Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1451  
Old 05-30-2019, 12:32 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
The options on the 2016 referendum were absolutely clear.
And yet, you somehow manage to completely misrepresent what they were. Firstly by repeatedly claiming that they were some form of instruction to the government, and second by claiming that "leave the EU" with no further explanation is a meaningful, singular thing.

It's clear you have no interest in, or knowledge of, what is actually happening regarding Brexit, no concept of what it is doing and will do to our economy, our international relations, or our society, and instead simply parrot the esteemed Ms May in incoherently bellowing "Brexit means Brexit".

Your posts add no information to this debate, as you have no interest in discussing what would be best for the country, what leaving the EU actually entails, or even why (your interpretation of) democracy should be considered more important than the wellbeing of the country.

When you make Farage look nuanced and reasonable, you should probably reevaluate your positions, or at least your way of expressing them.
  #1452  
Old 05-30-2019, 12:39 PM
Steophan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 9,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
By the way, can you provide a cite of someone in government telling the public the referendum was "non-binding" and "advisory"? I'm thoroughly aware that the referendum was non-binding by default. However, I don't recall any reporting of anyone explicitly telling the public the referendum was "non-binding" and "advisory".
That you know it was advisory shows that, somehow, you obtained that knowledge. It seems that the government either lied about that or, by omission, mislead people. That hardly makes it better to expect them to follow it, to expect them to do something that was only ever "authorised" through lies and deception.

As for "the government" implementing Brexit, that ended when the government changed, as one government cannot bind the next. Whether you consider that as happening when Cameron resigned, or after the general election, doesn't really matter. Neither the current government nor any future one is bound by law or custom to follow the advice given in the referendum, and as to follow it would be profoundly damaging to the UK they are ethically bound not to follow it.
  #1453  
Old 05-30-2019, 02:21 PM
DemonTree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Espaces Du Sommeil View Post
I've said it before but, seen from the Continent, this is precisely one of the most infuriating aspects of the Brexit debacle.

No to the Eurozone. No to Schengen. A substantial rebate.

And poor UK is oppressed by the evil, undemocratic EU ? Give me break.
I know it must seem unreasonable, but you've got to remember that the members in favour of those ideas got their way in a much larger sense. The UK didn't want the Euro or a shared immigration area, and would rather dispense with or reform the CAP. The UK didn't want the EU to be a political union at all, let alone support 'ever closer union'. And despite the opt out, Britain has still been affected by the economic problems caused by the Euro, and is still subject to the not-so-wonderful EU rules on agriculture, among other things.
  #1454  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:08 PM
DemonTree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novelty Bobble View Post
As the UK are a particularly disruptive member of the EU, having them tacitly admit that they are now unable to leave under any circumstances will give impetus to greater integration, reduction of the rebate and the closing-off of any technical possibilities of other countries leaving.

In short, we will be punished and we will already have admitted that we aren't willing to do a thing about it. Anything we then say will be taken (correctly) as an empty threat.
Hmm. I'd say Brexit has already given impetus to greater integration, and the debacle in Westminster has drastically reduced enthusiasm for exit referendums in other countries. It hasn't reduced the popularity of Euro-sceptic parties, however. What are the chances the new MEPs, and nationalist governments like Italy's, can influence the direction of the EU?

And would a narrow victory for Remain in a second referendum really give the EU the confidence we won't change our minds again? Perhaps so, if they believe the politicians would never dare offer another vote on it.
  #1455  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:21 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonTree View Post
The UK didn't want the Euro or a shared immigration area, and would rather dispense with or reform the CAP.
The Euro and CAP reform sure, but a shared immigration area? Not sure what you mean there. The UK hasn't been interested in being part of the Schengen common travel area, but that's just border control. When the ex-Eastern Bloc countries joined the EU - something the UK was very supportive of - the UK didn't apply any particularly onerous restrictions on the many, many young people who came here for work, or a look around, or to improve their English or whatever.

Last edited by Baron Greenback; 05-30-2019 at 03:23 PM.
  #1456  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:28 PM
Novelty Bobble is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stanislaus View Post
Do you really mean that there was zero additional risk vs business as usual of any delays to the supply of medicine? I'm genuinely amazed by that, because my memory of the talk of medicine shortages is that the people doing the talking were the NHS, the government and the pharma industry itself - not just Remain blowhards. I assume there were at least some fairly hefty contingency costs in terms of e.g. stockpiling and warehousing?
Some of those people were wrong, some were exaggerating for very understandable reasons.

There was extra cost and extra work to be done in the short term to prepare for it. As there is for many business risks. There was however never any real danger of running out of medicines, no Armageddon scenario. It was and still is under control. The only thing that causes a real problem is uncertainly. Therein lies the biggest cost.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #1457  
Old 05-30-2019, 03:42 PM
Novelty Bobble is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
. We also know that the vast majority of experts say that it will devastate the country, at least a 10% cut to the economy for decades.

Your "a few businessmen say all will be fine" is akin to saying "what global warming? It's snowing".
You see, this is where hysteria clearly kicks in.

