The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
jjlynn27 said:
turbobloke said:
An oft-outvoted 1/28 muted voice doesn't offer much presence, ....
fact find said:
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
I know that it's you and that you probably just can't help yourself, but why lie about something as easy to disprove?In recent times -
fullfact said:
The UK has been in a losing minority more often over the past few years
In recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.
Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.
That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/In recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.
Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.
That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.
Tip of the iceberg stuff, given the way law is formulated & the full fact site says so. Oddly you chose to highlight the losing number in isolation. I wonder why that would be?
And was that on the losing side of votes about sacrificing your first born to Juncker's EU army or on how bendy bananas should be? As ever, selective posting to shore up this or that side of the argument.
And was that on the losing side of votes about sacrificing your first born to Juncker's EU army or on how bendy bananas should be? As ever, selective posting to shore up this or that side of the argument.
Garvin said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
As mentioned several times before, these forums, particularly those on the subject of Brexit represent little more than some amusing light entertainment, with some electronic willy waving thrown in to spice the topics up. If anyone on either side of the remain-leave argument seriously believe that they are going to turn a leaver into a remainer or vice versa, they need only consider whether or not they themselves are going to change their position on the strength of what someone from the `other' side says.
This is not to say people shouldn't indulge themselves in some willy waving, it can be quite a lot of fun after all, but if they think it represents any more than a bit of amusement for them, when things are quiet, they perhaps need to go and seek psychiatric help.
Hours, days, months and possibly over a year of postings, on Brexit and I doubt that more than a handful of people, if that, have changed the view they started off with from either side of the leave-remain question.
Almost certainly the people actually dealing with Brexit have never used the Brexit topics on NP&E to determine how they will carry out the Brexit process, so really it is just a lot of hot air, or should that be hot keyboards
I think you are probably correct. However I have found some of the 'discussions' educational even if the misleading and erroneous crap has to be stripped out first.This is not to say people shouldn't indulge themselves in some willy waving, it can be quite a lot of fun after all, but if they think it represents any more than a bit of amusement for them, when things are quiet, they perhaps need to go and seek psychiatric help.
Hours, days, months and possibly over a year of postings, on Brexit and I doubt that more than a handful of people, if that, have changed the view they started off with from either side of the leave-remain question.
Almost certainly the people actually dealing with Brexit have never used the Brexit topics on NP&E to determine how they will carry out the Brexit process, so really it is just a lot of hot air, or should that be hot keyboards
Of late, however, the thread has moved away from economic consequences to more esoteric consequences which have less evidence to justify with posts containing claims that UK might lose something that is impossible to quantify or similar - feelings just based in nostalgia and fear maybe. This might be true, only time will tell but these claims have bugger all to do with economic consequences!
amusingduck said:
jjlynn27 said:
turbobloke said:
An oft-outvoted 1/28 muted voice doesn't offer much presence, ....
fact find said:
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
I know that it's you and that you probably just can't help yourself, but why lie about something as easy to disprove?In recent times -
fullfact said:
The UK has been in a losing minority more often over the past few years
In recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.
Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.
That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/In recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.
Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.
That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.
Also as you indicate, there was no appreciation of the trend over time - a study of voting records in the EU Council since 2004 shows that Britain has been increasingly on the losing side when it comes to decision-making on EU legislation.
The research was by VoteWatch Europe which is an independent Brussels-based thinktank. They found Britain has seen its influence in the European Parliament diminished in recent years, with the UK’s MEPs less likely to be on the winning side than any other member state.
This VoteWatch Europe study found that during EU Council votes between 2009-15 “the UK government was on the losing side a far higher proportion of times than any other EU government”.
Another fail from jjlynn27 to add to the list.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Tip of the iceberg stuff, given the way law is formulated & the full fact site says so. Oddly you chose to highlight the losing number in isolation. I wonder why that would be?
And was that on the losing side of votes about sacrificing your first born to Juncker's EU army or on how bendy bananas should be? As ever, selective posting to shore up this or that side of the argument.
I'm assuming you're noting that to both jj and duckie, Eddie...And was that on the losing side of votes about sacrificing your first born to Juncker's EU army or on how bendy bananas should be? As ever, selective posting to shore up this or that side of the argument.
This is the problem with "facts". We all see what we want to see and ignore the rest.
Your last paragraph is the really key thing, and I'm not sure data exists to answer it. Safer just not to be on the losing side at all.
amusingduck said:
jjlynn27 said:
turbobloke said:
An oft-outvoted 1/28 muted voice doesn't offer much presence, ....
fact find said:
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
I know that it's you and that you probably just can't help yourself, but why lie about something as easy to disprove?In recent times -
fullfact said:
The UK has been in a losing minority more often over the past few years
In recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.
Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.
That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/In recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.
Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.
That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.
I'd call that a lie.
turbobloke said:
Our resident demitroll with a ready recourse to baseless accusations of lying also thinks we won't spot that citing numbers for one nation in isolation tells us little about how often we 'win' or 'lose' compared to other member states.
Also as you indicate, there was no appreciation of the trend over time - a study of voting records in the EU Council since 2004 shows that Britain has been increasingly on the losing side when it comes to decision-making on EU legislation.
The research was by VoteWatch Europe which is an independent Brussels-based thinktank. They found Britain has seen its influence in the European Parliament diminished in recent years, with the UK’s MEPs less likely to be on the winning side than any other member state.
This VoteWatch Europe study found that during EU Council votes between 2009-15 “the UK government was on the losing side a far higher proportion of times than any other EU government”.
