Brexit Discussion Thread VI

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Most governments aren't actively looking to inflict harm on their own country

oh you could argue that one, austerity comes to mind

Wanderer78 wrote: »

oh you could argue that one, austerity comes to mind

Reducing public expenditure to prevent a country from going bust is not inflicting harm on the country. Sure, it might not feel great for the citizens, but it's actively trying to save the country.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Reducing public expenditure to prevent a country from going bust is not inflicting harm on the country. Sure, it might not feel great for the citizens, but it's actively trying to save the country.

there no conclusive evidence to support that this actually works, but mounting evidence that shows, it does more harm than good to a society, but we continue to believe this nonsense, according to political scientist mark blyth, there is in fact no evidence anywhere on this planet that supports this idea is beneficial to a society.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

there no conclusive evidence to support that this actually works, but mounting evidence that shows, it does more harm than good to a society, but we continue to believe this nonsense, according to political scientist mark blyth, there is in fact no evidence anywhere on this planet that supports this idea is beneficial to a society.

Depends on the nature of the problem and what type of austerity is imposed.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/13244.html - not that expensive and available as an ebook. If you'd like to actually do some research and learn that your statement that there is no evidence austerity works is nonsense, you can read it.

Unfortunately, I think most people are content that their opinion is fact.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Depends on the nature of the problem and what type of austerity is imposed.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/13244.html - not that expensive and available as an ebook. If you'd like to actually do some research and learn that your statement that there is no evidence austerity works is nonsense, you can read it.

Unfortunately, I think most people are content that their opinion is fact.

i ll go with blyths research, thanks anyway, austerity is slowly failing across the eu, its also failing here, it has strangely our critical public sectors, its also important to realise, public debt didnt cause the crash of 2008, it was in fact the rapid rise of private debt, and you ll find imposing austerity will have little or no effect on this.

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change. Brexit may be overturned by the globalists eventually but a political movement will rise up for the majority who wanted out and take control. The actual long term damage done to peoples trust in democracy by ignoring their vote will lead to far further reaching problems down the line.

You acknowledge that there are issues behind the Brexit vote that needs to be addressed. All indicators show that leaving the EU will make the UK worse off so addressing these issues will be harder, but you want the country to go ahead with it because if you don't it will lead to more problems.

Seems to me that the country in trouble either way, go ahead with Brexit and you don't address the causes that lead to it and you are making the country poorer. Reverse Brexit and you damage democracy and risk people rising up. This when the result was only 52-48%. What about the 48%? Will they meekly sit by while the 52% rise up? What about those voters that has died in the meantime (older voters who voted to leave) and the youth that have reached voting age in the meantime?

What we have is a mess that is the UK's own making and they are threatening to take us down with them.


This tweet sums up where we are with Brexit and Labour.

https://twitter.com/johnharris1969/status/1085448070337359873

"We know it: Brexit is a broken right-wing failure. But the Labour l'ship seems ok with it, so long as blame for the chaos can be pinned on the Tories. In a grave crisis, it is playing politics, ducking responsibilities it ought to shoulder. If you aspire to power, that's the gig."

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change. Brexit may be overturned by the globalists eventually but a political movement will rise up for the majority who wanted out and take control. The actual long term damage done to peoples trust in democracy by ignoring their vote will lead to far further reaching problems down the line.

That might be preferable. We don't know what they want. If there was a political movement they might get politicians who agree with their views. Then we might now what they want. It is impossible to negotiate when one side is silent aside from repeated No's.

I mean we are told that they don't want checks in the sea, they don't want checks on the border. They don't want to follow EU rules. The only option left is for the UK to dictate Ireland's rules for goods (as an open border can't stop illegal goods from crossing). I am going to presume given their nationalistic bent they don't want to remove another country's sovereignty.

Control is not a specific plan. Tell us what they want and maybe the EU can help facilitate.

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Until somebody starts to actually address the issues behind the Brexit vote and why the UK is so divided nothing will change. Brexit may be overturned by the globalists eventually but a political movement will rise up for the majority who wanted out and take control. The actual long term damage done to peoples trust in democracy by ignoring their vote will lead to far further reaching problems down the line.

You do realise that the whole point of Brexit is that the UK wants to take part in global gloabalisation rather than be tied simply to the EU.

It is globalists (if I understand your term) that are driving Brexit. The likes of JRM doesn't want the EU getting in the way of them getting access to cheap goods flooding the UK market.

I think at this stage they need a full debate and non-whip voting on the next step. The Parties, the HoC are totally divided, but they need to come to some sort of position.

