Brexit discussion thread III

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

so is this an official name, or just a bit of pathetic name calling?

Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England made fun of Boris and his Have-cake-and-eat-it remarks last summer, so it is semi-official.

J Mysterio

Just read the following passage in an article on Independent.co.uk:

The delay continues as Downing Street admitted last week that the Cabinet did not discuss Brexit during its weekly meeting, amid divisions in the Conservative party about exactly how hard Brexit should be.

Unreal. They didnt even discuss Brexit at last cabinet meeting. Theresa needs to grow a pair and lead. She's afraid of her own ministers. She doesn't even believe in Brexit. She is a disgrace.

Professor Moriarty

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Governor of the Bank of England made fun of Boris and his Have-cake-and-eat-it remarks last summer, so it is semi-official.

In fact, in September 2016, Johnson said the following to The Sun when asked about Brexit policy:

"Our policy is having our cake and eating it."

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Taking Leroy42's hypothetical - if the UK really does have a secret Brexit plan, and the seeming shambles of policy so far is part of that plan, what could the plan be?

To take it to the most absurd degree, the only card that they could pull out of their back pocket that could make the EU properly worry, would be a revelation that the UK has agreed a free trade deal with the USA and China, behind everyone's backs and in total secret.

But given that such a bombshell would be impossible to keep secret in the first place (Brexiteers wouldn't be able to resist, Trump is a moron) and the fact that the Tories losing their majority could never have been part of the script, I don't think there's any way to swing it that a "Grand plan" could exist behind the scenes.

There are too many unconnectable dots.

Professor Moriarty

seamus wrote: »

To take it to the most absurd degree, the only card that they could pull out of their back pocket that could make the EU properly worry, would be a revelation that the UK has agreed a free trade deal with the USA and China, behind everyone's backs and in total secret.

But given that such a bombshell would be impossible to keep secret in the first place (Brexiteers wouldn't be able to resist, Trump is a moron) and the fact that the Tories losing their majority could never have been part of the script, I don't think there's any way to swing it that a "Grand plan" could exist behind the scenes.

There are too many unconnectable dots.

"Hello this is China/India/USA. How can I help?"

"Hi, this is the EU. You know we are a trading bloc of over 580 million consumers? You know that we are now in direct competition with Britain? You're going to get a call from Britain. You know those trade agreements that we have in place with you for many years and the agreements that we've been negotiating/refining for 10 years? Would be a shame if something happened to them."

Skedaddle

The notion that they've a "cunning plan" is beyond all credibility at this stage. It's turned into a complete farce and, sadly, I don't think the reality of needing a sensible government with workable policies and pragmatic approaches to economic and trade policy, will dawn on the media and electorate until it's far too late.

I think the UK is facing a chaotic exit from the EU and huge economic self harm and there's really nothing likely to stop it. All we can do is grit our teeth as we watch a trainwreck in slow motion. The drivers aren't listening and don't want to know about the end of the line.

The electorate, media and politicians simply aren't living in reality because, as yet, they've experienced no consequences. This is largely down to markets pricing Sterling down while Brexit hasn't yet happened, so they're seeing a minor export bounce due to cheap sterling in existing EU and trade agreements.

They're also getting a lot of shielding because of Donald Trump's theatrics taking the focus off them.

Right now I think we are in the scenario where the captain has told the Watchman to stop annoying her, turned up the music and ordered full steam ahead into the iceberg.

demfad

I don't believe the British Government have a secret plan. There are other entities who can greatly influence the outcome who may have plans.

-The Labour party. The fact that they didn't even have Brexit as a discussion point on an important upcoming conference tells me that Corbyn's group do not want to go there. Unless pressure is applied from within the party or by polls Corbyn and Labour are ultimately an FTA Brexit party.