Another fail from jjlynn27 to add to the list.
Also as you indicate, there was no appreciation of the trend over time - a study of voting records in the EU Council since 2004 shows that Britain has been increasingly on the losing side when it comes to decision-making on EU legislation.
The research was by VoteWatch Europe which is an independent Brussels-based thinktank. They found Britain has seen its influence in the European Parliament diminished in recent years, with the UK’s MEPs less likely to be on the winning side than any other member state.
This VoteWatch Europe study found that during EU Council votes between 2009-15 “the UK government was on the losing side a far higher proportion of times than any other EU government”.
Another fail from jjlynn27 to add to the list.
- UKIP MEPs less likely to be on the winning side? Shocking that, given that they cant be bothered to turn up.
- 12.3% is not 'oft-outvoted muted voice'.
Stop lying.
B210bandit said:
Roboraver said:
How is may gonna deal with bombardier she can't upset dup or Trump ? is this the "good" type of trade deals that we will get in the future with the USA and others ?
It is a salutary warning that aviation is unlikely to form part of any free trade deal with the US; there was strong lobbying from the US aviation industry to keep it out of the TTIP, so there is no reason to think that viewpoint would change with a UK-US free trade agreement.This will all end up in the courts at the WTO I would expect.
Murph7355 said:
Safer just not to be on the losing side at all.
Indeed, a good example of which is placing yourself in a position of being a supplicant to a predictably protectionist USA who even with a bit of kind hand holding still show you who's the boss when it comes down to it on trade & on the other side, being beholden to a bunch of religious fundamentalists who are about to experience up to 4000 job losses.If you're a leaver, best get used to the phrase 'Bitterly disappointed' as it's coming your way, fast.
jjlynn27 said:
Even if you cherry pick the dates you'd call 12.3% "An oft-outvoted 1/28 muted voice"?
I'd call that a lie.
Depends where the disagreements lie, doesn't it? I'm sure there are many things that just get voted through as uncontroversial, and some that are fundamental changes in EU legislation. If we're disagreeing on the bendiness of bananas, then I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. If it's on matters such as trans-national taxation or allocation and control of military forces, perhaps it matters.I'd call that a lie.
jsf said:
The Bombardier issue, as I understand it, is a USA-Canada issue. The Irish wing division isn't tied up in this directly in respect of any trade agreement issue, its the impact on the Irish supply chain to Canada that a loss of orders from the Canadian company unable to sell into the USA market on the current terms. This is all tied up in the NAFTA deal Trump wants to renegotiate.
This will all end up in the courts at the WTO I would expect.
Thank you for the clarification.This will all end up in the courts at the WTO I would expect.
Tuna said:
Depends where the disagreements lie, doesn't it? I'm sure there are many things that just get voted through as uncontroversial, and some that are fundamental changes in EU legislation. If we're disagreeing on the bendiness of bananas, then I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. If it's on matters such as trans-national taxation or allocation and control of military forces, perhaps it matters.
Both of which are not covered by current treaties so would require a new treaty which would require a unanimous vote of all members and referendums in a number of EU countries including under current legislation the UK.Tuna said:
jjlynn27 said:
Even if you cherry pick the dates you'd call 12.3% "An oft-outvoted 1/28 muted voice"?
I'd call that a lie.
Depends where the disagreements lie, doesn't it? I'm sure there are many things that just get voted through as uncontroversial, and some that are fundamental changes in EU legislation. If we're disagreeing on the bendiness of bananas, then I'm sure it's nothing to worry about. If it's on matters such as trans-national taxation or allocation and control of military forces, perhaps it matters.I'd call that a lie.
Saying that '12.3%', even ignoring a cherry-picked period not mentioned in an original lie, 'an oft-outvoted 1/28 muted voice' is a lie.
Given the source, rather unsurprising.
B210bandit said:
jsf said:
The Bombardier issue, as I understand it, is a USA-Canada issue. The Irish wing division isn't tied up in this directly in respect of any trade agreement issue, its the impact on the Irish supply chain to Canada that a loss of orders from the Canadian company unable to sell into the USA market on the current terms. This is all tied up in the NAFTA deal Trump wants to renegotiate.
This will all end up in the courts at the WTO I would expect.
Thank you for the clarification.This will all end up in the courts at the WTO I would expect.
jjlynn27 said:
amusingduck said:
jjlynn27 said:
turbobloke said:
An oft-outvoted 1/28 muted voice doesn't offer much presence, ....
fact find said:
In other words, UK ministers were on the “winning side” 95% of the time, abstained 3% of the time, and were on the losing side 2%.
I know that it's you and that you probably just can't help yourself, but why lie about something as easy to disprove?In recent times -
fullfact said:
The UK has been in a losing minority more often over the past few years
In recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.
Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.
That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/In recent years the UK has been more often on the losing side of these votes.
Research by Dr Hagemann and Professor Hix shows that between 2009 and 2015 the UK voted against the majority 12.3% of the time, compared to 2.6% of the time between 2004 and 2009.
That made it the country most likely to be on the losing side during the later period—the closest competitors were Germany and Austria, which were on the losing side 5.4% of the time.
I'd call that a lie.
. It's the way you tell them. You painted half of the picture, I added the other half. Apparently I'm the one cherry picking 
.No doubt that if the 1999-2015 figure was 12%, and the 2009-2015 figure was 2%, you'd have listed the recent figures and defended them as more relevant
FWIW, I would not describe 12% as 'oft-outvoted" or "muted".
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff