Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

CelticRambler

Leroy42 wrote: »

It certainly does appear that there is a significant amount of Tories, some Labour and certainly a large amount of the people who would opt for no deal.

We might not like it, agree with it or even understand it but it seems that quite a significant amount want out no matter what

While the EU would naturally prefer a workable deal of some kind, the announcement during the week that "we are as prepared for no deal as we can be" indicates to me that we have passed the point of no return. There is nothing coming out of the UK that suggests that there is sufficient cohesion amongst the public or their representatives around any single idea or potential Moses-like leader (however much Boris might like the role).

To continue the biblical reference, the EU is currently playing the role of Pontius Pilate. EU-Britain has been dragged before him on trumped-up charges, and despite the option of an easy climb-down, "the people" have been hoodwinked into clamouring for the release of a brigand, and the crucifiction of their benevolent ally. Pilate shrugged his shoulders and washed his hands of the affair, and the EU looks to be doing the same.

When all is said and done, the EU knows that the UK will be back asking for food, drugs, cars, flights, hotel reservations, electricity and a thousand other things, and the EU will provide them ... at a price that suits the EU27. It's not really the lose-lose-lose situation described by Juncker/Barnier earlier this year, more of a lose-lose-(win)

ShooterSF

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Again this analysis assumes Brexit is a tiny minority position. In fact if a Brexit party formed and won seats in the constituencies where Brexit won in the referendum, the Brexit party would get 70% (approx) of the English MPs. The SNP have only 45% of the Scottish vote but dominate Westminster elections.

Not at all. It's more the fact that two big parties on the right splitting votes in a country that runs first past the post voting will reduce the amount of seats the right will get. That is the nature of their flawed voting system. Also most people don't vote on single issues in GEs so it is not like a Brexit party would take most of the torries votes. Probably just enough to let labour or the lib dems in with a chance of grabbing a seat.

Roger_007

If there's a GE in the UK, the manifestos of both Labour and Tory parties are going to make interesting reading on the Brexit topic.
Because of the diversity of opinion in both parties, how are they going to come up with something that all their candidates can sign up to?
Of course there could be wholesale deselection of the current crop of moderate MPs which is already happening in Labour and rumoured to be happening with the Torys.
The inevitable outcome of a GE in the current climate would be a Parliament made up mostly of the hard left and the hard right. Ironically, that's exactly where most of the the ardent Brexiteers come from.
If Labour shift even more to the left they haven't a hope of getting a majority.

Franz Von Peppercorn

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not at all. It's more the fact that two big parties on the right splitting votes in a country that runs first past the post voting will reduce the amount of seats the right will get. That is the nature of their flawed voting system. Also most people don't vote on single issues in GEs so it is not like a Brexit party would take most of the torries votes. Probably just enough to let labour or the lib dems in with a chance of grabbing a seat.

There are left wing brexiters. You are right that most people don’t vote on single issues in most elections. One that was caused by the issue of Brexit might be different. The Brexit party might also be centrist on many issues except Brexit, to attract George Galloway and his ilk.

Also there’s effectively a single issue remain party (the IG) taking votes the other way.

Capt'n Midnight

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Again this analysis assumes Brexit is a tiny minority position. In fact if a Brexit party formed and won seats in the constituencies where Brexit won in the referendum, the Brexit party would get 70% (approx) of the English MPs. The SNP have only 45% of the Scottish vote but dominate Westminster elections.

I'd ask for some proof.

To get 70% you'd need to count Labour as a Brexit party, it's only Corbyn & Co that want Brexit and even they are ambivalent as the real goal is a General Election.



Besides it already happened.

UKIP are the only party to stand primarily on Brexit as the big issue have exactly Zero seats in the House of Commons.

The public are Bored of Brexit.



Meanwhile the media is biased, we know something in the order of a million people marched for revoke. I still haven't seen a count for the leave march.

The media need to say what the ratio was otherwise they have given both marches the same prominence.

Strazdas

Shelga wrote: »

I still don't understand why the DUP wanted Brexit at all. From a unionist standpoint, remaining in the EU is so blindingly obviously the right thing.

Is it just because their Tory English nationalist overlords wanted it? Is there some weird inferiority complex going on?

Instead of the DUP saying "this is not the Brexit that's best for the country" every time they were interviewed about not approving May's deal, why weren't they coming out strongly against leaving altogether?

I know the idea of a hard border and ripping up the GFA is great to them, but they must have seen it would never ever work in reality. The status quo was best for them and their ideology.

