The BREXIT Discussion Thread.

18911131445

Comments

  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited June 2018 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    @bondjames It's not the fact that May is useless (she clearly is on borrowed time), its the lack of quality within possible replacements. I cant think of one option (from either party) who would be described as "galvanizing"
    I agree. I don't think anyone politically has a clue at the moment really. This is a form of creative destruction at work and it will be very messy. Britain's version of the financial crisis. There is no textbook to work from and so a technocratic and measured approach is probably best for now.

    Ultimately, one man's hubristic gamble put the nation on a path that I think it was destined to go down inevitably (if it wasn't initiated by Britain it would have been forced upon it by the EU eventually as economic circumstances would have forced further unpalatable concentration and coordination), but the timing is off. It's done now though, and if one can't chart a course in a planned fashion (due to the practical pressures of separation taking up all the time and effort), then perhaps one has to chart it without a plan. It's going to be very tricky times, but one has to remain optimistic.
    bondjames wrote: »
    Precisely @patb. Now that the decision has been made (marginally) to leave home (and the domineering step parents) one has to buckle down and prepare for life without mummy and daddy. There will be inevitable regret and fear in the near term, but I think that's ok. In a way, it's good for the nation's soul because hard questions will be asked that would not have been asked previously. What are the real priorities and where must compromise be made? A certain honesty will inevitably return to the debate, even if unwillingly.

    What seems to be lacking currently is galvanizing leadership, and more than anything that is what is required now.

    I find your analogies both endearing and pathetic.

    I'm sensing little substance of any of the actual practical and tangible details of Brexit in your comments. Instead, just soft platitudes of "it'll work itself out". These are such redundant statements, which likely led to people thinking the lack of substance was reason enough to vote for Brexit.

    Thanks for your two-cents. It's cute.
    I don't think either you or I are going to be able to debate the details of Brexit in the level of detail required to really do it justice. The discussions are complex and involve several components, not least the hard border with Northern Ireland and trade discussions, especially now that there are tariffs being levied. Neither of us have sufficient knowledge to have a discussion to the depth required.

    What I advocate for is an industrial policy suited to Britain's current and future educational and strategic strengths. The nation has to wean itself off of London real estate and finance as primary GDP growth drivers.

    Very true re real estate and finance but it may be too late. And of course that was something entirely possible while still being a member of the EU. Look at Holland and Germany for thriving mixed economies exporting exponentially more to the rest of the world than the UK manages (Holland I think has almost double the UK's exports despite being less than half the size). The Dutch are also (in general) fabulously wealthy, with excellent public services to boot.

    I'm not sure why you think leaving the EU is such a great opportunity for the UK. We tried going it alone from the 1940s to the 1970s and we ended up begging to be let into the EEC. The EU has enabled Europe to grow fantastically wealthy, with some of the best public services in the world. It's also helped Europe (and the world) to avoid a major global military conflict for over 70 years.

    The new world order Trump has in mind will (if it comes to fruition) bring ruination and poverty to billions of people. The EU is a bulwark against this new wave of insanity sweeping the globe. If it didn't exist the UK would be looking to create it.

    I don't doubt that we will be either hovering at the exit door for eternity, or if we do leave, we'll be banging on the door to be let back in within a decade.

    Brexit it sheer unadulterated lunacy of the purest kind. I know lots of people voted for Brexit with honest/good intentions. The British left is full of useful idiots always happy to make these pathetic mistakes. People like Corbyn actually think the EU is too right wing and wants us out of it so he can impose his socialist utopia unimpeded by 'capitalist' Brussels.

    We're in an age of anger and stupidity. I fear for my kids' futures.
    My (perhaps controversial) thinking on this is as follows: I don't think the UK would have done anything about the concentration of wealth in London based on the finance and real estate sectors without an outside catalyst. As with anything that benefits some groups at the expense of others, there is no reason to change. The same thing, but in a different manner, applies to the EU itself. The system as currently structured has been a massive boon to Germany, because the Euro is kept artificially low in comparison to where a hypothetical DM would have been had it existed. Without fiscal integration, the system is untenable in the long run imho.

    RE: Leaving the EU - I believe the future lies elsewhere. The EU as it currently stands isn't stable, and I think within the next 10 years it will fracture. Again, this could be orderly (where there is an inner EU of 'strong more connected nations' vs. an outer EU of 'weaker ones') or it could be messy. The massive EU (read German) trade surplus with the US will not be allowed to stand and Merkel will have to deal with that quickly or face further ramifications. That will put stress on EU finances and growth projections.