-European Research Group. Rees-Mogg is the group leader. This is the ultra hard Brexiters Tory grouping. They are OK with WTO rules and/or a no-deal Brexit.
Backed by the Legatum Institute (former member Steve Baker is vice Minister to Davis). Legatum have a history of disaster capitalism in the former Soviet Union, and Hong Kong after the Anglo-Sino transfer.
The only workable hard Brexit is a kind of a tax haven with slashed regulations and costs (workers rights). IMO What they want to happen is for the UK to float into phase 2 without a definite commitment. The article 50 is a legal deadline and if nothing changes they crash out. The closer they get to this deadline the easier to torpedo any chance of agreement at exactly the right time.
Keep the gun to Mays head as the car drives towards the cliff. If she falters, take over and finish the job knowing that you have a parachute (for yourself not the UK).

Leroy42

Do you think that is the overall plan Demfad (I have heard it before but can't recall where/when), that the hard brexiteers are really looking to pitch UK as a tax haven with the associated impact on rights and services that it entails.

Would it even be possible to turn a country as large and economically mature as the UK into such? I know that Hong Kong & Singapore are held up as success stories but is this really true?

PopePalpatine

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you think that is the overall plan Demfad (I have heard it before but can't recall where/when), that the hard brexiteers are really looking to pitch UK as a tax haven with the associated impact on rights and services that it entails.

Would it even be possible to turn a country as large and economically mature as the UK into such? I know that Hong Kong & Singapore are held up as success stories but is this really true?

Chances are that suggestion probably came from Jacob Rees-Mogg.

ArmaniJeanss

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you think that is the overall plan Demfad (I have heard it before but can't recall where/when), that the hard brexiteers are really looking to pitch UK as a tax haven with the associated impact on rights and services that it entails.

Would it even be possible to turn a country as large and economically mature as the UK into such? I know that Hong Kong & Singapore are held up as success stories but is this really true?

Owen Paterson floated it as an idea late last autumn.
"Let Singapore be our model."
https://www.owenpaterson.org/news/dont-listen-terrified-europeans-singapore-model-our-brexit-opportunity

Lemming

Leroy42 wrote: »

Would it even be possible to turn a country as large and economically mature as the UK into such? I know that Hong Kong & Singapore are held up as success stories but is this really true?

Bear in mind that Hong Kong & Singapore have populations that are smaller than London, and combined roughly 1.5 times the size of London.

Skedaddle

Hong Kong is effectively part of China and Singapore is a small, city state run more like company than a country.

Neither of them are remotely comparable to the UK or even Greater London.

demfad

Leroy42 wrote: »

Do you think that is the overall plan Demfad (I have heard it before but can't recall where/when), that the hard brexiteers are really looking to pitch UK as a tax haven with the associated impact on rights and services that it entails.

Would it even be possible to turn a country as large and economically mature as the UK into such? I know that Hong Kong & Singapore are held up as success stories but is this really true?

They are proposing a hard Brexit. The only model that could remotely work in this scenario is a very low tax economy. Mogg et al have made many many sounds about cutting regulations in order to make British goods more competitive post Brexit. Protections on income and working conditions would also have to be looked at. This may be the desired end result but they have a plan for the process, for how to get there IMO.
Brexit happens when the clock hits midnight on March 19th '19. If there is no agreement at this point on a transition deal then they win. Mogg this week said he wants out without a transition deal under WTO rules.
The best (only?) way to achieve this now is to let May bungle on into phase 2. The closer we get to D-Date with the ERG still a force, the easier for them to sabotage.

Professor Moriarty

Skedaddle wrote: »

Hong Kong is effectively part of China and Singapore is a small, city state run more like company than a country.

Neither of them are remotely comparable to the UK or even Greater London.

Shout out for the Isle of Man and Jersey.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"Hello this is China/India/USA. How can I help?"

"Hi, this is the EU. You know we are a trading bloc of over 580 million consumers? You know that we are now in direct competition with Britain? You're going to get a call from Britain. You know those trade agreements that we have in place with you for many years and the agreements that we've been negotiating/refining for 10 years? Would be a shame if something happened to them."

The population of the EU after Brexit will be approximately 450 million people and it doesn't have any agreements with China, India or the USA.

It also isn't the way trade agreements or the EU itself operates.

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

The population of the EU after Brexit will be approximately 450 million people and it doesn't have any agreements with China, India or the USA.

