Brexit discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha · 11-08-2017 09:16PM

kingchess wrote: »

Saw this little gem over on the funny vids thread BREXIT n (toht l krap) the undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed.

Please refrain from posting comedy videos here and read the charter before posting again.

Nody · 11-08-2017 09:18PM

indioblack wrote: »

I voted Remain - and, when the result of the referendum was announced, one of my first emotions was that we were turning our backs on Europe.
Logically, though, there is the consideration that nations joined the EEC/EU for their own self-interest. Industry, security, harmonization - the building up of infrastructure to increase each nations wealth.
It could be argued that a nation leaving the EU is also doing so for the same logical, and presumably acceptable, self-interest.

I'd agree if there was any actual benefit for UK in leaving; the only "benefit" is that sometime over a decade or two away there might, just might, be a better future being outside EU somehow. This is not about self-interest; this is about watching your friend cutting themselves claiming it helps the itch and telling them that they need serious help.

indioblack · 11-08-2017 09:24PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I vaguely remember the debate about joining, it was an informed choice.
The debate to leave was drowned out by fear mongering, propaganda, xenophobia and bluster.
The 'debate' is only happening now and IMO Leave wouldn't have a hope in hell of winning.
Very sad for the UK.

I found the referendum debate largely juvenile and amateurish - whilst the campaign was in progress I was inclined not to follow it - were it not for the enormity of what was being proposed.
Whilst voting to Remain, my hope now is that Leaving works out - and if that sounds vague I'm probably in the company of many who voted Leave.

indioblack · 11-08-2017 09:56PM

Nody wrote: »

I'd agree if there was any actual benefit for UK in leaving; the only "benefit" is that sometime over a decade or two away there might, just might, be a better future being outside EU somehow. This is not about self-interest; this is about watching your friend cutting themselves claiming it helps the itch and telling them that they need serious help.

We may disagree about the self-interest bit. I find myself in the position, and I'm not alone, of wanting something to work that I didn't agree to. In the year on from the referendum the anti-Brexiteers have put forward clearer views as to the basic error of leaving than the Leave camp have as regards what the future will hold for the UK.
Barring a monumental political sea-change, [possible, but unlikely], the country is in the position described by that annoyingly obvious phrase - We are where we are.

oppenheimer1 · 11-08-2017 10:01PM

Billy86 wrote: »

It's not even off right now - currently at 109.9c to 1GBP, which might be it's lowest ever?

£1.02 to the Euro in 2008 is the all time low for the pound vs Euro.

captainspeed wrote: »

In my almost five years of living in the UK (and in a city that voted leave albeit by a very slim margin), not once have I come across anything that could be even remotely considered anti-Irish. While I hate Brexit I've absolutely nothing against the English, they've been very good to me and my nationality has never been an issue even when we talk about Brexit.

In Ireland on the other hand some still have the chip on the shoulder....

I lived in the UK for a period of time too. And while never the victim of outright hostility your often hear talk of facking paddies, and other nonsense that could be dismissed as pub banter. And it may have been just that but I feel it demonstrates a sometimes subtle undercurrent of prejudice against the Irish.

Irish people under 30 in particular seem to forget that there is a lot of history between the two countries and much of it is in living memory. It's only natural that there would be deep seated prejudice (although anti Irish sentiment in the UK predates the troubles)

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Please refrain from posting comedy videos here and read the charter before posting again.

You are aware he didn't even post a video...

kingchess · 11-08-2017 11:09PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Please refrain from posting comedy videos here and read the charter before posting again.

I did not post a video,and quoted a humorous description of Brexit,which I believe is an accurate description of what is actually happening, (to err is human,to forgive divine)

robindch · 12-08-2017 10:25AM

indioblack wrote: »

Whilst voting to Remain, my hope now is that Leaving works out - and if that sounds vague I'm probably in the company of many who voted Leave.

Leaving the world's largest trading bloc, which is on one's doorstep, which has massive, functioning trade networks in place, in order to pursue other unspecified 'trade deals' with countries, the majority of which are much further away, where existing trade networks are small, which typically have authoritarian governments, less per-capita purchasing power and strictly limited interest in the kind of services which makes up around 80% of the UK's GDP?

Even economically, it makes no sense at all and I do find it unusual that so many remain-voters are now folding up their tents and hoping it will all just go away.

