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 | Register | 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 19)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  ...  50  51  52 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
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:
Yes, it seems perfectly reasonable. Have the position described, then we would have an extended national discussion upon it culminating in the referendum. That would iron out a lot of rough edges, let everyone know what we want and identify those areas which will be difficult or even impossible.
So were you actually given this information in Scotland, before the vote in 2014?

I get the idea from reading the Referendum Bill PDF (admittedly skim-read) that the assumption was that EU-membership would continue, and I certainly assume it was the preferred option. But of course, it was arguable whether this would happen, over the objections of Spain who would see a dangerous precedent for Catalonia, and they may not have been alone.

Was the next preferred option a currency union with the UK? Probably, so long as the UK didn't insist on so much power as to undermine independence.

Then presumably the the backstop would have been just go it alone, using the Pound (or Euro) but with no say in it's management.

The reason for this excursus is that whatever all that meant, all you voted on is "Should Scotland become an Independent Nation?" There was no stop-limit to cause the decision to be reversed if the outcome was not favourable, and although you make much of the fact that the Scottish case was supported by the devolved government, that government was the Scottish UKIP, and frankly I would not have felt nearly so happy were UKIP in charge of Brexit rather than the Conservatives.

I believe the SNP sees independence as so important that it would proceed with it even if the final settlement had been something the people in Scotland would have preferred not to have.

So I don't think the Scottish case (also based on a bare majority) was any better.

But then, as you know because I have posted it, by default any party with Nationalist in its title gives me the creeps.

[ 27. December 2016, 12:10: Message edited by: anteater ]

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

Posts: 2522 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  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 Anteater said.

The only thing which is actually in the UK's power is to trigger Article 50. Everything else is dependent on the EU.

To campaign for Leave with the promise of an EFTA settlement is a promise the campaign couldn't keep, and to campaign for something like 'We'll pitch for EFTA but may end up with something else' isn't in practical terms much more meaningful than what they actually did. Granted, if the Leave campaign had more integrity they would have spelt this out instead of dwelling on different possibilities for different audiences, but I think the lack of a clear destination is inevitable.

--------------------
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: 7122 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  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 mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
This "bargaining" analogy I find very difficult to understand. It's more like: "I want to leave this club, but maybe I'm hoping that I can still use the car park. BUT I'm not going to tell you whether I actually want to use the car park or not! That'll really fox you!"

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It's more like 'I'm not going to tell you how desperate I am to use the car park ...'

Yes. As in "I want to leave the club, but I'd like to negotiate for some ongoing benefits, including parking, the occasional swim and coffee in the lounge. Some are priorities for me, some aren't. I'm prepared to pay. I'm not actually going to tell you what my priorities are so you know what your strongest negotiating position will be before we sit down to negotiate on it."

Two problems.

1. We're not even saying what we want, or whether we're prepared to pay, or what features we regard as pluses or minuses. For example, it's not clear whether "membership of the single market" is being regarded as a good thing or a bad thing from Britain's point of view. More extreme Leavers are seeing it as a bad thing.

2. Negotiate using what exactly as a lever? "Give me these benefits otherwise I'll jolly well stay?". No way! "Give me these benefits otherwise I jolly well... won't use them!". That doesn't seem like a very terrible threat.

I suppose this is why May is holding onto threats like "possibility of deporting existing EU residents" - it's the only leverage she's got. But really, this sort of spiteful threat is just going to rub everyone up the wrong way. It hardly seems worth it in order to acquire things that we're not even clear that we want. Like a divorcing spouse saying "If we can't retain joint control of our savings, which I'm not sure I even want to do, I reckon I'll have Buster the dog put to sleep".

It would be much better to go for whatever sort of hard Brexit looks easiest and not attempt any sort of wangling at all. Any special deal that might have been on the cards would not be the result of hard bargaining - it could only have come from residual goodwill, which is, I suspect, in very short supply and getting shorter by the day. Just leave, leave completely, don't attempt to get any special deal about anything and don't annoy anyone any further is my advice.

In particular, we shouldn't try to be "cunning" about the French election, e.g. making nice with Le Pen in order to make the Germans think they have to butter us up to prevent us breaking up the Franco-German alliance. That would be disastrously cynical but I wouldn't put it past us.

Posts: 1075 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's all rubbish, Ricardus.
First because, other than Reichsmarschall Farage, none of the Brexiteer politicians wanted it to happen.
Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16748 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Dagnabit, article 50 and SNP isn't Ukip by a very long mile.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16748 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, it seems perfectly reasonable. Have the position described, then we would have an extended national discussion upon it culminating in the referendum.

Wise words but the boat has sailed already.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, that assumes you're working together rather than considering the process to be a confrontation between opposing sides each set on trampling everyone else underfoot.

