Brexit Referendum Superthread

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, prophesying armageddon without evidence.

More of your tiresome sneering with no evidence whatsoever to prove your point. Just more vague nonsense about some sort of wonderful utopia which will come to pass after years of pain.

solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

More of your tiresome sneering with no evidence whatsoever to prove your point. Just more vague nonsense about some sort of wonderful utopia which will come to pass after years of pain.

Good morning!

I've been providing evidence against the conclusion that Britain will be going to pot as a result of Brexit. There's nothing to suggest that at the moment. What there is evidence of is that Brexit will have a cost.

I've also been clear that the jury is out on whether or not this cost will be worth it. That depends on what type of Brexit is achieved and how the country is steered. I've been very clear on that. But, I do think that the UK can succeed outside of the European Union and that the economy will remain strong.

The prophesies of armageddon are just overdramatic and not based on good evidence.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thomas_...

Malta assumes the EU's presidency in January 2017 and here are some quotes from Malta's PM regarding Brexit:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38100561

EU leaders are not "bluffing" when they say the UK will be left without access to the single market when it leaves the bloc if there is no free movement of people, Malta's prime minister says.
...
Asked about a suggestion from Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson that the UK could in theory stay in single market and place limits on the freedom of movement of EU citizens, Mr Muscat told the BBC "it's just not happening".

He added: "All of us have been pretty clear in our approach that we want a fair deal for the UK but that kind of fair deal can't translate itself into a superior deal.

"I know that there is absolutely no bluffing from the European side, at least in the council meetings I have attended, saying 'we will start in this position and then we will soften up'.
"No, this is really and truly our position."

"We are going to lose something but there will not be a situation when the UK has a better deal than it has today".
...
Mr Muscat also reiterated the view that even when a final or interim deal is struck between EU leaders and Britain, the European Parliament may decide to veto it in 2019.

His comments come days after the UK's Brexit Secretary David Davis described his meeting with the European Parliament's chief negotiator Guy Verhofstadt as a "good start".
...

The Maltese PM talks sense and also interesting is the scheme below in that article picturing the procedure for the UK exiting the EU.

But as I know the Brexiteers, they don't care about hard facts and the seriousness on the EU side, they rather prefer to cling on to their illusions, it doesn't matter to them but they will wake up soon enough and learn it rather the hard way that they have been gulled by the likes of Farage, Johnson and the rest of the bunch of liars.

Peregrinus

As SDG says, it really remains to be seen. Yes, there's a cost to Brexit. It's a pretty significant cost. In some ways the cost is already manifesting (sharp decline in sterling; the rather gloomy prognostications from the UK Treasury yesterday); in other ways it has yet to manifest. But it's not likely to be a financial or economic Armageddon.

On the other side of the balance sheet we have to set the economic/financial advantages that might accrue from Brexit. These haven't started to manifest yet to any useful degree; at this point, they're largely speculative. And, I think it's fair to say, you have to speculate with a fairly extravagant degree of optimism to foresee advantages great enough to offset the actual and likely costs.

Support for Brexit comes from a diversity of sources and is inspired by a variety of motives, but I think it's fair to say that a segment of Brexit support - a significant segment - comes from the kind of disaffected/betrayed lower middle/higher working classes that have not done so well in recent decades, and that are drawn to the right-wing, populist, anti-establishment phenomenon of which we can regard Donald Trump as emblematic. That particular movement is not at all shy of speculations underpinned by extravagant optimism - 350 million per week for the NHS! Mexico will pay for the wall! - and the result is that much of the pro-Brexit case can appear at first glance to be underpinned by a combination of fantasy, mendacity and gullibility. So if Brexiters feel that their case is not being taken seriously, I think they have to admit that it's partly because at least a segment of the Brexit movement puts forward a case which its impossible to take seriously.

But, when you strip all that away, it doesn't necessarily mean that Brexit is going to be Armageddon for the UK, or that it won't offer some financial or economic opportunities that will help to offset the undoubted costs. This will only partly offset them, in my view; I really don't see a scenario in which the economic effects of Brexit are, on balance, beneficial for the UK; the only question is how bad they will be. But they won't be catastrophic. And, as I have said before, you can make the case that they are costs worth paying in order to secure a greater degree of autonomy for the UK.