Brexit was never about economics, but about a fight within the Tory party which got out of hand and which, at heart, was about chauvanistic nationalism which is now in the ascendant.

There's no way that this will end well for anybody, least of all the UK and this needs to be pointed out.

steddyeddy · 12-08-2017 10:42AM

100% correct. This need to be repeated: it was about a fight within the Tory party. It was about a fight between David and Boris, two Etonians who were brought up in such privilege that they will never feel the consequences of their actions or indeed will never care. Empathy comes from shared experiences. They share no hurdles with the common man so thought nothing of an exercise in narionalism to soothe imperialistic desires. Boris and Jacob Reece Mog thought it sad that Britain relies on the EU so they are delusionally leading the UK into isolation. They've managed to convince the ordinary man of this narrative too. One caller to the James O'Brien show rang into say Britain owned 2/3 of the world and they'll be fine.

It's not about economics. It's about power plays and old imperialistic nationalism. Britain will be destroyed after this.

indioblack · 12-08-2017 10:49AM

robindch wrote: »

Leaving the world's largest trading bloc, which is on one's doorstep, which has massive, functioning trade networks in place, in order to pursue other unspecified 'trade deals' with countries, the majority of which are much further away, where existing trade networks are small, which typically have authoritarian governments, less per-capita purchasing power and strictly limited interest in the kind of services which makes up around 80% of the UK's GDP?

Even economically, it makes no sense at all and I do find it unusual that so many remain-voters are now folding up their tents and hoping it will all just go away.

Brexit was never about economics, but about a fight within the Tory party which got out of hand and which, at heart, was about chauvanistic nationalism which is now in the ascendant.

There's no way that this will end well for anybody, least of all the UK and this needs to be pointed out.

I suggested a year ago that with a relatively close vote, [48% to 52% of those who voted], a second referendum to confirm the majority in favour of leaving would not be unreasonable. This was over in AH - and I was blasted by several posters for being undemocratic.
There have been so many negative aspects to this whole business from the start that I found it almost embarrassing to comment on the route taken by the electorate.
I stick to my initial response that this is self-interest - I never claimed that it was wise.
Sure, this was a spat within the Tory party. Some of those who started the mechanism that led to the referendum result have sloped off - others have unfortunately remained. There is a Remain PM who now pushes for exiting because it's the democratic will - [large numbers don't always guarantee a correct decision].
Practically, the country won't collapse - though it may crumble a bit!
Muddling through may sound like something out of WW2 - but, aside from a massive political sea change, I'm uncertain how this circle can be squared.

steddyeddy · 12-08-2017 11:02AM

indioblack wrote: »

I suggested a year ago that with a relatively close vote, [48% to 52% of those who voted], a second referendum to confirm the majority in favour of leaving would not be unreasonable. This was over in AH - and I was blasted by several posters for being undemocratic.
There have been so many negative aspects to this whole business from the start that I found it almost embarrassing to comment on the route taken by the electorate.
I stick to my initial response that this is self-interest - I never claimed that it was wise.
Sure, this was a spat within the Tory party. Some of those who started the mechanism that led to the referendum result have sloped off - others have unfortunately remained. There is a Remain PM who now pushes for exiting because it's the democratic will - [large numbers don't always guarantee a correct decision].
Practically, the country won't collapse - though it may crumble a bit!
Muddling through may sound like something out of WW2 - but, aside from a massive political sea change, I'm uncertain how this circle can be squared.

Who's the remain PM? Looking at the cabinet and Brexit negotiation team she's apointed she's a leave PM.

indioblack · 12-08-2017 11:08AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who's the remain PM? Looking at the cabinet and Brexit negotiation team she's apointed she's a leave PM.

OK - she was Remain before - now she's PM and convinced, Damascus like, in the wisdom of Brexit.

flatty · 12-08-2017 11:44AM

Teresa May is both thick as a ditch, and interested only in clinging to power, and cares nothing for the country, the economy, or the citizens beyond this.
I have this first hand from a senior person who has to work with her.
Never, they said, have they ever encountered a more amoral group of power hungry cretins, who's only interest is self. She/he included all those who in their summation were in the "top ten" in political circles at present, on both sides of the spectrum.

Sam Russell · 12-08-2017 11:45AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who's the remain PM? Looking at the cabinet and Brexit negotiation team she's apointed she's a leave PM.