So based on Penns 4 options, put them all on the table and have a debate in the HoC about which way to go. Based on yesterday historically bad vote on TM's deal, I think we can remove that from the options.

But openly, and honestly, discuss the remaining options.
Rescind A50. MP's seem to be scared to even discuss this. But at the very least the HoC should hold a vote to take it off the table.
Ask for an extension, but be honest that that in of itself solves nothing, there needs to be a plan
No Deal. Is this really a viable option, we keep hearing that the HoC will not let it happen, so it should be voted to ensure it doesn't (I know there is the whole A50 clock but purely from a starting point it would be good to have it debated).
Hold a second Ref. Like the others, this should be discussed at it is clearly an option. But unlike the 1st, if they go this route they need to have a clear plan of what to do in each eventuality. What doe a no vote mean, does it mean No Deal, only one type of deal etc.

Of course none of this will actually happen. They will simply send TM back to EU and blame them for not giving in to the UK.

Penn wrote: »

After May likely survives the No Confidence vote and it proceeds to what happens next, I saw some MPs last night say that what's required is a discussion and vote on the different options in front of them so they could see what option would pass the parliamentary vote.

But say there are four options; A) May's current deal again, No deal, C) Ask to extend Article 50, D) Go back to the EU and try negotiate another deal (just as an example).

Let's say Option D gets 40% of MPs backing it, B gets 30%, the other two get 15% each. If it then went to a Parliamentary vote, surely that still doesn't mean Option D would pass a parliamentary vote because the other 60% could still vote is down.

Basically, I don't think any option will actually pass a vote because there are too many options, too many MPs who still think that willing a better deal into existence will make it happen or that in the event of a No Deal they'll suddenly have all these brand new trade deals in place, too many MPs playing the political game (including Corbyn) and too many MPs who would simply prefer to end up with No Deal regardless of the harm it'd cause the country.

I think at this stage that even if the EU agreed to an end date on the Backstop that the vote wouldn't pass. I think we're looking at an almost certain No Deal scenario.

Option D isn't on the cards according to the EU and would also require option C

Penn wrote: »

After May likely survives the No Confidence vote and it proceeds to what happens next, I saw some MPs last night say that what's required is a discussion and vote on the different options in front of them so they could see what option would pass the parliamentary vote.

But say there are four options; A) May's current deal again, No deal, C) Ask to extend Article 50, D) Go back to the EU and try negotiate another deal (just as an example).

Let's say Option D gets 40% of MPs backing it, B gets 30%, the other two get 15% each. If it then went to a Parliamentary vote, surely that still doesn't mean Option D would pass a parliamentary vote because the other 60% could still vote is down.

Basically, I don't think any option will actually pass a vote because there are too many options, too many MPs who still think that willing a better deal into existence will make it happen or that in the event of a No Deal they'll suddenly have all these brand new trade deals in place, too many MPs playing the political game (including Corbyn) and too many MPs who would simply prefer to end up with No Deal regardless of the harm it'd cause the country.

I think at this stage that even if the EU agreed to an end date on the Backstop that the vote wouldn't pass. I think we're looking at an almost certain No Deal scenario.

The backstop is a straw man put forward by Brexiteers. There is no doubt that if the backstop was removed, then the Brexiteers would immediately shoot holes in other parts of May's deal. Or any updated deal she is likely to strike with the EU. While the reasons for voting against the amendment were complex and varied, a indication of how 'important' the backstop is to all cohorts of MPs is that only 24 MPs voted for Baron's amendment to ensure that the backstop was time limited. 600 MPs took the time and trouble to vote against it. As usual, the Tory right is lying.

MarkHenderson wrote: »

I'm hearing more and more of this type of sense in the UK media the last few days. The UK is getting prepared to leave whilst our politicians sit on their hands hoping the EU will save us.

Nonsense. Ireland is probably the best prepared country for Brexit. I've read articles in German praising the level of preparedness compared to Germany. That doesn't mean it won't hit hard, but we couldn't have done much more to prepare for the insanity next door.

The UK aren't really preparing for no deal by the way. They probably couldn't even pass all the required legislation in time now for no deal. It's a huge bluff that is being called at the moment.

The UK will end up with a BRINO or revoking A50 imo.

MarkHenderson wrote: »

I'm hearing more and more of this type of sense in the UK media the last few days. The UK is getting prepared to leave whilst our politicians sit on their hands hoping the EU will save us.

What absolute garbage we have mountains of legislation written and ready to be passed, its being held off for as long as possible in case it may not be neccessary. The UK have nothing of the kind prepared.

Then look at their complete lack of preparation in their ports and customs services to name but one critical sector which in comparison we are far better prepared for and have been hiring for since the middle of last year.