|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
2) This is not what Farmers were promised. The Leave Campaign specifically promised to match EU subsidies (which is just one of the ways that you know the £350m claim is ridiculous given that the Common Agricultural Policy accounts for around half of EU funding and a huge chunk of the money that comes back to the UK from Europe). Then again, no-one else is going to get what they were promised so why should Farmers (and Landowners) be any different…
OTOH on a political level it may not be a terrible strategy if you adopt their presuppositions.
The Tory calculus appears to be that the only strategy open to them is to push a culture war and buy off the business end of their base with low taxes - seen in recent announcements from the PM.
In that world there will have to be (painful) cuts - and shoring up the votes of former Lib Dems by pushing the green angle may be seen to be worth the relatively small cost of pissing off farmers.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
2) This is not what Farmers were promised. The Leave Campaign specifically promised to match EU subsidies (which is just one of the ways that you know the £350m claim is ridiculous given that the Common Agricultural Policy accounts for around half of EU funding and a huge chunk of the money that comes back to the UK from Europe). Then again, no-one else is going to get what they were promised so why should Farmers (and Landowners) be any different…
OTOH on a political level it may not be a terrible strategy if you adopt their presuppositions.
The Tory calculus appears to be that the only strategy open to them is to push a culture war and buy off the business end of their base with low taxes - seen in recent announcements from the PM.
In that world there will have to be (painful) cuts - and shoring up the votes of former Lib Dems by pushing the green angle may be seen to be worth the relatively small cost of pissing off farmers.
My prediction is this; when the wealthy landowners (including many who are in no way actually farmers - such as Paul Dacre, Daily Mail editor) realise how much they will lose, they will complain and the government will quietly change the plans...
AFZ
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
As someone who occasionally bills work to the UK is registered for VAT, I've been wondering how long it will be until the implications of Brexit for business VAT transactions - a pretty important tfact of business life, one which takes a big part of our accounting time - will dawn on the UK government.
The answer appears to be about now. quote:
In a briefing sent to MPs, the British Retail Consortium, which represents 70% of the UK retail industry, said: “If the bill becomes law without any commitment to inclusion within the EU VAT area, UK businesses will become liable to pay upfront import VAT on goods being imported from the EU-27 for the first time.”
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
The article sounds a bit odd. Presumably, as a matter of UK law, importers have to pay VAT on imported goods from outside the EU (and then recoup the VAT via on-sale) as per the UK's VAT legislation. So, whether or not importers will have to pay VAT up-front on goods from the EU is simply a matter for that legislation, which could be amended so that this is no longer required. Which means:
quote:
Labour and Tory MPs and peers said that the only way to avoid the VAT Brexit penalty would be to stay in the customs union or negotiate to remain in the EU-VAT area.
is at best misleading reporting or at worst, bollocks.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
AIUI, an establishment based in the EU exporting something outside the EU (eg Switzerland) does not charge VAT on the bill at all. (At least, that's the way it is for services).
When exporting (again, at least as far as services are concerned) to another EU country (eg the UK at present), VAT is not charged either if the recipient is registered for VAT (although it has to be declared in a piece of accounting of which the net effect is zero).
If the UK maintains some sort of VAT system post-Brexit (and nobody has suggested it's disappearing...) then I suspect for goods at least, they'll want to charge VAT on imports at the time of purchase. That's the only practical way of keeping track.
Even if companies can offset the VAT they pay against the VAT they get in from their customers (paying VAT to the company when they pay their invoices) when the company pays its VAT bill to the tax man(1), post-Brexit it sounds like they will have to pay the VAT for imported goods up-front instead of simply declaring a notional amount. Not only is this more complicated from an accounting point of view, it is going to make a huge dent in their cash flow.
The only ways I can see to avoid this are 1) for the UK not to charge VAT on imports, which would put domestic sellers at at a huge competitive disadvantage compared to imports, unless VAT was abolished altogether 2) keep UK VAT within the EU system(2) (or possibly 3) tweak the rules so VAT on imports is paid at a later date, which is probably what is going to happen, but this would I think be an accounting nightmare).
