homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Community discussion   » Purgatory   » Shake it all about: Brexit thread II (Page 14)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ...  64  65  66 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

I think discussing Brexit exclusively in terms of what its most stupid proponents believe is probably not terribly helpful.

The problem at this moment is that the most stupid proponents are the loudest and most vocal, and have managed to give the impression (real or imagined) that they have the power to tear the conservative party apart.

Prior to the vote it was quite common for some figures to drop in mention of EFTA or EFTA like arrangements post Brexit (usually intermixing it with other scenarios depending on the audience), Hannan did it, Farage made numerous references to the positions of Switzerland and Norway as models for the UK to follow, and as examples of countries that did well out of the EU.

Now to a certain extent this wasn't realistic as a platform for them, as would have been seen by the fact that they were alternating between different scenarios depending on the audience. So one wonders whether they were stupid, or assumed the hard core Brexiters - who were their constituency - were stupid.

Over the last few days there have been plenty of people willing to cry betrayal over any whiff of an EFTA or EFTA-lite arrangement - helped by the usual loony tendency like Redwood, Rees-Mogg and so on. Absent a politician who is willing to take them on, the loony tendency will continue to set the tone - because they have the votes of the middle aged pub-bore contingent.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem at this moment is that the most stupid proponents are the loudest and most vocal, and have managed to give the impression (real or imagined) that they have the power to tear the conservative party apart.

As I recall, Cameron's reasoning for holding a referendum in the first place was to attempt to prevent the Conservative party being torn apart... it doesn't seem to have worked.

[ 03. December 2016, 06:50: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Damned if he did and damned if he didn't.
I suppose even a narrow Remain victory wouldn't have been without it problems for the Tories.

If the the Conservatives are going to tear themselves apart, Labour having already torn itself, the Liberals come 2020 may indeed have to "Prepare for Government [Razz]

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
It'll take time, though. The next by-election is in Sleaford, home of the Sleaford Mods, where they voted for Brexit by 63%. Tim Farron isn't going to pull off a by-election victory there. The Tories are running on Brexit means Brexit and more money for the Boomers.

Ah, but what if UKIP really bollocks up the Tories. If half the 60% think the government is making a mess of things an delaying Brexit and vote UKIP, the rest stick with the Tories. Then LibDems run on a pro-EU ticket and pick up the 40% ... now, that would well and truly put the cat among the pigeons.

It's not going to happen though.

No it's not. A few things to watch for though.

Does UKIP's vote share rise appreciably? - this will indicate that Leave voters want their revolution to be carried through and don't trust the government to do it.

Do the Lib Dems do better than expected? A notable swing to them will indicate that they are becoming the party of Remain or, at least, soft Brexit.

How do Labour do? If they are squeezed this might indicate that there isn't a gap in the market for another Leave party. I wouldn't expect Corbyn to change tack on account of this, however. If their vote share holds up or improves it might indicate that left behind voters begin to see Corbyn as the solution to their problems. I think this prospect is vanishingly unlikely but it is a potential outcome, so I felt, in fairness bound to mention it.

Do the Tories lose votes and, who to? If Labour, Theresa is not cutting through with the JAMs, if UKIP, they don't trust her to deliver Brexit, if the Lib Dems, remain voters are deserting the party. On the other hand, if the Tories do better than in the General Election or, given the lower turn out, nearly as well it will mean that, in Sleaford at least, in Theresa we trust. For now.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541

 - Posted      Profile for Rocinante   Email Rocinante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Sooner, or later, there will be a reckoning. Basically, some farsighted and courageous politician will stand up and say to the British Electorate. "You goofed. You shot yourselves and the country in the foot. You believed a whole load of fairy tales. And now we're all screwed. And what's more, most of you now realise that. Time for a change of mind."

Tim Farron would love to be that politician, I'm sure. When you're stuck at 6% in the polls, the temptation to roll the dice is very strong. He might be tempted to make a more nuanced version of that pronouncement on the back of another strong by-election performance, which in Sleaford could mean coming in a strong second.

I don't think the country's ready yet, though. At the moment I'm feeling despair at what's happening from remainers (myself included), but "la-la-la fingers in the ears/The EU will give us everything we want 'cos we're great" from leavers. Give it another year or so, with brexit negotiations going nowhere (and probably descending into farce), and the time may be right for a remain insurgency.

Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Originally posted by Rocinante:

quote:
Tim Farron would love to be that politician, I'm sure. When you're stuck at 6% in the polls, the temptation to roll the dice is very strong. He might be tempted to make a more nuanced version of that pronouncement on the back of another strong by-election performance, which in Sleaford could mean coming in a strong second.
It's a fine line. There need to be someone to articulate Remainers discontents and to assure them that the cause is not entirely lost without giving the impression that you merely want to disregard the views of the majority. I'm not sure that Tim Farron is up to it, but God knows, he's giving it his best shot.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Sooner, or later, there will be a reckoning. Basically, some farsighted and courageous politician will stand up and say to the British Electorate. "You goofed. You shot yourselves and the country in the foot. You believed a whole load of fairy tales. And now we're all screwed. And what's more, most of you now realise that. Time for a change of mind."

I think what disturbs me about this line of argument is that it contains an implicit hope that the Brexit negotiations will founder so that such a farsighted and courageous politician becomes necessary.

In any case, I think it's more likely that we will thrash out a deal that isn't as good as the one we've got, but which isn't so bad that it causes a widespread plea for a return to the fold. I think the Brexiteers are correct that it is in the EU's interests to cut a deal.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The EU has to be able to demonstrate that countries can't leave unscathed. Otherwise, Denmark, Italy, Belgium (?) and Iceland will be out on the next train, and the whole thing will fall to pieces irretrievably.

Of all the various centres of power within the EU, the Commission have the most to lose, and also the highest value of time to concentrate on making the UK's leaving the EU as painful as possible and power to influence it. The European Parliament has even more time but far less influence.

Anyone who thinks it's in the EU's interests for the UK's departure to be orderly is dreaming. Dangerously so.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm fairly sure it's not in anyone's interests for the fifth largest economy in the world to crash and burn. Unless you think the Commission regard loss of face as more serious than economic meltdown - which then comes back to the question of just how vindictive are they?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just how vindictive are they?

Hang on a second, that's anglo-saxon mind all over.

Turn on to this. They have a project they have to see work. They have pushed it a very long way, and the ECB and the Commission between them are at full stretch and therefore primed for a fight. We are attempting to hole their project below the waterline to save our self-obsessed, over-confident, sorry, shrivelled arses.

You just try and see.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
balaam

Making an ass of myself
# 4543

 - Posted      Profile for balaam   Author's homepage   Email balaam   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The EU has to be able to demonstrate that countries can't leave unscathed. Otherwise, Denmark, Italy, Belgium (?) and Iceland will be out on the next train,

I think we can be certain that Iceland will not be out on the next train, or boat.

--------------------
Last ever sig ...

blog

Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The EU has to be able to demonstrate that countries can't leave unscathed. Otherwise, Denmark, Italy, Belgium (?) and Iceland will be out on the next train,

I think we can be certain that Iceland will not be out on the next train, or boat.
Granted. I was sure Iceland was a member, but my memory was clearly defective.

Nevertheless, I believe the basic point to be sound. If the UK leaves in reasonable order, the door will be left open, and the whole babel tower is liable to collapse.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Just how vindictive are they?

Hang on a second, that's anglo-saxon mind all over.

Turn on to this. They have a project they have to see work. They have pushed it a very long way, and the ECB and the Commission between them are at full stretch and therefore primed for a fight. We are attempting to hole their project below the waterline to save our self-obsessed, over-confident, sorry, shrivelled arses.

You just try and see.

The fact that this post is composed almost entirely in emotional terms kind of makes my point.

If no deal is reached and the British economy collapses, then it's likely that the EU economy will shrink as well, with all the attendant social problems.

Your assumption seems to be that those social problems in Europe would be a price worth paying for the integrity of the European project. My question is: why? What benefits does the European project bring that would outweigh those problems?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You continue to make my point for me. Neither the EU Commission nor the ECB is a pragmatic institution. The British are pretty much alone in valuing their pragmatism; to the rest of the world, it is pretty contemptible hypocrisy. It is a serious error to expect it to be universally replicated, and to expect others to deride commitment to an ideal after the standard British model.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What ideal?

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What ideal?

The model of European unity to which a flame is kept in the European Commission building in Brussels.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The British are pretty much alone in valuing their pragmatism; to the rest of the world, it is pretty contemptible hypocrisy.

