Brexit discussion thread III

Professor Moriarty

Water John wrote: »

With Brexit, UK gets back its fishing grounds, at the end of the transition period. The Scots Tory MPs are thus arguing a strawman. They know that. Its in the intervening period is what the fishermen were looking for.

Don't forget that a large majority (62%) in Scotland voted Remain. A significant chunk of those would be Tory voters.

LeinsterDub

The hard-fought agreement between the UK and EU over a 21-month transition period after Brexit has been thrown into doubt after Spain refused to endorse the deal without further concessions over Gibraltar

The first sign of division amongst the EU side. This is bad news for Ireland and Britain if everyone comes out looking for their piece of the pie.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/spain-refuses-to-back-withdrawal-deal-over-gibraltar-concerns

Water John

It may be no harm for the UK to see, not to take for granted that Brussels will be always able to get the 27 in line.

CrabRevolution

While it's not good, I suppose it's a good reality check for the UK. Before the referendum, the Brexit politicians and press had predicted dissent and disagreement amongst the countries of the EU, but in the opposite way to whats happening now with Spain.

The Brexiteers assumed each country would (as a matter of self preservation) be desperate to give the UK what it wants and would fight with the EU to give the UK better and better deals.

The talk was all of German companies telling Merkel to agree to UK demands, Ireland taking the UKs side in order to prioritise its links to the UK over those with the EU etc. As far as the UK press was concerned, trade with the UK is the cornerstone of around 30 European economies, so they'd have the EU over a barrel in negotiations.

None of these things happened, and if anything it's the opposite. Germany and France have repeatedly stated that the integrity of the single market is 1st, 2nd, and 3rd priority, not trade with the UK. Ireland are proving very difficult for the UK, and Spain are doing exactly as you would expect in seeking concessions over Gibraltar.

swampgas

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The first sign of division amongst the EU side. This is bad news for Ireland and Britain if everyone comes out looking for their piece of the pie.


https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/spain-refuses-to-back-withdrawal-deal-over-gibraltar-concerns

From the article:

Spain has gained the rest of the EU’s agreement that the UK must come to a bilateral accord over the future of Gibraltar for it to enjoy the benefits of the deal struck by the British government with Brussels.

The Spanish government was concerned, however, by comments from the Brexit secretary, David Davis, on Monday in which he suggested that this was in doubt. Asked by a Spanish journalist on Monday whether the transition agreement covered Gibraltar, Davis replied: “Yes, it does cover Gibraltar. That is our view of it.”

Sounds like David Davis put his foot in it again.

trellheim

The first sign of division amongst the EU side. This is bad news for Ireland and Britain if everyone comes out looking for their piece of the pie.

What ? No it isnt the Spaniards got their Gib veto in early doors I'm surprised its not come up sooner. That and Akrotiri

Peregrinus

Skedaddle wrote: »

The best case scenario from an Irish point of view now would be for the DUP to go absolutely bonkers and pull support for the UK Government, triggering a general election within 14 days.

But, precisely because this is the best case scenario from an Irish point of view, the DUP are unlikely to do this.

Peregrinus

Leroy42 wrote: »

It pretty muted the response. JRM and IDS have both seemingly taken the view of its worth it to get out. So red lines are gone, once they can claim Brexit day, the actual details are not that important.

Or is it that they are simply biding their time since nothing is agreed until later in the year?

No. They are biding their time until 29 March 2019, when Britain will leave the EU and their main objective will have been achieved, and will be very difficult to reverse.

However bitter the pills they swallow in relation to being a "vassal state" during the transition period, paying a big divorce settlement, not getting control of fisheries until 2021 instead of 2019, etc, these are all transitional things, and it doesn't make sense to jeopardise what they see as the main game in order to avoid them.

At this point, most of the humiliating concessions that the UK has had to make have all related to the Brexit process, and/or the transition period. The main thing they've had to sign up to that represents an enduring concession is commitment to full regulatory alignment in NI. That isn't permanent, but nor it is something that only lasts for the transition period, or for any fixed or limited period; it continues unless and until the UK can come up with a way of keeping the Irish border open that the EU likes even better than full regulatory alignment.

