Main Menu

Brexit

Started by vandermolen, May 01, 2017, 10:14:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mr. Minnow

Quote from: JBS on September 18, 2018, 08:25:35 AM
Foreign competition in legal services?
What is that supposed to be? Letting US attorneys practice in England?

God knows. Think of the most bizarre interpretation you can and just assume that's what they mean. There's a fair chance you'll be right. Nothing these maniacs come up with surprises me anymore.

Mr. Minnow

Quote from: Iota on September 22, 2018, 11:55:11 AM
I cannot think of anything in my lifetime that compares with Brexit (I'm in my fifties) and keep hoping that there'll be some indication that we'll pull back from this madness (at the very least from a hard Brexit), but I haven't seen any yet, and the nightmarish trudge forwards/downwards continues.
I'm somewhat nonplussed by the vox pop interviews where people say they're bored and just want the whole thing to be over, without seeming to care too much which way it goes, it seems extraordinary that people can have such a que sera, sera attitude to such a tectonic and potentially disastrous shift. But then perhaps it's me and people like me who are actually in the minority in being so concerned about Brexit being a bringer of doom, in which case the chances of some kind of reversal seem even more remote.

I don't think many of the "just get on with it" crowd really believe that Brexit is going to cause much, if any damage. Only when the damage is done will it sink in, and it will be too late by then.

QuoteOne of my hopes is that a hard brexit *is* off the cards behind the scenes, and is only obscured because it would affect negotiating leverage. But there is such a gallery of shifty, ruthless rogues wandering around the corridors of power at the moment, that that may well be a very forlorn hope.

I fear it is a forlorn hope. And speaking of shifty ruthless rogues, the "Leave Means Leave" campaign held a rally today featuring David "there will be no downside to Brexit, only an upside" Davis. Also present was Nigel Farage, who apparently thinks leaving without a deal wouldn't be a problem. They aren't putting forward a detailed plan of their own of course - that would entail the hard work of coming up with something viable. Much better to shout betrayal from the sidelines and tell the public that they can have a cake and unicorns Brexit, and if the EU says no it's because they're trying to bully us. Davis told the rally that if the EU thinks it can bully the UK, they should read some history books. That's the mentality they're appealing to, apparently unaware that it's not 1940 anymore. Who needs a properly thought out plan when you can spout bellicose rhetoric and be cheered to the rafters instead?



Que

#662
It's interesting how many Brits seem unaware of the facts that not only membership of the then European Communities brought the UK strong economic growth and development, but the UK was also the driving force behind the formation of the internal market and the expansion of the EU towards the East. Only after German reunification the balance of power shifted, and France and Germany decided on a more "(con)federalist" course towards "an ever closer union". At which point Britain negotiated its many famous "opt outs".
Britain's membership of the EU significantly amplified its weight and status on the world stage. Instead of just another larger medium sized country, Britain was a major player in one of the largest economic and political alliances in the world and a linking pin in transatlantic cooperation.

Now the EU is blamed for the UK's own failed immigration policies, driven by a wish for cheap labour, and social economic inequality, which is again of its own making. And the same goes for its fishery policies, and so on and so forth...

How much the world has changed in so little time..... ::)

Q

Que


Iota

Quote from: Mr. Minnow on September 22, 2018, 05:07:55 PMWho needs a properly thought out plan when you can spout bellicose rhetoric and be cheered to the rafters instead?

That neatly sums up the pathogenic climate of the Brexit debate. Perhaps Remain needs their own bellicose spouter to fight fire with fire, or at least someone to start a Mexican Wave of sanity.

Quote from: Que on September 22, 2018, 11:25:52 PM
Only after German reunification the balance of power shifted, and France and Germany decided on a more "(con)federalist" course towards "an ever closer union".