No-one, not a single person can make a sound prediction of that precision that far in advance. It is simply too complicated a scenario with too many unknown variables. Those same experts did not see the 2008 crash even 12 months in advance and predicted confidently an immediate UK economic crisis following the vote. Hasn't happened. And do remember that those financial warnings about a no-deal Brexit were predicated on no-one do anything at all to mitigate it. They were the very worse scenarios with the very worst or no response built into it.

Climate change science is...................wait for it........ a science, economics is not, they aren't even in the same ball park but your choice to invoke climate-change scepticism does you no favours.

You don't actually know what Brexit will mean economically, nor do I, nor do the experts. They can take an educated guess at some short term implications but medium to long, all bets are off and those voting to leave are surely more interested in exactly those medium to long-term prospects.
Nor can anyone say with any confidence what remaining will mean in the medium to long term. Ask Greece, Spain and Italy about their 10 year economic projections.

You may be on my side but by christ I can see why leavers get annoyed by this. It really is scaremongering and it does no-one's cause any good. Saying "I don't know" isn't a sign of a weak argument.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way

Last edited by Novelty Bobble; 05-30-2019 at 03:42 PM.
  #1458  
Old 05-30-2019, 05:33 PM
DemonTree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
The Euro and CAP reform sure, but a shared immigration area? Not sure what you mean there. The UK hasn't been interested in being part of the Schengen common travel area, but that's just border control. When the ex-Eastern Bloc countries joined the EU - something the UK was very supportive of - the UK didn't apply any particularly onerous restrictions on the many, many young people who came here for work, or a look around, or to improve their English or whatever.
I meant the common travel area - bad phrasing. Border control is something the UK has always been very keen on.

It's true the government didn't apply any restrictions on free movement back in 2004, unlike most of the other countries in Europe. In retrospect that was probably a mistake, but they can't have known just how many people would take advantage of it.
  #1459  
Old 05-30-2019, 06:53 PM
Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,116
I don't think it helps, to overstate the case against Brexit. I'm not sure exactly what "at least a 10% cut to the economy for decades" means, but the projection I remember was for the economy to be about 4% smaller by 2030 than it would otherwise have been (there may have been other projections more like 10%, I'm not sure). Some media reporting seemed to misinterpret that to mean that GDP would be 4% lower each year up to 2030, when in fact it equates to more like 0.3% lower per year. Not good, considering that the UK economy only grows about 2% in a typical year, but not really "devastating" either.

Last edited by Ximenean; 05-30-2019 at 06:56 PM.
  #1460  
Old 05-30-2019, 08:57 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ximenean View Post
I don't think it helps, to overstate the case against Brexit. I'm not sure exactly what "at least a 10% cut to the economy for decades" means, but the projection I remember was for the economy to be about 4% smaller by 2030 than it would otherwise have been (there may have been other projections more like 10%, I'm not sure). Some media reporting seemed to misinterpret that to mean that GDP would be 4% lower each year up to 2030, when in fact it equates to more like 0.3% lower per year. Not good, considering that the UK economy only grows about 2% in a typical year, but not really "devastating" either.
It depends, obviously, on what kind of Brexit you're modelling. A crash-out no-deal Brexit will obviously be much more disruptive in the short term, and a much bigger drag on growth in the long term for so long as it continues, than a soft Brexit with a deal and a managed transition would be.

But pretty much all forms of Brexit are predicted to make the UK poorer; the only question is by how much.

This argument is largely over. One of the reasons you have difficulty recalling the various projections and the scenarios they were modelling is because for many months now nobody has argued that Brexit will be economically beneficial, or even economically neutral. The case for Brexit is no longer advanced on economic grounds by any significant voices. Instead, the principal argument is that Brexit is the Will of the People, and must therefore be implemented no matter how disadvantageous economically, socially and politically the attainable terms turn out to be. And a further referendum must at all costs be avoided lest the people betray the Will of the People by rejecting the Brexit offered to them.

Last edited by UDS; 05-30-2019 at 08:59 PM.
  #1461  
Old 05-31-2019, 03:29 AM
DemonTree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
This argument is largely over. One of the reasons you have difficulty recalling the various projections and the scenarios they were modelling is because for many months now nobody has argued that Brexit will be economically beneficial, or even economically neutral. The case for Brexit is no longer advanced on economic grounds by any significant voices. Instead, the principal argument is that Brexit is the Will of the People, and must therefore be implemented no matter how disadvantageous economically, socially and politically the attainable terms turn out to be. And a further referendum must at all costs be avoided lest the people betray the Will of the People by rejecting the Brexit offered to them.
You sure about that?
  #1462  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:33 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonTree View Post
Link 1:
Brexit boost, says Richard Mitchell at finance broker Rangewell.

Boost, says Prof. Patrick Minford, Eurosceptic for decades, loved Thatchers poll tax, member of Better Off Out campaign.
However:
Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney has stated that the Brexit vote has already knocked about 2 percent off the UK economy, totalling £40bn and costing each household around £900.

Giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, Mr. Carney confirmed the British economy was underperforming the bank’s forecasts before the referendum and that the Leave vote was the primary cause.

Link 2:
Matthias Bopp, partner at consulting firm KPMG says if corporate taxes in the UK are low after Brexit, some companies could move there from Switerland.
Link3:
Boost says Prof. Patrick Minford (see above), and his Economists for Free Trade group.

For details see
https://www.desmog.co.uk/economists-free-trade and
https://www.desmog.co.uk/2018/08/09/...no-deal-brexit
Quote:
Economists for Free Trade (EFT), formerly known as Economists for Brexit, is a coalition of economists with strong ties to Brexiteer Conservative MPs, right-leaning mainstream media and some well-known climate science deniers.
Link 4:
Article behind paywall. Can only see first paragraph.

German economists say "Embracing free trade would limit the damage caused by a no-deal Brexit." Hardly a recommendation.

If that's the best you can come up with, it's pitiful.
  #1463  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:40 AM
Les Espaces Du Sommeil's Avatar
Les Espaces Du Sommeil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonTree View Post
I know it must seem unreasonable, but you've got to remember that the members in favour of those ideas got their way in a much larger sense. The UK didn't want the Euro or a shared immigration area, and would rather dispense with or reform the CAP. The UK didn't want the EU to be a political union at all, let alone support 'ever closer union'. And despite the opt out, Britain has still been affected by the economic problems caused by the Euro, and is still subject to the not-so-wonderful EU rules on agriculture, among other things.
I see your point. However, again considered from one of the founding members of the EEC, the view is that no country has had the privileges and opt-outs that the UK has been offered. Yet, in spite of this privileged status, the UK has, frankly speaking, often behaved in a way that was justifiably seen as arrogant and entitled. And hearing now the hopelessly simplistic "arguments" and the hatred spewed by some Brexiters against the EU is grating, to say the least.

Perhaps it all boils down to a difference in appreciation of the EU's goal. I think that for the founding members, it was as much an economic and political project as a higher ideal, with former seen as a means to approach the latter. The UK seems to have never really cared for this, perhaps even resented it. ‘Swallow the lot, and swallow it now’.
__________________
Mais je porte accroché au plus haut des entrailles
À la place où la foudre a frappé trop souvent
Un cœur où chaque mot a laissé son entaille
Et d’où ma vie s’égoutte au moindre mouvement
  #1464  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:42 AM
DemonTree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
If that's the best you can come up with, it's pitiful.
I'm not endorsing them, I'm pointing out that widely read newspapers are still claiming Brexit will be economically beneficial, and many people believe them.
  #1465  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:55 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steophan View Post
That you know it was advisory shows that, somehow, you obtained that knowledge. It seems that the government either lied about that or, by omission, mislead people. That hardly makes it better to expect them to follow it, to expect them to do something that was only ever "authorised" through lies and deception.
I know the referendum was non-binding because Remainers started whining that the referendum was non-binding after they lost. And then I researched it and found out the reason - the referendum was non-binding by default because of the sovereignty of Parliament. There may have been some debate on whether to make the referendum binding or not. However, I’m not aware of any vote or any public statement declaring the referendum would be non-binding. I’d be quite happy for anyone to point out either of those occurrences.

By the way, here’s your words from post #1442: “We were told the referendum was non-binding.” Where and when?

Quote:
As for "the government" implementing Brexit, that ended when the government changed, as one government cannot bind the next. Whether you consider that as happening when Cameron resigned, or after the general election, doesn't really matter. Neither the current government nor any future one is bound by law or custom to follow the advice given in the referendum, and as to follow it would be profoundly damaging to the UK they are ethically bound not to follow it.
And has been pointed out several times, the current government, and the opposition for that matter, campaigned on promises they would respect the Leave vote. After the election, the government enacted leaving the EU into law with the bill to invoke Article 50. So it's pointless what weight you put on the promises of Cameron's administration versus the legality that the referendum was non-binding. For that matter, Parliament has had opportunities since the invocation of Article 50 to vote for Article 50 revocation or a second referendum. Those votes have failed.
  #1466  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:15 AM
Quartz's Avatar
Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Where haggis roam free
Posts: 31,111
I'm bowing out of this thread.

Bluntly you've been a bunch of cunts, the mods have done fuck all, and it got to me and I had a sleepless night. Life's too short so carry on enjoy the death of democracy.
  #1467  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:21 AM
DemonTree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Espaces Du Sommeil View Post
I see your point. However, again considered from one of the founding members of the EEC, the view is that no country has had the privileges and opt-outs that the UK has been offered. Yet, in spite of this privileged status, the UK has, frankly speaking, often behaved in a way that was justifiably seen as arrogant and entitled. And hearing now the hopelessly simplistic "arguments" and the hatred spewed by some Brexiters against the EU is grating, to say the least.

