No, that's not what that says. It says exports were 43% in 2016. We've been through this already:

You cherry-picked the statistics again. 44% represents exports only. 53% of all imports come from the EU. — Baden

You see total trade involves imports and exports. Do you understand that now? I don't think we can really make progress until you can wrap your head around the basics of what the words we're using mean.

Actually never mind. You're a better advertisement for the point of view you're in opposition to than I ever could be. Carry on.

Actually never mind. You're a better advertisement for the opposing point of view than I ever could be. Carry on. — Baden

I suppose his dodgy tactics have given us an incentive to look at the bigger picture, which then exposes the economic disadvantages to Brexit.

That works in our favour, not his. He needs to find a more gullible audience to gain the upper hand. The number one philosophy forum was perhaps not the wisest of choices.

My point was that the figure you quote, that 8% (although it's actually 7.4%) is relating to goods only, at the exclusion of services, and I've also pointed out that you don't quote the equivalent statistic for non-EU countries, leaving us with nothing to compare it to. That is cherry picking, another informal logical fallacy. — S

There is no Common Market in services. There is no Customs Union in services. The UK pays what it does in return for access to the Common Market in goods. £13billion in return for a £95billion deficit is unsustainable.

There is no Common Market in Services.

You've shown that you can selectively quote statistics. Well done. But how about an economic forecast? Are you capable of that? Are you an economist? Can you quote any credible sources with favourable economic forecasts? And what's the consensus on this?

A BBC News article from 28th November 2018 says that the government has published its official economic analysis of the impact of its Brexit deal. And that it suggests that the government's version of Brexit could leave the size of the UK economy up to 3.9% smaller after 15 years, compared with staying in the EU. But a no-deal Brexit could deliver a 9.3% hit - according to the forecast.

Interesting. If everything is going to be just as good, if not better, then why isn't that reflected in this economic forecast?

What do you think I'll find if I go searching for more economic forecasts from other credible sources?

You've shown that you can selectively quote statistics. Well done. But how about an economic forecast? Are you capable of that? Are you an economist? Can you quote any credible sources with favourable economic forecasts? And what's the consensus on this? — S

I defer to Project Fear for economic fore casts, but nevertheless, as part of basic economic theory, open free-trading democracies always prevail.

Brexit was nothing to do with money.

That's exactly the kind of reply that I expected from you. So, we have Inis, with little-to-no in-depth knowledge of complex economics, versus a consensus of experts. Who should we believe? That's a toughie!

Thanks Dave! You alone decided we would have a referendum, that you made a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. You pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly. You tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they required treaty change. You appointed yourself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. You carried vast amounts of baggage with you into the referendum, baggage of your own creation - to give the people a say on a policy that's either pointless or catastrophic. Thank you very pigging much!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-v9rGE4-o

I defer to Project Fear for economic fore casts, but nevertheless, as part of basic economic theory, open free-trading democracies always prevail.

Brexit was nothing to do with money. — Inis

And the EU is the largest free trade block...

But it's not about money and all those fish... its about taking back control from those faceless bureaucrats and giving it to a bunch of incompetent mendacious sleeze-bags proper representatives of the people in Westminster, who cannot even agree amongst themselves how to run their own parliament, never mind the country, because if we don't want to be run by a bunch of toffs and tossers from Eton and Oxford, We can just vote them out. Any time, really, and we will, quite soon, it's easy, we just haven't got around to it yet... but compared to leaving the EU, it'll be a doddle, especially with all that extra power we're giving them - I mean ourselves...

This is totally uninformative for two obvious of reasons:

• It doesn't reflect trade in services;
• It doesn't reflect trade made possible with non-EU countries (e.g. third countries) thanks to EU negotiated trade deals or EU internal rules.

For instance, the possibility for UK based financial institutions to act as a gateway for third country persons to access the EU financial market will be largely lost after Brexit. No number of bilateral trade deals with third countries is going to reopen the EU market for UK based financial firms. This fragmentation is bad for both the EU and the UK but more so for the UK - just have a look at where the UK platforms are relocating (mostly the Netherlands) and the UK banks (mostly Frankfurt) that are opening EU27 offices and relocating personnel.