I think the greater damage, though, will be to the UK as an institution, as a unit. The Brexit margin is pretty thin, as I have pointed out before, and you might think that the self-interested Brexit strategy would therefore be to go for the softest Brexit, with as many accommodations as possible to address the sensitivities and concerns of the Remainer minority, with a view to trying to build a wider consensus that, if it doesn't support, at least assents to a Brexit in efforts are made to accommodate diverse opinions and interests. But the predominant - or at least the loudest - tone among Brexiters has been the opposite. Brexit must happen now. Brexit must be implemented by executive action and judges who suggest that it's a matter for Parliament are enemies of the people. Brexit must involve a withdrawal not only from the Union but from the single market and the customs union. The fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted against Brexit, and by a wider margin than England voted for it, is irrelevant, and suggestions of special deals or special accommodations for them must be dismissed. And so forth.

Tactically, I think this shrill stance is a mistake. It narrows support for Brexit (and its support can't take too much narrowing) and it make the whole experience more divisive than it needs to be. It's quite the gift to the SNP; it illustrates in a very concrete way not only that the domination of English interests in the UK means that Scotland is not in control of its own destiny, but also that the English don't give a stuff about this, and will exercise their dominance in a way that pays no regard to Scotland or the Scots. It deepens the divide between strongly pro-Remain London and the pro-Brexit English provinces.

In summary, Brexit has a credibility problem, and at a time when they should be seeking to address that problem they have tended to adopt tactics likely to make it worse. If Brexit does fail, it'll be at least in part because of the ham-fisted way in which it is being progressed by its own advocates.

Thomas_...

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Again, prophesying armageddon without evidence.

More of your tiresome sneering with no evidence whatsoever to prove your point. Just more vague nonsense about some sort of wonderful utopia which will come to pass after years of pain.

People like him need to cling on to their illusions, no matter what the reality is showing them, cos they have to believe in it otherwise they might wake up and curse Farage and his UKIP for what they have brought upon them and their sheep-minded attitude to fall for the lies of the Leave Camp by which they have brought this mess onto themselves. I noticed that he admitted to have voted for Leave and still remains a Brexiteer, even when he tries to come across as a polite poster (imo he's just a Snob) and tries to relativate his stance.

The difference between the Brexiteers with the present UK govt and the EU leaders is, that the Brits still have no clue of a plan to deliver the Brexit and know pretty well that they can't get what Farage & Co. were promising them, but the EU leaders know exactly which path this Brexit will go down and they have told the Brits for many times enough what they will face in regards to four freedoms and there will be no cherry picking.

I had never thought that the Brits would go that downhill like they do with this nonsense and backwards orientated thinking. Acting like fools who still believe that the long gone British Empire still exists and that they are still a world power which they are not anymore, since the dismantling of their Empire in the second half of the last century. But this is what makes the Brexiteers believe in their own sort of national pride which derives mostly from that and is therefore doomed to fail.

Thomas_...

Peregrinus wrote: »

As SDG says, it really remains to be seen. Yes, there's a cost to Brexit. It's a pretty significant cost. In some ways the cost is already manifesting (sharp decline in sterling; the rather gloomy prognostications from the UK Treasury yesterday); in other ways it has yet to manifest. But it's not likely to be a financial or economic Armageddon.

On the other side of the balance sheet we have to set the economic/financial advantages that might accrue from Brexit. These haven't started to manifest yet to any useful degree; at this point, they're largely speculative. And, I think it's fair to say, you have to speculate with a fairly extravagant degree of optimism to foresee advantages great enough to offset the actual and likely costs.

Support for Brexit comes from a diversity of sources and is inspired by a variety of motives, but I think it's fair to say that a segment of Brexit support - a significant segment - comes from the kind of disaffected/betrayed lower middle/higher working classes that have not done so well in recent decades, and that are drawn to the right-wing, populist, anti-establishment phenomenon of which we can regard Donald Trump as emblematic. That particular movement is not at all shy of speculations underpinned by extravagant optimism - 350 million per week for the NHS! Mexico will pay for the wall! - and the result is that much of the pro-Brexit case can appear at first glance to be underpinned by a combination of fantasy, mendacity and gullibility. So if Brexiters feel that their case is not being taken seriously, I think they have to admit that it's partly because at least a segment of the Brexit movement puts forward a case which its impossible to take seriously.

