Forum Sponsors

www.advancedpainters.co.uk
xxxx
www.inshutters.co.uk

Glazer Delmar

Advertise here

The East Dulwich Forum
Coffee tastes best at... Blue Mountain? Caffe Nero? The East Dulwich Cafe?
Goto Page: PreviousFirst...6263646566676869707172...LastNext
Current Page: 67 of 106
messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by keano77 January 02, 09:05AM

I didn’t expect you to know the answer Rendel, it was an unfair question. My point still stands with these polls/surveys. We don’t know who answers the questions or why so they should be treated with caution.

If the 59% in favour all rode bicycles, used public transport or commuted into London by train you’d have to question the result in favour of yet another money making racket using vehicle drivers as cash cows.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by rendelharris January 02, 09:17AM

keano77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I didn’t expect you to know the answer Rendel, it
> was an unfair question. My point still stands with
> these polls/surveys. We don’t know who answers the
> questions or why so they should be treated with
> caution.
>
> If the 59% in favour all rode bicycles, used
> public transport or commuted into London by train
> you’d have to question the result in favour of yet
> another money making racket using vehicle drivers
> as cash cows.

They'd still breathe the same air and so have as much right to influence measures related to improving air quality as anyone else.

Reputable polling companies (Gallup, MORI etc) use a raft of sophisticated scientific sampling techniques to ensure that their polls are representative of the population as a whole, weighted for a wide range of variables (and give their margins for error with them). You can't simply dismiss all polling on a "I don't know who answered the questions" basis just because the results don't concur with your particular worldview. I'm fairly sure that if a poll showed, for example, that 75% of Londoners thought Sadiq Khan was doing a bad job and should resign immediately you'd be quoting it with glee.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by keano77 January 02, 09:38AM

“They'd still breathe the same air and so have as much right to influence measures related to improving air quality as anyone else.“

True. How many of them have ordered items online and have couriers in vans delivering them to work? How many companies are using couriers to send and receive documents. Most of the traffic in the CC is there to meet demand and supply services. They are not Sunday drivers.

I wonder how many of that 59% would agree with a proposal to pay, say, a £5 tax for every home delivery ordered online, from clothes to pizzas etc. And even if they did it probably wouldn’t make the slightest difference to air quality. Until all cars are fuelled by hydrogen things probably won’t improve.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by rendelharris January 02, 09:52AM

We're getting a bit away from Brexit here, aren't we? However, to answer your point, yes most of the traffic in the CC is supply services, and the ULEZ is a measure to restrict the pollution they cause by the not exactly stringent means of making sure all vehicles adhere to the standards mandated thirteen years ago.

So your last sentence implies that making vehicles cut emissions won't, um, reduce emissions pollution?

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL January 02, 10:13AM

keano77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Further you always quote figures to support your
> arguments that purport to show a majority in
> favour. Yet one of the main things the Brexit
> referendum showed is just under half the
> population do not understand, or refuse to accept,
> what a majority vote means in a democracy.

That's why I want to wait until the guilt for corruption of the 2016 vote is proved beyond reasonable doubt. I think it'll move fast now - rumours something big is about to happen over the Atlantic too.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by malumbu January 02, 12:27PM

In deed getting off thread but to introduce some balance the concept of the ULEZ was introduced by Boris, with the intention of tightening it/extending it in future. Poor Sadiq must have struggled - damn that was a good idea of Boris, what can I do to diss it? Ah, I'll say it is not ambitious enough and bring it forward.

Why a Tory Mayor came up with such an interventionist anti-car policy, that alienated some of his key supporters particularly those in the outer boroughs, in an interesting question.

We could also look to some of our 'friends' in Europe who have much more progressive environmental policies but also worryingly seeing the populist backlash for a President who dares to put up fuel duty. Of course it is not just fuel duty that they are protesting about, but a good sign of how we may dilute action to tackle climate change once we have returned to narrow minded little England at the end of March. Although it was our own courts not Brussels that ordered us to clean up our air.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by rendelharris January 02, 04:42PM

By the way, back to Brexit:

keano77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Further you always quote figures to support your
> arguments that purport to show a majority in
> favour. Yet one of the main things the Brexit
> referendum showed is just under half the
> population do not understand, or refuse to accept,
> what a majority vote means in a democracy.

Another thing it's shown is that just over half the population don't understand, or refuse to accept, that the result of a non-binding, non-mandatory, advisory referendum is non-binding, non-mandatory, and only advisory.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 02, 04:50pm by rendelharris.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by keano77 January 02, 09:17PM

Now let me think ... if Remainers were to win* a so-called ‘people’s vote’ you would expect the decision to be honoured and implemented?

