Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus · 26-02-2019 07:42AM

Strazdas wrote: »

Do you know how many people work for the EU across 28 countries? 46,000.

British civil service = 410,000 workers

Fascinating trivial fact of the day: the entire EU public service employed by all the EU institutions (46,000, as stated) is smaller than the civilian staff of the UK Ministry of Defence, where 57,000 civil servants are employed to administer armed forces containing 135,000 active service personnel - a ratio of one civil servant for every 2.4 service personnel

26-02-2019 07:42AM

woohoo!!! wrote: »

So rumours abound of major shifts in both Labour and Tory positions, and all this place can talk about is Irish translators...

The Express's top headline for Brexit is the EU's plot to keep the UK in the EU with a 21-month extension. So I'm sure we'll spend an eternity on here explaining that Parliament has to request it.

The Onion has better political insight.

brickster69 · 26-02-2019 07:51AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Here's three referendums.
a choice between Remain and May’s deal
a choice between Remain and Hard Brexit
a choice between hard Brexit and May’s deal

I have an idea. Why not make it really simple so that everyone can understand next time.

Leave the EU or stay in the EU

Cryptopagan · 26-02-2019 07:59AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How many times do I have to point out that Norway is a complete non-starter because of all the UK's Red Lines.

Here's three referendums.
a choice between Remain and May’s deal
a choice between Remain and Hard Brexit
a choice between hard Brexit and May’s deal

First decide what result you want and then choose the right choice and then choose the words to use and order to ask the question.

The red lines are May's positions, and May's positions also rule out remaining, asking for an extension, and holding another referendum. The only option apart from her deal which she pointedly refuses to rule out, is leaving with no deal. When speculating about a second referendum, we are in the realm of things that will not happen unless parliament defies May's position, so it's not implausible to include Norway, unicorns, and whatever else you are having on the menu of the potential questions.

Enzokk · 26-02-2019 08:00AM

brickster69 wrote: »

I have an idea. Why not make it really simple so that everyone can understand next time.

Leave the EU or stay in the EU

Unless you specify what leaving means you cannot give that choice because it is exactly why we are where we are now. You have to explain how things will change before you offer people a choice otherwise there will be chaos.

Cryptopagan · 26-02-2019 08:01AM

brickster69 wrote: »

I have an idea. Why not make it really simple so that everyone can understand next time.

Leave the EU or stay in the EU

Because that was the question last time and look where it got us. If there is a second referendum, it has to ask the public not just do they want to leave, but, realistically, what terms they want to leave on.

ancapailldorcha · 26-02-2019 08:03AM

Mod: This thread is about Brexit, not the Irish language.

lawred2 · 26-02-2019 08:03AM

brickster69 wrote: »

I have an idea. Why not make it really simple so that everyone can understand next time.

Leave the EU or stay in the EU

Is it your implicit contention that everyone understood that exact same question the last time?

Peregrinus · 26-02-2019 08:06AM

brickster69 wrote: »

I have an idea. Why not make it really simple so that everyone can understand next time.

Leave the EU or stay in the EU

Attempting to oversimplify the issue is what has got the UK into the present shambles in the first place. If they've learned nothing else in the UK in the past three years, they should have learned at least that.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta · 26-02-2019 08:15AM

woohoo!!! wrote: »

So rumours abound of major shifts in both Labour and Tory positions, and all this place can talk about is Irish translators...

Looks like Labour looking for confirmatory referendum. Choice will be (i) May's deal or (ii) Remain in EU.
Sounds like this will be the position after 12 March (and even if May's deal goes through?)

Cryptopagan · 26-02-2019 08:22AM

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Looks like Labour looking for confirmatory referendum. Choice will be (i) May's deal or (ii) Remain in EU.
Sounds like this will be the position after 12 March (and even if May's deal goes through?)

Yeah, seems it will put its proposal for an alternative, softer Brexit before parliament first, and once that's rejected, throw its support behind a referendum on May's deal. 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.