I'm not sure that it's widely appreciated in the UK that this is an open-ended commitment. A lot of people (on both sides) still think that the Irish border is a second-order issue, so they don't necessarily devote too much attention to the fine detail.

Peregrinus

LeinsterDub wrote: »

The first sign of division amongst the EU side. This is bad news for Ireland and Britain if everyone comes out looking for their piece of the pie.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/spain-refuses-to-back-withdrawal-deal-over-gibraltar-concerns

This isn't a "first sign of division emerging". The EU stated explicitly right at the outset of the negotiations that the application of any Brexit deal to Gibraltar was a matter to be negotiated bilaterally between the UK and Spain. It cannot surprise anybody that the Spaniards now point this out. Who would ever have expected them to do otherwise?

If HMG were a bit more co-ordinated and thoughtful than a bunch of men who've never met before brawling in a pub car park, they'd have been talking to the Spanish all along about what could be done to secure their agreement to the inclusion of Gibraltar. And, in fairness, possibly they have been doing so, but quietly. But, given the skill and polish which they have brought to bear in the main negotiation, it's probably more likely that they haven't.

It isn't just the Spanish who are getting a bit assertive here. The Gibraltarian government is threatening to take legal action to establish that giving the Spanish a veto is contrary to EU law. "Our position is that if Spain exercises a veto under that clause, we will challenge it in court – whatever that may do to the whole of Brexit". And "whatever that may do to the whole of Brexit" is of course a threat aimed at the UK government much more than at the EU-27. The Gibraltarians are fiercely loyal to the UK, but also fiercely pissed off at the cavalier way in which the UK is treating their concerns and interests.

LeinsterDub

Peregrinus wrote: »

This isn't a "first sign of division emerging". The EU stated explicitly right at the outset of the negotiations that the application of any Brexit deal to Gibraltar was a matter to be negotiated bilaterally between the UK and Spain. It cannot surprise anybody that the Spaniards now point this out. Who would ever have expected them to do otherwise?

You are indeed correct. We've been focused in the 3 EU red lines for phase 1 for so long I'd forgotten about this.

Nody

LeinsterDub wrote: »

You are indeed correct. We've been focused in the 3 EU red lines for phase 1 for so long I'd forgotten about this.

As does it appear did the UK; I can't recall a single time they actually mentioned Gibraltar in any official documentation from their intention documents, to the notice to leave etc. The only time Gibraltar is brought up is when whipped to frenzy in national pride by The Sun and the like and the "We'll bring gunboats to Gibraltar" style but beyond that they appear to be forgotten. Hence I'm not surprised Davis would automatically claim "of course they are included" since he'd not spent any thought on the subject (as admitting "I got no idea; we've not bothered to bring it up" was a no go from start).

Leroy42

These are the latest numbers out this morning;

UK pay growth closes the gap with inflation, surging to 2.8pc in January
Climbing pay alleviates the pressure on UK households
Unemployment drops back to 4.3pc, a 42-year low

They are healthy no matter which way you look at them. I know there are other forces at work, but from these numbers surely Brexit will not be the disaster that is being foretold?

Why would wages be climbing if companies are expecting massive changes ahead, or even if they are unsure?

It counterintuitive to me,

swampgas

Leroy42 wrote: »

These are the latest numbers out this morning;

UK pay growth closes the gap with inflation, surging to 2.8pc in January
Climbing pay alleviates the pressure on UK households
Unemployment drops back to 4.3pc, a 42-year low

They are healthy no matter which way you look at them. I know there are other forces at work, but from these numbers surely Brexit will not be the disaster that is being foretold?

Why would wages be climbing if companies are expecting massive changes ahead, or even if they are unsure?