That's a pretty idiotic statement - the vote was one in a long line of not particularly pragmatic things that was done.

To Ricardus' point - it is not in their interest to see a trading party crash and burn, but firstly they may have very few mechanisms to avoid it, and secondly that still doesn't mean that individual sectors will not (purely pragmatically) wish to capture certain markets.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What ideal?

The model of European unity to which a flame is kept in the European Commission building in Brussels.
I would suggest that the social problems attendant on economic contraction are more likely to dampen that flame than to fan it.

I agree with you to a certain extent; the British have generally seen the benefits of the EU as primarily economic, whereas at least some of our European partners see it as a vehicle for European brotherhood. My point is that something which is bad economically is also likely to be bad from the perspective of promoting European brotherhood. On the most basic level, if you care about European brotherhood, you should presumably care about the welfare of Europeans, which would imply trying to avoid anything that would make them poorer.

[ 03. December 2016, 21:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
]That's a pretty idiotic statement - the vote was one in a long line of not particularly pragmatic things that was done.


But if you listen to a lot of Brexiteers, they're endless banging on about how "they" will need to trade with the UK. That may or may not be true (I think it's a pile of self-regarding bollocks which ignores the size of the EU and its capacity for internal trade), but it also completely overestimates the extent to which pragmatic considerations will determine the outcome.

The negotiations are being led by the Commission, and they will work hard to ensure that they outcome defends the project which is their goal. The UK is not the prize and not the point of their efforts.

[ 03. December 2016, 21:35: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:

But if you listen to a lot of Brexiteers, they're endless banging on about how "they" will need to trade with the UK. That may or may not be true (I think it's a pile of self-regarding bollocks which ignores the size of the EU and its capacity for internal trade), but it also completely overestimates the extent to which pragmatic considerations will determine the outcome.

No, that's not a pragmatic argument by Brexiters at all, at best it's a pragmatic argument that is based on a completely misunderstood version of the actual facts.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

To Ricardus' point - it is not in their interest to see a trading party crash and burn, but firstly they may have very few mechanisms to avoid it, and secondly that still doesn't mean that individual sectors will not (purely pragmatically) wish to capture certain markets.

On your first point - the list of EU trade agreements I posted earlier suggests there are many different permutations that the EU can use to ensure a relationship with a trading partner.

On the second point - AIUI that would be risky. Common sense suggests that if British widget production collapsed, that would create a gap on the market for French widgets. AIUI the economics is a bit more complicated - it could happen that way, but equally the collapse of British widgets could send shockwaves through the whole widget economy that ultimately disadvantage French widget makers too.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
To expand a bit on the above; the EU have a number of different set of trade deals that are available off the peg, EEA, EFTA membership, and EU membership. [*]

Ignoring the conditions required for each of those - because we will assume for now that the UK alreadymeets them; there are people in the Brexit camp who have fundamental objections to all of these.

In which case what is left is a custom agreement of sorts. Okay, so let's just assume a free trade deal that covers agricultural products - so we'd then be looking at standardisation of regulations on safety and welfare, an agreement on state subsidies, agreements on dispute resolutions, agreements on trading with third parties, agreements on verification of country of origin and so on.

So you are the Italian PM, you are in power for another 3 years. You have 30 months of work you can get out of your trade secretary, most of which is already allocated to working on EU level trade deals with China, Nigeria, India and so on, he has a staff who are similarly allocated. One of your other trading partners decides to withdraw from their existing trading agreements and is in a complete dither as to what should take its place. Do you; re-double your efforts on other trade deals, or allocate precious time to this partner gambling that somehow your trade secretary working in partnership with his EU counterparts will be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat?

Of course, this is a gross simplification, nevertheless this is the kind of calculation a lot of the rest of the EU will be making.

[*] a simplification of sorts, but it will be an extension of the options do not fundamentally divert from the point of this post.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
ThunderBunk

Stone cold idiot
# 15579

 - Posted      Profile for ThunderBunk   Email ThunderBunk   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But you're doing it again. No individual member state is driving the negotiations. The European Commission itself is doing so, supported by the ECB. The European Council comes a distant third in the race to escort the UK to the exit, and over the precipice.

--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".

Foolish, potentially deranged witterings

Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
On your first point - the list of EU trade agreements I posted earlier suggests there are many different permutations that the EU can use to ensure a relationship with a trading partner.

