Cont: Brexit: Now What? 7th heaven...

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I always predicted that there would be short term damage, but benefit in the longer term. Exactly how long, 'long term' turns out to be depends on the levels of EU intransigence.

The UK will have control of its money, borders and laws. Why would the EU be the key deciding factor on its economic success going forward?

 

[jimbob]

Yes, that's been remainer (losing side) tactics ever since they lost.

Admit you lost and get over it. Once we've left, you can begin campaigning to get re-admitted, if that's still what you want.

It's not a game. Brexit will have severe consequences on the UK economy - there is no way that increasing trade friction between the UK and its largest trading partner will do anything other than reduce exports and make imports more expensive, whilst making us poorer whilst reducing our freedom of movement.

Brexit could quite easily lead to the break up of the UK.

The mandate wasn't clear in the referendum.


Why should we trust your predictions when you were arguing that the UK would get a good deal - now you're saying a no-deal is fine:

It would be more correct to say that leave believed that the EU would be operating in their own self interest if they give us a good deal. And that the EU would be insane to harm themselves by offering a poor deal or no deal.

And that's still what they're saying.

Therefore, we'll get a good deal. I see. What will this good deal be? Lots of profitable trade, but no foreigners wandering about and taking our jobs. And no UK having to accept the decisions of foreign courts. Is that the deal that the EU would be insane not to agree to?

Yes.

​

 

[Information Analyst]

Information Analyst asked me to prove that economic forecasts are nearly always wrong. I think this is widely accepted by many leading economists - but, as they rightly say, you have to make your plans based on some forecasts, and then adjust those plans in light of reality.

Many of the project fear forecasts haven't been just inaccurate - they've been forecasts that got the direction wrong. So they forecast that unemployment would rise, but it fell; forecast that house prices would fall but they rose; forecast a recession immediately following a vote to leave, but we have now had three years of continuing growth, and so on.

If economists were like real scientists, they would provide error bars for their forecasts - they would say something like, "We expect inflation to be between 2% and 3.5% for the next year - and we'll stand up and admit we got it wrong if it falls outside that band." Fat chance of that happening - you have to treat most economic forecasts with the same scepticism that you'd apply to horoscopes.

Inability to prove or quantify claim noted.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Yes, that's been remainer (losing side) tactics ever since they lost.

Admit you lost and get over it. Once we've left, you can begin campaigning to get re-admitted, if that's still what you want.

I've always accepted Remain lost.

Maybe the Leave side needs to accept a few things too, like we're not going to get anything like the sort of deal Vote Leave promised us. And like there is no Leave deal which would get majority support in the country. It's all very well to rely on David Cameron's promise to enact the otherwise non-binding decision of the referendum but that's not what we're going to get. Despite the noisiest ranters insistence, No Deal is not remotely what the country voted for. No Deal literally has no mandate, because the winners promised us voters "We will negotiate the terms of a new deal before we start any legal process to leave".

As you know, rejoining would be on significantly different terms to the deal we now have; not least because we would be required to take up the Euro.

 

[Lothian]

Yes, that's been remainer (losing side) tactics ever since they lost.

Admit you lost and get over it. Once we've left, you can begin campaigning to get re-admitted, if that's still what you want.

As has become apparent, the winning side have different factions who want very different things. Brexit supporting MPs have blocked parliamentary brexit votes. Seems clear that any leave deal doesn't have a popular majority. The winners turned out to be losers.

 

[GlennB]

If the EU want to take ten years over the negotiations there's nothing we can do to stop them. It's a shame that this will harm the EU as well as the UK, but of course it's up to the EU to do whatever they think is in their own best interests.

The EU may judge that it's in their own best interests to be intransigent with the UK - this may be the best way to discourage other countries from wanting to leave.

In which you pre-blame the EU for any bad outcomes, as you have from the beginning of this discussion.

 

[catsmate]

Or we could stay until we work out how to leave without doing significant damage to the UK economy?

Nah, that would take effort.

If the EU or Ireland want to impose a non-open border with Northern Ireland, that's up to them.

Unfortunately for your argument, both Ireland and the EU say they won't build such a border, even in the event of a no deal.

Good grief, can you comprehend what you're saying? This is just childish.

 

[catsmate]

Continued delay and uncertainty is continuing to significantly damage our economy.

Compared to the half-million lost jobs and ninety billion in lost GDP?

 

[catsmate]

Would have a devastating effect on trust in democracy.

Why not have so soft of popular vote?

 

[catsmate]

The UK will have control of its money, borders and laws. Why would the EU be the key deciding factor on its economic success going forward?

Because even Brexiteers have figured out the UK's economy is dependent on the EU.

