Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Callan: It was recently suggested that when we change the colour of our passports to blue we do away with the French wording on the Royal Coat of Arms and replace it with something English.
I wouldn't want that. French on the Coat of Arms and indeed on the passport has a long tradition. Why change it?
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by fletcher christian: Posted by Ronald: quote: I'll give you a free pass on the "Eire" thing, this time
Well, I guess if the rest of the post was in irish it would read fine.
I can't help but notice that the UK's irony meter seems to have broken recently. May arrives in Europe. She's been talking about a hard Brexit. She announces that Britain will continue to be a dependable and faithful partner to Europe after the divorce proceedings are finalised. All the other European leaders are sitting there with this 'WTF are you on about' look on their faces. It all smacks of a 'we have absolutely no idea what we are doing' kind of a policy. It's total la-la land; amusing to watch from the outside but also faintly terrifying.
Actually I can see the logic of this. According to the EU, the UK is subject to all the T&Cs until we leave and a budget contributor ... May has pointed out that this cuts both ways. Until we leave, we have a seat at the table and a say.
Once we leave, we will be a faithful partner in relation to matters of mutual interest. Other things, not so much. Just like the EU and everyone who isn't a part of 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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
If you can steel yourself to click on the link this is very good.
-------------------- How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by anteater: I wonder what effect the failure of the CETA deal will have if any.
As I understand it, CETA is rather TTIP by the back door. As such, it includes provisions for private corporations to sue governments for any loss of profit resulting from changes to the law. This is undesirable. For that reason, I'm pleased to see it on the scrap heap.
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: For that reason, I'm pleased to see it on the scrap heap.
So you are obviously happy that the regional parliament of Wallonia can hold two continents to ransom. I can't agree with you there!
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by PaulTH*: quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: For that reason, I'm pleased to see it on the scrap heap.
So you are obviously happy that the regional parliament of Wallonia can hold two continents to ransom. I can't agree with you there!
Rather disproves the claim that the EU indiscriminately imposes its views on its members though.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
As a national motto in English, wouldn't 'We've screwed ourselves' be more accurate?
-------------------- 'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Callan: quote: (The EU) is quite dysfunctional. But it's dysfunctional because all the nations of the EU get a say in these matters not because authoritarian power mad bureaucrats in the EU Commission can't find their arse with both hands, which is how these things are invariably spun.
Well I agree with you on your substantive point, but I have never heard it suggested that the problem of getting trade deals through is due to the Commission, but have always understood it to be due to the fact that they remain outside of QMV.
And I am of the opinion that closer integration is needed for the EU, and Euro to succeed and that QMV should apply to trade deals.
Which was part of my dilemma. For UK to make the best of remaining it needs to be much more closely involved, and though we've gone far enough for me to prefer continuing a rather dysfunctional partnership that breaking it, I truly do not believe that the Brits want the sort of closer integration that we need if we are truly to shape Europe along with the other main players, Germany, France and Italy.
I just see us then as partial outsiders, rejecting the institutions needed to make the EU and Euro work, and standing on the sidelines. And I see it as very doubtful that the EU would survive the failure of the Euro.
-------------------- Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
The mistake was in creating the euro as a forerunner of political union, when it should have been the other way round. There is no precedent in history for a currency union which wasn't part of an already existing political union. The problem the euro has is in trying to impose a one size fits all economics on countries as diverse as, for example, Germany and Greece. Germans are hard working and work comparatively late in life. Greeks could always retire at 50 and who can blame someone for being pissed off if they've spent their whole working life expecting to retire at 50, and when 47 they're told they must work another 20 years. Also Greece has very much of a black market attitude to work which Germany doesn't in the same way.
The net result of this is that Greece can't stay competitive because it, and Italy as well, have lost their traditional safety valve of currency devaluation to compensate them for their lack of competitiveness when compared to Northern Europe. So money flows south in bail outs that are never likely to be repaid. Only a political union involving tax harmonisation and basically allowing a financially sound regime like Germany to manage the economies of the less competitive countries, which is likely, as well as having big political consequences, to involve permanent stagnation and austerity. But I don't believe that anyone can change Mediterranian culture to make it conform to what the Germans think is the right way to run an economy.