Another great idea, and another boat somewhere between dock and horizon.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
But, when buying and selling a house the seller usually has a price stated before negotiations start - with the knowledge that they would like more, but would be willing to accept a bit less. That opening position is advertised and well known long before a potential buyer puts in their offer and opens negotiations.

Sure, and what the potential buyer doesn't do is explain their list of treasured features in the house so that the seller knows exactly how willing the buyer is to walk away and therefore what the strength of their position is.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Two problems.

Just the two? I think there's probably a few more. I didn't say it was a great position, I would rather not be here and have personally suffered substantially as a result of being here. I'm trying to imagine what actions would currently make it any better, and doing all the negotiations in public doesn't seem to be one of them.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

Granted, if the Leave campaign had more integrity they would have spelt this out instead of dwelling on different possibilities for different audiences, but I think the lack of a clear destination is inevitable.

So in the absence of a clear destination, they painted a picture of multiple destinations to suit the market [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 3764 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  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 mdijon:
what the potential buyer doesn't do is explain their list of treasured features in the house so that the seller knows exactly how willing the buyer is to walk away

Walk away to where? There is no "away"!
Posts: 1075 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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 lilBuddha:

Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?

No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.

Alan contrasts the Leave campaign with the Scottish independence campaign, which spelt out, for example, that it wanted Scotland to retain the pound. In reality, though, it's not obvious that Westminster would allow Scotland to keep the pound on terms that would be acceptable. So I am not sure that making specific promises with no guarantee that you'll be in a position to keep them is an improvement on not making specific promises on the terms of departure.

The difference - and where I agree the Leave campaign really was a nonsense - was that at least in the case of the SNP, the politicians making the promises were the ones who would have to be carrying them out, so if voters were sceptical about the promises they could at least judge whether Mr Salmond was the sort of person who would be capable of negotiating a settlement that broadly matched what he had claimed.

--------------------
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: 7122 | 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 anteater:
Alan C:
quote:
Yes, it seems perfectly reasonable. Have the position described, then we would have an extended national discussion upon it culminating in the referendum. That would iron out a lot of rough edges, let everyone know what we want and identify those areas which will be difficult or even impossible.
So were you actually given this information in Scotland, before the vote in 2014?

Yes, we were. There was a substantial white paper (which, admittedly most people probably didn't read in detail, relying on the summaries produced by the media hacks who did) detailing what the Scottish government considered desirable and achievable. We then had an extensive national discussion upon that during the referendum campaign - which focussed almost exclusively on the other side pointing out all the bits which may not have been achievable (EU membership, the pound as a currency etc), the "Project Fear".

I don't recall anyone saying that there wouldn't be a negotiation on those terms (quite the opposite, negotiation was assumed). So, the nature of negotiation being that you never end up exactly where you start, we all knew that if we'd voted Yes then the final position would not be identical to that white paper. But, those of us who were supporting Independence also trusted the Scottish government to try their hardest to achieve something reasonably close to the white paper (so, if not full EU membership then an arrangement that left Scotland within the free trade and free movement zone, if not the UK pound then a Scottish pound etc). Of course that meant that part of the campaign focussed on whether the Scottish government and the SNP leadership were competent and trustworthy enough to achieve a reasonable deal.

quote:
all you voted on is "Should Scotland become an Independent Nation?"
with "Independence" as described in the White Paper, or as close to that as possible, with the Scottish Government running the process.

quote:
although you make much of the fact that the Scottish case was supported by the devolved government, that government was the Scottish UKIP, and frankly I would not have felt nearly so happy were UKIP in charge of Brexit rather than the Conservatives.
Although, as pointed out by lilBuddha, the SNP are nothing like UKIP, which is where your argument falls flat. The SNP are probably closest to a mix between the LibDems and the Greens, with the added policy feature of a government for the people living in Scotland independent of Westminster. Which is quite possibly about as far from UKIP as you can get. The contrast between UKIP and SNP in actually representing those who elect them, in doing a good job at local and national government, working hard and responsibly etc hardly needs mentioning.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 32006 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't live in Scotland, but I remember the White Paper, which I believe, amounted to 500 pages. Various SNP friends were talking about it; I suppose you could argue that the EU referendum was very different, and could not be addressed in any publication. Yet the UK govt produced a flimsy pamphlet, 16 pages! Still, they probably thought it was in the bag.

--------------------
no path

Posts: 9563 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
what the potential buyer doesn't do is explain their list of treasured features in the house so that the seller knows exactly how willing the buyer is to walk away

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Walk away to where? There is no "away"!

Sure, and there's no house either or estate agent. The analogy isn't perfect. But there are various features of the deal that one could take or leave (i.e. walk away from - metaphorically walk away).