Enzokk · 26-02-2019 08:23AM

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Looks like Labour looking for confirmatory referendum. Choice will be (i) May's deal or (ii) Remain in EU.
Sounds like this will be the position after 12 March.

Well the defections has forced their hand, they had to move to this. It is interesting that even when senior Labour Shadow Cabinet ministers were confirming that they are moving towards a second referendum there was still "Labour sources" stating that this isn't true. You know Jeremy Corbyn had to be dragged to this point, kicking and screaming, and the only thing that got him there was the potential loss of a GE with the defections from Labour.

https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1100297815547437057

prawnsambo · 26-02-2019 08:32AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Well the defections has forced their hand, they had to move to this. It is interesting that even when senior Labour Shadow Cabinet ministers were confirming that they are moving towards a second referendum there was still "Labour sources" stating that this isn't true. You know Jeremy Corbyn had to be dragged to this point, kicking and screaming, and the only thing that got him there was the potential loss of a GE with the defections from Labour.

https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1100297815547437057

It's completely mad. They're doing this in order to prevent further splits in the party and immediately somebody splits and denies that they're doing it.

Enzokk · 26-02-2019 08:41AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's completely mad. They're doing this in order to prevent further splits in the party and immediately somebody splits and denies that they're doing it.

It is, and you still have MPs like Caroline Flint who seems intent on Brexit even if it costs her constituents. I mean they have been decimated by Thatcher in the 80's and is one of those coal mining areas that has been left behind, but leaving the EU is really the way to go?

https://twitter.com/CarolineFlintMP/status/1100164863488348160

I feel MPs like her will need to make a choice, either support Brexit and campaign for it along with Kate Hoey, or back remaining or a soft as possible Brexit. The vote in her constituency in the last election was interesting, the Tory vote increased almost exactly by the same vote that UKIP had in 2015. She increased her vote as well so you know she picked up some of that vote. What would happen in a new election? With Nigel's new party and UKIP there as well, does she really think those voters that want to abandon the EU will automatically go for a Tory vote when there is 2 other anti-EU parties?

woohoo!!! · 26-02-2019 08:48AM

Deleted User wrote: »

The Express's top headline for Brexit is the EU's plot to keep the UK in the EU with a 21-month extension. So I'm sure we'll spend an eternity on here explaining that Parliament has to request it.

The Onion has better political insight.

Not that, labour 2nd ref position and allegations that Remain Ministers putting it up to May to take No deal off the table. I wouldn't use the Express to wipe my...

prawnsambo · 26-02-2019 08:52AM

Well this is a bit of a change in voting intentions.

Enzokk · 26-02-2019 08:54AM

And to show why Labour would suddenly change their thinking on the second referendum,

https://twitter.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1100160928899915777

That is just a confirmation of the polls where if Labour assisted the Tories in getting Brexit through that they would lose a lot of support. Now it seems to have finally gotten through that you can try to appease 3.8m Leave Labour voters or you can try to work with the majority of 8.9m voters that do not want to leave the EU. In a lot of those areas the Conservatives are the reason why people are struggling and they still remember their policies in the 80's, so those people will all of a sudden vote Conservative?

seamus · 26-02-2019 08:56AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Well the defections has forced their hand, they had to move to this. It is interesting that even when senior Labour Shadow Cabinet ministers were confirming that they are moving towards a second referendum there was still "Labour sources" stating that this isn't true. You know Jeremy Corbyn had to be dragged to this point, kicking and screaming, and the only thing that got him there was the potential loss of a GE with the defections from Labour.

https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/1100297815547437057

This is more posturing because it's not a legal referendum. Internationally, it won't be recognised as a valid poll.

Why?

Because a referendum absolutely MUST have a "do nothing" option. There must be an option for the population to reject the proposals on the table and continue on as before.

This is essential to safeguard democracy. The example I always give is that a parliament/prime minister could hold a referendum asking, "Should the prime minister be voted in for life or until they turn 100"?

In effect, forcing through a dictatorship and giving the public no option to say, "Do not change the current system".

