Brexit Referendum Superthread

KingBrian2

Nody wrote: »

You mean the part where Irish regulation authorities failed to enforce Irish rules set out by the Irish central bank and Irish government on the risk they should be allowed to take in Ireland? But yes; that was all EU's fault for Ireland failing to enforce their own rules and let the banks run around doing what ever they wanted with a wink wink nudge nudge and brown envelope under the table at the horse races.

I did not say it was the EU's fault. It is down to working class communities resenting the policy decisions of ECB and that we all were royally screwed with the bill. The bondholders did not take a larger haircut while mortgage borrowers were abandoned to the market place.

Good loser

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I did not say it was the EU's fault. It is down to working class communities resenting the policy decisions of ECB and that we all were royally screwed with the bill. The bondholders did not take a larger haircut while mortgage borrowers were abandoned to the market place.

You're very confused there.

You are equating 'working class communities' with 'mortgage borrowers'.

The cutbacks affected all society; if any 'class' was wiped out it was the developers.

What about all the mortgage holders on trackers? They are being carried by those on variable rates.

KingBrian2

Good loser wrote: »

You're very confused there.

You are equating 'working class communities' with 'mortgage borrowers'.

The cutbacks affected all society; if any 'class' was wiped out it was the developers.

What about all the mortgage holders on trackers? They are being carried by those on variable rates.

My term for working class encompasses all those that work. The loss of jobs undeniable had a knock on affect of people being able to pay their bills. Construction, banking, public sector and small and medium business all suffered the multinational sector fared a hell of a lot better.

Good loser

KingBrian2 wrote: »

My term for working class encompasses all those that work. The loss of jobs undeniable had a knock on affect of people being able to pay their bills. Construction, banking, public sector and small and medium business all suffered the multinational sector fared a hell of a lot better.

Sure loads of jobs were lost; unemployment went to 15%+ and many emigrated.

Primarily we did it to ourselves. No need to off load the blame.

And we're now out the other side. Brexit/Trump are spoiling things though.

KingBrian2

Good loser wrote: »

Sure loads of jobs were lost; unemployment went to 15%+ and many emigrated.

Primarily we did it to ourselves. No need to off load the blame.

And we're now out the other side. Brexit/Trump are spoiling things though.

Fact still remains the economy has not benefited everyone and we need policies that will make Europe and Ireland vibrant again.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Fact still remains the economy has not benefited everyone and we need policies that will make Europe and Ireland vibrant again.

Then surely the smart thing to do is to work with neighbouring economies instead of adopting isolationist race-to-the-bottom policies. As has been pointed out, a lot of the things people are blaming the EU for are down to national governments.

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote:

Fact still remains the economy has not benefited everyone

Which is never their own fault of course.

Fact is that we are in the top 10% in wealth and top 20% in wealth distribution and we have a lot more to thank the EU for than to blame.

ArthurDayne

First Up wrote: »

Fact is that we are in the top 10% in wealth and top 20% in wealth distribution and we have a lot more to thank the EU for than to blame.

Exactly. It all boils down to a strange socio-economic relativism which has descended on the European Union -- one of the most highly advanced, prosperous and peaceful places to live on the planet. What golden age are the populists harking back to when they juxtapose the apparently better past with the allegedly loathsome present?

Ireland's place in the EU has opened pathways of progression and commerce for its people and businesses. Since our accession to the EU, we have become the world leader in aviation leasing and one of the premier destinations for investment funds, tech firms and pharmaceuticals. The reason for this is our well educated English-speaking workforce, attractive tax rates and, crucially, our position as a gateway to the single market -- which has been maintained by harmonising our laws and regulations with those of the wider EU.

Sure, some fatcat somewhere is lounging on his yacht, lapping up the lucrative tax-efficient benefits at the expense of the working sucker like me. Ultimately however, and without forgetting the need to remain aware of and compassionate for those who still suffer in our society, our position in the EU has allowed the likes of me, the grandson of a potato farmer, to realistically harbour ambitions of a successful corporate career in Ireland

The UK may well continue to prosper outside the EU, it's hard to tell right now --- if Ireland were to leave however, the consequences would be dire.

FreudianSlippers

KingBrian2 wrote: »

My term for working class encompasses all those that work.

I've never been called working class before! I feel so alive!

KingBrian2

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I've never been called working class before! I feel so alive!

Just a word.

Lemming

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Just a word.

A phrase; and a phrase that your application of differs from absolutely every other reference to the phrase ever.

KingBrian2

Lemming wrote: »

A phrase; and a phrase that your application of differs from absolutely every other reference to the phrase ever.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Genuinely don't get you.