* translation for Remainers: ‘win’ here means a majority decision, ie, a least one more than the losing vote tally

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by rendelharris January 02, 09:35PM

keano77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now let me think ... if Remainers were to win* a
> so-called ‘people’s vote’ you would expect the
> decision to be honoured and implemented?
>
> * translation for Remainers: ‘win’ here means a
> majority decision, ie, a least one more than the
> losing vote tally

That would depend if it was constitutionally set up as a binding referendum, by the result of which the UKGov was legally obliged to abide - which the last one, as you well know, wasn't.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was january 02, 10:11pm by rendelharris.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL January 07, 12:47PM

Steve Bray has a new boat outside the commons - He's called it SS Disaster and you could see it bobbling around behind the presenters this morning on Sky - They actually mentioned it too.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge January 07, 01:35PM

Currently in a traffic jam waiting to get in to the fake traffic jam.
The. State. Of. This. Country...[twitter.com]

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Innocence January 07, 07:17PM

Hi all,

I'm an East Dulwich resident, and I've been working in the international development sector for several years and thought this forum would be a good place to share my thoughts on Brexit.

Just this week, I've published a paper relating to the impact of Brexit on UK development policy. It is available on Amazon, with the title 'DfID 2.0: UK development policy post Brexit'.

Link here: [www.amazon.com]

Summary here:

The UK’s departure from the European Union (EU) is by far the biggest change to the UK’s foreign relations since World War II. It sees the repatriation of many powers relating to foreign affairs, trade and international development.

An underexplored subject in all the Brexit commentary both before and since the referendum is the impact Brexit could or will have on UK development policy, particularly the role of the Department for International Development (DfID). With the repatriation of trade policy, and the removal of the UK from the common agricultural policy, there is significant scope for the UK to develop it's own tailored trade and development approach to developing countries.

The UK is a generous aid donor, being one of the few rich economies to devote 0.7% of Gross National Income to development, a percentage of GNI which far exceeds that of the USA, France or Germany to name a few. It also has an open economy, and a desire to reduce many of the tariffs and non-tariff barriers which it has imposed as part of the EU.

Thus, this creates an exciting opportunity for UK policy makers to develop creative and tailored trade and development partnership with developing countries, which are also emerging markets which will play a growing role in world trade in the decades to come.

This book, written by a consultant with experience in many developing countries and for many international organisations, including DfID and the World Bank, sets out some thoughts for how UK development policy can adapt to this new world and can integrate closer trade relationships with developing countries into it's development policy.

Foremost amongst the reforms are that DfID should remain a stand-alone department but should renamed the Department for International Partnerships. This reform will refocus the department on establishing partnerships between the UK and developing countries which will include deep trade agreements alongside UK provided development.

The paper additionally argues that the UK's primary advantage in the development sector is its provision of high quality technical assistance, understandable given the UK strengths in the services industry. UK consulting expertise in government and economic reform should play a growing role in UK development policy as part of a strategic initiative to combine UK's development agenda with its trade agenda.

Hope you enjoy reading,

Steve

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JoeLeg January 07, 10:34PM

TL:DR - Please give me money to read my theories on how a post-Brexit UK can try and rip off developing nations when we can’t get good trade deals with the big kids.

Jog on...

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Blah Blah January 08, 05:49AM

So Steve32 is now 'Innocence'. Good to know.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 08, 05:51am by Blah Blah.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Trinnydad January 08, 05:35PM

Steve,

Sorry to put the mockers on your DFID2 paper but Brexit will have a negative effect on the UK economy and this could be mitigated by cutting back on foreign aid and spending the money here. Our foreign aid expenditure is running at around £14bn per annum. That is over one billion a month!


It was Gordon Brown that committed the UK to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid, in perpetuity, at a time when the government was was running a massive fiscal deficit. It's simply madness for the UK to borrow money from overesas creditors just to give it away on foreign aid. The UK national debt is in excess of £1 trillion and it's increasing every day.


Much of this aid is spent without us having any control over it because we give it to multilateral agencies. On a unilateral basis we give millions in aid to India whilst India spends millions on a spece research programme.


DFID have have been given so much money to hand out that they have run out of decent projects to fund and have resorted to handing out currency (cash handouts) in countries like Zambia.

[www.theguardian.com]


A sad and inescapable fact is that a high percentage of foreign aid is wasted and/or diverted through corruption. The intended recipients ultimately receive very little benefit in many cases.


When it comes to Brexit, there will be a pressing need to spend the aid here to off-set the downside(s).

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by Innocence January 08, 06:26PM

Hi Trinnydad,

The impact of Brexit on the economy is beyond the scope of the paper although it's a valid point you make.

0.7% is in law so it's very hard to change (especially for a government with no majority).

So, the question is hand to effectively spend it.

