Brexit - general discussion thread

[UDS]

@Novelty_Bobble

Then the 1975 referendum was not the democratic will of the people either. That required no supermajority so the result of it is equally up for revision if the mood changes. It’s turtles all the way down.

It didn’t require a supermajority, but it did in fact deliver one - 67% “Yes” versus 33% “No”, a margin of 34%, or two-to-one, in favour of remaining in the EU. Plus, the “Yes” vote won in all four parts of the UK.

But, yes, the result is up for revision, and indeed the UK is right now in the process of revising it. But the question was regarded as settled for a very long time because of the size and spread of the “Yes” majority.

The referendum is something of a constitutional novelty in the UK, and they haven’t really worked out what it is for or what role it plays. Some Brexiters seem genuinely to imagine that a referendum is some kind of show-stopper; that it silences democratic review and reconsideration of any question for an unspecified but lengthy period. To support this view they point to the effect of the 1975 referendum, but I think they miss the points that (a) this was a political effect, not a legal or constitutional one, and (b) it produced this effect not because “Yes” won, but because it won by such a massive and widely-spread majority. Opponents were free to continmue democratic opposition to EU membership; they just recognised that such a campaign would find no traction.

The 2016 referendum was touted as settling the question for another generation. This always seemed to me an obviously bogus promise. Politiclans are simply not in a position to decree that a referendum will settle any question. The whole point of a referendum is that the people make a decision, not the politicians, and if the people don’t give a decisive, substantial, widely spread majority to one side or the other - if what the referendum discloses is a population more or less evenly divided between two sides of a polarising question - then the question is not settled for a generation, regardless of what rash promises any proponent of the referendum may have made to that effect.

What the 2016 referendum has shown is that the UK is deeply divided over EU membership, and that a “winner takes all” mentality is not going to heal that divide, or even paper it over successfully. And don’t imagine that another referendum, even if it does 52-48 the other way, will be any more successful in “settling” this question. The UK needs to think about how to function as a state, and succed as a society, while living with this divide.

[Steophan]

@lisiate

Seriously, what the hell? I thought you guys had sorted that out back in the 1640s?

Tempting as it may seem, I think beheading May could be considered something of an overreaction.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Riemann

For Brexit, you think it should be 18, I think it should be 16. “We have a set age of adulthood” is nonsense - all you are doing is trying to make an arbitrary choice sound non-arbitrary.

For voting I think it should be 18, I see no reason to change it specifically for the brexit referendum.

There is no sense in which anyone can claim that we have established the absolute democratic will of the people. Wanting the 2016 referendum to be the final word is just as self-serving as pushing for another referendum. Of course I expect Leavers to disfavor another referendum. Just don’t claim your motivation is a noble fight for democracy.

Never claimed it was, I merely say that whatever referendum the next one is, the result will only carry as much legitimacy as the last one did, which carried just as much legitimacy as the 1975 one did. Rinse and repeat.

I’m not a leaver by the way

[UDS]

@Novelty_Bobble

. . . I merely say that whatever referendum the next one is, the result will only carry as much legitimacy as the last one did, which carried just as much legitimacy as the 1975 one did. Rinse and repeat.

This, pretty much. If you decide that a certain question is to be resolved by referendum, then I think a reasonable corollary is that that resolution can only be revisited by a further referendum. Which means - unless you intend to trash democracy - you must be open to holding further referendums about it.

And which also means, if the question is a divisive or polarising one on which opinion is fairly evenly divided, a decision to resolve it by referendum is probably a poor decision.

[Ramira]

Will this have any impact on your decisions politically: ECJ’s top legal adviser says UK can unilaterally end Brexit.

and it was strange to read the UK government is planning on the transport rationing in case of the hard Brexit

It is a wonderful sovereignty you are gaining, you can engage in the rationing programs without the meddlesome interference of the continental bureaucracts.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@UDS

And which also means, if the question is a divisive or polarising one on which opinion is fairly evenly divided, a decision to resolve it by referendum is probably a poor decision.

I agree, which is why I say that this situation is the fault of every supine UK government since 1975 and a consistent failure to take enough of the country with them as the terms of EU membership changed.
Had the growing disquiet been properly addressed the vote would have been different.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Ramira

Will this have any impact on your decisions politically: ECJ’s top legal adviser says UK can unilaterally end Brexit.

and it was strange to read the UK government is planning on the transport rationing in case of the hard Brexit

It is a wonderful sovereignty you are gaining, you can engage in the rationing programs without the meddlesome interference of the continental bureaucracts.

