Blimey

The biggest claim made by Brexiteers right now is that Remainers do not understand them. If only we tried a bit harder it would be obvious what this is all about, they say.

It’s about national pride; democracy; taking back control; having our own laws; deciding who lives here.

I think those are their claims. Tell me if there are more. Just don’t mention economics: it does not come into it.

D’ye think the Spudmeister has even heard of Patrick Minford?

20 comments on “Blimey

  1. Just don’t mention economics: it does not come into it.

    There’s no economic justification for being a self-governing democracy, but there is one for spending trillions of pounds on making no difference to the global climate.

  2. This is one of the best things I have ever read on his blog – just priceless

    ‘Steve C says:
    August 21 2019 at 10:38 am

    The arguments (as I understand them) is this:

    1. How a people are governed is paramount over economics. Well governed people are usually prosperous. Self determination movements ranging from the US in 1776, Ireland in 1916-21, India in 1947, ex colonies in Africa and elsewhere, ex USSR states – the economics was always secondary. Was there a ‘pride’ in being self governing among nations? I’d say so.

    2. There are largely 3 ways in which people have been governed throughout history. The tribe/clan, the nation state and then the supranational entity. Everywhere the supranational experiment has been tried (since ancient times) it has become self serving and unaccountable. The Romans, British Empire, Austro-Hungarian, Ottomans, Soviets. Every one.

    3. The best form is the nation state that is democratic, self-determining, accountable and has liberal values (ie majority rules doesnt mean the majority can bully the minority). It doesn’t interfere in the affairs of other countries other than by invitation. The best run countries follow this.

    4. The EU is following the trodden path of supranational entities in becoming undemocratic and unaccountable.

    5. Tony Benn took this view of the EU. He was hardly right wing. I’m not on his side in politics but he was a decent, principled man whose views on Europe resonated across party lines. His views certainly resonated with me. I’d regard him as the father of Brexit.

    You can disagree with this view, but this is the argument, as I understand it.
    Reply

    Richard Murphy says:
    August 21 2019 at 10:54 am

    Fine

    You can give a reason

    But you can’t explain how to do it and honour our commitments

    Nor can you explain how we are still a nation or why you think we passed our sovereignty to the EU when very clearly we never have, in the slightest

    So as an argument that’s so full of holes and so not based on truth or reality it takes us nowehere
    Reply
    Steve C says:
    August 21 2019 at 11:32 am

    Yes, we have been let down because the Treaty was negligently written. The issue of ‘how to do it and honour commitments’ should have been in exit arrangement agreed within the treaty at least at a ‘principles’ level. Any lawyer drafting any kind of collaboration agreement knows this. We’ve been badly let down, but we are where we are.

    Whoever drafted A50 (Lord Kerr?) thought any MS could leave in 2 years and that land borders with other MS states weren’t an issue worth the ink.

    Also, do you really think the US knew ‘how to leave’? They had tens of thousands dead, having to work it out from scratch. Was that an overriding argument not to leave the British empire? Ditto India, Ireland, ex Soviet states.

    Regarding sovereignty: we retain sovereignty if we can leave.

    Can you explain: assume there is an EU Law X. The UK originally agreed to that law. But in 10 years time, UK public opinion shifts dramatically. We vote in a government in a landslide committed to that repeal. Also, assume the Finns, Portuguese and the French have different governments that are still quite happy with EU Law X.

    Sovereign countries like Japan, Australia or Canada would just go ahead and repeal that law without having to consult the Finns or anyone else.

    How do we do it?
    Richard Murphy says:
    August 21 2019 at 11:41 am

    As excuses go that has to be just about the worst I have ever read

    You’re saying the GFA should have included what might politely be called an ‘If the UK want to fuck this up’ clause? When the whole object of the GFA was closer union within the existing political paradigm I politely suggest you’re a charlatan

    Ditto re A50

    But I do note you propose warfare and multiple deaths as a solution

    How do you live with yourself?

    I can only assume at this point he is some kind of computer program because he couldn’t really be that stupid, could he?

  3. Another example is, the British outlawed slavery throughout the Empire without mentioning economics which just didn’t come into it.

    Considering freedom without considering economics – crazy.