I don't think I'll ever understand it.

I don't think the DUP were particularly interested in Europe or the EU. It was very much a minor issue for them (whereas for Tory Brexiteer types it was quite massive). Their sole concern is the union with GB.

They may have felt too that Remain was going to win. They must be cursing the fact the referendum was ever held, Brexit has done them no favours.

Labour can't get a majority no matter what they do. Like most, I'd have been more of a Labour type before all of this. Now, I just see nonsense.

The Monarchy would do better than any of them.

ShooterSF

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

There are left wing brexiters. You are right that most people don’t vote on single issues in most elections. One that was caused by the issue of Brexit might be different. The Brexit party might also be centrist on many issues except Brexit, to attract George Galloway and his ilk.

Also there’s effectively a single issue remain party (the IG) taking votes the other way.

I know there are brexiteers on both sides. My point was a split in the Conservative party would lead to less seats for the right in general and potentially hand power to the left.

The fact that the left is so fractured and that the conservatives always end up with percentage wise more seats than votes is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

It is the reason why they will do everything to avoid a split imo including facilitating what outsiders see as extreme minorities.

charlie14

Shelga wrote: »

I still don't understand why the DUP wanted Brexit at all. From a unionist standpoint, remaining in the EU is so blindingly obviously the right thing.

Is it just because their Tory English nationalist overlords wanted it? Is there some weird inferiority complex going on?

Instead of the DUP saying "this is not the Brexit that's best for the country" every time they were interviewed about not approving May's deal, why weren't they coming out strongly against leaving altogether?

I know the idea of a hard border and ripping up the GFA is great to them, but they must have seen it would never ever work in reality. The status quo was best for them and their ideology.

I don't think I'll ever understand it.

The DUP are in the same boat as those Brexiteers that seem to believe that leaving the EU will somehow bring back the days of their "glorious empire".

That ship for Brexiteers sailed many moons ago and it aint coming back to port.


For the DUP it`s as much about tearing up the GFA and somehow believing they will go back to their glory days of "a protestant Ulster for a protestant people".
That ship sailed for the horizon with the first civil rights marches.


The only reality the DUP understand is that with the numbers game they are staring down the barrel of a future united Ireland and would happily burn the place down around their own ears if they thought the smoke would even slightly inconvenience the ROI.

Franz Von Peppercorn

ShooterSF wrote: »

I know there are brexiteers on both sides. My point was a split in the Conservative party would lead to less seats for the right in general and potentially hand power to the left.

But there’s a clear split on the left on Brexit as well. The Change party for instance. (I called them the IG in the last post, apparently they renamed yesterday).

The fact that the left is so fractured and that the conservatives always end up with percentage wise more seats than votes is exactly the point I'm trying to make.

It’s getting even more fractured.

It is the reason why they will do everything to avoid a split imo including facilitating what outsiders see as extreme minorities.

But Brexit isn’t the extreme minority position. That gets back to my earlier point.

You might be right on single issue parties not doing well in GEs but here’s another scenario:

Brexit doesn’t happen, or isn’t what brexiters want (a CU for instance) and a Brexit party emerges.

The ERG defects as do some labour pro brexiters or MPs in constituencies where Brexit won regardless of their own opinion. The remaining Tory and Labour parties are therefore remain parties as are the Greens and the Lib Dems. If you see votes in future as not been driven by left/right but remain/stay then the fractured nature of remain becomes obvious.

I’m not saying that this re-alignment is inevitable but it’s possible.

Water John

Most posters here recognise that Brexit will leave the UK and us worse off. That is why it's opposed. But No Deal Brexit is a lunatic position.

Well Monday may help clarify matters. The WA + the CU, a CU or 2nd Ref will all pass comfortably in the HOC. It's the Tories trying to pretend they are still a single party prevents that.
Obviously the EU can see this.

robinph

fash wrote: »

... and leave Ireland as the main English speaking country in the EU.
.

Think the Netherlands may be ahead of Ireland in that ranking.

Nody

Shelga wrote: »

I still don't understand why the DUP wanted Brexit at all. From a unionist standpoint, remaining in the EU is so blindingly obviously the right thing.

Is it just because their Tory English nationalist overlords wanted it? Is there some weird inferiority complex going on?

Well first and foremost they got paid to be for brexit. Remember a lot of funding want through DUP to brexit campaigns to limit the funding breaches were they were given a cut.