Except that subsets of Brexiters can be found who object to each of these.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But you're doing it again. No individual member state is driving the negotiations. The European Commission itself is doing so, supported by the ECB.

Even if they were, and assuming they were operating by your much vaunted principles of pragmatism the same constraints would still apply just at the level of the Commission (and in actual fact in this case they aren't setting the direction of travel anyway)

.. and if you honestly believe the caricature of 'irrational foreigners', then getting out of an existing agreement in the hope that you can make another one is not a pragmatic thing to do

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But you're doing it again. No individual member state is driving the negotiations. The European Commission itself is doing so, supported by the ECB. The European Council comes a distant third in the race to escort the UK to the exit, and over the precipice.

Except that whatever deal they cook up will have to be agreed by the other nations in the EU. The Commission can't force an agreement on the sovereign nations that make up the EU. So, common sense suggests that the negotiations will be conducted in consultation with those national governments so as to avoid anything that will get the deal killed, or significantly delayed, after all that talk.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:

So you are the Italian PM, you are in power for another 3 years. You have 30 months of work you can get out of your trade secretary, most of which is already allocated to working on EU level trade deals with China, Nigeria, India and so on, he has a staff who are similarly allocated. One of your other trading partners decides to withdraw from their existing trading agreements and is in a complete dither as to what should take its place. Do you; re-double your efforts on other trade deals, or allocate precious time to this partner gambling that somehow your trade secretary working in partnership with his EU counterparts will be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat?

All the considerations you mention are real, but there are a few others:

1. If a trade deal with India collapses, then all that happens is that the status quo is maintained; no-one is actually any worse off. But failing to reach a deal with the UK will harm Europe.

2. It will also harm the UK a lot more. Now on the one hand this puts the UK at a severe disadvantage, but on the other hand it does mean the UK is less likely to walk away from the negotiating table - unlike, say, Mr Trump from TTIP.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
On your first point - the list of EU trade agreements I posted earlier suggests there are many different permutations that the EU can use to ensure a relationship with a trading partner.

Except that subsets of Brexiters can be found who object to each of these.
True, but I was addressing the willingness of the EU, rather than the Daily Express, to make a deal. Anyway I think (naively perhaps) that the ability of any individual subset of Brexiteers to scupper a deal is limited at this point.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
There need to be someone to articulate Remainers discontents and to assure them that the cause is not entirely lost without giving the impression that you merely want to disregard the views of the majority. I'm not sure that Tim Farron is up to it, but God knows, he's giving it his best shot.

There is a perfectly valid position that says that the referendum was not phrased and conducted in a manner that would allow anyone to know what the view of the majority actually is. Which leaves two options:

1. Decide that whatever you think is the views of the majority - the approach of the government and UKIP, as well as the less savoury groups who have decided that the referendum result supports attacks on immigrants.

2. Find out what the majority actually want - which would need a second referendum with a carefully considered question, either a yes/no to a particular model of Brexit as a starting point for negotiations, or a multi-option ballot (with some form of preferential voting).

I'd also be perfectly happy with an option 3 - that Cameron balls it up, Parliament got it wrong to call a hasty referendum without first defining what Brexit means, and state that the whole farcical thing couldn't possibly determine the will of the people and should be disregarded. But, I don't see that ever being a realistic option.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Anyway I think (naively perhaps) that the ability of any individual subset of Brexiteers to scupper a deal is limited at this point.

We live in a world where no member of the government will tell the Express where to go - and where plenty of their colleagues will play up to the columnists in the hope of gaining temporary advantage. The pattern of the last few months has been of indecision and timid indications in one direction followed by rapid back pedaling when faced by criticism.


quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
All the considerations you mention are real, but there are a few others:

1. If a trade deal with India collapses, then all that happens is that the status quo is maintained; no-one is actually any worse off. But failing to reach a deal with the UK will harm Europe.

What you say is true - to a point. The problem is that each country is already faced with negative consequences regardless of which agreement is reached (i.e due to falls in contributions to the common budget, cuts that may result, reduction in free movement and so on). In the position where they have to optimize effort to ameliorate a set of consequences, they are likely aim at a bare minimum and be resistant to much else [and remember to factor in the lack of experience on the british side].
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thunderbunk:
quote:
The EU has to be able to demonstrate that countries can't leave unscathed. Otherwise, Denmark, Italy, Belgium (?) and Iceland will be out on the next train, and the whole thing will fall to pieces irretrievably.
I think I should switch to Brexit, then.

