Presvias wrote:Very well, what about the other similar claims in the article that sound super hyperbolic?
Which ones do you disagree with?
Presvias wrote:And although we've had no recession, our growth has massively lagged behind the rest of the EU
I wouldn't say massively, but as of 2019 this is no longer true anyway despite the UK having been in a state of uncertainty for three years now.
Presvias wrote:Not really.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/busi ... 75711.html
Somewhat different to companies deserting the UK, but regardless I can only laugh at this. Do you have any idea of the size of the UK finance industry? The people being moved constitute less than 1% of the total people employed and similarly the assets are a small fraction of the total.
Presvias wrote:The point has been disproven. And you implicitly concede such.
It was true at the time it was written and hardly anybody predicted the general slowdown that followed which also means that it cannot be predominantly attributed to Brexit.
Presvias wrote:EU growth has outpaced UK growth and I could show you a raft of other indices that really shred your comparison point. However, I'll await your reply first, because this is taking long enough to write as it is.
As above, this is no longer the case for the current year.
Presvias wrote:Can you show me Proof that the EU 'desires to economically annex' the UK?
I won't prove something I haven't claimed.
Presvias wrote:And what are your other good arguments? The soapbox is all yours. You have your chance to convince us to support No-Deal Brexit. Good luck (you'll need it..!).
The case for leaving the EU is quite simple. The EU is designed to absorb its members into an ever closer political union by creating a supranational structure whose institutions are by definition superior to those of the member states, exemplified today by the EC and the ECJ. It's an experiment that tries to peacefully unify an entire continent, consisting of a diverse set of nation states some of which have existed in their current form for centuries, into a single political entity, something which has never succeeded without violence and oppression. This is important to note because it means that the EU is the radical and risky proposition and those who oppose it are the moderates who just want the UK to be a normal nation state like the overwhelming majority of countries around the world. If a privileged trading relationship, which benefits both sides, is only possible via subordination to EU institutions it ought to be rejected, as the world has a perfectly good model to organise trade cooperation that doesn't involve being a member of what is committed to becoming a superstate. As such, joining the EU, and equally important signing up to later treaties without the consent of the public, was a historic mistake which has now simply been corrected. As for supporting "no deal", I know quite a few people in the UK who do support it now mainly because of what they consider the unwillingness of both, the EU and the previous UK government/pro-EU establishment in the UK, to properly terminate membership. If they are unable to negotiate a normal trade relationship, something which is eminently possible and exists around the world, then it has to be "no deal". So as far as I can tell, almost all leavers would prefer a cooperative relationship with the EU, but in the face of blatant obstruction they are prepared to just leave as well. It's the only sensible position in my view.
Presvias wrote:Really?! Then why is he supporting Boris when Boris has barely even been in Brussels trying to negotiate anything; when BJ clearly doesn't want a deal?
I have no reason to believe that Johnson doesn't want a deal as long as the terms are reasonable. As above, the only sensible position is to go ahead and just leave if that's not possible.
Presvias wrote:And why is he willing to support breaking the law to get no deal?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co ... s-49541942
That's not what he said. He wouldn't commit to it before he had seen the details of the legislation.
Presvias wrote:I really believe that, espesh when the whole quote actually says this...
So the statement is from 2012, and UKIP had actually changed its policy by 2014? Shocking.
I still don't see the problem with this by the way. I believe that Switzerland's healthcare system works along those lines.
And since you seem to be unaware that politicians make u-turns all the time, let me present to you something truly outrageous. I recommend you watch some of the dozens of videos this Twitter account
has compiled, starting with this:
Presvias wrote:LOL! Brilliant reimagining of what he said. Are you a lawyer?
You can be sure that people speculated in a similar way before the UK joined the EU and, in fact, in the run up to any major policy change.