The original referendum had a "do nothing" option (Remain), but they distorted the referendum to make it appear like this was a fork in the road and they had to pick a direction.

Now, the fact that the referendum in the UK would be advisory only and not binding does change this somewhat, since nobody is bound by the outcome.

However, especially given the UK's insistence on treating the original referendum as binding, this creates a precedent. So I would expect either way that a deal/remain referendum would be subject to considerable legal challenges and delays from within and without to the extent that the EU would likely refuse an extension to allow the UK to hold it.

It would have to be a No Deal/Deal/Remain referendum.

woohoo!!! · 26-02-2019 09:00AM

seamus wrote: »

It would have to be a No Deal/Deal/Remain referendum.

I've always thought that any second referendum, if held, would be no deal/May's deal exit. A re-run with remain is not going to pass, politically.

Enzokk · 26-02-2019 09:02AM

seamus wrote: »

This is more posturing because it's not a legal referendum. Internationally, it won't be recognised as a valid poll.

Why?

Because a referendum absolutely MUST have a "do nothing" option. There must be an option for the population to reject the proposals on the table and continue on as before.

This is essential to safeguard democracy. The example I always give is that a parliament/prime minister could hold a referendum asking, "Should the prime minister be voted in for life or until they turn 100"?

In effect, forcing through a dictatorship and giving the public no option to say, "Do not change the current system".

The original referendum had a "do nothing" option (Remain), but they distorted the referendum to make it appear like this was a fork in the road and they had to pick a direction.

Now, the fact that the referendum in the UK would be advisory only and not binding does change this somewhat, since nobody is bound by the outcome.

However, especially given the UK's insistence on treating the original referendum as binding, this creates a precedent. So I would expect either way that a deal/remain referendum would be subject to considerable legal challenges and delays from within and without to the extent that the EU would likely refuse an extension to allow the UK to hold it.

It would have to be a No Deal/Deal/Remain referendum.

Okay, but if the options are May's deal (Brexit) or Remain (do nothing as we will keep our current status as EU members), does that not address what you post?

seamus · 26-02-2019 09:04AM

Enzokk wrote: »

Okay, but if the options are May's deal (Brexit) or Remain (do nothing as we will keep our current status as EU members), does that not address what you post?

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.

Tacitus Kilgore · 26-02-2019 09:04AM

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I've always thought that any second referendum, if held, would be no deal/May's deal exit. A re-run with remain is not going to pass, politically.

Surely no brexit/May's deal would be a far less ridiculous option? there is very little real appetite for no deal outside of a few lunatics and disaster capitalists - especially considering the fact that probably half of "no-deal" pushers actually think that no deal is the status quo, or at very least that everything carries on as usual except blue passports and white dog shit

Pulling the trigger of the gun to their own head should not be a choice on any referendum.

Peregrinus · 26-02-2019 09:07AM

woohoo!!! wrote: »

I've always thought that any second referendum, if held, would be no deal/May's deal exit. A re-run with remain is not going to pass, politically.

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.

Leroy42 · 26-02-2019 09:09AM

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

youcantakethat · 26-02-2019 09:21AM

VinLieger wrote: »

Well thats quite easy to prove as being completely untrue

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.

lawred2 · 26-02-2019 09:31AM

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.

Why are you focusing post crash?

2007 would be a better barometer. And the comparison for both should be against USD.

GBP vs USD Sep 2007 2.07
EUR vs USD Sep 2007 1.41

GBP vs USD Feb 2019 1.32 -37%
EUR vs USD Sep 2019 1.14 -20%

That's real devaluation for all of us. But moreso for the UK.

Also for the specific impact of Brexit on GBP - you'd be better focusing on 2016 to now.

And it's probably also worth keeping in mind that Brexit hasn't actually happened yet.

26-02-2019 09:31AM

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 · 26-02-2019 09:31AM

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 · 26-02-2019 09:33AM

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 · 26-02-2019 09:35AM

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?

Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

Comments