Brexit discussion thread II

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

Most people in NI see themselves as Northern Irish.

Not British, Not Irish, but Northern Irish. On both sides of the wall.

But don't let facts get in the way of yet another anti British rant.

As regeards letting facts get in the way, you should perhaps look to the beam in your own eye, Eugene. "Northern Irish", as a preferred identity in NI, comes third after "British" and "Irish". It's not the favoured identification on either side of the wall (or of either gender, or of any age group.)

murphaph

prinzeugen wrote: »

While the public finances may be "great", the money is not going to the forces.

Go into Easons and read any of the aviation periodicals. Its fact.

Sure half the Luftwaffe Eurofighter Typhoons are grounded as they can't afford the spares.

Its why Austria is looking for Eurofighter replacements also.

Germany pulled the plug on the upgrades that would have made a true multirole aircraft and no other country can afford to go it alone.

Also the consortium that builds the Eurofighter (of which BAE is a part) is based in... Germany.

So Germany is not skint as you put it. It's chosen not to fund certain military hardware and spend its money on other things. Possibly other military hardware, possibly the hospital my son spent the last 2 nights in, recovering from pneumonia, which was quickly diagnosed by his doc (in Germany children go to paediatricians in the community, not to a GP) and for which treatment began immediately after his doc referred him to the nearby hospital (and could call the consultant as we made our way directly to paediatrics) No queues. Private room like a hotel in not 15 minutes from our house. Meanwhile the UK apparently has to leave the EU to properly fund the NHS. Or so the big red bus told us.

Anyway, nevermind, I'm sure Mr. Fox will be able to flog stuff on behalf of BAE to the world's most brutal dictatorships to make up the shortfall.

Enzokk

Meanwhile back in Brexit land Theresa May cannot commit to voting to leave the EU if the referendum was held tomorrow. So she is in charge of the UK leaving the EU, but she will not vote for it. She cannot see the benefits right now of leaving the EU when she has all the information available to her, but she is plunging ahead, come what may, to keep herself in charge.

I think that is the scariest thing so far in all of this.

Theresa May refuses to say how she would vote in second EU referendum

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

Meanwhile back in Brexit land Theresa May cannot commit to voting to leave the EU if the referendum was held tomorrow. So she is in charge of the UK leaving the EU, but she will not vote for it. She cannot see the benefits right now of leaving the EU when she has all the information available to her, but she is plunging ahead, come what may, to keep herself in charge.

I think that is the scariest thing so far in all of this.

Theresa May refuses to say how she would vote in second EU referendum

so what should she do, just hand over to Boris?

it is a completely stupid thing to slate the PM for.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so what should she do, just hand over to Boris?

it is a completely stupid thing to slate the PM for.

"I see the benefits of leaving the EU and would support leaving in a new referendum."

How hard is that? She looks worse now for not committing to her path she has chosen. No-one forced her to run for PM or trigger article 50. If she didn't want it she should have stood aside for Andrea Leadsom.

mountaintop

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so what should she do, just hand over to Boris?

it is a completely stupid thing to slate the PM for.

Britain, basking in its own glory, monolingual, separated from the continent by water, full of pomp and ceremony, where the police still wear bobby helmets, postboxes are red, the Routemaster bus lives on, gentlemen's clubs still dot the capital with the heads of game shot while on safari in the colonies are displayed in glass cases. There is a cohort, a mindset, that cannot accept the loss of empire and being told what to do by 'Bloody Foreigners'. They are blinded by the blinkers of history. Brexit, in a nutshell, for me.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so what should she do, just hand over to Boris?

it is a completely stupid thing to slate the PM for.

It's not just about May. It's about almost the entire political scene in the UK being unable to stand up and admit that the people have made a terrible decision and explain why.

Then they should wear sackcloth and ashes for using the EU as an excuse for all the domestic failings and especially for failing to control EU migration as already allowed by the EU and as practiced by most other western European countries!

But they won't. Even now on the brink of disaster this gaggle of politicians is more interested in their pensions than the economic security of their country.

It's looking increasingly likely that a hard Brexit will happen and maybe it needs to so the UK can see that it's just a midsize economy in a big sea of big whales but a part of me believes another decade would have seen enough of the older voters die out and enough younger ones come through to see the result going the other way.

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

"I see the benefits of leaving the EU and would support leaving in a new referendum."