I'm also v.sceptical about multilateral agencies, especially UN ones sadly.

i think the amount wasted via corruption etc is v.much exaggerated. It's been a huge problem in the past but at least with DfID there are generally v.strong controls in place. Also lots of the aid goes through UK and other providers and is not provided to government directly as many believe.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by natty01295 January 08, 11:17PM

I hope we will Not be worst off,

But i hope we are better off cheaper everything

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by alex_b January 09, 09:45AM

With the fall in the value of the pound we're already worse off. With the addition of tariffs on EU goods things will get even more expensive. I don't see how Brexit can lead to cheaper anything without a) massive reduction of standards, b) total destruction of domestic production (particularly for food) or c) both.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JohnL January 09, 02:55PM

natty01295 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hope we will Not be worst off,
>
> But i hope we are better off cheaper everything

Can't believe much will be cheaper even if wages are driven down and standards broken (chlorinated chicken).

I expect food to increase by a bit.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge January 09, 03:07PM

2000...

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by TheCat January 09, 04:44PM

At the risk of raising the ire of some on here....given the situation we have found ourselves in, I am starting to question whether 'no deal' is actually all that bad?

Sure, i see plenty of commentary that it will be the end of the world as we know it (disaster, armageddon, cliff edge etec et etc); and I certainly see there will clearly be teething problems with the Dover/Calais trade route (as many trade experts have said), leading to delays in supply of some goods, and potential temporary shortages here in the UK. But while these strike me as serious problems, they will likely be short-term issues, which should be resolved within 6 months; and in the context of a generational change is that really that bad? I actually haven't read anything (maybe im just not looking in the right places) which clearly explains why it would be a total disaster....

One might say that it will destroy trade and our economy, which is what I thought too, but it was this article which got me thinking about the actual impacts might be....

[blogs.spectator.co.uk]

Combine that article with the fact that the UK's net contribution to the EU are actually double what the likely tariff impact will be on UK exports to the EU....

I know I havent considered all the issues, so this is a genuine attempt to 'have a discussion'. If you disagree, please hold off from abusing me as stupid, ignorant or clueless...and rationally explain what im missing....

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by JoeLeg January 09, 05:11PM

My feeling is that there is so much deeply/held conviction on both sides, that we as a society are unlikely to find any common ground where the issue can be rationally discussed.

That said, let’s give it go...

There are plainly a lot of people - both members of the public and politicians/persons of power in business - who want a Hard Brexit and No Deal. Absent some kind of deep conspiracy and dark plan, the possibility is that many of them sincerely hold the belief that it will be ok in the long run.

That’s where I have an issue with it. Solid data to back them up is scarce, and mostly we’re being asked to take this on faith. What they do have going for them is the idiotic use of Project Fear by some of by some sections of the Remain campaign, much of which failed to materialise. As such those in favour of Hard Brexit can point to the paucity of credibility from those who cry doom and ask us to trust them.

That’s what it’s come down to. Both sides conducted themselves reprehensibly during the campaign, so the chance for actual debate seems to have passed. It’s now a case of “what do you have faith in”?

I would aver that the Spectator has always leant in the direction of No Deal, so that position is hardly surprising; however it doesn’t mean that they’re wrong. I’m not an economist, and with a 60 hour per week job and two small kids I can’t hope to keep up with the ins and outs of this issue, as much as I try.

In the end it will be decided for us, and at least half the nation is going to hate whatever we end up with. I think my main issue with No Feal is that the desire for it from many ordinary people (not all by. Long shot) stems more from xenophobia and a willingness to stick two fingers up at Europe, as opposed to those who’ve plainly thought the issue through and believe that we can withstand the inevitable shocks and emerge stronger - a position that scares me but at least has the benefit of trying to do what it sees as ‘the right thing’.

Essentially, my point is that there is so much information, disinformation and opinion masquerading as fact - particularly on social media - that makes cannot begin to understand how we’re meant to get any kind of balanced, nuanced views that could help us decide what we think is best.

I know what I’m about to say is only possible with hindsight, but we had a terrible, terrible National ‘debate’, and now we’re reaping the whirlwind of it. No Deal seems like a real possibility and society as a whole is not ready for it.

As I’ve aaid many times before, I will be very happy to be wrong, and will eat all the humble pie required if we come out of this better off; it was, after all, what was promised.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was january 09, 05:14pm by JoeLeg.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by TheCat January 09, 06:59PM

Great comment JoeLeg

It's the dogma on both sides and proliferation of distorted 'facts' which now make a proper discussion almost impossible. Hence my attempt to try and start one....

We're off to a good start....but how long can it last?smiling smiley

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge January 09, 07:00PM

That article was written by an advisor to EFA (Economists for Free Trade), a group chaired by one Patrick Minford. Here's an example of how good they are...from a group of 41 economists The Times asked to make economic predictions for 2018, Minford came bottom. The OBR, much maligned by these Brextremists, came top.
These Brextremists justify their twaddle by saying that most of the world trades on WTO terms etc. If WTO terms are so good, why did the UK bother to sign free trade agreements with anyone in the first place? Simple, because FTA terms are better than WTO terms...