Secondly it was a counter to SF wanting to remain because what ever SF wants is wrong.

Everything else such as breaking up the Good Friday agreement was not going to happen according to the Brexiteers after all. Hence I think good old greed is the explanation you're looking for. Breaking up the GF agreement etc. now along with the billon bribe etc. is what keeps them going (and the fact admitting they were wrong would raise to many sensitive questions about the initial bribes).

Hurrache

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Absolutely brilliant and one of the best on any topic I've read.

I too hadn't really grasped those details of the EU's strategy. Fair play to Ireland for the diplomatic work it employed to garner the support of a bloc it represents 1% of.

Just finished it myself, it's a must read isn't it.

fash

robinph wrote: »

Think the Netherlands may be ahead of Ireland in that ranking.

... Or even Germany...
Let's go with common law or English mother tongue...

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

Just finished it myself, it's a must read isn't it.

Yeah, it's far beyond the quality level of what I'd expect an "article" to be. It isn't an article. It's a very observant analysis of the large arcs that influenced the day-to-day of what we all talk about here.

BarryD2

Strazdas wrote: »

I don't think the DUP were particularly interested in Europe or the EU...... They must be cursing the fact the referendum was ever held, Brexit has done them no favours.

The DUP are primarily motivated to keep themselves on top of the Unionist pile of votes in NI. And Sinn Féin likewise on top of the Nationalist pile of votes.

All other matters are peripheral to them. A plague on both their houses if you ask me. There will never be any reconciliation on this island as long as these parties and their ilk have their boots under the table. But how do the ordinary citizens escape from them?

steddyeddy

Who else sees the UK eventually apply for full EU membership once the folly of their present actions is realised? Guy Verhofstadt says it's possible but they'll lose all the privileges they previously had e.g the Pound will have to go.

Hurrache

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah, it's far beyond the quality level of what I'd expect an "article" to be. It isn't an article. It's a very observant analysis of the large arcs that influenced the day-to-day of what we all talk about here.

It's a taster for what I expect to be many books on the subject with lots of insider info.

Leroy42

Nody wrote: »

Well first and foremost they got paid to be for brexit. Remember a lot of funding want through DUP to brexit campaigns to limit the funding breaches were they were given a cut.

And they got paid to give TM the backing after the GE 2017. You can bet that they were promised that they (Tories) knew what they were doing. No chance of a backstop (had it even been mentioned at that point?), German car makers would soon sort the EU out and everything would be back to normal except that DUP would have £1bn extra goodies to throw around to deliver more seats at the next assembly election.

Once in, as the Lib Dems found out, there is rarely a single event that allows you to get out, more a slow decline. The old 'frog in boiling water' example.

It is only recently that it becomes evident that the whole thing is a monumental disaster but it is almost too late to backtrack.

Mr.Nice Guy

Good article here from Professor John Coakley of QUB on what the British parliamentary system could learn from its Brexit experience:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/30/brexit-broken-british-politics-withdrawal-agreement

I'd be surprised if these ideas are taken on board even though I think they ought to be. I especially agree with the point on the FPTP system which has been shown to be past its sell by date. The traditional argument for it was that it returned strong, stable governments. Think we can put that one to bed now.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-47742899

Pharmaceutical industry leaders want a temporary ban on drugs exports to prevent the NHS being hit by shortages in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

... the industry body told BBC News that further action was needed to counter the risk that pharmacists and wholesalers with export licences could find it more lucrative to sell products in the Eurozone if the pound weakened.

...
The practice is legal but can give rise to what is known as arbitrage, that is taking advantage of varying prices in different markets.

The UK has all kinds of stuff stockpiled in warehouses up and down the country.

If there's a hard Brexit sterling will fall, and there's a lot of empty trucks heading back to the EU so makes sense to make a quick buck today when there's going to be uncertainty tomorrow.

More to the point the speculators know selling off stocks will lead to an artificial shortage so they can jack up prices.

Peregrinus

This is not a problem of speculation or speculators. It's a practice that Brexit encourages and, for some companies, more or less forces.

The problem is that not just drug companies but companies in many other industries stockpiled perishable goods against the possiblity of a hard Brexit yesterday.

But they can't now sit on their stockpiles against the renewed possibility of a hard brexit in 13 days time; these are perishable goods. They have to turn over the stockpile, selling out of their accumulated stock while simultaneously building up a new stockpile for 13 April.

This is costing them money, because they have to pay for the product they stockpile, but it generates no revenue until sold. So they have the cost of warehousing it - high, for perishable goods - plus the cost of financing it. This is mostly financed with borrowed money. The costs of this go up every time Brexit day is moved, since you have already incurred the cost of the stockpile that you have already built up, and now you'll have to inccur more costs to build up a new stockpile for the new Brexit date.

So there is a temptation, if you can profit from your existing stockpile by selling abroad and getting a good price because of the weak pound, to do exactly that. It's a rational strategy for mitigating Brexit-related costs.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'd ask for some proof.

To get 70% you'd need to count Labour as a Brexit party, it's only Corbyn & Co that want Brexit and even they are ambivalent as the real goal is a General Election.

To get to 70% I counted 70% constituencies who voted for Brexit. Labour voting constituencies included. Yes.

Besides it already happened.

UKIP are the only party to stand primarily on Brexit as the big issue have exactly Zero seats in the House of Commons.

The public are Bored of Brexit.

They are bored in the sense that they either want it to go through, or something to happen. A GE if Brexit doesn’t happen won’t be business as usual.

Meanwhile the media is biased, we know something in the order of a million people marched for revoke. I still haven't seen a count for the leave march.

The media need to say what the ratio was otherwise they have given both marches the same prominence.

The numbers on marches are totally irrelevant. And the idea that the media is biased is a belief common to both sides.

Franz Von Peppercorn

This is why a second referendum is important. If it happens people will revert, probably, to traditional parties.

Without a referendum the only way to overcome a no Brexit is via the normal political process. Which would mean a Brexit party would appear. And be a permanent fixture.

For the record this party would be a disaster. All at once British politics would be nationalist/globalist and not capitalist/socialist.

So Brexit needs to not happen but the mechanism of rejecting it is important.

judeboy101

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who else sees the UK eventually apply for full EU membership once the folly of their present actions is realised? Guy Verhofstadt says it's possible but they'll lose all the privileges they previously had e.g the Pound will have to go.

I thought I read that "new members" of the EU must sign up to euro and shengan. One could argue that if uk seeks to re join they would technically not be new members, but rather old past members.

Sam Russell

judeboy101 wrote: »

I thought I read that "new members" of the EU must sign up to euro and shengan. One could argue that if uk seeks to re join they would technically not be new members, but rather old past members.

The Euro problem could be sorted by the GB£ being hard pegged to the Euro, so the UK keeps the GB£ but it is really a Euro currency, which is how the Danish and Swedish Kroner work.

Schengen can be sold as a better security border, as this is how it has worked because of the greater international security it has afforded.

I think that neither would be a biggie for the desperate UK should they wish to rejoin. Of course, if they are not desperate, the that would be different.

Professor Moriarty

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Euro problem could be sorted by the GB£ being hard pegged to the Euro, so the UK keeps the GB£ but it is really a Euro currency, which is how the Danish and Swedish Kroner work.

Schengen can be sold as a better security border, as this is how it has worked because of the greater international security it has afforded.

I think that neither would be a biggie for the desperate UK should they wish to rejoin. Of course, if they are not desperate, the that would be different.

It's not a given at all that they would reapply or be allowed back in. After Brexit, they will diverge from the EU across a variety of regulations, laws and agreements (think chlorinated chicken). All of which, plus new ones in which they had no input, would have to be reinstated.

Furthermore, any country can veto an application and many will harbour a lot of resentment towards Britain not least because Britain will have become a competitor - nevermind the time and money Brexit has cost EU countries. Personally, I think if they go they're gone for good.

PropJoe10

steddyeddy wrote: »

Who else sees the UK eventually apply for full EU membership once the folly of their present actions is realised? Guy Verhofstadt says it's possible but they'll lose all the privileges they previously had e.g the Pound will have to go.

I couldn't imagine that. The British Empire would never admit that it's made an error such as that!

trellheim

a 2nd referendum with a 52-48 result in the other direction would be just as bad, if not worse, than the current. You'd need a 75-25 or 2/3 to 1/3 in favour for it to have any chance of acceptance.

Given the votes on Letwin during the week there is no chance of any of that, assuming the HoC as a representative body.

Where is the "Art of the Possible" here ? i.e. the sensible people who know that a deal HAS to be done . For me this is the appalling outcome here that this aspect of it, the "yes its not perfect but its whats possible"

This is what politicians are paid to do, when the arguing is done . Ours are no different.