Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

The HMG is holding an emergency meeting today with business leaders when it realised it would not have enough pallets in a no deal situation!

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-michael-gove-ministers-to-hold-emergency-meeting-over-no-deal-chaos-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

In some ways, Brexit is the gift that keeps on giving. In this case, giving brand new sentences to the world.

What an absolute farce.

Hermy

Leroy42 wrote: »

The HMG is holding an emergency meeting today with business leaders when it realised it would not have enough pallets in a no deal situation!

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-michael-gove-ministers-to-hold-emergency-meeting-over-no-deal-chaos-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

I'm pretty sure Ciaran the Van Driver brought up the issue of pallets in the very first episode of Three Men in a Pub.

EDIT: Yep, at 47:50 he discusses pallets.

If only he'd told HMG...

VinLieger

youcantakethat wrote: »

No actually, the following is the sterling euro exchange rate ten years ago.

Month Rate (£1 = €)
Sept 2009 1.1604
August 2009 1.1568
July 2009 1.1747
June 2009 1.1354
May 2009 1.117
April 2009 1.0656
March 2009 1.1324
February 2009 1.1291
February 2009 1.0666
January 2009 1.0768
December 2008 1.0768
December 2008 1.1942

Now, as of this morning, the exchange rate is still 1 Pound sterling equals
1.16 Euro. So sterling has actually strengthened slightly compared to this month ten years ago. Then you had to give 1.0666 euro to buy a pound, now you have to give 1.16 euro to buy a pound. Plus bank commission of course.

To listen to the brainwashed masses here you would think sterling had collapsed !

If you want to look at a currency exchange rate that has shifted significantly, look at the euro dollar rate. Despite Trump running the USA, our euro now only buys 1.14 dollars. Back in the glory days not too long ago we used to get 1.6 dollars to the euro....hence you do not hear of too many of us going on shopping trips to New York now, or bringing the kids to Florida. How people forget. Without the UK contributing to Europe economically and militarily and politically, the Eurozone will only get worse.

Except thats not what you said

youcantakethat wrote: »

It is the same now as ten years ago. A euro buys eighty something pence sterling, same as it has for most of the past 10 years.

Which objectively is absolute bollox as the price fluctuated wildly from lows of .94 during the finincial crash in 2010 to highs of .69 in 2015 just prior to brexit, in fact for nearly 2 whole years 2014 and 2015 it was below .80.


Now your probably going to try claiming "yeah well i said eighty something and i was right" if that's your argument you are again showing you know absolutely nothing about currency markets by claiming .89 and .81 are basically the same thing.

I do love how you are trying to argue though that because the current price is similar to 10 years ago when we were in the midst of the financial crash that everything is fine....

54and56

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Given that parliament can't agree on anything other than not wanting no deal, perhaps enough MPs will welcome the chance to pass this decision to the public.

This is the excuse many MP's have been waiting for in order to hand the decision back to the people to make.

TM's deal, even with some last minute tweaks won't have a majority in the HoC, neither will Labours soft Brexit plan and the majority of MP's won't in all conscience allow the UK to sleep walk into a No Deal Brexit just because they couldn't agree anything else.

If the people really want a No Deal Brexit in preference to TM's deal they will have to choose it in a 2nd referendum now that each option has been debated and examined at length and they can make a fully informed decision.

The big question for me is how the option of remaining in the EU can be included in a 2nd referendum given the question on whether to leave the EU or not has already been settled in the 2016 referendum.

It would seem logical that any 2nd referendum would be a straight choice about what type of Brexit the people want i.e. TM deal or No Deal. I would like to see the option to remain being included but I can't see how it can be given the vote in 2016. I get that there was misinformation, exaggeration and some off side financial activity by the Leave side but is that enough to effectively justify a re-run of the leave/remain question again?

Water John

At last we're getting to the business end of Brexit voting. Remain must be an option on any Ref as the majority in the HOC favour it. The way to ensure the Remain is the default option is for Parliament to rule out No Deal Brexit.

BTW if Lb allow a free vote that would be absolute joke. This is not a personal conscience issue but a critical decision for the State.

Professor Moriarty

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which is ironic, since "remain" is almost certainly more popular than either of the other two options. Which raises the question of whether a referendum that doesn't include a "remain" option is going to pass, politically.

