Brexit discussion thread IV

Rhineshark

I don't think a referendum is going to happen now - although I think a request for an extension to A50 for one would probably be granted as a last ditch effort to avoid the chaos.

I don't think May's government is going to be around next year. Johnson's going to go for it eventually - sooner rather than later if he's going to stop dithering at all. Another leadership change - especially with Johnson as polarizing as he is is going to be a general election to my mind. There doesn't seem to be many credible alternatives that the party membership will vote over Johnson even (/especially) if that brings in the ERG shower.

Can't work out if Chuka Umunna is going to make a play for leadership or not. He's a young centrist Labour candidate with very clear Remain credentials. Boris Johnson's Tories against Chuka Umunna's Labour would definitely be worth pausing things for. It's the only way out that could actually resolve things acceptably to most (bar having the devil himself in charge to whichever side loses).

Centre-left Labour's got a bad rap from Blair which is a shame to my mind. The NHS was actually working under his Labour as was the economy in general. Also Umunna ran before and dropped out under the media pressure on his family within three days and has basically said "never again".

But if it wasn't for that, I'd be pretty sure from his actions and that article the other day that he was testing the waters for a leadership run.

Wishful thinking most likely but if the Tories collapse and Labour's still having a Corbyn-left/Blairite leftovers internal barney, we're falling off that cliff anyway because Labour's promised only slightly more conciliatory unicorns and they'll be out of time.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

An interesting stat is that the generation that fought in WWII voted remain. It was the "never had it so good" brigade on their triple locked pensions going "I'm alright Jack". Perhaps if they could be shown how the lack of tax revenue and EU workers will affect the NHS they might change their tune.

In '75?

Peregrinus

A few thought on the “A50 extension followed by referendum” rumour sweeping the Twittersphere.

First, the options facing HMG:

1. No deal is not a serious policy option. It would be a monumental failure on the part of the government and a disaster for the country, and the Tories would (rightly) be blamed for it. But it will happen unless options 2 or 3 happen.

2. HMG makes policy changes necessary to reach a Withdrawal Agreement

3. Brexit gets cancelled.

Option 2 is extremely painful, because of the corner into which they have painted themselves with their red lines. The necessary policy changes will be greeted as a betrayal by the ultras. On the other hand, no matter what they do, it will be denounced as a betrayal by the ultras.

Option 3 is also extremely painful, and for pretty much the same reasons.

How to choose between them? All 3 options are basically politically sh1t for HMG. But Option 1 is the sh1ttest; it comes with a copper-bottomed guarantee of total catastrophe, so they’ll rule that out if they can. As between the other two, they’ll choose the course most likely to see them survive as a government, this being their number one policy objective. And their chances of survival are maximised if they can avoid the sh!t resulting from whichever sh!tty option they choose.

One possible way of minimising the sh1t is by putting the decision back to the people. Yes, this will be denounced as a betrayal by the ultras but, as already noted, this is true for all their options, so it isn’t a deciding factor in choosing between them. Plus, it offers a way of outflanking the ultras; whatever the result of a second referendum, it will be hard for the ultras to denounce the people as traitors, and those few who do will find no political traction.

So, if they cobble together a “traitorous” deal with the EU, they may well think that their best chance of surviving as a government is to put that deal to the people and get it ratified. Hard for the ultras, or indeed the DUP, to bring them down for implementing a deal approved by the Will of the People.

The EU, of course, doesn’t care whether the deal is ratified in a referendum or in Parliament or whatever, so long as it's ratified. But they do care whether the deal survives, and is implemented, and if it’s put to them that that’s much more likely to happen if the deal is ratified in a referendum, they may be minded to facilitate a referendum. Plus if, as the rumour suggests, the other option in the referendum is “remain in the EU”, they’d be slow to adopt a position which ruled that possibility out.

So, it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that, if the UK does succeed in negotiating a Withdrawal Agreement, they will ask for an A50 extension in order to hold a referendum to get that deal ratified, or to abandon Brexit altogether. It would be a three- or six-month extension, tops. And I think in that scenario the EU would agree.