Regarding the former article, let’s judge both sides by what they make of it shall we?

My bet is that both the UK government and the EU leadership will say it is more complicated than that.
The reasons being that the UK government will not want to be seen to take that nuclear option of abandoning all the work done towards enacting the will of the people. The EU on the other hand will not allow the UK to reverse course without exacting revenge…yes, I absolutely do mean revenge and it will come in the form of a generous offer we can’t refuse.

As for rationing. (that article is paywalled BTW) I doubt it would ever amount to more than a temporary supply blip. A prosperous, liberal, trading nation with good communications and money to spend and a market to satisfy will always find a willing trading partner, in or out of the EU.

I’ve made this case before and it still stands. Imagine that, overnight, an unaffiliated, liberal, prosperous, advanced western nation with the world’s fifth biggest economy and a market of over 60 million wealthy people was towed to a position 20 miles off the coast of Europe. The E.U. would trip over itself to strike deals with such a nation and even if a no-deal brexit happens, after a suitable period of navel-gazing, that’s exactly what both sides would do.

Sadly, the nature of the rhetoric over Brexit is that all positions must be polarised. A no-deal brexit would mean utter disaster (not true - the Bank of England in it’s recent advice imagined every worst case factor happening immediately with no remedial action taken plus malign purposes and ill-will and still “only” made it a bit worse than the 2008 crash - something the country managed to survive)
Or people in favour of leaving say that a no-deal brexit will lead to greater prosperity (no, not in the short term and economics is pretty much incapable of looking further ahead a couple of years so all bets are off and there is still room for incompetent politicians to fuck up any opportunities that do arise.)

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Ramira

Will this have any impact on your decisions politically: ECJ’s top legal adviser says UK can unilaterally end Brexit.

and it was strange to read the UK government is planning on the transport rationing in case of the hard Brexit

It is a wonderful sovereignty you are gaining, you can engage in the rationing programs without the meddlesome interference of the continental bureaucracts.

How did Janis Joplin put it? “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”

[Gyrate]

nm - hit Submit by accident

[Gyrate]

@Novelty_Bobble

Regarding the former article, let’s judge both sides by what they make of it shall we?

My bet is that both the UK government and the EU leadership will say it is more complicated than that.
The reasons being that the UK government will not want to be seen to take that nuclear option of abandoning all the work done towards enacting the will of the people.

“The will of the people”? The “will of the people” was to get all the benefits of the EU and none of the costs or responsibilities. No government can deliver what the “people” voted for.

The EU on the other hand will not allow the UK to reverse course without exacting revenge…yes, I absolutely do mean revenge and it will come in the form of a generous offer we can’t refuse.

Will they twirl their moustaches and cackle “MUAHAHA!” while they do it? The EU will not “exact revenge”; they don’t need to because it’s patently clear that the UK is punishing itself by its own actions. There’s no benefit to them doing so, unless you’re characterising them negotiating trade deals on the basis of their much stronger bargaining position (a position the UK used to also be a part of) as “revenge”.

As for rationing. (that article is paywalled BTW) I doubt it would ever amount to more than a temporary supply blip. A prosperous, liberal, trading nation with good communications and money to spend and a market to satisfy will always find a willing trading partner, in or out of the EU.

But on what terms? The issue isn’t that suddenly a wall will rise up around the UK that no [del]Mexicans[/del] foreign goods will be able to penetrate. The issue is that getting those goods and services will take much more time and paperwork and cost much more than they did before, which will result in delays and shortages. Given the wage stagnation of the last decade, this is going to hit a sizable proportion of the population really, really hard.

The richest folk - the ones pushing hardest for Brexit - will be just fine; indeed, they will profit from the change and gain more power. Everyone else will be screwed.

I’ve made this case before and it still stands. Imagine that, overnight, an unaffiliated, liberal, prosperous, advanced western nation with the world’s fifth biggest economy and a market of over 60 million wealthy people was towed to a position 20 miles off the coast of Europe. The E.U. would trip over itself to strike deals with such a nation and even if a no-deal brexit happens, after a suitable period of navel-gazing, that’s exactly what both sides would do.