  4. Yes the OBR , the IMF the Bank of England every City analyst the Treasury and every economist whose name is not Patrick Minford say one thing
    Patrick Minford says another thing
    They got more blacks to fight for slavery than economists to back Brexit ( literally true actually )

    As for this pretence that it is all about our constitutional arrangements , this is a fiction that can only be maintained never meeting anyone who voted for Brexit. Most of them so value our sacred Parliament they never bothered voting for anyone in it
    The reason we are leaving the EU is because posh chancers convinced people they could afford a house have nice job and see the Doctor whenever they liked if we just got rid of the darkies ….decades of crap poured into the public domain helped .
    I live here, I speak to people, I know real Brexit- British people in pubs, watching football and doing stuff. They are alright, pretty decent in a way I probably fit in better than I do with poncey remainers; but one thing is ceratain
    They do not give a fuck about our “Freedom”

    I

  5. Mrs Thatcher and Howe faced stiff opposition to this Budget, not just from the Labour and Liberal parties, but also from their own back benches. Their determination was really put to the test, however, when 364 economists signed a letter to The Times stating that there was “no basis in economic theory or supporting evidence” for the policy that the Budget was seeking to implement, that it threatened Britain’s “social and political stability”, and that an alternative course must be pursued.

    The whole of the academic establishment – including some luminaries of today – stood against the government. The 364 included Third-Way guru Anthony Giddens; the current Governor of the Bank of England; Monetary Policy Committee member Stephen Nickell; and former and future Nobel Prize winners. Only a brave few stood out against them. Indeed, it is said that Mrs Thatcher was asked in heated debate in the Commons whether she could even name two economists who agreed with her. She replied that she could: Patrick Minford and Alan Walters. As the story goes on, her civil servant said when she returned to Downing Street: “It is a good job he did not ask you to name three.” In fact, there were one or two others who deserve mention, such as Terry Burns and Tim Congdon, as well as some journalists and politicians who stayed firm and argued the case for what would today be described as orthodox fiscal and monetary policies.

  6. I speak to people, I know real Brexit- British people in pubs, watching football and doing stuff.

    I was always under the impression you were a moron, but least a human being. The above sounds like the output of malfunctioning software. Do you need your AAs changing?

  7. @Newmania – must be a very odd pub for you to say “Most of them so value our sacred Parliament they never bothered voting for anyone in it” Turnout in referendum 72.1 %. Turnout in GE 2015 66.1 % 2017 68.8%. So you go to a pub where only the 6% go. Very odd and perhaps just a plain lie.

  8. VP, what a vile cretin he is.

    I liked this comment of his

    “How do you live with yourself?”

    Wonderful lack of self-regard, given his demonstrable talent for separation and alienation from all those who were once close to him.

  9. Newmania: you can only not give a fuck about *your* *own* Freedom. You can’t not give a fuck about other people’s Freedom as it is not your Freedom to give a fuck about, and as soon as you do attempt to give any sort of fuck about somebody else’s Freedom you are automatically *removing* that other person’s Freedom.

    And if you do truely not give a fuck about your own Freedom, as a considerate society we should lock you up – as after all, you have repeatedly stated that you do not give a fuck about your own Freedom, and you would be a hypercritic of the highest order to complain about having it removed from yourself.

  10. So if someone disagrees with him and presents a logical argument, they are a charlatan. Mind, he does point it out politely – although, one wonders how this is achieved.

    What a nasty, mean-spirited, obnoxious, pompous prig this man is. Vile beyond belief.

  11. As someone who voted “Remain” because I do not believe that we can reform the EU from the outside, let me say why I considered the economic case to be marginal.
    On the plus side (i) we stop paying £billions to subsidise French farmers and those Eastern European sugar beet farmers whose governments failed to notice the ending of the RN blockade of sugar imports in 1815 after Waterloo; (ii) reintroduction of the hill farm subsidy, giving a boost to rural communities and slowing the population drain to the south-east, thereby reducing the pressure on housing; (iii) we are allowed to import cheap food from ex-Commonwealth countries; (iv) abolition of Common Fisheries Policy so that fish in British waters is converted to fish-and-chips instead of paella and Britain’s second-favourite food (after roast beef) becomes affordable to the working class once again (having a comfortable pension I buy fish at the weekly market for my gesture at “healthy eating” and it is, more often than not, more expensive per lb than sirloin steak); (v) end of free movement gives all those UK nationals who actually want a job a better chance of getting one and incentivises employers to invest to improve labour productivity – all the bullshit that we need to import labour when we have over a million unemployed and over a million 50-64 underemployed is *really* irritating; (vi) reduced pressure on housing so less time and money wasted commuting long distances; (vii) less paperwork required to fill in irrelevant EU forms designed for conditions in Greece, Italy and Spain; (viii) end of subsidised waste paper/card imports from Germany so it becomes economic to recycle UK paper and board and we send less to landfill on which we have to pay a levy to the EU
    There are some downsides (i) although most of the City’s business is with the world outside the EU, the EU will certainly discriminate against the City of London to try to steal profitable business from it; (ii) UK exports to Europe will be subject to tariff barriers (iii) as a consequence of (ii) UK exports to third countries will no longer be shipped via Rotterdam and transport costs will be increased making them less competitive and/or reducing net receipts by the UK; (iv) also as a consequence of (ii) multinational firms will stop building factories in the UK to produce goods to sell in the EU; (v) there will be traffic jams in Kent
    Political objections are that Spain is trying to annexe Gibraltar and Varadkar is trying to annexe Northern Ireland.
    Screw the backstop – Gibraltar vote 96% to stay British. Well, just tell Juncker that we aren’t putting up any customs post between Ulster and Great Britain to levy tarriffs on British goods travelling within the UK from mainland to Belfast and if he wants to put up customs posts between Ulster and Eire that’s his problem.

