Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Clint Planet]

The Vote Leave director admits that Brexit wouldn't have won without the £350 million for the NHS lies



The Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings has openly admitted that Brexit would never have won without all the £350 million for the NHS lies, yet still people persist in performing demeaning mental gymnastics and putting on tiresome displays of semantic quibbling to defend the Brexit liars.

Here's exactly what Cummings said (source):

"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way."

Cummings has clearly admitted that the Vote Leave campaign used outright lies to distract people's attention away from the really important issues (Post-Brexit trade deals, Single Market access, the total lack of a government contingency plan for Brexit, the massive strain on the UK civil service, the complicated legal ramifications).

This revelation that Vote Leave knew they couldn't win without the £350 million for the NHS lie came on the same day that the Tories voted down a Labour amendment to their Article 50 bill to conduct an impact assessment on the effect of Brexit on the NHS.

MPs who voted against this amendment to reveal the NHS spending impact of Brexit included high profile Tories who brazenly capitalised on the £350 million pledge like Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and Priti Patel, as well as the Labour MP Gisela Stewart who was the one who thought up the £350 for the NHS lie in the first place.

Yet, despite Vote Leave's open admission that they lied and cheated their way to success in the referendum, and the way the Tories shot down the NHS protection amendment to their Article 50 bill, there are still people crawling all over the Internet to defend the £350 million for the NHS lies!

One absurd Brexiter mental contortion involves the curious whataboutery of "Remain lied too", which instead of nullifying the lies of the Vote Leave mob, actually makes a strong case that the referendum was even more illegitimate than had it just been one side lying through their teeth. This argument does nothing but demonstrate they the person making it didn't bother listening to a word of it when their Mothers told them that "two wrongs don't make a right".



The other absurd Brexiter stance in defence of such glaring and cynical lies constitutes semantic quibbling over the words on the side of the Vote Leave bus. These people know as well as everyone else that the Vote Leave mob were much more explicit about giving £350 million to the NHS elsewhere in their campaign, but they choose to quibble over the bus writing as if the only thing people should ever remember about a political campaign is what was written on the side of the campaign busses!.

I don't get why so many Brexiters fail to understand that just because a liar was on your side of a polarised debate doesn't mean you have any kind of moral obligation to defend their lies.

It's demeaning and embarrassing that they persist in defending such cynical lies, and it would surely be better for their own mental health to just admit that they were lied to, rather than painting themselves into such ridiculously irrational corners out of misplaced loyalty to their dishonest Brexiter brethren.

 

[JonS]

The Vote Leave director admits that Brexit wouldn't have won without the £350 million for the NHS lies



The Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings has openly admitted that Brexit would never have won without all the £350 million for the NHS lies, yet still people persist in performing demeaning mental gymnastics and putting on tiresome displays of semantic quibbling to defend the Brexit liars.

Here's exactly what Cummings said (source):

"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way."

Cummings has clearly admitted that the Vote Leave campaign used outright lies to distract people's attention away from the really important issues (Post-Brexit trade deals, Single Market access, the total lack of a government contingency plan for Brexit, the massive strain on the UK civil service, the complicated legal ramifications).

This revelation that Vote Leave knew they couldn't win without the £350 million for the NHS lie came on the same day that the Tories voted down a Labour amendment to their Article 50 bill to conduct an impact assessment on the effect of Brexit on the NHS.

MPs who voted against this amendment to reveal the NHS spending impact of Brexit included high profile Tories who brazenly capitalised on the £350 million pledge like Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and Priti Patel, as well as the Labour MP Gisela Stewart who was the one who thought up the £350 for the NHS lie in the first place.

Yet, despite Vote Leave's open admission that they lied and cheated their way to success in the referendum, and the way the Tories shot down the NHS protection amendment to their Article 50 bill, there are still people crawling all over the Internet to defend the £350 million for the NHS lies!

One absurd Brexiter mental contortion involves the curious whataboutery of "Remain lied too", which instead of nullifying the lies of the Vote Leave mob, actually makes a strong case that the referendum was even more illegitimate than had it just been one side lying through their teeth. This argument does nothing but demonstrate they the person making it didn't bother listening to a word of it when their Mothers told them that "two wrongs don't make a right".