Spook_ie

Lemming wrote: »

The majority of the UK voting-age public did not vote to Leave. But due to an absolute lack of .. well ... anything ... the government ran the referendum like it was FPTP, so 50+1 wins so sad boo hoo & f*ck off, etc. So I fail to see how all those leave voters boycotting a vote would do anything, because .. well ... FPTP, so 50+1 wins so sad boo hoo & f*ck off, etc.

What's sauce for the goose and all of that. Vote Leave have been claiming "they won get over it" for 2 years so to turn around and cry foul on such terms is just beyond hypocritical.

Aren't Irish referendums FPTP as well? Don't see what you are arguing, unless it's an ignore the first referendum type of statement, in which case the exit lobby would be right to claim fix.

Now if the UK leave the EU and then have a referendum to rejoin, democracy might be seen to be the winner but not by some arbitrary decision to rerun the referendum.

Peregrinus

Spook_ie wrote: »

Aren't Irish referendums FPTP as well?

Yes, they are.

Spook_ie wrote: »

Don't see what you are arguing, unless it's an ignore the first referendum type of statement, in which case the exit lobby would be right to claim fix.

Now if the UK leave the EU and then have a referendum to rejoin, democracy might be seen to be the winner but not by some arbitrary decision to rerun the referendum.

False dichotomy. A second referndum before Brexit day doesn't have to be the outcome of "some arbitrary decision"; there may be rational and compelling arguments in support of a second referendum. Indeed, refusing a second referendum despite those arguments simply because you like the result of th first one and don't wish the people to have an opportunity to overturn it would be detrimental to democracy. You'd be denying the people a say for fear of what they might say.

Seth Brundle

breatheme wrote: »

Hmm. I don't trust the British Government

Neither, it seems, does the EU...
EU fears Brexit talks are being bugged by British secret service
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-fears-brexit-talks-are-being-bugged-by-british-secret-service-37220939.html

judeboy101

Seth Brundle wrote: »

breatheme wrote: »

Hmm. I don't trust the British Government

Neither, it seems, does the EU...
EU fears Brexit talks are being bugged by British secret service
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-fears-brexit-talks-are-being-bugged-by-british-secret-service-37220939.html

I think that's just spin for the new Johnny English movie

LuckyLloyd

Rjd2 wrote: »

They should not ignore two of the biggest scourges in Europe right now anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. There is plenty of warnings how stupid Brexit is to be fair, its clicking with some and others it isn’t. Johnson and Corbyn don’t deserve passes for that.

How is anti - semitism one of the “biggest scourges in Europe” right now? On what basis? I can link Islamaphobia to increased support for right wing politics in certain EU states (and Brexit of course), but what major current trends are linked to anti - semitism in your view?

Peregrinus

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

How is anti - semitism one of the “biggest scourges in Europe” right now? On what basis? I can link Islamaphobia to increased support for right wing politics in certain EU states (and Brexit of course), but what major current trends are linked to anti - semitism in your view?

Well, increased support for right wing politics in certain EU states, for one thing. (I'm looking at you, Hungary.) It's not as though antisemitisms and islamophobia were in any way opposed, after all. They're basically the same phenomenon, after all, and the alt-right will glide seamlessly from one to the other, or affirm both, as seem expedient on the occasion.

EdgeCase

Sure of course they’re bugging it. Probably hacking computers, listening to calls, spying on all 27 other members.

Why is anyone surprised? They'll see this as legitimate interests of the state to do whatever it needs to do to protect British interests.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, increased support for right wing politics in certain EU states, for one thing. (I'm looking at you, Hungary.) It's not as though antisemitisms and islamophobia were in any way opposed, after all. They're basically the same phenomenon, after all, and the alt-right will glide seamlessly from one to the other, or affirm both, as seem expedient on the occasion.

For the 'alt right' that's probably true. They don't care about Palestine. They hate jewish people because of conspiracies and think the Muslims in Palestine deserve what's happening to them.

Left wing 'anti semitism' is a reaction to zionist policies in the middle east so the people who call him anti semitic are also calling him a 'terrorist sympathiser' which is another way of saying he's too tolerant of 'radical islam'

If Teresa May laid a wreath on or near the grave of Ariel Sharon would she be called 'islamophobic' despite the fact that he was responsible for the massacres of thousands of innocent civilians when he sent militias into refugee camps in the lebanon in the 1982?