    So I think the UK has to focus on other areas for growth, just as the US will. Asia is where the game is going to be played, and that is where relationships have to be strengthened and in some cases developed.

    The UK will always have an excellent geostrategic positioning between North America and Europe and due to its historical ties with Asia (and particularly India). It can still play its traditional role as an economic and political go-between, but there will have to be some restructuring. I think it will happen in due course, just via economic pressures.

    Regarding the mechanics of Brexit - the longer it is delayed, the more uncertainty it creates. I think it may be best to go for the 2019 date and finalize exit as soon as possible after that (meaning compress the 'transition' period which has been proposed to as short a timeframe as possible).
  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,692
    The latest Brexit plans by May has been turned down by the other EU leaders. According to the Prime Minister of Malta, the 27 other EU members are 'almost unanimous' for a second UK referendum on Brexit.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45586010
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
  • Posts: 4,602
    If you look at business, government (May is a remainer lets not forget), the civil service, large institutions (Bank of England), etc etc, the "establishment" wants to stay in. I do question whether the whole leaving process has been carried out so badly by "the powers that be" because they don't actually want to leave. It's hard to imagine them making a worse job of the process and, as a result, the "no deal" disaster plays into the hands of those calling for a second vote.

  • Posts: 11,425
    patb wrote: »
    If you look at business, government (May is a remainer lets not forget), the civil service, large institutions (Bank of England), etc etc, the "establishment" wants to stay in. I do question whether the whole leaving process has been carried out so badly by "the powers that be" because they don't actually want to leave. It's hard to imagine them making a worse job of the process and, as a result, the "no deal" disaster plays into the hands of those calling for a second vote.

    Possibly... If this is the case, then I hand it to May, she's played a blinder. But I think the much more likely explanation is good old fashioned incompetence. Cameron was incompetent in calling (and then losing) a totally unnecessary referendum, the only purpose of which was to pacify the swivelled eyed loons in his own party (which has fewer signed up members than the Scottish Nationalists). And now we have hapless May staggering from one humiliation to the next.

    I don't think the strategy is to make a bad deal, or show up 'no deal' as a disaster. I think there are simply no good outcomes from Brexit. It's clear by now that the Leavers don't have a single coherent plan for what to do when we leave. What was it that Rees-Mogg revealed as their great plan the other day - an increased military presence in the Falkland Islands was pretty much all it added up to.

    No deal is regarded by pretty much anyone who has as serious job in this country as total madness. Any actual 'deal' we strike with the EU is by definition going to be worse than the current excellent deal we have as a member of the EU.

    So there you have it. Any way you cut it Brexit = a total mess that leaves Britain poorer, weaker and adrift from its closest allies at a time of global instability unparalleled for decades. It's a dogs breakfast and a national humiliation. But that's apparently what we voted for, so bring it on.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 17,850
    I would certainly love to have @Getafix's crystal ball. Presumably it was provided courtesy of the very transparent 'Project Fear', all of whose predictions of disaster have proved totally unfounded thus far.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 1,661
    I think we may be all guilty of building this up into something that isn't that dramatic.

    More countries in the world operate under WTO rules than under EU rules.
    164 countries are currently members of the WTO.

    If we leave the EU next March we don't crash out or fall off a cliff. If the other 164 countries can operate under WTO rules and not go bankrupt then we can do the same. It's fair to say many WTO countries have vast differences in GDP - North America vs South America/Africa etc - but the vast majority of these 164 countries function under WTO without civil wars, economic collapse etc. It's also worth reminding people that Greece did face economic collapse within the EU.
    The government enacted 12 rounds of tax increases, spending cuts, and reforms from 2010 to 2016, which at times triggered local riots and nationwide protests. Despite these efforts, the country required bailout loans in 2010, 2012, and 2015 from the International Monetary Fund, Eurogroup, and European Central Bank, and negotiated a 50% on debt owed to private banks in 2011, which amounted to a €100bn debt relief (a value effectively reduced due to bank recapitalisation and other resulting needs).

    The notion the UK leaves under WTO and it's a disaster for British commerce or EU trading commerce seems nonsense and 'Project Fear' lies.



  • Posts: 11,425
    Glad we're now reduced to comparing ourselves to Greece as consolation. You're right I suppose- things could be worse. Cheer up - at least we're not facing TOTAL economic collapse.