Yes indeed, I think this is the fundamental anathema to the Brexiteer mindset.



vandermolen

Quote from: Iota on September 22, 2018, 11:55:11 AM
I cannot think of anything in my lifetime that compares with Brexit (I'm in my fifties) and keep hoping that there'll be some indication that we'll pull back from this madness (at the very least from a hard Brexit), but I haven't seen any yet, and the nightmarish trudge forwards/downwards continues.
I'm somewhat nonplussed by the vox pop interviews where people say they're bored and just want the whole thing to be over, without seeming to care too much which way it goes, it seems extraordinary that people can have such a que sera, sera attitude to such a tectonic and potentially disastrous shift. But then perhaps it's me and people like me who are actually in the minority in being so concerned about Brexit being a bringer of doom, in which case the chances of some kind of reversal seem even more remote.

One of my hopes is that a hard brexit *is* off the cards behind the scenes, and is only obscured because it would affect negotiating leverage. But there is such a gallery of shifty, ruthless rogues wandering around the corridors of power at the moment, that that may well be a very forlorn hope.
I totally agree with you. I have never known anything like it either (early sixties). Still, no one can say that British politics is boring at the moment.
"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

Mr. Minnow

Quote from: Que on September 22, 2018, 11:25:52 PM
It's interesting how many Brits seem unaware of the facts that not only membership of the then European Communities brought the UK strong economic growth and development, but the UK was also the driving force behind the formation of the internal market and the expansion of the EU towards the East. Only after German reunification the balance of power shifted, and France and Germany decided on a more "(con)federalist" course towards "an ever closer union". At which point Britain negotiated its many famous "opt outs".
Britain's membership of the EU significantly amplified its weight and status on the world stage. Instead of just another larger medium sized country, Britain was a major player in one of the largest economic and political alliances in the world and a linking pin in transatlantic cooperation.

Now the EU is blamed for the UK's own failed immigration policies, driven by a wish for cheap labour, and social economic inequality, which is again of its own making. And the same goes for its fishery policies, and so on and so forth...

How much the world has changed in so little time..... ::)

Q

We've had 30 years of the Tory press spouting virulently anti-EU bullshit. It's not really a surprise that so many Brits know sod all about it.

Que

#667
There seems to be an increasing chance that a cliff edge will avoided:

EU negotiators say Brexit deal 'very close' but details missing

As I understand it, the EU is willing to compromise in agreeing to a "backstop" on Northern Ireland that would apply to the whole of the UK. A concept that, if executed, would be at odds with May's infamous red lines.... And with the "free trade" model of hard line Brexiteers. Why not stay part of the internal market altogether?  ::)

I suspect the EU negotiators are taking their chances, and are hoping for a future UK (Labour) government opting for a soft Brexit.

If such an exit deal with a transitional arrangement is agreed, May might need Labour votes to get it through parliament.

Q

Mr. Minnow

#668
Quote from: Que on October 06, 2018, 02:42:20 AM
There seems to be an increasing chance that a cliff edge will avoided:

EU negotiators say Brexit deal 'very close' but details missing

As I understand it, the EU is willing to compromise in agreeing to a "backstop" on Northern Ireland that would apply to the whole of the UK.

It's not quite clear what the article means when it says that:

QuoteAny such compromise would leave the EU concerned that Britain could use Northern Ireland's special access to the bloc's single market to sell cheaper goods that would not adhere to EU labour, environment and other standards.

The bloc worries that London would try to use that unique trade arrangement as a building block for the overall future trade relationship and win an unfair competitive edge.

It's not clear what "any such compromise" refers to here; does it mean a backstop in which only NI stays in the customs union, or one in which the whole UK does?

If it means the former that would be odd, since it was the EU which proposed just NI staying part of the CU, in which case why propose it if they're concerned it would give the UK an unfair advantage? But if it means the latter - as it appears to - the same question arises: why agree to something now that would put the EU at a disadvantage?


QuoteA concept that, if executed, would be at odds with May's infamous red lines.... And with the "free trade" model of hard line Brexiteers.