How am I not surprised the UK government hasn't had a plan to address this to date?
This is complicated(3), which is probably why it hasn't made more news as it's hard to explain, but it is indubitably not trivial.
==
(1) the thing to understand about VAT is that the state basically outsources its collection to companies registered for VAT; for a given month, you send the tax man the difference between all the VAT you've got in by invoicing it and the VAT you paid on your own purchases.
(2) Note that from within the EU-27 system, meanwhile, other things being equal the UK not being in its VAT system will not have any such effect. All I'll need to do is change one piece of boilerplate on my bills and stop having to bother declaring VAT on invoices to the UK in the VIES system. This is a wholly UK headache.
(3) I've probably got some of the above wrong despite being registered for VAT and invoicing both other EU countries and third countries. Open to corrections.
[ 08. January 2018, 05:44: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Goldman Sachs says what I've been saying for some time: Brexit is now (or fast becoming) irreversible.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Goldman Sachs says what I've been saying for some time: Brexit is now (or fast becoming) irreversible.
That's not exactly saying that. It's saying that some companies plans for coping with Brexit are becoming irreversible.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Yes. But it points up the fact that the rest of the world, be it public or private sector, is not simply sitting on its hands waiting for whatever the UK government finally decides before taking any action, which is the impression you get from some UK coverage of Brexit.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Certainly some UK coverage would suggest that it's all up to the UK government.
But, there is a lot of reporting of businesses and public sector organisations relocating, in part or entirety, to other parts of the EU. Everyone knows there are costs involved in relocation. European institutions have no choice but to move, businesses are doing it because they've determined that the costs of relocation are less than the costs of being entirely outside the EU. As relocation progresses then the costs of reversing that becomes larger, and those relocations become irreversible.
The same applies to individuals, with increasing numbers of people leaving the UK, taking their skills, spending power and tax raising income. All of which retards the economy, and the ability of the UK government to fund services.
It would still be far better for the people of the UK to tell the government to stop this idiocy, and stay in the EU. But, that will be as a poorer member of the EU than before the 2016 vote. Just not as bas as being outside the EU.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes. But it points up the fact that the rest of the world, be it public or private sector, is not simply sitting on its hands waiting for whatever the UK government finally decides before taking any action, which is the impression you get from some UK coverage of Brexit.
Yes, that's certainly true as Alan points out above. Though there is also news coverage of this kind of thing happening - it's just that the news media is polarised, and so the more Brexit end of the market (Express, Mail, Telegraph) only ever print stories like that in order to rubbish them. Which in itself is a problem.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes. But it points up the fact that the rest of the world, be it public or private sector, is not simply sitting on its hands waiting for whatever the UK government finally decides before taking any action, which is the impression you get from some UK coverage of Brexit.
Yes, that's certainly true as Alan points out above. Though there is also news coverage of this kind of thing happening - it's just that the news media is polarised, and so the more Brexit end of the market (Express, Mail, Telegraph) only ever print stories like that in order to rubbish them. Which in itself is a problem.
I can't help thinking that all this "rubbish" will come home to roost and so many of those who fell for the lies of the Leave campaign find themselves materially poorer and that the government doesn't have the "border control" that was the main selling point of Brexit.
Once we are out of the EU, who or what is going to get the blame for Britain's problems? I don't see us ever owning up to the fact that they are of our own making.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Once we are out of the EU, who or what is going to get the blame for Britain's problems? I don't see us ever owning up to the fact that they are of our own making.
They will blame everyone but themselves and demand an even more extreme set of policies to fix the problems both imagined and real.
The specific form of the referendum has created a decision that can always serve as an excuse, with no one being held to account for delivery.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Once we are out of the EU, who or what is going to get the blame for Britain's problems? I don't see us ever owning up to the fact that they are of our own making.