The middle east conflict is one of the longest, most heartbreaking and complex issues of the past century and there is a huge difference between a left wing politician calling for a peace process and to end illegal activities in Gaza and the West bank, and the kinds of anti semitic and islamophobic propaganda spewed out by the 'alt right' and the far right.

trellheim

False dichotomy. A second referndum before Brexit day doesn't have to be the outcome of "some arbitrary decision"; there may be rational and compelling arguments in support of a second referendum. Indeed, refusing a second referendum despite those arguments simply because you like the result of th first one and don't wish the people to have an opportunity to overturn it would be detrimental to democracy. You'd be denying the people a say for fear of what they might say.

This - while the thinking mans option - is the contra to the "why are we voting again - lets just get on with it, come what may"

It only holds water for these people if the alternative is the cliff-edge - and it is, from where we sit. For many though it'll be the Dunkirk spirit and they will hold out even if it goes to beans and shotguns. I cant see any movement from where we sit that makes this any way feasible.

Peregrinus

trellheim wrote: »

This - while the thinking mans option - is the contra to the "why are we voting again - lets just get on with it, come what may"

It only holds water for these people if the alternative is the cliff-edge - and it is, from where we sit. For many though it'll be the Dunkirk spirit and they will hold out even if it goes to beans and shotguns. I cant see any movement from where we sit that makes this any way feasible.

I think there's a range of positions on a further referendum:

- Those who oppose it because they are Brexiters and they fear a futher referendum could reverse the 2016 referendum.

- Those who support it because they are Remainers and they hope a futher referendum could reverse the 2016 referendum.

- Those who oppose it because, either on account of being sick of having to bother about the whole thing or out of some notion of "fairness", feel that the 2016 referendum should be implemented regardless of whether the implementation enjoys public support or not. These people might have been either Leavers or Remainers in 2016.

- Those who support it because they feel the 2016 referendum, either because of its flaws or because of the narrow margin or both, didn't conclusively settle public sentiment. The legitimacy of what is now being done is being questioned, and they think or hope that a further referendum would settle the matter.

- And no doubt you could think of other groups.

Thus far, HMG has set its face resolutely against a further referendum. And, FWIW, my judgment is still that there is very unlikely to be one.

Still, if we're brainstorming scenarios in which there would be a further referndum, I think the question we have to ask is "could it ever be to the advantage of May"? And it seems to me that it could be useful to her in (a) outflanking the ultra-Brexiters in her own party, or (b) giving her some cover for disclaiming responsibility for the consequences of Brexit if, as expected, they are strongly negative, or (c) getting the public's blessing/forgiveness for moving away from her own red lines if that's what she has to do to get a Withdrawal Agreement.

So, if we can envisage circumstances in which May needs to do any or all of these things, a further referendum might seem attractive to her. So I wouldn't rule it out.

Rhineshark

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Neither, it seems, does the EU...
EU fears Brexit talks are being bugged by British secret service
https://www.independent.ie/business/brexit/eu-fears-brexit-talks-are-being-bugged-by-british-secret-service-37220939.html

It sounds crazy but...it would fit the MO so far >.<

swampgas

EdgeCase wrote: »

Sure of course they’re bugging it. Probably hacking computers, listening to calls, spying on all 27 other members.

Why is anyone surprised? They'll see this as legitimate interests of the state to do whatever it needs to do to protect British interests.

Sure, everyone tries to do it, and some succeed more than others, but most countries try very hard not to get caught, for obvious political reasons.

If the UK make it too obvious that they are exfiltrating and exposing confidential data, they give the other countries a reason to to impose restrictions, thus preventing further access to useful data.

It shows desperation (or incompetence) by the UK that they are prepared to out themselves so readily.

farmchoice

although in this case as with the absolute ludicrousness of all things brexit they were spying to stop info being made public not to try and get access to unseen info.


the eu's negotiating position has been so transparent all along that you would not think there is a need to spy, until you put on your brexiteer hat and see the need to use espionage to stop the other side from showing you their hand!!