It counterintuitive to me,

I'm no expert, but Brexit hasn't happened yet (so no immediate hit to the economy), and the pay growth seems to be a reaction to the devaluation of sterling - in other words pay hasn't gone up in real terms, it's just that the UK are starting to see a wage-price spiral.

Skedaddle

There's also been a boost to competitiveness due to weak GBP while still working within the EU without any change, yet.

Leroy42

swampgas wrote: »

I'm no expert, but Brexit hasn't happened yet (so no immediate hit to the economy), and the pay growth seems to be a reaction to the devaluation of sterling - in other words pay hasn't gone up in real terms, it's just that the UK are starting to see a wage-price spiral.

Skedaddle wrote: »

There's also been a boost to competitiveness due to weak GBP while still working within the EU without any change, yet.

Yes, but everyone knows it is coming so it is unlikely that companies are giving pay rises with the expectation that it will cause them more pain further on. WHy not simply hold off, easy to say that times are too fluid to agree to anything at the moment.

And sure the boost to competitiveness, but companies are not in the habit of given away profits when the can see trouble times ahead.

One issue may be the fall off in immigration numbers, so less people to take the jobs, less supply, price goes up. That simply proves the brexit people were right in that immigration was depressing the wages.

demfad

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't agree. I think cancelling Brexit is a 100-1 longshot at this stage, but the path might go:

Final, final deal emerges at the talks, and is very much dictated by the EU. The DUP and the Eurosceptics balk and bring down the Government.

Labour romp home in the election, and immediately ask for talks extension and membership of CU. EU says no worries, we have that plan on our shelf of plans. Extended talks period begins, and talks reveal to the UK public that a Norway option (or whatever) will cost a lot, and give less control than they have now.

People continue to ask "What exactly is the point of Brexit again?". Eventually Labour organize a referendum on the new deal, with Brexit on the new agreed terms or Remain as the options, and Remain wins.

In this scenario, only collapse at the last minute with an election can help.

What about a massive (and imminent) revelation that ALL Leave campaigns illegally coordinated with Cambridge Analytica to wage information warfare on the British electorate rending the 52-48 advisory Referendum 'unfair' (there is a technical term I believe) and inconclusive leading to Ref2?

J Mysterio

Leroy42 wrote: »

These are the latest numbers out this morning;

UK pay growth closes the gap with inflation, surging to 2.8pc in January
Climbing pay alleviates the pressure on UK households
Unemployment drops back to 4.3pc, a 42-year low

They are healthy no matter which way you look at them. I know there are other forces at work, but from these numbers surely Brexit will not be the disaster that is being foretold?

Why would wages be climbing if companies are expecting massive changes ahead, or even if they are unsure?

It counterintuitive to me,

Where are these numbers from? I'm more than a little sceptical.

trellheim

will no-one think of the poor uk fishermen they were sold the biggest pup ever here , this dog will continue to bark .

Leroy42

J Mysterio wrote: »

Where are these numbers from? I'm more than a little sceptical.

Office for National Statistics

I have taken the report from the Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/03/21/pay-rises-unemployment-falls-britains-money-worries-ease/

And I know, as I originally stated, that there are counter forces going on, but from a public POV these are welcome numbers and go against the touted wisdom that the place is doomed.

Now either companies are betting on there being only the smallest of Brexits, or they think that Brexit will not have much of an effect.

Water John

All the UK media are referring to the CA story as about DT's election. When will they get around to asking about the input into the Brexit Ref?
This is what happened, on their own doorstep.

demfad

Water John wrote: »

All the UK media are referring to the CA story as about DT's election. When will they get around to asking about the input into the Brexit Ref?
This is what happened, on their own doorstep.

BBC are actively ignoring this.

A problem is that the board of parent company SCL (which is effectively CA: CA is a shell company with no assets or employess) is filled with Lords, ex MI5 chiefs, generals etc. In other words the traditional British power establishment.
Nix is still the head of SCL BTW. The BBC wont go against the grey haired 'deep' establishment.

Both Banks and Wigmore have stated that CA's huge user profile (weapon) was used for leave.eu. They have stated this openly.

