Brexit: Now What? Part III

[McHrozni]

But I will not accept that anyone and everyone who disagrees with me is insane or stupid.

No one - except maybe MikeG, I don't know - is claiming that near as I can tell. I, for one, am claiming that not knowing whether the effects of Brexit will be good or bad once you have the knowledge of the downsides of Brexit (in this thread and elsewhere) and without being able to present any upsides is not a stance we can classify as intellectual.

Brexit is not a mystical unknown path, we know it is a path that will have many obstacles the Bremain path would not have. We have no idea whether the path will also lack any obstacles the Bremain has, but so far, we haven't identified a single one, even though identifying obstacles in the Bremain path should be no more difficult than identifying obstacles on the Brexit path.

In light of that claiming Brexit is a big unknown and could easily be the easier path is many things, but skeptical isn't among them.

McHrozni

 

[Dave Rogers]

No one - except maybe MikeG, I don't know - is claiming that near as I can tell.

Then let me rephrase that; I can't accept that everyone who disagrees with me is as misguided as an antivaxxer. And I think that people who complain that those who basically agree with them are at fault for not agreeing vehemently enough are becoming as much part of the problem as those who forced the decision in the first place.

Dave

 

[McHrozni]

Then let me rephrase that; I can't accept that everyone who disagrees with me is as misguided as an antivaxxer.

This is not my position either. My position is anyone who thinks Brexit won't be bad for UK and is unable to provide the possible upsides and/or evidence the downsides are exaggerated or non-existent is as wrong as a typical antivaxxer is. We have lots of vague guesses and flailing, but nothing that would be worth as much as a second look. I'm prepared to take an antivaxxer seriously, if they presented actual evidence of vaccines doing more harm than good.

I haven't met one that would be able to do that, on either issue. That doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist, just that they're very hard to find. Kind of like unicorns, really.

And I think that people who complain that those who basically agree with them are at fault for not agreeing vehemently enough are becoming as much part of the problem as those who forced the decision in the first place.

Maybe, but this isn't the issue in this case.

McHrozni

 

[GlennB]

It's the word evidence, Glenn. We have clues, maybe. We have projections. We have forecasts. We don't have evidence. Further, no-one on the planet imagines that there won't be changes. Some of those changes are likely to be for the worse. Some of those changes may be for the better. Until they have actually happened, no-one is in any position to say, factually, the overall net effect of the sum total of all those thousands of changes is positive or negative.Except McHronzi of course. He knows.

Lets suppose, for the sake of argument, that it will take 10 years for the dust finally to settle. Will we have 'evidence' then? A full balance sheet of positive and negative outcomes? I'd say that, applying your standards, that we won't, as we'll have no idea where the UK would have been had it remained in the EU.

It strikes me as extremely reasonable to start tallying the ups and downs and considering those projections and assessments right now, as they become apparent. And I'm already seeing significant downsides and precious few - if any - upsides.

 

[MikeG]

I can understand people wanting to try that Glenn, but we haven't even got a clear picture of the divorce proceedings yet. I can't see how anything at all can be assigned to Brexit just yet, be it positive or negative. To push the divorce analogy......we're discussing how post-divorce life will work out for one of the partners whilst they're still arguing, and before one of them has moved out of the house, let alone gone to court.

-

As an aside, one of the biggest upsides of the Brexit process so far is the demise of Ukip. Hopefully most of us can at least agree on that.

 

[Amazer]

I can understand people wanting to try that Glenn, but we haven't even got a clear picture of the divorce proceedings yet. I can't see how anything at all can be assigned to Brexit just yet, be it positive or negative. To push the divorce analogy......we're discussing how post-divorce life will work out for one of the partners whilst they're still arguing, and before one of them has moved out of the house, let alone gone to court.

I don't think you really need a clear picture of these divorce proceedings, and still reach at least some conclusions whether the outcome will be beneficial or detrimental. In this case I think it's safe to say that the outcome will be detrimental for both parties.

As an aside, one of the biggest upsides of the Brexit process so far is the demise of Ukip. Hopefully most of us can at least agree on that.

Agreed

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The rather idiotic idea that ukip disappearing because they got what they wanted is somehow a win is certainly a magnificent piece of antilogic.

Almost as good as somehow arguing that we have no idea what the outcome of Brexit will be as a good positive reason for doing it.

Insane or stupid or something else? You tell me.

 

[MikeG]

......... I think it's safe to say that the outcome will be detrimental for both parties.......

I think the EU will miss our money, and the expertise of some of our civil servants. The moaning? Not so much.

 

[The Don]

As an aside, one of the biggest upsides of the Brexit process so far is the demise of Ukip. Hopefully most of us can at least agree on that.

Why ?

UKIP wielded comparatively little power. With UKIP suffering a significant electoral reverse their policies and supporters seem to have been picked up by the Conservatives, and to a lesser extent the Labour party.

White populism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Islam and so on will be part of the UK political mainstream for a generation. At least in UKIP they were quarantined in a politically impotent (at least from a Westminster perspective) side-show.

Of course the worst impact is likely to be Brexit itself

 

[MikeG]

.....Maybe, but this isn't the issue in this case.

Yeah, it absolutely is.