It also isn't the way trade agreements or the EU itself operates.

Correct re population. Mea culpa. The point remains though.

By the time Brexit eventually happens, the EU hopes to have concluded trade agreements with India and the USA - these negotiations are well advanced. Bilateral discussions with China began in 2013. I'm sure Britain has noticed that the EU's discussions with India began in 2007 and the Canada deal took 7 years.

I think it most definitely is the way the EU operates. Note how the EU has played hardball in the Brexit negotiations. And it is exactly how it should operate. Britain will be a direct competitor after Brexit.

Harika

Deleted User wrote: »

The population of the EU after Brexit will be approximately 450 million people and it doesn't have any agreements with China, India or the USA.

It also isn't the way trade agreements or the EU itself operates.

US -> Trump will accommodate the UK, by US terms. TTIP is dead
India -> Former colony and part of the empire, will be open to a fair trade deal with both
China -> Is unpolitical, so will take on a deal that profits both, just them or extends their influence

As there are no trade deals in place, the UK might be in need of quick wins and agree to unfavourable terms as long as it appeases home. "Look we don't need the EU, we are now owned by China, but we are allowed to trade with them more pigs ears!"

irishash

Deleted User wrote: »

The population of the EU after Brexit will be approximately 450 million people and it doesn't have any agreements with China, India or the USA.

It also isn't the way trade agreements or the EU itself operates.

I feel the post is displaying a humorous way of showing the absurdity of the UK having completed a secret trade agreement with either China, the US or India during the past year. Seeing as the EU and China opened formal talks into an agreement in 2013, with India since 2007 and have a bilateral agreement with the US in relation to trade and investment already, for those countries to throw away all that work for a deal with a market 1/7th the size of the EU is a little ridiculous.

Plus it is legally impossible for the UK to undertake any trade agreement talks with any other country until after they exit the EU.

Harika

irishash wrote: »

I feel the post is displaying a humorous way of showing the absurdity of the UK having completed a secret trade agreement with either China, the US or India during the past year. Seeing as the EU and China opened formal talks into an agreement in 2013, with India since 2007 and have a bilateral agreement with the US in relation to trade and investment already, for those countries to throw away all that work for a deal with a market 1/7th the size of the EU is a little ridiculous.

Plus it is legally impossible for the UK to undertake any trade agreement talks with any other country until after they exit the EU.

And there is a Tory civil war going on, so any secret negotiations would have been already spilled.

Professor Moriarty

Harika wrote: »

And there is a Tory civil war going on, so any secret negotiations would have been already spilled.

Mind you, Hammond and Rudd have been excluded from the upcoming speechifying...

First Up

irishash wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

The population of the EU after Brexit will be approximately 450 million people and it doesn't have any agreements with China, India or the USA.

It also isn't the way trade agreements or the EU itself operates.

I feel the post is displaying a humorous way of showing the absurdity of the UK having completed a secret trade agreement with either China, the US or India during the past year. Seeing as the EU and China opened formal talks into an agreement in 2013, with India since 2007 and have a bilateral agreement with the US in relation to trade and investment already, for those countries to throw away all that work for a deal with a market 1/7th the size of the EU is a little ridiculous.

Plus it is legally impossible for the UK to undertake any trade agreement talks with any other country until after they exit the EU.

An EU - India agreement would have been in place years ago except for objections by one member state. Guess who.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

The population of the EU after Brexit will be approximately 450 million people and it doesn't have any agreements with China, India or the USA.

What's in a name?

such countries trade via a complex web of Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) which are principally concerned with removing the non-tariff barriers to trade which are, in most cases, far more important than tariffs. Each MRA is a highly technical and, in most cases, lengthy document and the outcome of long periods of negotiation. The USA, for example, has some 135 MRAs with the EU, and China has 65. On Brexit with no deal, not only would the UK not have any MRAs with the EU but it would also have exited the EU’s MRAs with countries like the USA and China.