The other absurd Brexiter stance in defence of such glaring and cynical lies constitutes semantic quibbling over the words on the side of the Vote Leave bus. These people know as well as everyone else that the Vote Leave mob were much more explicit about giving £350 million to the NHS elsewhere in their campaign, but they choose to quibble over the bus writing as if the only thing people should ever remember about a political campaign is what was written on the side of the campaign busses!.

I don't get why so many Brexiters fail to understand that just because a liar was on your side of a polarised debate doesn't mean you have any kind of moral obligation to defend their lies.

It's demeaning and embarrassing that they persist in defending such cynical lies, and it would surely be better for their own mental health to just admit that they were lied to, rather than painting themselves into such ridiculously irrational corners out of misplaced loyalty to their dishonest Brexiter brethren.

 

[peteblue]

The Vote Leave director admits that Brexit wouldn't have won without the £350 million for the NHS lies



The Vote Leave director Dominic Cummings has openly admitted that Brexit would never have won without all the £350 million for the NHS lies, yet still people persist in performing demeaning mental gymnastics and putting on tiresome displays of semantic quibbling to defend the Brexit liars.

Here's exactly what Cummings said (source):

"Pundits and MPs kept saying ‘why isn’t Leave arguing about the economy and living standards’. They did not realise that for millions of people, £350m/NHS was about the economy and living standards – that’s why it was so effective. It was clearly the most effective argument not only with the crucial swing fifth but with almost every demographic. even with UKIP voters it was level-pegging with immigration. Would we have won without immigration? No. Would we have won without £350m/NHS? All our research and the close result strongly suggests No. Would we have won by spending our time talking about trade and the Single Market? No way."

Cummings has clearly admitted that the Vote Leave campaign used outright lies to distract people's attention away from the really important issues (Post-Brexit trade deals, Single Market access, the total lack of a government contingency plan for Brexit, the massive strain on the UK civil service, the complicated legal ramifications).

This revelation that Vote Leave knew they couldn't win without the £350 million for the NHS lie came on the same day that the Tories voted down a Labour amendment to their Article 50 bill to conduct an impact assessment on the effect of Brexit on the NHS.

MPs who voted against this amendment to reveal the NHS spending impact of Brexit included high profile Tories who brazenly capitalised on the £350 million pledge like Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox and Priti Patel, as well as the Labour MP Gisela Stewart who was the one who thought up the £350 for the NHS lie in the first place.

Yet, despite Vote Leave's open admission that they lied and cheated their way to success in the referendum, and the way the Tories shot down the NHS protection amendment to their Article 50 bill, there are still people crawling all over the Internet to defend the £350 million for the NHS lies!

One absurd Brexiter mental contortion involves the curious whataboutery of "Remain lied too", which instead of nullifying the lies of the Vote Leave mob, actually makes a strong case that the referendum was even more illegitimate than had it just been one side lying through their teeth. This argument does nothing but demonstrate they the person making it didn't bother listening to a word of it when their Mothers told them that "two wrongs don't make a right".



The other absurd Brexiter stance in defence of such glaring and cynical lies constitutes semantic quibbling over the words on the side of the Vote Leave bus. These people know as well as everyone else that the Vote Leave mob were much more explicit about giving £350 million to the NHS elsewhere in their campaign, but they choose to quibble over the bus writing as if the only thing people should ever remember about a political campaign is what was written on the side of the campaign busses!.

I don't get why so many Brexiters fail to understand that just because a liar was on your side of a polarised debate doesn't mean you have any kind of moral obligation to defend their lies.

It's demeaning and embarrassing that they persist in defending such cynical lies, and it would surely be better for their own mental health to just admit that they were lied to, rather than painting themselves into such ridiculously irrational corners out of misplaced loyalty to their dishonest Brexiter brethren.

In other news, apparently Tony Blair had longer than '24 hours to save the NHS' and Iraq didn't have any WMD..........

 

[Old Blue 2]

Somebody crying again cos we eventually are not going to give the EU shedloads of money for free...

 

[Fedlingen]

In other news, apparently Tony Blair had longer than '24 hours to save the NHS' and Iraq didn't have any WMD..........

So, you're implying it's okay to lie?

Weird things to bring up in comparison.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Quite long, but a really superb piece imo.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/europe/uk-london-brexit.html?_r=2

 

[roydo]

Quite long, but a really superb piece imo.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/europe/uk-london-brexit.html?_r=2

Bit that stood out or me was "Imagine NYC, Washington, and LA/Hollywood, all being in the same City?" Or sort of.