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

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

Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?

No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.

However, the desired outcome has to be real and therefore available to state.
Else it is merely political posturing. (Gasp, do you think it might have been?)

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16748 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Walk away to where? There is no "away"!
...at least, not until my colony ship is fully funded on Kickstarter...
Posts: 3900 | From: Jorvik | 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 C:
quote:
Although, as pointed out by lilBuddha, the SNP are nothing like UKIP, which is where your argument falls flat.
I agree I over- (you would say mis-)stated my case, possibly overly influenced by my adopted scots brother who can't stand the SNP or understand why they get such an easy ride in the UK press. He is, though, a card carrying member of the Labour party, which may explain it.

I was trying to make the point that SNP and UKIP are both, as a party, totally committed to getting out of a union that they do not see as beneficial. So much surely is obvious.

What you may contest is that I draw from that the implication that both parties are ideologically, not just pragmatically committed to independence, so that they would prioritize independence over economic pragmatism.

In the same way that UKIP would prioritize immigration control over economic pragmatism. If you say I am wrong, then I have to retreat from the argument since I have no way of proving it, but it is my genuine belief.

So both referenda are a risk, a leap into the unknown, the difference being that in Scotland you knew what the SNP wanted the outcome to be, even though there were solid bodies of opinion saying that there hope would not be realised and nothing in the referendum question that held them to any specific option.

There is little provable here, but I would prefer a referendum as we had it to a growing and resurgent UK or even worse English National Party. I think you strongly object to any independence campaign being waged by any group other than a duly elected government who would then have the responsibility to implement it. Which would have to be a party similar in origin, development and history to the SNP.

But I'm going around in circles. And maybe a lot of it is because I am suspicious of the SNP whereas you seem to view them with a lot of trust.

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

Posts: 2522 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

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

I was trying to make the point that SNP and UKIP are both, as a party, totally committed to getting out of a union that they do not see as beneficial. So much surely is obvious.

There are real and obvious evidence why Scotland has not had the best possible treatment from Westminster and has concerns that not all of England share. Whether you think the overall picture has been beneficial or not, these are not imaginary.
UKIP don't like foreigners and dark people and blame everything on them. So, yeah, exactly the same.
quote:

But I'm going around in circles. And maybe a lot of it is because I am suspicious of the SNP whereas you seem to view them with a lot of trust.

You've too much locked up in a name and less in what really is there, IMO.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16748 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 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 anteater:
There is little provable here, but I would prefer a referendum as we had it to a growing and resurgent UK or even worse English National Party.

Well, there is a lot I'd prefer to a resurgent UK/English nationalism that is marked by xenophobia and racism. But, it seems like that form of English nationalism has been invigorated by the referendum, rather than being kicked into the long grass of social unacceptabilty. So, we've had a crap idea for a referendum and a resurgence of English nationalism.

quote:
I think you strongly object to any independence campaign being waged by any group other than a duly elected government who would then have the responsibility to implement it.
I have no objection to anyone campaigning for any political position they like (assuming they do so by reasonable means, without the use of violence, intimidation etc). But, that campaign has to have achieved a significant political headway before it reaches the point of becoming potential government policy - ideally to be something that is within the manifesto commitments of a party that returns at least enough members to form the Opposition, even better that the government is advocating that position and hence there is a reason to expect them to be able to put the policy into effect.

--------------------
Don't Brexit if you haven't a scooby how to fix it.

Posts: 32006 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There are real and obvious evidence why Scotland has not had the best possible treatment from Westminster and has concerns that not all of England share. Whether you think the overall picture has been beneficial or not, these are not imaginary.

There are also real and obvious ways in which the UK has not had the best possible treatment from Brussels, and has concerns that not all of Europe shares. But for some reason, those are all put down to xenophobic prejudice while the similar Scottish issues aren't put down to anti-English prejudice.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 29860 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  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 Alan Cresswell:

I don't recall anyone saying that there wouldn't be a negotiation on those terms (quite the opposite, negotiation was assumed). So, the nature of negotiation being that you never end up exactly where you start, we all knew that if we'd voted Yes then the final position would not be identical to that white paper.

On the specific question of currency, Mr Salmond stated that there was no Plan B to a currency union with the rump UK. Which sounds like a denial of the possibility of negotiation to me.

Now you can read that as saying: this is our starting position, but anyone sensible knows that in reality we might end up with our own currency, or even with the euro if we can't inherit the UK's euro opt-out. But I think that once pronouncements have to be interpreted as 'it says X at face value, but we should really understand that to mean Y', then we are in the same doublespeak territory as the Leave campaign.

