|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are assuming all countries in the EU are in a state of stasis, where the only decision that have to make is whether or not to make a deal with the UK.
You're assuming a lot of assumptions here. Governments presumably make lots of decisions about lots of things all of the time (some more important than others). Brexit is one of the issues that the EU has to deal with at the moment.
quote:
In the case where the UK crashes out without a deal, the EU has a choice of how to deploy it's resources to minimize economic impact and maximize future economic benefits. If the UK has - at that point - proved to be a completely intransigent negotiating party (as it has done to date) then the EU may well decide that their resources are better occupied elsewhere doing other things.
Well it could do that, I suppose, but I'm not sure how it would benefit from it.
How, out of curiosity, do you think the UK has been 'completely intransigent'?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Anglican't: quote:
I don't understand why the EU (if it were acting rationally) would not want to conclude a good agreement with the world's fifth-largest economy while trying to conclude these other deals. It would send a terrible signal, wouldn't it?
I think outside Brexit La-La Land everyone is well aware that the EU-27 are acting rationally. They have their negotiating strategy worked out. They have published position papers on what they want from the negotiations. The three key issues they identified for the initial negotiations are things that need to be agreed on urgently, and agreement on them is in both our interests.
It is less clear that the UK government is acting rationally. Eighteen months after the referendum they are still arguing over what they want from Brexit. They are refusing to publish the results of studies they commissioned on the possible impact of Brexit and seem to think they can solve all their problems by handwaving or 'pencilling things in' on the back of an envelope. They're not fooling anybody.
And they seem to have lost half a trillion pounds down the back of the sofa. Fifth-largest world economy, are we? Not for much longer - and it will be our own fault.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
How, out of curiosity, do you think the UK has been 'completely intransigent'?
It has been a net effect. The UK government has not made a long-lasting and serious proposal on any of the three items that the EU proposed for the initial negotiations. Their proposals - rarely put across formally - have either been vague, or swiftly undercut by multiple - often contradictory - caveats they make outside the formal negotiating process. That's not the way to negotiate if you are actually serious about achieving anything.
but then .. putting Johnson and Rees-Mogg in a box, and ignoring what the Mail, Telegraph and Spectator say for the duration of the negotiations appear to be beyond them.
[ 20. October 2017, 11:09: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I assume that May/Davis dare not move on the money question. They have stuck on £20 billion, but if they were to increase this, the Mail/Telegraph coalition would get pretty wrathful, ditto the Ultras in parliament, and she might not survive.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I assume that May/Davis dare not move on the money question. They have stuck on £20 billion, but if they were to increase this, the Mail/Telegraph coalition would get pretty wrathful, ditto the Ultras in parliament, and she might not survive.
When May appointed Fox, Davis and Johnson I'm sure she intended that they would fall on their swords before she had to. Now, I'm not so sure. She has taken a personal lead in the negotiations, is at odds with some of the "specialist" ministers, and as you suggest, the Ultras are lining up to push her over the cliff.
[ 20. October 2017, 12:57: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I assume that May/Davis dare not move on the money question. They have stuck on £20 billion, but if they were to increase this, the Mail/Telegraph coalition would get pretty wrathful, ditto the Ultras in parliament, and she might not survive.
Faisal Islam on Twitter commented the average of hard brexiters is 70+ and reported that May was told in the Brexit Cabinet that Brexit was unsustainable unless young people buy into it.
Depending on who was doing the telling, reality may be dawning that they need to start thinking beyond that particular coalition in the longer term. If Brexit goes wrong, it won't matter who the leader is or what policies they're touting.
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Faisal Islam on Twitter commented the average of hard brexiters is 70+ and reported that May was told in the Brexit Cabinet that Brexit was unsustainable unless young people buy into it.
Depending on who was doing the telling, reality may be dawning that they need to start thinking beyond that particular coalition in the longer term. If Brexit goes wrong, it won't matter who the leader is or what policies they're touting.
Tubbs
But if Brexit is achieved before the next election, that's the new political reality, isn't it? It's sort of done (except perhaps for some tinkering or refinement). It's unlikely that one of the major parties is going to go to the people with a pledge to rejoin the EU by that point. It'd be too late, surely?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I challenged a Brexit acquaintance, who goes around triumphantly saying, of course we should cut all ties with Europe, I suppose a kind of no-deal on steroids.
I asked him how planes could fly over European airspace, or how food could be exported or imported, and of course, he backtracked, and said, well, there will have to be some arrangement or other.