And therein lies the problem. If she backs away from any of her red lines the Brexit ultras will almost certainly vote it down, especially as they've already pledged to vote against her plan even in its current form.

QuoteIf such an exit deal with a transitional arrangement is agreed, May might need Labour votes to get it through parliament.

It's virtually certain she would need Labour votes. Those Labour MPs who have been most vocal about "respecting the referendum result" because they're shit scared of being voted out at the next election concerned to defend democracy are mostly on the right of the party, and represent leave-voting seats. They're the ones who are most likely to vote for any deal May brings back, so ironically if they did help get a Brexit deal through the Commons it would be a chunk of the Labour right enabling Brexit - the party's right having tried to pin the blame for Brexit on Corbyn. 

That said, I'd be surprised if the number of Labour MPs willing to vote for May's deal were to exceed the number of Tory MPs willing to vote it down. The Guardian was reporting a day or two back that Downing Street is confident they can get the number of Tory rebels down to about 10 diehards, which sounds very optimistic given the ideological zealotry of the ERG and their ilk. For the Brexit ultras to back down and vote May's deal through would be the mother of all climbdowns. 


Que

#669
It's going to be a cliff hanger....


Brexit Deal Hangs in the Balance With Monday Deadline in Doubt

I'm assuming May will come home with some kind of exit deal. May wouldn't want to be responsible for a no deal catastrophe.
Unless she was actually serious about no deal being better than a bad deal...

But the big question is: will May get it through parliament without the support of the DUP and hard Brexiteers?
I think she is gambling on the fear of a no deal situation amongst members of the opposition. Though Corbyn will instruct Labour MP's to vote against, hoping to trigger a general election.

A big gamble on Corbyn's part as well: if the Tory government subsequently survives, there is simply no deal.
In the case of a general election, negotiations will probably be extended and resumed by a new Labour government (?).
And then the whole drama will start all over gain, though the EU might immediately force Corbyn's hand in making a choice between remaing in the internal market (Norway) or a bilateral trade agreement  (Canada).

Any thoughts?

Q

Iota

A cliffhanger it certainly is!

Quote from: Que on October 14, 2018, 02:22:27 AMMay wouldn't want to be responsible for a no deal catastrophe.
Unless she was actually serious about no deal being better than a bad deal..

She may not want a no deal catastrophe, but as you say she is so vulnerable and she may take it just to stay in power, after all we're only in this situation because her predecessor wanted to do just the same.   
She's said before things like a no deal Brexit wouldn't be the end of the world, and would be preferable to a break up of the UK etc, etc, so she may have been trying to prepare the ground for making it one of her options. You seem to suggest that may have been just theatre, I hope you're right.

But really I speculate and know nothing, only that I'm sickened by this imbroglio.


Mr. Minnow

Quote from: Que on October 14, 2018, 02:22:27 AM
It's going to be a cliff hanger....


Brexit Deal Hangs in the Balance With Monday Deadline in Doubt

I'm assuming May will come home with some kind of exit deal. May wouldn't want to be responsible for a no deal catastrophe.
Unless she was actually serious about no deal being better than a bad deal...

But the big question is: will May get it through parliament without the support of the DUP and hard Brexiteers?
I think she is gambling on the fear of a no deal situation amongst members of the opposition. Though Corbyn will instruct Labour MP's to vote against, hoping to trigger a general election.

A big gamble on Corbyn's part as well: if the Tory government subsequently survives, there is simply no deal.
In the case of a general election, negotiations will probably be extended and resumed by a new Labour government (?).
And then the whole drama will start all over gain, though the EU might immediately force Corbyn's hand in making a choice between remaing in the internal market (Norway) or a bilateral trade agreement  (Canada).

Any thoughts?