    It seems the Leavers are reduced to now claiming that at least Brexit won't be that bad. All the heady claims it woukd deliver an econonic mirracle have dwindled to 'it'll be a mess but not as bad a mess as the Remainers said it would'.

    Can you give one example of a likely good thing to come out of Brexit? Anything?

  • edited September 2018 Posts: 1,661
    Theresa May has given a speech in Downing Street.. and it's just waffle. "We must be prepared for a no deal."

    She is about as pro-active as a tortoise during a hibernation season. Her Chequers deal has been a humiliation. I think she should go - be it now or after we leave (assuming we do!). She is, as they say, "a busted flush." No alternative plan.

  • Posts: 4,602
    It's hard to find one decision, one project, one speech within May's term as PM that you can point to as something good, something that has worked, something that she can be proud of. She is just awful and yesterday was just another car crash.

    Meanwhile, in line with my previous post regarding the establishment setting up a second vote....

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-45601394
  • Posts: 19,339
    I thought she would be a lot better and stronger than this when she was elected.
    She has been useless and hasn't actually done anything about anything !!
  • Posts: 4,602
    She was a very average Home Secretary and there was no evidence to support the idea that she would be a good PM. She kinda fell into the job and was the best of a bad lot. We have yet to see the long term effects of her in-action.
  • Posts: 19,339
    The worrying thing is the lack of choice to replace her,and not only the Tories,all parties !!

    Never seen such a grey looking bunch all round before.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Yes, agree, appalling lack of talent on all sides. At a time when we need a truely great leader, we will be getting a poor one, from any of the parties.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    Getafix wrote: »
    Can you give one example of a likely good thing to come out of Brexit? Anything?

    Getting out of the eurocrat claws and preserving some sort of self rule isn t a good thing in itself?
  • Posts: 4,602
    Defining likely is the thing. Many said a similar question re losing the pound and going with the Euro and yet, with hindsight, we were well out of that.

    We will have full control over immigration, thats for sure (not likely) and IMHO, thats a good thing.
  • j_w_pepperj_w_pepper Born on the bayou. I can still hear my old hound dog barkin'.
    Posts: 8,722
    patb wrote: »
    Defining likely is the thing. Many said a similar question re losing the pound and going with the Euro and yet, with hindsight, we were well out of that.

    We will have full control over immigration, thats for sure (not likely) and IMHO, thats a good thing.

    People, whatever the reasons for anyone were to vote for Brexit, there was never any obligatioin to adopt the euro. And you have always had full control of immigration (not being part of the Schengen accord), except for citizens of other EU member states. So don't give me any complaints about having to accept refugees from Syria or some other drivel, whatever one thinks of that issue. And it was the UK who (at the time) insisted on the EU allowing the influx of people from the then-new Eastern European member states as early as possible, probably at the behest of the former colony-turned-master, wishing to really sock it to what used to be the Soviet Union. So the only thing you gain is fewer Polish plumbers, meaning you are stuck with your own. But at what a price?
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,602
    "except for citizens of other EU member states."

    Hence not full control.

    Full: not lacking or omitting anything; complete.
    "a full range of sports facilities"
    synonyms: comprehensive, thorough, exhaustive, all-inclusive, all-encompassing, all-embracing, in depth; More
  • Posts: 5,832
    Brexit can have some unexpected consequences. Forexample, it could impact medical imagery in the UK :

    https://twitter.com/hywelowen/status/1007360551981379585

    As for me, the most pressing question I have right now is : when I go to Cardiff to see Katherine Jenkins in concert next may, will I need to get a passport, or will my ID card be sufficient to get there ?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,612
    Gerard wrote: »

    I hope this won't happen.

    Brexit is an ugly thing, spearheaded by ugly men with ugly intentions. But the common folk, whether they voted for or against Brexit, mustn't suffer such extreme consequences.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Gerard wrote: »



    Brexit is an ugly thing, spearheaded by ugly men with ugly intentions..

    Many feel the same way about the EU.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Still the issue with Brexit is the lack of genuine, rational, adult debate. Too many sweeping remarks, childish jibes etc etc (on both sides).

    "ugly men" being a perfect example. How does that help?
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,612
    @Thunderfinger
    True. And they are correct.
    But leaving the bloody thing will resolve nothing; it'll only make things worse for both sides. We can keep splitting up into smaller and smaller fragments until there is no unity left whatsoever.
    Farage and co appealed to chauvinism, nostalgia and fear; such tactics never work out well in the end. America fell under the same spell and look where it is now.
    I love the UK and the British people, always have, always will. I have always trusted its decisions and I probably always will, except this once.
    Britain's made a bold choice for sure, but it chose an empty box with the word "promise" written on it instead of a political battlefield that is troublesome, complicated and suffering from inertia but having the potential to be something good.