How hard is that? She looks worse now for not committing to her path she has chosen. No-one forced her to run for PM or trigger article 50. If she didn't want it she should have stood aside for Andrea Leadsom.

so you would put words in her mouth?What if she doesn't believe that?

I would rather a remainer negotiate Brexit than someone who was pro eu and then decided to follow Boris in to the anti eu camp.

murphaph

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so you would put words in her mouth?What if she doesn't believe that?

I would rahter a remainer negotiate Brexit than someone who was pro eu and then decided to follow Boris in to the anti eu camp.

Johnson has no firm conviction either way. He blows with whichever wind he thinks will advance his own personal position.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so you would put words in her mouth?What if she doesn't believe that?

I would rahter a remainer negotiate Brexit than someone who was pro eu and then decided to follow Boris in to the anti eu camp.

Considering who she appointed to the Brexit negotiating committe, coupled with her oppisition to the European courts of justice and single market, I can say there's no way she was ever a remainer. She just blows whichever way the wind is pointing.

Fratton Fred

murphaph wrote: »

Johnson has no firm conviction either way. He blows with whichever wind he thinks will advance his own personal position.

I think that probably applies to half of the leave campaign. They saw it as a platform to further their political careers, without ever thinking that it would actually happen. I would put Andrea Leadsom in that camp.

Water John

May was a remainer. It's because she's not flying on her own instincts and trying to second guess her party and a lesser extinct the electorate, she is making such poor choices in her positions.

elefant

Enzokk wrote: »

Meanwhile back in Brexit land Theresa May cannot commit to voting to leave the EU if the referendum was held tomorrow. So she is in charge of the UK leaving the EU, but she will not vote for it. She cannot see the benefits right now of leaving the EU when she has all the information available to her, but she is plunging ahead, come what may, to keep herself in charge.

I think that is the scariest thing so far in all of this.

Theresa May refuses to say how she would vote in second EU referendum

I feel bad for her.

She surely knows this is all a terrible move, but she doesn't have much choice but to do her best with it.

Water John

She thought she'd get a strong hand from the snap election. Not to deal with the EU but to deal with her own party. Got a mess, instead.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Considering who she appointed to the Brexit negotiating committe, coupled with her oppisition to the European courts of justice and single market, I can say there's no way she was ever a remainer. She just blows whichever way the wind is pointing.

Oliver Robbins, Tim Barrow and Sarah Healey?

Widely considered to be good choices for the roles.

Zubeneschamali

Water John wrote: »

May was a remainer. It's because she's not flying on her own instincts and trying to second guess her party and a lesser extinct the electorate, she is making such poor choices in her positions.

Well no, as Fred says, it is better to have someone who understands that it is a bad idea in charge rather than someone who is bonkers enough to think it's great.

murphaph

elefant wrote: »

I feel bad for her.

She surely knows this is all a terrible move, but she doesn't have much choice but to do her best with it.

Strongly disagree. She could stand up and tell the public what data she has seen in the true costs of Brexit should no deal be reached. If the prime minister stood up and said "ok I've tried but all the indications are we're heading for economic meltdown here and I urge another referendum to be taken more seriously by those who didn't vote last time or who made a protest vote"

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

May was a remainer. It's because she's not flying on her own instincts and trying to second guess her party and a lesser extinct the electorate, she is making such poor choices in her positions.

May was a remainer. She wanted to remain as Home Secretary under Cameron.

Now she wants to remain in No. 10 whatever the cost.

She also has a hatred of the ECtHR because it prevented her riding roughshod over the Human Rights of various people in custody waiting deprtation. She also hates the ECJ in anticipation of being over-ruled.

She has yet to turn her wrath on the UK Supreme Court which over-ruled her on the requirement for a Parliament vote on Article 50.

She favours the so called Henry the Eighth powers that allow a power grab by ministers to do as they wish without Parliament over-sight.

Remainer she is - but not in a good way.

elefant

murphaph wrote: »

Strongly disagree. She could stand up and tell the public what data she has seen in the true costs of Brexit should no deal be reached. If the prime minister stood up and said "ok I've tried but all the indications are we're heading for economic meltdown here and I urge another referendum to be taken more seriously by those who didn't vote last time or who made a protest vote"

Surely there would be absolute war if she tried that.
She's blocked democracy from the inside etc.

It would be her political death warrant.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so you would put words in her mouth?What if she doesn't believe that?

I would rather a remainer negotiate Brexit than someone who was pro eu and then decided to follow Boris in to the anti eu camp.