  12. Sorry, missed out leaving CAP means being able to abolish set-aside and grow much more of our own food. Also importing cane sugar from the Commonwealth (thereby reducing unnatural global inequality) instead of wasting good agricultural land growing subsidised sugar beet; importing maize from the USA without a tariff instead of using good arable land which could grow wheat or barley or oats; giving up growing EU-subsidised oilseed rape, thereby reducing the incidence of asthma; directing subsidies where they are useful instead of to the largest landowners who do not need any subsidies, ….

  13. What Facepainter–now you’re looking for the common touch?

    You–you snobbish middle class greedy treasonous cunt– now have more in common with hoi polloi pleb trash in pubs than with your own class of EUsucking turds–whom you now call “poncey”?

    BBBBBWWWWAAAHHAHAHAWWAHHAHAHAHA –to infinity and beyond.

    What is it? Do you sense doom? Like the German death camp Kommandant who –in early 1945 called in the surviving Jewish leader in the camp and said “It time you Jews and we Germans buried the hatchet”.

    Too late matey. You are small fry–but if I could work my will you would have your turn, your small sad hour in court at a new Nuremberg Assizes.

  14. @ Newmania
    NOT every City economist says “blah, blah” – I still occasionally get their views second-hand. Maybe you mean “salesmen for US and European investment banks who don’t want to relocate to Frankfurt say …”
    It is undoubtedly true that they got more blacks to fight for The Confederacy than … for several reasons – one, that there were more free blacks fighting for The Confederacy than there are economists (proper economists who actually know more than I do); two, that most blacks in the South were better off pre-war than after the war when black slaves were freed; three, that in a small rural community the people care more about the prosperity of that community, even if the plantation-owner gets most of the benefit, than about vague promises made by a politician hundreds of miles away.
    If you paused for a few seconds you might notice that very few EU immigrants are “darkies”.
    One of the things Brexiteers in the North-East care about is freedom – the EU said that we could not protect the steel industry from Chinese dumping until we had spent six months or more going through an EU rigmarole so enough North-Easterners voted “Leave” to decide the result.
    One of these days you might like to learn arithmetic.

  15. @Van_Patten

    Where to start?

    Steve C didn’t mention GFA or UK declaring war with EU or anyone.

    Ritchie thinking/alleging Steve did shows Ritchie has Brexit Derangement Syndrome

    Also noticeable Ritchie doesn’t answer/rebut – he resorts to ad-hom attacks

    Re Benn

    See 1975 Project Fear “All we hear about leaving is Fear, Fear, Fear”

  16. @john77 August 21, 2019 at 5:35 pm

    Difficult to read. Mostly good. Some bunkem too – your downsides list.

    Tip: Use paragraphs/bullet points

    @5.49 pm

    +1

  17. If you want the argument in one word
    “Switzerland”
    If you think the place with almost sod all in natural resources and ports is a bit like Runcorn, then you may have voted Remain. If you have ever been there and found it ok apart from the obsession with keeping your borders tidy and tunnelling you may have voted Leave.

  18. @ Pcar
    There is so much to say that I forgot to make it readable.
    The downside list isn’t bunkum, Brussels hates anyone who votes the wrong way.

  19. Pcar

    He’s the poorest debater I have ever seen (and having been on Twitter for nearly a decade that’s saying something) – only Owen Jones (Other than professional blockers) comes close to the 20,000 or so accounts he has blocked. This is just an extension of that. Because of his lack of basic knowledge (even on something as fundamental to his professional persona as accounting) he can’t revert back to first principles therefore when someone attacks him on that basis all he has left is ‘ad hominem’ attacks. Additionally he was one of the pioneers of using the term troll in the sense of applying it to people who out-argued him and whom he was unable to rebut. To be honest, given his age, it’s really rather embarrassing to see him make such an obvious show of his utter ignorance but then he doesn’t do much to elicit sympathy.

  20. Bravefart/ Longrider

    I often said his entire philosophy is basically fascistic and in his utterances I often see echoes of someone like the late Roland Freisler – given the various Twitter spats with the OCBT and The much missed FCA blog (as well as many in this parish) his totalitarian instincts are very clear for those that wish to see them. Indeed given the coming downturn, what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Ely to be born?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.