This is the argument the Leave campaign repeatedly made already. It remains without basis.

Yes, the EU will continue to do business with the UK. It will do so on terms much more favourable to the EU than the terms currently in play. It would not “trip over itself” and certainly wouldn’t be offering free money, beer and kittens for the mere privilege of having a trade deal with this hypothetical country, and it won’t do it for the UK.

Sadly, the nature of the rhetoric over Brexit is that all positions must be polarised. A no-deal brexit would mean utter disaster (not true - the Bank of England in it’s recent advice imagined every worst case factor happening immediately with no remedial action taken plus malign purposes and ill-will and still “only” made it a bit worse than the 2008 crash - something the country managed to survive)

That’s a rather sugarcoated version of both the Bank of England position and the effects of the 2008 crash, given that homelessness has more than quintitupled and literally half a million people now rely on foodbanks. The Bank is anticipating a jump in both unemployment and inflation; the 2008 crash had the former but not the latter, and the two combined will hit very hard on the poorest sections of the population.

[Ramira]

@Novelty_Bobble

As for rationing. (that article is paywalled BTW) I doubt it would ever amount to more than a temporary supply blip. A prosperous, liberal, trading nation with good communications and money to spend and a market to satisfy will always find a willing trading partner, in or out of the EU.

Infrastructure does not happen by the magic wand or overnight.

the problem is wiht the infrastructure that has not for many decades been in place for the trade barriers.

I suppose the UK can continue to cling to its fantasy that it is so very attractive this will cause the infrastructure to sprout up from the ground…

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Gyrate

“The will of the people”? The “will of the people” was to get all the benefits of the EU and none of the costs or responsibilities. No government can deliver what the “people” voted for.

The will of people was to leave the E.U. That was the vote but nothing more was decided. Most of the political to-ing and fro-ing since the vote was based upon a questioning of what the voters actually expected to happen because of that.
To make your claim that you know what the leave voters actually wanted is utterly false. You don’t know and you can’t know beyond a general “leave the EU” statement.

Will they twirl their moustaches and cackle “MUAHAHA!” while they do it? The EU will not “exact revenge”; they don’t need to

Of course they need to. To allow a country to trigger and untrigger article 50 without any consequences will become unacceptable. Consider the message. The UK triggers article 50, then revokes it and things return back to either how they were or the UK gets concessions.
Not going to happen. If the UK decides not to exit, the loophole will be closed and the UK will have to give something up. To think otherwise is to fundamentally misread the history of the EU.
As for pantomime villains, why not ask Greece of Italy how they view the EU leadership?

A question for you, do you think that if the UK revokes article 50 and remains in the EU that the status quo will remain? that there will be no ramifications from that?

because it’s patently clear that the UK is punishing itself by its own actions. There’s no benefit to them doing so, unless you’re characterising them negotiating trade deals on the basis of their much stronger bargaining position (a position the UK used to also be a part of) as “revenge”.

I think you’ve misunderstood, I’m talking about the punishment that the UK will receive if it tries to revoke article 50 and return to the EU fold as if nothing happened.

But on what terms? The issue isn’t that suddenly a wall will rise up around the UK that no [del]Mexicans[/del] foreign goods will be able to penetrate. The issue is that getting those goods and services will take much more time and paperwork and cost much more than they did before, which will result in delays and shortages. Given the wage stagnation of the last decade, this is going to hit a sizable proportion of the population really, really hard.

I note you can’t resist a crack at an imagined racist position that I do not hold. Well done. Very persuasive.
Ultimately a stable position will be reached where there are no shortages and deals are struck. Note, not every country in the world is a member of the EU. The doomsday positions that people take (like yours) want to imply that the UK cannot possibly succeed outside of the EU. That’s not a logical position and not a proven fact. Countries of lesser clout than the UK can and do exist and thrive outside of the UK already. Might the UK be measurably worse off outside of the EU? Quite possibly. Might it be better off - possibly, we don’t and can’t know what the future holds either for independent nations nor the E.U. as a whole.

The richest folk - the ones pushing hardest for Brexit - will be just fine; indeed, they will profit from the change and gain more power. Everyone else will be screwed.

Again, hyperbole, scaremongering, not even the worst case scenarios suggested by the BoE make such a claim.
As for the richest people pushing for Brexit?Poorer households were more likely to vote to leave.

