EU Brexit thread

[Zelandakh]

In the meantime, I'm waiting to see how Gove is rewarded and by whom.. seems to me the Conservative power structure was horrified at the idea that someone who could ride the line waving Union Jacks ( that example has been mentioned more than once, I guess it wasn't dignified enough) would actually possibly become Prime Minister. May has apparently said she won't be doing the negotiating with the EU re the terms of going so who? Is that going to be the reward for Gove, with the justification that he was a Bexiter? Lord help Britain if so.

Gove is unlikely to be rewarded by the Conservative members, who are reportedly angry about his "betrayal" of BoJo. He is also unlikely to be rewarded by May, since they allegedly dislike each other. It may well be that his primary purpose in the leadership contest will be to bring down Leadsom so as to be able to position himself as the only credible Leave candidate. We are already seeing stories emerging about her, which is typical Gove strategy taken straight from the Urquhart playbook. If he succeeds in that then I think May is a shoe-in; if not and Leadsom comes up against May in a final vote, it might get interesting...

[helene_t]

lol Nigel Farage is out too. Looking forward to the day when Corbyn is delivering his thunder speeches to an empty house of commons (yes, I know that NF was not an MP) because they have all killed each other.

[1eyedjack]

We certainly are living through interesting times. Some legal firm has been engaged by a consortium of Bremainers to try to ensure that Article 50 cannot be invoked without first passing an Act of Parliament. Which would quite likely not pass, given that most politicians are Bremainers even if the electorate are not. Imagine the constitutional brouhaha if that gains traction.

 

On the other hand, maybe the SNP would vote in favour of Article 50 in such a Bill's passage, so that they can then press for a second Scottish independence referendum.

[helene_t]

We certainly are living through interesting times. Some legal firm has been engaged by a consortium of Bremainers to try to ensure that Article 50 cannot be invoked without first passing an Act of Parliament. Which would quite likely not pass, given that most politicians are Bremainers even if the electorate are not. Imagine the constitutional brouhaha if that gains traction.

 

On the other hand, maybe the SNP would vote in favour of Article 50 in such a Bill's passage, so that they can then press for a second Scottish independence referendum.

I don't think so. SNP would try to prevent Brexit or at least pretend to. And most English MPs would vote for article 50 in order not to be seen as anti-democrats.

 

I suppose it could happen that we get a second referendum at some point and/or a snap election.

 

But yes, that times are interesting I can agree with. Who knows if the Labour party still exists at the time of the next election, if Scotland and/or NI will leave the UK, if EU (assuming that EU will still exist) will offer UK the option of staying in the EEA and if the UK government will want that.

 

A few things I am confident about:

- UK will not be a new Yugoslavia. At worst the pound will collapse and we will have to use Euros or maybe USD, but most likely even that won't happen. Scotland and NI might leave but I don't believe that London will.

- Whatever bad happens, The Sun will blame it on the Labour Party and EU, and most people will believe it. Arend, Zel and I will blame it on The Sun and the conservatives, of course.

- The conservatives will win the next election by a landslide.

[shyams]

We certainly are living through interesting times. Some legal firm has been engaged by a consortium of Bremainers to try to ensure that Article 50 cannot be invoked without first passing an Act of Parliament. Which would quite likely not pass, given that most politicians are Bremainers even if the electorate are not. Imagine the constitutional brouhaha if that gains traction.

 

On the other hand, maybe the SNP would vote in favour of Article 50 in such a Bill's passage, so that they can then press for a second Scottish independence referendum.

If I were to guess, it will go the other way.

 

All Tory and Labour MPs will vote in favour of such an Act of Parliament. SNP will definitely vote against it...

[cherdano]

https://xkcd.com/1521/

[NickRW]

SNP will definitely vote against it...

 

Who knows what the SNP will do. Though on the face of it they look like the one British party with a stable leadership and political position (well perhaps two - the Lib Dems haven't disintegrated yet - though they seem to have become an irrelevance), they seem to me as the most illogical. As far as I can see they want independence from the rest of the UK for what amounts to similar reasons that the UK as a whole wants independence from the EU. Yet they want to stick with the EU! That I can't understand.

[helene_t]

As far as I can see they want independence from the rest of the UK for what amounts to similar reasons that the UK as a whole wants independence from the EU. Yet they want to stick with the EU! That I can't understand.

Some of them might be happy with a UK that had the same power over Scotland as EU currently has.

 

Or they may feel that current EU policies are more aligned with Scottish policies than English policies are.

 

Or they may feel that it is better to be part of a union of many small countries than being a small country dominated by a big country. Yeah I know, Germany and France are not small countries, but at least no single country can dictate everything.

 

Or they may just have anti-English sentiments.

 

Probably they all have different motives. And probably a substantial number of SNP voters are against EU as well.

[Zelandakh]

As far as I can see they want independence from the rest of the UK for what amounts to similar reasons that the UK as a whole wants independence from the EU. Yet they want to stick with the EU! That I can't understand.

Do you understand why the Czechs want to be in the EU but not ruled from Berlin as during the 1940s? Or the Poles? Or even the French? It is the same for the Scots with London and represents a perfectly logical and sensible position. Not everyone feels that obeying the rules of a club means giving up one's independence. If a bridge club banned a particular item of clothing of footwear, would you see it as a loss of personal freedom to play there? That is a rather different situation from being forcibly dragged to the table and told to play or be put in prison.

[NickRW]

Do you understand why the Czechs want to be in the EU but not ruled from Berlin as during the 1940s? Or the Poles? Or even the French? It is the same for the Scots with London and represents a perfectly logical and sensible position. Not everyone feels that obeying the rules of a club means giving up one's independence. If a bridge club banned a particular item of clothing of footwear, would you see it as a loss of personal freedom to play there? That is a rather different situation from being forcibly dragged to the table and told to play or be put in prison.

 

If the English in reality were an occupying force, similar to the Germans in the 40s, I would see things that way. But I thought union between Scotland and England came about ~300 years ago basically because Scotland had bankrupted itself and needed to be bailed out. Modern Scots don't see it that way of course and I don't blame them, but the two things are hardly similar.

 

I'm not against Scottish independence. If I still lived there I would have voted in favour of it. But I don't see membership of the EU and abiding by it's rules as anything similar to being a member of a club. Indeed I see it as an abusive relationship and, as with all such things, the sooner you're shot of it the better even if it costs in the short term. So I can understand Scotland wanting out of the UK and I can see the UK wanting out of the EU. I don't really see the sense of the Scots jumping out of the pan and straight back into the fire.

[Zelandakh]

If the English in reality were an occupying force, similar to the Germans in the 40s, I would see things that way. But I thought union between Scotland and England came about ~300 years ago basically because Scotland had bankrupted itself and needed to be bailed out. Modern Scots don't see it that way of course and I don't blame them, but the two things are hardly similar.

Perhaps if you had lived in the Highlands during the years after Culloden you might view the English rather differently from a friendly neighbour bailing your country out after a bad business venture. Given what was done at that time, it is very easy to see these things in a similar light.

 

I don't see membership of the EU and abiding by it's rules as anything similar to being a member of a club. Indeed I see it as an abusive relationship

And here lies your issue in not understanding the point of view of more rational people.

[Trinidad]

The structure of the EU may be better suited to respect the views of individual (small) countries than the structure of the UK.

 

Rik

[mike777]

The structure of the EU may be better suited to respect the views of individual (small) countries than the structure of the UK.

 

Rik

 

In time the UK may very well become a small country.

[Zelandakh]

In time the UK may very well become a small country.

I have considered the UK a small country ever since owning a globe as a child. For its size it has also been an extremely successful country up to now. Hopefully that can continue into the future despite the current events.

[mike777]

yes, even tiny city states have a history of great success.

 

Monaco, Rome, Hong Kong, Singapore, Athens...etc

 

I note all of them rely on what today we would call globalization, ready access to trade routes that are protected from vandals and financial markets that provide payment options and credit.

[NickRW]

And here lies your issue in not understanding the point of view of more rational people.

 

You have lost the argument and now resort to rudeness.

[Zelandakh]

You have lost the argument and now resort to rudeness.

Oh yes, I am sure everyone here now believes that membership of the EU constitutes an abusive relationship. Well done on "winning" this one. :rolleyes: :lol:

[Al_U_Card]

Oh yes, I am sure everyone here now believes that membership of the EU constitutes an abusive relationship. Well done on "winning" this one. :rolleyes: :lol:

For every winner there has to be at least 1 loser (financially) and that is why extra levels of bureaucracy are created and end up "abusing" all of the participants. A zero sum game where the vampire squid organizations suck the life out of those involved at a fundamental level.

Point to Nick.

[cherdano]

It is very clarifying to see it spelled out that some really think politics is a zero-sum game.

[Cyberyeti]

Oh yes, I am sure everyone here now believes that membership of the EU constitutes an abusive relationship. Well done on "winning" this one. :rolleyes: :lol:

 

In a small sense it is an abusive relationship.

 

Look at some of Juncker's pronouncements both during and after the referendum.

 

He seems to think it's most important to punish Britain for leaving even if it means doing more harm than is necessary to the rest of Europe.

 

I actually think Juncker's attitude is what persuaded some of the more educated Brexiteers that this was not a club Britain should belong to.

[shyams]

Look at some of Juncker's pronouncements both during and after the referendum.

 

He seems to think it's most important to punish Britain for leaving even if it means doing more harm than is necessary to the rest of Europe.

Does it matter more that Juncker is rude than that Juncker is correct?

 

This is a critical time in the destiny of the UK, but I wonder if we Brits are ever going to rise above petty squabbles.

1. As an example, the consensus of economists is that GBP:USD will reach 1.20 in a few months. And unless the UK does something positive, it could drift lower instead of rebounding. Yet, every day we are told by the media that we broke a 31-year record etc instead of having economists on TV who can tell the audience "get used to it"
    
   
2. The probability of a recession (be it a shallow or a prolonged one) are quite considerable. And while monetary policy has already stepped up to face the challenge, fiscal loosening is not yet in sight. Although the Chancellor has said all the right things, the news cycles focused on him "breaking the borrowing rule" rather than "making really meaningful announcements". And there is no guarantee that the next Prime Minister/Chancellor will not revert to "zero deficit" goal.
    
   
3. Regardless of the political merits/demerits of the Chancellor, he and the BoE Governor are a formidable team who can easily do many right things that will help the economy in the long run. However, it is quite possible that the Chancellor will be fired once the next Prime Minister arrives. This, in turn, could lead to the premature departure of the BoE Governor, Mark Carney.
    
   
4. Most Brits do not track Gilt yields; they are at historical lows. The UK Govt can borrow 10-year funds at <0.8% and 30-year funds at <1.6%!!. This is an outright winning opportunity for the UK Government to borrow heavily in order to invest in infrastructure (and note NHS is not really infrastructure because any rise in NHS costs is typically 'revenue expenditure', not 'capital expenditure')
    
   
5. However, should the UK Govt decide to launch/approve infrastructure programmes, all sorts of experts will creep out of the woodwork to denounce the specific projects. We will definitely find a way to stop (i) Heathrow Expansion, (ii) HS2, (iii) Hinckley Nuclear Power, etc.
    
   
6. Any of the following will attract huge objections from the NIMBY crowd: new roads, airports, council housing (to hold), rail networks, offshore oil exploration. But if the Govt recklessly invested in 100,000 more nurses, doctors, school teachers etc. everyone will think it's a great investment?!
    
   
7. The USA did a "cash-for-clunkers" programme to rid some of the older vehicles off the road. Yesterday, the London Mayor proposed a similar scheme to improve air quality in London. What are the chances of it being adopted by the UK Govt? Zero! Because the idea originated from a Labour guy.

 

Yes! Juncker may be an idiot, but the substance of his message is not entirely wrong. We don't have a plan to be on our own, and the people who got us here are all running away or are paralysed into inaction.

[Cyberyeti]

I wasn't talking about his predictions, I was talking about his comments which roughly translated as "we must make Britain's life as awkward as possible so nobody else leaves, regardless of how badly it messes up EU members".

[Zelandakh]

For every winner there has to be at least 1 loser (financially)

If Land A and Land B sign a trade deal that increases business for both, as is the normal case for such an agreement, who is the loser? I suppose you could argue that countries C to ZZ are losers for standing still and not getting any direct benefit but that would be a somewhat strange way of defining things. Similarly, if your country has a region of high unemployment and you put them to work building a new railway that stimulates the local economy, thus getting many times back in tax returns what you paid out for the project, who is the loser? Here's another hypothetical one for you - if your planet is going to be made uninhabitable due to greenhouse gases and by agreeing to control these you are able to save everyone's life, who is the loser now? Believe it or not, not everything is "us against them" and not every conspiracy theory is real!

[shyams]

Sigh! I waste too much time on this thread...

[Al_U_Card]

It is very clarifying to see it spelled out that some really think politics is a zero-sum game.

That is why (financially) appears in the post. Winners in the financial decisions and market manipulations that are the result of casino capitalism result in losers and those losers are almost always the little guy and/or the taxpayer (When the losses are subsidized by bailouts etc.).