Brexit or not, the UK could never have been part of such a project. Although there were many Remainers in the recent referendum, there's only a handful of Britons who genuinely share that integrated federalist view of Europe. Many like myself voted Remain out of fear of the world outside, but I would never have wanted to take the euro of join Schengen. I just felt that Britain had secured enough opt outs, even from ever closer union, as to not seriously fear the power of Brussels. To be part of that "ever closer union" is not in the British character, and any attempt to impose it would have been met with a much larger Leave vote. Mine included.
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by PaulTH:
quote: The mistake was in creating the euro as a forerunner of political union, when it should have been the other way round.
I agree with this. The problems the Euro have been experiencing are essentially a re-run of Europe's travails when the Exchange Rate Mechanism was in force without the ability of the currency markets to reassert economic sanity. The Euro should have been confined to Germany, Benelux and France (which are fairly economically integrated anyway) with other countries getting to join when they passed a set of objective tests for economic convergence. Or, they could have gone with the seriously underrated Common Currency proposed by Lawson and Major (Thatcher not going off her head, at that point in history, and trying to make the Hard ECU a thing is, IMO, one of the tantalising might have beens of history, although it probably has to be tied in with our not joining the ERM, which I think is pushing it). But the spectacle of the EU inflicting unnecessary economic pain on itself didn't really help sell continuing membership of same to the British people. Ironically, the spectacle of the British people inflicting unnecessary economic pain on themselves is likely to result in a doubling down, rather than a rethink, by the EU.
-------------------- How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
PaulTh: quote: Although there were many Remainers in the recent referendum, there's only a handful of Britons who genuinely share that integrated federalist view of Europe.
It'd be interesting to know how many. We have a sad lack of clear terminology in this debate. The one I would propose (and someone will probably tell me it's old hat) is: Europhile: Believer in closer union, not necessarily full federalist but even that is thinkable. Would prefer to be in Eurozone as and when institutions are in place to make that work. Around 30%? Europhobe: Never wanted EU and voted for out in the 1973 referendum. So fixated on regaining nation-state status that, to quote Dr. Fox "I've got what I want and am glad of that whatever the outcome of the negotiations. Again around 30%. Euroskeptic: Doesn't view EU with any enthusiasm, and certainly does not want any further integration or to touch Euro with two barge-polls tied together. Often assume Euro will fail and probably EU as well. Around 40%, and these could have split roughly into Teresa's who just voted Remain (that's me) and Boris's who just voted out (who'd admit to being a Boris). These are the ones mainly driven by which they think is best economically.
The press tend not to distinguish between the phobes and the skeptics.
We also need an adjective for "Citizen of EU". I rather dislike the Ewers (possible?) trying to hijack Europe(TM). Mind you we're no better not having Yuker for UK citizen. Did NI citizens object to the Olympic Team being Team GB? At least with Rugby the term is fair since NI is in with Ireland and British Lions are British.
Mind you , here we're always arguing about Christian(TM).
-------------------- Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
To be fair, I don't think there are many people who share a federalist vision for Europe within the rest of the EU either. The "federalist EU" was a boggie man produced by the Brexit campaign to scare people with a vision of a loss of UK sovereignty. It's an aspiration for many European politicians, but not widely shared by their electorates. It may happen, but I doubt I would live to see it.
-------------------- 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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Tubbs: quote: Actually I can see the logic of this.