Thats actually part of the problem mate. Brexit wise. (I love London, or rather the City it is).

To the 52 Million folk who dont live there, being told what to think, do, and vote from a City disconnected from their lives, gets right on their tits.

Lets just hope all those dead clever folk in the corridors of power and influence in London, sort all this out.

 

[JonS]

Quite long, but a really superb piece imo.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/europe/uk-london-brexit.html?_r=2

The article rang fairly true to me.

My take on London is this:

The majority (I believe) of the population are non-native or immigrant (sometimes might just be in London temporarily while young).

This population are often (though not always) young, flexible and busy working hard. They are happy to do this because even on fairly low wages they are still better off than they would be in their countries such as Eastern and Southern Europe as well as many non-European countries.

Then we have the native population of white, black (been here many years now or actually born here) and some Asian (Indian subcontinent).

This population (particularly but not only the white) may have found their wages decreasing, their housing costs increasing and even themselves forced to cheaper outer parts of London to live. They may remember a time when things were better, when jobs were more secure, when London was less crowded and though they will mix with their neighbours to some degree they may notice all the different communities that will mostly mix with their own.

These will be the people that even in London will more likely to have voted Brexit

Despite all this I agree with the article that there is a lot of racial harmony and tolerance though there may be pockets of white (or black) resentment to new arrivals or (in the Whitechapel/Brick Lane area mentioned in the article) young male Muslim's telling both Muslim and non Muslim women to cover up and dress appropriately.

So...London is quite successful but in a slightly third world cheap labour for the corporations sort of way.

And then there are the wealthy class (both native and immigrant) that don't mix with the other classes at all.

So...and excuse jumbledness of this post - its getting late...Lindon is successful as a unit but many of it's native population are getting left behind and left out

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Interesting piece on the last time countries had to leave a multinational institution - The League of Nations.

Brexit has few precedents in international history.

Parallels have been drawn to Greenland’s 1985 European Community withdrawal, and Burundi and Gambia abandoning International Criminal Court membership. Yet, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union is unmatched in recent history. No country has ever withdrawn from an international organisation, potentially cutting ties with the world’s most tight knit common market, on this scale before.

The closest to a relevant parallel is the League of Nations, which dealt with the withdrawal of multiple member states between 1925 and 1939.

Leaving the league
The international League of Nations was founded after World War I, dedicated to the prevention of war through disarmament, arbitration and a system of collective security guarantees.

Like Article 50, the league’s founding text, the Covenant of the League of Nations, sets out withdrawal conditions and a two-year notification period. But – as with Article 50 – it was never thought that the Convenant’s withdrawal paragraph would be invoked; US President Woodrow Wilson suggested its inclusion to gain approval of the reticent US Senate.

However, the league’s experience with countries leaving during the interwar period can now offer some valuable lessons for the Brexit process.

1. Pay your dues
When Costa Rica notified the League of Nations of its intention to withdraw in 1923, it forwarded a cheque to cover outstanding membership and incurred expenditures. The departure was a straightforward affair.

By contrast, the 1935 withdrawal of Paraguay was fraught with complications: financial default inhibited it from paying its outstanding league debt. A territorial dispute with Bolivia had also led to war in 1933 – even though unjustified military aggression was in violation of the covenant. Paraguay remained in limbo for two years after notification: its benefits were restricted by the league, but no agreement was found over its obligations.

Taking from this, the Brexit negotiators should quickly settle all financial obligations, to avoid a protracted argument over the country’s outstanding debt – rumoured to be around €60 billion. If not, the UK could end up fighting for years over something that could be settled from the get go.

2. Think about future cooperation
Not all ties can be cut, and countries commonly retain some form of technical cooperation. After Japan withdrew in 1935, it continued to participate in subsidiaries such as the league’s own health organisation, and continued to administer a territory allocated by the league.

The EU and UK could certainly continue to cooperate on shared interests: international terrorism, border security and energy, for example. But a hard Brexit and diplomatic posturing could potentially disrupt the delicate balance of all parties’ interests in these areas.

3. Don’t forget details
In 1933 the Nazi regime in Germany felt its departure from the league would leave it unconstrained in the international realm. However, the country’s existing disarmament obligations wrecked the withdrawal process. Although the regime paid its debt to the league in full, other obligations – for example, regarding the protection of religious minorities – allowed the league to consider possible sanctions in case of withdrawal. Unfortunately, the league members never agreed on appropriate sanctions.

While there is no strong analogy here between Germany and the UK, the league experience demonstrates that separate but entangled legal bodies can constrain withdrawal. There has already been heated discussion over how the UK’s departure would impact the Good Friday agreements in Northern Ireland and the status of Gibraltar, debates which are bound to continue over the next two years.

4. Work within the framework
For an organisation that had 58 members at its height, the list of league withdrawals is damning. Larger countries such as Germany, Japan and Italy as well as the smaller Guatemala and El Salvador all left the organisation, leaving it with just 34 member nations at the time of its final demise in 1947.

In 1919, Wilson thought that “the fetish of state sovereignty” would be the chief obstacle to the league’s success – and in some ways he was right. Though the departures of Guatemala and El Salvador were a consequence of the league’s waning influence in the 1930s, the cases of Germany, Japan and Italy reveal a different story. They were mid-sized countries with international ambitions but increasingly at odds with the league’s method of public deliberation and consensus-based governance. Instead, the trio opted for unilateral action and a confrontational style of diplomacy.

These countries were adamant to retain their national sovereignty, to “take back control”. But rather than putting these countries on a course for cooperation, it led to confrontation, eventually resulting in World War II.

5. Something might go wrong
The importance of a future relationship makes a complete disruption of relations between the EU and the UK unlikely. But mutual dependency may falter if there is a fundamental disagreement, and a dispute could lead to trade barriers and retaliations. While the league was chiefly a political organisation, the EU represents an integrated political and economic entity which could make the UK’s life outside isolated and difficult.

While there are no perfect analogies, the League of Nations experience shows just how complicated it can be to withdraw from an international organisation. The importance of future relations makes goodwill from both sides essential to conclude an agreement on the terms of departure – and both the UK and EU would do well to heed these lessons going forward.

Source: https://theconversation.com/five-le...-should-take-from-the-league-of-nations-75571

 

[JonS]

Interesting piece on the last time countries had to leave a multinational institution - The League of Nations.

Brexit has few precedents in international history.

Parallels have been drawn to Greenland’s 1985 European Community withdrawal, and Burundi and Gambia abandoning International Criminal Court membership. Yet, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union is unmatched in recent history. No country has ever withdrawn from an international organisation, potentially cutting ties with the world’s most tight knit common market, on this scale before.

The closest to a relevant parallel is the League of Nations, which dealt with the withdrawal of multiple member states between 1925 and 1939.

Leaving the league
The international League of Nations was founded after World War I, dedicated to the prevention of war through disarmament, arbitration and a system of collective security guarantees.

Like Article 50, the league’s founding text, the Covenant of the League of Nations, sets out withdrawal conditions and a two-year notification period. But – as with Article 50 – it was never thought that the Convenant’s withdrawal paragraph would be invoked; US President Woodrow Wilson suggested its inclusion to gain approval of the reticent US Senate.

However, the league’s experience with countries leaving during the interwar period can now offer some valuable lessons for the Brexit process.

1. Pay your dues
When Costa Rica notified the League of Nations of its intention to withdraw in 1923, it forwarded a cheque to cover outstanding membership and incurred expenditures. The departure was a straightforward affair.

By contrast, the 1935 withdrawal of Paraguay was fraught with complications: financial default inhibited it from paying its outstanding league debt. A territorial dispute with Bolivia had also led to war in 1933 – even though unjustified military aggression was in violation of the covenant. Paraguay remained in limbo for two years after notification: its benefits were restricted by the league, but no agreement was found over its obligations.

Taking from this, the Brexit negotiators should quickly settle all financial obligations, to avoid a protracted argument over the country’s outstanding debt – rumoured to be around €60 billion. If not, the UK could end up fighting for years over something that could be settled from the get go.

2. Think about future cooperation
Not all ties can be cut, and countries commonly retain some form of technical cooperation. After Japan withdrew in 1935, it continued to participate in subsidiaries such as the league’s own health organisation, and continued to administer a territory allocated by the league.

The EU and UK could certainly continue to cooperate on shared interests: international terrorism, border security and energy, for example. But a hard Brexit and diplomatic posturing could potentially disrupt the delicate balance of all parties’ interests in these areas.

3. Don’t forget details
In 1933 the Nazi regime in Germany felt its departure from the league would leave it unconstrained in the international realm. However, the country’s existing disarmament obligations wrecked the withdrawal process. Although the regime paid its debt to the league in full, other obligations – for example, regarding the protection of religious minorities – allowed the league to consider possible sanctions in case of withdrawal. Unfortunately, the league members never agreed on appropriate sanctions.

While there is no strong analogy here between Germany and the UK, the league experience demonstrates that separate but entangled legal bodies can constrain withdrawal. There has already been heated discussion over how the UK’s departure would impact the Good Friday agreements in Northern Ireland and the status of Gibraltar, debates which are bound to continue over the next two years.

4. Work within the framework
For an organisation that had 58 members at its height, the list of league withdrawals is damning. Larger countries such as Germany, Japan and Italy as well as the smaller Guatemala and El Salvador all left the organisation, leaving it with just 34 member nations at the time of its final demise in 1947.

In 1919, Wilson thought that “the fetish of state sovereignty” would be the chief obstacle to the league’s success – and in some ways he was right. Though the departures of Guatemala and El Salvador were a consequence of the league’s waning influence in the 1930s, the cases of Germany, Japan and Italy reveal a different story. They were mid-sized countries with international ambitions but increasingly at odds with the league’s method of public deliberation and consensus-based governance. Instead, the trio opted for unilateral action and a confrontational style of diplomacy.

These countries were adamant to retain their national sovereignty, to “take back control”. But rather than putting these countries on a course for cooperation, it led to confrontation, eventually resulting in World War II.

5. Something might go wrong
The importance of a future relationship makes a complete disruption of relations between the EU and the UK unlikely. But mutual dependency may falter if there is a fundamental disagreement, and a dispute could lead to trade barriers and retaliations. While the league was chiefly a political organisation, the EU represents an integrated political and economic entity which could make the UK’s life outside isolated and difficult.

While there are no perfect analogies, the League of Nations experience shows just how complicated it can be to withdraw from an international organisation. The importance of future relations makes goodwill from both sides essential to conclude an agreement on the terms of departure – and both the UK and EU would do well to heed these lessons going forward.

Source: https://theconversation.com/five-le...-should-take-from-the-league-of-nations-75571

Well we may be one of the first to leave but there are going to be a lot more lol

And there are plenty of examples of large empires and groupings dismantling (the USSR for one).

Infact it's as sure as anything that just as large groupings will form that they will some day dismantle. This is the ebb and flow of history!

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Well we may be one of the first to leave but there are going to be a lot more lol

And there are plenty of examples of large empires and groupings dismantling (the USSR for one).

Infact it's as sure as anything that just as large groupings will form that they will some day dismantle. This is the ebb and flow of history!

The break up of empires is usually less than voluntary though. The League of Nations was slightly different, and had many parallels with the EU, hence why I thought it interesting.

 

[edge]

Quite long, but a really superb piece imo.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/11/world/europe/uk-london-brexit.html?_r=2

just read that, sounds like you could have written it Bruce lots of your sentiments in there

 

[JonS]

The break up of empires is usually less than voluntary though. The League of Nations was slightly different, and had many parallels with the EU, hence why I thought it interesting.

Interesting maybe but I found it a very biased article - written very much from a "UK should not have left" scenario rather than an objective look at the issue. Maybe that's my own biased eyes - who knows?

 

[edge]

Well we may be one of the first to leave but there are going to be a lot more lol

And there are plenty of examples of large empires and groupings dismantling (the USSR for one).

Infact it's as sure as anything that just as large groupings will form that they will some day dismantle. This is the ebb and flow of history!

two of the four front runners in the French elections are asking for a vote on the EU one on the right one on the left.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Interesting maybe but I found it a very biased article - written very much from a "UK should not have left" scenario rather than an objective look at the issue. Maybe that's my own biased eyes - who knows?

Sure, it's possible. I don't know a great deal about the League of Nations, but certainly the comparably sized nations that left it didn't go on to great things (Germany, Italy and Japan especially). That's not to say that we're following the same path of 'major recession - break up of international bodies - poop hitting the fan' of course. At least I certainly hope we're not. If nothing else, that's perhaps a good reason to ensure the leave negotiations remain civil rather than fractious. We are all broadly speaking friends here, not enemies.