I think the problem is with the Leave vote. Buses, jingoism and lies won't cut the mustard this time as voters are much more informed as to the nuances of Brexit. In 2016, Leave was a very simplistic 'good' idea and Remain fought a very complacent campaign. This time around Remain will be on the ballot as a majority want to remain and this time around they will be highly motivated. Whereas the Leave campaign will be disparate campaigns for Hard, Soft and whatever you're having yourself Brexits.

farmchoice

Je_suis_Jean wrote: »

This is the excuse many MP's have been waiting for in order to hand the decision back to the people to make.

TM's deal, even with some last minute tweaks won't have a majority in the HoC, neither will Labours soft Brexit plan and the majority of MP's won't in all conscience allow the UK to sleep walk into a No Deal Brexit just because they couldn't agree anything else.

If the people really want a No Deal Brexit in preference to TM's deal they will have to choose it in a 2nd referendum now that each option has been debated and examined at length and they can make a fully informed decision.

The big question for me is how the option of remaining in the EU can be included in a 2nd referendum given the question on whether to leave the EU or not has already been settled in the 2016 referendum.
It would seem logical that any 2nd referendum would be a straight choice about what type of Brexit the people want i.e. TM deal or No Deal. I would like to see the option to remain being included but I can't see how it can be given the vote in 2016. I get that there was misinformation, exaggeration and some off side financial activity by the Leave side but is that enough to effectively justify a re-run of the leave/remain question again?

i would love to see the uk remain but there is clear logic to your position.
however, ''No Deal'' is not a practical option because even if the uk crashed out on the 29th of march with ''no deal'' nobody is suggesting that that is how things would remain forever, it is only a precursor to re-entering talks.
those who advocate it believe that no deal will effect the EU so much it will drive them back to the table where at last the German car manufactures will apply pressure.

there will still have to be a deal in the end so any new referendum would one hopes clearly lay out on what terms the UK would leave not just more of the same.

Cryptopagan

seamus wrote: »

No, because "do nothing" means, "Pass no legislation, make no changes".

Which means "No Deal", because the UK's legal departure from the EU has already been put into law.

In order to remain in the EU, the UK parliament now needs to pass a new law. Because May was stupid enough to enshrine leaving into UK law before any deal had been arranged.

The UK is in the EU now, so any legislation enshrined to give effect to its departure would have to be repealed. But "remain" is clearly the "maintain the status quo" option, until such time as Article 50 expires.

Cryptopagan

Leroy42 wrote: »

The HMG is holding an emergency meeting today with business leaders when it realised it would not have enough pallets in a no deal situation!

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-michael-gove-ministers-to-hold-emergency-meeting-over-no-deal-chaos-2019-2?r=US&IR=T

Sure there'll be nothing to put on pallets anyhow!

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think the problem is with the Leave vote. Buses, jingoism and lies won't cut the mustard this time as voters are much more informed as to the nuances of Brexit. In 2016, Leave was a very simplistic 'good' idea and Remain fought a very complacent campaign. This time around Remain will be on the ballot as a majority want to remain and this time around they will be highly motivated. Whereas the Leave campaign will be disparate campaigns for Hard, Soft and whatever you're having yourself Brexits.

I really wouldn't be too sure about that. There is a large element that still believe that everyhting is project fear, that TM is to blame, that the Remoaners in government, and the civil service, have worked to sabotage the whole process.

Listening to 5live this morning debating Labours turn to a 2nd Ref, some 22 years old (didn't catch her name) was full of the Brexit Bingo lines. Anti Democratic, leave means leave, No deal is better than TM's deal and we need to leave now. What really got me was that she was more worried about making sure Brexit wasn't the cause of Honda leaving rather than wondering why these companies were leaving at all and how they were going to find jobs for all these people effected.

Obviously this is just one person, but the polls, although they have moved, still show a very significant amount of people would vote leave again.

lawred2

Cryptopagan wrote: »

The UK is in the EU now, so any legislation enshrined to give effect to its departure would have to be repealed. But "remain" is clearly the "maintain the status quo" option, until such time as Article 50 expires.

which then means that the default position is leaving the EU with no deal when A50 expires

mrbrianj

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think the problem is with the Leave vote. Buses, jingoism and lies won't cut the mustard this time as voters are much more informed as to the nuances of Brexit. In 2016, Leave was a very simplistic 'good' idea and Remain fought a very complacent campaign. This time around Remain will be on the ballot as a majority want to remain and this time around they will be highly motivated. Whereas the Leave campaign will be disparate campaigns for Hard, Soft and whatever you're having yourself Brexits.