The only interpretation of TMay as a 'Remain' was that she wanted to remain in the cabinet (assuming the Remain side won) but she hardly did any campaigning for the Remain side (about the same as Corbyn). Having lost the vote, Cameron ran away and she won the PM job by default and promptly tore off the disguise and became the ultimate Brexiteer, wanting nothing to do with the ECtHR because it had upset her attempts to deport a cleric she did not like, and wanted to prevent the ECJ for much the same reason. She refused to have a Parliamentary vote on Brexit (in case she lost it) but was forced to have one (even though it was an act little more than a tweet).

Just to reinforce her position, she secretly decided to go to the country (announcing it to a surprised media) to improve her majority because the polls showed her 20 points ahead. She lost the majority and nearly lost her job, but so badly did she do, that the Tories are terrified of another election so she is 'safe' for a while.

She was always a Brexiteer, right wing, and wibbly-wobbly. Her ambitions exceed her abilities by quite some margin.

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2017 11:47AM

Sam Russell wrote: »

The only interpretation of TMay as a 'Remain' was that she wanted to remain in the cabinet (assuming the Remain side won) but she hardly did any campaigning for the Remain side (about the same as Corbyn).

I've read in All Out War that she was asked not to do anything after she couldn't bring herself to give a pro-EU speech without bringing up the ECJ and her "Tens of thousands" target.

flatty · 12-08-2017 11:48AM

A second class degree in geography, and rest assured, she didn't spend her years at university propping up the college bar.

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2017 11:50AM

flatty wrote: »

A second class degree in geography, and rest assured, she didn't spend her years at university propping up the college bar.

Enough trolling.

flatty · 12-08-2017 11:51AM

That's fact. Not trolling.

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2017 11:53AM

flatty wrote: »

That's fact. Not trolling.

Having digs at her isn't what this discussion is for. No more please.

flatty · 12-08-2017 12:03PM

As Teresa May is setting the tone and timetable of the entire brexit campaign, using her own interpretation of brexit and foisting this onto an entire country come what may, seventeen million of whom voted against ,despite the downright lies and propaganda, surely her intelligence, motivation and honesty is absolutely relevant.
Look, I'd not be a mod on this place if you paid me, but this isn't idle conjecture on my part. I was on holidays recently and spent many hours in the company of an individual with the highest level of access to the workings of the current British "government"
If you like, I'll what's app you their credentials.
I think people should be aware of who is doing what in this, and why, given the gravity of the situation.
I have made my point , however, I'll not directly mention it again.
I am simply flabbergasted at the perversion of democracy here, covered with the fig leaf of a deeply flawed initial vote.

robindch · 12-08-2017 12:12PM

indioblack wrote: »

There is a Remain PM who now pushes for exiting because it's the democratic will - [large numbers don't always guarantee a correct decision].

It was not the "democratic will", since the a) population was lied to on a massive scale; b) there was no clear decision to make ('brexit means brexit' is a slogan, not a policy); c) the majority of the electorate was, and remains, uninformed about the reality of the EU and was, and remains, uninformed about the likely consequences of abandoning whatever EU institutions it may, or ultimately may not, choose to leave.

Democracy by referendum democracy can only work when it's run by responsible politicians delivering clear messages to an informed and unencumbered electorate. None of those conditions, unfortunately, applied during the brexit debate, the evil nadir of which was the daylight murder of Jo Cox.

indioblack wrote: »

Practically, the country won't collapse - though it may crumble a bit!

I'm not so sure about that. The economy will certainly reduce and it's likely that significant numbers of people will depart, or never arrive in the first place, to avoid the air of xenophobia which seems to have become normal. It's an open question just now whether the UK itself will disintegrate, though Sturgeon has made her views clear, as have the voters of Northern Ireland and Gibraltar. These things may well come back to haunt the UK.

indioblack wrote: »

[...] aside from a massive political sea change, I'm uncertain how this circle can be squared.

At the moment, the best off-ramp is to work towards an agreement regarding the general shape of a subsequent arrangement, then to hold a second referendum on whether to leave the existing arrangement in place, or to move ahead and implement the draft exit agreement.

It would have the benefit of addressing the lack of a clear question in last year's referendum.

Whether it will be able to stop the slow-motion national trainwreck that is brexit is a separate issue.

robindch · 12-08-2017 12:20PM

flatty wrote: »

I am simply flabbergasted at the perversion of democracy here, covered with the fig leaf of a deeply flawed initial vote.