So you admit that the EU is a sort of Warsaw pact, where the peoples of the member states really want freedom from it, and can only be kept on the leash by punishment threats. If so, frankly, let it collapse.

quote:
Just how vindictive are they?
At the level of face-saving politicians I think they can be pretty unpleasant. If you doubt that read Paul Krugmans account of how they treated Greece in his book on the Euro. The hope of Brexiteers is more that the business communities of the member states will lean on the Eurocrats to get them to think actually about the people of Europe which at present is not seemingly high on their agenda, in your view. I much much prefer pragmatism to ideals. How many pragmatic stalinists, or maoists do you find. Plenty of ideologues.

I think I detect in many POR (pissed of remainer) posts a projection of their own anger and desire to punish the brexiteers, and in a way this leads them to want the EU to punish them, since the PORs don't have the power. Politically, though, it plays badly, since it comes across as unpatriotic, and generally denigrating to the UK, as well as projecting a view of the EU which is extremely unappetising.

[ 04. December 2016, 08:34: Message edited by: anteater ]

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan C:
quote:
There is a perfectly valid position that says that the referendum was not phrased and conducted in a manner that would allow anyone to know what the view of the majority actually is.
So, as I have previously challenged you, please supply a proposed wording? Which I think you admitted was impractical.

Yes, you are against the referendum, which was approved in a ration of 6:1 in favour, by the UK parliament. But to say that an answer to the question: "Should we leave the EU or remain?" does not indicate whether they should leave or remain, is a bit far fetched. Of course, the implications of either choice require crystal balls.

So it is true that the referendum did not spell out the details. But to me it is reasonably held as implicit that the (unnecessary) clarification would have been "on the most favourable commercial terms possible".

I can see clearly the limitations of referenda, but IIRC opinion polls showed about 80% of the population in favour of having one, and when parliament voted 6:1 to have it, it did have the wording in front of it. Of course, most people expected Remain to win, including Boris and Nigel.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As I've said before, there were two options should a referendum be held:

1. A clearly defined Leave position, a manifesto for what Leave wished to achieve in detail addressing the prefered position on free trade, movement, access to EU research funding, fisheries, agriculture, environment etc. Then you have a simple yes/no on leaving the EU with a defined opening position. In a sensible world Parliament would have written into the Referendum Act a statement on what the actions of government would be - ie: on the Monday morning after the vote send a letter to Brussels formally declaring we're leaving - so as to leave no room for legal challenges over the role of Government and Parliament. Also, ideally, the proposal would have the support of the government so that there wouldn't need to be any faffing about electing a new party leader, appointing a new cabinet etc.

2. A multi-option preferential voting ballot where the electorate get to say how important different options on leave are. It would probably look similar to all those internet quizzes - "on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 is unimportant and 10 very important) how important is it to you that the UK has free trade with the EU? How important that we have freedom of movement?" etc. That would also need some careful thinking about - and likely to produce conflicting positions that are mutually incompatible. But, would give the government the data needed to draw up a Brexit package that is as close as possible to the majority position. I would prefer that to be a precursor to the actually yes/no on a defined negotiating position referendum (option 1 above).

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:

I think I detect in many POR (pissed of remainer) posts a projection of their own anger and desire to punish the brexiteers, and in a way this leads them to want the EU to punish them, since the PORs don't have the power. Politically, though, it plays badly, since it comes across as unpatriotic, and generally denigrating to the UK, as well as projecting a view of the EU which is extremely unappetising.

I'll take the amateur psychology of such prognosticators more seriously when they make a hue and cry about this kind of thing being national sabotage:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/nigel-farage-brexit-speech-european-parliament-full-transcript-text-a7107036.ht ml

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan Cresswell:
quote:
1. A clearly defined Leave position, a manifesto for what Leave wished to achieve in detail addressing the prefered position on free trade, movement, access to EU research funding, fisheries, agriculture, environment etc.
This is a rerun of an exchange about the Scottish referendum. You're most valid point there was that the Leave side was being championed by the major political party in Scotland, and this is indeed significant.

But the lack of certainty as to the outcome was just as great. Both as regards their status within the EU and the status of any monetary union with the rUK. And all you do by saying: "This is exactly what we want" is loads of people shouting "Not a chance", which is why the main Leave campaign left it open. Oddly the group generally thought as more whacky did officially support Flexcit which gave a blow by blow account, which I thought reasonable.