Well, maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see any logic here. I'd concede that nobody wants to punish Britain within the EU for what is about to take place, because it serves nobody's interest to do so. I'd agree also that Britain will in all likelihood fulfil its obligations to the EU until it leaves; but May went to the EU earlier this week with the message that Britain is leaving. There is no partnership in that, that I can see. There was a partnership there on the table, but Britain has chosen to walk away. That isn't to say that some new kind of partnership might not be brokered in the next decade, but in reality it isn't going to be approaching anything that they already had before and decided to throw away. I can't see the loyalty and faithfulness aspect that she spoke of either. Britain's membership of the EU in the last two decades has been tempestuous at best. They've always been dragging their feet, grumbling and knocking about accusation and lies about what the big, bad EU made us do. It has always sought a special, honoured position as if it were still some great empire, that in reality has long gone. The world changed, but Britain didn't and this whole farce is Britain's, 'Let's make Britain great again' routine. Sadly, the people didn't see through it for what it was. So what we have now is May trotting along to the EU and telling them once again, we want this, this and this after we have left and the answer invariably will be 'no', but I guess it will give Britain cause once again to turn around and say, 'Look what the big, bad EU did to us.' There is no logic in that; no logic at all. [ 23. October 2016, 10:04: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
-------------------- 'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe' Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
AlanCresswell: quote: To be fair, I don't think there are many people who share a federalist vision for Europe within the rest of the EU either
Well I think that amongst the key decision makers in the EU there's quite a few, but I don't see that strict federalism is the main issue. The question is more: Can the Eurozone continue to work without a common fiscal structure, along with transnational transfers such as we see in USA between states. Many, who are by no means Brexiteers do not believe that it can. So the future would be a much more integrated Eurozone, with an outer ring of countries, of which the only two with a permanent opt-out from the Euro are UK and Denmark. I agree that nobody is going to hassle Sweden et al to get on board until the structures are in place to underpin the Euro, and I imagine that even the most ardently pro Euro person would admit that a lot has to be done, and that the Eurozone does indeed need closer integration. quote: The "federalist EU" was a boggie man produced by the Brexit campaign to scare people with a vision of a loss of UK sovereignty.
I think the bogey man was and remains transnational governance in key areas like fiscal policy. It is true that the UK can stand outside this forever, but to some that is not preferable to a divorce, as the Eurozone morphs into Real(TM) EU with a couple of hangers on. And all the animus against the City (which is understandable) would return. Indeed, I think a better case for Remain would be to accept the Euro still as a future goal, on condition that once the supra-national structures are in place to make it a success that we would join, and accept those structures. That would put UK at the heart of Europe and we could enthusiastically engage in developing those structures, and commit to joining the Eurozone once they were in place.
I would imagine you would be ok with this, so long, of course, that these structures really are fit for purpose. and frankly I think it is a more attractive offer than the current "do what you're told or you'll be mugged by big bad brussels bullies" approach.
But then I'm a bit all-in or all-out.
-------------------- Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by anteater: AlanCresswell: quote: To be fair, I don't think there are many people who share a federalist vision for Europe within the rest of the EU either
Well I think that amongst the key decision makers in the EU there's quite a few, but I don't see that strict federalism is the main issue. The question is more: Can the Eurozone continue to work without a common fiscal structure, along with transnational transfers such as we see in USA between states. Many, who are by no means Brexiteers do not believe that it can. So the future would be a much more integrated Eurozone, with an outer ring of countries, of which the only two with a permanent opt-out from the Euro are UK and Denmark. I agree that nobody is going to hassle Sweden et al to get on board until the structures are in place to underpin the Euro, and I imagine that even the most ardently pro Euro person would admit that a lot has to be done, and that the Eurozone does indeed need closer integration. quote: The "federalist EU" was a boggie man produced by the Brexit campaign to scare people with a vision of a loss of UK sovereignty.
I think the bogey man was and remains transnational governance in key areas like fiscal policy. It is true that the UK can stand outside this forever, but to some that is not preferable to a divorce, as the Eurozone morphs into Real(TM) EU with a couple of hangers on. And all the animus against the City (which is understandable) would return. Indeed, I think a better case for Remain would be to accept the Euro still as a future goal, on condition that once the supra-national structures are in place to make it a success that we would join, and accept those structures. That would put UK at the heart of Europe and we could enthusiastically engage in developing those structures, and commit to joining the Eurozone once they were in place.
I would imagine you would be ok with this, so long, of course, that these structures really are fit for purpose. and frankly I think it is a more attractive offer than the current "do what you're told or you'll be mugged by big bad brussels bullies" approach.
But then I'm a bit all-in or all-out.
Within the Commission, there are some ardent federalists. Their solution to any problem is more Europe and more integration. If you look at the original treaties, this is implied as an aim. But the original treaties were signed after WW2 and the world is a very different place. Now, people seem to want less Europe and more national control.
Pretty much everyone, including the guy who designed it, believes the Euro won’t work properly unless fiscal policy is centralised and the kind of transnational transfers you’ve mentioned happen. But as none of the member countries will agree to that, it’s not going to happen. It has self-destruction built in.