Please explain to me how she was for the single market before the referendum? Does she still believe it or not? If she didn't ever believe it she seems willing to say what she doesn't believe before, so why not now?

I think the problem she has is the interview throws up more questions than answers. Is she committed to Brexit or not? She just looks more indecisive and even weaker than before the interview.

Fratton Fred

Sam Russell wrote: »

May was a remainer. She wanted to remain as Home Secretary under Cameron.

Now she wants to remain in No. 10 whatever the cost.

Odd statement, but what is the problem with that?

Sam Russell wrote: »

She also has a hatred of the ECtHR because it prevented her riding roughshod over the Human Rights of various people in custody waiting deprtation.

Various terrorists waiting deportation who managed to buy themselves time arguing technicalities

Sam Russell wrote: »

She also hates the ECJ in anticipation of being over-ruled.

Does she, do you have something to suport this claim?

Sam Russell wrote: »

She has yet to turn her wrath on the UK Supreme Court which over-ruled her on the requirement for a Parliament vote on Article 50.

Could you use your crystal ball to give me tonight's lottery numbers?:rolleyes:

Sam Russell wrote: »

She favours the so called Henry the Eighth powers that allow a power grab by ministers to do as they wish without Parliament over-sight.

which is the most expendient way of ensuring that all existing eu laws are written in to UK legislation on day one of Brexit.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Remainer she is - but not in a good way.

you haven't actually shown anything there, other than your dislike for Theresa May.

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

Please explain to me how she was for the single market before the referendum? Does she still believe it or not? If she didn't ever believe it she seems willing to say what she doesn't believe before, so why not now?

she wasn't asked about the single market, she was asked which way she would vote. it is an irrelevant question and was used purely to put her on the spot. it is just the interviewer showboating, again.

If you want the answers to the above questions, then you could email number ten and they will respond

Enzokk wrote: »

I think the problem she has is the interview throws up more questions than answers. Is she committed to Brexit or not? She just looks more indecisive and even weaker than before the interview.

how does it throw up those questions?

If she said yes, she would vote to leave, then she would be accused of flip flopping and of being a leaver all the time. If she said she would vote to remain, then she would just get the wrath of the Brexiteers.

It is another of those "Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" scenarios that she is facing on a daily basis at the moment.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

she wasn't asked about the single market, she was asked which way she would vote. it is an irrelevant question and was used purely to put her on the spot. it is just the interviewer showboating, again.

If you want the answers to the above questions, then you could email number ten and they will respond

So a vote to stay in the EU is participating in the single market and a vote to leave the EU is leaving the single market. I don't see how voting remain is somehow a vote to leave the single market and I also cannot see how a leave vote is a vote to remain part of the single market. Those 2 concepts are tied together, would you agree?

Fratton Fred wrote: »

how does it throw up those questions?

If she said yes, she would vote to leave, then she would be accused of flip flopping and of being a leaver all the time. If she said she would vote to remain, then she would just get the wrath of the Brexiteers.

It is another of those "Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't" scenarios that she is facing on a daily basis at the moment.

How can she be accused of flip flopping when it is something she has already done? She is for leaving right now (or was before last night), having been a proponent for remain before the referendum. I doubt being called a double flopper is worse than someone that has changed their position once. She will always be known for that, even before her interview last night.

The questions she has to face this morning that she didn't last night is whether she fully believes in the direction she is taking the country in. I agree that she is in a tough position, but no one forced her to be in this position. Now that she is there she needs to be prepared to do what it right, as she did before the referendum when she advocated to stay in the EU. By saying nothing she made it worse and not better.

Professor Moriarty

Enzokk wrote: »

So a vote to stay in the EU is participating in the single market and a vote to leave the EU is leaving the single market. I don't see how voting remain is somehow a vote to leave the single market and I also cannot see how a leave vote is a vote to remain part of the single market. Those 2 concepts are tied together, would you agree?





How can she be accused of flip flopping when it is something she has already done? She is for leaving right now (or was before last night), having been a proponent for remain before the referendum. I doubt being called a double flopper is worse than someone that has changed their position once. She will always be known for that, even before her interview last night.

The questions she has to face this morning that she didn't last night is whether she fully believes in the direction she is taking the country in. I agree that she is in a tough position, but no one forced her to be in this position. Now that she is there she needs to be prepared to do what it right, as she did before the referendum when she advocated to stay in the EU. By saying nothing she made it worse and not better.

May is without principle and is a hypocrite. She is also out of her depth. Apart from that she's grand.