Trasna1

Rhineshark wrote: »

It sounds crazy but...it would fit the MO so far >.<

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is a near certainty that the British Government has moles in the top levels of Irish policy making.

The fact that Britain has a network within the EU isn't surprising - they've been tapping it for years.

Rhineshark

Trasna1 wrote: »

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it is a near certainty that the British Government has moles in the top levels of Irish policy making.

The fact that Britain has a network within the EU isn't surprising - they've been tapping it for years.

Wouldn't be surprised at the first. It's only twenty years since the GFA and I'd be very surprised if there weren't a few bods in both the Irish and British civil service upper echelons keeping an eye on things as a hold-over from that period at the least.

But the EU one is daft. Have the British government ever tried...negotiating like normal people with other countries or have they been playing Yes Minister Bond for the past forty years?

I know they got themselves into a total tizzy over the EU trying to destroy/enslave/annex the UK because...well...presumably it's what they'd have done with the balance of power. But I'm pretty comfortable reckoning that if they had approached in a reasonable manner to honestly try work things out, the EU would have been pretty helpful to avoid general catastrophe. But no, they approached it in a heavy-handed, blustering, incompetent way, celebrating impacts to neighbouring countries and threatening the peace in Ireland while being utterly useless at coming up with ideas and swiftly amending laws to expressly make EU solution offers illegal. And lying a lot.

But apparently it's the EU being unreasonable here.

Corb_lund

Out of curiosity does anyone see anything positive from brexit? All the forums I'm in seem to be negative only. Is there truly no upswing?

Leroy42

Corb_lund wrote: »

Out of curiosity does anyone see anything positive from brexit? All the forums I'm in seem to be negative only. Is there truly no upswing?

Taking back control and sovereignty. I know these are cover all phrases, but if the UK use this to reorganise their democracy, to make those in power accountable and to drive greater participation in the political world. If the UK can start to face up to the problems facing it that have little of nothing to do with the EU.

If the UK can start to understand the global nature of the world and that the UK can play a cooperative role in it.

However, Brexit didn't need to happen for any of this to take place.

Akrasia

Leroy42 wrote: »

Taking back control and sovereignty. I know these are cover all phrases, but if the UK use this to reorganise their democracy, to make those in power accountable and to drive greater participation in the political world. If the UK can start to face up to the problems facing it that have little of nothing to do with the EU.

If the UK can start to understand the global nature of the world and that the UK can play a cooperative role in it.

However, Brexit didn't need to happen for any of this to take place.

Except the chances of them using their independence to take a mature and considered look at their own institutions and governance and where they are failing socially and politically, are extremely small compared to the more likely outcome of reactionary blaming of everyone else for all of the UK's self inflicted problems.

Leroy42

Totally agree, if anything Brexit is only increasing the blame culture. It is all the fault of the nasty EU, the Lords, Corbyn, the Lib Dems, Remoaners, TM, the civil service etc etc.

I was saying that it could result in some advantages. It won't though

Nody

Corb_lund wrote: »

Out of curiosity does anyone see anything positive from brexit? All the forums I'm in seem to be negative only. Is there truly no upswing?

Only positive thing I've heard that's not "pie in sky" or 50 years out etc. was that companies had to get out of their comfort zone for selling only in EU which will enable them to become more competitive over time.

Sam Russell

Nody wrote: »

Only positive thing I've heard that's not "pie in sky" or 50 years out etc. was that companies had to get out of their comfort zone for selling only in EU which will enable them to become more competitive over time.

I think that is another way of saying the UK will embrace the race to the bottom, where the lower social orders will have more zero hour contracts, lower social security, more globalised companies buying up stakes in NHS, water companies, and other state assests to exploit for the benefit of the MNC and the deteriment of the UK populace.

Bad times are a coming.

irishash

Leroy42 wrote: »

Totally agree, if anything Brexit is only increasing the blame culture. It is all the fault of the nasty EU, the Lords, Corbyn, the Lib Dems, Remoaners, TM, the civil service etc etc.

I was saying that it could result in some advantages. It won't though

Well seeing as Corbyn has done little to nothing to prevent brexit, I would think he would be off the radar of the annoyed.

