Honey Honey

In regards to the threats impact on negotiations it depends on your own guess and assumptions of outcome. Reality is there is no evidence to support our judgments and intuitions on this. Maybe Varoufakis is the closest we have but then he is Varoufakis haha. The only outcome we can be certain of is the one which actually occured and the enviornment it actually occured in, such as one where no deal is not credible on the UK side and a minority government in power. In regards to spineless politicians. Vast numbers voted remain then said ok we'll Brexit at the election. They'll do what they think they have to in order to maintain their power. For them to back no deal as you say would require a public shift to no deal which doesn't have the polling numbers yet. This is also why I said for no deal to come about the EU has to do something clumsy. Perhaps Macron is the clumsy type. I also mentioned Mandelson types encouraging and advising the EU to make a move that ultimately is clumsy. That's because we know the hierarchy tacticians of the people's vote don't want one right now. I believe some publicly supporting people's vote MPs voted against a 2nd referendum the other day in the commons. They seem to be trying to create the enviornment and timing that they can get the vote and win it. Polling remains within the margin of error at the moment. The EU are made up of politicians, they play the same games and are the same shysters as anywhere else. May's deal. Corbyn's deal. No deal. EEA. FTA. Remain. It doesn't matter which one of these it is none of them have sufficient support. What must happen is circumstances shift and rhetoric primes in a certain direction until an outcome is reached. The ticking clock simply allowes politicians to not align. Of that Theresa May is right in her critique of her colleagues behaviour. They've had nothing to lose by being divided. The EU must try and force the issue without being cack handed. However the WA itself looks likely to create the same environment and division that prevents a deal ever getting ratified until such day comes that the UK has a sizeable government and not a minority one or one with a Cameron type tiny majority. I don't agree with the confidence with which some claims of what is most likely are made. When pressed as I have sought to do certain key considerations of what is required seem absent. You address a problem, you debunk a falsehood. The notion you put forward was false in terms of the evidence in question. Had it been made prior to the existence of the counter evidence the counter evidence could be considered as addressing the problem that the evidence implies. As the notion came after the evidence existed the notion is a falsehood whether you are aware it was false or not.

I'm pretty sure I have already debunked the credibility of that. With the right spread of news sources you'd have seen the debunking at the time as well. But for clarification that MP is campaigning to get Norway into the EU. Here is the actual Norweigan Prime Minister saying they would welcome the UK in EEA - https://euobserver.com/tickers/141798

As early as the first months post Brexit the political debate was whether to have a credible no deal threat in negotiations as leverage. It was decided not and is one of the driving forces behind ERG interpretations of how the negotiations have gone. Do you have any credible evidence for that claim?

I never said they would sit down and give a better deal. I said no deal is a political choice. The commons and government would have to shift to wanting no deal for it to actually happen. What is your evidence for that happening? What is your case that an immovable EU makes no deal more likely than say for example cancelling Brexit? A general election or a 2nd referendum? Do you have the estimates of swayable MPs for how this arithmetic would come about? Default implies it just happens without choice, yet no deal is a political choice that has to be made. To come about in the current enviornment it requires a significant shift in UK parliamentary arithmetic. Out of interest, do you have the estimates of swayable MPs for how this arithmetic would come about?

Maybe the deceptive liars saying they'll leave in public and hoping to stay in private. The one's outright after reversal are so small in number it's hard to see much blame or risk. No deal can only occur by choice and parliament is overwhelmingly against it. Only probably the actions of the EU could perhaps tip enough of the house toward the ERG mindset and cause no deal, though it would still be difficult.

No. Incorrect interpretation of the point.

Theresa May has asked for an extension, proving that in fact no deal can only happen by political choice and not by default. There is no ticking time bomb that they have to sort everything out by. It's not an episode of 24. This begs the question how does such a choice come about, whom by is it chosen. What's the answer to that which brings about no deal? Then we can assess the actual likelihood of the assertion that it is looking like happening.

I find those takes surprising. No deal can currently only happen by a clumsy move from EU leaders under the advice of Peter Mandelson types whereby they try to collapse the government to reverse the result and it goes to pot.

EAT. SLEEP. STAY UP. REPEAT.

Liverpool will offer Netherlands centre-back Virgil van Dijk, 27, a new contract worth £200,000 a week to fend off interest from Barcelona and Real Madrid. (Sunday Express)

Who is that? The ERG? All politicians who voted leave but against the WA? All politicians who have accepted that we should leave but voted against the WA? The greater point really is that in parliamentary arithmetic the premise that no deal is "incoming" because of disdain for Ireland doesn't hold up.

Wrong. The government supports the WA with the EU backed by the Irish government. Parliament rejects it. Key difference. Evidence of disdain for Ireland in the purpose for WA's failure is sketchy at best.

Birmingham's vote was only 50.4% leave. When you add 250k of surrounding areas for Liverpool and Manchester to match the population sizes the result will gravitate to a very similar outcome. Birmingham isn't an odd one out. As for London, it is in effect a super size version of inner cities elsewhere in the country. Geography isn't a very good predictor of vote and there's little evidence to suggest it has cultural impact within England or Wales.

It might not be that different. Digging a little deeper, Birmingham as a city, in terms of giving a result under that name, was based on around 450,000 votes. Liverpool on the other hand as a city giving its result was based on 200,000 votes. Manchester similarly gave it's result as 200,000 voters. Clearly the boundary of Birmingham is encapsulating substantially more and that may be distorting the result comparison. One thing common in all metro areas is that the suburbs were more likely to vote leave. The difference is not a surprise as there has been a significant demographic and social change in city centres with the rapid expansion of universities and service sector work. I don't think the result given as Birmingham concludes for sure that it is somehow a truly distinct place.

This isn't true of metropolitan areas. It's true of the smaller inner city boundaries within a metropolitan area. If you look at the metropolitan then 7 of the 10 borough's of Greater Manchester voted leave. 5 of the 8 districts of Merseyside voted leave. 22 of Birmingham's 40 wards voted leave. 5 of London's 33 borough's voted leave.

This reminds me of those times as a kid when the bank or a local business would match whatever the school fun day raised for charity

Fair play mate. Maybe it could be interpeted that way but that is not intentional and would be the wrong way to look at it. What was going on and is going on warrants frank and detailed discussion and shouldn't in my opinion be degraded by those who are just looking for nothing other than to gloat. The loss of life or social tragedy is not a pawn and gloating about it is unbecoming. At least in the immediate moment the victims deserve to have their situation treat in the fullest of intellectual examination rather than having a verified twitter account post "Socialism fails again" to get likes and laughs or some other low hanging fruit of a quip. Hence the comment that it is not really the time for that. It might have its use and place but it certainly isn't when minds should be focused on detail. So whilst you see the post as a diversion it is actually about the opposite, it's about mopping up what is being passed as debate when it clearly isn't intellectual at all, rather it's childish. For that reason it is a coincidence that it might look similar to bullet dodging. The important thing to remember is what specifically is the context in which the comment arises. The exact same words can be very different in a different context.

There's no need to tell someone to fuck off and call them scum. On your points, you are quoting a post from a year ago. I'm happy to defend my opinion. Fairy admitted himself he was being smug at first. I equated that with what was common in the right wing coverage at the time. Anyone around then will have seen the trend, particularly on social media. Fairy even then admitted he shouldn't be smug, but it is I curiously who is on the end of your wrath. Nowhere did I say we shouldn't have political debate or that we should stop to pray. It was my opinion that at the time the crisis peaked if all someone had to contribute to this was one-up behaviour on their own domestic opponents then they shouldn't bother at all. If you go further down the thread last year you will also see a Ken Livingstone joke. There's no excuse for playing cultural ignorance here, Fairy posted an article about Ken Livingstone defending Maduro so you can see what he is about. After a few members made what could be interpreted as excuses for Maduro I joked that Ken Livingstone had a few accounts on this forum. Still you frame it as if I somehow can't bring myself to say "an evil socialist dictatorship is to blame", I'm not sure how you can come to that conclusion from the evidence before you. The errors in your post are the product of rushing in too quick and the tone of fuck off and scum is a mist descending that warrants retraction.

Wouldn't work either mate. You have to negotiate with the EU which means give and take on red lines. That give and take would do exactly as what is happening now in the parliamentary arithmetic and cause deadlock. What would be needed is a political party with a strong majority whose purpose is to leave and who are willing to walk away from the table and take no deal. If there was a plan in the referendum then it would still require politicians who don't agree with it, believe it or who didn't put it forward going along with it.

You didn't address any of the philosophical arguments. Why? If we follow the logic of your enough proof the EU doesn't possess the competencies and trappings traditionally reserved for the nation state, then the United Kingdom also isn't a nation state because some Scottish people would cry if Scotland became independent from rUK. So just who is a nation state? That goes back to the philosophical arguments you ignored. The philosophy without the identity does not hold obedience. As you are seeing across Europe. Once you understand the philosophy and then recognise existence and obedience you can connect the dots of identity and the importance of attachment.

"All" is your word. I used the word foundation. Identity also does matter. It's the central tenant of social cohesion.

Core competencies in that something can be decided at a European level which cannot be vetoed by a member state, with the ECJ having supremacy of law. This is the difference with the single market where a veto is possible and a dispute court which is non-binding. The future remains the competency of the nation state. EU members are increasingly glorified local councils and will continue to have political movements calling to cede power to the centre. Especially those in the €urozone. The identities of a nation state are evident outside of parliament everyday. There are people there with EU flags, people who feel a connection, a pride and a shared identity. All of the psychological trappings of national identity. The EU itself is to spend billions trying to cultivate this emotional belonging. Some people cried after the referendum result because of a sense of lost identity. No one cried because multilateral trade agreements would be hard to replicate. The foundation of continuity remain is built on this emotional bondage. People marching the streets professing their identity. This was cultivated over time through the symbolism of the European Union project. The very word European is itself a loaded name.

The use of trade bloc, economic and political union obfuscates, either deliberately or not, that the EU possesses some core competencies and identities traditionally reserved for the nation state. Economic and political union could be used to describe or deny the existence of every single country on earth.

The single market is a trade bloc not the EU. I can't be bothered going into detail on the competencies and trappings of the EU which are above and beyond just a trade agreement. The flag, the anthem, the army, the identity. This isn't NAFTA of EFTA. It also does a disservice to what people are trying to build with the EU. There is nothing in a Samsung product that can only be provided by a single country. It's just not relevant to the modern world.

The wider UK is intertwined with far more than just one country so the shock would only be felt at a micro level in smaller communities whose ability to absorb said shock would be dependent on its own local economies diversification or the wider economies ability to create alternative opportunities. It happens on a daily basis outside of your trade hypothetical, jobs come and go with technological disruption. There would also be a hit to Samsung's market capitalisation and it would be weakened against it's international competitors.