Clearly this weapon was used against the UK population.
Clearly it nullifies the Referendum result as regards reliability.

BTW Nix, Rebekah Mercer, and Jennifer Mercer just set up a new data analytics company.

jobbridge4life

Leroy42 wrote: »

These are the latest numbers out this morning;

UK pay growth closes the gap with inflation, surging to 2.8pc in January
Climbing pay alleviates the pressure on UK households
Unemployment drops back to 4.3pc, a 42-year low

They are healthy no matter which way you look at them. I know there are other forces at work, but from these numbers surely Brexit will not be the disaster that is being foretold?

Why would wages be climbing if companies are expecting massive changes ahead, or even if they are unsure?

It counterintuitive to me,

Wage growth is long overdue in the UK, unemployment figures are masking precarious employment and may be based on lower end employment.

Rising wages and rising inflation is not a recipe for success.

Rising wages is not as significant as investment decisions.

Leroy42

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Wage growth is long overdue in the UK, unemployment figures are masking precarious employment and may be based on lower end employment.

Rising wages and rising inflation is not a recipe for success.

Rising wages is not as significant as investment decisions.

All good points, but it still makes no sense to me. In an environment where the 'wisdom' suggests that the UK economy is in for some major negative impacts why would companies be increasing their cost bases?

Why would growth be continuing?

I am not dismissing the replies, I really don't understand it. Surely the economy should already be contracting, given that even the best scenarios paint a fairly negative picture.

If I was one of those people getting pay rises/new job, then it would be hard for me to see where all this negativity to Brexit is coming from. From my POV this seems like a non brainer.

Skedaddle

I still think a lot of managers are assuming Brexit will just fall by the wayside or be some kind of irrelevant fudge before we get to 2019 or 2020.

We've a scenario where a lot of businesses, especially smaller ones, can't plan because they've been given no facts. So all people can do is keep going as normal and hope for the best.

The issue is that if the political environment looks like it's going to lead to a disorderly exit, you could see financiers becoming risk adverse and credit and investment suddenly tightening.

I also wouldn't make the error of assuming that the markets are all knowing and all seeing oracles of truth. They have walked straight into brick walls and off cliffs plenty of times - see: 2008 ... They didn't see the derivatives and subprime crash coming at all.

My view of it is that far too much credence is being given to speculators' ability to read politics. Brexit hasn't really ever been very rational.

Nody

Leroy42 wrote: »

All good points, but it still makes no sense to me. In an environment where the 'wisdom' suggests that the UK economy is in for some major negative impacts why would companies be increasing their cost bases?

Because they are running out of candidates to choose among as the Europeans (and UK citizens) are leaving; multiple companies have stated they got problem filling advanced roles which makes poaching the temporary stop fix which drives cost.

Why would growth be continuing?

Pounds down; growth has slowed compared to Europe for quite a while now so why would they not continue to grow as long as they got free export to faster growing (EU) countries?

I am not dismissing the replies, I really don't understand it. Surely the economy should already be contracting, given that even the best scenarios paint a fairly negative picture.

It's like the dotcom crash etc.; everyone tends to look the other way until the crash starts and then get out at the last minute or simply play the ostrich and stick the head in the sand "It will be grand; they will come to their senses" etc. attitude. It is not a UK thing either; look at the new EU data laws and most companies (inc. the big once) are woefully behind on implementing the requirements in their systems etc. to be legally compliant. About the only time I think companies were on track with things was the Y2K fixes and that was because software and hardware companies saw a great opportunity to sell in new stuff and spent years telling horror stories about it which drove the alignment to fix it.

If I was one of those people getting pay rises/new job, then it would be hard for me to see where all this negativity to Brexit is coming from. From my POV this seems like a non brainer.

Except when you get laid off a year later as the company is leaving due to Brexit; it's pissing in trousers moment. Feels wam in the short term but cold in the long term.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

If I was one of those people getting pay rises/new job, then it would be hard for me to see where all this negativity to Brexit is coming from.

