This has to be watched:
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Dishonesty on an industrial scale: Prof Michael Dougan on Brexit
Richard Murphy
Read more about me
Support This Site
If you like what I do please support me on Ko-fi using credit or debit card or PayPal
Yes indeed! I saw both this and John Oliver’s video yesterday. possibly says much about the people I am “friends” with. I am firmly in the Yes camp but for those of you who are wavering this is a must see. I had not understood the legal complexities. I knew the Brexit camp were stretching the truth; the £350M per week to the EU being one example; but I was horrified; the headline is a very fair representation of reality.
Two things were supposed to happen on Thursday, I was going to vote and then go for the results of my suspected prostate cancer biopsy. I got an early birthday present yesterday (I’m 60 today) saying that the biopsy was clear and I needn’t bother going to the hospital.
My outlook is a bit more optimistic this week. Brexit does not seem inevitable. We had a show of hands at our sailing club and it was unanimous to stay in. Everyone I know professionally is voting in. The only person I know who is out is my brother in law. I gave had fruitless discussions on Climate Change with him in the past – doesn’t believe in it. The fact that I have a PhD in Physics and he doesn’t even have a GCSE doesn’t seem to give him even a niggling doubt that I might know a bit more than him!
Anyway I’m hopeful of a Yes vote. The mood seems to have changed after the Jo Cox murder. Possibly even more disgusting than the “Dishonesty on an Industrial Scale” is the covert (and sometimes even overt) racism of the Brexit camp. That alone would make me vote Yes even if the economic and legal arguments were on the leave side.
Sean
That’s some birthday present
Congratulations on all counts
Have a good one
Richard
Saw the article you referred to Sean.
Glad you’re clear on the prostate.I’m in Texas till the 27th and praying for REMAIN to win.
Results to come in 10pm+ here.
Frank
It’s amazing isn’t it?
The BREXIT tactics can be simply summed up as certain members of the UK Establishment creating another Establishment (the EU) to take the flak for their own home grown destructive social and economic policies.
I think ‘dishonesty on an industrial scale’ pretty much sums up our times.
The bit that I hadn’t realised was that the single market is far less about tariffs and far more about harmonising regulation, so that the same item can be sold anywhere within the single market. Let’s get rid of all the red tape from Brussels so that our goods and services cannot be sold anywhere within the EU! Brilliant idea! I just am not completely clear what you can do with the goods and services if you can’t sell them.
AND he’s an Ulsterman, which made my day.
Sadly I think you were not alone there, too many people seemed to believe that the EU made laws for the sake of making laws, and that, post Brexit, we will be able to continue selling our goods and services to the EU member states without the “bother” of having to follow these laws – pure fantasy!
I watched the Prof chap – for me the most interesting part was that it would be government & what passes for the Uk bureaucracy that would unentangle UK & EU law – with very little parliamentary oversight. I can see exactly where that would end.
The media are still doing their bit with “industrial dishonesty” – the Torygraph yesterday with a load of cobblers about cheaper energy if we left the EU. The article was full of contradictory stuff – indeed my 18 year old niece having done a critical thinking course could have dismantled it. Pathetic.
Having watched this now it reminds of my own undergraduate lecture on this issue in 1996 – the law lecturer then said almost exactly the same as Prof. Dougan and reminds me why I never ever fell for the anti-European sentiment that a certain coterie of politicians has always pushed forward in this country.
I never agreed with the euro (it was Larry Elliott who convinced me on that one long ago) but to scrap a viable trade treaty in the midst of a global economy still reeling from an American induced financial crisis.
We also seem to have mass migration away from failed states that the West must take some responsibility for – whether it is in Africa or the Middle East.
That is why I will vote to stay and then support any UK politician who will (1) Take Europe seriously in order to be taken seriously and (2) Work harder to address its short comings.
Then and only then if we know that we have not been listened to, should we seriously consider leaving and even then, at the right time – if at all.
Our prof seems in disagreement with a QC on the question of the primacy of EU law over UK law in his discussion on sovereignty:
http://www.lawyersforbritain.org/eulaw-ecj-primacy.shtml
It’s Martin Howe QC.
Who to believe?
The prof
He seeks the truth
Practitioners seek to win cases
Very different skills
Mr Howe’s article isn’t written in the context of an adversarial case.
QCs do a lot more than fight cases – they are often asked to write legal opinions where there isn’t necessarily a dispute. They do need to be able to get the legal analysis right.
Judges tend to be drawn (almost) exclusively from the pool of QCs – ability to find truth (where they are dealing with real lives and real issues) is skill they do need.
But QCs do not see the world the way academics do
In fact most will have no clue of how an academic does see the world
Rather like accountants and academics
I happen to be a practitioner and academic
Academics have been show to have their views attenuated by funding – see film “inside job”. This guy is the Monnet Chair.
To get to the truth we need the views of many including the interpreters of the law.
It’s possible
It’s also by no means necessarily true
Could I just add that in most contentious situations, a legal opinion can be bought? Is this QC working on his own or has he been paid?
I work for an ALMO (arms length management organisation). When the parent company – our Council – wanted to take us back in-house, both sides got themselves QC’s to ‘give their opinion’.
When I was taking part in a 38 Degrees campaign on the recent health bill, 38 Degrees put forth a legal opinion. When I emailed the House of Lords, all I got back was………….another QC’s legal opinion that refuted the previous one.
Legal opinions are just like tennis really. Until a court or Judge or settles the score. And even then there may be leave to appeal.
With regard to what I have said about the consequences of BREXIT, in truth I do not know what is going to happen. But I have based my justification for staying on what I have observed over the last 25 politically aware years of my life – and believe you me I have been watching what has been going on as closely as my time will let me.
Every morning two lawyers walk into court
And one of them is wrong
“Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” (Mark Twain)
I’m not a psychologist but the phrase ‘cognitive dissonance’ comes to mind. Maybe that’s being overly charitable. The question as to why people make decisions, like voting, out of emotion rather than reason – and often against their own interest – is a long-standing research topic for sociologists and behavioural scientists. Here’s an interesting article from the Guardian (07/05/15) – https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/07/voting-irrational-emotions-politics-ideology.
The point about both sides using the EU as a distraction (whipping boy) from their own failures is well-taken. The more we deconstruct this entire charade the more it reveals itself to be just about the most destructive tactic any government could have come up with, having potential repercussions far into the future. It beggars belief that supposedly intelligent people could initiate a guaranteed lose – lose project. However, I suppose it says as much about the electorate as it does about them.
I listened to this very carefully and did not hear any concrete examples of anything that would support the arguments he makes. He just says that he has asked lots of organisations/people, and they all agree with him, and that is lots of evidence. This is not good academia in my book.
To make sweeping statements about people who want to leave as being dishonest on a grand scale is dishonesty itself, and shows weakness. I do not like to hear that the Director of War on Want, and other highly principled people like Kelvin Hopkins are dishonest, any more than I would call the good MP Caroline Lucas dishonest for wanting to remain.
This is a crucial decision, and we need to be right, and we need to not castigate each other over it.
I have found this very very difficult, and still do not know which way to vote. I prefer people to just give examples and facts and interpret them.
The short term is good if we remain because we avoid a vicious Tory Government.
The long term is bad, I think to remain, if no reform, because the EU dictates economic policy via the 3% government spending and the EU competition laws regarding nationalisation.
George Monbiot stated in the Guardian that a conservative minister has lobbied the EU commission to keep ISDS in the CETA treaty, and John Hilary has stated that Cecilia Malstrom wants to push it through without ratification by national parliaments. What we really need is to find out if this is fact as it will alter our lives considerably.
Therefore the question is, what is the likelyhood of reform, and how do we do it?
One of the best debates I think, due to honesty and objectivity, was between Caroline Lucas and John Hilary. It weighs boths sides – which makes it democratic and sound.
https://soundcloud.com/weeklyeconomicspodcast/eu-referendum-debate
Oh come on: you use an academic email address and show you have not a clue how a lecture is given
Shame on you
For heaven’s sake raise your debate over that
And yes, I can say John Hilary is wrong because he is in my experience and politically I disagree with Kelvin. I did not say either lied
But your analysis of good academic lecturing is poor , unambiguously
The Professor failed to explain why all those territories that accept freedom of movement, which are in the Single Market but not in the EU are on balance rubbish places with low quality of life scores. Funny how he missed that.