I suppose my point is that in both cases, a vote to Leave was a vote to accept risk. And, frankly, I don't think this needed stating.

As to (2), yes it would have been a good idea. But I have never denied that the whole referendum thing was a total balls-up, and DCam should be have been made to where a large hat with his initial upon it.

We all know that if Leave had put up such a detailed proposal they believe they would have lost, and I think they are right. And that is annoying, because a significant national decision has been made on sub-rational grounds.

An interesting sideline is: Do you judge a decision by the process that arrived at it, rather than just by its intrinsic (de)merits?


Chris Styles:
quote:
I'll take the amateur psychology of such prognosticators more seriously when they make a hue and cry about this kind of thing being national sabotage
Well obviously it's amateur, although I suggest displaced rage is not that controversial an idea.

But who is "they" in your reply. I'm not being thick deliberately. It's natural.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan Cresswell:
quote:
1. A clearly defined Leave position, a manifesto for what Leave wished to achieve in detail addressing the prefered position on free trade, movement, access to EU research funding, fisheries, agriculture, environment etc.
This is a rerun of an exchange about the Scottish referendum. You're most valid point there was that the Leave side was being championed by the major political party in Scotland, and this is indeed significant.
My comparison to the Scottish referendum was two fold, and both aspects were vital.

First, as you said, independence was proposed by a major political party, a party that was united in wanting independence. But, much more important, it was championed by the government, the very people who would have to enact the decision of the referendum - in contrast to the current farce where a government that doesn't want Brexit feels they have to deliver Brexit and many in the Leave campaign have no involvement at all.

The second part was that the Scottish government produced a substantial and detailed description of their vision for independence, about what they wanted to achieve. And, the independence campaign were singing from the same hymn sheet. That white paper was the product of decades of political discussion within the SNP and the wider population of Scotland. Of course, it was obvious they were not going to achieve all of it, but we all knew what we were voting for and were hoping that the various negotiations would get us something close to that.

In contrast the Leave campaign was never unified. There was no substantial discussion of the issues to develop a consensus position, indeed much of it seemed to be invented on the fly. There still isn't a unified vision for Brexit that the Leave campaign agree on.

quote:
I suppose my point is that in both cases, a vote to Leave was a vote to accept risk. And, frankly, I don't think this needed stating.
Yes, there was risk in voting Yes or Leave. And, I agree that both campaigns had too strong an emphasis on "Project Fear" - repeatedly stating that there were risks. The difference is that we still don't know what the risks for Brexit are. We knew that there was a risk that Scotland couldn't retain the pound, or remain in the EU. Do we know whether or not there's a risk that the UK won't remain in a free trade zone? We don't even know if that's what Leave want - if they want to leave the free trade zone then there is no risk that the UK would be forced to stay in. Just as one example.

quote:
We all know that if Leave had put up such a detailed proposal they believe they would have lost, and I think they are right.
More significantly, if Leave had to develop a detailed proposal they would have never made it to the starting blocks. The Campaign would have splintered over all the options - some wanting free trade, others not, etc. And, to be honest, a campaign that can't even agree on what they want deserves to loose. I think that Leave could have produced such a proposal, but they would have needed to have engaged in serious discussion of it, with the various options tested by the public through several rounds of Leave candidates standing in general elections with all the associated questions in hustings and on the door steps, as well as Question Time and the like. That is the work of decades, not months. Had Leave campaigners been doing that for the last 20-30 years then a) they would have already worked out their position and b) that position would have had significant popular support (because they would have produced their position knowing what the electorate think).

But, I think we both agree that Cameron and Parliament made a colossal cock-up over the whole thing.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

In contrast the Leave campaign was never unified. There was no substantial discussion of the issues to develop a consensus position, indeed much of it seemed to be invented on the fly. There still isn't a unified vision for Brexit that the Leave campaign agree on.

Which gets back to what we have discussed before. The referendum question was whether to Remain or Leave, not how to do either. The majority of those voting (and the failure to adopt a system of compulsory voting for elections and the referendum is another question) chose Leave probably for a multitude of reasons. They were not concerned with the how, but with the go.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Which gets back to what we have discussed before. The referendum question was whether to Remain or Leave, not how to do either.