For all the chat about opt outs and rebates, the only main net contributor who doesn’t get a rebate is France. Italy and Germany have one too. And, the UK has less infringement cases against it than most of the “good “Europeans - France, Italy, Spain, Austria, Belgium and Germany
I think both sides have got used to blaming the other for stuff they’d want to do but haven’t got round to yet and built a myth around it.
Tubbs [ 24. October 2016, 13:39: Message edited by: 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
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
So in one of the first significant decisions post Brexit, Nissan have decided to continue investment in their plant in Sunderland in the north east of England.
Neither Nissan nor the government appear to be willing or able to explain explicitly what undertakings have been made on the government's side, which inevitably leads to various reports circulating based on "a letter seen by the paper" etc....
-------------------- I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
It's fairly typical of Tories to do deals in backrooms.
But, I can't imagine how the deal could be anything other than a promise of tax payer money in the event of Brexit negotiations not securing a deal that allows Nissan to manufacture in the UK without paying tariffs on components imported from elsewhere in the EU and cars exported to the EU. So, it's basically another measure to protect the economy following the June result.
Now, I've no objection to tax payer money being used to support industry and keep people in work (the amount the government may end up paying will almost certainly be less than paying dole for out of work car workers). But, I doubt there will be similar payments to small local businesses hit by the extra costs resulting from Brexit. And, it will be another nail in the coffin of the Chancellors plans to cut borrowing.
-------------------- 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
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote: But a senior Nissan Europe executive, Colin Lawther, said the company had received "no special deal". "It's just a commitment from the government to work with the whole of the automotive industry to make sure the whole automotive industry in the UK remains competitive," he told the BBC. "We would expect nothing for us that the rest of the industry wouldn't be able to have access to. We see this as a whole industry thing, not a Nissan thing."
So if they have got some sort of tangible export guarantee then Vauxhall, Jaguar Land Rover etc are apparently going to be able to have it as well.
But there are plenty of other industries....
-------------------- I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
I might feel inclined to forgive Tony Blair for his past record if he could follow through on this.
It occurred to be the other day that if the exit from the EU goes through then the Tory party will heal it's rifts and be an extremely power force in British politics. Their Euro-philes are not going to start a campaign to get us back in. The issue with will be finished and the split will be history. We can then expect a Conservative government for ever.
On the other hand, if we really can get this referendum result dismissed somehow, it will split that party and leave us with a more representative European conservative party, and all the fringe elements will end up in some re-imagined UKIP. We'd then have a better level of public debate.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
There's a campaign for pro-EU parties to unite behind a single candidate for the Richmond Park by-election, since Zac Goldsmith was a Leave campaigner in a constituency that voted heavily in favour of Remain. Though, the by-election will be on a single issue (Heathrow expansion) - but if the pro-EU candidate opposes Heathrow expansion that would be negated. The Tories aren't going to stand, the LibDems are closing the gap but if Labour and Greens also stand the pro-EU vote may be split too much to displace Goldsmith.
-------------------- 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
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Blair's support could fatally damage any pro-EU position.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: To be fair, I don't think there are many people who share a federalist vision for Europe within the rest of the EU either. The "federalist EU" was a boggie man produced by the Brexit campaign to scare people with a vision of a loss of UK sovereignty. It's an aspiration for many European politicians, but not widely shared by their electorates. It may happen, but I doubt I would live to see it.
I agree entirely that federalism is more an aspiration of the Euro-elite than a desire of many European people, but don't buy your argument. It has slippery slope written all over it.
If you (not you personally, of course ) oppose a federal Europe, why on earth would you feel comfortable supporting people who want a federal Europe on the grounds that "it won't happen yet"? That's how opinion shifts - in consistent small steps. It's like turkeys comforting themselves that they're just supporting Hallowe'en, which is an enjoyable festival that all sensible turkeys can come together and enjoy.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yes, it's a slippery slope. But, one that will take a long time for the EU to reach the bottom. My objection to it being raised as a Brexiteers bogey man is precisely because it is a long way in the distance. By voting to Leave now on the basis of avoiding a future Federal EU including the UK Brexiteers were making a decision that will affect people not even born yet. What right do I have to make a decision for the people of the UK in 50 years when it is not a decision I will ever have to face. Let those who will face the decisions relating to increased political union in the EU actually make that decision.