Not sure, over the last couple of year I was amazed by UK politicians ability to bare face lie, and the public's willingness to accept this and the media's failure to call these lies out. Anything is possible over there at the moment

Cryptopagan

lawred2 wrote: »

which then means that the default position is leaving the EU with no deal when A50 expires

The UK is in the EU right now. The government can seek to repeal any legislation it has passed to facilitate leaving and withdraw Article 50 if it wants to. There is nothing undemocratic about asking the people whether they want to maintain the UK's current status as a member of the EU or leave it.

And actually, the original referendum was not exactly a choice between leave and "do nothing", as Cameron was keen to point out that he had negotiated additional carve outs and whatnot, and stressed that these would lapse if leave was chosen. So he was offering continued EU membership but now with added carve outs versus leave.

gmisk

mrbrianj wrote: »

Not sure, over the last couple of year I was amazed by UK politicians ability to bare face lie, and the public's willingness to accept this and the media's failure to call these lies out. Anything is possible over there at the moment

I am afraid I agree....just look at Nigel Farage, I think the only person I can actually remember challenging him was Claire Byrne.

Sam Russell

youcantakethat wrote: »

They (the EU) will not be getting the billions of sterling notes any more.

The British rightfully hate to see their hard earned money wasted. For example, only a few years ago it was revealed that the European Commission had overspent its €220 million translation budget and had to supplement the cost from other sources. One small but telling reason is the cost of translation into the Irish language, which almost nobody is listening to or even reading in Brussels, which is twice the average rate for other languages. At €43 per page, it is almost twice the €22 average cost.

Irish ministers rarely speak Irish at the EU, and even Sinn Fein rarely does. However, Irish language campaigners have estimated that almost 200 full time jobs for Irish translators will be created when, incredibly, Irish becomes a full working language of the union in 2020.

No wonder the British want out.

youcantakethat wrote: »

When the British voted to join the EEC in the early seventies there was no mention of the thousands of quangos or the 200 highly paid translators, translating Brussels matters in the the Irish language which would NEVER be read in Irish. No mention of the coming EU army either. I think you fundamentally misunderstand many people distrust of the EU, and the reason why it is the slowest growing region in the world, with chronic unemployment etc (double the UK rate).

There is no EU army - nor is one planned. There is always kite flying but no substance behind these UK based false stories. They are fake.

I think that the EU budget is tiny wrt to any EU Gov expenditure at about 1% or 2% of GDP. The money is collected from a % of VAT and import tariffs, plus direct payments. The budget funds EU projects that feed back to member states in various programmes.

The EU contributions are at more or less the same level as the UK subvention to NI - you do not hear much about that from the DUP. There are more administrators employed by Birmingham or Manchester councils - and by the NI public service - than work for the EU. The EU public service is very efficient, and very professional. There has been no 'dog ate my homework' from them - however David Davis could not produce his sectoral analysis reports that did exist and then did not exist when required to produce them. He did not even produce his dog!

Waste is a function of any public body and cannot be avoided because, in many cases, tightening oversight cost more than the waste prevented. MPs claiming for duck islands and funding moats from their expenses.

Talking of waste, how come the UK Gov gave a contract to a shipping company, Seaborne Freight, that had never filed accounts because it was only 18 months since starting, never owned a ship, never offered a shipping service, and was going to operate from a port set up for hovercraft and needed dredging before it could be operational? Sounds like a bit of waste or corruption - take your pick.

SNIP. No more personal abuse please.

ToBeFrank123

It would be a joke to put 3 options on the ballot paper of any future referendum if they decide on that route. Let's say an option won with 40% of the vote. The complaint from the losers for years after would be that 60% or a large majority didn't vote for that option. It would not silence the other side and would lead to even more division in the HoC. Better to only put two options on the ballot paper. Remain or Leave based on an agreed deal.

Zubeneschamali

I think they should have 2 options:

Yes, I want to hear about nothing but Brexit for the next 10 years so let's do it

No, I never want to hear the word Brexit again, cancel the whole stupid thing.