Several times in this thread, I have seen boardsies say they have spoken to people in business in the UK who are ignoring brexit and assuming it will sort itself out somehow.

These numbers suggest UK business as a whole is treating Brexit as no big deal. If it turns out that they are wrong and it is a big deal, this means the impact will be a sudden shock rather than a gradual drop in growth.

(Spoiler: if it ever happens, it will be a really big deal).

Skedaddle

There are properly conducted surveys showing most businesses are ignoring it and assuming it will be "alright on the night".

Sam Russell

Anyway, there has been a real increase in employment in the Dept for Exiting the EU. They have been recruiting like there is no tomorrow - perhaps they know there is no tomorrow. I think they are up to 10,000 and growing.

mickoneill31

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Several times in this thread, I have seen boardsies say they have spoken to people in business in the UK who are ignoring brexit and assuming it will sort itself out somehow.

These numbers suggest UK business as a whole is treating Brexit as no big deal. If it turns out that they are wrong and it is a big deal, this means the impact will be a sudden shock rather than a gradual drop in growth.

(Spoiler: if it ever happens, it will be a really big deal).

It reminds me of radio programs I was listening to in 2007. Their pundits were all talking about our "soft landing". How'd that work out?

Zubeneschamali

Sam Russell wrote: »

Anyway, there has been a real increase in employment in the Dept for Exiting the EU. They have been recruiting like there is no tomorrow - perhaps they know there is no tomorrow. I think they are up to 10,000 and growing.

Holy crap! The entire dead weight of Brussels Eurocrats busily straightening our bananas only comes to 50,000 people.

Sam Russell

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Anyway, there has been a real increase in employment in the Dept for Exiting the EU. They have been recruiting like there is no tomorrow - perhaps they know there is no tomorrow. I think they are up to 10,000 and growing.

Holy crap! The entire dead weight of Brussels Eurocrats busily straightening our bananas only comes to 50,000 people.

Well at least they are Loyal Civil Servants, not faceless unelected Eurocrats.

Harika

While you have the uncertainty of Brexit looming over the UK that might cause negative effects, you have also players like the Bank of England, that is supporting the UK economy and mitigating the negative impacts. While the plummeting pound hurts importing businesses, it helps exports. Also businesses are usually adaptable and are able to avoid crisis early on.
If you really want to see the impact of Brexit check back in 100 years and read some academic papers about that, until then everything might be a bit biased.

Zubeneschamali

Harika wrote: »

If you really want to see the impact of Brexit check back in 100 years and read some academic papers about that, until then everything might be a bit biased.

Oh, I think we are going to see some pretty obvious impact a lot sooner than that.

But expect the Brexiteers to say it could have happened anyway, would have been worse if they were in the EU, is just alleged facts from so-called experts, and hurry up with the gold leaf on my castle moat island duck house.

J Mysterio

Sam Russell wrote: »

Anyway, there has been a real increase in employment in the Dept for Exiting the EU. They have been recruiting like there is no tomorrow - perhaps they know there is no tomorrow. I think they are up to 10,000 and growing.

So... what? A country with an enormous public service? Doesn't remind me of anywhere...

listermint

J Mysterio wrote: »

So... what? A country with an enormous public service? Doesn't remind me of anywhere...

Clearly you missed the point.

This team is solely for brexit.

Sand

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

To call Brexit anything other than Underpants Economics is delusion, plain and simple.

Agreed. Brexit is clearly against the advice of all serious economic thought. Moriarty made the point earlier that the Remain vote was a vote for the known. It was a continuation of what is already occurring. Remain voters lived in this scenarios, and they wanted more of the same.

Leave voters also lived in this scenario. They decided to take a very risky vote against more of the same. You might disagree with it. You might resent it. You might think they are going to suffer for it. But this doesn't change what Brexit was: no more of the same, even if there are risks and costs to bear.