Nody

Am I the only one scratching my head of what's the point of a vote in parliament on the final agreement beyond political point scoring? Trigger Brexit, 2 year clocks start ticking. 24 months in no deal is still on the table so what are they going to vote for? Or if there is a deal but they want improvements how do they think they would suddenly appear (May is not exactly going to have the time to go back and suddenly reopen whole new chapters out of the blue even if she'd agree somehow)? I mean the whole point is a deal is going to run relatively late in the 2 year timeline and if there is no deal done at the end of it (or if it is rejected by the MPs) what do they expect will happen? EU suddenly to decide to give them a better deal out of the blue because they rejected the current deal?

The only thing I can see the vote work on would be a "We vote no and remain in EU than take that deal" but that would require EU to play along with it all (and after 2 years of negotiations getting out with the wonder bunch I'm not sure there will be high positive feelings in EU about the idea) AND would cause a huge political turmoil in the UK or petty meaningless political point scoring ("Well I did vote against the deal on the table" which was a vote without meaning in the first place since you voted to invoke article 50 in the first place).

First Up

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Genuinely don't get you.

Maybe that the term is normally used in reference to the lumpen proletariat who are being exploited by evil capitalists etc.

It isn't usually applied to highly paid executives or professionals.

Zubeneschamali

First Up wrote: »

It isn't usually applied to highly paid executives or professionals.

'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

First Up

Nody wrote:

Am I the only one scratching my head of what's the point of a vote in parliament on the

I'm scratching my head over how they could be so deluded. Article 50 is the decision to leave. The two years is to collect their stuff - nothing else.

Bit cynical

Peregrinus wrote: »

On the other hand, in the interests of “taking control of our own laws” the UK will end the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union within the UK.

This is going to lead to some odd results. A huge body of EU law will still have the force of law in the UK. But the same law will remain in force in 27 other countries, and the authoritative interpreter of that body of law will be the CJEU. The result is that the CJEU will (in cases brought in the EU-27) be handing down rulings on the meaning, scope, effect, etc of a vast body of law that applies in the UK. These rulings won’t be binding on the UK courts, of course, but it’s very had to see how they can be other than very persuasive. The result is that CJEU rulings are still going to have considerable influence in the UK, but UK citizens (and the UK government) will have no access to the CJEU to challenge its rulings, seek clarification, etc. That’s not going to be a problem in the short term but, over time, the fact that the CJEU rules still have influence in the UK but the UK cannot participate in the CJEU is going to cause increasingly widespread irritation/inconvenience.

But at the same time, the UK does not need to participate in the CJEU since it will be making its own laws. Clarifications, where needed, will come from UK courts and UK legislators will, over time, modify those laws to suit UK requirements.

I don't see a huge problem here to be honest.

As regards travel, the UK government is committed to “protecting the Common Travel Area” and having “as seamless and frictionless a border as possible” between RoI and NI. But they also insist that “we must ensure we can control the number of people coming to the UK from the EU”, and that “it is simply not possible to control immigration overall when there is unlimited free movement of people to the UK from the EU”.

In this thread we have already noted more than once that there’s a huge and obvious tension between the UK government’s position on the CTA/the NI-RoI border and its position on immigration. What’s striking about this White Paper is that it completely fails to recognise that there is any tension there at all. Aspirations regarding Ireland and aspirations regarding travel/migration are set out in adjacent chapters, but the authors of each of these chapters appear to be wholly unaware of what is in the other. You would expect a White Paper at least to acknowledge the tension, and to give some hint as to the approach to be taken in resolving it. But no.

I think there's a tendency here to excagerate the importance of the CTA and NI-RoI affairs in British politics. While they are huge issues here and in the North, they are not particularly important to the average Brit.

I agree that issues concerning the CTA and relations with Ireland are problematical and solutions like identity cards are unattractive. It is quite likely, however, that the CTA will prove impossible for reasons other than failures on the part of the UK.

Ireland, as a continuing member of the EU means that won't be free to maintain the CTA anyway regardless of whatever solutions the UK might try to implement. The border with the North will become an EU frontier and we will be required to operate it as such. Member states of the EU aren't free to run common travel areas with non-EU/EEA states.

Despite it being a small issue in the UK, there is at least some discussion as to solutions and at least a vague aspiration that the CTA should continue. But at the more important EU level, concessions will need to be made to allow Ireland to maintain the CTA and I don't see any discussion there.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

Am I the only one scratching my head of what's the point of a vote in parliament on the final agreement beyond political point scoring? . . .

I'm scratching my head too, for the reasons you give. But, if I have to come up with a reason . . .