Perhaps it all boils down to a difference in appreciation of the EU's goal. I think that for the founding members, it was as much an economic and political project as a higher ideal, with former seen as a means to approach the latter. The UK seems to have never really cared for this, perhaps even resented it. ‘Swallow the lot, and swallow it now’.
Yeah, the 'higher ideal' aspect has never been popular here, nor have our politicians ever tried to sell it to the public. The official Remain campaign was all about how terrible leaving would be economically, with much scaremongering and nothing positive or aspirational at all. I was sad but not surprised when Leave won.

Fundamentally, most Brits don't agree with the direction the EU is going, and feel we will always be outvoted by the other members, and in particular France and Germany. Opt-outs make the ride easier to tolerate but aren't the same as getting to go to your desired destination.

But yeah, Brexit has brought out all the worse of nonsensical arguments, lies and half-truths, and unreasonable demands. Some people wouldn't be happy with any union they didn't 100% control, compromise is a dirty word to them.
  #1468  
Old 05-31-2019, 06:08 AM
Slow Moving Vehicle's Avatar
Slow Moving Vehicle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 4,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I'm bowing out of this thread.

Bluntly you've been a bunch of cunts, the mods have done fuck all, and it got to me and I had a sleepless night. Life's too short so carry on enjoy the death of democracy.
Quartz, that’s probably for the best, if all this is causing you actual sleepless nights. Relax, take a walk, have a cup of English penicillin - tea - and tell yourself “It’s just a debate with strangers on the internet. Not worth stressing out over.”

Though you probably will earn a warning for insults in GD.
  #1469  
Old 05-31-2019, 06:20 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,925

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
I'm bowing out of this thread.

Bluntly you've been a bunch of cunts, the mods have done fuck all, and it got to me and I had a sleepless night. Life's too short so carry on enjoy the death of democracy.
Yeah, that'll earn you a warning, Quartz. We have the BBQ Pit for a reason.

Although, Slow Moving Vehicle? I think we'd all appreciate a lack of prediction about warnings. I get where you're coming from but it's unhelpful.
  #1470  
Old 05-31-2019, 08:08 AM
Slow Moving Vehicle's Avatar
Slow Moving Vehicle is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Atlanta, Georgia
Posts: 4,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
Yeah, that'll earn you a warning, Quartz. We have the BBQ Pit for a reason.

Although, Slow Moving Vehicle? I think we'd all appreciate a lack of prediction about warnings. I get where you're coming from but it's unhelpful.
Ah? Mea culpa. Didn’t realize that would be a problem. My apologies.
  #1471  
Old 05-31-2019, 10:58 AM
Antonius Block is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: SouthWest UK
Posts: 1,765
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
However, I’m not aware of any vote or any public statement declaring the referendum would be non-binding. I’d be quite happy for anyone to point out either of those occurrences.
The House of Commons Library contains Briefing Paper Number 07212 (3 June 2015) for the European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 [33-page PDF].

From Section 5 of this, on page 25, "Types of Referendum":
Quote:
This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.
[bolding mine]

This is the Bill that was passed by Parliament, leading to the June 2016 Referendum.

According to A.C. Grayling:
Quote:
This point was iterated viva voce by the Minister for Europe in the debate in the House of Commons later that month. This was the reason given for not including a threshold and for not extending the franchise appropriately.
When David Cameron wrote in his pamphlet "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.", he was making a promise that was beyond the scope of his powers as Prime Minister.

Of course, history shows that the Referendum was viewed as being politically binding almost as soon as the results were declared. I personally wonder if this would have happened so quickly if Cameron had not included the quoted statement in the pamphlet.
  #1472  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:20 AM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antonius Block View Post
The House of Commons Library contains Briefing Paper Number 07212 (3 June 2015) for the European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16 [33-page PDF].

From Section 5 of this, on page 25, "Types of Referendum":
Thanks. It's good to know there was a publication that actually spelled that out. At least for the people who read House of Commons briefing papers.
  #1473  
Old 05-31-2019, 11:27 AM
Les Espaces Du Sommeil's Avatar
Les Espaces Du Sommeil is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonTree View Post
....

Fundamentally, most Brits don't agree with the direction the EU is going, and feel we will always be outvoted by the other members, and in particular France and Germany. Opt-outs make the ride easier to tolerate but aren't the same as getting to go to your desired destination.

....
And yet, the UK definitely had the clout and ability to play the role of co-engine of the EU along with France and Germany if only it had embraced the ideal. What could have been...
__________________
Mais je porte accroché au plus haut des entrailles
À la place où la foudre a frappé trop souvent
Un cœur où chaque mot a laissé son entaille
Et d’où ma vie s’égoutte au moindre mouvement
  #1474  
Old 05-31-2019, 12:32 PM
DemonTree is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Espaces Du Sommeil View Post
And yet, the UK definitely had the clout and ability to play the role of co-engine of the EU along with France and Germany if only it had embraced the ideal. What could have been...
Indeed. Our PMs have rather consistently shown a lack of both imagination and ambition when it comes to the EU. The underwhelming changes negotiated by Cameron are a case in point.