 

[ceptimus]

In an alternate universe, remain won by a 52:48 margin, but a leave-supporting PM and parliament argued that the referendum hadn't specified whether it should be a hard or soft remain and that to bring the country back together and respect the large minority leave vote we should partly leave anyway. Meanwhile the opposition argued that the remain campaign had told lies and that we should therefore leave completely, or at least hold a confirmatory referendum with a leave option on the ballot paper.

 

[jimbob]

Except that didn't happen and Farage himself said that he would want a second referendum if the result was close

 

[Tolls]

The Labour party, Liberal Democrats [sic], SNP, and others woudn't vote for it either.

I see your grasp of how our parliament works is as rubbish as your grasp of how the EU works.

If the party of government, that holds a majority in parliament, cannot get a bill passed, it's not the fault of the opposition parties. The clue is in the name.

 

[Lothian]

In an alternate universe, remain won by a 52:48 margin, but a leave-supporting PM and parliament argued that the referendum hadn't specified whether it should be a hard or soft remain and that to bring the country back together and respect the large minority leave vote we should partly leave anyway. Meanwhile the opposition argued that the remain campaign had told lies and that we should therefore leave completely, or at least hold a confirmatory referendum with a leave option on the ballot paper.

No such thing as a soft and hard remain.
That is only on the leave side.

48% of voters want to remain. Of the 52% some want a hard brexit and would rather remain than leave the EU on similar terms as we have now but without any say. The other leavers would rather remain than leave in terms that would leave the UK significantly worse off.

There is no leave option that has popular support. You know it. That is why you oppose a proper vote.

 

[The Don]

No such thing as a soft and hard remain.
That is only on the leave side.

48% of voters want voted to remain. Of the 52% some want a hard brexit and would rather remain than leave the EU on similar terms as we have now but without any say. The other leavers would rather remain than leave in terms that would leave the UK significantly worse off and some may even have changed their mind altogether.

There is no leave option that has popular support. You know it. That is why you oppose a proper vote.

Made some amendments to further muddy the situation

48% of people who took part in the referendum voted to remain. Current polling now seems to show a small, but significant, proportion in favour of remain. This majority grows significantly if the alternative is a no deal Brexit.

As you rightly say, there is no form of Brexit which has the support of the majority of the electorate - and that is reflected in the various MP votes as well.

 

[Nessie]

I always predicted that there would be short term damage, but benefit in the longer term. Exactly how long, 'long term' turns out to be depends on the levels of EU intransigence.

And that level of "intransigence" will be determined by the UK.

 

[Nessie]

No such thing as a soft and hard remain.
That is only on the leave side.

48% of voters want to remain. Of the 52% some want a hard brexit and would rather remain than leave the EU on similar terms as we have now but without any say. The other leavers would rather remain than leave in terms that would leave the UK significantly worse off.

There is no leave option that has popular support. You know it. That is why you oppose a proper vote.

Leave is strongly influenced by a cult of personality. Farage is Leave. UKIP has collapsed after he left. If he falls out with others in the Brexit Party and leaves, it too will collapse.

BJ is Leave. He is going to be our next PM. He can do and say pretty much anything he wants and he gets forgiven.

Now, get them to produce a plan for leaving and ...... They have realised how split leave is, which is why they are pretty much plan free as they want to keep their popular support and not split it.

Hence we are likely to leave without any sort of plan (except to blame the EU as it goes horribly wrong).

 

[a_unique_person]

Leave is strongly influenced by a cult of personality. Farage is Leave. UKIP has collapsed after he left. If he falls out with others in the Brexit Party and leaves, it too will collapse.

BJ is Leave. He is going to be our next PM. He can do and say pretty much anything he wants and he gets forgiven.

He could go outside in the street and shoot someone and no-one would care.

 

[a_unique_person]

That seems to be a slightly confused take on the 1999 referendum.

But that was a decision against a single specific method of picking a President, and not a three way vote as portrayed.

The Republican vote was split, but between those who were OK with the method put forward and those opposed, who then proceeded to vote against the change.

There were lots of flavours of Republicanism, and a general pro-Republican view in Oz, but no one flavour has (or had) enough support. A bit like Brexit in fact.

My bad, you are correct. Howard was the king of the wedge. Instead of just asking if we wanted a republic or not he asked if we wanted a republic with the head of state appointed by parliament. That made people who wanted to directly vote for the president vote no.



He should have had two questions. Do you want a republic? Do you want to vote for the president directly?


If Cameron had any brains he should have just done something similar with the Brexit vote if he wanted a no vote.

 

[ponderingturtle]

As has become apparent, the winning side have different factions who want very different things. Brexit supporting MPs have blocked parliamentary brexit votes. Seems clear that any leave deal doesn't have a popular majority. The winners turned out to be losers.

Ah but the no dealers have won because of that, they will get the closed irish border that they demand or they will open all borders. Or is the UK leaving the WTO now too?

I look forward to britain's future as a rogue outlaw nation, as that was what the leave vote was about becoming clearly.