Oh, I'm sure the Wail will find someone. For a start the EU for negotiating for the best Brexit for the EU rather than Britain. Then, all those other obstructive foreign governments who won't just roll over an give the UK a trade deal that's good for the UK and insist on spending several years on negotiation. And, once we get serious about Independence then they can blame the Scots for looking out for our own best interests rather than be a dutiful lapdog for our English masters.
--------------------
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
Many stories now about Tory discontent with May, that she is being too soft about Brexit, and about the EU, and her leadership is going to be challenged.
I don't know how many factions there are, but obviously a soft Brexit group (e.g. Hammond), who seem to want a kind of virtual single market, sticking closely to EU regulations.
At the other end, a hard Brexit faction (e.g. Rees-Mogg), who seem to vary between just walking out, and/or not submitting to EU requirements in the transition period.
It is quite farcical, and as before, there is a distinct lack of information. Does anybody have a clue as to what follows the transition period, or as May puts it, the implementation phase? What are we implementing?
--------------------
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:
Many stories now about Tory discontent with May, that she is being too soft about Brexit, and about the EU, and her leadership is going to be challenged.
I don't know how many factions there are, but obviously a soft Brexit group (e.g. Hammond), who seem to want a kind of virtual single market, sticking closely to EU regulations.
At the other end, a hard Brexit faction (e.g. Rees-Mogg), who seem to vary between just walking out, and/or not submitting to EU requirements in the transition period.
It is quite farcical, and as before, there is a distinct lack of information. Does anybody have a clue as to what follows the transition period, or as May puts it, the implementation phase? What are we implementing?
For what it's worth, Philip Hammond was in the Remain camp, as was Theresa May. If Rees-Mogg and his pals had any guts they would have stood up for the top job, but no, they want to remain in the peanut gallery.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I admit a part of me is quite entertained by the brewing civil war in the Tory Party. Especially as the whole point of calling a referendum was to prevent that.
Though it would be much better if the Tory Party didn't drag the rest of the country down with their internal squabbling.
--------------------
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
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
An embarrassing link.
Note the totally predictable reaction of the Tory pro-Brexiteers.
Reality only bites if you're not wearing thick, self-delusion, armour. But the bite of reality does look as though it will fracture the Tory Party.
If Jeremy Corbyn backs a second, better worded, referendum, I think he'll get into government. A fractured Tory Party may not be able to win a vote of no confidence.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
An embarrassing link.
Note the totally predictable reaction of the Tory pro-Brexiteers.
Reality only bites if you're not wearing thick, self-delusion, armour. But the bite of reality does look as though it will fracture the Tory Party.
I do not think that they allow things like ideological consistency to freight them. http://archive.is/gEDda
quote:
If Jeremy Corbyn backs a second, better worded, referendum, I think he'll get into government.
I question this reasoning for a number of reasons. It's backed by the same pundits who believed that Labour were going to lose by 20% in the last election. Additionally, there was already a party who ran on this ticket (the Lib Dems) and it did them no good.
I'm also not sure that a second referendum would yield the result some people seem to hope for - unless it was a absolutely resounding win (by much more than 10%) it would leave an open sore and yet more acrimony that would take a generation or more to heal. I think in the context of the UK, referendums have proved to be a particularly bad way of solving issues of this sort and am wary of the precedence established by repeating referendums
[In an alternate reading of the history of the last few years, Nick Clegg is a major villain - he bet his party's future on an AV referendum (thus bringing the idea back into the public consciousness), and by establishing the coalition that was the price of the vote supported the austerity policies that led to the pro-Brexit majority).
[ 30. January 2018, 10:16: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
chris
Turkeys may vote for Christmas in the Autumn, but not on December 24.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
chris
Turkeys may vote for Christmas in the Autumn, but not on December 24.