--------------------
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: 7122 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  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 mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
what the potential buyer doesn't do is explain their list of treasured features in the house so that the seller knows exactly how willing the buyer is to walk away

quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
Walk away to where? There is no "away"!

Sure, and there's no house either or estate agent. The analogy isn't perfect. But there are various features of the deal that one could take or leave (i.e. walk away from - metaphorically walk away).

Like what? What is there that we can metaphorically walk away from? What is this juicy deal that we are trying to cut? What is on offer? Nothing, as far as I can see! What are we willing to pay? Nothing, as far as I can see! So how can any sort of bargaining take place? There is no transaction taking place!
Posts: 1075 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There are some basic points to bear in mind.

1. The EU leaders have said that there will be no negotiations until the UK gives notice under Art 50.

2. The EU treaty arrangements etc contain no provision for a notice once given to be withdrawn.

3. Regardless of the state of negotiations the UK will have left the EU on the second anniversary of the giving of notice.

From these flows:

4. The UK is now and after the notice will continue to be in a very weak position.

5. Whitehall will be working triple time to cover the legislation necessary within the UK to deal with the position after the second anniversary.

6. Whitehall will also be working triple time to get proper advice to the negotiators in relation to all the issues that arise in the course of negotiations.

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

Posts: 6661 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

 - Posted      Profile for lilBuddha     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are also real and obvious ways in which the UK has not had the best possible treatment from Brussels, and has concerns that not all of Europe shares. But for some reason, those are all put down to xenophobic prejudice while the similar Scottish issues aren't put down to anti-English prejudice.

Brexit was full of bullshit and hot air, no real plan.
The white paper for Scottish independence was massive with real content.
Yes, there is anti-English prejudice. But it wasn't the only or even main driver. Brexit cannot say that, largely because they did not say anything of substance.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16748 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  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 lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
There are also real and obvious ways in which the UK has not had the best possible treatment from Brussels, and has concerns that not all of Europe shares. But for some reason, those are all put down to xenophobic prejudice while the similar Scottish issues aren't put down to anti-English prejudice.

Brexit was full of bullshit and hot air, no real plan.
The white paper for Scottish independence was massive with real content.
Yes, there is anti-English prejudice. But it wasn't the only or even main driver. Brexit cannot say that, largely because they did not say anything of substance.

There was also a lot of anti-Europe prejudice in the UK, and while you'll probably know the figures better than I, my impression is that that was largely English as opposed to Scots, Welsh or Irish. That goes back to the early 60s, when de Gaulle slammed the door in the UK's face. In retrospect, he was correct; the UK was not prepared to consider itself a European country. That has not really changed since.

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

Posts: 6661 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  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 lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?

No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.

However, the desired outcome has to be real and therefore available to state.
Else it is merely political posturing. (Gasp, do you think it might have been?)

Which is more posture-y? To say that currency union will happen and there is no plan B regardless of Westminster's opinion, and that Scotland will inherit the UK's EU membership regardless of Mr Barroso's opinion? Or to handwave all specifics on the grounds that they're all subject to negotiation?

(Incidentally, are SNP Remainers of the opinion that the EU was posturing when it said Scotland wouldn't get automatic membership?)

--------------------
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: 7122 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  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:
I think I will withdraw from arguing that the referendum was justified to avoid the resurgence of a nationalist party in the UK, because although I still have sympathy for this, in the end, I think this is trumped by the effect on the Union.

I have always accepted that fairness in a devolved nation should require a majority in all member nations, and that would make the referendum a complete nonsense since there was a known large and persistent majority against it in Scotland.

I still feel the decision whether to leave was more marginal than you (having flirted with conversion after reading David Owen's rather perceptive book on Restructuring Europe) but if I were a Scottish remainer I would be quite seriously pissed off.

Arguing Brexit can be addictive, so instead of an alcohol free January, I'm going to try a Ship-free January,

Three days to go.

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

Posts: 2522 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333

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

Second you are essentially saying the outcome of article 59 cannot likely be better, obfuscation was the appropriate position?

No, I am saying the outcome of article 50 cannot necessarily be known.

However, the desired outcome has to be real and therefore available to state.
Else it is merely political posturing. (Gasp, do you think it might have been?)

Which is more posture-y? To say that currency union will happen and there is no plan B regardless of Westminster's opinion, and that Scotland will inherit the UK's EU membership regardless of Mr Barroso's opinion? Or to handwave all specifics on the grounds that they're all subject to negotiation?
Never said that everything was perfectly done. Just that there is substance in the issue. Which is something that cannot be said for Brexit.