The government has realised/has been advised that any exit deal that looks remotely like one they might hope to negotiate is going to require UK legislation in order to implement it at the UK end. So, putting the deal to parliament for its approval has two advantages:

1. If Parliament approves the deal, it can then be presented to the Eu as a deal pre-approved in Britain; the EU can be (reasonably) confident that the deal they have negotiated will "stick" in the UK, which makes it easier for the EU to ask the European Parliament (and, quite possibly, EU-27 national/regional parliaments) to approve it also.

2. If Parliament approves the deal, that creates a strong momentum behind the legislation to implement the deal, which in due course is also going to come before Parliament. It's more difficult for Parliament to reject legislation put before it if the purpose of the legislation is to implement a deal which Parliament has already endorsed.

The downside, of course, is that Parliament might reject the deal, which from the UK government's point of view would be a f@cking disaster. But, the thinking may be, if such a disaster is going to happen, then you'd rather it would happen before you sign up to the deal with the EU than afterwards. The alternative is concluding the deal, leaving the EU, and then introducing legislation to give effect to the deal and having Parliament reject the legislation. That would be an even f@ckinger disaster.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm scratching my head too, for the reasons you give. But, if I have to come up with a reason . . .

The government has realised/has been advised that any exit deal that looks remotely like one they might hope to negotiate is going to require UK legislation in order to implement it at the UK end. So, putting the deal to parliament for its approval has two advantages:

1. If Parliament approves the deal, it can then be presented to the Eu as a deal pre-approved in Britain; the EU can be (reasonably) confident that the deal they have negotiated will "stick" in the UK, which makes it easier for the EU to ask the European Parliament (and, quite possibly, EU-27 national/regional parliaments) to approve it also.

2. If Parliament approves the deal, that creates a strong momentum behind the legislation to implement the deal, which in due course is also going to come before Parliament. It's more difficult for Parliament to reject legislation put before it if the purpose of the legislation is to implement a deal which Parliament has already endorsed.

The downside, of course, is that Parliament might reject the deal, which from the UK government's point of view would be a f@cking disaster. But, the thinking may be, if such a disaster is going to happen, then you'd rather it would happen before you sign up to the deal with the EU than afterwards. The alternative is concluding the deal, leaving the EU, and then introducing legislation to give effect to the deal and having Parliament reject the legislation. That would be an even f@ckinger disaster.

It all depends on the revocability case in Dublin (then ECJ).
If it is not revocable then the vote would amount to shooting yourself on the foot (accept any deal however bad) or shooting yourself on the head. (Dumped out with no agreement when 2 year clock was up). Keir Starmer said that the UK couldnt pull out with no deal, but the EU 27 would have to unanimously allow the stay in with time running out.

If it is revocable, it gives the UK far more power. They have the option of stopping Brexit or postponing it if things go awry. They could also put it to another vote if public opinion changed dramatically or call a general election on it.

First Up

demfad wrote: »

It all depends on the revocability case in Dublin (then ECJ).
If it is not revocable then the vote would amount to shooting yourself on the foot (accept any deal however bad) or shooting yourself on the head. (Dumped out with no agreement when 2 year clock was up). Keir Starmer said that the UK couldnt pull out with no deal, but the EU 27 would have to unanimously allow the stay in with time running out.

If it is revocable, it gives the UK far more power. They have the option of stopping Brexit or postponing it if things go awry. They could also put it to another vote if public opinion changed dramatically or call a general election on it.

That will be down to interpretation but the legal opinion I have seen is strongly of the view that it can only be revoked with the unanimous agreement of the European Council.

Nody

Another unexpected twist from Brexit; medicines will be delayed in becoming available because May wants to pull out of the European Medicines Agency (who certifies medication in Europe and is under ECJ jurisdiction) which means a new separate UK only verification would be required in some form.

the current MHRA chairman, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, who said Japan, the US and the EU would be put ahead of Britain.

He told peers, last month: “One of the biggest worries I have about Brexit and standing alone as a regulator is that we are only three per cent of the world market for new drugs and if we are not careful we are going to be at the back of the queue.”

David Jeffreys, the vice-president of Eisai - a Japanese drugs firm that employs 450 people in the UK - said British patients could face delays of up to two years.

“The early innovative medicines will be applied for in the USA, in Japan and through the European system and the UK will be in the second, or indeed the third, wave - so UK patients may be getting medicines, 12, 18, 24 months later than they would if we remained in the European system,” he warned.

ambro25

This consequence, which now beginning to be felt, was expected.


After EU economic migrants, the next scapegoats in the great divide-and-conquer game are now being set up.

Nody

ambro25 wrote: »

This consequence, which now beginning to be felt, was expected.

All part of the plan; there's this huge group of unemployed brits just waiting to take the jobs, you just wait and see...

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

All part of the plan; there's this huge group of unemployed brits just waiting to take the jobs, you just wait and see...

With my sincere apologies, I ain't waiting to see jack s**t, my good Sir.