And come December 26th they won't be able to vote
--------------------
"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 chris stiles:
I think in the context of the UK, referendums have proved to be a particularly bad way of solving issues of this sort and am wary of the precedence established by repeating referendums
I agree entirely that a referendum by itself is a bad way of deciding constitutional reform. The way our system works is that we elect representatives who form a Government. That Government proposes policies that it considers the best for the country, which if Parliament agrees become law. There is a good argument IMO that in the case of major constitutional reform (changes to voting method, break up of the UK, major reform of the Lords, joining or leaving the EU) that a referendum would confirm that the will of the people aligns with the policy of Government agreed by Parliament. The two recent UK referenda fail to do follow that pattern - the AV one was sort-of Government policy but only there to keep the LibDems on board within the Government, but Brexit was never Government policy and would not have gained approval of Parliament if it was.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
chris
Turkeys may vote for Christmas in the Autumn, but not on December 24.
They may not. Except that there is very little evidence that people are changing their mind. [The economic impacts were always likely to be seen over the long term and the current global spurt of growth is ameliorating - for now - the immediate economic impact, and a an ideological level most people appear to have stuck with 'their side'.] As I said above - any referendum would have to yield a fairly significant victory for it not to result in a large constituency who felt cheated.
The last referendum had a corrosive effect on the politics of the country, ISTM that electoral law was woefully inadequate in dealing with the media in a situation where there the positions were not drawn across clear party lines, and all sorts of unsavoury organisations emerged into the spotlight as a result.
A second referendum is an easy out for the pro-EU parts of the government who'd rather not make too much noise about it (ie. who would rather put their personal interests above that of country), just as the first referendum was an easy out for the pro-Brexit lot who didn't need to put forward a clear path for leaving the EU (and could thereby use it as the political equivalent of a Rosarch blot test).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
You need a shift of 3 or 4 in 100. Activating the young voters looks entirely possible. They like Corbyn. All that is required is to get him off his internationalist fence. Given that the real choice is the pocket of the US or Europe, I think he'll find the bottle.
Add to that UKIP's zero credibility.
Looks eminently possible.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You need a shift of 3 or 4 in 100.
You need that shift to get a result with the same margin but the opposite sign. If there's one thing more absurd than betting the future of the country on a 52-48 choice in a referendum where nobody understands the question, it's re-running the question, getting a 48-52 answer, and then claiming that that's the real answer.
IMO, you need a conclusive shift the other way to justify replacing a referendum with a new result - something close to 55-45 in favour of remain would be about the minimum that I think you could claim.
(IMO, the easiest way to get some semblance of a mandate to remain in the EU would be a no confidence vote followed by a new election. Have Labour commit to cancel Brexit and remain in the EU as their leading manifesto promise, and see what happens.)
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Better still would be for the current government to collapse. The hard-line Brexiteers would then *have* to form a government, but I bet a guinea to a gooseberry that they couldn't agree amongst themselves on just how hard a hard Brexit they want, and certainly not negotiate with the EU.
Shades of repeated denominational splits, cf the old joke about the island on which Mr Anderson and Mr Patterson have built five churches for the two of them.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
You need a shift of 3 or 4 in 100. Activating the young voters looks entirely possible.
Add to that UKIP's zero credibility.
Looks eminently possible.
My point was approximately what LC said above - you'd need a significant shift.
Ignoring Corbyn for a moment - there is no high profile Tory willing to front a campaign to stay in the EU - none. At that point in the minds of a large number of people it turns into a referendum on the government.
And UKIP may be a busted flush - but largely because their voters returned to the Tory fold as they went full Brexit. And many of the same arguments apply to Farage as to Trump - he still remains reasonably popular in the circles which always found him popular, regardless of how he is seen elsewhere.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Better still would be for the current government to collapse. The hard-line Brexiteers would then *have* to form a government, but I bet a guinea to a gooseberry that they couldn't agree amongst themselves on just how hard a hard Brexit they want, and certainly not negotiate with the EU.
Shades of repeated denominational splits, cf the old joke about the island on which Mr Anderson and Mr Patterson have built five churches for the two of them.
Yep and I think that's what Corbyn's playing for.