So this no deal turns out to be a big deal, in fact. Am I mad, or is he mad, or are we both mad?
When they say no deal they don't actually mean that. They mean some fudge that keeps the aeroplanes flying, cancer treatments available and imports / exports flowing. Unfortunately, that may not mean what anyone else means when they say no deal. (It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
(It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).
Tubbs
It's a greater shame that those who were supportng the "Remain" campaign (including the current PM) didn't point out the unfavourable consequences of leaving.
Oh yes, I remember. They did, and it got dubbed "Project Fear".
[ 20. October 2017, 14:43: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"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
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Governments presumably make lots of decisions about lots of things all of the time (some more important than others). Brexit is one of the issues that the EU has to deal with at the moment.
Brexit is one of the issues for the EU, and it isn't even the most important. Problems with the Euro, including the stresses in the system from problems in Greece, will be larger in their minds. As are the problems of dealing with a million plus refugees, and more arriving every day. The EU doesn't gain much by dropping those just to deal with British idiocy. Though, of course, they don't have to ... they've already set out their list of things that need to be sorted first and appointed a small, able team to handle the negotiations with the UK while the rest of the EU gets on with the business of sorting the more important issues. Going behind the negotiators and bothering individual governments with their own problems isn't going to be appreciated.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But if Brexit is achieved before the next election, that's the new political reality, isn't it? It's sort of done (except perhaps for some tinkering or refinement). It's unlikely that one of the major parties is going to go to the people with a pledge to rejoin the EU by that point. It'd be too late, surely?
Why too late? It would seem perfectly reasonable for a political party (or, several parties) to include an intention to rejoin the EU within their manifesto. If they get enough support and form a government then they get to enact the will of the people and start the process of rejoining the EU. Which will require some extensive negotiations with the EU, probably through several Parliaments ... so, maybe 10 years between election of a re-join EU government and it actually happening.
Of course, the Tories are unlikely to say anything about EU membership in their manifesto for decades - it would just split the party into factions again. Labour under Corbyn don't look keen on rejoining the EU, and would probably face their own internal conflicts over the EU so would only propose rejoining once the disaster of Brexit is clear for all to see. Which of the current parties leaves the LibDems and Greens (and SNP/PC in Scotland/Wales) likely to be in favour of rejoining the EU. Who, to be honest, are not going to form a government in the immediate future. I see the potential for new political parties specifically to campaign for re-joining the EU (as UKIP formed to campaign to leave), though they will take time to gain momentum - and will need to do a UKIP and scare one of the larger parties into adopting their policies, since actually getting elected under FPTP is unlikely.
--------------------
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
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
(It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).
Tubbs
It's a greater shame that those who were supportng the "Remain" campaign (including the current PM) didn't point out the unfavourable consequences of leaving.
Oh yes, I remember. They did, and it got dubbed "Project Fear".
But that was just propaganda by the Remain side. (Actual quote from a Brexit voter I know and love). The Remain campaign was very focused on the economic consequences of leaving, which isn't going to resonate with everyone. They didn't focus so much on on the benefits of membership.
The Liverpool papers did some great stories about local buildings that had been restored using EU grants and encouraged people to go see the tangible benefits that the EU had given their communities ... And think about that when they voted. That probably helped the high Remain vote there. (And the fact that no one reads the Sun or any other Murdoch paper).
The problem now is the the media aren't picking up the hard Brexit brigade on their claims ... That they're mind-readers, knowing exactly what people voted for ... Despite polls that say most people don't want the kind of Brexit they're proposing. They have a better knowledge of trade, business and sectors than people directly involved who say that what they're proposing would be terrible ... They've gone from liking the Norway model to the most extreme version possible ... And not least, they're from a party that has bugger all members, no MPs and almost no counsellors Nigel.
Tubbs
[ 21. October 2017, 19:36: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, the media are treating the headbangers with kid gloves, since no deal is clearly untenable. In fact, they don't mean no deal, they must be referring to an ad hoc collection of deals, for example, on aviation, the carriage of food and animals, pharmaceuticals, machine parts which have to be delivered 'just in time', and so on. Just saying 'on WTO terms' is not really good enough.