Likewise - last year's referendum was a travesty of democracy.

It is simply disgraceful that today's UK politicians feel they can claim, on the back of a vote which floated through upon a sea of lies, fear and ignorance, that they have free rein to drive a bulldozer through 45 years of patient, if frequently erratic, co-operation and social and economic progress in order to bring themselves to some distant sunlit uplands which none of them can describe and none of them can build.

ancapailldorcha · 12-08-2017 01:25PM

flatty wrote: »

ALook, I'd not be a mod on this place if you paid me, but this isn't idle conjecture on my part. I was on holidays recently and spent many hours in the company of an individual with the highest level of access to the workings of the current British "government"

Mod: All I am asking you to do is to refrain from insults. Any more questions or comments regarding moderation would be welcomed via PM as they're disrupting the thread.

Thanks.

Jim2007 · 12-08-2017 08:52PM

robindch wrote: »

Democracy by referendum democracy can only work when it's run by responsible politicians delivering clear messages to an informed and unencumbered electorate.

First of all you need to recognize that a referendum in the U.K. is only ever advisory - an option poll if you will and secondly the voters were given a second chance to correct their error at the GE in the light of what came out after the referendum, pulse additional information. And yet they decided to return parties that support BREXIT.

And while I don't like it, we have to accept their strong intention to leave.

Capt'n Midnight · 12-08-2017 09:30PM

Looks like they are sneaking more things into the Great Repeal Bill.
Add in taking back some of the devolved powers, the Snoopers Charter and other rolling back of rights and the UK is looking a little less democratic.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-bill-uk-citizens-right-government-break-law-sue-high-court-eu-human-a7887506.html

A clause in the Brexit bill set to be debated next month means Britons could lose the ability to seek compensation or damages over issues including workers' rights, environmental policy and business regulation.

The Government can currently be sued under The European Court of Justice's 1991 Francovich ruling. It stipulates that a member state is liable if an individual or business has been damaged because of a failure by the country to implement EU la

Also looks like another hard choice coming up.
Either officially leave the EEA and thereby stuffing up any chance of keeping customs union or other goodies. Or don't officially leave and it's legal quagmire or at the very least look like someone that can't be trusted to keep deals.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-news-uk-eu-single-market-quit-international-tribunal-risk-no-formal-notice-europe-a7877436.html

Capt'n Midnight · 12-08-2017 10:10PM

Just a reminder of upcoming problems that the UK government need to look at.

http://www.power-technology.com/features/featurewylfa-new-nuclear-for-britain-on-the-horizon-5852556/

Britain’s nuclear fleet is ageing, with all of its plants due to begin decommissioning by 2023. Currently, they make up around 20% of baseload power and without them the UK will need to act fast to secure the country’s energy supply.

The three new plants Hinkley C, Moorside and Wylfa all have problems, beyond the normal delays and enormous cost overruns.

Hinkley C depends on EDF who are virtually bankrupt , and there are problems with the construction of existing reactor components.

Moorside depends on Tosbiba who are virtually bankrupt too

Wylfa is being done by Hitachi who have actually built the planned reactor types in Japan but two out of the four have had uptimes of less than 50% , not counting when Japan shut down all the reactors.

It's not the only issue but if the lights start going out...

Samaris · 13-08-2017 12:37AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

First of all you need to recognize that a referendum in the U.K. is only ever advisory - an option poll if you will and secondly the voters were given a second chance to correct their error at the GE in the light of what came out after the referendum, pulse additional information. And yet they decided to return parties that support BREXIT.

And while I don't like it, we have to accept their strong intention to leave.

Well, they had the choice to return one of two parties (realistically) who were both branding themselves pro-Brexit, so that's a bit of a Hobsons's Choice there.

Yeah, the rest of us have to accept their choice - as likely do the remaining Remainers because I don't see it changing now. But it is almost certainly a bad idea to do right now and with this government in charge, it's so far been fairly disastrous. There has also been a distinct lack of giving a damn what this abrupt stumble out of the EU will do to all their neighbours and trading partners, because fundamental decency got lost with fundamental common sense.

robindch · 13-08-2017 01:40AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

And while I don't like it, we have to accept their strong intention to leave.

