Brexit discussion thread V - No Pic/GIF dumps please

4068ac1elhodqr

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah, you could do that. Only have to convince 27 countries that you pissed off a few years back, that you'd be good partners.

'They' (nothing to do with me, to clarify), could certainly apply to re-join the club at a later date, after their trial period, thus giving the 52% what the voted for.

All they would have to do is host another referendum with a simple question question asking should they seek to apply to re-join, with two options (Y/N). Get over 50.1% Y, and they make an official request.

Would the EU (perhaps swelling to 33 members, not 27 by then) take them? Who knows for sure, but it would be unkind to refuse access, stemming from a democratic majority vote of their people, delivered to their leaders.

Being a potential net contributor, joint-second to Germany and about equal to France in economic status, hard to see why they would be refused. Yes it will cost them, and they will have to pay an agreeable fee for market access.

It's impossible to forsee how things will be, circa 2025-27. Will others leave the EU, will the uk have any success as an exporter or tax haven, will there be another global recession, will non-eu migration levels increase across the EU, will the UK itself self-implode and break-apart, and so have to re-apply as more than one nation.

Alas more questions than answers, if anyone has all the answers, good on 'em.

Capt'n Midnight

serfboard wrote: »

Aaaaand we're back to the old "They need us more than we need them", last seen circa 2016.

A hard deal Brexit will mean 10% Tariffs on UK cars. And unless they can source more UK parts instead of importing them from the EU that would apply even with a third party FTA.

The cost to the German vehicle industry would be about a billion a year. It's not huge money like the Brexiteers think it is.

VW alone is looking to cut costs by €3 Bn by 2020 and another €3 Bn by 2023 so it can increase it's profit margin from 4% to 6%.


Adding 10% to the cost of a generic UK car won't help foreign sales.

Strazdas

swampgas wrote: »

Rather grim analysis from Ian Dunt. TM may have found a way to avoid any vote by parliament on the deal, or may be able to delay it so long that no deal is inevitable. Scary stuff.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2018/12/10/another-day-of-shame-may-delays-brexit-vote-as-no-deal-suici

Good article. Ian is right to be deeply alarmed at the way May pulled the vote after a four day debate and with very little justification for doing it.

Kermit.de.frog

John Major talks a lot of sense these days

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1072213268792557568

Wheres Me Jumper?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

John Major talks a lot of sense these days

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1072213268792557568

i've always respected and admired Major. a decent fair-minded pragmatist imo.

BonnieSituation

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i've always respected and admired Major. a decent fair-minded pragmatist imo.

You're dealing with a proper leadership there though. That's a man who had Heseltine, Hurd, Clarke and Mayhew in his cabinets. Talked to SF, gave us the Downing Street declaration...

And now we have...

To call it chalk and cheese is an affront to cheese. Outside of Starmer, Y Cooper, Benn and the SNP there's very little coming close to that level of quality.

dr.fuzzenstein

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i've always respected and admired Major. a decent fair-minded pragmatist imo.

Unappreciated in his time. I remember his Spitting Image doll was entirely grey.

McMurphy

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Unappreciated in his time. I remember his Spitting Image doll was entirely grey.

It looks like time has stood still for him though, he looks exactly the same as he did in the 90s :eek:

MarkHenderson

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I wouldn't support holding a border poll in the first place unless opinion polls consistently showed 55% or more in favour of it, because the consequences of a 51-49 unification vote would likely be appalling and lead to a return to bloodshed.

Peace is much more important to me than a united Ireland.

However a successful unification vote of 55% or more would likely be much easier to implement than Brexit. A united Ireland is a more workable outcome on a legal level. It's not difficult to understand. The process of countries unifying (and splitting up) has already happened successfully in modern Europe.

Brexit has proved to be an unworkable project.

Leavers can't agree on what they want because they voted for an abstract fantasy in a referendum which was all about abstract fantasy.

One version of Brexit has effectively been delivered and rejected. There are only two other versions of it that are feasibly available - Norway, which looks likely to be a no go, and no deal, which is a catastrophe which nobody voted for.

An abstract fantasy is not a basis for going forward.

