Brexit discussion thread III

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

At a guess, probably more to the demonstration of diplomatic skill involved with the selection of the gift according to the host's culture and history, and its importing into China on time...to be contrasted with that of Cameron returning a Made in China (or Indonesia, fair is fair) bit of sportswear scribbled on by semi-talented ball-kickers :pac:

Although appropriate, considering their visit to Man City ( Xi is a passionate football fan apparently) and Sun Jihal’s induction into the hall of fame.

The queen’s gift of a copy Shakespeare’s sonnets, of whom Xi is a great admirer, was probably a bit more culturally appropriate though.

ambro25

Deleted User wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

Well, if that helps precipitate the popping of the PCP bubble in the UK, I'm all for it tbh.

Because even without looking for links, but just going by the evidence of my own commuting eyes and anecdotes from friends and relations, it must be growing to ridiculously-epic proportions of the UK user base.

What bubble exactly? And what will it popping achieve?
PCP seems fine to me. It gets more cars on the market for the second hand market etc. If demand falls for PCP then they do less PCP, big whoop.

This bubble, which is fully reflected in recent UK household (record level-) indebtment statistics.

Now sprinkle an economic contraction post-Brexit on top, and big whoop indeed [insert evil smiley here].

Hey, no skin off my nose, that's one set of broken jars I'm not staying here to help pay for. Paying for the 2008 set (broken by other people) over the last 9 years was enough, thanks.

Capt'n Midnight

Given the fuss in the UK over extending the 5p plastic bag tax to all shops it's interesting that the UK's financial contributions to the EU could be replaced by a tax on plastic packaging. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42634457

The "Europe needs us more than we need them" brigade really need to get their heads around that one.

Capt'n Midnight

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the real story is that Hammond and Davies are going directly to Germany as they know they are getting nowhere with the EU. They are trying to break up the EU as they are finding that regardless of the size of the UK it is nothing compared to the combined EU and as such they have little real power.

It is akin to accepting defeat in terms of the stated promise of Brexit being easy. So what are the options for Germany. Agree to help the UK and cause a potential massive divide within the EU, and the likely breakaway of further countries, or sit tight and keep with the project.

Ah the old myth of "they need us to buy their cars"

Car sales in the UK have tanked. Sterling dropped, scrappage deals were all the rage to try and shift inventory. So they are buying less cars and there's less profit on each car sold. Which means they have less leverage over Germany.

The German motor industry organisation came out very early in the days of Brexit to say their hands were tied by government, and besides taking a hit on UK sales was a less worse option than the EU falling apart and having to deal with 28 different regulatory authorities.

IICR the cost of Brexit to the German car industry was a little over a billion which is peanuts compared to what they paid for the emissions scandal.


The German car industry isn't at risk from Brexit. All that'll happen is they'll make less profit for a while.

And that's the UK trump card.

Thargor

Thats multiple times now they've tlked about dealing with the Germans like they rule Europe, its a bit insulting to everyone else.

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

This bubble, which is fully reflected in recent UK household (record level-) indebtment statistics.

Now sprinkle an economic contraction post-Brexit on top, and big whoop indeed [insert evil smiley here].

I haven't got an FT subscription.
My point was PCP isn't like a mortgage lasting the rest of one's working life or student debt in the US where it stays forever. Agreements are for 3 years and that's it, etiher get a new one, hand the car back or buy another one second hand.

Lemming

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't got an FT subscription.
My point was PCP isn't like a mortgage lasting the rest of one's working life or student debt in the US where it stays forever. Agreements are for 3 years and that's it, etiher get a new one, hand the car back or buy another one second hand.

PCP is a recorded debt. Just like a loan. As a point of fact PCP IS a loan; just dressed up a little differently and mixed in with some very loosely regulated "operators". There are all sorts of caveats & restrictions (most of which incur additional financial penalty) on what you can do with your PCP car too so it's not as simple as drive around for 3 years to your hearts content, trade up or hand the car back and take a financial loss.

But we're steering away from Brexit. Suffice to say, the UK's PCP bubble is a household financial time-bomb.

Lemming

Lemming wrote: »

PCP is a recorded debt. Just like a loan. As a point of fact PCP IS a loan; just dressed up a little differently and mixed in with some very loosely regulated "operators". There are all sorts of caveats & restrictions (most of which incur additional financial penalty) on what you can do with your PCP car too so it's not as simple as drive around for 3 years to your hearts content, trade up or hand the car back and take a financial loss.