--------------------
So goodnight moon, I want the sun
If it's not here soon, I might be done
No it won't be too soon 'til I say goodnight moon

- A. N. Parsley, D. Mcvinni

Posts: 16748 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008  |  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 Gee D:
That goes back to the early 60s, when de Gaulle slammed the door in the UK's face. In retrospect, he was correct; the UK was not prepared to consider itself a European country. That has not really changed since.

I agree that de Gaulle has been proved largely correct, but I think hardly anyone in England or anywhere else in the UK was influenced by resentment of his actions in the 60s. I can't remember his name being mentioned at any time in the campaign by anybody.
Posts: 1075 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005  |  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 TurquoiseTastic:
I think hardly anyone in England or anywhere else in the UK was influenced by resentment of his actions in the 60s. I can't remember his name being mentioned at any time in the campaign by anybody.

Over the years I've heard his name mentioned a few times by older people - and it has always seemed to operate as a confirmation of an existing antipathy to the European project, rather than the original source of that antipathy.
Posts: 3764 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:

Originally posted by Ricardus:
However, the desired outcome has to be real and therefore available to state.
Else it is merely political posturing. (Gasp, do you think it might have been?)

quote:
Which is more posture-y? To say that currency union will happen and there is no plan B regardless of Westminster's opinion, and that Scotland will inherit the UK's EU membership regardless of Mr Barroso's opinion? Or to handwave all specifics on the grounds that they're all subject to negotiation?

(Incidentally, are SNP Remainers of the opinion that the EU was posturing when it said Scotland wouldn't get automatic membership?)

There's some context missing here, the 'no plan b' was a counter-move to George Osborne claiming that he would refuse currency union, which a leak from one of his fellow cabinet ministers actually directly contradicted:

"Of course there would be a currency union" the minister told the Guardian

Initially as part of standing up to Osborne, who was believed to be lying as an electoral ploy, Alex Salmond took the 'no plan B line' but because that worried people who thought Osborne might go through with it after all - the matter was clarified - the Plan B was to peg to the pound (as was done by a number of the British dominions such as Canada Australia and new Zealand in the past as they broke away from Britain to become more independent, see under Sterling Area )

But none of this was happening in a vacuum of research - the Scottish government's Fiscal Commission had examined and proposed a range of viable currency options all of which were real and available to Scotland. If you don't believe that such things existed, I suggest checking out the Financial Times who asked a range of economists for what they thought about the main ones

Scotland’s currency future: what economists think

Such matters were widely discussed in the run-up to the referendum. The leak from the cabinet indicated that Osborne was bluffing but if he hadn't been and had decided on a kamikazi strategy, then sterlingisation would have been a viable plan B, probably leading eventually to a separate currency as happened with Australia, New Zealand etc.

José Barroso is currently the non executive chairman at Goldman Sachs. Maybe you think he's still important or that his opinions set a precedent? But that's not the case. He's a former president of the European Commission and his opinions are not relevant to the current EU.

The current president of the European Commission is Jean Claude Juncker. ( The President of the European Council is Donald Tusk, and the President of the European Parliament is Martin Schulz, while the Presidency of the Council of the European Union is currently held by Slovakia - even when Barroso was in office he was only one of the presidents)


I don't know what you're characterising as 'automatic membership' as a lot of possibilities have been discussed recently in the light of Brexit but Scotland could almost certainly rejoin the EU, if it became independent - the Spanish position is that they will not veto an independent Scotland rejoining if it leaves the UK according to the UK constitution, and there have already been talks about how transitional arrangements could be made. Scotland is already compliant in terms of EU legislation and meets the entry criteria - there is 'no queue for EU membership and new member states come in as they are ready' (Prof Michael Keating), so while not having to go through that process would be nice, going through a rejoining process is not a deal-breaker.

We're currently in an unprecedented situation, Brexit has utterly stuffed arrangements between Ireland and Northern Ireland and who knows what will come out of trying to sort that mess out and whether it might lead to some unexpected flexibility on parts of the UK staying in the EU - I'm not holding my breath though.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6894 | From: Scotland | 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 TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
That goes back to the early 60s, when de Gaulle slammed the door in the UK's face. In retrospect, he was correct; the UK was not prepared to consider itself a European country. That has not really changed since.

I agree that de Gaulle has been proved largely correct, but I think hardly anyone in England or anywhere else in the UK was influenced by resentment of his actions in the 60s. I can't remember his name being mentioned at any time in the campaign by anybody.
Probably very few nowadays know either of him or of his actions. I was not saying that he caused any antipathy but rather that he had correctly diagnosed a real lack of commitment by the UK to joining what was then the EEC. Very few felt any resentment at the time, perhaps Heath and even then it was probably more disappointment. De Gaulle was right then about the lack of commitment, that lack continuing through the agreement to enter and having its victory earlier this year.