Critics say democracy is voters going for the easy option, for whatever is in their immediate interest. No big picture or vision beyond where their next handout is coming from. We know pollution is killing the planet, but we just want more anyway. I just find the criticism of Brexit, given it was a vote for an idea* greater than where the next handout is coming from to be fascinating in that context.

I know I'm talking to a wall on this point. Brexit voters are idiots. There is nothing to learn. Ignore the vote. More of the same. Okay.

*I don't agree with the idea.

Enzokk wrote: »

That is an interesting way to frame this. Yes there would be years that immigration was higher in that period, but there would be years it was lower as well. So highlighting that some years had higher immigration than the average is weird, unless you state there were years of lower immigration which is redundant because you are talking about an average.

Yes, maybe I didn't phrase that correctly. The point I wanted to make was this was not a gentle rise to a new average. It shot up under New Labour, very quickly. Massively over the decade that had preceded it. And its climbed even higher since. Over 1.2 million immigrants over 2014-15 alone.

The takeaway is that the last 20 years of mass immigration to the UK are abnormal. You put a society under that sort of stress, you get revolutions like Brexit.

Sand

mickoneill31 wrote: »

It reminds me of radio programs I was listening to in 2007. Their pundits were all talking about our "soft landing". How'd that work out?

Yes, its more of the same 'green jersey' thinking from that era. Unfortunately, there is a incredible level of complacency amongst the middle and upper class English who tend to make the decisions. Probably more justified complacency than what existed in Ireland 2007, but complacency all the same.

There is some extremely clever and insightful analysis by English bloggers (who are Brexiteers, but who want to 'win' within the rules of reality) regarding the challenges the UK faces, but the UK political, media and business classes are by and large asleep at the wheel. They simply cant wrap their minds around what being a third country means in EU terms, let alone the reality of trading under WTO terms. It's incredibly damming that May has not been deposed by someone more competent, but the simple reality is there is no one more competent.

J Mysterio

listermint wrote: »

Clearly you missed the point.

This team is solely for brexit.

I was being facetious. Half the people in the North work in the Public Sector.

Leroy42

IMO Brexit voters are not idiots for voting for the idea. They are wrong in that they ignored the facts that were in front of them, facts that pointed that the idea itself was unworkable.

If they knew the costs and were fine with that then we wouldn't be seeing this constant complaining about how badly the evil EU are treating them. How they are being forced to make a divorce payment, how fisheries policy will continue during a transition etc etc.

The voted for an idea, without eve actually examining the reality of that idea. Getting rid of EU bureaucrats (but happy to have more in the UK and happy to keep the house of Lords). Getting rid of immigration, even though the EU made up only a small portion of it. Getting told what to do by Brussels, when it was their own governments that signed them up to things.

I understand, or at least I think I do, the motivation behind the brexit vote. I share many of the issues with the EU that were talked about. But this is not a solution to that, it is merely running away from that problem but into far greater ones.

Capt'n Midnight

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well at least they are Loyal Civil Servants, not faceless unelected Eurocrats.

Yes minister.

Capt'n Midnight

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Wage growth is long overdue in the UK, unemployment figures are masking precarious employment and may be based on lower end employment.

There's been some good news but it's a mixed bag. The lost ground still hasn't been made up.


Any gains for consumers by reducing tariffs on imports has already been cancelled out by the fall in sterling.

The UK is a nation of shopkeepers, but if you add services too then
consumer spending accounts for about 60% of UK economic activity.

As the latest Resolution Foundation report, The Living Standards Outlook, revealed, the last decade has seen the most anaemic rates of wage growth for 200 years.

UK consumer confidence is still low.


unemployment rate ticked lower to 4.3% from 4.4%. ... the number of unemployment benefit claimants rose by 9,200 to 838,000 in February, that's the highest level in more than three years.

Sand

Leroy42 wrote: »

If they knew the costs and were fine with that then we wouldn't be seeing this constant complaining about how badly the evil EU are treating them. How they are being forced to make a divorce payment, how fisheries policy will continue during a transition etc etc.