Also, whilst he's constantly criticised for everything including being bad at politics... there is a timing thing here: Come out fully against Brexit now (when 2/3 of Labour seats voted for Brexit) and the electoral maths and the slating fo the pro-Brexit-(evil lying bastards)-press would destroy him and possibly the Labour party. OTOH, let the Brexiteers destroy themselves in the Tory party, hold the line that Common Market / Customers union decisions will be based on best interests and then you have the option of knowing quite what the final deal will look like and being able to say to the country: "This is the final deal, it's awful, don't you think we should stay?"
I cannot see any other path to avoid Brexit. Whilst Corbyn might not be able to pull that off, the 'Why doesn't he just come out against Brexit now' argument is really bad tactics. Not least because for a lot of the country who's struggling they don't want to hear about Brexit but about the things that are affecting their lives right now. (Yes, I know that Brexit is really, but that's beside the point...)
The thing that gives me hope is that the fudge* that saved the NI/ROI border in the first stage agreeement means that if they government fuck this up (as they probably will), then the default is that the UK stays in the common market and the customs union. Not as good as staying in the EU but the a hard brexit is now unlikely.
AFZ
*BTW, if you followed this closely you may have noticed that just when May desperately needed a political win, the EU constructed this agreement and gave it to her. Mostly 'coz they were acting in their own (and specifically Ireland's) interests but it happened to help May as well. I nearly choked when she claimed it as a great job by her and Davis but there you go...
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
If the vote were 50.1 to 49.9, I really don't see that would affect a particular referendum result. If a government wanted to ditch referendum 1, a majority of1 is good enough. The divisions will be there any way. I'm talking about getting off a stupid hook here.
BTW I agree with everything said about using referenda to determine policy. Representative democracy may very imperfect, but it's better.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If the vote were 50.1 to 49.9, I really don't see that would affect a particular referendum result. If a government wanted to ditch referendum 1, a majority of1 is good enough.
Either way you'd would be left with a huge political mess to clean up afterwards.
Assume the current government ran the referendum, if 'Leave' won again the government would collapse and there would be a leadership election. If 'Leave' lost on such a tiny margin, then it may well collapse anyway and you'd have the mother of all political stinks being kicked up by the ERG and their friends in the press.
Of course in the scenario that a Labour government ran the referendum you'd get a cohort of self proclaimed centrists trotting out the line that Labour should/shouldn't have listened to what all right thinking people think anyway/the public and what was needed was a more centrist 'statesmanlike' government like that of Cameron. (Broadly speaking I think alienfromzog is correct, though I think Corbyn is either slightly more euro-skeptic and/or running slightly worried at the thought of losing a bunch of seats in the North of England should he go for Remain too early).
I mean given what we know now, the referendum should contained three options - a middle option of staying in EFTA and leaving the EU, which would have split off some of the pub-bore contingent while in the worst case leaving the UK in a better situation than it looks like will transpire now.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
If the vote were 50.1 to 49.9, I really don't see that would affect a particular referendum result. If a government wanted to ditch referendum 1, a majority of1 is good enough. The divisions will be there any way. I'm talking about getting off a stupid hook here.
What if you have an ordinary election, and 1 candidate gets 50.1% of the vote? Or, if in the flawed voting system in the UK, there are 3 candidates, getting 33.1%. 33% and 32,9% - who wins the seat? In either case, it's the one with votes.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Come out fully against Brexit now (when 2/3 of Labour seats voted for Brexit) and the electoral maths and the slating fo the pro-Brexit-(evil lying bastards)-press would destroy him and possibly the Labour party.
Corbyn didn't get where he is today by avoiding slating by the pro-Brexit press. As far as I'm aware, if there were anything more they could do to slate him they would have done it already, Brexit or no Brexit.
While it's true that many Labour seats voted for Brexit it's equally true that most Labour voters in those seats voted against Brexit. I suspect that the majority of Labour voters who voted for Brexit could be persuaded that Corbyn would be more on their side in the EU than May would be outside.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
Mr Corbyn isn't exactly known as an enthusiastic supporter of the EU, though.