I suppose also there is great boredom about it, which allows the nutters to get away with nonsense.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Alan, stop trying to do rational. It doesn't work. Not in Tory party politics. This is ALL right wing chaos, there is no way out, the May good cop Davis bad cop farce will play out and the hard or soft Brexit burghers of Harwich will roam the streets eating each other in victory.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Alan, stop trying to do rational. It doesn't work. Not in Tory party politics. This is ALL right wing chaos, there is no way out, the May good cop Davis bad cop farce will play out and the hard or soft Brexit burghers of Harwich will roam the streets eating each other in victory.
There is no rationale about Brexit on any side. Sadly. That what's got the UK into this mess in the first place. Having spent 30 plus years rubbishing the EU and blaming them for all our problems, we've reaped what we've sowed.
Tubbs
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
If by side you mean hard or soft, I agree. The Telegraph-Mail-Sun-Express have WON a scorched earth - their own back yard - war, with all their bridges burnt, all their fields salted, wells poisoned in which they will be the greatest losers. That's that.
There was no rationale for Brexit, we didn't want foreign technocrats reading us the social chapter.
We want all the benefits of socialism without socialism. We want a divorce after which we're richer. We want Johnny Foreign to fuck right off and still spend all his money here and if 'e don't it just shows wot uh bastard 'e was and 'ow right we were, the bastard. Tellin' us wot ter do. Bastard. Pickin' our turnips. Bastard. Talkin' Polish at the doctor's. Cow. Now look wot 'e's made us do?! BASTARD!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I often don't really understand your posts, Martin, but I think you pretty much nailed it there.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmm. I feel uncomfortable satirizing the uneducated, the poor, the old; the left behind who felt they had nothing to lose by pulling down the temple. It wasn't their fault. Can we even blame the swivel eyed loons of the Tory party? Were ambitious Tory MPs, swinging in the wind pivotally to blame?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
(It's a shame that the media isn't better at picking them up on it).
Tubbs
It's a greater shame that those who were supportng the "Remain" campaign (including the current PM) didn't point out the unfavourable consequences of leaving.
Oh yes, I remember. They did, and it got dubbed "Project Fear".
But that was just propaganda by the Remain side. (Actual quote from a Brexit voter I know and love). The Remain campaign was very focused on the economic consequences of leaving, which isn't going to resonate with everyone. They didn't focus so much on on the benefits of membership.
The Liverpool papers did some great stories about local buildings that had been restored using EU grants and encouraged people to go see the tangible benefits that the EU had given their communities ... And think about that when they voted. That probably helped the high Remain vote there. (And the fact that no one reads the Sun or any other Murdoch paper).
Tubbs
The papers in South Wales didn't do much, but many politicians pointed out that a lot of South Wales is classed EU Objective 1 and 2 indicating that they are way behind London and the South-East economically and socially, so there are a lot of EU-funded social projects down here. Cornwall is in the same situation and within minutes of voting for Brexit successfully these areas, and others were squealing for Westminster to replace loss of EU funding. It was just one of those weird features, that the areas voting to leave were often those in receipt of substantial EU funding.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
And today, David Davis admitted what many cynics have suspected all along... for him and many other Tory Brexiteers, Brexit is a game that is very exciting because they think it's fun to screw up a country and see what happens. Secure in sufficient wealth that they don't give a damn who it screws. And willing to blame everyone else when it all goes wrong.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Good grief. There goes another half a trillion pounds in foreign investment... doesn't this clown realise that businesses don't *like* uncertainty? Or does he just not care?
Just as well all the Brexiters have numbered Swiss bank accounts, isn't it.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Good grief. There goes another half a trillion pounds in foreign investment... doesn't this clown realise that businesses don't *like* uncertainty? Or does he just not care?
Just as well all the Brexiters have numbered Swiss bank accounts, isn't it.
I'm hoping, possibly against hope, that access to these accounts is conditional on membership of the EU/EEA + Swiss trading bloc.
There are going to be some substantial drawbacks, even for the rich, but the Brexiteers are too stupid to realise it yet. At least we know we're screwed.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't know how many Ultras are fans of disaster capitalism, but there might be some who would benefit from an economic collapse post-Brexit, and the consequent shrinking of the state, and the welfare state, and a reduction in wages and taxes. Presumably, they would be able to make big profits as happened in Russia. Deregulate above all else.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know how many Ultras are fans of disaster capitalism, but there might be some who would benefit from an economic collapse post-Brexit, and the consequent shrinking of the state, and the welfare state, and a reduction in wages and taxes. Presumably, they would be able to make big profits as happened in Russia. Deregulate above all else.