I agree with your post, I would just finesse this point. I think Brexiteer politicians who promised magical unicorns, rainbows and three wishes for everyone are constantly complaining. They are afraid of being found out for what they are - frauds.

Brexit voters are a different population. We have to distinguish the two: if Cameron had any concept of the wide support for Brexit, he would never, ever have called the referendum. The support for Brexit remains stubbornly high, despite it being very, very clear it is not a get rich quick scheme. This is the sort of grim determination to achieve an objective that environmentalists dream would suddenly grip the population when it came to emission targets. At any cost, at any price.

I recall talking to some English work colleagues in June 2016, before the vote. The topic of Brexit came up (being a multi-national work environment, politics never usually comes up). What I was struck by was these lads (who were nice, but like most English dim - think Golden Labradors clever enough to hold down an office job) didn't object when I said that Brexit would be an economic cost. They knew that, they wanted whatever Brexit represented to them over and beyond the hit to national GDP. At the same time I spoke to other English colleagues immediately after the vote who were almost disbelieving of the result. The same people, from the same country, working in the same environment (i.e. abroad in Ireland) but utterly different views. The UK really needs proportional representation to better represent peoples views. This sort of refusal to accept the Brexit vote is very telling in my view. It simply does not compute for those who felt they could ignore the 'permanently aggrieved'. And the latter do not entirely live on a council estate.

Leroy42

There is this constant refrain from Brexiteers that the Remainers wull2nor accept the vote.

Nobody is claiming the vote is invalid. What remainers are claiming is that the vote does not give a blank cheque to the government to do whatever it wants. It cannot simply ignore the 48% that voted to remain or assume that every leave vote was on the basis of whatever the cost.

It is a trite line trotted out by the like of IDS and JRM to avoid having to deal with the genuine concerns that are being raised.

And when did democracy stop? My understanding is that a vote doesn't mean the losing side needs to shut up and accept whatever happens. It is the job of MPs to continue to serve their constituents and if that means raising doubts over Brexit then so be it.

This campaign to shut down any opposition is the worst aspect of all this. For a country that seemingly wanted to take back control there seems to be many that believes that means control only to them.

Sand

Leroy42 wrote: »

Nobody is claiming the vote is invalid. What remainers are claiming is that the vote does not give a blank cheque to the government to do whatever it wants. It cannot simply ignore the 48% that voted to remain or assume that every leave vote was on the basis of whatever the cost.

Well, I agree and disagree. Firstly there is the line taken by Demfad (whose work on this thread I highly respect, this is not a criticism) that the vote was ultimately a fraud, hence invalid. Secondly there is the line taken by others like Moriarty, that the vote is ultimately idiots who dont know whats good for them, hence invalid. There is a very, very strong line of thinking that the Brexit vote must be somehow reversed or denounced as illegitimate.

But I do really, very strongly agree with the latter part. The current Tory government has taken the Brexit vote not as an opportunity to reflect on the UK specific reasons its exists (mass immigration, FPTP voting, disconnect between parties and voters) but as a moment of 'creative destuction' to establish the Singapore-On-Thames the fringe Tory think tanks have always dreamt of.

Again, we really have to distinguish between [BoJo, Gove, Fox, Davis] and the average Brexit voter.

Professor Moriarty

Sand wrote: »

Well, I agree and disagree. Firstly there is the line taken by Demfad (whose work on this thread I highly respect, this is not a criticism) that the vote was ultimately a fraud, hence invalid. Secondly there is the line taken by others like Moriarty, that the vote is ultimately idiots who dont know whats good for them, hence invalid. There is a very, very strong line of thinking that the Brexit vote must be somehow reversed or denounced as illegitimate.

But I do really, very strongly agree with the latter part. The current Tory government has taken the Brexit vote not as an opportunity to reflect on the UK specific reasons its exists (mass immigration, FPTP voting, disconnect between parties and voters) but as a moment of 'creative destuction' to establish the Singapore-On-Thames the fringe Tory think tanks have always dreamt of.

Again, we really have to distinguish between [BoJo, Gove, Fox, Davis] and the average Brexit voter.

You tried to put words in my mouth on this topic the last time you posted on this thread and you're doing it again. Stop. You're better than that.

ArmaniJeanss

Sand wrote: »

The current Tory government has taken the Brexit vote not as an opportunity to reflect on the UK specific reasons its exists (mass immigration, FPTP voting, disconnect between parties and voters) but as a moment of 'creative destuction' to establish the Singapore-On-Thames the fringe Tory think tanks have always dreamt of.

It's been described before as being the equivalent of if Remain had won, and it had been subsequently taken to mean a 'Hard Remain' vote for joining Schengen, the Euro, driving on the right etc.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I think we are going to see some pretty obvious impact a lot sooner than that.

I'm thinking the impact is going to be slow, steady, and sustained. Not a massive and sudden crash, but a persistent underperformance by the UK economy with a substantial cumulative effect over time.

When people produce models that project a negative impact from Brexit of X% of GDP, they are not saying that GDP will drop by X%. They are saying that GDP growth will be X% lower than it otherwise would have been, but for Brexit.

Of course, we'll never get to run history a second time, so we will never observe what GDP growth would have been, but for Brexit. We can model this, but not observe it. Which means that those for whom it is an article of faith that Brexit will not be harmful will never be compelled by the evidence to accept that it has, in fact, been harmful. They can simply dismiss the models of what would have happened, but for Brexit, as unreliable. They are in fact already doing that, to a large degree.

What we can do, of course, is compare the UK's economic performance with that of comparable countries which have not embarked on a project analogous to Brexit. Since the Brexit referendum, the UK's real economic growth has been falling, contary to the trend both of the OECD as a whole and of the EU-27, both of which have rising growth. The pound has slumped and not recovered, inflation has risen and real wage growth is still close to zero. The share prices of UK-oriented businesses have substantially underperformed. the market. All of this tends to suggest that the pessimistic models of the economic impact of Brexit are, basically, correct.

Nody

Looks like those Freedom Passports will be printed in Europe by a French/Dutch company which of course have the Brexiteers up in arms (and showing their cluelessness to EU regulation and law requirements on open tenders etc.).

Tory MP Sir Bill Cash, chairman of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, branded such a move “completely wrong and unnecessary”.

Sir Bill said: “I think it is incongruous to say the least. It is completely unnecessary and it is symbolically completely wrong.

“Whatever the conditions which led to the decision in terms of pricing, the fact is that this is a symbolic event.”

Former cabinet minister Priti Patel told The Sun: “This should be a moment that we should be celebrating. The return of our iconic blue passport will re-establish the British identity.

“But to be putting the job in the hands of the French is simply astonishing. It is a national humiliation.

“I would urge Amber Rudd and the Government to look again at the powers they have to see what they can do.”

Bold added by me to highlight the stupidity...

VinLieger

Nody wrote: »

Looks like those Freedom Passports will be printed in Europe by a French/Dutch company which of course have the Brexiteers up in arms (and showing their cluelessness to EU regulation and law requirements on open tenders etc.).

Bold added by me to highlight the stupidity...

I also love the fact that they could have had blue passports all along without leaving the EU.

pixelburp

Nody wrote: »

Looks like those Freedom Passports will be printed in Europe by a French/Dutch company which of course have the Brexiteers up in arms (and showing their cluelessness to EU regulation and law requirements on open tenders etc.).

Bold added by me to highlight the stupidity...

The most telling portion of that quote is, to me, "... putting the job in the hands of the French", emphasis mine.

Not 'a French company', or 'printed in France', hell not even 'a foreign company', which'd be bad but still ambiguous all the same - but 'The French'; I could practically hear the 'dun dun dunnnnn...' in the background. It positively reeks of that English sense of superiority and resting disdain towards their own nextdoor neighbours. 'The French'. God save Britain from the Sir Cashs of this world; little England really has won this war, and it's happily waving Union Flags from 1945.