But we're steering away from Brexit. Suffice to say, the UK's PCP bubble is a household financial time-bomb.

except that PCP is secured on a car and is low risk for the lendor, so it isn't really that big a deal. Repossessing someone's two year old mercedes is a far less significant event than taking their house from them.

It also gives a guaranteed future value for your car, which is a comfort to anyone wanting to buy a diesel at the moment.

Inquitus

Aegir wrote: »

except that PCP is secured on a car and is low risk for the lendor, so it isn't really that big a deal. Repossessing someone's two year old mercedes is a far less significant event than taking their house from them.

Aye but you are still on the hook for any additional monies not covered by the cars resale value at time of re-possession. Its not a case of handing the keys back, and walking away, necessarily.

Inquitus

Inquitus wrote: »

Aye but you are still on the hook for any additional monies not covered by the cars resale value at time of re-possession. Its not a case of handing the keys back, and walking away, necessarily.

That depends on when you hand the keys back. In theory you are only covering depreciation on the car and the deposit is quite high, with the nominal GFV low, so presuming you aren’t a year behind, the value of the car and the amount owed shouldn’t be too far apart.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Given the fuss in the UK over extending the 5p plastic bag tax to all shops it's interesting that the UK's financial contributions to the EU could be replaced by a tax on plastic packaging. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42634457

The "Europe needs us more than we need them" brigade really need to get their heads around that one.

it will be interesting to see if the EU can pull this off. I would be in favour of a tax on plastics in general, especially if it stops people buying those god awful bottles of water and helps reduce the 8 million tonnes of plastic that ends up in the ocean every year.

If credit were given to packaging manufacturers that actively support removing and reclaiming ocean plastics this could make a big difference. I'm not sure how the eu directly imposing and collecting taxes would go down with the member states though.

Capt'n Midnight

In other non news Prime Minister's Questions: The key bits and the verdict

If Brexit was an issue for Corbyn he wouldn't keep ignoring it would he ?

Sam Russell

Aegir wrote: »

except that PCP is secured on a car and is low risk for the lendor, so it isn't really that big a deal. Repossessing someone's two year old mercedes is a far less significant event than taking their house from them.

It also gives a guaranteed future value for your car, which is a comfort to anyone wanting to buy a diesel at the moment.

The risk from PCP is not to the car driver who can hand the car back and walk away at the end of the deal. The real risk is for the garage.

Say the second hand market really tanked, and everyone of the PCP chickens came home to roost because the 3 year old market had fallen below the GFM price. Garage that had a brilliant year three years earlier and had sold loads of PCP contracts now has a car park full of unsaleable 3 year old cars that cost lots to pay off, and no one wants them, and said garage is horribly close to bankrupt.

Buying in a car for £20,000 that has a market value of say £17,000 on a good day is bad enough but if it is the twentieth that you have had to take in this month and you suspect there are twenty more next month and not a sniff of a buyer out there for any of them - what can you do? Sell more PCPs or just go bust.

People getting the PCP think the guaranty of a future market value is a comfort, but in fact it is a future debt that must be paid in cash, or lose the car. For the garage, they live in hope that the market is kind to them and that the actual market value at the end of three years exceeds it by quite a margin.

Junkyard Tom

"We have always stressed the importance of the unity of the EU 27 ...this will continue to be our focus," Steffen Seibert told reporters.

Seibert's remarks came in response to a joint article by the UK's Brexit Secretary David Davis and Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond published in Wednesday's German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

In it, the two ministers appealed to the German government for a "bespoke solution" that would maximize continued economic cooperation between the UK and rest of the bloc.

dw.com/en

So Davis and Hammond have gone to Berlin (not Brussels?) begging the Germans to force the 27 EU member states to grant Brexiters a bespoke no-consequence deal for 'The City' in London?

Dear oh dear.

ambro25

Deleted User wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

This bubble, which is fully reflected in recent UK household (record level-) indebtment statistics.

Now sprinkle an economic contraction post-Brexit on top, and big whoop indeed [insert evil smiley here].

I haven't got an FT subscription.
My point was PCP isn't like a mortgage lasting the rest of one's working life or student debt in the US where it stays forever. Agreements are for 3 years and that's it, etiher get a new one, hand the car back or buy another one second hand.

Quite right: unlike the 'traditional' models of car financing, PCP subcribers are left with no asset at the end of the 3 years (if they traded in their car when getting the PCP deal, or blew whatever equity they released from selling it privately), and likely as not *negative equity* if there's excess mileage, a door ding or a scuffed alloy on the PCP'd car (what do they buy that "other second hand car" of your 3rd option with?)

The GFMV is just another form of revolving credit, the PCP model is basically turning asset ownership (outright or gradual through 'conventional' loan repayment) into long term captive rental.

It's a bubble because the ar5e is threatening to fall out of the 'stretched' section of the PCP'd market in the UK (this is what the FT article of 2017 is about, and the reason why the BoE & the FCA have taken the matter to heart recently), as consumer credit (particularly PCPs) is overheating, wages continue to stagnate, interest rate rises remain on the horizon, and an economic contraction beckons post-Brexit.

Strazdas

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

"We have always stressed the importance of the unity of the EU 27 ...this will continue to be our focus," Steffen Seibert told reporters.

Seibert's remarks came in response to a joint article by the UK's Brexit Secretary David Davis and Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond published in Wednesday's German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

In it, the two ministers appealed to the German government for a "bespoke solution" that would maximize continued economic cooperation between the UK and rest of the bloc.

dw.com/en

So Davis and Hammond have gone to Berlin (not Brussels?) begging the Germans to force the 27 EU member states to grant Brexiters a bespoke no-consequence deal for 'The City' in London?

Dear oh dear.

The EU simply cannot agree to a "services free trade deal" for the UK. Britain is rejecting the Single Market and its rules and yet wants to somehow carry on trading with the SM as if nothing has even happened.

Capt'n Midnight

Slightly off topic, the whole up in the air regarding taxes and emissions means that the bottom is falling out of the second hand diesel market.

The UK punter isn't getting a lot of good news these days.



http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-42633839

The Scottish government has said an EU Continuity Bill is likely to be introduced at Holyrood next month.

It said the move was needed to prepare Scotland's laws for EU withdrawal if it is not possible to find agreement over the UK government's own Brexit bill.

The Scottish government's view that the Brexit bill is incompatible with devolution was backed on Wednesday by a cross-party Holyrood committee.

Capt'n Midnight

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

So Davis and Hammond have gone to Berlin (not Brussels?) begging the Germans to force the 27 EU member states to grant Brexiters a bespoke no-consequence deal for 'The City' in London?

Dear oh dear.

Dear oh dear indeed.

It's like they have ignored every statement and hint from the EU

It takes two to tango over Brexit, Hammond tells EU

The two men make clear in the article that unrestricted trade in services - which makes up about 80% of the UK economy - will be pivotal to any successful deal, as will financial and regulatory co-operation within Europe.

The EU's chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, has warned the UK it cannot hope to get a special deal for the City of London and that its options have narrowed as a result of it turning its back on the single market.

UK-based banks and financial firms are worried they will lose the passporting rights that allow them to trade freely in the EU after Brexit - an outcome that is likely to see firms moving jobs to the continent.

Yes in negotiating you ask for more so you can compromise. But if you ask for too much then no one's going to treat you seriously.

Skedaddle

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Dear oh dear indeed.

It's like they have ignored every statement and hint from the EU

It takes two to tango over Brexit, Hammond tells EU

Yes in negotiating you ask for more so you can compromise. But if you ask for too much then no one's going to treat you seriously.

It absolutely takes two to tango, but the metaphor falls apart when you realise that one party's off on its own bizarrely dancing some kind of bad interpretation of the Tango, while the other 27 parties involved are trying to carry out a serious negotiation and using facts, figures, legislative frameworks and so on and getting very tired of tabloid one-liners!

The UK Government urgently needs to start coming to the table with concrete proposals, not speaking in riddles and political catch phrases.

So far, nobody (including themselves) has the faintest idea of what they want, or at least of how what they want could be realistically organised and delivered.

We're months in and we're still basically at "Brexit means Brexit".

Peregrinus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

"We have always stressed the importance of the unity of the EU 27 ...this will continue to be our focus," Steffen Seibert told reporters.

Seibert's remarks came in response to a joint article by the UK's Brexit Secretary David Davis and Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond published in Wednesday's German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

In it, the two ministers appealed to the German government for a "bespoke solution" that would maximize continued economic cooperation between the UK and rest of the bloc.

dw.com/en

So Davis and Hammond have gone to Berlin (not Brussels?) begging the Germans to force the 27 EU member states to grant Brexiters a bespoke no-consequence deal for 'The City' in London?

Dear oh dear.

Well, interestingly, on this trip they're not talking to the German government. They're talking to local/regional politicians in Berlin, and to German business leaders.