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

So a vote to stay in the EU is participating in the single market and a vote to leave the EU is leaving the single market. I don't see how voting remain is somehow a vote to leave the single market and I also cannot see how a leave vote is a vote to remain part of the single market. Those 2 concepts are tied together, would you agree?

sorry, but where are you going with this, it is completely irrelevant. Theresa May wasn't asked about the single market, the ECHR, what Davis had for lunch or anything else. she was asked how she would vote in another referendum and she refused to be drawn on it.

Enzokk wrote: »

How can she be accused of flip flopping when it is something she has already done? She is for leaving right now (or was before last night), having been a proponent for remain before the referendum. I doubt being called a double flopper is worse than someone that has changed their position once. She will always be known for that, even before her interview last night.

What has she done? invoked article 50 and commenced negotiations with the eu.

You said it raises questions about whether or not she was committed to Brexit, you have just answered that.

Agaion, where are you going with this?

Enzokk wrote: »

The questions she has to face this morning that she didn't last night is whether she fully believes in the direction she is taking the country in. I agree that she is in a tough position, but no one forced her to be in this position. Now that she is there she needs to be prepared to do what it right, as she did before the referendum when she advocated to stay in the EU. By saying nothing she made it worse and not better.

she wasn't asked that question last night, she was asked which way she would vote in another referendum.

No one is ofrcing her, no, but then no one is forcing Leo Veradkar, Angela Merkel, Jean Claude Juncker or any one else. Where are you going with this?

LeinsterDub

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Various terrorists waiting deportation who managed to buy themselves time arguing technicalities

Also known as the due process of the law. Be careful dismissing it because sure they are only terrorists. You could be the one in need of the same due process

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

sorry, but where are you going with this, it is completely irrelevant. Theresa May wasn't asked about the single market, the ECHR, what Davis had for lunch or anything else. she was asked how she would vote in another referendum and she refused to be drawn on it.

I am tying a vote to remain in the EU with staying in the single market. A vote to leave would mean leaving the single market. When asked about the EU referendum this can be seen as your view on what the membership to the EU means, i.e. among other things the single market.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

What has she done? invoked article 50 and commenced negotiations with the eu.

You said it raises questions about whether or not she was committed to Brexit, you have just answered that.

Agaion, where are you going with this?

With such a big decision you want the people making the decisions to believe the path they are following, or at least appear for that to be the case.

Fratton Fred wrote: »

she wasn't asked that question last night, she was asked which way she would vote in another referendum.

No one is ofrcing her, no, but then no one is forcing Leo Veradkar, Angela Merkel, Jean Claude Juncker or any one else. Where are you going with this?

Your opinion obviously varies but I think it is important for someone to be fully engaged in their task or their is a chance you will only get a halfhearted effort, especially when it is as important as Brexit.

Gerry T

With Philip hammond coming out saying airlines could be grounded if there's a hard Brexit. And the total lack in progress, then May suggesting the people will get a vote on the deal struck so they can decide if they want to take it. I really am getting the impression the govt are planning to scrap brexit and blame the EU.
Now the wheels are in motion I'm looking forward to the UK leaving, not sure if I would be happy them staying. Initially I was really dissapointed with them leaving, the disruption to business and in my opinion the tanking of the UK economy. I have family and friends there. But more recently I think the EU is better without the arrogance and superiority from their politicians.

Harika

Gerry T wrote: »

With harmony coming out saying airlines could be grounded if there's a hard Brexit. And the total lack in progress, then May suggesting the people will get a vote on the deal struck so they can decide if they want to take it. I really am getting the impression the govt are planning to scrap brexit and blame the EU.
Now the wheels are in motion I'm looking forward to the UK leaving, not sure if I would be happy them staying. Initially I was really dissapointed with them leaving, the disruption to business and in my opinion the tanking of the UK economy. I have family and friends there. But more recently I think the EU is better without the arrogance and superiority from their politicians.

Brexit, how it is until now is a train crash, hard to deny that. Just to reverse it, you need the same people that are not able to coordinate a proper Brexit to come up with a plan to reverse it properly. As it is not as simple as sending a letter and say "Hi, we thought about it and we stay. Yours, UK (Stronger Together)" or sitting in out as at the end there is a wall that is coming closer and closer.
Like all EU states have to agree to stop it, what will cost the UK the bonus they received so far. Some might even want them to join the Euro for staying. Something that will be really hard to sell at home.