[ 29. December 2016, 23:07: Message edited by: Gee D ]

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

Posts: 6661 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  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 Louise:

Initially as part of standing up to Osborne, who was believed to be lying as an electoral ploy, Alex Salmond took the 'no plan B line' but because that worried people who thought Osborne might go through with it after all - the matter was clarified - the Plan B was to peg to the pound

So when he said 'no plan B' he didn't actually mean it. So posturing (just as Mr Osborne was posturing).

But my wider point is that if the SNP were considering a range of currency options, then they were not being specific about their destination, and if they were insistent on retaining the pound, then they were denying the necessity of negotiation.

Alan I think is arguing that because they put forward a preferred option, this makes them more specific than the Leavers, but I don't think this is true. Presumably Mr Salmond supported currency union because he thought it was Scotland's best option. But if it's also subject to negotiation, he can't know whether it's Scotland's best option until he knows what Westminster is prepared to concede. So in reality he doesn't know it's Scotland's best option. So the precision is false.

(I also think it gave Mr Salmond problems he needn't have had - countries are perfectly capable of becoming independent without currency being an issue, but saying 'We will do X' gave Messrs Osborne and Miliband the chance to say 'No you won't' without the latter actually having to back it up.)
quote:

But none of this was happening in a vacuum of research - the Scottish government's Fiscal Commission had examined and proposed a range of viable currency options all of which were real and available to Scotland.

Yes. The sort of contingency planning that the UK government should have done before the EU referendum and didn't. Why didn't it? Because Mr Cameron told it not to in case it gave plausibility to the Leave campaign. Which side did Mr Cameron back? Why, he backed Remain. So to characterise the lack of such research as a Leave failure seems somewhat unfair.

quote:
José Barroso is currently the non executive chairman at Goldman Sachs. Maybe you think he's still important or that his opinions set a precedent?

I will get back to you on the Scotland-EU question as I may be misremembering events.

--------------------
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: 7122 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My son now has his German citizenship and passport - and they have promised his dual nationality will continue after Brexit.

Would we were treating EU nationals who live here as well as this.

[ 30. December 2016, 09:38: Message edited by: Boogie ]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 12601 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  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:
Yes. The sort of contingency planning that the UK government should have done before the EU referendum and didn't. Why didn't it? Because Mr Cameron told it not to in case it gave plausibility to the Leave campaign. Which side did Mr Cameron back? Why, he backed Remain. So to characterise the lack of such research as a Leave failure seems somewhat unfair.

For which particular Leave scenario should Cameron have been preparing plans for?

In retrospect; timetabling a referendum for after a point where a Leave plan had been agreed might have actually led to a victory. As might a positive campaign for Remain.

But Cameron was infected by the same glib self-confidence possessed by Gove and Johnson and so here we are.

Posts: 3764 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It wasn't, and still isn't, up to Remainers to do the Leavers' homework for them. And none of the options they can come up with is as remotely good as the one we have at the moment.

Being enthusiastic about which pile of shit to pick is always going to be a bit of a stretch.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8773 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  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:
For which particular Leave scenario should Cameron have been preparing plans for?

A range of options, as it is in fact doing now. Just as the Scottish government investigated a range of options for the currency. I don't think it makes much sense to prepare for just one option because the nature of negotiation means there is no guarantee we'd get it.
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It wasn't, and still isn't, up to Remainers to do the Leavers' homework for them.

No. But if the government behaves in a way that makes X possible, and allows Cabinet ministers to behave in a way that makes X more probable, then it ought to consider the possible results should X come to pass.

(But I think we are both in agreement that Mr Cameron is a pillock. Among other words.)
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My son now has his German citizenship and passport - and they have promised his dual nationality will continue after Brexit.

Would we were treating EU nationals who live here as well as this.

[Confused] [Confused] [Confused] Even Mr Farage isn't proposing to strip UK citizenship to people who have come from EU countries and already claimed it. The question is about EU citizens in this country who haven't yet claimed UK citizenship.

[ 30. December 2016, 12:34: 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: 7122 | 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 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

A range of options, as it is in fact doing now.

I'm not aware that they are in fact preparing for a range of options - but leaving that aside.

I think the problem with this approach is seen right now - where certain options are completely anathema to certain political figures backed by certain parts of the media. So to that extent preparing a range of possible options is really only possible for people who are willing to implement them. In fact, perhaps the best way of winning would have been to pre-emptively give a number of euro skeptic ministers the task of drawing up the alternatives - though in the event they only broke cover once the referendum was announced.

Posts: 3764 | 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 Ricardus:
Originally posted by Louise:
quote:
José Barroso is currently the non executive chairman at Goldman Sachs. Maybe you think he's still important or that his opinions set a precedent?
I will get back to you on the Scotland-EU question as I may be misremembering events.
Yes, I am misremembering events and giving Mr Barroso more prominence than he deserves.