The poorest households, with incomes of less than £20,000 per year, were much more likely to support leaving the EU than the wealthiest households, as were the unemployed, people in low-skilled and manual occupations, people who feel that their financial situation has worsened, and those with no qualifications.

Yes, the EU will continue to do business with the UK. It will do so on terms much more favourable to the EU than the terms currently in play. It would not “trip over itself” and certainly wouldn’t be offering free money, beer and kittens for the mere privilege of having a trade deal with this hypothetical country, and it won’t do it for the UK.

That’s fine, beer and kittens not required, you’ve conceded my point.

That’s a rather sugarcoated version of both the Bank of England position and the effects of the 2008 crash, given that homelessness has more than quintitupled and literally half a million people now rely on foodbanks. The Bank is anticipating a jump in both unemployment and inflation; the 2008 crash had the former but not the latter, and the two combined will hit very hard on the poorest sections of the population.

I didn’t sugarcoat it at all.

Do you admit that those predictions given by the BoE represent the very worst of the worst outcomes and would require inaction and bad decisions all round coupled with malign influences from external forces? If you’ve read it all and the analysis of it by neutral observers then that is certainly the case.

Remember, I’m not a leaver. I want to stay in and disrupt the EU political machine from within but I’ve been constantly depressed by the short-sighted analysis, positional certainty, demonisation and scaremongering tactics on all sides…all sides.

[septimus]

@Riemann

Why should a 90-year-old have the same say in the next 30 years of the future of the U.K. as a 20-year-old?

Do you propose a general change to voting, or just a change specific to the Second Referendum?

In the U.S. there’s a minimum voting age of 18; I’ve favored also having a maximum age, perhaps 65 or 70.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

@ those calling Brexit disastrous — Can you estimate the extent of the disaster? A brief recession, or a permanent loss of British prestige and prosperity? While you were choosing Brexit, the U.S. chose TrumpPres. How will historians assess these blunders, relative to each other, 30 years from now?

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Ramira

Infrastructure does not happen by the magic wand or overnight.

A response to a claim that no-one has made.

the problem is with the infrastructure that has not for many decades been in place for the trade barriers.

You build it, you expand it. Part of the BoE analysis was based on infrastructure shortages never being addressed, there is real fantasy for you. You cannot react overnight but it would be madness to say that no extra capabilities will get built. Of course they will.
I pass through the Dover Ports on a regular basis and have seen many increases and upgrades. There is currently a large project to expand the western docks (partly funded by EU money, there’s irony for you!)

I suppose the UK can continue to cling to its fantasy that it is so very attractive this will cause the infrastructure to sprout up from the ground…

There we are ladies and gentlemen, that’s the level of debate that happens.

Large economies *are *attractive. That is no fantasy. The UK is not especially so there’s nothing magical about it but a big economy with money to spend, services to provide and goods to sell catches the attention of other trading nations and trading blocs.

[Ramira]

@Novelty_Bobble

A response to a claim that no-one has made.

It is embedded in your breezy response about large economies being attractive.

Of course after adjustment it regains, but that does not make the adjustment magically go away.

There we are ladies and gentlemen, that’s the level of debate that happens.

Large economies *are *attractive. That is no fantasy. The UK is not especially so there’s nothing magical about it but a big economy with money to spend, services to provide and goods to sell catches the attention of other trading nations and trading blocs.

As I am an actual real life economist for the actual real life investment fund with the capital movement that is not small, and as we are watching the actual real life investment decisions and flows as the risk aversion rises from the very incompetent and breezy way the English are handling their problem.

Yes it is the magical fantasy thinking going on among the English. Of course your economy will be traded with, but the near term losses and the frictions in the no deal Brexit - the context of the article shared - are indeed quite important and things that are not easily or cheaply resolved in a very short time - it imposes the substantial costs on your economy.

But you can put this down to the ‘quality of the debate’ - for me, I see where the capital is actively being decided to be redirected and I am glad I am not an English.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Novelty_Bobble

Regarding the former article, let’s judge both sides by As for rationing. (that article is paywalled BTW) I doubt it would ever amount to more than a temporary supply blip. A prosperous, liberal, trading nation with good communications and money to spend and a market to satisfy will always find a willing trading partner, in or out of the EU.