In fact, the recent exemption to continue to allow EU institutions to meet their clearing obligations by clearing at LCH, while again good for those EU institutions, would've spelled disaster for a number of large UK-based swap dealers. I expect it will be phased out in the long run, moving euro-denominated swap business to the EU27. That's a business at LCH with a present value of that swap portfolio of around 100 billion euros - and if a chunk of it moves to EUREX, jobs are sure to follow.

There is no Common Market in Services. — Inis

False, Single Market for Services

Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU. — Inis

What about services, though? Particularly financial services. Many of them have already departed for Europe, I believe.

False — Benkei

Well I'll list the exclusions from that EU directive, and then we'll see if a single market in services exists:


Financial services,
banking,
credit,
insurance,
reinsurance,
occupational pensions,
personal pensions,
securities,
investment funds,
payments,
investment advice.

Also excluded are:


telecoms,
healthcare,
audiovisual,
taxation,
transportation.


So no single market in services exists. The most that can be said is that a single market in some services exists.

There exists separate EU legislation to deal with many of the areas above, but much of it, particularly in the area of financial services, is achieved via mutual recognition agreements between individual member states.

They are exempted from the Services Directive but have their own directives ensuring a single market for services. Your first list is covered entirely by MiFID, EMIR, CRD IV, BRRD, short selling regulation and Solvency. That's all EU law and has nothing to do with "mutual recognition". But please, continue like you know what you're talking about.

It's one of the four pillars of the EU after all, freedom of movement, capital, goods and services.

Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU. — Inis

What about services, though? Particularly financial services. Many of them have already departed for Europe, I believe. — Pattern-chaser

44% of all British exports (that is products and services) went to the EU. Of the imports the UK got over half of them from the EU.

From one statistic, UK trade-to-GDP ratio is 28,1%. That would give that trade is about 12% of GDP, a bit higher than 8%, but roughly in the same ballpark (as the statistics, exact time and measurement can differ).

Hence, that 8% or 12% might sound little, but if there are huge changes, the effects are big. Let's not forget that a -2% GDP change one calls a severe recession.

Naturally if City would lose it status as an European financial hub, that would have dramatic consequences. I assume it won't, the British aren't so crazy, and simply the EU isn't as determined to really challenge London's position.

David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron did lie, I agree - obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.

Cameron lost on purpose for Remain — karl stone

Your claim makes more sense than most conspiracy theories; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?

Your claim makes more sense than most conspiracy theories; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it? — unenlightened

Yes, plenty. Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.

If you'll permit me to add my previous remarks here:

David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.

It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.

p.s. to say nothing of the rumour released in 2015 alleging he once .... a dead pig's head!

Yes, plenty. — karl stone

It would be a violation of my prime directive to defend Cameron, but there's very little here to distinguish Cameron the machiavellian conspirator from Cameron the amoral advocate-whatever's-convenient smug incompetent.

I do have a general principle, Occam's blunt penknife, that states that other things being equal, a cock-up is a better theory than a conspiracy - and a cock up a pig is certainly not evidence of cunning planning ability.

It would be a violation of my prime directive to defend Cameron, but there's very little here to distinguish Cameron the machiavellian conspirator from Cameron the amoral advocate-whatever's-convenient smug incompetent. I do have a general principle, Occam's blunt penknife, that states that other things being equal, a cock-up is a better theory than a conspiracy - and a cock up a pig is certainly not evidence of cunning planning ability. — unenlightened

So, you're saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University genuinely believed he could reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - adding 'or vote me out' - and that it was merely a coincidence he found himself on the wrong side that pledge in the referendum that he provided for, and on which he failed deliver in spectacular fashion?

