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

[Hlafordlaes]

The UK's biggest contribution to ensuring the survival of the EU may well turn out to be demonstrating, by leaving it, what a ******* stupid thing that is to do.

Indeed, and I must perversely hope for the very worst economic outcome in the shortest time possible, hopefully immediately following a properly truculant no-deal Brexit, accompanied by exuberant Farage-Johnson hand-waving and victory fist pumps... and then bread lines and panic as both the finance and automotive mfg industries wilt overnight.

I would, of course, prefer to wake up tomorrow and find that both Brexit and Trump's election were horrible figments of indigestion-driven nightmares.

 

[Information Analyst]

Reminder: this comes from a poll with Brexit Party 35%, Conservative 9%.

And the people that comprise that 9%, 88% of them intend to vote Conservative at a General Election. Obviously in most cases there are people will vote for "their" party, even when the vote is more closely allied to something they disagree on the party line with. Even those who are voting for openly pro-Remain parties include small numbers of No Dealers.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Latest Scotland polling closer to what I would expect although Green looks light.

SNP - 38%
Lab - 16%
Brex - 16%
Con - 11%
LD -10%
Green - 4%
ChUK - 2%
UKIP - 2%

 

[Information Analyst]

Latest Scotland polling closer to what I would expect although Green looks light.

SNP - 38%
Lab - 16%
Brex - 16%
Con - 11%
LD -10%
Green - 4%
ChUK - 2%
UKIP - 2%

What's the source of that poll?

I found there was a YouGov/Datapraxis poll conducted between 8-17 May. The previous polls - YouGov/The Times were conducted:

* 29-30 May
* 8-9 May
* 12-16 May

So basically the Datapraxis one spans two of the previous ones, so we can compare them:

| 8-9 May | 8-17 May | 12-16 May | Average Con | 6% | 10% | 7% | 8%
Lab | 10% | 10% | 6% | 9%
Lib-Dems | 11% | 7% | 13% | 10%
SNP | 38% | 38% | 39% | 38%
Green | 9% | 11% | 10% | 10%
UKIP | 0% | 2% | 2% | 1%
Brexit Party | 21% | 20% | 20% | 20%
Change UK | 2% | 2% | 1% | 2%
Other | 2% | 1% | 2% | 2%

Both SNP and BP seem fairly stable, but some of the fluctuations look at bit oldd, especially the Lib-Dems.

 

[Klimax]

The Brexit is necessary for all of us. There is no possibility for the European Union to survive. It will be destroyed.

Why? (aka rationale for this assertion) By whom or what?

 

[Andy_Ross]

Theresa May has said a "new and improved" Brexit deal will be put to MPs when they vote on the EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill in early June.

Writing in the Sunday Times, Mrs May said the bill will be a "bold offer".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48323522


Of course it will.

 

[The Don]

Theresa May has said a "new and improved" Brexit deal will be put to MPs when they vote on the EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill in early June.

Writing in the Sunday Times, Mrs May said the bill will be a "bold offer".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48323522


Of course it will.

Presumably some words in the non-binding part that can be ignored by her successor.

 

[McHrozni]

So even Conservative voters have remain as the slight leader.

This is surprising, but most likely caused by some Conservative Brexiteers defecting to Brexit party. Bremain Conservatives remained Conservatives whereas a meaningful number Brexit Conservatives left the party, leaving them with a plurality of Bremainers.

And May's deal as the least popular

This is not surprising, the deal was disparaged by all sides for the better part of a year now. There are few, very few people indeed whose intelectual capacity is so limited they still support Brexit and retain the ability to grasp what the deal says. There may not even be any to speak of, I suspect most support for the deal comes from Bremainers who think bespoke deal to be the lesser evil, a way to placate Brexiteers while saving Britain from itself. Those people might perfer to Bremain, yet they fear what such turn of events utterly break British politics.

I understand their concerns, but I think they're unfounded. It's clear Brexit already broke British politics. The time is nigh for major reform - a different, more modern electoral format (proportional representation, single transferable vote or at least runoff elections) and written constitution for starters.