But, when you strip all that away, it doesn't necessarily mean that Brexit is going to be Armageddon for the UK, or that it won't offer some financial or economic opportunities that will help to offset the undoubted costs. This will only partly offset them, in my view; I really don't see a scenario in which the economic effects of Brexit are, on balance, beneficial for the UK; the only question is how bad they will be. But they won't be catastrophic. And, as I have said before, you can make the case that they are costs worth paying in order to secure a greater degree of autonomy for the UK.

I think the greater damage, though, will be to the UK as an institution, as a unit. The Brexit margin is pretty thin, as I have pointed out before, and you might think that the self-interested Brexit strategy would therefore be to go for the softest Brexit, with as many accommodations as possible to address the sensitivities and concerns of the Remainer minority, with a view to trying to build a wider consensus that, if it doesn't support, at least assents to a Brexit in efforts are made to accommodate diverse opinions and interests. But the predominant - or at least the loudest - tone among Brexiters has been the opposite. Brexit must happen now. Brexit must be implemented by executive action and judges who suggest that it's a matter for Parliament are enemies of the people. Brexit must involve a withdrawal not only from the Union but from the single market and the customs union. The fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted against Brexit, and by a wider margin than England voted for it, is irrelevant, and suggestions of special deals or special accommodations for them must be dismissed. And so forth.

Tactically, I think this shrill stance is a mistake. It narrows support for Brexit (and its support can't take too much narrowing) and it make the whole experience more divisive than it needs to be. It's quite the gift to the SNP; it illustrates in a very concrete way not only that the domination of English interests in the UK means that Scotland is not in control of its own destiny, but also that the English don't give a stuff about this, and will exercise their dominance in a way that pays no regard to Scotland or the Scots. It deepens the divide between strongly pro-Remain London and the pro-Brexit English provinces.

In summary, Brexit has a credibility problem, and at a time when they should be seeking to address that problem they have tended to adopt tactics likely to make it worse. If Brexit does fail, it'll be at least in part because of the ham-fisted way in which it is being progressed by its own advocates.

Everything remains to be seen but a reasonable and reality based assessment of the prospect should be in order and this is what is still lacking. In a world with a Donald Trump who sets Profit before anything else, the egoism of the Americans will grow and just remember what he recently said about TPP which certainly will also apply to TTIP or any other trade deals with other countries. I can't expect that the Brits will be better off with this US Administration that will start in January next year.

Maybe, there might be no need for using terms like "Armageddon", but still, it is more likely that the UK will go downhill with the Brexit and even the biggest optimism can't alter much of it cos the Brexiteers refuse to realise that the UK might be worse off in other trade deals with countries outside of the EU and that there isn't much left for them cos the big powers dictate them their Terms and not the other way round that the Brits can do that and will prevail.

How anybody can fall for the misleading perception that Trump is "Anti-Establishment" is beyond me because he is part of that himself as the billionare that he is, just that he has no clue about politics apart from his own crude ideas and typical acting the Elephant in the Glashouse. He's now just trying to calm the anti-Trump mood which has arisen in the USA and beyond. But it won't last long until he turns back to his nasty character that has brought him that far.

solodeogloria

Thomas_... wrote: »

People like him need to cling on to their illusions, no matter what the reality is showing them, cos they have to believe in it otherwise they might wake up and curse Farage and his UKIP for what they have brought upon them and their sheep-minded attitude to fall for the lies of the Leave Camp by which they have brought this mess onto themselves. I noticed that he admitted to have voted for Leave and still remains a Brexiteer, even when he tries to come across as a polite poster (imo he's just a Snob) and tries to relativate his stance.

Good morning!

Both you and ancapailldorcha keep insisting that I voted leave when I voted remain.

My current position is that the people have spoken and that Brexit must be implemented and that the UK can succeed post-Brexit.

I think claiming that I'm a snob is irrelevant. I'm interested in the political argument not about what you think of my personality.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thomas_...

Sir John Major on "the tyranny of the majority" and I agree with almost everything he said about that:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/25/brexit-sir-john-major-says-perfectly-credible-case-for-second-Referendum

Parliament, not the government, should make the final decision on any new deal with the remaining members of the EU and there was a perfectly credible case for a second Referendum.
I hear the argument that the 48% of people who voted to stay should have no say in what happens, he said.
I find that very difficult to accept. The tyranny of the majority has never applied in a democracy and it should not apply in this particular democracy.
...

Brexiteers have a very special and peculiar understanding of what Democracy really means and it certainly is not what they think it is. Common sense is needed more than ever to rid the Brit Society of the poisen this Brexit thing has brought to it.