The situation has now changed to one where a second referendum with defined, properly explained choices is by far the most sensible and logical proposition.

Nonsense. The people have already voted and we must push ahead with Brexit. May should be slung out and replaced with someone competent.

seamus

Douglas Thoughtless Headache wrote: »

Would the EU (perhaps swelling to 33 members, not 27 by then) take them? Who knows for sure, but it would be unkind to refuse access, stemming from a democratic majority vote of their people, delivered to their leaders.

They would never be refused access, but it would be on an equal basis to any other new applicant. There would be no special conditions allowed, such as keeping Sterling or getting any of their other opt-outs.
I cannot see any vote to rejoin the EU in the next two decades to be successful. There's too much nationalist jingoism, too much sentimental claptrap about Britishness and sovereignty that will get in the way.

Being a potential net contributor, joint-second to Germany and about equal to France in economic status, hard to see why they would be refused. Yes it will cost them, and they will have to pay an agreeable fee for market access.

In 2025? We'll see. 5 years is a long time in economics. All the UK would need is 2/3 years of sustained emigration and the secession of Scotland, to see GDP drop by 25% or more. That sounds alarmist, but it's basically impossible to overstate the impact that leaving with no deal could have.

Still a formidable economy, but one that may need more assistance than it can provide, in the short term.

munsterlegend

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Nonsense. The people have already voted and we must push ahead with Brexit. May should be slung out and replaced with someone competent.

Democracy makes mistakes all the time especially when voters are completely unaware of the consequences of their votes. A second vote is more likely now as I can’t see any backtracking from the EU and Britain is deeply divided. Voters in England couldn’t care less about 1.6 million up north and it’s our job to make sure peace is safeguarded but they do care about their own futures and economy.

munsterlegend

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

John Major talks a lot of sense these days

https://twitter.com/rtenews/status/1072213268792557568

It’s hardly surprising reading the antics in the RHI scandal. Foster introduced legislation that she never even read!! I can’t see her surviving whenever the report is published.

Major like most common sense Tories would bulldoze unionist opposition who never want to change anything even if for the benefit of all the people in the north. Tories like Johnson or Rees-Mogg would not object if the backstop was NI only and are only using the north for their own objectives.

Peregrinus

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Nonsense. The people have already voted and we must push ahead with Brexit. May should be slung out and replaced with someone competent.

I think your position here requires somebody who is (a) competent, and (b) a brexiter. But, thus far, all the brexiters who have deigned to involve themselves in the process of delivering brexit have proven to be spectacularly incompetent.

There is a view that May's brexit, appalling as it is, is actually the best Brexit that the UK can hope to acheive, given the constraints within which the UK must work (principally, the reality that there can be no Brexit deal which does not address the EU's concerns) and the additional constraints the UK has imposed on itself (such as the various "red lines" that May decreed some time after the Brexit referendum).

Other countries have been much more successful at navigating internal disagreement over EU membership than the UK has been. You can do it by embracing membership but with substantial carveouts - e.g. Denmark - or by avoiding membership but developing a close relationship - e.g. Norway. But the UK has failed to do it at all.

May hasn't exactly helped - she has made a lot of unforced errors, most notably with the "red lines" - but somehow I don't think the fundamental problem is her lack of competence. Countries which have negotiated this more successfully than the UK have done so by attaching weight to, seeking to address the concerns of, and working to get buy-in from, the dissenting minority. This, though, is fairly foreign to the "winner-takes-all' culture that is embedded in British politics.

It seems to me that the "competence" that a Brexiter leader will need to deliver a Brexit which is better (as in, better for the UK) than May's Brexit is competence in consensus building; competence in securing buy-in by taking seriously the views and perspectives of those who disagree with you and by moving to incorporate and address them in your policies. And that particular competence does not seem to be abundant on the Brexiter side.

prawnsambo

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Nonsense. The people have already voted and we must push ahead with Brexit. May should be slung out and replaced with someone competent.

Not one of the so-called ERG has come up with a viable plan for brexit. You'd think after years of 'researching' Europe, they could have come up with something. But no, they juwst ran away when the opportunity was given them. A bunch of empty barrels who hadn't the first clue of (a) what they wanted and (b) how to go about getting it.

