allow European firms to reach a sufficient level of economies of scale in order to be more competitive against non-EU firms. For this reason, and combined with higher growth rates in developping countries,  t is not surprising that trade grows more extra-EU than intra-EU

The full report is available here

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Why-the-supposed-worst-possible-option-a-World-Trade-Deal-trading-under-WTO-rules-is-the-UKs-best-next-step-Michael-Burrage.pdf

and your points are noted.

One of the reports conclusions

These two studies suggest that there is no services equivalent to ‘crashing out’, of ‘falling over a cliff’, of ‘chaos’ and Armageddon. There is no ‘worst possible option’ for services.   But then the image that such a thing exists in goods is a figment of  dishonest, incompetent and shamelessly partisan predictions made by the Treasury who have taken advantage of the official status they enjoy  to publicize their views, while remaining anonymous and unaccountable. 

[sandyf]

5 hours ago, nauseus said:

The discussion was about EU Commission corruption, not a comparison of that versus British Government corruption.  

Of course to a brexiteer, corruption in the EU is so much more important than corruption in the UK, and the point must be brought up over and over and over............

[sandyf]

29 minutes ago, aright said:

The full report is available here

https://www.economistsforfreetrade.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Why-the-supposed-worst-possible-option-a-World-Trade-Deal-trading-under-WTO-rules-is-the-UKs-best-next-step-Michael-Burrage.pdf

and your points are noted.

One of the reports conclusions

These two studies suggest that there is no services equivalent to ‘crashing out’, of ‘falling over a cliff’, of ‘chaos’ and Armageddon. There is no ‘worst possible option’ for services.   But then the image that such a thing exists in goods is a figment of  dishonest, incompetent and shamelessly partisan predictions made by the Treasury who have taken advantage of the official status they enjoy  to publicize their views, while remaining anonymous and unaccountable. 

Anyone that uses the term "Project Fear" in the first sentence can hardly be taken seriously.

The conclusion you quote is obviously basing "crashing out" on trade alone, there is no comment whatsover on "crashing out" of the many other legislative agreements. The UK does not function by exports alone. Legislation, or lack of it, can be a severe barrier to trade.

It should also be borne in mind that the hypothesis put forward is based on figures from exports done under an EU WTO schedule and that is not going to continue, so suspect to say the least.

[aright]

30 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Of course to a brexiteer, corruption in the EU is so much more important than corruption in the UK, and the point must be brought up over and over and over............

It certainly is when it costs the EU almost £800 billion a year as reported by your favorite newspaper the Independent.

Corrupt European countries costing EU nearly £800bn a year, says study

Britain is the sixth least corrupt country in Europe, behind Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, it says. Eastern European countries are all above the EU average when it comes to levels of corruption and are ranked in the bottom half of a table of 28 member states.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/corrupt-european-countries-costing-eu-nearly-800bn-a-year-says-study-a6944436.html

 

 

[aright]

11 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Anyone that uses the term "Project Fear" in the first sentence can hardly be taken seriously.

The conclusion you quote is obviously basing "crashing out" on trade alone, there is no comment whatsover on "crashing out" of the many other legislative agreements. The UK does not function by exports alone. Legislation, or lack of it, can be a severe barrier to trade.

It should also be borne in mind that the hypothesis put forward is based on figures from exports done under an EU WTO schedule and that is not going to continue, so suspect to say the least.

It is what it is, researched and written by a former Harvard Research Fellow, but obviously outside your comfort zone.

[aright]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Of course to a brexiteer, corruption in the EU is so much more important than corruption in the UK, and the point must be brought up over and over and over............

The 2014 European Commissions own report on Corruption was criticized for dropping a section of the report that covered corruption in EU institutions and funds following annual criticism by the European Court of Auditors on the spending of the Brussels budget. Paul Nuttall MEP said it's refusal to carry out a study into corruption in its own institutions shows it is very touchy about its public image. He added rather than analyse, face up to and change the culture of corruption within its own walls the Commission would rather cover up and keep quiet about it.

In 2014 corruption in the EU was estimated to cost almost £100billion in 2016 almost £800billion.

Only an EU apologist would not want to make that front page.

.

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, aright said:

In 2014 corruption in the EU was estimated to cost almost £100billion in 2016 almost £800billion.

Is that more or less than £350 Million per week for NHS? Is there a red bus with that number written on it's sides? I mean, that claim is rather hard to believe, unless there is a bus as an proof of fact. 

 

[nauseus]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

Of course to a brexiteer, corruption in the EU is so much more important than corruption in the UK, and the point must be brought up over and over and over............

The only one who mentioned UK corruption in the immediate preceding string was you. Enjoy debating with yourself.

[candide]

2 hours ago, aright said:

It is what it is, researched and written by a former Harvard Research Fellow, but obviously outside your comfort zone.