Zubeneschamali

Bah, experts! What do they know?


Paul Johnson, the thinktank’s director, said: “One cannot stress how extraordinary and dreadful that is, more than a decade without real earnings growth. We have certainly not seen a period remotely like it in the last 70 years and quite possibly the last 100.”

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

The prophesies of armageddon are just overdramatic and not based on good evidence.

Not one poster here has prophesied Armageddon. It's just a lazy way for you to dismiss arguments before posting your own vague nonsense.

robinph

Peregrinus wrote: »

...The Brexit margin is pretty thin, as I have pointed out before, and you might think that the self-interested Brexit strategy would therefore be to go for the softest Brexit, with as many accommodations as possible to address the sensitivities and concerns of the Remainer minority, with a view to trying to build a wider consensus that, if it doesn't support, at least assents to a Brexit in efforts are made to accommodate diverse opinions and interests. But the predominant - or at least the loudest - tone among Brexiters has been the opposite. Brexit must happen now. Brexit must be implemented by executive action and judges who suggest that it's a matter for Parliament are enemies of the people. Brexit must involve a withdrawal not only from the Union but from the single market and the customs union. The fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted against Brexit, and by a wider margin than England voted for it, is irrelevant, and suggestions of special deals or special accommodations for them must be dismissed. And so forth.
...

If the vote had been 52/48 the other way round then the remainers response would not have been the the UK should immediately join the Euro, Schengen, EU defence force and every other thing EU going. It would have been "phew, that was close...now how do we keep doing what we are doing within the EU but still allow for that significant 48% of the population who are still not happy with it?"

But the opposing brexiteer desire is to rip everything up and ignore the other 50% of the population who bothered to vote and all of those who didn't.

Thomas_...

robinph wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

...The Brexit margin is pretty thin, as I have pointed out before, and you might think that the self-interested Brexit strategy would therefore be to go for the softest Brexit, with as many accommodations as possible to address the sensitivities and concerns of the Remainer minority, with a view to trying to build a wider consensus that, if it doesn't support, at least assents to a Brexit in efforts are made to accommodate diverse opinions and interests. But the predominant - or at least the loudest - tone among Brexiters has been the opposite. Brexit must happen now. Brexit must be implemented by executive action and judges who suggest that it's a matter for Parliament are enemies of the people. Brexit must involve a withdrawal not only from the Union but from the single market and the customs union. The fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland both voted against Brexit, and by a wider margin than England voted for it, is irrelevant, and suggestions of special deals or special accommodations for them must be dismissed. And so forth.
...

If the vote had been 52/48 the other way round then the remainers response would not have been the the UK should immediately join the Euro, Schengen, EU defence force and every other thing EU going. It would have been "phew, that was close...now how do we keep doing what we are doing within the EU but still allow for that significant 48% of the population who are still not happy with it?"

But the opposing brexiteer desire is to rip everything up and ignore the other 50% of the population who bothered to vote and all of those who didn't.

That certainly hits the nail on the head. I couldn't have put it better.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

Both you and ancapailldorcha keep insisting that I voted leave when I voted remain.

I haven't claimed this since you corrected me a good while back.

ancapailldorcha

robinph wrote: »

If the vote had been 52/48 the other way round then the remainers response would not have been the the UK should immediately join the Euro, Schengen, EU defence force and every other thing EU going. It would have been "phew, that was close...now how do we keep doing what we are doing within the EU but still allow for that significant 48% of the population who are still not happy with it?"

But the opposing brexiteer desire is to rip everything up and ignore the other 50% of the population who bothered to vote and all of those who didn't.

I think the EEA option is the best bet as it will allow free movement to continue, will provide access to the single market and fulfill the all-important people's mandate of leaving the EU.

Thomas_...

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

solodeogloria wrote: »

Both you and ancapailldorcha keep insisting that I voted leave when I voted remain.

I haven't claimed this since you corrected me a good while back.

That chap appears to be either confused or twisting the real facts about what he voted for in the referendum. Judged by what he writes in his posts (quoted by others), he sounds more like a Brexiter and less of a Remainer. I have him on my ignore list and did just one exceptional respond to him and that was it. Can't bear his snobbish appearance at all.

None but the Brexiteers are that desperate to seek any good from Brexit.

Thomas_...