When the independence referendum was just a theoretical possibility Ms Sturgeon did indeed suggest that Scotland would automatically remain an EU member, but by the time the referendum became a reality, the SNP said that as there was no legal precedent and no legal framework for part of a member state to separate from that member state, the whole thing would have to be sorted out by negotiation - they suggested this negotiation would take place within the expected eighteen months between the referendum and independence itself. (Take note, all those who think that two years is too little time for the UK's exit negotiations.)

The SNP believed that these negotiations would end with Scotland as an EU member state but retaining the UK's opt-out from Schengen and the euro. As this would depend on the goodwill of the other EU member states, and as there was no indication of what Scotland would concede in exchange for these privileges, this seems to me another example of false precision, not to mention a Johnsonesque belief in pro-eating and pro-having.

--------------------
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: 7122 | 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:

A range of options, as it is in fact doing now.

I'm not aware that they are in fact preparing for a range of options - but leaving that aside.
Mr Davis says they are:
quote:
During the meeting, Mr Davis indicated that the Government is working on four possible outcomes from the Brexit talks in relation to the European Customs Union.

These range from being fully or partially inside the Union, to having a free trade agreement and customs arrangement with the remaining EU, to being "completely outside".



--------------------
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: 7122 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It wasn't, and still isn't, up to Remainers to do the Leavers' homework for them. And none of the options they can come up with is as remotely good as the one we have at the moment.

Well actually I think that having done more of the work to flesh out exactly what would have happened and what the scenarios were might have helped. It isn't very far from what Alan C was arguing for in terms of clarifying the question. You could characterize that as the leaver's homework, but not doing it and having a vague question that didn't mean very much may not have been the best strategy in retrospect.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's all well and good, but the scenarios that Remain did suggest were immediately poo-pooed by Leave, with a cheery 'Oh, it'll be fine'. While not ever committing themselves to anything.

Far better would have been a straight-forward and relentless campaign of 'what have you got that's better than what we have?'. Actually making Leave do some work would have revealed the utter bankruptcy of their position.

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 8773 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Louise posts:
quote:
Initially as part of standing up to Osborne, who was believed to be lying as an electoral ploy, Alex Salmond took the 'no plan B line' but because that worried people who thought Osborne might go through with it after all - the matter was clarified - the Plan B was to peg to the pound (as was done by a number of the British dominions such as Canada Australia and new Zealand in the past as they broke away from Britain to become more independent, see under Sterling Area )
Not Canada. Most of the individual colonies' currencies were pegged to the US or Spanish dollars before Confederation in 1867-- the Canadian dollar (for the then province which was divided into Ontario and Québec) from 1858.
Posts: 6117 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  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 Doc Tor:
That's all well and good, but the scenarios that Remain did suggest were immediately poo-pooed by Leave, with a cheery 'Oh, it'll be fine'. While not ever committing themselves to anything.

Far better would have been a straight-forward and relentless campaign of 'what have you got that's better than what we have?'. Actually making Leave do some work would have revealed the utter bankruptcy of their position.

I really doubt that. The Leave position and the Leave vote were entirely against a thing; no positive element was necessary. Now that government policy is to leave the EU some genuine positives have to be found, but it is proving a struggled to find them.
Posts: 23939 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Louise posts:
quote:
Initially as part of standing up to Osborne, who was believed to be lying as an electoral ploy, Alex Salmond took the 'no plan B line' but because that worried people who thought Osborne might go through with it after all - the matter was clarified - the Plan B was to peg to the pound (as was done by a number of the British dominions such as Canada Australia and new Zealand in the past as they broke away from Britain to become more independent, see under Sterling Area )
Not Canada. Most of the individual colonies' currencies were pegged to the US or Spanish dollars before Confederation in 1867-- the Canadian dollar (for the then province which was divided into Ontario and Québec) from 1858.
Yes, sorry the other one I was thinking of was South Africa, but somehow typed the wrong country.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6894 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Louise
Shipmate
# 30

 - Posted      Profile for Louise   Email Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry for hit and run itty-bitty posting, Ricardus - festivities and visitors intervene.