You're saying it's just coincidental incompetence that his Home Secretary Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory, who also cancelled the EU ID scheme six years before the referendum, sacked the longstanding head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clarke, allowed 660,000 immigrants into Britain in 2015, and published those figures during the campaign period? It's similarly coincidental she then became Prime Minister pursuing brexit with an absolute determination, and was not criticized or sacked as Home Secretary for her spectacular failure on immigration, despite the fact Cameron had said tens of thousands 'or vote me out'?

You're saying that people were led to believe that UKIP forced Cameron into a referendum he didn't want - when the facts show, quite clearly that UKIP were nowhere until Cameron made that silly immigration pledge - and also that Cameron wanted a referendum for many years before, because... of smug incompetence or something?

I am generally in agreement with Hanlon's Razor, the aphorism being: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

But it's not adequately explained, and Cameron is not stupid. He had a first class degree in PPE from Oxford and rose through the ranks of the Conservative Party like a rocket to the pinnacle of his profession - and you're saying he was a bumbling incompetent who fell out of the EU by accident?

If you look at the manifesto's and youtube video - they are evidence of clear premeditation of something he then actually did: call a referendum. He wasn't forced into by UKIP, because they were nowhere before Cameron, and because we vote in 650 constituencies - not nationally. UKIP's narrow policy platform may gain a lot of votes nationally, 11 million at the peak, but very rarely - a sufficient number in any one constituency. 11 million votes = 1 MP. And mostly Labour votes in the North. UKIP were never a threat to Cameron. So why have people been led to believe UKIP pressured Cameron into something he didn't want, that he clearly did want?

It's the fact he championed Remain in the referendum that is inconsistent with the facts. It just doesn't tally, and frankly - the cash for access scandal, proves his dishonesty. Would it be a surprise to find leading Leave campaign donors were among those who paid for access? Not to me!

I am generally in agreement with Hanlon's Razor, the aphorism being: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

But it's not adequately explained, and Cameron is not stupid. He had a first class degree in PPE from Oxford and rose through the ranks of the Conservative Party like a rocket to the pinnacle of his profession - and you're saying he was a bumbling incompetent who fell out of the EU by accident? — karl stone

Having a degree from a highly respected university and being a rising star in the ranks of a political party doesn't mean you have a grasp of political reality at all. Stupidity here doesn't mean that the person would score low in an IQ test. Stupidity here means that you go with the thinking of the power elite and being blind to your own hubris without actually realizing what you are doing and only in hindsight realizing how bad decisions you have made.

Just think about another example: Blair supporting Dubya's invasion of Iraq. How much applause and popularity did he get in hindsight for that? How crucial was it for the UK, really? The French passed that one and yes, Americans had their cry baby tantrum with "freedom fries" as a result... and forgot the whole thing later as they usually do.

And then when Obama wanted the UK to join a similar endeavour with bombing Syria, the UK did pass. Result: Obama didn't do anything, in fact he didn't start a war which he had promised. How worse did the relations got after that?

"Talented stars" in the political arena can make quite easily bad decisions they regret later.

Having a degree from a highly appreciated university and rising in the ranks of a political party doesn't mean you have a grasp of political reality at all. Stupidity here doesn't mean that the person would score low in an IQ test. Stupidity here means that you go with the thinking of the power elite without actually realizing what you are doing and only in hindsight realizing how bad decisions have been done.

Just think about another example: Blair supporting Dubya's invasion of Iraq. How much applause and popularity did he get in hindsight for that? How crucial was it for the UK, really? The French passed that one and yes, Americans had their cry baby moment with "freedom fries" as a result... and forgot the whole thing later as they usually do.

And then when Obama wanted the UK to join a similar endeavour with bombing Syria, the UK did pass. Result: Obama didn't do anything, in fact he didn't start a war which he had promised. How worse did the relations got after that?

"Talented stars" in the political arena can make quite easily bad decisions they regret later. — ssu

Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.

the government has published its official economic analysis of the impact of its Brexit deal. — S

What do you think I'll find if I go searching for more economic forecasts from other credible sources? — S

:lol:

Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case. — karl stone

Why so?

How couldn't the rulers be oblivious to the fact that what they are proposing could go wrong? To think that fine, we have the support for EU membership, perhaps we can silence the opposition with a referendum that we will win?

Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.
— karl stone
Why so?

How couldn't the rulers be oblivious to the fact that what they are proposing could go wrong? To think that fine, we have the support for EU membership, perhaps we can silence the opposition with a referendum that we will win? — ssu

If there was evidence showing a long and contentious relationship between two neighbors, and one of them was recorded on video telling the other 'I'm going to kill you' - and was then later discovered standing over the body with a bloody knife in hand, his claiming 'it was an accident' is not a defense. Clear evidence of premeditation renders false any such claim.

What you are asking me to believe is that a man who said he wanted a referendum, and who provided for a referendum, didn't in fact want the referendum he provided for. That's not credible. Yet people have been led to believe that Cameron didn't want a referendum, but was forced into it by the rise of UKIP. When you look at the voting statistics, that's clearly not the case. UKIP followed in Cameron's wake, only making significant gains from 2013 onward.

If you say you will do something and then you do it - it is a fact that you intended it. Cameron intended to have a referendum, and he provided for one as a manifesto commitment, such that it could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. He could easily have brought forward a bill in the normal way - and discharged any obligation he felt, knowing it would be rejected by Parliament as it was in 2011 by a massive majority of 485/111.

I could go on. I've stated the facts above - and there are a great long list of other things that cannot be explained in any other terms than that Cameron deliberately sabotaged his own credibility on key issues in the referendum campaign - which he provided for by undemocratic means, not least immigration, and adopted the Remain position in order to lose on purpose.

:grin:

Strong and stable, 'nother fable. Maybe not the best of sources. But we agree that there are credible sources out there which confirm what I'm saying. Unlike Inis, I don't think that I know better than the experts.

Naturally if City would lose it status as an European financial hub, that would have dramatic consequences. I assume it won't, the British aren't so crazy, and simply the EU isn't as determined to really challenge London's position. — ssu

I have a friend in fintech, in a pretty senior position, and she disagrees with you. Many major players have already purchased new offices in Europe, and departed.

Brexit was nothing to do with money. — Inis

Then why the heck have you been quoting figures relating to trade and profit? Have you completely lost your mind?

This guy...

For many, it was ideological. That's the problem. My vote to remain definitely had a lot to do with money. The Brexit voting public, a considerable portion of whom won't even be around that much longer for the consequences, have fucked me and my generation over if this goes through, and if the economic forecasts turn out to be fairly accurate. Thanks for putting my cost of living at risk, and thanks putting a shit ton of jobs at risk, and thank you David Cameron. Thank you also Boris Johnson for spreading misleading figures which must've tricked at least a few people into voting for the side which ended up winning, thank you to Nigel Farage for his usual dirty tricks, and thank you to the Vote Leave campaign for breaking the law by overspending. Thank you to all of the mindless nationalists, and thank you to all of the racists and xenophobes. Mother fuckers, the lot of you. Maybe Plato was right: we need a wise philosopher king in charge. Someone like me. :grin:

So, you're saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University genuinely believed — karl stone

Not at all. I'm saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy politics and economics has no beliefs, no principles and no morals. I'm saying that neither Cameron or May give a fig about anything but their own position and their own power and status.

I'm saying Cameron wanted a referendum because he was losing support to Ukip, not because he had an opinion about the EU. I'm saying that hatred of the EU has been manufactured over years to divert attention from the real causes of the social degradation that has been taking place. We got a bad deal over fishing, because the people negotiating for us cared more about banking and insurance, and for them fish was a price worth paying. The British government has presided over regional decline, and impoverishment, and blamed it on the EU and Johnny foreigner. They really don't care about in or out, deal or no deal, because their world is tucked away on the Cayman Islands and won't be affected.

So, you're saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University... — karl stone

You're right. I just can't think of any other examples of clever and qualified politicians whose plans have backfired. Is that even possible? It must therefore have been a "criminal" conspiracy from the start. — S

Bears repeating.