He may be a former academic but his article is not up to academic standards and would not be accepted in an recognised peer-reviewed academic journal. On top of  ambiguous causality issues,  the detailled data by country are not indicated, there is no formal hypothesis testing using statistical tests, etc... So the internal validity of his study is not demonstrated.

As for external validity, Nobel prize economists don't share his view on Brexit.

[Grouse]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jim-ratcliffe-brexit-uk-richest-man-monaco-move-tax-haven-eu-leave-a8484211.html

 

No comment necessary.

[aright]

23 minutes ago, candide said:

He may be a former academic but his article is not up to academic standards and would not be accepted in an recognised peer-reviewed academic journal. On top of  ambiguous causality issues,  the detailled data by country are not indicated, there is no formal hypothesis testing using statistical tests, etc... So the internal validity of his study is not demonstrated.

As for external validity, Nobel prize economists don't share his view on Brexit.

I must confess to taking the paper at face value with some questions but don't feel I am qualified  to judge the absolute values of the academic standards of a Research fellow at Harvard, Uppsala, University of Berlin, UC Berkley, a lecturer at LSE and a visiting professor at Hokkaido, Kansai and Hosel universities also an entrepreneur......the founder-director of a specialist telecoms company.

What are your qualifications beyond the fact you disagree with him. 

.

 

 

 

[aright]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/jim-ratcliffe-brexit-uk-richest-man-monaco-move-tax-haven-eu-leave-a8484211.html

 

No comment necessary.

Can we assume you left the UK to live in Thailand for the same reason?   

[bristolboy]

5 minutes ago, aright said:

I must confess to taking the paper at face value with some questions but don't feel I am qualified  to judge the absolute values of the academic standards of a Research fellow at Harvard, Uppsala, University of Berlin, UC Berkley, a lecturer at LSE and a visiting professor at Hokkaido, Kansai and Hosel universities also an entrepreneur......the founder-director of a specialist telecoms company.

What are your qualifications beyond the fact you disagree with him. 

.

 

 

 

How about the fact the almost all economists disagree with him? Including those who have done much deeper and much more favorably received research.

[aright]

I and many others disagree with you but that doesn't make you wrong.

 

You might be right though he most probably is a dumb arse.

 

Michael Burrage is a director of Cimigo, which is based in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and conducts market and corporate strategy research in China, India and 12 countries in the Asia Pacific region. He is also a founder director of a start-up specialist telecom company which provides the free telephone interpreter service for aid workers and others where interpreters are scarce. He is a sociologist by training, was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has been a lecturer at the London School of Economics and at the Institute of United States Studies, specialising in the comparative analysis of industrial enterprise and professional institutions. He has been a research fellow at Harvard, at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study, Uppsala, at the Free University of Berlin, and at the Center for Higher Education Studies and the Institute of Government of the University of California, Berkeley. He has also been British Council lecturer at the University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and on several occasions a visiting professor in Japan, at the universities of Kyoto, Hokkaido and Kansai and at Hosei University in Tokyo. He has written articles in American, European and Japanese sociological journals, conducted a comparative study of telephone usage in Tokyo, Manhattan, Paris and London for NTT, and a study of British entrepreneurs for Ernst & Young. His publications include Revolution and the Making of the Contemporary Legal Profession: England, France and the United States (OUP, 2006) and Class Formation, Civil Society and the State: A comparative analysis of Russia, France, the United States and England (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). He edited Martin Trow: Twentieth-century higher education: from elite to mass to universal (Johns Hopkins, 2010). His previous Civitas publications include Where’s the Insider Advantage? A review of the evidence that withdrawal from the EU would not harm the UK’s exports or foreign investment in the UK (July 2014); ‘A club of high and severe unemployment: the Single Market over the 21 years 1993-2013’ (July 2015) in the Europe Debate series; Myth and Parodox of the Single Market: How the trade benefits of EU membership have been mis-sold (January 2016); and The Eurosceptic’s Handbook: 50 live issues in the Brexit debate (May 2016).

 

[candide]

5 minutes ago, aright said:

I must confess to taking the paper at face value with some questions but don't feel I am qualified  to judge the absolute values of the academic standards of a Research fellow at Harvard, Uppsala, University of Berlin, UC Berkley, a lecturer at LSE and a visiting professor at Hokkaido, Kansai and Hosel universities also an entrepreneur......the founder-director of a specialist telecoms company.

What are your qualifications beyond the fact you disagree with him. 

.

 

 

 

It's not that I don't agree or not with him. The problem is that the way he deals with the data does not allow to draw any conclusion from it (his conclusion or another one). He may be right or not, and his article does not demonstrate any of these two options.

 

The data are quite challenging and deserve a full investigation. However, he merely observes a concomitance between trade data and types of trade rules, and then directly draws conclusions from it. As I said there is not formal hypothesis testing, and no alternative hypothesis has been considered (for example that the GDP growth rate of trading countries).

 

Why didn't he use a more scientific approach which would have possibly allowed him to support his hypothesis? 

 

As for my qualifications, I don't like to expose them openly in a forum.

 

PS plenty of information on the web on hypothesis testing in case you would find it difficult to fall asleep ?

[Grouse]

41 minutes ago, aright said:

Can we assume you left the UK to live in Thailand for the same reason?   

No. I married a woman 24 years younger than me. Vanity I guess. At least I'm not a hypocritical  bastard. Just the usual type of bastard.

[aright]

11 minutes ago, candide said:

It's not that I don't agree or not with him. The problem is that the way he deals with the data does not allow to draw any conclusion from it (his conclusion or another one). He may be right or not, and his article does not demonstrate any of these two options.

 

The data are quite challenging and deserve a full investigation. However, he merely observes a concomitance between trade data and types of trade rules, and then directly draws conclusions from it. As I said there is not formal hypothesis testing, and no alternative hypothesis has been considered (for example that the GDP growth rate of trading countries).

 

Why didn't he use a more scientific approach which would have possibly allowed him to support his hypothesis? 

 

As for my qualifications, I don't like to expose them openly in a forum.

 

PS plenty of information on the web on hypothesis testing in case you would find it difficult to fall asleep ?

I suspect and I felt it at the time that the report was a precis of something more comprehensive but have not been able to unearth it, as for the rest of your post...….respect!

[kwilco]

Brexiteers have  you worked out yet why the Murdoch and other Brexit papers are suddenly pumping out no deal Brexit warning, think about it.......

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, aright said:

I and many others disagree with you but that doesn't make you wrong.

 

You might be right though he most probably is a dumb arse.

 

Michael Burrage is a director of Cimigo, which is based in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, and conducts market and corporate strategy research in China, India and 12 countries in the Asia Pacific region. He is also a founder director of a start-up specialist telecom company which provides the free telephone interpreter service for aid workers and others where interpreters are scarce. He is a sociologist by training, was a Fulbright scholar at the University of Pennsylvania, has been a lecturer at the London School of Economics and at the Institute of United States Studies, specialising in the comparative analysis of industrial enterprise and professional institutions. He has been a research fellow at Harvard, at the Swedish Collegium of Advanced Study, Uppsala, at the Free University of Berlin, and at the Center for Higher Education Studies and the Institute of Government of the University of California, Berkeley. He has also been British Council lecturer at the University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil, and on several occasions a visiting professor in Japan, at the universities of Kyoto, Hokkaido and Kansai and at Hosei University in Tokyo. He has written articles in American, European and Japanese sociological journals, conducted a comparative study of telephone usage in Tokyo, Manhattan, Paris and London for NTT, and a study of British entrepreneurs for Ernst & Young. His publications include Revolution and the Making of the Contemporary Legal Profession: England, France and the United States (OUP, 2006) and Class Formation, Civil Society and the State: A comparative analysis of Russia, France, the United States and England (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008). He edited Martin Trow: Twentieth-century higher education: from elite to mass to universal (Johns Hopkins, 2010). His previous Civitas publications include Where’s the Insider Advantage? A review of the evidence that withdrawal from the EU would not harm the UK’s exports or foreign investment in the UK (July 2014); ‘A club of high and severe unemployment: the Single Market over the 21 years 1993-2013’ (July 2015) in the Europe Debate series; Myth and Parodox of the Single Market: How the trade benefits of EU membership have been mis-sold (January 2016); and The Eurosceptic’s Handbook: 50 live issues in the Brexit debate (May 2016).

 

So you've plagiarized something to establish that Burage has credentials. Here's one link to a source:

http://www.politics.ie/forum/brexit/258313-economics-brexit.html

 

As for his credentials, so what? There are people with a lot more impressive credentials and they overwhelmingly oppose Burage. 

[Grouse]

44 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Brexiteers have  you worked out yet why the Murdoch and other Brexit papers are suddenly pumping out no deal Brexit warning, think about it.......

Go on, enlighten me!

 

1 hour ago, candide said:

It's not that I don't agree or not with him. The problem is that the way he deals with the data does not allow to draw any conclusion from it (his conclusion or another one). He may be right or not, and his article does not demonstrate any of these two options.

 

The data are quite challenging and deserve a full investigation. However, he merely observes a concomitance between trade data and types of trade rules, and then directly draws conclusions from it. As I said there is not formal hypothesis testing, and no alternative hypothesis has been considered (for example that the GDP growth rate of trading countries).

 

Why didn't he use a more scientific approach which would have possibly allowed him to support his hypothesis? 

 

As for my qualifications, I don't like to expose them openly in a forum.

 

PS plenty of information on the web on hypothesis testing in case you would find it difficult to fall asleep ?

Such erudition on TV! I'll have to have a lie down!