"Modernism", "Elitism", and "The Working Classes"

[french frank]

I think that the point is that it did not matter which Treasury models were used, Remain were barking up the wrong tree.

That's an interesting point though 1) it hasn't yet been demonstrated that the general direction of the Treasury's forecasts was wrong or that the Treasury was 'barking up the wrong tree'. The general uncertainties are still based on the fact that the tree was the correct one. The mistake was to use what were simply probabilities based on economic models as if they were accurate assessments of what would happen (understood in some quarters as being what would happen immediately the Leave result of the referendum was known). As yet we know only that the GBP is worth approximately 13% less than during the run-up to the vote; that the UK has fallen back from 5th largest world economy to the 6th; that it is now the slowest growing of the major economies; and that wage increases have not kept up with inflation so that wages are something like 10% lower in real terms than ten years ago. And we still have the economic benefits of being in the EU.

I realise that none of this matters to Leavers who were more interested in sovereignty (as if we were no longer a sovereign state) and immigration (as if the country were not a beneficiary of immigration).

Dougan is a constitutional lawyer who was spelling out the legal implications of leaving the EU and the influence which the UK already had as one of the leading nations within the Union. It is of no relevance who funded him, though that also seems to be another source of Leave misinformation. As Dougan said:

'I'm an employee of the University of Liverpool, my entire salary is paid by the University of Liverpool, and the University of Liverpool does not receive a penny of external funding in order to pay that salary… In 2006, the University of Liverpool was awarded a Jean Monnet Chair – a form of EU grant – consisting of €36,000. Under the terms of the grant, part of the money was spent on a major academic conference, the outputs from which were published by the usual process of international peer review. The remaining funds were spent on general teaching costs.'

[Once Was 4]

The answer was clear too. A small electoral preference to leave. The government then took this outcome of the advisory referendum to inform their plan on what to do about EU membership. They decided to leave and took this to parliament where it was ratified.

I keep being told by friends that Brexit is a 'right wing Tory plot'. Hmmm - since when were the rail unions (the RMT, ASLEF and what was the TSSA) a load of Tories? I am sorry, this is a bit off topic, but I do want to know.

[Serial_Apologist]

I realise that none of this matters to Leavers who were more interested in sovereignty (as if we were no longer a sovereign state) and immigration (as if the country were not a beneficiary of immigration).

To me one of the craziest arguments put forward by some of the more bone-headed of the brexiteers is that that money is of secondary consideration to the issue of sovereignty. Unless they think they can get rid of money, in what universe do these people think they live? EVERYTHING depends on money above everything else. The best things in life, such as imports, have to be paid for, doh!! - even for some time after we've got rid of capitalism, though that seems not to be part of their dream. Or do they think we can become a totally self-subsistent economy, and grow all our own food?

[Serial_Apologist]

I keep being told by friends that Brexit is a 'right wing Tory plot'. Hmmm - since when were the rail unions (the RMT, ASLEF and what was the TSSA) a load of Tories? I am sorry, this is a bit off topic, but I do want to know.

Where do you get that from? Fake News?

[ahinton]

C'mon, everyone knows that all this current 'devil in the detail', confusion etc is just being whipped up by the political elite and fellow travellers because they want to prevent the UK from leaving - Clegg's even written a book called 'How To Stop Brexit: A Comprehensive Guide To Keeping Britain In The European Union'!!!! and some Brexiteers are just as bad, the other way around. For us honest people in the middle, the 30 odd millions, it's like siblings dealing with two dysfunctional parents!

"Everyone" knows nothing of the kind; "everyone need only read the text of the referendum, namely 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?', to realise that the 'devil in the detail' - indeed, the 'detail' as a whole - was entirely absent from the question to which the government of the day invited voters to answer "yes" or "no"; that's precisely what made it "imbecilic", as Richard correctly describes it. When that absurdly simplistic referendum was first promised, nothing whatsoever had been or was being "whipped up by the political élite and fellow travellers" for any reason, let alone "because they want to prevent the UK from leaving". The relevance in this context to Mr Clegg's book seems questionable, since it was published on 12 October 2017, almost 16 months after the opinion poll result had been announced, so it had no bearing on voters' decisions.

However "bad" some Remainers and Leavers might be or have been (and there has undoubtedly been some disgraceful conduct on both sides), the real culprit is the government that had no need even to address the issue of UK's EU membership but that nevertheless did so by subjecting it to a risibly simplistic plebiscite rather than to proper Parliamentary procedures and proceedings, thereby throwing UK into the ever increasingly embarrasing and costly mess in which it now finds itself and demonstrating beyond all doubt that its care and concern for UK's future was and remains woefully lacking.

[ahinton]

I keep being told by friends that Brexit is a 'right wing Tory plot'. Hmmm - since when were the rail unions (the RMT, ASLEF and what was the TSSA) a load of Tories? I am sorry, this is a bit off topic, but I do want to know.

Brexit is a "plot" (insofar as one could even dignify it with such a term) on the part of people of various political persuasions but which happened to been given the opportunity of traction by a Tory party that was the only one to raise it in a General Election manifesto as a possiblity by promising a stupidly phrase referendum on UK's continued EU membership while at the same time having convinced itself that it would never happen and therefore no Plan B would ever be required; the logic behind all of this is undetectable.

[ahinton]

To me one of the craziest arguments put forward by some of the more bone-headed of the brexiteers is that that money is of secondary consideration to the issue of sovereignty.

Agreed - and, as Richard points out, the issue of "sovereignty" (whatever that might be, if anything) is and was an "illusion".

Unless they think they can get rid of money, in what universe do these people think they live?

That's twice in a single sentence that you question how they "think", whereas I am content to question whether they think - at all.

EVERYTHING depends on money above everything else. The best things in life, such as imports, have to be paid for, doh!! - even for some time after we've got rid of capitalism, though that seems not to be part of their dream. Or do they think we can become a totally self-subsistent economy, and grow all our own food?

Again, one cannot reasonably dignify what they do by describing it as "thinking".

[ahinton]

Leavers who were more interested in sovereignty (as if we were no longer a sovereign state) and immigration (as if the country were not a beneficiary of immigration)

Quite; in other words "Leavers" who were more interested in their own ill-formed "opinions" than in the future of the country. You and Richard are right to point out that the "sovereignty" and "immigration" issues are not remotely understood by such people.

[Beef Oven!]

Reply to french frank's post #166

That's an interesting point though 1) it hasn't yet been demonstrated that the general direction of the Treasury's forecasts was wrong or that the Treasury was 'barking up the wrong tree'. The general uncertainties are still based on the fact that the tree was the correct one. The mistake was to use what were simply probabilities based on economic models as if they were accurate assessments of what would happen (understood in some quarters as being what would happen immediately the Leave result of the referendum was known). As yet we know only that the GBP is worth approximately 13% less than during the run-up to the vote; that the UK has fallen back from 5th largest world economy to the 6th; that it is now the slowest growing of the major economies; and that wage increases have not kept up with inflation so that wages are something like 10% lower in real terms than ten years ago. And we still have the economic benefits of being in the EU.

Our mutual friend, Yanis Varoufakis states, at the start of his book 'Talking To My Daughter About The Economy - A brief History Of Capitalism" ".... I realised a delicious contradiction about my own profession (economist) ..... the more scientific our models of the economy become, the less relation they bear to the real existing economy out there. Precisely the opposite that pertains to physics, engineering and the rest of the real sciences". He goes on to summarise that economists always get their predictions wrong!

Just look at what the Treasury modelling said about jobs/employement in the two years following the referendum; between 500,000 and 820,000 more people would be out of work. That struck fear in me - scary predictions. But today in the "real existing economy out there" actually there 220,000 more people in employment than before the 6 months leading up to the referendum, the best level since 1975. The Treasury was inaccurate by up to 1,040,000 jobs!!!