Gerry T

I hope your right, I would look to having them conceded the currency if staying as you suggest. I don't know if they can cancel A50, I read somewhere that May had legal eagles look into this, so there may be a clause in their that allows the UK to simply cancel.
The only way the UK could get away with it is to have a "deal" to go back to the people to vote on. It might be in the EUs interest to let the UK leave and let them worry about WTO and everything else. The UK politicians and Lords would have too much pride to turn around and say, oh we got it wrong and we don't fancy going alone, so we're staying.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

There have been a lot of poor contributions, personal attacks and other such matters this morning. I've deleted some posts and handed out a few cards and bans, based on the content and of course certain posters who are repeat offenders.

demfad

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/10/mps-urge-david-davis-to-publish-brexit-impact-assessments

More than 120 MPs have signed a letter demanding that David Davis publish secret advice his department is gathering on the damaging effects of Brexit on jobs and living standards.

The letter, co-ordinated by Labour’s David Lammy and Seema Malhotra, accuses the government of keeping “not only parliament but the public in the dark” and says failure to disclose the advice is preventing MPs from holding ministers to account.

The Department for Exiting the EU has refused even to confirm which sectors have been looked into in the impact assessments, only responding that impact studies will be published “shortly” and in “due course”, the letter says.

Good tactic this. Brexit dept clearly have not released this information for a good reason: It's very bad news.

To quote Ian Dunt HERE: "They cannot publish them because to do so conceded that they are pursuing an insane strategy in which the default outcome is catastrophic."

Politicians should dog with a bone this until not releasing it is just as damaging as releasing it. As with Trump though, the media is being shown to be quite inept/biased around Brexit.

The reports might contain something like this:

Pulling out of the EU aviation system without a stop-gap arrangement would mean air carriers can only fly between the UK and their country of origin. UK airlines would lose their ability to fly between other EU member states. And that's not even to mention the legal requirements by third parties, like the US demand for passenger data ahead of flights, which is currently under an EU umbrella. Unless there is a deal on that, there will be no flights from the UK to the US either.

A no-deal outcome means a border in Ireland. The British can claim they would not set one up - and they can mean it - but someone is going to take the Republic of Ireland to the ECJ because it is allowing a massive open channel into the single market by a third party state, and they are going to win that case. Then, as point of law, a border will have to be built. This is the reality.

No-deal means that punishing tariffs will be imposed on agricultural goods. British food producers will lose competitive access to their largest export market, so they will try to raise their domestic prices to make up for it. Most will go out of business. In manufacturing, products will soar in price. It's not just the ten per cent tariff on the finished car, but the tariffs on the component parts too. In addition, there are heavy bureaucratic costs to the country-of-origin checks manufacturers will have to undertake. The cost of the product will rise steeply. Fewer will be sold. Businesses will go bust. As Brexiter Peter North wrote yesterday:

"In the first year or so we are going to lose a lot of manufacturing. Virtually all JIT export manufacturing will fold inside a year."

According to the World Bank, no-deal would see a 50% reduction in Britain's trade with goods with the EU and a 62% reduction in its trade in services.

demfad

Interesting paper HERE: (see page 40-41)

At the same time, though, the constitutional case for forcing a Member State to withdraw from the Union if it bona fide wished to remain is weak. The possibility of abuse would be prevented by the requirement that withdrawal of the notification should be in good faith. At this stage, the
extent to which the withdrawing state would be required to prove that it is acting based on a genuine change of heart is difficult to predict. In light of the fact that EU law has a distinct, but fairly limited doctrine of abuse of law160 and has never encountered that question in similar circumstances, the matter may need to be litigated before the Court of Justice. Still, provided
it is in good faith, a unilateral revocation of the decision to withdraw should be possible

What this means is that if the UK wanted to change it's mind in good faith about leaving the EU, they could.
If it wasn't in good faith they could not, as they could indefinitely revoke/invoke to improve negotiating position holding other EU countries to ransom.
The ECJ would adjudicate if conditions for good faith were met. Another referendum (leave EU with no deal/Stay in EU) would happen anyway.

When Theresa May was asked if the UK Govt had looked into the legalities of unilateral revocation she declined to answer this weekend.
That probably means they have. They should do ofcourse, they should prepare for every eventuality, but this particular Government looking at that it might mean more.

ambro25

demfad wrote: »

Interesting paper HERE: (see page 40-41)

It certainly is, and thank you for linking it

demfad wrote: »

What this means is that if the UK wanted to change it's mind in good faith about leaving the EU, they could.

Considering the UK was the very instigator of Article 50 in the first place, and having regard to the preparatory works [Section III in your link, always extremely instructive when interpreting law with regard to facts] there is every chance that Brexit and May's invoking of Article 50 could be lent a strong degree of premeditation. In my mind, that counts against good faith.

Then again, the notion of "associate membership" (EU membership without the 'ever-closer' remit) was clearly also considered at length during the inception of Article 50, and is effectively what deal Cameron had secured back in February 2016. In my mind, that's a mitigating factor which favours a UK retraction.

Section III starts on page 15, check it out. It's highly informative about the amount of respect which 'the EU' effectively paid to members' sovereignty (the 'constitutional requirements' test underlying a valid deposition of an Article 50 instrument).

flatty

elefant wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Strongly disagree. She could stand up and tell the public what data she has seen in the true costs of Brexit should no deal be reached. If the prime minister stood up and said "ok I've tried but all the indications are we're heading for economic meltdown here and I urge another referendum to be taken more seriously by those who didn't vote last time or who made a protest vote"

Surely there would be absolute war if she tried that.
She's blocked democracy from the inside etc.

It would be her political death warrant.

And so what? She would be treated far more kindly if she did so. Another year at the helm looks like it ll age her ten more. It's like smoking crack for her. She enjoys the hit of power but doesn't notice her teeth falling out.
An honorable person would sacrifice a year or two of a career for the general good. Actually, any normal person would. It takes a very special kind of self interest to hold the line she currently is, if that is her plan.

Sand

It may have already been posted, but Peter North, a prominent Brexiteer who has been critical of the Tory party and Brexit negotiations to date has posted an article to his blog accepting that a no-deal Brexit is inevitable, which was then picked up by the Guardian. He paints a fairly horrendous picture of what no-deal Brexit will mean.

In the first year or so we are going to lose a lot of manufacturing. Virtually all JIT export manufacturing will fold inside a year. Initially we will see food prices plummet but this won't last. Domestic agriculture won't be able to compete and we'll see a gradual decline of UK production. UK meats will be premium produce and no longer affordable to most.

Once food importers have crushed all UK competition they will gradually raise their prices, simply because they can. Meanwhile wages will stay depressed and because of the collapse of disposable income and availability of staff, we can probably expect the service sector to take a big hit thus eliminating all the jobs that might provide a supplementary income.

Across the board we will see prices rising. There will be some serendipitous benefits but nothing that offsets the mass job losses. We will see a lot of foreign investment dry up and banking services will move to the EU. Dublin and Frankfurt. I expect that house prices will start to fall, but that's not going to do anyone any favours in the short to mid term.

Meanwhile, since tax receipts will be way down we can expect major cuts to the forces and a number of Army redundancies. I expect to see RAF capability cut by a third

After years of the left bleating about austerity they are about to find out what it actually means. Britain is about to become a much more expensive pace to live. It will cause a spike in crime.

What I do expect to happen is a lot of engineering jobs to be axed since a lot of them are dependent on defence spending. It will kill off a number of parasitic resourcing firms and public sector suppliers. Basically it will wipe out the cosseted lower middle class and remind them that they are just as dispensable as the rest of us.

We can the expect to see a major rationalisation of the NHS and what functions it will perform. It will be more of a skeleton service than ever....Unemployment will be back to where it was in the 80's.

Effectively we are looking at a ten year recession. Nothing ever experienced by those under 50.

But the most illuminating point is that despite believing all of the above (which would have been dismissed as Project Fear by Brexiteers less than 2 years ago) he is still in favour of Brexit under those terms. He believes the suffering and pain will be good for the character and morality of British youth.

My gut instinct tells me that culturally it will be a vast improvement on the status quo. There will be more reasons to cooperate and more need to congregate. I expect to see a cultural revolution where young people actually start doing surprising and reckless things again rather than becoming tedious hipsters drinking energy drinks in pop-up cereal bar book shops or whatever it is they do these days. We'll be back to the days when students had to be frugal and from their resourcefulness manage to produce interesting things and events.

I'm of the view that in recent years people have become increasingly spoiled and self-indulgent, inventing psychological problems for themselves in the absence of any real challenges or imperatives to grow as people. I have always primarily thought Brexit would be a reboot on British politics and culture. In a lot of ways it will bring back much of what is missing. A little austerity might very well make us less frivolous.

Its reads like quasi-fascist strength through toil ideology, with war and suffering being necessary for the good of the nation. It just goes to demonstrate that even 'moderate' Brexiteers are basically believers in a fundamentalist and suicidal cult that want to burn down the existing order in the hope something better will be reborn from the ashes. The British Brexiteers are deliberately and knowingly screwing over the younger British generations just to make a point. I feel deep sympathy with Brits under the age of 40 who will spend the rest of their lives undoing the damage inflicted on them by their elders.

LeinsterDub

Sand wrote: »

Its reads like quasi-fascist strength through toil ideology, with war and suffering being necessary for the good of the nation.

That's a truly terrify read. I truly don't know were to start. Your comments above is probably better than I could ever put it.

Capt'n Midnight

elefant wrote: »

Surely there would be absolute war if she tried that.
She's blocked democracy from the inside etc.

It would be her political death warrant.

She's protected from the public by the fixed term of Parliament. The fact that she is very unlikely to remain PM after the next election also means she doesn't have to worry about the public outside her constituency. And she doesn't have to worry about the public in her constituency as she's in a very safe seat, it's been Tory since Eighteen Eighty Five.


However, within Parliament her majority is dependent on the DUP who haven't delivered any of the cash or protected the jobs, and they still have the problems of Stormount and Cash for Ash.


Within the party it takes 15% of the MPs to write a letter to the 1922 committee to trigger a leadership challenge. So far there's not quite enough MP's ready to do that, which probably has more to do with the unpredictability of a replacement than anything else.


It cannot be said too often that the UK constitution isn't written and for all practical purposes can be summed up in three words "Parliament is God"

Also she would have kept her majority if 401 voters in critical constituencies had supported her party.
Narrow margins like this , by the way, is one reason I'm strongly opposed to eVoting machines. Elections that are too close to call happen on a regular basis and with a physical ballot there is physical evidence.

Professor Moriarty

It's beyond satire at this stage. From an article in The Guardian:

Britain and the EU have formally informed members of the World Trade Organisation how they plan to split up the EU’s tariff quotas and farm subsidies after Brexit in a plan already rejected by the White House.

I would imagine that the EU is going through the motions with Britain regarding the WTO as one would with a toddler who wants every toy in the shop.

And the vultures are circling ever before the death:

After a leak of the letter this month, however, the UK has been told that the arrangement is unacceptable to the US and other WTO members who wish to force the UK to open its market further to their farm products.

carrickbally

Headline in the Daily Telegraph.

'Theresa May is now the EU's Stepford Wife: subservient and submissive to their every whim
Nigel Farage'.

Another headline in the same paper said the UK is going to join the US Mexico and Canada in NAFTA.

carrickbally

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

She's protected from the public by the fixed term of Parliament. The fact that she is very unlikely to remain PM after the next election also means she doesn't have to worry about the public outside her constituency. And she doesn't have to worry about the public in her constituency as she's in a very safe seat, it's been Tory since Eighteen Eighty Five.


However, within Parliament her majority is dependent on the DUP who haven't delivered any of the cash or protected the jobs, and they still have the problems of Stormount and Cash for Ash.


Within the party it takes 15% of the MPs to write a letter to the 1922 committee to trigger a leadership challenge. So far there's not quite enough MP's ready to do that, which probably has more to do with the unpredictability of a replacement than anything else.


It cannot be said too often that the UK constitution isn't written and for all practical purposes can be summed up in three words "Parliament is God"

Also she would have kept her majority if 401 voters in critical constituencies had supported her party.
Narrow margins like this , by the way, is one reason I'm strongly opposed to eVoting machines. Elections that are too close to call happen on a regular basis and with a physical ballot there is physical evidence.

Non verifiable e-voting is a recipe for the corruption of the election system in any democracy.

The blunt pencil and the bit of paper is there for all to see.

Non-verifiable e-voting is totally open to insider manipulation.

Sam Russell

carrickbally wrote: »

Non verifiable e-voting is a recipe for the corruption of the election system in any democracy.

The blunt pencil and the bit of paper is there for all to see.

Non-verifiable e-voting is totally open to insider manipulation.

eVoting is not what we should have gone for but eCounting.

What Bitain needs is the abandon First past the Post as it give power to minority parties. With STV
, the Tories would never get into power on their own, and so no Brexit.