You can usually read read a couple of Financial Times articles free if you register. On the Euro - see here - The case for Scottish independence looks stronger post-Brexit - this is a 2016 article but the situation on the Euro hasn't changed - key bit here

quote:
a long-term commitment to joining the single currency would almost certainly be a requirement of EU membership. But that does not mean Scotland would have to adopt the euro — at least not straight away. Sweden is theoretically obliged to join the single currency. But more than 20 years on from joining the EU, the prospects of its giving up the krona seem vanishingly remote.
At the moment nine countries are EU members but don't use the Euro (Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) and only two do it by having derogations ( UK and Denmark). Basically the convergence criteria for joining the Euro are very strict ( eg. being part of the Exchange Rate Mechanism II for at least 2 years without tensions) and countries who don't want to join like Sweden just don't go out of their way to meet the five criteria and aren't forced - they've been doing that for decades and nobody has pressured them to change or is pressuring any of the other countries to my knowledge, so the onus is on naysayers to show evidence that Scotland would be singled-out and treated in an unusually unfavourable way.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6894 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The Leave position and the Leave vote were entirely against a thing; no positive element was necessary. Now that government policy is to leave the EU some genuine positives have to be found, but it is proving a struggled to find them.

We have been fed the Britain will become the -Beacon of free trade- line, although soundbites won't be of much use if, or when, the self inflicted pinch comes.
The only real positive the government has been handed is the fact that most of it's own doom mongering over a Leave win has yet to manifest itself. A little ironic and probably not wholly unplanned.

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

Posts: 3060 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  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 rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
The Leave position and the Leave vote were entirely against a thing; no positive element was necessary. Now that government policy is to leave the EU some genuine positives have to be found, but it is proving a struggled to find them.

We have been fed the Britain will become the -Beacon of free trade- line, although soundbites won't be of much use if, or when, the self inflicted pinch comes.
The only real positive the government has been handed is the fact that most of it's own doom mongering over a Leave win has yet to manifest itself. A little ironic and probably not wholly unplanned.

The Tory party and the entire country are more divided than ever. That is a downside that will last for ever and cannot be ignored. It will overshadow other issues for decades.

As for the "Beacon of free trade" line, why has a new department of state, with cabinet minister and permanent secretary plus hundreds of civil servants and dozens of advisors, been set up specifically to devise international trade policy and negotiate trade deals, which are the very antithesis of free trade?

Posts: 23939 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840

 - Posted      Profile for rolyn         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Maybe the answer to that is that someone somewhere knows that this country will be an ex EU member in name only.

I'm not sure that this Country is any more split over this than it was under decades of seesaw politics between Labour and Tory. One represented the interests of management and the other the interests of workers. Never much meeting of minds there.
The reality of 2016's political upheavals, both here and in the US, could turn out be that of a mirage-- the product of an Internet fuelled hype machine getting folks all riled up.

This time next year we will no doubt have more travel, more consumerism and more prosperity with the grinding gears of Globalisation continuing unhindered by fake political upheavals here or anywhere else.

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

Posts: 3060 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011  |  IP: Logged
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391

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

A range of options, as it is in fact doing now.

I'm not aware that they are in fact preparing for a range of options - but leaving that aside.
Mr Davis says they are:
quote:
During the meeting, Mr Davis indicated that the Government is working on four possible outcomes from the Brexit talks in relation to the European Customs Union.

These range from being fully or partially inside the Union, to having a free trade agreement and customs arrangement with the remaining EU, to being "completely outside".


It seems to me that there are no "options" on the table. The Article 50 negotiations are going to be about what the UK will need to pay to get out of its long-term commitments to the EU. Figures in the 10s of billions have already been bandied about.

Once that is cleared up and agreed and paid, we'll be out of the EU. At that point we will start negotiations about how we trade with the bloc. These will no doubt be as protracted as those with the USA have been and will be coloured by the result of the Article 50 negotiations. I doubt the UK will be able to negotiate anything resembling tariff-free trade.

There are occasional lapses when the press and/or politicians seem to own up to this version of the path ahead, but I think the last six months have seen mostly wishful thinking, self deception and careful publicity management to try to appear in control.

Posts: 240 | Registered: Apr 2015  |  IP: Logged
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520

 - Posted      Profile for mdijon     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
The reality of 2016's political upheavals, both here and in the US, could turn out be that of a mirage-- the product of an Internet fuelled hype machine getting folks all riled up.

But at some point the hype becomes reality. Political realities are what people think, what they decide and how they express it. If that becomes hyped up and more toxic than before, then one can't characterise that as a mirage underneath which everyone is as sober as they always were.

The Brexit vote seemed to me to bring a new level of division, and I'm not sure it was all online. I don't know anyone who voted brexit (or who admits to it). I know plenty of people that vote for either party and we occasionally discuss it. The absence of direct discussions with people I knew who were voting for Brexit seems to be a shared experience by many I talk to. Yet clearly the country is full of quite a few people who voted brexit.

This suggests to me a more divided society along brexit lines than we had for party politics.

--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon

Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  ...  50  51  52 
 
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

 
Check out Reform magazine
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
  ship of fools