You see, I'm smack in the middle of it (EU national, living and working in the UK) and I understand from Ms May's mouthpieces that the UK is not interested in competing to retain my highly-profitable output, nor my eye-wateringly high tax contributions, so these can now go the next country.

Less glibly, Brexit (as it is planned: out of EU and EEA) leaves me no choice, professionally. With the UK exiting both the EU and the EEA as well, I stand to lose my registration and my rights of audience both at the EU Intellectual Property Office and at the Irish Patent Office. My remuneration and my workload in the UK (not to mention my desirability as a senior employee-Director or Partner) both hinge in good part on these qualifications, registrations and rights of audience. And these are not the sort of issues which are negotiable within the forthcoming Art.50 talks.

So I'm interviewing in Amsterdam in a couple of weeks.

As I like to remind Leavers discussing the likelihood of post-Brexit tariff and other WTO-compliant international trade, what they really should focus their practical minds upon, is NTBs: the above personal situation, is one of a myriad more real-life examples of 100% NTBs that will be applied de facto as of 01 April 2019...the net consequence of which No.11, and all who depend on it, NHS ahead, will feel all too keenly in due course.

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

This consequence, which now beginning to be felt, was expected.

For those who don't click through: EU nationals are leaving the UK, and employers are finding it harder to fill various jobs. Economics will tell us that this will cause upward pressure on wages, causing inflation and more sterling devaluation.

But I'm sure the Tories will weigh in with some policy to help keep wages low, like cutting social welfare and forcing invalids and pensioners back into the workforce for peanuts.

CrabRevolution

During the referendum campaign I noticed a lot of the "take back our jobs" stuff seemed to be a nostalgic yearning for the days when a large colliery, shipyard, steelworks, car manufacturing plant etc. would provide decent paying employment for the skilled and unskilled workers of an entire town. The same vein Trump tapped into to appeal to the rust belt in the USA.

The brexit side seemed to ignore the entire subject of late 20th century western deindustrialisation and blamed the decline of these industries entirely on post 2004 eastern European immigration. Does anyone really believe those jobs will ever return?

Or more realistically, does anyone really think the British public will feel appreciative of the more likely scenario of (once the many EU migrants leave) hundreds of thousands of minimum wage, zero hours contract jobs in meat packing factories and fruit farms becoming available?

catbear

Heard a similar sentiment at a funeral in kilkenny back in 2012, "there was 500 men employed at the brewery in the 50s, they could open it again in the morning!"

Even at the end the brewery was producing far more than previous output with less than 50 staff thanks to mechanisation.

Sam Russell

CrabRevolution wrote: »

During the referendum campaign I noticed a lot of the "take back our jobs" stuff seemed to be a nostalgic yearning for the days when a large colliery, shipyard, steelworks, car manufacturing plant etc. would provide decent paying employment for the skilled and unskilled workers of an entire town. The same vein Trump tapped into to appeal to the rust belt in the USA.

The brexit side seemed to ignore the entire subject of late 20th century western deindustrialisation and blamed the decline of these industries entirely on post 2004 eastern European immigration. Does anyone really believe those jobs will ever return?

Or more realistically, does anyone really think the British public will feel appreciative of the more likely scenario of (once the many EU migrants leave) hundreds of thousands of minimum wage, zero hours contract jobs in meat packing factories and fruit farms becoming available?

What you say is true.

Only the Tory Party relish the rise in vacancies for such low pay jobs because they can point to those vacancies while removing all those lazy good for nothing types who scrounge off the state by being on benefits because they can find no jobs. Well now they can and to encourage them, the Tories will cut those benefits further, particularly now they can rewrite the rules.

This is particularly true of the pro-Brexit wing of the Tory party.

murphaph

Sam Russell wrote: »

What you say is true.

Only the Tory Party relish the rise in vacancies for such low pay jobs because they can point to those vacancies while removing all those lazy good for nothing types who scrounge off the state by being on benefits because they can find no jobs. Well now they can and to encourage them, the Tories will cut those benefits further, particularly now they can rewrite the rules.

This is particularly true of the pro-Brexit wing of the Tory party.

The irony is that vast swathes of this welfare class voted for Brexit. A part of me will be happy to see them forced into working in meat factories to be able to put food on the table.

Sometimes turkeys really do vote for Christmas.

First Up

murphaph wrote:

Sometimes turkeys really do vote for Christmas.

There will be plenty of opportunities for schadenfreude but there will be collateral damage. A depressed UK will hit smaller Irish companies, even as we pick some meat of the carcass off their financial industry.

But its going to get nasty. The Brits don't take humiliation well and will try the divide and conquer tactic, including trying to drag us under with them.

It won't be pretty.