From The myth of the WTO option

And, in response to the earlier suggestion that the Brexiteers are working on a cunning plan behind the scenes, this commentary - using just one tradable commodity as an example - explains how that's not going to happen:

And then there is the small matter of the EU. It has to agree to all these details itself, because its quota will obviously be that much smaller once Britain extracts its share. That is only possible if Britain and Europe are working closely and amiably together through the Article 50 process. If, as hard Brexiters frequently suggest, Britain simply storms off in a huff and goes to the WTO, the first thing it will find is a trade dispute waiting for it there from the EU because there is no agreement on quotas. And that trade dispute is likely to be one of many, with all the other countries affected queuing up behind it.

jobbridge4life

For anyone who isn't currently aware of them, and who wants an insight into the depressingly misinformed, dishonest and juvenile nature of the Brexit debate within UK society even at this late stage, the BBC Radio 4 sister programs Any Questions and Any Answers are brilliant if troubling window into Bedlam.

Professor Moriarty

First Up wrote: »

An EU - India agreement would have been in place years ago except for objections by one member state. Guess who.

Does it begin with B? Belgium?

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Does it begin with B? Belgium?

I think it begins with 'U'

Capt'n Midnight

It's OK because the UK will give clarity :rolleyes:

Brexit: Ministers to unveil what EU relationship they want for UK

Theresa May will deliver a major speech within the next three weeks outlining the future relationship Britain wants to have with the EU.

Before that, senior ministers are also due to give speeches in a campaign dubbed "the road to Brexit" by No 10.

Security, the devolution of powers, workers' rights and trade are to be covered.

The "road to Brexit" should have been mapped out long before triggering Article 50.

I'll go out on a limb and predict it's the same old same old with wishful aspirations and no realistic proposals to square any of the circles.

J Mysterio

Well said.

Why do we have to wait a further three weeks for another speech!? Even then you'd have to think the speech will be just more aspirational ****e talk about the 'closest of relationships' etc.

'We are leaving the EU but want to retain the same benefits anyway. Now, please change your rules and break the integrity of the EU for us please.'

There is just no acceptance of reality. The time for this guff is well past gone and this will not be humoured in the way Florence was - and i'm not sure why that was seen as such a victory either.

May seems to think she can just inspire her way to an impossible deal. That the EU and its citizens will be taken with emotion or somesuch at hearing her. Like she is some sort of magnifcent Thatcher Churchill hybrid. I think she's already pushed her luck waay to far. She probably should have resigned after that dreadful GE result. What a shambles. This speech will fall flat. I wonder where it will be?

The funniest thing - almost - is that it seems May's direction to her cabinet has been that they must also all give speeches! That's leadership. Will be interestjng to see what they can come up with, no pressure.

Infini

Ill be honest theres only 2 options at this stage 1) Abandon Brexit or 2) Hard Brexit. Theyre too incompetent and impotent to negotiate. Pretty sure that the Irish Border issue will trip them up entirely.

Professor Moriarty

J Mysterio wrote: »

Well said.

Why do we have to wait a further three weeks for another speech!? Even then you'd have to think the speech will be just more aspirational ****e talk about the 'closest of relationships' etc.

'We are leaving the EU but want to retain the same benefits anyway. Now, please change your rules and break the integrity of the EU for us please.'

There is just no acceptance of reality. The time for this guff is well past gone and this will not be humoured in the way Florence was - and i'm not sure why that was seen as such a victory either.

May seems to think she can just inspire her way to an impossible deal. That the EU and its citizens will be taken with emotion or somesuch at hearing her. Like she is some sort of magnifcent Thatcher Churchill hybrid. I think she's already pushed her luck waay to far. She probably should have resigned after that dreadful GE result. What a shambles. This speech will fall flat. I wonder where it will be?

The funniest thing - almost - is that it seems May's direction to her cabinet has been that they must also all give speeches! That's leadership. Will be interestjng to see what they can come up with, no pressure.

Apparently and interestingly, two senior cabinet members, Home Secretary Rudd and Chancellor Hammond, have not been invited to make speeches. Coincidentally, both are very much in favour of a soft Brexit.

Samaris

I've been following a British forum for a while, Brexit being much the top of people's minds.

It is frankly terrifying to see the really hardcore Brexiters at work. Doesn't matter what info you give them, what you link them to to back up arguments; if it's negative, it's a lie, it's biased, it's vested interests. They don't even bother linking stuff, it's all gut instinct.

How do you even debate with that?

Mind you, much like the Trumpers, there's only about five or six of them, but they make the noise of four times that number.

It actually has gotten scarily Trumpy though. In general, that is. Full-on misinformation, deceit, refusal to acknowledge or grapple with any difficulties, accusations of treason - the treating of the (bare) minority that voted Remain with contempt. Oh, and the lunatic conspiracy theories about the EU.

ancapailldorcha

Infini wrote: »

Ill be honest theres only 2 options at this stage 1) Abandon Brexit or 2) Hard Brexit. Theyre too incompetent and impotent to negotiate. Pretty sure that the Irish Border issue will trip them up entirely.

Abandoning Brexit isn't going to happen as it would require standing up to the Tory hard right that the referendum was supposed to appease begin with. Hard Brexit seems to be the more likely option.

Lemming

Samaris wrote: »

It is frankly terrifying to see the really hardcore Brexiters at work. Doesn't matter what info you give them, what you link them to to back up arguments; if it's negative, it's a lie, it's biased, it's vested interests. They don't even bother linking stuff, it's all gut instinct.

How do you even debate with that?

You can't. Just leave those people to it. Reality will school them very very quickly given the current trajectory of Brexit remains unchecked.

I work with - and am quite friendly with - one guy who is a full-on Brexit cheering, UKIP cheering fan. He fully acknowledges that it is completely irrational and that it will be an unmitigating sh1t show, but his view is - and I quote; "I don't care. I want out". The man has a family with a not-quite young teenage daughter, so not exactly in the footloose & fancy free brigade.

I also had two former workmates, both of whom I was once on good terms, and otherwise well educated and intelligent people proclaim to have researched Brexit "carefully" and "thoroughly" and were unbridled in their enthusiasm for Brexit and quite unapologetic about stripping me of any and all rights, and sure what's the problem and why am I angry, etc. One of them even spent time living in Cork for several years, so again, not exactly wanting for travel & life experience sorts.

The only way to explain all this away is that they have a fervent, quasi-religious faith in Brexit. The alternative - or any alternative - is not very flattering to them. At least the first guy I mentioned above freely admits to his bias and is, ironically, of everyone thumping the tub for Brexit is the only person who has ever come close to giving me a coherent grievance for how EU legislation once impacted on his quality of life with time spent away from his family due to driving trucks across the continent and being limited in the numbers of hours he could drive. I did point out those limits are why he returned home without either dying or killing someone else's family falling asleep at the wheel but as I said, you can't really argue with the mindset. He took it on-board, but just wasn't interested in revisiting his view.

As I said; reality will disabuse these people of their views in short enough order.

ArmaniJeanss

Samaris wrote: »

I've been following a British forum for a while, Brexit being much the top of people's minds.

It is frankly terrifying to see the really hardcore Brexiters at work. Doesn't matter what info you give them, what you link them to to back up arguments; if it's negative, it's a lie, it's biased, it's vested interests. They don't even bother linking stuff, it's all gut instinct.

digitalspy politics I'd wager.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Apparently and interestingly, two senior cabinet members, Home Secretary Rudd and Chancellor Hammond, have not been invited to make speeches. Coincidentally, both are very much in favour of a soft Brexit.

Hammond could be interesting in the next few weeks if the reports of him being sidelined are true. At the age of 62 his chance of the top job is gone, even his chances of a major role in another government are remote. I could see him going spectacularly off-message if they push him too far and going out in a blaze of glory. He's got little to lose.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

You can't. Just leave those people to it. Reality will school them very very quickly given the current trajectory of Brexit remains unchecked.

I work with - and am quite friendly with - one guy who is a full-on Brexit cheering, UKIP cheering fan. He fully acknowledges that it is completely irrational and that it will be an unmitigating sh1t show, but his view is - and I quote; "I don't care. I want out". The man has a family with a not-quite young teenage daughter, so not exactly in the footloose & fancy free brigade.