Skelet0n

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think they should have 2 options:

Yes, I want to hear about nothing but Brexit for the next 10 years so let's do it

No, I never want to hear the word Brexit again, cancel the whole stupid thing.

If you think cancelling it would be the last you’d hear of it then you’re severely mistaken. The leave people would be able to go to screaming treason for the next 10 years.

VinLieger

The fact is even if they had a 2nd ref to remain a huge amount of damage has been done already. The likes of Honda and Nissan et al arent suddenly going to turn around and change their minds on their future plans.


The fact that things arent going to suddenly get immediately better the day after a remain result comes in and in all likelihood actually continue to get worse, although not as bad as they would in no deal, means the brexiteers will push and push and we could very likely see another referendum for leave happening in as little as 10 years. And this ironically is one of the reasons people and business is not going to come rushing back.


The only thing that could save this scenario from happening in my opinion is the changing in demographics as we know there's already been a large shift in remain vs leave simply due to how many people who voted for leave have died in the last 3 years.

murphaph

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

It would be a joke to put 3 options on the ballot paper of any future referendum if they decide on that route. Let's say an option won with 40% of the vote. The complaint from the losers for years after would be that 60% or a large majority didn't vote for that option. It would not silence the other side and would lead to even more division in the HoC. Better to only put two options on the ballot paper. Remain or Leave based on an agreed deal.

The democratic thing would be all three options in order of your preference, just like an Irish presidential election is run.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

The democratic thing would be all three options in order of your preference, just like an Irish presidential election is run.

True, but although the British invented STV they don't seem to get it.

Akrasia

Skelet0n wrote: »

If you think cancelling it would be the last you’d hear of it then you’re severely mistaken. The leave people would be able to go to screaming treason for the next 10 years.

yeah but they can be ignored. the alternative is lurching from crisis to crisis for years on end

Laois_Man

gmisk wrote: »

I am afraid I agree....just look at Nigel Farage, I think the only person I can actually remember challenging him was Claire Byrne.

They often put Allister Campbell up against him but he's the wrong person.

I listen to his radio show sometimes and he has such a simple answer for everything. The vast majority of callers they let in on his phone ins are coming on to tell him oh how right he is. I've been seriously tempted to ring in myslef to, in a respectful way, tell him he's a moron!

Leroy42

They really don't need a 2nd Ref. They could leave either with TM's deal or with the Labour style deal (ie even closer union).

I understand that it is not what we want or even in the economic interests of the UK but that is what they voted for.

The ref simply stated do you want to leave the EU. Once the UK is no longer a member of the EU the electorate have had their votes met. Anybody arguing for a particular type of Brexit is simply making it up.

What the HoC needs to do, and should have done long before now, is to get to some sort of consensus about waht leave means and how they will vote.

At this stage the only option should be an open debate in the HoC followed by a series of votes to come down to a single option.

Voters have no longer any say in what happens, they gave that power to the HoC, and thus need to live with whatever the elected reps decide once it meets the minimum (ie Leave the EU) mandate of the ref.

BobbyBobberson

Skelet0n wrote: »

If you think cancelling it would be the last you’d hear of it then you’re severely mistaken. The leave people would be able to go to screaming treason for the next 10 years.

Absolutely, we are destined to hear about Brexit for our remaining days.

Laois_Man

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Absolutely, we are destined to hear about Brexit for our remaining days.

Dunno why anyone is bothered. It won't be much of a story in Ireland and even the UK politicians (the vast majority of them) wouldn't want to speak of it ever again if a second referendum resulted in remain

RobMc59

If there is a 2nd referendum and the UK remains,it would help to heal rifts if the UK changed to the euro-it would show commitment.

mrbrianj

BobbyBobberson wrote: »

Absolutely, we are destined to hear about Brexit for our remaining days.

Ironically a NO deal is probably the best long term plan to limit Brexit talk - they will have achieved it and also will have so much other stuff to talk about!

Akrasia

RobMc59 wrote: »

If there is a 2nd referendum and the UK remains,it would help to heal rifts if the UK changed to the euro-it would show commitment.

God no!

ancapailldorcha

RobMc59 wrote: »

If there is a 2nd referendum and the UK remains,it would help to heal rifts if the UK changed to the euro-it would show commitment.

That's a bad idea. The country is already woefully split by the EU referendum. Adding the Euro to that would be politically disastrous.

The UK isn't committed and never really was. Changing that will take many years.