Norway
Iceland
Liechtenstein
No wonder I usually treat your contributions as pure BS
They are
Norway I go to a lot – it is very nice and very socialist in a good way – very innovative and forward looking. Never been to the other two places but I do fancy a trip to Iceland. Just to find out for myself what it is like.
Low quality of life? In Norway. I went on holiday there not long ago and did not want to come back.
Iceland – a country that seems to be the only one to hold its Government responsible for its behaviour in the 2008 crash?
Baxter – you must surely have better things to do with your life? Please go and do them with my blessing.
Flippin’ heck…………..
Where did you go? I love Kristiansand and Bergen , although Oslo is pretty nice as well. Next time I plan to do the ferry thing all the way up to Tromso – in August to watch the football team ( and apparently some nice restaurants in Tromso ). Anyway , the point is we could learn a lot from Norway and the way they run their country and seem to have respect and compassion for each other. An impressive country in my humble opinion.
I’ve been to quite a lot of it including the far north
Oslo best but Bergen good too
I’ve followed both sides of the argument for some time.
I was leaning towards remain anyway, but rapidly became 100% remain after reading the outright lies, and reading/listening to what is, basically, a pogrom against anyone not “British”.
As anyone who has any education will know, there are no indigenous “British”. Go back several thousand years and you will find a bleak, ice covered island with nobody living there.
I’ve about had enough of it all….then the guy with the leave poster nearly ended up in hospital…after I declined his offer I received several mouthfuls of racist abuse.
So..remain. Anything a bigot hates I’m all for.
Anyway, look at the header diagram in the FT:
https://ig.ft.com/sites/the-uk-in-europe/
Dwell upon it for a while. Then look at how little we are part of the EU now…
Excellent link
Thanks
Taking everything into account, I consider that we only joined to get access to the free trade agreement.
Oh well..
The part that struck me was the 10 years to renegotiate after the 2 year divorce!! What state will our economy be in by then?
Dire
It could be more.
The fact to dwell upon is this: From the time we give notice of our intent to depart the EU the treaty of the european union gives TWO YEARS to negotiate an agreement. Any extension to that needs to be agreed, in the end, by a unanimous vote of all 27 states. From notice to leave being given, the UK will have no say in the proceedings. So it may well be that the UK will reach the end of the allowed period, get no agreement/s, get no extension, and be trading on WTO rules after.
I don’t know about you, but getting 20 of them to agree is going to be hard work…
I’m hovering over a reluctant Remain vote but holding up this talk as some sort of game changer is rather stretching things. Anything that claims that EU membership has been a positive, or better than the alternatives, is simply a lie. In exactly the same way as claims that without privatisation our industries would be on their knees in 3rd world disarray.
I’ve moved from being fully pro EU and heavily pro EURO to wavering and even contemplating Brexit, why? Greece.
I also have concerns around the supposed benefits of free movement of labour. I would actually like to keep this free movement but only if we remove/restrict the freedoms capital has been granted.
But we are not Greece
We’re not in the Euro
And 90% of economists (at least) think you will be worse off
Why vote for that?
Which is why I’m reluctant Remain but come on, 90% of economists, as if it were comparable to the climate change consensus? A heck of a lot of these economists remain neo liberal apologists.
Richard it may seem picky but I don’t like absolutist claims around subjective discourse, especially when there can never be any possibility of proof of what ‘would have happened’.
I believe we have been better off in the EU, I believe we have actively harmed the EU via veto and lobbying and I believe our industries would have been better without privatisation. But I can’t prove any of that.
Absolutist is not the same as on a very high balance of probabilities
But they can sound the same
Our manufacturers and exporters make sure their products meet the requirements of the destination countries (not only the EU), it has always been that way. Common sense says they will continue to do this. Therefore there will be no problem in this respect in continuing to export to the EU. Where there may be a problem is, that some EU countries may want to punish us for leaving and removing part of their gravy train. However, we make all the engines for Ford Europe, we make vans for Renault, we make wings for Airbus, these companies also sell large quantities to us and would be foolish to allow anything to spoil their current exports and profits. Companies on all sides enjoy their current benefits, why would either side wish to spoil things, by imposing WTO import tariffs?
You ignore the politics
If they are generous to us anti-EU parties throughout Europe will be ebncouraged
Your view is factless and hopeful
Their view may also be factless, but it won’t be kind