This looks like an attempt not so much to win over the German government as to put pressure from below on the German government (which, of course, is in a dodgy position because it has lost its parliamentary majority). The German federal government has a strong political commitment to maintaining the integrity of the Single Market which militates against the kind of cake-and-eat-it-deal that the UK would like. The British are hoping that sectoral and sectional interests in Germany can be encouraged to put pressure on the federal government to soften this position.

I can't see this strategy working out for the UK, to be honest, but there may be internal UK politics at play here. The UK Cabinet is in the process of working out what kind of Brexit deal, and what future trade relationship, they want to target. There's a divide between the cakeists, who want to target a cakeist deal, and the realists, who think a cakeist deal is unattainable and that, by targetting it, the UK will lose the opportunity to target something less ambitious, but attainable. The end result, they fear, could be hard Brexit, even though this isn't the favoured outcome of either the cakeists or the realists (or of anyone who's not barking mad, TBH).

So, this exercise may be intended to test the cakeists long-cherished claims/hopes that the German car manufacturers, etc, will put pressure on the German government to change its position and accept a cakeist deal. (Which, of course, wouldn't in itself mean that the EU would change its position, but it would at least open the door to that possibility.)

But the expectation on the part of the realists in Cabinet may be that this effort will fail, and for them the whole point in trying this approach may be to demonstrate that it doesn't work, so that they can then argue that the cakeism isn't working, and realism is the only game in town.

Samaris

Aegir wrote: »

Although appropriate, considering their visit to Man City ( Xi is a passionate football fan apparently) and Sun Jihal’s induction into the hall of fame.

The queen’s gift of a copy Shakespeare’s sonnets, of whom Xi is a great admirer, was probably a bit more culturally appropriate though.

The book sounds easier to transport and store than a horse at least.

Skedaddle

The whole thing shows how enormous the disconnect between that aspect of England and the rest of the EU really is though. I don't think they understand if at all.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

I'm not sure how the eu directly imposing and collecting taxes would go down with the member states though.

The EU today is funded by (among other things) a slice of the VAT charged in all member states, and by customs levies on stuff coming into the EU (govts retain a collection cost of 20%).

Presumably this would be similar to the VAT situation - EU wide guidelines with local exemptions, govts hold a percentage and give the rest to the EU.

Tell me how

Cat amongst the pigeons

Farage suggests there should be a second referendum live on television.

https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/951400764697653248

Of course he is saying that even more would vote to leave than remain and it would kill the idea for a generation.

The UK would look like some amateur hour if it bows back to Nigels views once again. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Some mess.

ancapailldorcha

I was going to share that. Here's a tweet instead with some video:

https://twitter.com/5WrightStuff/status/951394851811221510

I think he's trying to make himself relevant again. UKIP is dead and the UKIP 2.0 that he and Arron Banks were on about hasn't materialised.

That said, I hope it happens. A few percent in a one-off referendum isn't enough to decide such an important matter for this country.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That said, I hope it happens. A few percent in a one-off referendum isn't enough to decide such an important matter for this country.

I'd like to see it happen too...perversely, because I believe that the result would be still tighter than a 52/48 split, rather than wider and/or reversed.

Irrespective of which side 'wins', the process alone -never mind the voting differential- would finish off historical mainstream politics in the UK. Because it would split Labour as badly as the Tories regardless of Corbyn's leadership, it would finish splitting the Tories, and the public at large would likely be getting its (final, camel back-breaking straw) fill of both left/right and divisive politics.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I was going to share that. Here's a tweet instead with some video:

https://twitter.com/5WrightStuff/status/951394851811221510

I think he's trying to make himself relevant again. UKIP is dead and the UKIP 2.0 that he and Arron Banks were on about hasn't materialised.

That said, I hope it happens. A few percent in a one-off referendum isn't enough to decide such an important matter for this country.

He's on record as saying he wouldn't have accepted a 52:48 in favour of Remain, but would have kept on campaigning for a decisive vote.

seamus

It's win-win for Nigel really.

At present he's looking like he has been a lead orchestrater in an economic disaster for the UK and world history will paint him as a cartoon villain who betrayed the confidence of the British people, spreading lies to achieve an anti-EU agenda.

He's looking at 20 years of hostile talk shows and ridicule and abuse for what's about to happen to the UK.

But another poll would solve all of that:

1. Remain wins, Brexit cancelled, no harm-no foul and Farage retires in peace.

2. Leave wins, and we're all in this together, it wasn't just old Nigel's fault, you voted for this too.

For Farage, it's only ever been about him. About his ego, and his agenda. It would be foolish to ascribe anything except selfish motivations to his call for another vote.