If you want to know some specific Brexiter complaints, one was that the EU's accounts haven't been signed off in years, another is selective enforcement of the laws; for example, letting France and Germany break the rule on government deficits with no repercussions, but enforcing it on smaller countries like Portugal and Greece. They were also angry that Merkel broke the EU's own rules on asylum seekers, with obvious repercussions for other members, without any kind of pushback from the EU.
  #1475  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:16 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,931
Hard to believe that Quartz has stepped away from a Brexit thread. Unprecedented scenes.

So, when does everyone think that the next request to extend Article 50 happens? Third week in September?

Last edited by Baron Greenback; 05-31-2019 at 01:16 PM.
  #1476  
Old 05-31-2019, 01:52 PM
Dr. Drake is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 6,316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Hard to believe that Quartz has stepped away from a Brexit thread. Unprecedented scenes.

So, when does everyone think that the next request to extend Article 50 happens? Third week in September?
Fourth week in October. And as much as I really don't want a No-Deal Brexit, part of me really hopes the EU says "Enough of this fuckwittery. No. Screw you." (To which I hope the response is a sincere apology and an immediate withdrawal of Article 50. And I'd like a pony.)
  #1477  
Old 05-31-2019, 02:04 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Drake View Post
Fourth week in October. And as much as I really don't want a No-Deal Brexit, part of me really hopes the EU says "Enough of this fuckwittery. No. Screw you." (To which I hope the response is a sincere apology and an immediate withdrawal of Article 50. And I'd like a pony.)
On balance I think that is still in the EU's best interest to allow Britain to continue to make an absolute shambles of the attempt to leave. A No-Deal Brexit just restarts the Deal process from the beginning again, after all.
  #1478  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:23 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Hard to believe that Quartz has stepped away from a Brexit thread.
While I do not wish to be "junior modding", may I politely note my viewpoint that there was a bit of "piling on" against Quartz? I am enthusiastically in favour of robust debates - it's part of the entertainment. However, I would say that I've been considerably more contentious towards Remainers than Quartz, but have received far less opposition. I'm sure that's due to my superior debating skills. Nevertheless, it's a bit churlish to take a shot at someone after he's exited the field.
  #1479  
Old 05-31-2019, 04:54 PM
Wrenching Spanners is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: London
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
So, when does everyone think that the next request to extend Article 50 happens? Third week in September?
So far, I've made one accurate prediction about Brexit, which is that May's fourth withdrawal agreement vote would not go forward. Therefore, I agree with your prediction. I have no idea if I'm on a roll, or if I've just doomed your prediction.

I think that the next Tory leader has to do something different. I don't think they'll be able to go back to the EU for renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement, nor do I believe they'll be able to continue the failure treadmill May was on. My guess at this point is that the next PM will be a no-deal Brexiter, get blocked from pursuing no-deal, lose a vote of no confidence, and then a general election will be called. It will then be a polarised election of no-deal versus second referendum, which second referendum will win. Followed of course, by an extension request for time to hold the second referendum, occurring at the date you've stated.

Bookies will smile at you if you bet based on my predictions.
  #1480  
Old 05-31-2019, 05:13 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Bookies will smile at you if you bet based on my predictions.
I used to think I had a pretty decent grasp of how things would pan out politically, and was mostly right because things were pretty dull and obvious. These days though!? WTAF
  #1481  
Old 06-01-2019, 01:20 AM
williambaskerville is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Wicklow
Posts: 469
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I think that the next Tory leader has to do something different. I don't think they'll be able to go back to the EU for renegotiation of the withdrawal agreement
Just to make a point that often gets overlooked :- the WA is as it is for two reasons :- British red lines and DUP insistence on no Irish Sea border checks (even though there already are some).

If those factors change, the EU will happily renegotiate the WA.

Having said that, it's hard to see which of those factors a new Tory leader can change, given the HOC arithmetic. The DUP veto is especially frustrating, given that they in no sense speak for the people of Northern Ireland (which voted to remain and just elected 2 pro-remain MEPS out of 3).

Last edited by williambaskerville; 06-01-2019 at 01:21 AM. Reason: Broke quite
  #1482  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:20 AM
Ximenean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
[...] One of the reasons you have difficulty recalling the various projections
[...]
The case for Brexit is no longer advanced on economic grounds by any significant voices
1. Thanks, Dad.
2. I said that the economic case against Brexit was exaggerated, not incorrect.
  #1483  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:24 AM
Malden Capell is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: London
Posts: 2,362
The trouble when people cite economists being accurate or inaccurate is that they don't make one simple prediction, most of the time. The Bank of England for example will normally sketch out several scenarios based on possible responses to events and so on, and so in fact multiple assessments are often presented. But the press tend to seize on the most extreme example, and that's taken as 'the' assessment.

The important thing to note is that, for example, the Bank of England's repeated multiple scenarios all show negative impacts on the UK. In every scenario, the best possible outcome is still damage to the UK.
  #1484  
Old 06-01-2019, 10:44 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by williambaskerville View Post
Having said that, it's hard to see which of those factors a new Tory leader can change, given the HOC arithmetic. The DUP veto is especially frustrating, given that they in no sense speak for the people of Northern Ireland (which voted to remain and just elected 2 pro-remain MEPS out of 3).