    Or so I think. ;-)
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,602
    "Farage and co appealed to chauvinism, nostalgia and fear;"

    Where as the remainers never used fear as their leverage? Both sides used fear (its a powerful tool) Both sides used promises (Cameron promised to stay and negotiate if we voted out, thats rather a big promise)

    Either side is looking at the other and picking at their tactics without looking inward and realising that the whole campaign on both sides was childish and patronising with very little truth about.

    Im not sure if the campaign had a big effect on either side. Longer term, deeply engrained issues were critical factors IMHO. Was there anything that Cameraon could have said that would have changed the result. Could he have changed the vote of 2% of the voters? I dont think so. We are a stuburn, island race, prefering to do things our own way and loving to look back when we "stood alone" in Europe againts evil etc etc. Farage does not have to use nostalgia. We cover ourselves in it within everyday culture and lap it up.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 23,612
    patb wrote: »
    "Farage and co appealed to chauvinism, nostalgia and fear;"

    Where as the remainers never used fear as their leverage? Both sides used fear (its a powerful tool) Both sides used promises (Cameron promised to stay and negotiate if we voted out, thats rather a big promise)

    Either side is looking at the other and picking at their tactics without looking inward and realising that the whole campaign on both sides was childish and patronising with very little truth about.

    @patb, I like your post very much. You are absolutely right. Thank you, sir. :)
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,602
    @DarthDimi cheers, just to add, if anything, the situation is getting worse re how we are spoken to by the "powers that be"

    "the peoples vote" is the perfect example. Can you think of a more childish, patronising phrase that has been created in a desperate attempt to somehow imply that the original vote was not about people (was it robots, cats?) Any polititian, journo or campaigner who seriously uses the term "peoples vote" should be written off/ignored IMHO regarding their useful input into the debate.

  • RoadphillRoadphill United Kingdom
    Posts: 984
    The problem with the Referendum in the first place, was all the rhetoric.

    No one could present a simple list of Pro's and Con's for remaining or leaving without pushing their agenda.

    That lead the average Joe to vote with their heart rather than their heads.

    The EU as it was first conceived was a great idea, that would benefit all involved. It has steadily become an undemocratic monster, that will eventually implode.

    That being said, there are still a lot of good reasons to remain, as opposed to much less, but perhaps more heartfelt reasons to leave.

    Wether it proves right or wrong, ultimately we voted to leave and I believe that we should do it as soon as possible now, to end uncertainty.
  • edited September 2018 Posts: 4,602
    Well, the internet was awash with well written "pro and con" reports but I agree, it was mainstream media and politicians who dialed the rhetoric up to eleven on both sides. (still are doing so)

    Sometimes, voting with your heart is the best thing to do for a nation. What it actually means is "what your gut tells you" and that, as I mentioned, then reverts to long held values about where,how and what we define ourselves as.

    We don't think of ourselves as European (it's not co-incidence we did not go for the Euro, drive on the "other" side, keep the mile, pint of beer etc) and I dont think we ever have. We have been unwilling partners in the experiment. The spirit of Churchill still burns brightly (for better or worse) and it's asking too much of most voters to let rationality overide your gut.

    Rightly or wrongly, in a few years when all of the balihoo has gone and we have left the EU, we could be a country more in tune/confident with it's own inner values and national self-indentity rather than being stretched in different directions. And that maybe more important than getting hold of a cheap plumber or having to queue at passport control
  • Posts: 1,661
    Apparently the Labour Party plan to vote on a second referendum at their conference this week. If the vote goes through it will mean Labour's official position is to reject the Chequers plan, reject a no deal but support a second referendum. Labour supported the initial referendum, they supported the implementation of Article 50 but may do a complete u-turn and reject the result of the referendum!

    One thing is clear about this Brexit malarky - you can make up the rules, change your mind, forget/dismiss the results of votes if you want to. 21st century Britain now uses the 'make it up as you go along' model of democracy. I think we need a written constitution so every constitutional law is clear and enforceable. That might avoid future Brexit type shambles.






  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    If they have a second referendum, why bother voting? It is clear as day that your votes don t count.
This discussion has been closed.