-------------------- 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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Alan Cresswell: By voting to Leave now on the basis of avoiding a future Federal EU including the UK Brexiteers were making a decision that will affect people not even born yet. What right do I have to make a decision for the people of the UK in 50 years when it is not a decision I will ever have to face. Let those who will face the decisions relating to increased political union in the EU actually make that decision.
Voting to remain is also a decision that will affect the currently unborn. All our decisions do. The decision to join the EEC in 1973 laid the groundwork for the current Brexit argument.
Despite the revisionist history put about by the Euroskeptics, the 1975 referendum was never "just about a trade treaty" - the language and goals of closer integration were always there. Nevertheless, for a long time the EEC was more or less a glorified trade treaty, and the prospect of free movement between the UK and France didn't bother anyone.
But still, the slope was there. People almost 50 years ago, many of whom are now dead, chose to put the UK on this slope. By a slim majority, people today chose to step onto a different slope. (And if yo think changing slopes at this point is going to be painful, how much more painful would it be for our children to jump ship in a generation if they didn't like the integration? Every choice we make constrains their choices - not just the choices that you don't like.)
It is in nobody's power to step off all the slopes. Slopes are in the nature of the world - it doesn't have flat spots. [ 28. October 2016, 15:39: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Why, in the indefinite and distant future, would a federal Europe be such a terrible thing? If the alternative is the collection of warring willy-wavers of 1900-80, it could well be the least-worse option.
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Enoch: Why, in the indefinite and distant future, would a federal Europe be such a terrible thing? If the alternative is the collection of warring willy-wavers of 1900-80, it could well be the least-worse option.
It is possible. I make no judgement here on the desirability of a future federal Europe. I am judging the argument that says that we can let a future generation worry about whether they want that, and that the choices we make now won't have an effect on that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Enoch: quote: Why, in the indefinite and distant future, would a federal Europe be such a terrible thing?
Brexiteers don't have to believe it is terrible. One can respect ideas without personally sharing them.
And if the timescale had been much much longer, I would have given it a better chance of success.
But I disagree with your characterisation of the 20th century, as if we are all peaceful people now we're in the EU, as opposed to nasty people who caused all the trouble in the 20th century.
Civilisation develops, sometimes in very painful ways. We need to learn lessons from the past, and if you think that one of the lessons is that large federal states are less aggressive than smaller states, then I simply don't see that at all.
Isn't the argument that the EU brought peace to Europe a version of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
-------------------- Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Humble Servant: I might feel inclined to forgive Tony Blair for his past record if he could follow through on this.
It occurred to be the other day that if the exit from the EU goes through then the Tory party will heal it's rifts and be an extremely power force in British politics. Their Euro-philes are not going to start a campaign to get us back in. The issue with will be finished and the split will be history. We can then expect a Conservative government for ever.
On the other hand, if we really can get this referendum result dismissed somehow, it will split that party and leave us with a more representative European conservative party, and all the fringe elements will end up in some re-imagined UKIP. We'd then have a better level of public debate.
A re-imagined UKIP would lead to a better level of public debate?????
What you would get would be a slanging match about the overturned referendum, forever.
And this "re-imagined" (and re-invigorated) UKIP would then be either the main opposition party, or the party of government. It would probably be more malign than the original UKIP - more BNP-ish.
No no no no no. Accept that Brexit is going to happen and try to get a proper centrist party going. There should be a lot of space in the centre at the moment. It needs some grassroots support though, some "momentum" if you will.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Turquoise Tastic: Accept that Brexit is going to happen and try to get a proper centrist party going
This is one I'd drink to. Tony Blair's ideas don't surprise me coming from a man like him. He's one of those elitist politicians who believes that he knows better than the voters what they need. Of course, he says, he's not trying to undermine the result of the referendum, but can't the question be asked again when they've had more time to think? Sounds like a typical Irish EU referendum. When you get the wrong answer, by a combination of carrot and stick, you keep asking until the dimbos get it right! No thanks. That is not democracy.