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

It's win-win for Nigel really.

At present he's looking like he has been a lead orchestrater in an economic disaster for the UK and world history will paint him as a cartoon villain who betrayed the confidence of the British people, spreading lies to achieve an anti-EU agenda.

He's looking at 20 years of hostile talk shows and ridicule and abuse for what's about to happen to the UK.

But another poll would solve all of that:

1. Remain wins, Brexit cancelled, no harm-no foul and Farage retires in peace.

2. Leave wins, and we're all in this together, it wasn't just old Nigel's fault, you voted for this too.

For Farage, it's only ever been about him. About his ego, and his agenda. It would be foolish to ascribe anything except selfish motivations to his call for another vote.

But how is this different then the situation now. The people voted for Brexit.

He knows that if remain wins it won't be accepted and lead to UKIP rise as Brexit becomes an idea once again.

If leaves win again, he will say that despite the scare stories and EU bully boy tactics the UK citizens know best.

IMO, Nigel knows that simply saying this means it can not be allowed to happen. May, or the tories, cannot be seen to be following Nigel. So by saying this he is guaranteeing that no second ref will be held regardless of what will transpire over the next few years

seamus

Leroy42 wrote: »

But how is this different then the situation now. The people voted for Brexit.

The sentiment has shifted though from "we voted for this to happen" to "this is not what we voted for".

As it's become clear that the Leave campaign were selling a promise that nobody could deliver based on outright lies about the EU, it's Farage, Johnson and Gove that are in the public opinion firing line.

IMO, Nigel knows that simply saying this means it can not be allowed to happen. May, or the tories, cannot be seen to be following Nigel. So by saying this he is guaranteeing that no second ref will be held regardless of what will transpire over the next few years

Shifting the blame might be his fallback position; "Don't look at me. If the Tories had held a second poll like I suggested, then maybe we wouldn't be in this mess".

Leroy42

seamus wrote: »

The sentiment has shifted though from "we voted for this to happen" to "this is not what we voted for".

As it's become clear that the Leave campaign were selling a promise that nobody could deliver based on outright lies about the EU, it's Farage, Johnson and Gove that are in the public opinion firing line.

Has it though, or is it just us (those were never bought into the fantasy of Brexit) that think that?

The polls seem to show that there is little movement since the vote. People seem to be aware that many of the promises made were lies but it is trumped by the need to "take back control" and "blue passports". The passports for example, people seem to be happier to take a blue passport which gives them less rights than stick to an EU labeled one.

I would expect, even just on the basis that clearly the government are totally unable for the task, that 80%+ would want to call a halt to this, but that is not what the polls are saying.

ambro25

Farage fronted UKIP and agitated for that referendum outcome for 14 years, so it'll take more than some televised hand-waving and a sound bite or ten to blame-shift and successfully evade liability in the matter.

But for me, the issue is more that, since the referendum, positively no one has ever taken him to task about UKIP's lack of post-Brexit planning and proposals during those 14 years. And the great revealer about British society and media, that he's still getting away with it.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I'd like to see it happen too...perversely, because I believe that the result would be still tighter than a 52/48 split, rather than wider and/or reversed.

Irrespective of which side 'wins', the process alone -never mind the voting differential- would finish off historical mainstream politics in the UK. Because it would split Labour as badly as the Tories regardless of Corbyn's leadership, it would finish splitting the Tories, and the public at large would likely be getting its (final, camel back-breaking straw) fill of both left/right and divisive politics.

I'm not so sure that this would a bad thing. We're seeing parties taking less than 40% of the vote and then forming majority governments with them. Both the major parties are dealing with infighting and factionalism which is the real reason why the referendum was called.

ambro25 wrote: »

But for me, the issue is more that, since the referendum, positively no one has ever taken him to task about UKIP's lack of post-Brexit planning and proposals during those 14 years. And the great revealer about British society and media, that he's still getting away with it.

Moreso than Farage, Gove and Johnson weren't just let off, they got promoted!

That said, the wave of anti-establishment populism which fuelled Brexit, Trump, LePen and so on seems to be over with mercifully few casualties. Then there's the fact that those who regret not voting now have real motivation to get off their arses twinned with the objective fact which is now on full display that the Conservative party and the DUP are woefully unfit to negotiate an EU-UK trade deal that doesn't involve complete and utter capitulation.

Skedaddle

The concern I have is that even if they have another referendum, and let's say this time it's narrowly in favour of remain, does that mean that we just go on endlessly having pushes for Brexit 2.0 and then Brexit 3.0.