I realise that none of this matters to Leavers who were more interested in sovereignty (as if we were no longer a sovereign state) and immigration (as if the country were not a beneficiary of immigration).

What makes you think that Brexiters are against immigration? We're not. The problem is uncontrolled immigration. And immigration comes at a cost. The data used by UCL in their major study actually demonstrates that recent immigration has cost the tax payer at least £94 billion. But that information is buried and didn't make it to the executive summary. Be careful what you read!

Dougan is a constitutional lawyer who was spelling out the legal implications of leaving the EU and the influence which the UK already had as one of the leading nations within the Union. It is of no relevance who funded him, though that also seems to be another source of Leave misinformation. As Dougan said:

'I'm an employee of the University of Liverpool, my entire salary is paid by the University of Liverpool, and the University of Liverpool does not receive a penny of external funding in order to pay that salary… In 2006, the University of Liverpool was awarded a Jean Monnet Chair – a form of EU grant – consisting of €36,000. Under the terms of the grant, part of the money was spent on a major academic conference, the outputs from which were published by the usual process of international peer review. The remaining funds were spent on general teaching costs.'

Erm, be careful what you read! Dougan is the Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law at Liverpool University! look at this!

Of course his salary is entirely paid by Liverpool University - every month by electronic transfer.

And do we need an 'expert' like him to tell us it will be a complicated process to extrapolate ourselves from the EU?

[ahinton]

[B]Just look at what the Treasury modelling said about jobs/employement in the two years following the referendum; between 500,000 and 820,000 more people would be out of work. Today the "real existing economy out there" actually has 220,000 more people in employment than before the 6 months leading up to the referendum, the best level since 1975. The Treasury was inaccurate by up to 1,200,000 jobs!!!

Yes, ever more people receiving benefits are doing so while in work, which must say quite a lot about what they're being paid! Statistics showing reducing uneployment and increasing employment do not tell the whole story and never have done.

What makes you think that Brexiters are against immigration? We're not. The problem is uncontrolled immigration. And immigration comes at a cost. The data used by UCL in their major study actually demonstrates that recent immigration has cost the tax payer at least £94 billion. But that information is buried and didn't make it to the executive summary. Be careful what you read!

Good advice to you too! Some Brexiteers do want to control immigration unreasonably and give little or not thought to the fact that this will cause no end of problems for UK businesses wanting to recruit people to do jobs that the "natives" are often reluctant to do. How do you determine the leves at which immigration becomes "uncontrolled"? The only genuinely "uncontrolled" immigration is illegal immigtation and most of us - Remainers and Leavers alike - want to curb that as far as possible. Does this £94bn figure that you quote take into account the taxes paid by immigrants? And how "recent" is "recent"? A year? Ten years?

do we need an 'expert' like him to tell us it will be a complicated process to extrapolate ourselves from the EU?

Oh, no, of course we don't! To blazes with "experts", as a distinguished UK politican said not so long ago!

[Beef Oven!]

How do you determine the leves at which immigration becomes "uncontrolled"?

Here's a clue. The government had given an election pledge to reduce immigration to tens of thousands per year. It's actually gone up to around quarter of a million net per year, and obviously gross immigration levels are even higher. That's to say nothing of illegal immigration which, as you say, is uncontrolled. Any reasonable person would accept that the UK can't control the number of people who enter the country.

[french frank]

Just one quick point (to begin with ):

Erm, be careful what you read! Dougan is the Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law at Liverpool University! look at this!

Of course his salary is entirely paid by Liverpool University - every month by electronic transfer.

https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/07/eu-academic-uses-abuse-hes-been-sent-by-brexit-campaigners-in-new-book-intro/

"In and among the Leave-driven claims are those that academics are personally corrupt. One particular proponent of this is Richard North, Dougan says. The Leave campaigner wrote an article in which he described Dougan as “a paid agent of the EU”, because the University of Liverpool receives European funds. (The EU grant in question, the Jean Monnet Chair, accounted for significantly less than 0.0001% of the institution’s turnover since 2006, Dougan explains.)"