I also had two former workmates, both of whom I was once on good terms, and otherwise well educated and intelligent people proclaim to have researched Brexit "carefully" and "thoroughly" and were unbridled in their enthusiasm for Brexit and quite unapologetic about stripping me of any and all rights, and sure what's the problem and why am I angry, etc. One of them even spent time living in Cork for several years, so again, not exactly wanting for travel & life experience sorts.

The only way to explain all this away is that they have a fervent, quasi-religious faith in Brexit. The alternative - or any alternative - is not very flattering to them. At least the first guy I mentioned above freely admits to his bias and is, ironically, of everyone thumping the tub for Brexit is the only person who has ever come close to giving me a coherent grievance for how EU legislation once impacted on his quality of life with time spent away from his family due to driving trucks across the continent and being limited in the numbers of hours he could drive. I did point out those limits are why he returned home without either dying or killing someone else's family falling asleep at the wheel but as I said, you can't really argue with the mindset. He took it on-board, but just wasn't interested in revisiting his view.

As I said; reality will disabuse these people of their views in short enough order.

I think most of this is fair. I say most because I regrettably have to disagree with your final sentence. Brexit is inherently nationalistic and anti-intellectual. How many times did you hear something like "Loony, liberal elite" or "Typical biased media" in response to facts or projections in favour of remaining in the EU. How many people are clamoring to be freed of burdensome EU regulations they can't seem to name?

The fact is that the EU has been the villain for many years now. Brexit isn't going to change that. If Michel Barnier runs rings around David Davis as seems likely, then the tabloids, the European Research Group and whatever pro-Brexit entities are going to make the EU out to be the villain. Again. They'll do this because recent history has shown that it works.

I think that this is only the beginning. It's only going to stop when Labour get a leader who knows what he/she wants regarding Europe and actually fights for jobs instead of using constructive ambiguity to boost their chances of getting into No. 10 to enact their agenda.

Professor Moriarty

Lemming wrote: »

You can't. Just leave those people to it. Reality will school them very very quickly given the current trajectory of Brexit remains unchecked.

I work with - and am quite friendly with - one guy who is a full-on Brexit cheering, UKIP cheering fan. He fully acknowledges that it is completely irrational and that it will be an unmitigating sh1t show, but his view is - and I quote; "I don't care. I want out". The man has a family with a not-quite young teenage daughter, so not exactly in the footloose & fancy free brigade.

I also had two former workmates, both of whom I was once on good terms, and otherwise well educated and intelligent people proclaim to have researched Brexit "carefully" and "thoroughly" and were unbridled in their enthusiasm for Brexit and quite unapologetic about stripping me of any and all rights, and sure what's the problem and why am I angry, etc. One of them even spent time living in Cork for several years, so again, not exactly wanting for travel & life experience sorts.

The only way to explain all this away is that they have a fervent, quasi-religious faith in Brexit. The alternative - or any alternative - is not very flattering to them. At least the first guy I mentioned above freely admits to his bias and is, ironically, of everyone thumping the tub for Brexit is the only person who has ever come close to giving me a coherent grievance for how EU legislation once impacted on his quality of life with time spent away from his family due to driving trucks across the continent and being limited in the numbers of hours he could drive. I did point out those limits are why he returned home without either dying or killing someone else's family falling asleep at the wheel but as I said, you can't really argue with the mindset. He took it on-board, but just wasn't interested in revisiting his view.

As I said; reality will disabuse these people of their views in short enough order.

The Tory press has done a good job though. A poll last August showed that 61% of Leave voters thought that significant damage to the economy is a price worth paying for Brexit and 39% of Leave voters would accept a member of their family losing their job.

Mind you, that means that 39% of Leave voters don't agree or are unsure that significant damage is a price worth paying. Assuming 100% of Remain voters don't believe it's a price worth paying, perhaps there's cause for hope.