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

robinph wrote: »

If the vote had been 52/48 the other way round then the remainers response would not have been the the UK should immediately join the Euro, Schengen, EU defence force and every other thing EU going. It would have been "phew, that was close...now how do we keep doing what we are doing within the EU but still allow for that significant 48% of the population who are still not happy with it?"

But the opposing brexiteer desire is to rip everything up and ignore the other 50% of the population who bothered to vote and all of those who didn't.

I think the EEA option is the best bet as it will allow free movement to continue, will provide access to the single market and fulfill the all-important people's mandate of leaving the EU.

It would be if it wasn't for the whole anti-Immigrant "policy" that was the driving force behind the Brexiteers. So, the Brexiteers won't buy it and will go mad if that would come to pass. Dealing with bigots is hard enough, dealing with a self-deluded government and Tories is even harder, or worser.

Would you not be better off dropping the pejorative 'Brexiteer' stuff?

Not as a rule or anything, I just think it's adding unnecessary noise and conflict/stress to a discussion. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to belittle and caricaturise.

Enzokk

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I think the EEA option is the best bet as it will allow free movement to continue, will provide access to the single market and fulfill the all-important people's mandate of leaving the EU.

I agree this would be the best option for all concerned, the question is whether this is what those that voted leave want and my guess is that it isn't. Freedom of movement is the one thing that we can almost be sure of is what people don't want so it leaves everyone in limbo in regards to access to the single market.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you not be better off dropping the pejorative 'Brexiteer' stuff?

Is supporting Brexit so awful that it is perjorative to label it?

Best economic outcome.

Not sure if best political outcome unfortunately.

Zubeneschamali

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Is supporting Brexit so awful that it is perjorative to label it?

The usage of the term supports that connotation, yes.

As always, context is important.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Best economic outcome.

Not sure if best political outcome unfortunately.

No, the best economic outcome would be to stay in the EU. That really is politically impossible, I think.

EEA might be a compromise - it has costs, but not as high as hard Brexit. It meets the letter of the referendum result, but has no benefits for the UK whatever.

Personally, i think hard brexit also has no benefits for the UK and a higher cost, but the pro brexit crew in the UK are not going to admit that until it is far too late.

Thomas_...

Deleted User wrote: »

Would you not be better off dropping the pejorative 'Brexiteer' stuff?

Not as a rule or anything, I just think it's adding unnecessary noise and conflict/stress to a discussion. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose other than to belittle and caricaturise.

Suggest another term which is agreeable and means the same. Maybe "UK-EU-Exiters"? Frankly, I have no idea of what you're on about by this. There is no intention on my side to neither "belittle" them nor to cause "conflict/stress" because this all is caused by themselves and them alone. One might substitute "Brexiter" by "Leaver" but that doesn't sound even better. Same as one might not like the term "Remainers" for those who are still pro-EU or even call themselves "European" which is more deemed like a belittleing if not to say very negative term by those right-wingers and far-right nutters who supported the whole thing of Brexit as the bulk of extremists that went along with the whole masses of anti-EU voters.

Thomas_...

Double post.

Thomas_...

Thomas_... wrote: »

Suggest another term which is agreeable and means the same. Maybe "UK-EU-Exiters"? Frankly, I have no idea of what you're on about by this. There is no intention on my side to neither "belittle" them nor to cause "conflict/stress" because this all is caused by themselves and them alone. One might substitute "Brexiter" by "Leaver" but that doesn't sound even better. Same as one might not like the term "Remainers" for those who are still pro-EU or even call themselves "European" which is more deemed like a belittleing if not to say very negative term by those right-wingers and far-right nutters who supported the whole thing of Brexit as the bulk of extremists that went along with the whole masses of anti-EU voters.

majority

swampgas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

EEA might be a compromise - it has costs, but not as high as hard Brexit. It meets the letter of the referendum result, but has no benefits for the UK whatever.

Whatever happens it's far from certain that EEA membership would be granted if requested. There is the possibility that the existing EEA members would fight the UK joining them. Norway has already voiced concerns earlier this year.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

majority

Slim

robinph

Brexiteer is equivalent of remainer.
Remoaner is pejorative, not sure what it's equivalent term is for a leave voter.

First Up

robinph wrote:

Brexiteer is equivalent of remainer. Remoaner is pejorative, not sure what it's equivalent term is for a leave voter.

Suicidal?

Chips Lovell

I never considered the terms Brexiteer or Remainer to be pejorative.