There's really no sense that the UK has a consensus opinion on whether to remain or leave.

My view of it is that while EU membership is just some abstract concept and nobody really understands what the benefits of it are and takes it all for granted, that you can't really have a sensible debate about it. It's just some theoretical, abstract concept and it will keep getting thrown into political debate.

jobbridge4life

Skedaddle wrote: »

The concern I have is that even if they have another referendum, and let's say this time it's narrowly in favour of remain, does that mean that we just go on endlessly having pushes for Brexit 2.0 and then Brexit 3.0.

There's really no sense that the UK has a consensus opinion on whether to remain or leave.

My view of it is that while EU membership is just some abstract concept and nobody really understands what the benefits of it are and takes it all for granted, that you can't really have a sensible debate about it. It's just some theoretical, abstract concept and it will keep getting thrown into political debate.

But it isn't a theoritical or abstract concept, it is a real functioning level of government with many tangible benefits for peoples lives, albiet with many flaws and problems too.

Professor Moriarty

Skedaddle wrote: »

The concern I have is that even if they have another referendum, and let's say this time it's narrowly in favour of remain, does that mean that we just go on endlessly having pushes for Brexit 2.0 and then Brexit 3.0.

There's really no sense that the UK has a consensus opinion on whether to remain or leave.

My view of it is that while EU membership is just some abstract concept and nobody really understands what the benefits of it are and takes it all for granted, that you can't really have a sensible debate about it. It's just some theoretical, abstract concept.

I don't think it will come to a referendum or if it does then the outcome will have already been determined. The Tories have a very precarious grip on power and, given the divisions within the party, it's probably only a matter of time before there is a GE. That GE will primarily be fought on what kind of Brexit Britain should go for.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I don't think it will come to a referendum or if it does then the outcome will have already been determined. The Tories have a very precarious grip on power and, given the divisions within the party, it's probably only a matter of time before there is a GE. That GE will primarily be fought on what kind of Brexit Britain should go for.

Except that Labour are split on this too, so it will not be a simple option. You vote Tory, which Brexit do you get? You vote Labour, which Brexit do you get?

There is no consensus and no ability to vote a consensus with the way that politics is currently set up in the UK.

ancapailldorcha

Skedaddle wrote: »

The concern I have is that even if they have another referendum, and let's say this time it's narrowly in favour of remain, does that mean that we just go on endlessly having pushes for Brexit 2.0 and then Brexit 3.0.

There's really no sense that the UK has a consensus opinion on whether to remain or leave.

My view of it is that while EU membership is just some abstract concept and nobody really understands what the benefits of it are and takes it all for granted, that you can't really have a sensible debate about it. It's just some theoretical, abstract concept and it will keep getting thrown into political debate.

The thing is, the Article 50 clock is ticking and is unlikely to be paused while the UK fritters away even more time trying to sort out what it wants. What I think is more likely is a referendum on the final deal with remaining in the EU and leaving either with or without the deal being the 3 options. A binary choice of staying in or taking the deal is also quite possible should another referendum be on the cards.

Skedaddle

jobbridge4life wrote: »

But it isn't a theoritical or abstract concept, it is a real functioning level of government with many tangible benefits for peoples lives, albiet with many flaws and problems too.

Yeah, but to date they've seen it as nothing more than an abstract concept that is of no particular concern because they've never really seen it as anything of relevance to them. That doesn't meant that it isn't, but it is how it's perceived.

Skedaddle

One of the big things that they are forgetting, and it's one that Barnier has mentioned quite directly (e.g. in a speech to a Belgian business organisation recently) is that the EU does not want to offer passporting because it is concerned about risks to the Eurozone economies and the broader fiscal and financial stability of the EU. He has pointed out that we are only a few years since a major financial crisis that caused huge damage to several Eurozone economies and cost millions of jobs.

The UK passporting idea, without ECB, ECJ or EC oversight and rules applied would basically be undermining the entire concept of a regulated European financial market and the EU is very much pushing towards that at the moment to ensure that we never again have to experience another 2008 disaster.

I don't think the British are quite understanding that by removing London from the EU financial system, they've actually created a perfect opportunity for the EU to clean things up and ensure that there are proper regulations in place to maintain order and stability into the future.

So in some ways, this has been quite a fortunate set of circumstances as it means the EU can deal with a lot of things that the UK had been dragging its feet on or blocking.

They are grossly overestimating the importance of the London markets to the EU and also the EU-27's ability to just replace many of those functions using probably a network of financial centres rather than one big one. I think you're going to see the EU financial operations moving to some combination of Frankfurt, Paris, Dublin and probably Amsterdam.