Patser

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's OK because the UK will give clarity :rolleyes:

Brexit: Ministers to unveil what EU relationship they want for UKThe "road to Brexit" should have been mapped out long before triggering Article 50.

I'll go out on a limb and predict it's the same old same old with wishful aspirations and no realistic proposals to square any of the circles.

But May really is creating a rod for her own back with this. 3 weeks of speculation and hype that this will be a proper declaration of what Brexit means, what is their plan, a promise of clarity.

If it comes out as aspirational waffle again, she'll be torn apart.

And on top of that, you've now got 3 weeks of each side of the Tory divide absolutely stretching themselves to push their beliefs, undermine the opposite side and influence May.

So she's just set herself a deadline, and drawn huge pressure onto herself to deliver, all while her cabinet starts to tear into each other.

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I say most because I regrettably have to disagree with your final sentence. Brexit is inherently nationalistic and anti-intellectual. How many times did you hear something like "Loony, liberal elite" or "Typical biased media" in response to facts or projections in favour of remaining in the EU. How many people are clamoring to be freed of burdensome EU regulations they can't seem to name?

The fact is that the EU has been the villain for many years now. Brexit isn't going to change that.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The Tory press has done a good job though. A poll last August showed that 61% of Leave voters thought that significant damage to the economy is a price worth paying for Brexit and 39% of Leave voters would accept a member of their family losing their job.

Apologies for answering both at the same time; but the reason why I believe reality will prove to be a very cruel mistress for fanciful notions of Brexit is quite simple: "Money talks & bullsh1t walks".

There is only so far that blaming "them wots foreign" can take both the British media & more importantly its politicians before they run out of road and have to turn to face the masses who have been spoon-fed a diet of jingoistic bullsh1ttery and fake promises of riches and answer for why they've failed to deliver. It will not be pretty when that point is reached.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

Apologies for answering both at the same time; but the reason why I believe reality will prove to be a very cruel mistress for fanciful notions of Brexit is quite simple: "Money talks & bullsh1t walks".

There is only so far that blaming "them wots foreign" can take both the British media & more importantly its politicians before they run out of road and have to turn to face the masses who have been spoon-fed a diet of jingoistic bullsh1ttery and fake promises of riches and answer for why they've failed to deliver. It will not be pretty when that point is reached.

I hope you're right but there's been some serious acrobatics as of late from politicians to dodge any sort of responsibility and from the public to ignore various gaffes. I dearly hope that this thing can be stopped outright but the chances of that are poor.

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I hope you're right but there's been some serious acrobatics as of late from politicians to dodge any sort of responsibility and from the public to ignore various gaffes. I dearly hope that this thing can be stopped outright but the chances of that are poor.

It'll continue well past cliff-edge day, but people will only really start to sit up and notice when they start seeing visible restrictions on things that they took for granted and/or when they start to 'feel' their incomes being squeezed. Until then, the Bojos and Moggies of UK political life will continue to spew bile like their words are Gospel, and as I alluded to before; talk is cheap.

ancapailldorcha

Lemming wrote: »

It'll continue well past cliff-edge day, but people will only really start to sit up and notice when they start seeing visible restrictions on things that they took for granted and/or when they start to 'feel' their incomes being squeezed. Until then, the Bojos and Moggies of UK political life will continue to spew bile like their words are Gospel, and as I alluded to before; talk is cheap.

Right but take airlines for example. I have no idea how that's going to pan out. The likes of Michael O'Leary have nothing to gain by insinuating that planes might be grounded so I think it can be taken as a legitimate possibility. Airlines need to plan flight schedules well in advance so if no deal is reached then it'll be too late.

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but take airlines for example. I have no idea how that's going to pan out. The likes of Michael O'Leary have nothing to gain by insinuating that planes might be grounded so I think it can be taken as a legitimate possibility. Airlines need to plan flight schedules well in advance so if no deal is reached then it'll be too late.

As I said; reality shall prove to be an incredibly cruel mistress, providing a sharp school lesson that cannot be ignored or wished away.

Water John

Yes, if these speeches esp Tm final are full of the familiar waffle, from the EU POV, the gloves are off. Reality time.