Some of the more 'moderate' leavers have written on this topic:
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86556
(Richard North is Pete North's father, and co-author of the Flexcit paper). The presence of Phillipa Stroud as CEO of Legatum is interesting - as someone who has past connections with both the religious right and the fringes of the Republican party.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know how many Ultras are fans of disaster capitalism...
Not strictly apropos this comment, but more generally, is it me or does there appear to be a bit of an overlap between those who shrug off any concerns about the possible consequences of a Corbyn-led government (run on the pound, flight of capital, etc.) and those who are very concerned about the worst possible consequences of Brexit?
[ 25. October 2017, 13:31: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
But if Brexit is achieved before the next election, that's the new political reality, isn't it? It's sort of done (except perhaps for some tinkering or refinement). It's unlikely that one of the major parties is going to go to the people with a pledge to rejoin the EU by that point. It'd be too late, surely?
Why too late? It would seem perfectly reasonable for a political party (or, several parties) to include an intention to rejoin the EU within their manifesto. If they get enough support and form a government then they get to enact the will of the people and start the process of rejoining the EU. Which will require some extensive negotiations with the EU, probably through several Parliaments ... so, maybe 10 years between election of a re-join EU government and it actually happening.
Of course, the Tories are unlikely to say anything about EU membership in their manifesto for decades - it would just split the party into factions again. Labour under Corbyn don't look keen on rejoining the EU, and would probably face their own internal conflicts over the EU so would only propose rejoining once the disaster of Brexit is clear for all to see. Which of the current parties leaves the LibDems and Greens (and SNP/PC in Scotland/Wales) likely to be in favour of rejoining the EU. Who, to be honest, are not going to form a government in the immediate future. I see the potential for new political parties specifically to campaign for re-joining the EU (as UKIP formed to campaign to leave), though they will take time to gain momentum - and will need to do a UKIP and scare one of the larger parties into adopting their policies, since actually getting elected under FPTP is unlikely.
Yes of course it is possible amongst the minor parties as a minority interest, but I was thinking more in terms of the major parties. If there is a smooth-ish Brexit I suspect they (and much of the public) will be fed up of several years Euro-talk and want to move onto other things. Already I suspect a lot of soft Remainers would like us to just get on with the thing now we've voted the way we have.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
is it me or does there appear to be a bit of an overlap between those who shrug off any concerns about the possible consequences of a Corbyn-led government (run on the pound, flight of capital, etc.) and those who are very concerned about the worst possible consequences of Brexit?
The second is a set of fairly sober predictions of the real effects of the end of various trade and other agreements (views now endorsed by the more sober leave elements). The first is a set of fevered speculations from the pages of the Mail and Spectator, who seem to believe that mild european-style social democracy is the coming of Bolshevism itself. [You can tell they don't actually believe their arguments - as adoption of similar policies by the Tories doesn't provoke such panic].
So your question is only a serious one if you assume that both are a set of realistic possibilities - most don't.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MarsmanTJ
Shipmate
# 8689
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
...Already I suspect a lot of soft Remainers would like us to just get on with the thing now we've voted the way we have.
Please, I beg of you and all the other Brexiteers, do that! Actually show us how, when almost every credible economist in the world tells us that Brexit is the stupidest thing we have ever done as a country, a catastrophic act of self-harm, that somehow we are going to make a success of it. Show me how with a negotiating team that seem to think it is an enormous joke, where no-deal becomes increasingly more likely with each passing day we are going to have a future that is not bleak. Please, please, prove me wrong. I honestly want nothing more than to be wrong about Brexit.
At the moment, the fact is the UK is succeeding in SPITE of heading towards Brexit, not because of it. The government has not yet got the message that it is not possible to endlessly do more with less, although the Universal Credit changes, the issues with the NHS and Local Councils should be screaming this at them. The same will be true of many significant industries.
When we were told by prominent Brexiteers that we would have to work harder to make a success of Brexit, I and many others of my generation are going: 'how can we do that?' I know literally no-one of my mid-to-late twenties graduate friends that doesn't take work home with them on a regular basis. Many of us work 60+ hour weeks. And this is why you will find many of them telling you that they hate Brexiteers and everything they stand for, and why we (twenties + thirties graduates) voted to Remain overwhelmingly. Because we don't have much left to give. A hard patch before things get better is not going to help a generation increasingly struggling with mental health due to substantial overwork by faceless corporations that doesn't give a damn about them. It will just mean a significant increase in the suicide and mental health illness rate that will hugely cut productivity.