I'm not sure I follow.

Even if Northern Ireland wants to Remain, but it looks Leave is going ahead, shouldn't the DUP nonetheless fight for the best conditions for Northern Ireland in the event of Leave?

__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #1485  
Old 06-03-2019, 07:08 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
I know the referendum was non-binding because Remainers started whining that the referendum was non-binding after they lost.
As opposed to the Leave campaign who, expecting to lose, declared it non-binding up to the point they won, at which point it became The Immutable Will of the People. Farage himself said a 52-48 split wouldn't constitute a definitive result and that he would want a second referendum, back when he was expecting to be on the "48" side of it. The Leave campaign literally starting whining about losing long before the referendum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DemonTree View Post
Yeah, the 'higher ideal' aspect has never been popular here, nor have our politicians ever tried to sell it to the public. The official Remain campaign was all about how terrible leaving would be economically, with much scaremongering and nothing positive or aspirational at all. I was sad but not surprised when Leave won.
It's not "scaremongering" when you have substantial justification for it. Which the Remain campaign did, despite Cameron's cackhanded leadership of the campaign (and seriously, who put him in charge of Remain?) and which has continued to be borne out by events. Actual "scaremongering" is saying things like "The NHS will be overrun by millions of Turks" and "If we stay in the EU, there will be foreign rape gangs roaming the streets of your neighbourhood".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
While I do not wish to be "junior modding", may I politely note my viewpoint that there was a bit of "piling on" against Quartz? I am enthusiastically in favour of robust debates - it's part of the entertainment. However, I would say that I've been considerably more contentious towards Remainers than Quartz, but have received far less opposition. I'm sure that's due to my superior debating skills. Nevertheless, it's a bit churlish to take a shot at someone after he's exited the field.
I'm not intending to potshot him in his (voluntarily self-imposed) absence but nonetheless he has a long history of repeating arguments that have long been debunked, handwaving away evidence supplied, making simplistic and unsupported assertions, ignoring reasonable questions and assigning malign intent to anyone who calls him out on any of the above, all of which are visible in this very thread. You, conversely, appear to argue in good faith (or, if you like, have "superior debating skills"), even if I disagree with most of your points.

In short - it's not the specific political position that is drawing the fire, it's the rhetorical approach.
  #1486  
Old 06-03-2019, 08:15 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,751
Two more calls from major business organisations for sanity:


No-deal Brexit would be economic lunacy, say UK manufacturers

Quote:
Stephen Phipson, the chief executive of Make UK, which represents 20,000 British manufacturers, said it would be “the height of economic lunacy to take the UK out of the EU with no deal in place”.

CBI warns against ‘severe’ disruption from no deal

Quote:
In a strongly worded message to candidates to replace Theresa May as Tory leader, the CBI said that a no-deal Brexit will cause severe disruption and long-term damage to UK competitiveness, which the vast majority of businesses cannot protect themselves against.

Carolyn Fairbairn, the CBI’s director general, said the failure to resolve Brexit was already hitting Britain hard, diverting billions of pounds of investment out of the economy.

And from the right-wing Spectator:

The question that no-deal Brexiteers must answer


Any answers to that question from the no-deal Brexiteers here?
  #1487  
Old 06-03-2019, 11:16 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern Minnesota
Posts: 12,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
As opposed to the Leave campaign who, expecting to lose, declared it non-binding up to the point they won, at which point it became The Immutable Will of the People. Farage himself said a 52-48 split wouldn't constitute a definitive result and that he would want a second referendum, back when he was expecting to be on the "48" side of it. The Leave campaign literally starting whining about losing long before the referendum.

Which is total weaksauce, because (and this has always bothered me, watching this from afar) it strikes me that making such a big change should require some kind of supermajority, like 60 percent. They should have required a supermajority to enter the EU, and they should require one to leave.
  #1488  
Old 06-03-2019, 11:48 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Which is total weaksauce, because (and this has always bothered me, watching this from afar) it strikes me that making such a big change should require some kind of supermajority, like 60 percent. They should have required a supermajority to enter the EU, and they should require one to leave.
I agree with that, and not just in the context of Brexit. Any massive changes to the country should require 60% at the very least - and ideally 66.6% - to pass. The Scottish independence referendum could have squeaked over the line by a fraction of a percent, which would have been a bloody stupid way to make such a monumental change to the country.
  #1489  
Old 06-03-2019, 07:58 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I'm not sure I follow.

Even if Northern Ireland wants to Remain, but it looks Leave is going ahead, shouldn't the DUP nonetheless fight for the best conditions for Northern Ireland in the event of Leave?

Of course they should. But that would require them to admit that they had made a mistake in lining up with the Paleotories in England and backing a hard Brexit, and such an admission is beyond them.
  #1490  
Old 06-04-2019, 05:58 AM
PatrickLondon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: London
Posts: 3,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
I'm not sure I follow.