But we do need a centre party. Corbyn's socialism has many zealous followers, but will never win a majority with the British electorate. A one party Tory state is horrendous. Perhaps the Lib Dems are about to expand and fill the vacuum in the centre ground. I don't much like them on their past record, but times, people and problems to be solved change, and something new is essential here.
-------------------- Yours in Christ Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
We've had centrist parties and only Blairite Labour ever bore fruit. The old Liberal party, under Jo Grimond and Jeremy Thorpe was eccentric but generally centrist, the Social Democrats was a centrist offshoot of a Labour Party that was going nowhere and when that merged with the Liberals, Labour could see a whole chunk of its support disappearing. So could the Tories for that matter, so they were delighted that a centrist Labour party could maintain the two-party status quo, which is caused by the FPTP voting system.
Britain won't get adequate centrist representation without electoral reform.
-------------------- "He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by PaulTH: quote:
Sounds like a typical Irish EU referendum. When you get the wrong answer, by a combination of carrot and stick, you keep asking until the dimbos get it right! No thanks. That is not democracy.
Just to clarify. The EU treaty referendum that went through twice in Ireland was due to the government of the time attempting in the initial referendum to tack a side issue onto it that turned out to be a matter of great national significance involving citizens right to privacy and in consequence drew in concerns about 'big government'. It was passed the second time when when the tacked on issue was rejected and dropped. So the 'dimbos' as you put it, were fully exercising their democratic right. I don't know what concepts you have of democracy, but that particular referendum was to my mind a fine example of democracy in action where a government that attempted to treat its citizens like 'dimbos' was given a bloody nose. It was an added bonus that the 'session through recession' government of the time was given the bloody nose to a full European audience. The only 'dimbos' on show were the British reporting rags who decided their readership was too dumb to understand the nuances of democracy in action and who didn't want truth to be getting in the way of great British political spin.
-------------------- 'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe' Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by fletcher christian: The EU treaty referendum that went through twice in Ireland was due to the government of the time attempting in the initial referendum to tack a side issue onto it that turned out to be a matter of great national significance involving citizens right to privacy and in consequence drew in concerns about 'big government'.
tangent/
That's interesting. I've heard from a Colombian (but not checked) that the referendum proposal approving the FARC peace deal was rejected by the voters for similar reasons (I was wondering why it had been).
/tangent
-------------------- Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
PaukTh: quote: When you get the wrong answer, by a combination of carrot and stick, you keep asking until the dimbos get it right! No thanks. That is not democracy
. Well I don't expect one, but I've never been convinced by the anti-democratic argument, which to me would only hold if the result was not carried into effect on the (correct) ground that it is not legally binding.
A lot depends on your view of what is needed to secure legitimacy. So suppose - and I suspect this is true - that a majority of those eligible to vote, and somewhat larger majority of those eligible to pay tax, prefer to remain. It would still be close, but I would take a bet on a majority to remain.
So why would it be undemocratic to ask for a re-confirmation?
Yes, your giving a second chance to the dumbos who got it wrong, but I am only including in this category those who failed, as opposed to consciously chose, not to vote.
However, even better and more likely, would be an election, and because of this I can understand why the EU leaders want to make Article 50 retractable.
I am quite content to work with brexit but can't see why anyone thinks the efforts to reverse it are either unpatriotic or to be deplored.
-------------------- Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by anteater:
So why would it be undemocratic to ask for a re-confirmation?
Yes, your giving a second chance to the dumbos who got it wrong, but I am only including in this category those who failed, as opposed to consciously chose, not to vote.
I am quite content to work with brexit but can't see why anyone thinks the efforts to reverse it are either unpatriotic or to be deplored.
So the thing that PaulTH is complaining about is the idea that one can keep re-running a referendum until one gets an answer that one likes.
(fletcher christian has made the case that this isn't what happened in Ireland. But let's deal with the idea.)
Polls have a certain amount of uncertainty in them. The purpose of a referendum is to ask the question "what do the electorate think about issue X?" - but on any given day, people's votes are changed based on the weather, whether they got laid last night, whether they had a good week at work this week, and all kinds of irrelevant short-term noise. So if you were to imagine re-running a referendum every week (and assumed that people magically didn't get annoyed with referenda) you'd get a set of answers distributed around the "true" opinion of the electorate.