 

[jimbob]

I can understand people wanting to try that Glenn, but we haven't even got a clear picture of the divorce proceedings yet. I can't see how anything at all can be assigned to Brexit just yet, be it positive or negative. To push the divorce analogy......we're discussing how post-divorce life will work out for one of the partners whilst they're still arguing, and before one of them has moved out of the house, let alone gone to court.

-

As an aside, one of the biggest upsides of the Brexit process so far is the demise of Ukip. Hopefully most of us can at least agree on that.

If it means that the CAP is reformed, then that would be good too.

 

[Garrison]

The rather idiotic idea that ukip disappearing because they got what they wanted is somehow a win is certainly a magnificent piece of antilogic.

yeah it's a bit like saying 'hey we don't have to worry about defusing that bomb any more because it just exploded.'

 

[MCel58]

I think the EU will miss our money, and the expertise of some of our civil servants. The moaning? Not so much.

Yes and in reverse I think we will miss having to have wider considerations than just party political agendas in our policy making and the expertise and collaboration of eu civil servants. This is why Tories hate the EU because they are forced to think more about policy than just whether it will win them votes and allow them to spend money where they want to rather than where it is needed.
I just don't believe that given the choice the Tories would have spent as much in the last 40 years on small business development, skills training, intellectual property, university R&D, agriculture research, fisheries, large infrastructure projects on road and rail and the vast number of programmes to realign workers from lost industries into new jobs. Almost every programme to help ordinary people be part of the UK economy has used EU funding but more importantly has been directed by the UK having to make decisions and policy within the framework that they have agreed with the EU.
Perhaps one of the benefits of Brexit will be that the party in power will be judged on their decisions and not be able to deflect everything that didn't work onto the EU.

 

[McHrozni]

As an aside, one of the biggest upsides of the Brexit process so far is the demise of Ukip. Hopefully most of us can at least agree on that.

We can agree it was a good thing, but right-wing populist movements have been hammered all over Europe in the past six months - Austria, the Netherlands and France were the most prominent examples. Trump and his antics are suspected and Nigel Farage went out of its way to be friendly with him.

You can't say the demise of UKIP is due to Brexit, if their election result would be no better without one - which would be in line with other elections across the continent in the same time frame.

McHrozni

 

[MikeG]

If it means that the CAP is reformed, then that would be good too.

Yeah, but if I agree, and mention fisheries in the same breath, then the sharks circle and start getting excited. One has to start from the premise that the EU is perfect, as you well know.

 

[MikeG]

We can agree it was a good thing, but right-wing populist movements have been hammered all over Europe in the past six months - Austria, the Netherlands and France were the most prominent examples...........i

That's complacent nonsense. Record high votes for the extreme right, albeit not quite enough to win power, is hardly "hammered". Unfortunately.

 

[McHrozni]

That's complacent nonsense. Record high votes for the extreme right, albeit not quite enough to win power, is hardly "hammered". Unfortunately.

A drop from pole position at 25% to 21% and voters breaking 2-1 for the other guy when you're supposed to be competitive is hammered by any definition.

This conveniently described the Netherlands and France both.

In Austria, a rerun of the presidential election saw mr. Hofer win fewer votes despite a higher turnout, he went from being less than a percentage point behind to losing by more than 8 points.
That's also hammered.

UKIP fell too, but it would be expected to have just as much representation - zero - from Trump alone. Any upsides of Brexit from this are lost in random noise and in the very real embrace of Britsh PM of Donald Trump, itself a direct result of desperation due to Brexit.

McHrozni

 

[MikeG]

..........Any upsides of Brexit from this are lost in random noise and in the very real embrace of Britsh PM of Donald Trump, itself a direct result of desperation due to Brexit.

I can't make any sense of this sentence. Could you try again, please.

 

[MikeG]

A drop from pole position at 25% to 21% and voters breaking 2-1 for the other guy when you're supposed to be competitive is hammered by any definition.

This conveniently described the Netherlands and France both.

In Austria, a rerun of the presidential election saw mr. Hofer win fewer votes despite a higher turnout, he went from being less than a percentage point behind to losing by more than 8 points........

You're losing perspective. A 54 to 46 win is comfortable, but this is the hard right we're talking about. The hard right. What the hell are they doing getting 46% anywhere? One tenth of that level is scary enough. You are declaring victory (nay, a hammering) on the spurious grounds that they didn't do quite as well as some of the direst predictions. Oh, and you'll be able to support your claim that Le Penn was "supposed to be competitive", no doubt? (No, I thought not). She achieved pretty much exactly what she was predicted to achieve according to every prediction before the campaign even began.

 

[McHrozni]

I can't make any sense of this sentence. Could you try again, please.

Any upside the demise of UKIP brought was overwhelmed by the downside of the British embrace of Donald Trump. UKIP didn't disappear, it went mainstream in the form of the Conservative party.

You're losing perspective. A 54 to 46 win is comfortable, but this is the hard right we're talking about. The hard right. What the hell are they doing getting 46% anywhere? One tenth of that level is scary enough.

Maybe, but Austrian president is not a strong ruler of the executive branch like in USA or France, but a national mascot, like the Queen of England.

Pages 44-45.
https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Austria_2009.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Austria

The less importance a position has, the more likely it is for the electorate to opt for wilder options, because there is much less to lose. If Austria had a presidential system this result would indeed be scary. The way the country works however it is much less scary. The problematic party - FPÖ - declined in polls by about 10% in the past couple of months. The election is due in fall.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Austrian_legislative_election,_2017

McHrozni