I’ve made this case before and it still stands. Imagine that, overnight, an unaffiliated, liberal, prosperous, advanced western nation with the world’s fifth biggest economy and a market of over 60 million wealthy people was towed to a position 20 miles off the coast of Europe. The E.U. would trip over itself to strike deals with such a nation and even if a no-deal brexit happens, after a suitable period of navel-gazing, that’s exactly what both sides would do.

Sure. It’ll just take time. Because things like that take time. Compare it to CETA - negotiations started in 2009 and it wasn’t approved until 2017, 8 years later.

Sadly, the nature of the rhetoric over Brexit is that all positions must be polarised. A no-deal brexit would mean utter disaster (not true - the Bank of England in it’s recent advice imagined every worst case factor happening immediately with no remedial action taken plus malign purposes and ill-will and still “only” made it a bit worse than the 2008 crash - something the country managed to survive)
Or people in favour of leaving say that a no-deal brexit will lead to greater prosperity (no, not in the short term and economics is pretty much incapable of looking further ahead a couple of years so all bets are off and there is still room for incompetent politicians to fuck up any opportunities that do arise.)

Well gosh, it’ll only be a little worse than the worst economic crisis in recent memory. And this illness is only slightly worse than the black plague, bring it on!

[GreenWyvern]

What do the top Brexiters really want? ‘Plan A+’ from the shady Institute of Economic Affairs sets it all out in detail.

• Reduce labour protection regulations
• Reduce environmental protection regulations
• Reduce data privacy and data protection regulations (so your private data can be sold to anyone who wants it)
• Remove requirements for clinical-trial transparency for pharmaceutical companies (to allow marketing of quack pharmaceuticals)
• Give pharmaceutical companies longer patents on pharmaceuticals (keeping prices higher for longer)
• Open up government services to privatisation and international competition (big profits for corporations taking over services)
• Reduce food standard regulations
    - limits on pesticide residues
    - hormone-disrupting chemicals in food
    - nutritional labelling
    - use of genetically modified organisms
    - the export of risky animal byproducts
    - allow food additives banned by the EU over safety
    - allow chlorine treatments on poultry and other meats
    - allow growth-promoting chemicals and hormones
• Reduce banking regulations
    - reduce capital requirements on banks
    - lift controls on trading by asset managers
    - cut bank surcharge (to pay back 2008 bailout)
    - allow a number of forms of risky trading, now banned
    - remove requirements to provide trade-tracking data to regulators
    - scrap many other banking regulations

Apparently all this will mean freedom from ‘EU oppression’. My heart bleeds for all those poor oppressed billionaires and large corporations.

This is why Rees-Mogg and his cohorts don’t support May’s plan. They would be happy with a hard Brexit. Only the plebs would suffer, and the 1% would gain by being free from regulations, or by being in a position to strongly influence lifting regulations.
What we didn’t vote for in the EU referendum was a clutch of rightwing thinktanks seeking to capture our democracy

Who is behind the push for a post-Brexit free trade deal with the US? |...

The IEA’s Plan A+ for ‘free trade’ is the product of fanaticism

The IEA’s Plan A+ for ‘free trade’ is the product of fanaticism

[Baron_Greenback]

The Government has been found in contempt of Parliament. Unprecedented.

[Ramira]

@Baron_Greenback

The Government has been found in contempt of Parliament. Unprecedented.

I did not understand this but now reading this article it is for the demande of the release of the legal advice to the government.

it is very strange watching the two great anglosaxon countries seeming to engage in political epileptic fits.

[GreenWyvern]

Theresa May’s government has suffered one defeat after another today.

1. They lost a vote on a technical bid to avoid facing the contempt vote.
2. Found in contempt of parliament over releasing the legal advice - the first time in history this has happened, apparently.
3. Defeated in a technical amendment to the withdrawal bill. This will allow parliament to take over control if May’s deal is rejected, and avoid a no-deal Brexit.

So the government has been defeated three times in one day.

4. Also the European Court of Justice has given a preliminary ruling that Article 50 can be revoked by the UK alone. This means that the UK parliament, by a simple vote, can cancel Brexit completely. May’s government have been fighting against this ruling for 8 months, but it looks like they’ve lost.
5. The government has lost out over the format for the TV debate on Sunday. The BBC has withdrawn their offer, and now May seems to have a choice to go with Labour’s preferred format, or nothing.