Infini

Water John wrote: »

Yes, if these speeches esp Tm final are full of the familiar waffle, from the EU POV, the gloves are off. Reality time.

Whats honestly needed at this stage is not to hold back but to hammer these idiots who keep thinking they can have their cake and eat it. Hard cold reality is the only thing that needs to be dealt with this idiocy because its the only thing that will make them think. Maybe when buisnesses start triggering contingency plans ans their economy begins tanking proper will they wake up.

J Mysterio

Infini wrote: »

Whats honestly needed at this stage is not to hold back but to hammer these idiots who keep thinking they can have their cake and eat it. Hard cold reality is the only thing that needs to be dealt with this idiocy because its the only thing that will make them think. Maybe when buisnesses start triggering contingency plans ans their economy begins tanking proper will they wake up.

May evidently thinks she can keep the rebels sweet and have them pass an eventual deal. It's very high stakes.

Samaris

Lemming wrote: »

As I said; reality shall prove to be an incredibly cruel mistress, providing a sharp school lesson that cannot be ignored or wished away.

The view that's starting to be pushed now is "The EU are so unreasonable!"

One guy was even complaining that the EU keep changing their minds and no-one knows their position, which is pure Trumpism in terms of blaming someone else for one's own wrongdoing (or one's side in this case).

I fear that they will not have to ignore or wish it away - they will take the third option of misdirection and finding someone to blame. If Britain goes down the toilet, it will be the EU's fault for being mean to them (despite Britain obvs being in the stronger position and the EU being afraid so nothing can go wrong.)

listermint

Out of the CU and out of the SM.

Would this put the Euromillions games out of the UK.

Genuine question

ArmaniJeanss

Water John wrote: »

Yes, if these speeches esp Tm final are full of the familiar waffle, from the EU POV, the gloves are off. Reality time.

Guardian says they have a 'rough draft' of Boris' speech.
Though being Boris he may have 2 or more contradictory speeches ready and only make up his mind at the last minute.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/12/eu-endgame-is-political-unity-not-free-trade-argues-boris-johnson

The main segment they have is pretty much a pop at the EU (hell, it's even a pop at the original common market) so I don't think there's any softening of the stance.

There's also a word, teleological, that I don't understand which is a bit embarrassing.

Capt'n Midnight

Patser wrote: »

But May really is creating a rod for her own back with this.

"A week is a long time in politics."

And May has just given herself a three week breather.



Kicking the can, good long kick, stall for time and hope for miracles.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Right but take airlines for example. I have no idea how that's going to pan out. The likes of Michael O'Leary have nothing to gain by insinuating that planes might be grounded so I think it can be taken as a legitimate possibility. Airlines need to plan flight schedules well in advance so if no deal is reached then it'll be too late.

The O'Leary school of publicity is that all news coverage is free advertising so there's that.

But they have setup a UK subsidiary, and they aren't the only ones with a Plan B.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/02/ryanair-applies-uk-licence-airline-braces-hard-brexit

Ryanair filed for a licence just before Christmas using a new UK subsidiary, after a similar move in October from the Hungarian budget airline Wizz Air, which wants to expand operations at its base in Luton.

The airline said in a statement on Tuesday: “A subsidiary company, Ryanair UK, filed an application on 21 December for an air operator’s certificate with the Civil Aviation Authority in the UK. This may be required for Ryanair’s three UK domestic routes in the event of a hard Brexit in March 2019.”

Ryanair’s rival, easyJet, made a similar move in the other direction last year by opening a new headquarters in Vienna for easyJet Europe, allowing it to continue operating intra-EU flights.

Business are making making hard contingency plans.

Lemming

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

There's also a word, teleological, that I don't understand which is a bit embarrassing.

I too had to google that. I found it amusing to note that undernearth the question (returned as a result) for what does it mean to be teleological was a second question and answer:

What is a teleological fallacy?
Teleological fallacy: Conceptual Fallacy. Definition. Example. When there is the claim that some object or idea has a purpose or necessary end point in the absence of evidence for that end point.