The reason I think Brexit can't be a success because such a drastic change will require harder work from people who have nothing left to give. And that's the truth no one in leadership wants to admit.
Posts: 238 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't know how many Ultras are fans of disaster capitalism...
Not strictly apropos this comment, but more generally, is it me or does there appear to be a bit of an overlap between those who shrug off any concerns about the possible consequences of a Corbyn-led government (run on the pound, flight of capital, etc.) and those who are very concerned about the worst possible consequences of Brexit?
Well, possibly on this thread, but since you ask I would identify as one who is both very concerned about the worst possible consequences of Brexit and also very concerned about the worst possible consequences of a Corbyn-led government, perhaps even enough to vote for (say) BoJo despite my considerable contempt for him.
[ 25. October 2017, 19:32: Message edited by: TurquoiseTastic ]
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
Well said, Marsman. The worst consequences of Brexit may well not be economic (though I am personally preparing as best I can for a long recession and the possible premature end of my career.)
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
Indeed one of the worst short-term consequences of Brexit we are likely to face is the political choice between Corbyn's Labour and a hard-Brexit Conservative party. I would take Cameron, Blair, Thatcher, Brown, Milliband, Hague, Foot, Callaghan, Eden or Screaming Lord Sutch in a heartbeat over either of the current choices.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Good post, Marsman. I haven't thought about it in terms of people being expected to work harder, but it is rather sobering.
It's possible that the two sides will stumble towards some kind of deal, I suppose a kind of associate membership. The govt will then have to disguise this, so that the Ultras don't see any trace of the word 'Europe' in it, and so that others don't realize that we have a much worse trading relation with Europe. What did we expect?
I see that the Mail is now talking about 'remainer universities'. Good God, what rough beast slouches towards Bethlehem?
[ 26. October 2017, 11:11: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Nice to know our universities are staffed by rational people, isn't it. Who'd have thought...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Nice to know our universities are staffed by rational people, isn't it. Who'd have thought...
And that they are being hounded by the lunatic right wing. Where are we going?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I was watching David Davis in the Commons just now. MPs were debating whether they'd get a substantive vote on an EU Brexit deal.
Davis said a lot of things, but the gist seemed to me to be the following:
- 1. MPs will get a single vote on everything: the divorce, the trade agreement and everything else
- 2. It will be based on provisional proposals he is expecting to receive some time in the middle of next year
- 3. But having said that, it is always possible that the negotiations will continue right up until midnight on the day before we Brexit
- 4. And the EU parliament, national and even sub-national parliaments will have to ratify a deal
The implication appears to be that if MPs reject the deal (which Davis reckons they'll be able to debate before it goes to the European Parliament or other parties) then the only other option is to leave with no-deal. Because there won't be time to negotiate anything else.
And further, it appears that if the British parliament votes to agree with the proposals, this isn't actually binding on either party, so they can continue negotiating until just before the deadline.
But the part that makes least sense to me is that if the UK Parliament votes in favour of the proposals, and the negotiations then continue until midnight the night before Brexit day - then all the other parties have still got to agree and/or ratify the agreement, which they couldn't before it actually was an agreement rather than just a proposal.
Which therefore seems to suggest that there is a black-hole immediately afterwards. The UK and EU agree the thing, the UK Parliament votes for it, the parties come out of the negotiation smiling and shaking hands. It is then sent to everyone else for ratification.
So what happens until it is ratified?
Utter chaos.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Interesting point on Richard North's blog - that we are being railroaded, so that for example, the EEA is not being considered as an option. Why not? Partly because for the Ultras, it is still too close to the EU. But Mrs May has pre-empted any discussion on it, and has simply ruled it out.
Then you get the chicanery over 'no-deal', which in fact, turns out not be no deal (which is impossible), and WTO terms, which are being misrepresented, as if they only involved tariffs.
So much deceit.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Haha, I've just realised that the MPs have a choice of Deal or No Deal.
Take a gamble and take a (hypothetical) deal or take a bigger gamble and don't.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I thought it was just me who felt like we were all contestants in a reality TV show...
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Interesting point on Richard North's blog - that we are being railroaded, so that for example, the EEA is not being considered as an option. Why not? Partly because for the Ultras, it is still too close to the EU. But Mrs May has pre-empted any discussion on it, and has simply ruled it out.