Technological changes and so on, have also rendered the need for big bricks and mortar financial services hubs a bit moot too.

Also, I think they're also forgetting that if they become an off-shore financial centre to the EU, why exactly would EU companies / governments needing those kinds of financial services not just put them out to tender to whoever provides the best deal? That could be London, New York, Hong Kong, Singapore, you name it.. they're all the same once the UK becomes a 3rd country.

It's a very good opportunity for the EU to develop its own, less wild-west model of financial markets and its own trading hubs.

On top of that, it also takes the UK's network of tax havens out of the loop too - i.e. the crown dependency islands.

So, if your perspective is that you are trying to tidy-up the EU financial markets and prevent more instability in years to come, Brexit is not necessarily a bad thing. One of the the most light-touch regulation financial centres in the bloc, just removed itself.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not so sure that this would a bad thing. <...>

I didn't mean to suggest that it was (I may have suggested that I'd enjoy watching from afar, that said...as I won't be getting my fill of Schadenfreude for a long time yet).

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Moreso than Farage, Gove and Johnson weren't just let off, they got promoted!

Well, objectively speaking, Farage wasn't: technically, he's still "just" an MEP, and not for much longer.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That said, the wave of anti-establishment populism which fuelled Brexit, Trump, LePen and so on seems to be over with mercifully few casualties. Then there's the fact that those who regret not voting now have real motivation to get off their arses twinned with the objective fact which is now on full display that the Conservative party and the DUP are woefully unfit to negotiate an EU-UK trade deal that doesn't involve complete and utter capitulation.

All fair points.

Noting in passing however, that LePen was never going to be elected President (search my pre-election posts in that thread): she was the protest vote, and the 2-round direct vote system in France worked as well as ever, she tanked abysmally in the 2nd round, just like her father before her: that's LePen plc's standard modus operandi at work, agitating and politicking just enough to attain/stay in office (MP, MEP) and maintain political relevance/power, but never so much as to actually land higher jobs and having to deliver the snake oil. This fully explains the LePens' mongo PR clangers over the decades, whenever on the cusp of 'levelling up'. Farage has been at their school of political life management and graduated with honours.

But then, when I see the extent of the MSM coverage granted to Farage's latest snake oil pitch, calls for Oprah to stand for the POTUS job etc., I'm really not so convinced/hopeful as you seem to be

Skedaddle

You also have to remember that the British pro-Brexit tabloids tended to be desperately hoping that both the French and Dutch elections would go their way and the EU would collapse in a heap.

They didn't really want to understand how the French two-round dynamics would work, nor how a complex PR, multiparty system in the Netherlands would work. It was just "Europe's about to collapse... boo Europe" type stuff.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I didn't mean to suggest that it was (I may have suggested that I'd enjoy watching from afar, that said...as I won't be getting my fill of Schadenfreude for a long time yet).

Well, nearly half of the electorate did vote to remain. I'm not so sure they deserve Schadenfreude.

ambro25 wrote: »

Well, objectively speaking, Farage wasn't: technically, he's still "just" an MEP, and not for much longer.

Definitely. However, he's said that he's now bankrupt and I can't see anyone in the city hiring him and Banks has achieved his agenda so there's no point in funding Farage or UKIP anymore.

ambro25 wrote: »

All fair points.

Noting in passing however, that LePen was never going to be elected President (search my pre-election posts in that thread): she was the protest vote, and the 2-round direct vote system in France worked as well as ever, she tanked abysmally in the 2nd round, just like her father before her: that's LePen plc's standard modus operandi at work, agitating and politicking just enough to attain/stay in office (MP, MEP) and maintain political relevance/power, but never so much as to actually land higher jobs and having to deliver the snake oil. This fully explains the LePens' mongo PR clangers over the decades, whenever on the cusp of 'levelling up'. Farage has been at their school of political life management and graduated with honours.

But then, when I see the extent of the MSM coverage granted to Farage's latest snake oil pitch, calls for Oprah to stand for the POTUS job etc., I'm really not so convinced/hopeful as you seem to be

Fair points about LePen. I do recall the establishment seeming to come together to try and keep her out with Fillon calling for his supporters to vote for Macron.

Farage is a character which is why the MSM seems to be obsessed with him. He was a big part of why the referendum happened and why Tory backbenchers were able to manoeuvre David Cameron into a position where he would be forced to call one.