Even if Northern Ireland wants to Remain, but it looks Leave is going ahead, shouldn't the DUP nonetheless fight for the best conditions for Northern Ireland in the event of Leave?

But from their point of view, and of their voters, not having an economic border with the rest of the UK is the best condition, indeed it's an article of faith if that's the price of no economic border with the Republic.

Though whether their faith might become more flexible with more money from London (maybe relief funds for any additional costs incurred by NI businesses as a result of checks on trade with the mainland, or some such) - I wouldn't know. A lot would depend on how the parliamentary arithmetic stacks up after the next election.
  #1491  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:26 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,838
When it comes to the DUP, "articles of faith" and "things that are best in reality" are not always the same thing.
  #1492  
Old 06-04-2019, 06:45 AM
Novelty Bobble is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: South East England
Posts: 9,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
I agree with that, and not just in the context of Brexit. Any massive changes to the country should require 60% at the very least - and ideally 66.6% - to pass. The Scottish independence referendum could have squeaked over the line by a fraction of a percent, which would have been a bloody stupid way to make such a monumental change to the country.
I'd agree with that as well, I'd include that any future E.U. treaties should be put to a a referendum with a 66.6% vote required to pass them. Such a system should have been in place from the start.
__________________
I'm saving this space for the first good insult hurled my way
  #1493  
Old 06-04-2019, 07:47 PM
UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,936
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickLondon View Post
But from their point of view, and of their voters, not having an economic border with the rest of the UK is the best condition, indeed it's an article of faith if that's the price of no economic border with the Republic.

Though whether their faith might become more flexible with more money from London (maybe relief funds for any additional costs incurred by NI businesses as a result of checks on trade with the mainland, or some such) - I wouldn't know. A lot would depend on how the parliamentary arithmetic stacks up after the next election.
The economic border with the UK will be much less disruptive/harmful to trade than the economic border with the Republic would be. This, presumably, is part of the reason why the backstop is popular in Northern Ireland.
  #1494  
Old 06-04-2019, 08:01 PM
PastTense is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 7,749
Change UK (a Remain group) has lost 6 out of 11 MPs because of the dire EU Parliament election results:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics...munna-lib-dems
  #1495  
Old 06-05-2019, 05:05 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 23,838
Change UK were defined entirely by who they weren't rather than who they were. Such an entity was never going to last in that state. The question is whether they persist and limp on, or go crawling back to their original parties, or just quit politics and become television pundits and columnists for the Independent.
  #1496  
Old 06-08-2019, 05:44 AM
Sandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 444

What next?


I've been thinking how this will all end, and to my surprise realise that there is one reasonably straightforward way through this mess, consistent with all the leading British politicians' stated and apparent priorities. That is:


1 the new Conservative Prime Minister does go to Brussels to successfully renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. Specifically, the offer is to redraw the backstop so that it applies to Northern Ireland only. This should work for the EU, since it is what they originally wanted, and is better for the EU and member states than the alternatives, which are Britain crashing out with no deal, another aimless extension of the article 50 process, or worst of all a cynical revocation of the article 50 notice in bad faith. (Note that anything other than an enthusiastic revocation based on a decisive second referendum is much worse for the EU than the UK - a bad faith revocation is really difficult for the EU to handle.)

2 clearly this antagonises the DUP, but that doesn't matter. There will be some backbench Tories who are unhappy, but few will be so unhappy that they oppose Brexit because of it. Conversely, it should bring the ERG on board, and puts Labour into a corner. What might Labour do?

3a one way or another sufficient Labour MPs vote for the revised withdrawal agreement so that it passes. The new Conservative Prime Minister is the hero of the leavers, and can call a general election early in the transitional period (which Parliament can hardly refuse) with a good chance of winning a working majority (since none of the bad impacts of Brexit will have happened then, indeed there will probably be some good news simply because of the end of the uncertainty).

3b Labour opposes the revised withdrawal agreement, and we crash out with no deal on 31 October. It's a mess, and Labour "is to blame for not supporting the withdrawal agreement". The new Prime Minister is the hero of the leavers, and can call an emergency general election (which Parliament can hardly refuse) with a good chance of winning a working majority "to repair the damage which Labour has done".

3c Labour opposes the revised withdrawal agreement, and forces a referendum and extension through Parliament (which the EU would probably reluctantly support). The new Prime Minister is the hero of the leavers, and can campaign on his revised withdrawal agreement "which delivers the will of the people", with a good chance of winning. Also, as the hero of the leavers, he calls for an emergency general election, campaigning to stop the referendum and to Brexit in line with the new withdrawal agreement, with a good chance of winning a working majority "to defeat the enemies of the people".

3d Labour opposes the revised withdrawal agreement and somehow Parliament forces through the revocation of the article 50 notice. Doesn't seem likely, but again the new PM is the hero of the leavers and can probably win the inevitable general election. Then chaos ensues when Britain leaves the EU anyway.