As the holder of the chair has to be already a full-time permanent professor of the relevant institution, he receives his normal salary. The grant is used by the university for the purposes stated. The occupant of the chair is a specialist in EU law (especially as touching welfare) and teaches what he would normally teach. His job does not depend in any way on EU funding. Just a misunderstanding on Leave's part, no doubt.

All that can be inferred is that he thinks the UK should remain in the EU. Not something he sought to hide, I think.

And he points out that Brexit is a life-time gift to specialists in UK-EU law …

And do we need an 'expert' like him to tell us it will be a complicated process to extrapolate ourselves from the EU?

Extrapolate ourselves? Whereas anyone with a modicum of understanding might have grasped how complicated the process would be, they might not have necessarily computed the cost when they decorated the side of their red bus.

[Richard Barrett]

All this talk about Brexit is highly tedious, can we get back to modernism and class warfare please?

[Beef Oven!]

[QUOTE=french frank;681351]

Just one quick point (to begin with ):


https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/07/e...ew-book-intro/

Not nice. I think 2016 brought out the worst in some people. I don't think Dougan was dishonest and he certainly has done nothing to get all that nasty abuse.

"In and among the Leave-driven claims are those that academics are personally corrupt. One particular proponent of this is Richard North, Dougan says. The Leave campaigner wrote an article in which he described Dougan as “a paid agent of the EU”, because the University of Liverpool receives European funds. (The EU grant in question, the Jean Monnet Chair, accounted for significantly less than 0.0001% of the institution’s turnover since 2006, Dougan explains.)"

I doubt that the FD of Liverpool University would be silly enough to allocate the EU funding for the Jean Monnet Chair of EU Law to the line on the budget for Dougan's substantive role. Dougan does 90 hours per annum for three years consecutively on EU studies, but does it for free, or on his own time or what? If I was the LU FD I'd think that Dougan was good value because he brings in enough money to pay for half his salary!

It's not even a big deal. Lots of big organisations have multiple secondary funding streams and it often all just goes into the pot. He just should have declared the interest somehow.

As the holder of the chair has to be already a full-time permanent professor of the relevant institution, he receives his normal salary. The grant is used by the university for the purposes stated. The occupant of the chair is a specialist in EU law (especially as touching welfare) and teaches what he would normally teach. His job does not depend in any way on EU funding. Just a misunderstanding on Leave's part, no doubt.

As above - who pays for the 90 hours per week that Dougan does on EU commission sponsored EU studies and when does he do it? On his own time?

All that can be inferred is that he thinks the UK should remain in the EU. Not something he sought to hide, I think.

Well I remember him saying that he was not going to get involved in the public debate, but felt that he simply had to because he felt that so much crap was going down (he put it better than that). He may well have been genuinely angered, but it would have been better if he declared his Jean Monnet status.

And he points out that Brexit is a life-time gift to specialists in UK-EU law …

They come along every 5 minutes in the legal profession!

Extrapolate ourselves? Whereas anyone with a modicum of understanding might have grasped how complicated the process would be, they might not have necessarily computed the cost when they decorated the side of their red bus.

Putting that on the bus was naughty, but I'm with Alex Salmond on this one ....

[french frank]

What makes you think that Brexiters are against immigration? We're not. The problem is uncontrolled immigration. And immigration comes at a cost. The data used by UCL in their major study actually demonstrates that recent immigration has cost the tax payer at least £94 billion. But that information is buried and didn't make it to the executive summary. Be careful what you read!

Next point: immigration. The non sequitur comes in thinking that the best way to control immigration is to leave the EU. Two points: the majority of new immigrants are not from the EU. Estimated non-EU net migration, meanwhile, is 205,000 a year—the highest level recorded since 2011. It has been almost consistently higher than EU migration for decades.

And secondly, it lay within the power of the UK government to control the number of migrants coming from the new EU countries of central and eastern Europe, as most other EU countries did. Another example of the jobsworth/regulation-ridden UK bureaucracy which insists on interpreting EU rules in the way guaranteed to create most trouble.