Then you get the chicanery over 'no-deal', which in fact, turns out not be no deal (which is impossible), and WTO terms, which are being misrepresented, as if they only involved tariffs.
So much deceit.
May's place in history will be as the second female PM and probably hated at least as much by the majority for allowing this stupid, harmful divisive Brexit (and loved by a minority) as the first - MT.
.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
We are being lied to on so many issues - EEA, the idea of no deal, WTO rules, non-tariff barriers, and the media mainly give the right wing view. And then the lunatic right wing target the treacherous remainers in universities and the BBC.
Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Haha, I've just realised that the MPs have a choice of Deal or No Deal.
Take a gamble and take a (hypothetical) deal or take a bigger gamble and don't.
ie, a choice between no-deal (while giving Davis free rein to achieve sod all)and no-deal (on the basis of disbanding Davis's department and leaving on WTO terms.
Meanwhile Fox's trade department is trying to conjure up bilateral deals which inevitably run interference with one another and with the overall exit strategy.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
The port at Dublin is being dredged, to prepare for deeper cargo ships and cruisers. I think this work has been prepared for years, but I wonder if there might be just a teeny-tiny soupcon of a thought crossing the Irish authorities' minds, that it might be useful to take sea traffic away from British ports coming from Zeebrugge, etc.? Just supposing that traffic to these becomes more difficult after Brexit, every British cloud has an Irish silver lining.
This information is taken from DredgingToday.com, and I urge everyone to read this, fascinating stuff.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
It's not just a soupçon of thought - they're doing it. They are also buying up fleets of haulage trucks from all over Europe and we've been so preoccupied with building new commercial properties that we've neglected to build normal housing.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
But then this might just be practical thinking. If there is no way to the EU other than via the UK, stuff going to the EU is going to have to go via Wales and England. And whatever the trade deal is or isn't, that's going to involve more complexity than at present.
I'd have thought it makes good sense to have more direct sea routes.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It would probably make sense even without Brexit, which is presumably why it's been planned for years. But, being able to trade freely without bothering about stupidity in the UK is a bonus. And, if the UK government manages to get the square circle of the UK being outside the customs union and an open border in Ireland then it will probably be easier for trade from the EU to go through Dublin to get to the north than going through the rest of the UK.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It would probably make sense even without Brexit, which is presumably why it's been planned for years.
Unless Irish bureaucracy, business and engineering operate at an efficiency and speed unheard of in modern history, it has to have been in planning for years.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by LilBuddha:
quote:
it has to have been in planning for years.
Kinda like Brexit then? That didn't happen overnight as far as I remember.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
I just watched Have I Got News For You and heard about that call for universities to give up names of their Brexit-teaching academics. Is this the UK now? It is rather shocking.
Best wishes to you all.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Re expansion of the port of Dublin: isn't that just a consequence of the widening of the Panama canal?
The maximum size of a ship is determined by the size of the locks on the Panama canal. These were recently expanded, which in turn creates a new generation of supermassive ships. Liverpool was recently expanded for this reason- not because the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company expects a huge upturn in trade, but so that the port isn't forced to turn ships away as too big.
--------------------
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
|
|
Luigi
Shipmate
# 4031
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Also, the EU is trying to negotiate (or has just negotiated) trade deals with other big nations. (From memory, I think one with Canada has just concluded and one with Japan is in the pipeline.) I don't understand why the EU (if it were acting rationally) would not want to conclude a good agreement with the world's fifth-largest economy while trying to conclude these other deals. It would send a terrible signal, wouldn't it?
To address some of the more general underlying points made here. Why would they give a 'cake and eat it deal' to the UK and not to the 3 largest economies in the world? The problem is the Brexiteers seem to think all trade deals done with anyone other than the EU are easy win-win deals, but the EU are irrational because they look to protect their interests. All the other countries will want deals that maximise their access to our markets and minimise damage to their embryonic industries.
It is entirely rational for the 27 to say: 'yes we would prefer a deal to no deal, but no deal will only affect 8% of our exports whereas it will affect 44% of the UK's. So no deal will hurt the UK more. We can share the pain amongst a lot more countries and a lot more people.'
It is why in a negotiation of 440 mil v 65 mil the 440 mil have the upper hand by some way.
The thing they won't do is give us such a good deal that it will (even remotely) destabilise the single market. There is no way that, say, the German Car industry would want to undermine the integrity of the EU.
[ 31. October 2017, 10:30: Message edited by: Luigi ]
Posts: 752 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