I'm not sure what "how to Remain" needs much clarification. The "how to Leave" certainly does. And, IMO, Parliament made a complete balls-up of things by trying to pretend that "remain or leave?" is a simple question that can be answered without knowing what leave means.

quote:
The majority of those voting (and the failure to adopt a system of compulsory voting for elections and the referendum is another question) chose Leave probably for a multitude of reasons. They were not concerned with the how, but with the go.
There are, of course, two ancillary questions to leave - why and how? That the majority didn't ask those questions, if indeed they cast their vote without asking those questions, is a sad indictment on the quality of political discourse in this country. And, therefore a great reason to stick with representative democracy where we should expect something more intelligent from our representatives - though their failure to vote through a sensible Referendum Act and instead follow Cameron down the worst possible road doesn't hold up much hope for that either.

But, actually, I think the majority of people had thought about those questions. Certainly the "why". We've got exit poll data that show people voted for greater Parliamentary sovereignty (clearly not an issue for those who subsequently complain about the courts saying Parliament should be involved), against immigration, against agriculture and fisheries policy, against wasting money with an inefficient European political structure (clearly efficiency isn't an issue for a government that will spend as much on running the re-acquired powers as the Commission spends for the entire EU), or as a "f*** you" to politicians. There are going to be a lot of people disappointed that they're not going to get a change that addresses why they voted as they did. And, it would have only taken a few people, if they had known what the plan for Brexit was, to say "that doesn't address the issues I have with the EU" and vote Remain to have swung the vote.

And, approaching 6 months after the referendum we're still waiting to be told what is going to happen. At present the clearest statement we've had is "Brexit means Breakfast".

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This week's Economist describes Brexit as a car without accelerator, brakes or steering. Not exactly road safe.

[ 04. December 2016, 21:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343

 - Posted      Profile for Eirenist         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Brexit means dog's breakfast, I think.

--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'

Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan Cresswell, I don't want to go through it all again, but it is obvious to me that a majority of those voting wanted to leave the EU, and that they did not express either a particular reason or how they saw it occurring. That is because the simple question was whether or not they wanted to remain or leave. Any other would have been too difficult for any process which relies upon a a simple vote, even a parliamentary vote which comes after lengthy debate. Any other runs the very real possibility of no answer at all.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Parliament made a complete balls-up of things by trying to pretend that "remain or leave?" is a simple question that can be answered without knowing what leave means.
But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?

Because the constant carp of the brexiteers is that the remainers insult the Great British Public by saying that they are incapable of undestanding what is meant by the phrase "leave the EU". It is no more conceptually complex than "remain within the EU", and both options represent futures with a range of possible outcomes, although I do not deny that "leave" is riskier.

It is also held to be a bit insulting to assume that leavers thought it would be no more difficult than leaving a party early. As I have previously said, the Brexiteers I have spoken to assume it will be a long and difficult process, and fully expect to be less well of, at least in the short term - which is all a lot of them have got.

I am really torn about referenda. Probably Matteo Renzi is now. I am reading a good book by Martin Jacques which (amongst other things) is about the fact that trusted administrative elites actually produce better outcomes that populism. And I expect just about all on this ship would agree.

But the danger of disenfranchisement of a major sector of the citizenship is real whenever there is no electable option for a viewpoint that is widely held. And if over 50% of the population of the UK do not want to be the EU, do you not think they should have a voice, and assuming (as I do) that you think they should, then how?

My suspicion is you might say that they should organise around a UK Nationalist Party like the Scots did around the SNP. But I really do not like parties whose basis is national identity, so rather than that, I actually prefer the route that was chosen.

Yes, I would have preferred it a lot more if the remain side had won. But I do get a bit fed up of people criticising the GBP when there is zero probability of us having to cope with an ultra-right party, which is what we might have had if we'd never had a referendum.

[ 05. December 2016, 09:56: Message edited by: anteater ]

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?

That is a simple question. But, tied in with that is the question of "and, then go where?". Do we leave the party early to go home for an early night, go to the pub, go to a club, go to another party?

To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330

 - Posted      Profile for mr cheesy   Email mr cheesy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?

If one has voted for Brexit believing that it would save the UK a whole lot of money which could then be spent on the NHS - but then it turns out (a) that money is not available for the NHS and (b) that the UK might in fact have to continue paying the same (or more!) to access the free market, it is fair to ask whether the thing that they were voting for is not the thing that is being discussed, never mind delivered.