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by TheCat January 09, 07:12PM

diable rouge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That article was written by an advisor to EFA
> (Economists for Free Trade), a group chaired by
> one Patrick Minford. Here's an example of how good
> they are...from a group of 41 economists The Times
> asked to make economic predictions for 2018,
> Minford came bottom. The OBR, much maligned by
> these Brextremists, came top.
> These Brextremists justify their twaddle by saying
> that most of the world trades on WTO terms etc. If
> WTO terms are so good, why did the UK bother to
> sign free trade agreements with anyone in the
> first place? Simple, because FTA terms are better
> than WTO terms...

the spectator article clearly says that FTA is obviouslt preferential to WTO terms. so its probably unfair to suggest they are arguing the opposite.

The author is also a former Australian opposition leader, and former Australian foreign secretary. He doesn't really have any 'skin' in this game, so i'd argue it's probably unfair to characterise him as a brextremist. Even if he is, let's argue against what's being said, not who's saying it....

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by ianr January 09, 07:19PM

> from a group of 41 economists The Times asked to
> make economic predictions for 2018, Minford came
> bottom. The OBR, much maligned by these Brextremists,
> came top.

You do seem to like keeping your sources to yourself. Can I have the URL please. I've wasted nough time searching the Times for it.

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge January 09, 07:28PM

Don't worry ian, I'm just playing hard to get... [twitter.com]

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by diable rouge January 09, 07:47PM

TheCat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> diable rouge Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That article was written by an advisor to EFA
> > (Economists for Free Trade), a group chaired by
> > one Patrick Minford. Here's an example of how
> good
> > they are...from a group of 41 economists The
> Times
> > asked to make economic predictions for 2018,
> > Minford came bottom. The OBR, much maligned by
> > these Brextremists, came top.
> > These Brextremists justify their twaddle by
> saying
> > that most of the world trades on WTO terms etc.
> If
> > WTO terms are so good, why did the UK bother to
> > sign free trade agreements with anyone in the
> > first place? Simple, because FTA terms are
> better
> > than WTO terms...
>
> the spectator article clearly says that FTA is
> obviouslt preferential to WTO terms. so its
> probably unfair to suggest they are arguing the
> opposite.

But the article argues that No Deal won't be bad, yet the default of No Deal is to go on WTO terms. All a bit Schrodinger's Cat if you ask me...

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by TheCat January 09, 08:03PM

diable rouge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TheCat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > diable rouge Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > That article was written by an advisor to EFA
> > > (Economists for Free Trade), a group chaired
> by
> > > one Patrick Minford. Here's an example of how
> > good
> > > they are...from a group of 41 economists The
> > Times
> > > asked to make economic predictions for 2018,
> > > Minford came bottom. The OBR, much maligned
> by
> > > these Brextremists, came top.
> > > These Brextremists justify their twaddle by
> > saying
> > > that most of the world trades on WTO terms
> etc.
> > If
> > > WTO terms are so good, why did the UK bother
> to
> > > sign free trade agreements with anyone in the
> > > first place? Simple, because FTA terms are
> > better
> > > than WTO terms...
> >
> > the spectator article clearly says that FTA is
> > obviouslt preferential to WTO terms. so its
> > probably unfair to suggest they are arguing the
> > opposite.
>
> But the article argues that No Deal won't be bad,
> yet the default of No Deal is to go on WTO terms.
> All a bit Schrodinger's Cat if you ask me...

I think the article is saying that no deal is bad. But not as disastrous as what is perhaps being made out....the last para for example....

"But crashing out will damage the political relationship between the UK and the EU and we wouldn’t want to see that. So an agreement would be better than no agreement. But with no agreement don’t worry; the economy won’t collapse"

Perhaps splittin hairs, but thats what I'm getting at here, is it really as bad as being made out?

messageRe: Brexit View
Posted by alex_b January 10, 07:30AM

TheCat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At the risk of raising the ire of some on
> here....given the situation we have found
> ourselves in, I am starting to question whether
> 'no deal' is actually all that bad?

Just one concrete example of the effect of no deal. I know a financial services firm who run all of their customer service and data processing for Europe from the UK. In the event of no deal their legal advice is that they will be unable to process any EU customer data in the UK due to GDPR. This will lead immediately to the redundancy of approximately 6000 staff. Many other firms are in a similar position and of course losing 6000 jobs from a locality will have a huge knock on effect for other local businesses.

Goto Page: PreviousFirst...6263646566676869707172...LastNext
Current Page: 67 of 106

Back to top of page
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Donate                   Terms of use                  Help & FAQs                   Advertise               RSS rss feed               Copyright 2006 - 2018 East Dulwich Forum