Akrasia

Labour should have done more to highlight the stupidity of brexit, but at the end of the day, The Tories are in power and it's 100% their fault.

If Corbyn had been more outspoken, then he would be the bogeyman and not Teresa May. He'd be blamed for sabotaging the negotiations rather than just being having baseless anti semite allegations thrown at him

Rhineshark

Corb_lund wrote: »

Out of curiosity does anyone see anything positive from brexit? All the forums I'm in seem to be negative only. Is there truly no upswing?

Honestly...no, not really.

Best I have is that an awful lot of people have had to learn a lot about what the EU actually is and get to understand the basis of how our societies trading systems work. So there is that. One would *hope* that would make it harder for the propagandists to get this to work again. Although they had a country that had that specific weakness to be exploited.

Having said that, I note that Salviani is trying to blame the EU for that bridge collapse, presumably because 5Star are now having entire litters of kittens about having protested spending money on infrastructure - including that bridge. The EU have pointed out that actually, Italy was allotted quite a lot of money for major infrastructure rebuilding, including around Genoa. So, things don't change in some respects.

Positives from Brexit.. Well, some other countries will benefit from businesses leaving. We now *have* to diversify our markets from the UK (which Irish businesses have been trying to do anyway) but that may be a long-term benefit to avoid...well, the sort of thing happening now, so may not be a positive.


I hope it may inspire resistance to American-style corporatism which leads to the sort of wealth inequality that causes social unrest and political upheaval. The UK has descended rapidly down that path over the last decade, paid for by austerity.

It removes the UK government's favourite excuse for why everything they touch turns to mud which is right about as their entire social provision system including emergency services start to keel over so there's going to be no weaseling out of that (although no doubt they will try). May hopefully result in the Tories being squashed for a generation with their stupid rapacious capitalism notions. But won't be much consolation to anyone living there for the next few years.

United the EU countries on at least one front, which given just how bad relations were getting during the refugee crisis in 2016 is..something.

It's great news for Putin and Trump will be a happy bunny too, but in the wider sense these are not really positives.

In terms of actual, concrete, being-better-off positives...I honestly can't see any.

Blue passports?

judeboy101

Corb_lund wrote: »

Out of curiosity does anyone see anything positive from brexit? All the forums I'm in seem to be negative only. Is there truly no upswing?

An overwhelming sense of schadenfreude

BonnieSituation

judeboy101 wrote: »

An overwhelming sense of schadenfreude

That and a closer view to a border poll

Trasna1

Corb_lund wrote: »

Out of curiosity does anyone see anything positive from brexit? All the forums I'm in seem to be negative only. Is there truly no upswing?

It really depends on your definition of upswing or positive. Its almost universally accepted that there will be "pain" in the short term, even Brexiteers accept that there will be some economic dislocation. (I personally hate the use of euphemisms like this, since these take the sting out of the reality - where pain is written it should be substituted with "job-losses" or "people will be made poorer". This was something that was missed by the Remain campaign, who really ought to have studied the approach taken in Lisbon 2 here, where the Yes campaign really clearly understood how poorly informed the electorate really was and simplified their message - Yes for Jobs!)

The potential gain, is that in, say 10 years down the line, the UK will be forced by the pain of this dislocation to transform into a full open market economy a-la Singapore. This would be one of the biggest economic experiments undertaken my a major country ever and certainly has no guarantee of a universally positive outcome. Abandoning the European social model could have a huge upside for the economy as a whole, and make a significant proportion of the UKs population very wealthy. That said, even in the best case scenario, many will be left behind.

The above of course assumes that its only Britains relationship with Europe and the rest of the world changes and that the relationships between other blocs remain relatively unchanged. There is also a Brexiteer view that the global economy is about to undertake a major transition to an unknown state and that being out of the Union will allow them to act more nimbly than the EU and others, giving them first mover advantage. This view might not be misplaced, as technology, particularly AI and alternative energy sources are likely to shake up the global order sooner than we think.

Ultimately the upsides are based upon nothing more than hope - there is nothing concrete as an advantage one can point to in the immediate term, really since the benefits could take years to realise if they even do at all.