I don't know if I'm hopeful. My options for leaving are much more restricted to yours. I lack a modern EU language (aside from the obvious) so I'm rather stuck here. Corbyn is still enjoying his position of constructive ambiguity while Theresa May seems dead set on leading us somewhere but she's not sure.

Rjd2

Skedaddle wrote: »

You also have to remember that the British pro-Brexit tabloids tended to be desperately hoping that both the French and Dutch elections would go their way and the EU would collapse in a heap.

They didn't really want to understand how the French two-round dynamics would work, nor how a complex PR, multiparty system in the Netherlands would work. It was just "Europe's about to collapse... boo Europe" type stuff.

There was plenty of scare mongering for Le Pen by the likes of the guardian etc.Left wingers like a good bogeyman just as much as anyone.

She got a lot of coverage from all sides. I don't recall the tabloids backing either to win there elections, maybe the express which is Breitbart in print.

Skedaddle

All I'm saying is there was either naive or wilful ignorance of the way the systems in those countries work to create maximum hype.

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

Except that Labour are split on this too, so it will not be a simple option. You vote Tory, which Brexit do you get? You vote Labour, which Brexit do you get?

There is no consensus and no ability to vote a consensus with the way that politics is currently set up in the UK.

I don't agree. I think that Labour would end up with a softer Brexit in their manifesto than the Tories who have always been in thrall to the Little Englander eurosceptics. There is a large cohort of votes to be had (probably a sizeable majority now) for any party that advocates realistic alternatives to a hard Brexit.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Well, nearly half of the electorate did vote to remain. I'm not so sure they deserve Schadenfreude.

I can't be sure that <some/most/all> Remain voters didn't vote for the Conservatives at the 2017 GE, so everything that's happening, is on those 52ers and 48ers who restored May to No.10 in 2017, as much as on the 2016 Leave voters.

As Brexiters were, and still are, fond of reminding anyone, the democratic choice is that of the majority, and it's the implementation of that choice by the twice-elected government which is effectively kicking me and my family out, through unavoidable professional consequences.

The management and forecast implementation (so far) of the referendum choice is actually harming (started 2017) and will further imperil (through automatic loss of professional recognition/access) my capacity to work and earn in the UK, thus my capacity to look after my family.

It's very personal indeed, and it's the UK electorate and the UK government which made it personal. Not me. Schadenfreude is small beans in context, tbh.

Skedaddle

The problem I see is the UK is *STILL* negotiating with itself.

There's all this talk of 'hard', 'soft' and who knows what else kinds of Brexits, but it would appear that nobody's actually discussed these with the EU and that many of them may not really be possible.

What the Labour Party agrees or the Tory Party agrees with its own members as an idea for a way forward is not necessarily just going to be accepted by the EU-27.

Rjd2

Skedaddle wrote: »

All I'm saying is there was either naive or wilful ignorance of the way the systems in those countries work to create maximum hype.

That's a fair point, but sadly it was from all sides. I got bored after a while explaining to people left right centre, vertical, horizontal etc how minimal Le Pen's chances were and constantly got told ... " BUT BREXIT AND TRUMP~"

Getting annoyed just thinking about how much time I wasted explaining the differences:pac:

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I can't be sure that <some/most/all> Remain voters didn't vote for the Conservatives at the 2017 GE, so everything that's happening, is on those 52ers and 48ers who restored May to No.10 in 2017, as much as on the 2016 Leave voters.

As Brexiters were, and still are, fond of reminding anyone, the democratic choice is that of the majority, and it's the implementation of that choice by the twice-elected government which is effectively kicking me and my family out, through unavoidable professional consequences.

The management and forecast implementation (so far) of the referendum choice is actually harming (started 2017) and will further imperil (through automatic loss of professional recognition/access) my capacity to work and earn in the UK, thus my capacity to look after my family.

It's very personal indeed, and it's the UK electorate and the UK government which made it personal. Not me. Schadenfreude is small beans in context, tbh.

FPTP means that there is a very tenuous relationship between vote count and seats gained so any particularly enthusiastic 48%'er might have voted Lib Dem as I did in a safe seat knowing it wouldn't affect the outcome though Hammersmith now has an excellent Labour MP who's tried to keep the UK in the single market and was subsequently sacked by Jeremy Corbyn. According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, over two thirds of students are backing Labour and think Corbyn backs remain (Source).

You're not the only person for whom it is personal. I'm from Donegal and have relatives in Northern Ireland. I lived there for a while myself at University. I'm genuinely unsure whether or not a deceitful campaign against migrants is worse than a completely disregarding the peace process in favour of an elitist ideology.