LeinsterDub

EU youth orchestra to quit UK for Italy over Brexit
‘You can’t ask for EU funding and then not be in the EU,’ says chief executive of orchestra established in London in 1976

I'm sure in the grand scheme of things this is entirely unimportant but how many others 'entirely unimportant' projects like this exists that no one has considered before and even more worringly how many important projects will disappear from Britain soon.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/11/eu-youth-orchestra-to-quit-uk-for-italy-over-brexit

Capt'n Midnight

carrickbally wrote: »

Non verifiable e-voting is a recipe for the corruption of the election system in any democracy.

The blunt pencil and the bit of paper is there for all to see.

Non-verifiable e-voting is totally open to insider manipulation.

On the other hand verifiable e-voting means you can sell your vote. So the whole concept is badly broken.



Anyway back on topic.

The UK are going to spend a little preparing for Brexit
UK will spend what is needed to prepare for Brexit - No 10

A No 10 spokesman said £250m of new money had been allocated this year to prepare for leaving the EU, "including the possibility of a no-deal scenario".

Speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, Theresa May said "where money needs to be spent it will be spent".

Except that they aren't. Two hours earlier, the chancellor said.

"What I am not prepared to do is allocate funds to departments in advance of the need to spend," he added.

"Every pound we spend on contingency planning on a hard customs border is a pound we can't spend on the NHS, social care or education. I don't believe we should be in the business of making potentially nugatory expenditure until the very last moment when we need to do so."

And it's not a lot considering they'll be saving £350m a week.

prinzeugen

murphaph wrote: »

So Germany is not skint as you put it. It's chosen not to fund certain military hardware and spend its money on other things. Possibly other military hardware, possibly the hospital my son spent the last 2 nights in, recovering from pneumonia, which was quickly diagnosed by his doc (in Germany children go to paediatricians in the community, not to a GP) and for which treatment began immediately after his doc referred him to the nearby hospital (and could call the consultant as we made our way directly to paediatrics) No queues. Private room like a hotel in not 15 minutes from our house. Meanwhile the UK apparently has to leave the EU to properly fund the NHS. Or so the big red bus told us.

Anyway, nevermind, I'm sure Mr. Fox will be able to flog stuff on behalf of BAE to the world's most brutal dictatorships to make up the shortfall.

Go away and read the news and the facts.. The fact is we, as EU members can only wish of this in Ireland unless you have €€€

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

Go away and read the news and the facts.. The fact is we, as EU members can only wish of this in Ireland unless you have €€€

You do realise that the words "as EU members" in your sentence above are completely redundant, don't you?

The Leave campaign made much - rather too much, as I think everybody now accepts - of diverting money paid by the UK to the EU and using it instead to increase spending on the NHS. But they could divert the money spend on anything to the NHS, if that is a greater priority; they don't need to leave the EU to do this. They could, for example, abandon their ludicrous nuclear "deterrent", and divert the money to the NHS. This would certainly do them less economic and reputational damage than Brexit.

If the Irish health service is inadequately funded or badly managed, it's not because we're in the EU. And exactly the same goes for the NHS in the UK.

prinzeugen

Peregrinus wrote: »

You do realise that the words "as EU members" in your sentence above are completely redundant, don't you?

The Leave campaign made much - rather too much, as I think everybody now accepts - of diverting money paid by the UK to the EU and using it instead to increase spending on the NHS. But they could divert the money spend on anything to the NHS, if that is a greater priority; they don't need to leave the EU to do this. They could, for example, abandon their ludicrous nuclear "deterrent", and divert the money to the NHS. This would certainly do them less economic and reputational damage than Brexit.

If the Irish health service is inadequately funded or badly managed, it's not because we're in the EU. And exactly the same goes for the NHS in the UK.

Abandon the nukes? Its the only reason that the UK is not part of Russia now.

But I am sure some would welcome Putin and poverty with open arms!

Peregrinus

prinzeugen wrote: »

Abandon the nukes? Its the only reason that the UK is not part of Russia now.

Are you just going to leave that hanging there, or are you going to explain this bizarre belief?

Nody

Rabo Bank are joining project fear I guess because they have calculated the cost of a hard brexit to £400 billion pounds to 2030. Hence £400 billion loss vs. £100 billion to the EU budget (estimated); well at least we have a price tag for the UK sovereignty.

Samaris

prinzeugen wrote: »

Abandon the nukes? Its the only reason that the UK is not part of Russia now.

But I am sure some would welcome Putin and poverty with open arms!

That and the width of Europe in the way.