It is clearly quite bloody hard to understand what they were voting for given that nobody clearly understands what they were voting for other than a bunch of lies which can't be delivered.

[ 05. December 2016, 10:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]

--------------------
arse

Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Brexit means dog's breakfast, I think.

It's going to be one hungry dog.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
But Alan, it is a simple question. Leave means "cease to be a member of the EU". What is so hard to understand about that?

That is a simple question.
Correction. That should be simplistic question.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anteater

Ship's pest-controller
# 11435

 - Posted      Profile for anteater   Email anteater   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Alan: (You can call me Ant):
quote:
To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.
But at that rate, you never go out of your front door.

I'd be the first to agree that risk taking is over valued (hence so many psychopaths running businesses like Enron). But zero-risk? Not for me. I'm sure this argument was a powerful factor in the loss of the Italian referendum, which I think was a real pity, since Renzi was IMO the best politician they've had - not that that's saying much.

The democratic process does rely on people making some attempt to understand the issues, watch the debates, read the press, discuss. And if after all that, you think the GBP has not the foggiest idea what Brexit would mean, then you must think they are all as thick as two short planks.

We were faced with a range of options, ranging from a really good trading relationship with Europe (best outcome) to having to fall back of WTO rules, which was always accepted as a possibility, and was generally recognised as Not a Good Option. So there was and still is, a risk that it will work out badly, and we will end up, as many eurocrats no doubt hope, coming cap in hand resulting in upheaval, probably the a re-alignment in British politics, which a resurgent centre party and ( . .this is not looking to bad . . ) and a lower standard of living ( . .so not quite so good . .).

No doubt these considerations weighed heavily on the Scots, and I'm glad, because I don't want breakup of the UK. But I'm not as risk averse as you, and though I regret Brexit, it's not because of the uncertainty of the outcome.

--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.

Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Alan Cresswell, I don't want to go through it all again, but it is obvious to me that a majority of those voting wanted to leave the EU, and that they did not express either a particular reason or how they saw it occurring. That is because the simple question was whether or not they wanted to remain or leave. Any other would have been too difficult for any process which relies upon a a simple vote, even a parliamentary vote which comes after lengthy debate. Any other runs the very real possibility of no answer at all.

And, again, I agree that by a small majority there was a vote to leave, and we don't really know the why or how of those voting leave - because the vote wasn't devised in a manner to determine that.

But, again, that wasn't the only process available. I'll point again at the example of Scotland where decades of political debate and campaigning resulted in a detailed description of the reasons for Independence and a vision of what independence would look like, expressed as a lengthy white paper describing how the Scottish Government would enter negotiations for Independence if they got a Yes vote. A white paper approved by the Scottish Parliament. That was a process that lead to a simple questions "Do you want Independence?" with the clear caveat that the Scottish Government would seek to negotiate terms as close as possible to the white paper.

Put simply, if you want to put a simple question on a referendum (and, I don't see any realistic alternative) then the only way to do that is to put in a considerable amount of effort to define the parameters of the question - an effort that the Leave campaign monumentally failed to do. We should have had the decades of work that goes into building a coherent and relatively unified campaign to leave the EU, probably with an electable party championing it. All that work of talking to constituents about their concerns and visions. Parliamentary debates, Parliamentary Committees, building support in Parliament for Brexit with a clear vision of why and how.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
quote:
To answer the simple question "shall we leave?" without any clue about where we go afterwards is just plain daft.
But at that rate, you never go out of your front door.
Eh? Can you explain that a bit more?

I wasn't trying to say "never go out of your front door", but rather to say "never go out of your front door without an intention for where you are going". And, make some reasonable preparation for the excursion.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
TurquoiseTastic

Fish of a different color
# 8978

 - Posted      Profile for TurquoiseTastic   Email TurquoiseTastic   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Yes, I would have preferred it a lot more if the remain side had won. But I do get a bit fed up of people criticising the GBP when there is zero probability of us having to cope with an ultra-right party, which is what we might have had if we'd never had a referendum.

This is far too optimistic. I think we are still very likely to have to cope with an ultra-right party. In fact I reckon ultra-right poeple and parties in the UK have received a good shot in the arm from the result of the referendum.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  ...  64  65  66 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools