Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Brexit

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    In David Frost's opinion

    Look it is the duty of a diplomat to come up with rationalizations for his governments chosen political policies.
    He supported the EU when it was his job, he supprts Leaving out of conviction.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    What are you blathering about.
    Only that Frost is not providing anything apart from his opinions or beliefs and even openly flaunts at studies he actually have which contradict his opinions choosing rather to reject the studies than to reconsider his position. Which for more scientifically minded is rather strange.
    What is a 'true believer'? If its someone who thinks leaving the EU is better than remaining than he is merely one in seventeen and a half million.
    With true believer i only referred to people who buy that stuff he was speaking. He is only selling his opinions and views. Not anything factual or concrete. Which means that following his and his opinions requires belief in him or his cause despite of the lack of factual evidence supporting it.
    Rather than being objective you are merely typical of those who thinking that those wanting to leave the EU are displaying "irrational false consciousness and fundamentally wrong way of looking at the world."
    No. Not anywhere close. I personally don't really care. The UK had the right to leave - and they exercised it. Nothing wrong in that. In fact had the EU tried to prevent that then i would have been furious at the EU. It has not tried to do so. I do however believe that people were misled. The simply truth is that the Brexit will not fix the things some of the demagogues promised it would. Not for the least because several of the issues were not even related to the EU but on the UK's own government.

    Wanting to leave is fine and you had your legal right to express your opinion on it, and that i do fully respect. I however would prefer to see some actual concrete reasons for that choice, especially such which can be traced solely on the EU and which actually do survive scrutiny. I for one can not imagine ever voting with as flimsy reasons as which have been offered even here. Maybe I'm more media literate than some, but i do understand what the information bubbles are and how they work and affect us - and i deliberately exert quite a of bit of effort just to avoid them. Which is harder and harder these days.
    The EU negotiators merely have to worry about the legacy they leave behind, of a damaged and decreasingly popular institution when/if they make a muck-up of the negotiations.
    The Brexit has increased the EU popularity and people's knowledge of its benefits as well as of its functions quite a bit. I doubt the EU has had more support at any time than after the Brexit.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    That is what he says. But not because of the evidence he has. Only because he BELIEVES.
    You believe that people can predict the future?

    Of course the UK can prosper better without a trade deal. We have a £90 billion quid trade deficit with the EU, for a start.

    A lot/most depends on the decision taken by the UK government, but

    "I think looking forward, we are going to have a huge advantage over the EU – the ability to set regulations for new sectors, the new ideas, and new conditions – quicker than the EU can, and based on sound science not fear of the future. I have no doubt that we will be able to encourage new investment and new ideas in this way <>
    "There are other broader advantages to running your own affairs. One obvious one is that it is much easier to get people involved in making decisions. Another, less obvious advantage, is the ability to change those decisions. My experience of the EU is that it has extreme difficulty in reversing the bad decisions it takes. Yet every state gets things wrong. That’s clear. Course correction is, therefore, an important part of good government. Britain will be able to experiment, correct mistakes and improve. The EU is going to find this much, much more difficult."

    The EU negotiators know this and they are evidently so scared about it, they are pushing their agenda of 'regulatory alignment' They will lose.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Well you're showing a tad more perspicacity than your Nordic chum, but you clearly haven't read the speech.

    "But, in brief, all these studies exaggerate – in my view – the impact of non-tariff barriers, they exaggerate customs costs, in some cases by orders of magnitude. Even more importantly, they also assume that this unproven decline in trade will have implausibly large effects on Britain’s productivity. Yet there is at least as much evidence that the relationship is the other way around – that it is actually productivity which drives trade."

    Boom! No deal - no fear!
    That is what he says. But not because of the evidence he has. Only because he BELIEVES. He has deep faith in that. Not any facts or such. Which is exactly what i meant. He doesn't have evidence that those would exaggerate anything - he just believes that they are. He is also in denial with regards what the reports are stating for the effect - he simply rejects it. He say that there 'is as much evidence' but he can not provide any, not even refer to any apart from what would be at best described as 'hearsay'.

    And for a true believer that is probably enough. I however do not trust beliefs or opinions. I want facts. And his speech is completely devoid of any. He is not providing anything apart from his own deep beliefs. Which he is fully entitled to have them of course but he should not expect his own opinions, beliefs or thought patterns (which is all he provided) to matter to any one else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    In David Frost's opinion

    Look it is the duty of a diplomat to come up with rationalizations for his governments chosen political policies.

    So when your government was Pro-EU he was spouting pro-EU babble, now your chosen government policy is Brexit he raises arguments for that...

    It is his job, he does it well, but it doesn't mean much of anything, imho.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Johan Banér View Post
    I suspect a UK forlorn hope that the Commonwealth will save, it underpins the references to Canada-style deals and – in particular – the phantasm of the non-existant "Australia" one.

    Or it might as well be a "Philippines-style" deal or something.

    Well you're showing a tad more perspicacity than your Nordic chum, but you clearly haven't read the speech.

    "But, in brief, all these studies exaggerate – in my view – the impact of non-tariff barriers, they exaggerate customs costs, in some cases by orders of magnitude. Even more importantly, they also assume that this unproven decline in trade will have implausibly large effects on Britain’s productivity. Yet there is at least as much evidence that the relationship is the other way around – that it is actually productivity which drives trade."

    Boom! No deal - no fear!

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Vaeltaja View Post
    You are saying that despite of Frost explicitly stating that he chooses to ignore facts that do not agree with his preconceptions instead relying on his views and opinions (i.e. feelings)?
    What are you blathering about. I can understand why the reference to Edmund Burke would fly over your head.


    I comprehended him just fine. I'm just objective about it, not a true believer like some seem to be.
    What is a 'true believer'? If its someone who thinks leaving the EU is better than remaining than he is merely one in seventeen and a half million.
    Rather than being objective you are merely typical of those who thinking that those wanting to leave the EU are displaying "irrational false consciousness and fundamentally wrong way of looking at the world."


    No is saying that they would need to. But then the UK has to be realistic about what it is aiming towards. The EU officials are not worried about being re-elected. They are not interested in political horse trading. So the methods used by the UK domestically do not work.
    The EU negotiators merely have to worry about the legacy they leave behind, of a damaged and decreasingly popular institution when/if they make a muck-up of the negotiations.
    Last edited by Gooner; 19 Feb 20, 04:31.

    Leave a comment:


  • Johan Banér
    replied
    I suspect a UK forlorn hope that the Commonwealth will save, it underpins the references to Canada-style deals and – in particular – the phantasm of the non-existant "Australia" one.

    Or it might as well be a "Philippines-style" deal or something.

    Leave a comment:


  • Vaeltaja
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Which merely, though unsurprising, just reflects badly on your own level of intelligence.
    You are saying that despite of Frost explicitly stating that he chooses to ignore facts that do not agree with his preconceptions instead relying on his views and opinions (i.e. feelings)?
    Very poor comprehension of what David Frost actually said.
    I comprehended him just fine. I'm just objective about it, not a true believer like some seem to be.
    If those doubts persist, we are ready to trade on Australia-style terms if we can’t agree a Canada type FTA. We understand the trade-offs involved – people sometimes say we don’t but we do"
    There is no Australia-style terms. You might even say that stating so is yet again just using a more benign sounding goodfact to replace the 'no-deal' realfact.
    Finally, that is also why we are not prepared to compromise on some fundamentals of our negotiating position."
    No is saying that they would need to. But then the UK has to be realistic about what it is aiming towards. The EU officials are not worried about being re-elected. They are not interested in political horse trading. So the methods used by the UK domestically do not work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Karri
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post

    No it would be like you giving your money away to someone else to invest on the stock market being better than you spending it on coke and hookers.
    Yeah.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Karri View Post

    Yeah, just my personal view. Like saying that investing money on stocks is a better idea than spending it on coke and hookers, but hey, since it's my money...
    No it would be like you giving your money away to someone else to invest on the stock market being better than you spending it on coke and hookers.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Well the personal character development of these people is neither my concern nor my business, but it should suffice to point out that it is not uncommon for the UK government to "advocate" one thing now and something entirely different 10 years later.

    So we account for that in our dealings with them, and so should you imho

    Proving Mr Frosts point again.

    (I really doubt the UK governments intent for a swathe of Europe liberated from Communism would be much different today)

    Leave a comment:


  • Karri
    replied
    Originally posted by Gooner View Post

    Oh, just your personal view that "Even investing that money on Poland getting a new high speed railway or Romania getting some fancy new bridges is money better spent" than the UK spending its own money on a bridge between two of its nations that would prove a modern engineering wonder of the world.

    The way you and the other Nordics seem to take a prurient interest in what the UK does made me think it was a Euro thing …
    Yeah, just my personal view. Like saying that investing money on stocks is a better idea than spending it on coke and hookers, but hey, since it's my money...

    Leave a comment:


  • Snowygerry
    replied
    Well the personal character development of these people is neither my concern nor my business, but it should suffice to point out that it is not uncommon for the UK government to "advocate" one thing now and something entirely different 10 years later.

    So we account for that in our dealings with them, and so should you imho

    Originally posted by Gooner View Post
    Surely some mistake.
    It is this David Frost is it ??

    Frost returned to London to be successively the Private Secretary to the Head of the Diplomatic Service, Sir John (now Lord) Kerr, and Deputy Head of the European Union External Department, covering international trade policy issues and relations with the Balkans and Eastern Europe.[6]
    Frost was promoted Economic Counsellor to the British Embassy, Paris in 2001, where he was responsible for reporting and lobbying on all aspects of French economic and commercial life, together with its EU policy. He returned to London to be Head of the EU (Internal) Department and then Director for the European Union in the Foreign Office. In this period he led work on a range of economic and social issues, notably the resistance to the initial Working Time Directive, and the negotiation on the EU's multi-annual Budget framework. He was part of the UK's leadership team during its EU Presidency in 2005.[6]
    Last edited by Snowygerry; 18 Feb 20, 08:27.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gooner
    replied
    Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    Time will tell, don't forget David Frost has been here for a long time, he was one of the architects of the EU "enlargement" into Eastern Europe, one of the root causes of (British) public dissatisfaction with the EU imho.

    You'll understand his arguments are taken with a large dose of salt.
    Surely some mistake.

    "I began my time in Brussels in 1993, as, I guess, a typical pro-European. That view did not long survive my exposure to the institutions here in Brussels and I rapidly became a persistent private critic of them. Yet in public I had to spend most of my life in the Justus Lipsius building, or if not there in the FCO’s Europe Directorate. I spent a number of years in both. I wasn’t the only critic of the union ..."

    A Eurosceptic a long time sure ..

    Again, a shame there was no real alternative to the EU for Eastern bloc to join.

    One of the nasty side-effects of Britain joing the EEC in 1973


    Thatcher :
    Became a big Eurosceptic. Talking before the fall of Communism

    Major :
    Massive Europhile Tw*t.

    Little chance of someone like him becoming a Tory leader again I would have thought.

    Please, forgive us our scepticism
    Well you haven't quite absorbed the fact of Bojo's massive Commons majority with a Remainer purged Tory party.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X