The vote went the way it did because the current batch of politicians in the UK chose to lie with one red bus and a choir of thousands; the right-wing media kicked up an offensive poo-storm in full support of an offensive campaign of jingoistic, chauvinistic nationalism; and what should have been the responsible media in the middle chose to present not a balance between separate political interpretations of the same basic facts, but two opposing sets of talking points, at least one of which was based upon toxic nationalism and the idiocy of combustible fools.

I cannot understand why anybody could believe for one moment that this was a carefully-delivered result, provided with the clear and unambiguous consent of an informed, unencumbered public.

robindch · 13-08-2017 01:53AM

Samaris wrote: »

Yeah, the rest of us have to accept their choice - as likely do the remaining Remainers because I don't see it changing now.

As above, there can be a second referendum to "approve" whatever deal Boris, Dave, Michael and Teresa can conjure up over the next year. This could be politically acceptable to the majority of the public and provide an off-ramp from the current disastrous foolishness.

However, that unfortunately, would require Corbyn or May to put their country's interest ahead of the interest of their own careers and their own political parties and both have comfortably demonstrated that this just ain't going to happen.

Peregrinus · 13-08-2017 03:06AM

robindch wrote: »

As above, there can be a second referendum to "approve" whatever deal Boris, Dave, Michael and Teresa can conjure up over the next year. This could be politically acceptable to the majority of the public and provide an off-ramp from the current disastrous foolishness.

However, that unfortunately, would require Corbyn or May to put their country's interest ahead of the interest of their own careers and their own political parties and both have comfortably demonstrated that this just ain't going to happen.

It would also require the EU-27 to be willing - unanimously - to allow the UK to revoke the Art 50 notice which it served last March. At the moment the default - if the UK fails to negotiate a leaving deal, or negotiates one but doesn't ratify it - is that the UK leaves with no deal.

I must say that, if I were an EU government, I'd think quite carefully about whether I wanted to expose myself to a rerun of all this. If, late in the day, the UK changes its mind, I'd suggest something like "how about you join the EEA, and if you can pass, say, ten years of good European citizenship without hissy fits, demands for rebates, hysterical campaigns in the press that the politicians do not bother to contradict, then we'll think about full membership? We need to know that you're keen on this, committed to it."

solodeogloria · 13-08-2017 07:44AM

robindch wrote: »

The vote went the way it did because the current batch of politicians in the UK chose to lie with one red bus and a choir of thousands; the right-wing media kicked up an offensive poo-storm in full support of an offensive campaign of jingoistic, chauvinistic nationalism; and what should have been the responsible media in the middle chose to present not a balance between separate political interpretations of the same basic facts, but two opposing sets of talking points, at least one of which was based upon toxic nationalism and the idiocy of combustible fools.

I cannot understand why anybody could believe for one moment that this was a carefully-delivered result, provided with the clear and unambiguous consent of an informed, unencumbered public.

Good morning!

It depends on your vantage point. I think you need to consider the historical landscape on the European question in British politics.

The reason people voted out is because EU membership doesn't work with British political philosophy. I don't think there's much fruit in rehashing the referendum at this stage.

The Brexit vote was simply the long term result of John Major not putting the Maastricht Treaty to the vote. (Thatcher advised him to do this) Joining the EU rather than the EEC was a huge step for the UK. It should have been subject to public debate.

People point to the fact that it is a complex matter for the UK to leave the EU. It is, but it is only complex because of the amount of integration legal and otherwise that the EU requires. The more and more I see these complexities the more and more I think the UK should have said no to the Maastricht Treaty in 1992. The UK wasn't suited to EU membership. If the UK had rejected Maastricht then evolving into a different agreement with the EU would have been easier. There would have been less anger over the issue. It's been a ticking time bomb for decades.

I think the UK has done the right thing. The EU continually found Britain holding back further integration a pain in the backside. The UK working out a new and more appropriate deal with the EU which doesn't require the same level of integration and pursuing trade deals with the rest of the world (which constitute a 56% majority of UK trade) is the right thing to do. Improving trade conditions for the majority of trade while keeping as good conditions as possible for trading with the EU is a better outcome than what the UK has now.

You claim that future trade deals are unspecified in your original post as if there's a serious prospect that the UK won't be able to get them. But Iceland has a free trade agreement with China (from what I can see this wasn't done through EFTA) and Australia has a free trade agreement with the US.

You also make it sound like it's an either or decision. Future trade with the EU or pursuing trade elsewhere. But, it's both, that's why it's such a strong argument for taking back control of trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments