Brexit (Old)

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Because Brexit is only part of it. Labour would royally make a dogs breakfast of everything.

Also, The only way Labour could get into power is if they were given it as you so wish. Because even with the farce of the current proceedings Labour still wouldn’t win.

Any other opposition would be light years ahead by now.

Labour could actually make a huge success of a post-Brexit Britain. End the race to the bottom of capitalism and remove the “free market” from areas best managed by the state. The joke of east coast franchise operators/carillon creaming off the profits and dumping the liabilities back on the state could be ended.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm not keen.
I do think that if it was demonstrated that the previous referendum was won on the basis of illegal funding, then a new referendum would be needed, in the same way that athletes who won medals by taking unlawful substances are stripped of them.

I don’t think that would ever be proven.

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:22 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Labour could actually make a huge success of a post-Brexit Britain. End the race to the bottom of capitalism and remove the “free market” from areas best managed by the state. The joke of east coast franchise operators/carillon creaming off the profits and dumping the liabilities back on the state could be ended.

Bloody hell, well you’ve laid yourself out to bear there.

I knew you were left leaning and you’ve managed to portray yourself pretty much as a remain leaning centrist in most of your posts, but now........well...............

[jfman]

I didn’t say that’s my preferred outcome, but it’s undeniable there’s been a number of examples of private industry creaming off the profits and dumping liabilities (including pensions) back on the state. Is that really a positive outcome?

“Competition” by way of rail franchising, and for example the “big 6” energy firms aren’t true free markets anyway.

Remain leaning centrist, I’d say that’s fair.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I didn’t say that’s my preferred outcome, but it’s undeniable there’s been a number of examples of private industry creaming off the profits and dumping liabilities (including pensions) back on the state. Is that really a positive outcome?

Double edged sword, plenty of examples where government involvement in industry has killed it. British Leyland being the obvious example.

Why would anyone expect politicians,( and you only have to watch question time, listen to any questions to realise that the vast majority or just plain stupid,) to be able run industry better than business?

“Competition” by way of rail franchising, and for example the “big 6” energy firms aren’t true free markets anyway.
.

I agree the rail and utility markets should be reviewed, and profits capped, or reinvestment v profit managed. They should be better and stronger regulated, but ultimately it is better than being publicly owned. If they were brought back into public ownership they would just become a political football like the biggest football of them all the NHS.

The national treasure and no doubt the biggest waste of tax payers money. But nobody dare reform it......properly.

[jfman]

I’m not saying politicians could run industries better, it’s a balancing act between public/private and effective regulation. It’s far from black and white.

Freedom from the EU could permit awarding contracts to less favourable bidders for other reasons, e.g. the contract that employs people here rather than simply importing goods. I’m not saying that’s always the road to take, but where bids are close enough the one that hypothetically employs thousands of people here will return millions in income tax revenue, VAT revenue, supports local economies.

As opposed to sending that money overseas to save a few quid.

We are going off on a tangent, and I don’t think we are a million miles apart.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Damien

Good article here on Brexit: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/12/...of-our-nation/ (open in private/incognito mode if you've hit the read limit)

I disagree with some of it but think this bit is very true:



Governments shouldn't hold referendums into decisions where they disagree with the 'change' option.

The real origin of the mess we are now in is that Cameron did not mandate a Supermajority for the referendum.

Insisting on a simple, arithmetic majority for such a significant structural & economic change was always doomed to be divisive and as such could never have delivered a compelling mandate, as we can clearly see.

Chris Patten had a strong argument against the use of referenda:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Referendum#/Patten's_criticism

British politician Chris Patten summarized many of the arguments used by those who oppose the referendum in an interview in 2003, when discussing the possibility of a referendum in the United Kingdom on the European Union Constitution:

I think referendums are awful. The late and great Julian Critchley used to say that, not very surprisingly, they were the favourite form of plebiscitary democracy of Mussolini and Hitler. They undermine Westminster. What they ensure, as we saw in the last election, is that if you have a referendum on an issue, politicians during an election campaign say: "Oh, we're not going to talk about that, we don't need to talk about that, that's all for the referendum." So during the last election campaign, the euro was hardly debated. I think referendums are fundamentally anti-democratic in our system, and I wouldn't have anything to do with them. On the whole, governments only concede them when governments are weak.

---------- Post added at 06:16 ---------- Previous post was at 06:06 ----------

I think a second vote had inched a step closer:

Brexit: EU says no to May on renegotiating deal

European Union leaders have said the Brexit withdrawal agreement is "not open for renegotiation", despite appeals from Theresa May.

She wanted legal assurances on the Irish backstop to help her deal get through Parliament, after she delayed a Commons vote in anticipation of defeat.

The PM said the deal was "at risk" if MPs' concerns could not be addressed.

European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said there could be clarifications but no renegotiation.

It will all now play out as a game of brinkmanship. Who is better prepared for No Deal and so who will therefore blink first. I would put money on the EU being more prepared than the UK.

The vote will be lost in Jan, the clock rapidly running down with a No Deal as the only option so Parliament will force the Government to extend the A50 deadline to allow more consideration of "all possible options".

[denphone]

A pretty damning assessment from the Former UK ambassador to the EU.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ns-ivan-rogers

In an excoriating denunciation of the British political class that goes to the top of government, Ivan Rogers said the Brexit debate had suffered from “opacity, delusion-mongering and mendacity on all sides” and predicted the public would not forgive politicians.

Without naming May, he said the country required “leadership which is far more honest in setting out the fundamental choices still ahead, the difficult trade-offs between sovereignty and national control”.

Since leaving the civil service, he has maintained a low profile, but has offered occasional scathing reviews of British political debate on Brexit in a series of lectures. In October he took aim at the “pinstriped Robespierres” of the anti-EU European Research Group, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg. He has also argued that British delusions and the EU’s technocratic approach mean both sides risk “sleepwalking into a major crisis”.

Criticising some of Labour’s promises on Brexit as implausible, he concludes “too much of our political debate just insults people’s intelligence”.

The next stage of Brexit will be “whether Brexit proponents like it or not, a much longer process”.

[jfman]

I’m not sure May is being dishonest.

Politicians who would be perceived as leaders of the Leave campaign undoubtedly yes they have been dishonest.

[ntluser]

All of us are now finding out what the EU is really like.

It is a spider's web from which it is extremely difficult to escape.

This is a deal we should reject. The EU still has to sell its goods but if not to us to whom will they sell them? No deal is just as bad for them as it is for us. Maybe a rejection of the deal will increase their willingness to renegotiate.

Instead of going for a deal with the whole EU, we should have gone for a deal that protects our banking rights and which protects our trading rights with EU countries currently trading with us now. This protects our current trade and frees us from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Other individual EU countries wanting to trade could set up their own deals in the future.

The backstop only really affects Ireland and the UK and should be left to them to sort out without EU interference. Goods can be flown in to Northern Ireland and Ireland without the need for a hard border. Technology can take care of the rest.

Given that the EU is planning to form a European Army and the recent aggressive Russian moves, will our young people who voted to stay in the EU still be as keen if they receive call-up papers from the EU?

It will be very interesting to see how this all pans out.

Originally Posted by ntluser

This is a deal we should reject. The EU still has to sell its goods but if not to us to whom will they sell them? No deal is just as bad for them as it is for us. Maybe a rejection of the deal will increase their willingness to renegotiate.

Yes but they don't want no deal either. However it's not 'just as bad' for them. They're a much bigger bloc, with a much bigger economy, and have both each other and their existing trade deals whereas we'll have precisely zilch trade agreements.

Just before Brexit they'll complete the EU-Japan trade deal and become the biggest economic trading bloc in the world: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-e...-idUSKBN1OB1EN

We need to be realistic about the cards we hold.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not sure May is being dishonest.

She is. in so far as she is trying to deliver something she does not believe in. She doesn't have a passion for Brexit therefore she is willing to ridden roughshod by all sides.

Politicians who would be perceived as leaders of the Leave campaign undoubtedly yes they have been dishonest.

All politicians in this debate on all sides of all parties have been dishonest.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by ntluser

The EU still has to sell its goods but if not to us to whom will they sell them? No deal is just as bad for them as it is for us. Maybe a rejection of the deal will increase their willingness to renegotiate.

You sure about that?

UK exports to EU in 2017 - £274b or 44% of all exports
UK imports from EU in 2017 - £341b or 8% of all exports

Originally Posted by ntluser

Instead of going for a deal with the whole EU, we should have gone for a deal that protects our banking rights and which protects our trading rights with EU countries currently trading with us now. This protects our current trade and frees us from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Other individual EU countries wanting to trade could set up their own deals in the future.

I am sure you know individual EU countries can't make their own trade deals being part of a customs union.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

She is. in so far as she is trying to deliver something she does not believe in. She doesn't have a passion for Brexit therefore she is willing to ridden roughshod by all sides.

All politicians in this debate on all sides of all parties have been dishonest.

I’m not sure a passion for Brexit has a greater value than bureaucratic pragmatism.

Feeling strongly that your perception of reality is correct against all the reasonable evidence is more likely to be a sign of mental illness than a politician capable of delivering a positive outcome.

[Mr K]

Weak leader for a weak negotiating position, we're on a hiding to nothing.

Something has to happen now, not just wait till the New Year hoping something might change. It won't. Except we'll have less of a chance to do anything about it.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Weak leader for a weak negotiating position, we're on a hiding to nothing.

Something has to happen now, not just wait till the New Year hoping something might change. It won't. Except we'll have less of a chance to do anything about it.

Nothing has to happen Mr K, we'll just leave with no deal in March 2019.