All of these scenarios see the Conservatives winning the next general election. Most likely with the proposed revised withdrawal agreement, which gives them breathing space to come up with sensible policies during the transitional period having won a subsequent general election. Which could cover anything from an eventual hard Brexit, to not leaving at all, with plenty of scope for their new leader to claim all the credit. Not getting the revised withdrawal agreement through would be worse for the country, but in all scenarios the blame could be pinned on Labour.

Clearly, this relies on the new Conservative leader taking this approach, but it does seem quite feasible for one of the "sensible" idiots (say Johnson, Hunt or Gove) rather than one of the psycho idiots (Raab) or plain stupid idiots (Leadsom).

It also relies on the nation being content to weaken the union with Northern Ireland. Despite some bluster so far, the one thing I am sure about is that maintaining strong links between the constituent parts of the UK is low down on leavers' list of priorities.

Given Corbyn's current positioning, there isn't much Labour could do to successfully oppose this. Absent a leadership challenge as soon as possible, and preferably yesterday, with a new Labour leader campaigning vigorously for a second referendum and remain, then exiting on such a revised withdrawal agreement seems inevitable.

Personally, I would be content with such an outcome. I think if Britain enters a transitional period which broadly matches our current membership of the EU, then we will never actually fully leave.
  #1497  
Old 06-08-2019, 06:35 AM
ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 50,549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwich View Post
I've been thinking how this will all end, and to my surprise realise that there is one reasonably straightforward way through this mess, consistent with all the leading British politicians' stated and apparent priorities.
It may be straightforward, but it's also fanciful:

Quote:
1 the new Conservative Prime Minister does go to Brussels to successfully renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.
However,
Quote:
The European Union will not renegotiate the Brexit deal that Prime Minister Theresa May agreed, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said on Tuesday, as concerns grew that a successor to May could trigger a confrontation with the bloc.
What do you plan to do about that?
  #1498  
Old 06-08-2019, 07:26 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,751
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwich View Post
1 the new Conservative Prime Minister does go to Brussels to successfully renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. Specifically, the offer is to redraw the backstop so that it applies to Northern Ireland only.
...
2 clearly this antagonises the DUP, but that doesn't matter.
It does matter if it antagonises the DUP. It's only the DUP that's propping up the Tory government. If the DUP were to withdraw their support, the government would not be able to win a vote of no-confidence, and there would have to be a general election - which the Tories are trying to avoid at all costs.

So that's not going to happen.
  #1499  
Old 06-08-2019, 08:00 AM
Sandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
... What do you plan to do about that?
As I carefully explained in the rest of the paragraph, the proposal is in my opinion an offer the EU can't refuse. Since all the alternatives are worse for the EU. Furthermore, refusing to let a country leave the EU unless it commits to following all the EU's rules and regulations forever would actually justify the leavers' previously unjustifiable assertion that the EU is a dictatorship. That's not a viable position for the EU to adopt.

Seriously, the EU cannot and will not reject sensible workable proposals which are in its own best interests and which can easily be implemented. The so-called refusal to renegotiate only makes any sense at all in the context of the British government only making pointless impractical offers. Which so far it has done, but my point is that it need not continue to do so.
  #1500  
Old 06-08-2019, 08:17 AM
Sandwich is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
It does matter if it antagonises the DUP. It's only the DUP that's propping up the Tory government. If the DUP were to withdraw their support, the government would not be able to win a vote of no-confidence, and there would have to be a general election - which the Tories are trying to avoid at all costs.

So that's not going to happen.
You missed the clever bit. If the new Conservative leader offers to Brexit on the current withdrawal agreement but with the backstop reduced to NI only, then that severely reduces scope for Labour to call a no confidence motion. Because the backstop works for everyone if it is limited to NI.

For a start, several northern Labour MPs would see this as an easy way out of their dilemma, representing leaver constituencies.

Second, it calls Corbyn's bluff, since he is a leaver too. Put it another way, something is going to happen, and it isn't Corbyn successfully leading a campaign for the UK to remain in the EU, nor is it Corbyn negotiating a better withdrawal agreement with the EU. (I'm sure Elvis1ives will support me on that! ) So, one way or another, the outcome is going to be the UK leaving the EU, I am merely setting out a way for that to happen without no deal, which no-one wants.

Third, it changes the narrative around a general election, to one that the Conservatives easily win. The process would be, Boris (for it is he) makes the proposal I suggest. Labour says, no, we aren't leaving on that basis, let's have a general election. Boris says fine, and agrees with Nigel that in the constituencies currently held by Labour, half will be fought by a Brexit Party candidate and half by a Conservative, provided no Brexit Party candidates oppose sitting Conservative MPs. The Conservative / Brexit alliance wins the election and either exits with the deal I suggest or, having done all that they reasonably could to avoid it, with no deal.

The Conservatives currently fear a general election, because they will be demolished as a punishment for betraying the will of the people. If they pivot to genuinely trying to leave the EU on the best terms possible, then they win the next general election easily, either under their own brand or in association with the Faragists.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:54 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017