But when you re-run polls to try to get the "right" answer, you introduce bias. You stop as soon as you get a "yes" vote - you don't find anyone re-running a poll that went their way just in case that was a fluke.
Consider rolling a die. On average, you expect to roll a 3.5. But now roll two dice and pick the highest (that's what you do with a repeated poll), and the average score you expect from your best die is 4.47. The more dice you roll, the higher you expect your best score to be.
The assumption in this discussion is that the true opinion of the electorate hasn't changed. The more reason you have to believe that there has been a significant change in public opinion, the more reasonable it becomes to re-run a referendum. You still have this same bias introduced by taking the best score of repeated samples, but perhaps public opinion has shifted by a greater amount.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
LearningCnight: Nobody is suggesting having repeated referenda until you get the result you want. But it is not unreasonable to want to be sure that on major constitutional issues, you have got a result that really represents the majority of the U.K. public.
One frequently used method is to require more than a simple majority. Say 60/40 for major constitutional change, like brexit or Scottish independence.
If you don't like that then how about the need for a reconfirmation, say in three month's.
That doesn't mean you'll get the result that is best all round, but it makes it more likely that you'll get a result that truly reflects the will of the citizenry - which I can't see as anti-democratic.
The only argument against is that the vote of those who couldn't be bothered to get their arse to the polling station is worth less, which though elitist does have some validity.
Won't happen, though, as we all know really.
-------------------- Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by anteater: One frequently used method is to require more than a simple majority. Say 60/40 for major constitutional change, like brexit or Scottish independence.
If you don't like that then how about the need for a reconfirmation, say in three month's.
It's not unreasonable for referenda to be biased towards the status quo, and as you say, requiring a supermajority guarantees that a majority of the people are actually in favour of the change (the noise on the polling result is less than the 10 point excess required with a 60/40 split).
It is, explicitly, a bias - you're saying that if the will of the country is close to evenly split, it is right to make no change.
(Consider the 1975 referendum on the EEC. In principle, this is the first time the people have an option to express an opinion, so the "status quo" option should be to not join. However, the UK did join the EEC in 1973. So is remaining in the EEC the status quo? It's not obvious that everyone will agree on what the status quo option is - or even that there is a status quo option at all.)
Requiring a change to be confirmed in a second poll does a similar thing - and has the same bias.
I don't know of any examples of two results being required for a change in referenda, although it happens in other contexts (presumably the expense of a referendum tends to disfavour this idea).
If you want to avoid the status quo bias (and the problem of deciding what the status quo is), you could re-run any referendum that was closer than 60/40, and go with the "best of three". But probably you'd find that referendum fatigue would set in and be a bigger bias than the noise you were trying to avoid.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
The best time to vote "out" was 1975, which I did, to the horror of my Tory and Liberal friends at the time.
This time "out" was irreversible. But "in" would have meant that there could be fresh referendums if and when membership of the EU became less popular.
Now, once Article 50 goes in, and the negotiations amount to the single word "goodbye" from the EU, there is no way back. Well, accepting the Euro and Schengen, and getting that past a popular vote, I think not.
There is a lot to said for requiring more than a simple majority of those voting to precipitate an irreversible change, but I wonder if that is in itself a majority opinion.
-------------------- Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
So many stories and rumours about the Nissan deal have been going on, but it looks as if the govt are now saying that Nissan were told they would be given 'tariff free access' to EU markets.
It's not clear whether this refers to some version of the single market or customs union.
It seems ironic that Nissan seem to have been told more than MPs, a point made by Keir Starmer (Labour).
Further questions are bound to come up - will other companies be offered similar deals? If not, why not?
It looks as if hard Brexit is softening, but still behind a shroud of secrecy. We don't talk about these things in front of the children, that is, the voters!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37815864
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A friend just said to me that Mrs May is worried about the hard Brexiteers, therefore has to conceal any softening, as the Nissan deal might represent. I don't think this will work, as the hard mob will smell a rat.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: So many stories and rumours about the Nissan deal have been going on, but it looks as if the govt are now saying that Nissan were told they would be given 'tariff free access' to EU markets. [...]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37815864
I don't see that this is a "softening" at all - haven't all Brexiteers, of whatever consistency, claimed that tariff-free access would be easy to achieve?