Wheres Me Jumper?

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

It looks like time has stood still for him though, he looks exactly the same as he did in the 90s :eek:

like Albert he was capable of striking a deal, and wasn't quite as grey 'n boring as portrayed, as Edwina will no doubt testify.

Enzokk

Peregrinus wrote: »

May hasn't exactly helped - she has made a lot of unforced errors, most notably with the "red lines" - but somehow I don't think the fundamental problem is her lack of competence. Countries which have negotiated this more successfully than the UK have done so by attaching weight to, seeking to address the concerns of, and working to get buy-in from, the dissenting minority. This, though, is fairly foreign to the "winner-takes-all' culture that is embedded in British politics.

One of the things I find galling about her is when she proclaims that the other side needs to compromise now in the HoC and work together to get the best deal. This after she has ignored everyone but her own team and it is her deal. She wants their input to only get her deal passed, not to form the deal which should naturally mean they will buy in from the start and the end when the votes for the deal is crucial.

The balls on her to stand up and lie all the time really is something to behold. Then again she is the architect of the Windrush scandal so we should not be surprised that once scrutiny is applied to her government it all comes tumbling down.

Edit: I can see her trying using this quirk in the HoC rules to her advantage now but it backfiring spectacularly in a no-deal WTO break up of the Union, because she is a "bloody stubborn woman" who will do what she can to stay in power.

kuro68k

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not one of the so-called ERG has come up with a viable plan for brexit. You'd think after years of 'researching' Europe, they could have come up with something. But no, they juwst ran away when the opportunity was given them. A bunch of empty barrels who hadn't the first clue of (a) what they wanted and (b) how to go about getting it.

Their plan is to crash out. So what if some people are murdered? As far as they are concerned the UK should never have "surrendered" anyway.

LuckyLloyd

tuxy wrote: »

What kind of brexit did they vote for?

A Brexity Brexit. Because Brexit means Brexit.

Enzokk

Seems that the government isn't happy with the speaker of the house. Is it any wonder when he found them in contempt and he berated them yesterday for delaying the vote. They seem to take no personal responsibility for what has happened to them and is looking to blame everyone else for their own actions.

https://twitter.com/jessicaelgot/status/1072413593918939138

Then just a quick tweet about the new negotiations coming up.

https://twitter.com/SamuelMarcLowe/status/1072406348866961408

"The backstop could be amended, I think. The EU would be quite happy to ditch the all-UK customs union element, and revert to a backstop that is entirely NI-specific.

Whether this helps the PM at all is a separate question."

LuckyLloyd

Headshot wrote: »

It really annoys me that BBC have a debate which involves an ex UKIP representative and they bringing up the WTO and there's no expert on the other side putting them in their place on how the WTO really works

The BBC has been exposed as an institution severely lacking in journalistic rigour throughout the entire Brexit process. They used to be a standard to aspire to, no more. This week serves to highlight massive dysfunction across British institutions generally.

The dark forces who shovelled illegitimate cash at the 2016 ref certainly got all they paid for and more.

Christy42

MarkHenderson wrote: »

hill16bhoy wrote: »

I wouldn't support holding a border poll in the first place unless opinion polls consistently showed 55% or more in favour of it, because the consequences of a 51-49 unification vote would likely be appalling and lead to a return to bloodshed.

Peace is much more important to me than a united Ireland.

However a successful unification vote of 55% or more would likely be much easier to implement than Brexit. A united Ireland is a more workable outcome on a legal level. It's not difficult to understand. The process of countries unifying (and splitting up) has already happened successfully in modern Europe.

Brexit has proved to be an unworkable project.

Leavers can't agree on what they want because they voted for an abstract fantasy in a referendum which was all about abstract fantasy.

One version of Brexit has effectively been delivered and rejected. There are only two other versions of it that are feasibly available - Norway, which looks likely to be a no go, and no deal, which is a catastrophe which nobody voted for.

An abstract fantasy is not a basis for going forward.

The situation has now changed to one where a second referendum with defined, properly explained choices is by far the most sensible and logical proposition.