My impression is that he supports the EU insofar as it helps achieve the things he finds important (e.g. workers' rights), and is sceptical towards the EU insofar as it impedes them (e.g. state aid rules). Which is IMV a perfectly respectable position to hold - but not one that would encourage you to play some secret Machiavellian long game to keep Britain in the EU.
--------------------
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
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I don't think it Machiavellian, just practical. I agree Cornyn isn't particularly pro-EU, just anti-damaging Britain.
I'm interested in the analysis above about Labour seats.
It's not that I think Cornyn loves the EU, it's more that as things unwind, it will be easier to take the country along with the right timing. The problem is the 2 year time limit of A50, but realistically I don't think that holding an anti-Brexit position at this point would achieve anything.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Being against damaging the UK economy looks like pretty responsible opposition to me. Asking strongly to see the full analysis is well within his rights as leader of the opposition, particularly in view of the leak. This is serious stuff.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Being against damaging the UK economy looks like pretty responsible opposition to me. Asking strongly to see the full analysis is well within his rights as leader of the opposition, particularly in view of the leak. This is serious stuff.
Absolutely.
I may be completely wrong in my analysis but there is a democratic issue - the country has voted and that needs to be taken seriously. However my point is this; consider the two following positions:
1) Anti-Brexit.
Easy to justify on the basis of the evidence but there is a big argument about democratic legitimacy of that as government policy. And whilst polls show some shift most people hold the same pre-referendum positions and a number of people who voted Remain, also believe the referendum result should be respected. (For the record, that's not me, but it's complicated).
I don't see that holding this position will help electorally or be good for governing effectively. Much as I wish otherwise.
2) Anti-damaging Brtain
Ultimately, you and I both know this will, in the end mean the same thing as being anti-Brexit but if you hold the position consistently and communicate it effectively (yes, I know). Then as it become clearer and clearer how bad Brexit is (to the majority who don't engage in politics anything like as much as we do...) then I do think it becomes democratically possible to stop Brexit without a constituional crisis. I suspect that a second referendum framed on this is what leaving will actually look like would be needed after a Labour election win (coalition or majority).
Now you could argue that 2 remains unlikely - and you may be right - but I am convinced that it is the only way to stop Brexit. If Labour took a hardline anti-Brexit position at this point, I don't think it would work. Politics being the art of the possible.
As I said, I may be wrong in my analysis but that's how I read the current situation.
It would also probably come down to the EU being generous with Britain with timescales and things but in the advent of a new government, I don't think that would be a problem. Most of the EU whilst very annoyed with the UK doesn't actually want us to leave.
YMMV
At the risk of repeating myself, all of this mess is created by how badly handled the whole referendum was by Cameron. No super-majority, no turnout requirement and no restrait on his own party campaigning factually. And those things weren't there because the purpose of the referendum was not good governance or helping to resolve a complicated issue that divides the country; the purpose was to keep the Conservative party together. It is, of course, abhorent that a governing party would do such huge damage to the country for internal party reasons but we are where we are. I don't think the Labour party can play it any other way at the moment.
I suspect at PMQs today, Corbyn will demand to see the impact assessments...
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
If Labour took a hardline anti-Brexit position at this point, I don't think it would work. Politics being the art of the possible.
I think you are right. At this point no high profile Tory will take a hardline anti-Brexit and so the issue would disappear into the realms of party politics, with the hardline Brexiters able to spread lies in the interests of 'balance'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Then maybe the line is to hammer away at the economic impact, give that as much publicity as possible? And see if there is a groundswell of public opinion. You don't need that many turkeys to get cold feet if they now fear the coming of a lethal Christmas.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Then maybe the line is to hammer away at the economic impact, give that as much publicity as possible? And see if there is a groundswell of public opinion. You don't need that many turkeys to get cold feet if they now fear the coming of a lethal Christmas.