Q

It's not looking good, is it? If May concedes an indefinite Irish backstop she might get a deal with the EU - though the EU has already rejected Chequers, so it's not as if agreement on the backstop automatically means a deal being agreed. But let's assume that it does: no such deal will get through the Commons because the Brexit ultras and the DUP will vote it down. But if she insists on a time-limited backstop there will definitely be no deal to put to the Commons in the first place.

It's being suggested that a possible way around the backstop issue is to simply extend the transition period if required. But that raises the obvious question of whether the Brexit ultras would swallow such an arrangement. They might, but it seems to me quite likely that they would demand a time limit on any extension of the transition period just as they're currently demanding a time limit on the backstop. In which case it's back to the drawing board. Another possibility is a review clause, but given the Brexiteers' pathological hatred of the EU, would they accept this idea, or reject it on the grounds that the EU would use any review to insist that the transition arrangements continue for who knows how long?

Maybe yet another fudge will emerge in the next few days which enables a deal to be agreed, but even if it does, as things stand it's really hard to see any deal May could conceivably get making it through parliament, in which case it's no deal.   

It's almost as if this should have been thought through before the referendum.

Mr. Minnow

Quote from: Iota on October 14, 2018, 03:28:34 PM

She's said before things like a no deal Brexit wouldn't be the end of the world, and would be preferable to a break up of the UK etc, etc

Though a no deal Brexit might very well boost support for Scottish independence, so banking on a no deal Brexit to save the union wouldn't be too clever. Though this is the woman who thought it was a good idea to appoint Boris Johnson foreign secretary, so all bets are off.

QuoteBut really I speculate and know nothing, only that I'm sickened by this imbroglio

We're now at the point where all the Brexiters have left is to insist that we have to drive the country off a cliff because if we don't the public will be disillusioned.

JBS

Brexit argument in summary
If you promised to commit suicide you have no right to change your mind.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

Que

As they say: a picture is worth a thousand words....



Q

Mr. Minnow

http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-uk-must-bin-unjustified-food-standards-for-brexit-trade-deal-2018-10

QuoteChlorine-washed chicken, hormone-injected beef and food containing maggots, rat-hair and mould are just some of the imports post-Brexit Britain could receive from the US.

Bloody EU. We didn't fight two world wars just to be told by some uppity Eurocrat that we can't eat maggots and rat-hair. It's our inalienable right as a proud and independent nation. 

vandermolen

"Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm" (Churchill).

'The test of a work of art is, in the end, our affection for it, not our ability to explain why it is good' (Stanley Kubrick).

Mr. Minnow


JBS

Quote from: Mr. Minnow on October 17, 2018, 03:46:01 PM
http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-uk-must-bin-unjustified-food-standards-for-brexit-trade-deal-2018-10

Bloody EU. We didn't fight two world wars just to be told by some uppity Eurocrat that we can't eat maggots and rat-hair. It's our inalienable right as a proud and independent nation.

I don't know about the bleached chicken, and the hormonally enhanced beef is doubtless a real thing, but I think the business about rat hair and maggots is a bit of a clickbait scare.  At the very least, we American consumers have about the same opinion of rat hair and maggots as British consumers do, and it would be a brash company that tried to take refuge in regulations as a defense against customer complaints.

Hollywood Beach Broadwalk

Mr. Minnow

Quote from: JBS on October 18, 2018, 11:47:56 AM
I don't know about the bleached chicken, and the hormonally enhanced beef is doubtless a real thing, but I think the business about rat hair and maggots is a bit of a clickbait scare.  At the very least, we American consumers have about the same opinion of rat hair and maggots as British consumers do, and it would be a brash company that tried to take refuge in regulations as a defense against customer complaints.

It says that the US regulations allow a certain amount of those things, so I'm assuming they checked their facts before saying that, as it's the sort of thing which could probably be disproved fairly easily if it were untrue. Either US regulations make these allowances or they don't. Assuming it's true, it's not a good look for any government trying to sell the merits of a trade deal with the US to the UK public, though in any case I suspect maggots and rat-hair would be the least of their/our problems.