The article just says the UK "wants" and "would seek" tariff-free access for the motor industry - but this is nothing new. It's hardly within the UK's power to "give" access unilaterally; Nissan's executives must realize this, and it seems unlikely that they'd make major investment decisions on the basis of such flimsy assurances.
I wonder if they've been promised any special concessions by the UK government (tax rebates?) in the event that the UK fails to negotiate such favorable terms. [ 30. October 2016, 14:45: Message edited by: Dave W. ]
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
So a hard Brexit includes tariff-free access? I guess that depends on the EU as well, since they may not be keen to give the UK a good deal, and make it too attractive.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
The 1:0 p.m. BBC Radio 4 News today came from Belfast and the discussion was about the border between NI and the republic of Ireland. It is so infuriating to wonder - did all the outers in much of England give any real thought to the people in NI, also Scotland where the majority was for remaining in. I'm a reasonable, calm sort of person but at times I'd really like to go and shake a few of the exiters, i.e. the ones whose only consideration appeared to have been too many immigrants.
Ah, well .... *a few more deep sighs to add to those already sighed*!
-------------------- I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think most English people think about N. Ireland from one year to another, except with annoyance, maybe. The idea that people would actually think about relations with the Republic, and the border between EU and non-EU, seems far-fetched. Keep out the fuzzy-wuzzies is the mantra!
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dave W.: I don't see that this is a "softening" at all - haven't all Brexiteers, of whatever consistency, claimed that tariff-free access would be easy to achieve?
I'm not sure that any Brexiteers have been of any consistency.
As I understand it, soft Brexit would mean making free trade with the EU a priority even if that meant accepting freedom of movement for EU nationals, and hard Brexit would mean making keeping immigration controls on people from the EU a priority even if that means losing free trade with the EU. It is true that a number of Brexiteers believe that these terms assume that the unpatriotic, moany, and anti-democratic sentiment that we can't have our cake and eat it, and therefore reject them. And of course any term in politics gets used by politicians and journalists to mean what it suits them to mean by it at the moment of use. But I believe the above is the original intention.
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: So a hard Brexit includes tariff-free access? I guess that depends on the EU as well, since they may not be keen to give the UK a good deal, and make it too attractive.
EU leaders consistently have said that the UK cannot have tariff free access without also having free movement. So either the PM has lied to them or somehow has offered an inducement payable should tariff free Brexit be unattainable.
Personally I'm not sure I'd believe anything the Tory government says about the post-Brexit future, they seem to be entirely making it up.
-------------------- arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's like the Delphic Oracle, everything is shrouded in mystery and ambiguity. Or the Rorschach ink-blot, where you see whatever you want.
I keep coming back to Starmer's point that the Nissan management seem to know more about their 'deal' than MPs do. WTF. [ 30. October 2016, 15:41: 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
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
I get the impression that May is running around telling everyone what they want to hear about Brexit, hoping that something will turn up. She might want to end the farce by calling a general election, which would presumably return a solidly Tory/Brexit House. However, I suspect that pro-European MPs on both sides of the House will do their best to make sure that this parliament lasts the full 5 years, (blocking any attempt to tinker with the fixed term act), and push for the softest Brexit possible.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I don't think most English people think about N. Ireland from one year to another, except with annoyance, maybe.
The select committee hearing where the two former taoisigh turn up to tell the MPs - very charmingly - that they are frankly mad if they don't realize they are opening a massive can of worms is interesting to watch.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: quote: Originally posted by Dave W.: I don't see that this is a "softening" at all - haven't all Brexiteers, of whatever consistency, claimed that tariff-free access would be easy to achieve?
I'm not sure that any Brexiteers have been of any consistency.
Both soft and hard, I meant. (Bad choice of words on my part; consistency really means something more like viscosity than hardness. Would have worked better if we were talking about "thick" vs. "runny" Brexiteers.)
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dave W.: Would have worked better if we were talking about "thick" vs. "runny" Brexiteers.
Assuming, of course, there are any Brexiteers who are not as thick as two short planks.
-------------------- 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
|
|
|