I do not believe it is possible to win (by the margin necessary) purely by stressing economic arguments, a set of positive and uplifting reasons for staying has to be articulated - this against the background of whiny bigotry from the usual suspects in the press.
The economic impacts are going to be seen over the long term - it's not about Armageddon tomorrow - it's always been about the UK being poorer in comparison to its peers in 5/10 years time. Absent an immediate example of incompetence, that is going to be very difficult to get across - and currently the UKs poor relative growth is being ameliorated by a global period of growth.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I do appreciate that was where the Remain campaign went wrong. Too much stress on negative predictions.
On the other hand, time has moved on. And self-interest appeals may get greater 'purchase' as 'Christmas for turkeys' draws nearer.
I think that could be coupled with an appeal to the young about the positive value of the present open borders to them, both for travelling and career opportunities. For all ages much more can be made about the positive economic value provided by the free movement of labour into caring professions, the tourist trade, short term agricultural work. Often doing work which UK citizens seem reluctant to take on.
But I think it has to be combined with the long term economic interest. And some combatting of the BS propagated by the anti-Europe press. Fake news?
If the die is cast, the Norway option is the least bad.
[ 31. January 2018, 10:14: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Then maybe the line is to hammer away at the economic impact, give that as much publicity as possible? And see if there is a groundswell of public opinion. You don't need that many turkeys to get cold feet if they now fear the coming of a lethal Christmas.
Like Chris, I don't think it's going to sell. We have plenty of evidence, hammered on again and again, about the economic impact of the Tory austerity policies. Yet both Cameron and May were able to lead the Tories into government (by the narrowest of margins). If the "bad for the economy" line didn't result in the Tories being trampled into the dust of history in 2015 and 2017, I don't see it happening any time soon.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
For all ages much more can be made about the positive economic value provided by the free movement of labour into caring professions, the tourist trade, short term agricultural work.
It would be a huge uphill struggle to overcome years of the press treating EU migrants as purely supply when it came to competing for jobs, and purely demand when it came to consuming services.
.. and you'd need a three act bill to pass + a referendum to run before April of next year?
[ 31. January 2018, 10:20: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
Fair enough. I guess I'm just frustrated by the seeming irrevocability of this stupid course.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I've long been resigned to the irrevocability of Brexit. What has me climbing the walls right now is government, by the same party that triggered it, being so utterly hamfisted and myopic in "administrating" it.
[ 31. January 2018, 11:32: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
That too!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Fair enough. I guess I'm just frustrated by the seeming irrevocability of this stupid course.
I would really like to be wrong, but at this point I don't think the answer is going to lie in another referendum.
Probably the only chance to completely reverse Brexit is a charismatic politician with the actual courage of their convictions (and yes, I am aware of the irony there). The best the UK can hope for is to kick the transition can down the road to the point where the default becomes a soft Brexit/EFTA style arrangement and/or hopes for a wildcard that throws everything into play (as opposed to the London Bridge scenario that is very probably going to lead to a revanchist nationalism sometime in the next 5-10 years).
[ 31. January 2018, 11:52: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The best the UK can hope for is to kick the transition can down the road to the point where the default becomes a soft Brexit/EFTA style arrangement and/or hopes for a wildcard that throws everything into play
I can't see this happening, because I can't see a scenario in which the EU-27 would be willing to allow that without requiring the UK to submit to the ECJ in the meantime, and my perception is that that is as unacceptable politically for the UK as fully unwinding Brexit is unrealisable.
[ 31. January 2018, 11:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It is quite amusing that the impact assessments touted by Davis, turned out to be fictitious, but the real one, recently leaked, turns out to be too negative for the government.
No, I tell a lie, there was a statement in the first lot, that fishing is concentrated in coastal towns. This has sent shock waves through the EU, as they'd thought it was focused on motorway service areas.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I thought it was concentrated in financial institutions. Oh, sorry, that was phishing.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