Nonsense. The people have already voted and we must push ahead with Brexit. May should be slung out and replaced with someone competent.

The people have voted. No one really knows what was voted for as it was a badly phrased question. Prominent leavers promised single market access before the vote. Some promised out of it.

These details should be worked out before hand. Of course then many more would have voted for staying (generic politician of a party tend to perform favourably vs specific politician of opposing party). By keeping it vague they could pretend to be all things to everyone.

Except when it came to delivering of course.

cml387

I see that Andrea Leadsome has had a pop at Speaker John Bercow on Radio 4 this morning, doubting his impartiality on Brexit

Now a bit of history here, John Bercow was always on the sensible wing of the party and hated by the right, and especially Leadsome

He probably doesn't do himself any favours with his attitude to ministers in particular but it's dangerous territory for a governent in this mess to start blaming the ~"referee".

DOCARCH

Christy42 wrote: »

The people have voted. No one really knows what was voted for....

A hell of a lot of people voted for the fantasy of putting an extra £350M a week into the NHS (....per BJ and his bus)!

LuckyLloyd

cml387 wrote: »

I see that Andrea Leadsome has had a pop at Speaker John Bercow on Radio 4 this morning, doubting his impartiality on Brexit

Now a bit of history here, John Bercow was always on the sensible wing of the party and hated by the right, and especially Leadsome

He probably doesn't do himself any favours with his attitude to ministers in particular but it's dangerous territory for a governent in this mess to start blaming the ~"referee".

Why would this surprise you in the slightest? Once the Conservatives hopped into bed with the DUP as partners with the Irish border a sensitive part of the coming negotiations it demonstrated that this version of the party leadership at least is bereft of the ability to see dangerous political decisions and avoid them.

lawred2

MarkHenderson wrote: »

Nonsense. The people have already voted and we must push ahead with Brexit. May should be slung out and replaced with someone competent.

What Brexit do you want pushed ahead?

Akrasia

DOCARCH wrote: »

A hell of a lot of people voted for the fantasy of putting an extra £350M a week into the NHS (....per BJ and his bus)!

Given what we know about the funding for Leave EU, Aaron Banks, and the illegal and deceitful use of social media during the first referendum, Brexit isn't really the will of the people.

It's the will of the Kremlin

ancapailldorcha

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The BBC has been exposed as an institution severely lacking in journalistic rigour throughout the entire Brexit process. They used to be a standard to aspire to, no more. This week serves to highlight massive dysfunction across British institutions generally.

The dark forces who shovelled illegitimate cash at the 2016 ref certainly got all they paid for and more.

The BBC isn't much more than a voice of the establishment. It doesn't know whether the next establishment will be pro or anti Brexit so it's hedging its bets.

Akrasia

There was an Intelligence Squared uk debate over the weekend. Spoiler alert:

Before the debate 46% voted for a 2nd referendum
After the debate 53% voted for a 2nd referendum

Unfortunately, the 'renegotiate/no deal' side went from 19% pre-debate to 27%

This is in the context of a debate with one anti brexit panelist, and two pro brexit panelists. Also in the context where the HOC vote on May's deal was still scheduled for today.

prawnsambo

kuro68k wrote: »

Their plan is to crash out. So what if some people are murdered? As far as they are concerned the UK should never have "surrendered" anyway.

I think their plan has become crash out. Pretty much by default, because there is no plan that will deliver a brexit that gets them all the bits they want and gets rid of the bits they don't want. So crash and burn will get rid of the bits they don't want and the great mass of the unwashed can live with the rest.

Akrasia

I've also noticed that the UK public do not understand at all why the EU is demanding a backstop.

The talking heads are either saying that it's a waste of time because neither side wants to implement it, or that it's there just to prevent smuggling across an open NI border.

I reality, the reason there is a backstop is because the EU does not trust the UK to not break it's committments to honour the good friday agreement the minute the ink is dry on any agreement with the EU.

The backstop is there because the EU know perfectly well that the UK are not honest brokers in this negotiation, and they are making sure that there are mechanisms in place to force them to respect the GFA and keep a frictionless border in NI.