McHrozni

 

[Dave Rogers]

Theresa May has said a "new and improved" Brexit deal will be put to MPs when they vote on the EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill in early June.

Writing in the Sunday Times, Mrs May said the bill will be a "bold offer".

My guess will be the offer is "I'll let you vote for my plan if you pass it in return." Matt Hancock is now saying MPs should vote for the bill and worry about the details afterwards. My, that's promising.

Dave

 

[McHrozni]

It appears the lessions of Brexit were not learned by Italians, or at least their governing party.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/18/europe/matteo-salvini-european-union-rally-intl/index.html

Salvini went full retard and blames the Maastricht rules of the EU for the economic malaise plaguing Italy. You know, the ones about moderate inflation and moderate government debt. The ones Greece so flagarantly violated for years, until 2008?

Yeah, he wants that back. High deficit financed by money printing, that's what he's embracing now as the economic policy to save Europe. Italy needs it for prosperity. I'll add another link for comic relief:

https://www.politico.eu/article/5st...over-venezuela-crisis-alessandro-di-battista/

McHrozni

 

[Garrison]

My guess will be the offer is "I'll let you vote for my plan if you pass it in return." Matt Hancock is now saying MPs should vote for the bill and worry about the details afterwards. My, that's promising.

Dave

Yep because this is absolutely one of those things where we shouldn't worry about the details, I mean its not like the future of the country rests on it or anything...

 

[McHrozni]

If you exclude the Don't Knows, it's even more stark:

Party | No Deal | May's Deal | Different Deal | Remain Conservative | 25% | 20% | 23% | 32%
Labour | 4% | 5% | 16% | 75%
Lib-Dems | 0% | 2% | 3% | 94%
SNP | 9% | 2% | 4% | 84%
Plaid Cymru | 0% | 7% | 0% | 93%
Greens | 3% | 6% | 10% | 81%
UKIP | 71% | 13% | 16% | 0%
Brexit Party | 72% | 7% | 20% | 1%
Change UK | 7% | 4% | 9% | 80%
Others | 25% | 16% | 22% | 37
TOTAL | 32% | 7% | 14% | 47%

I wonder if the SNP No deal support is in any significant part due to supporters wanting no deal so Scotland is more likely to break free of the UK. I'm sure there are a few Kamikazes of that sort, I'm just wondering how many there are.

1% of Brexit party supporters want to Remain in the EU. That one is a bit weird

McHrozni

 

[Nessie]

I suppose that there are very limited set of circumstances where that can be true. Examples include:

• That membership confers a series of benefits but you only need a small subset of them so it's better not to be a member, or to change your membership to a different type (say just be a social member to allow use of the bar but not the sporting facilities)
• That you use the facilities so infrequently that it's more cost effective to pay on a per use basis rather than joining
• That there are other aspects of being a member which mean that you'd rather not be a member of the club - for example if members of a club have a reputation for being not nice people, you may not want to be associated with them and hence not be a member of the club
• Being a member of one club, prohibits you from being a member of another club you want to be member of

None of these have any bearing on the UK's membership of the EU.

All are examples of how to weigh up whether or not a full membership is worthwhile. If Brexit was to become a Norway member, I would get that. If the drivers behind Brexit had a plan, such as Farage had always campaigned for a Norway membership, we would not be in the mess we are in.

Instead the drivers of Brexit have no agreed plan and now seem to be closest to "you may not want to be associated with them and hence not be a member of the club". But with the EU, that is impossible. The UK cannot function without trading etc with the EU.

But the EU is not like Mongolia, which the UK could completely ignore and function fine.

We have to have some form of membership.

 

[Nessie]

Farage has made his 'better deal' quite clear. He wants to rip the UK out of the EU so they can open it up to the US, in particular but not only, US healthcare companies to privatise the NHS and make a profit for him and his cronies.

It's so clear that he literally couldn't have spelled it out any more. And yet people still think he is a man of the people because they are idiots.

He truly wants to turn the clock back, to the 1930s, pre NHS and the Empire & Commonwealth at its height.

 

[The Don]

All are examples of how to weigh up whether or not a full membership is worthwhile. If Brexit was to become a Norway member, I would get that. If the drivers behind Brexit had a plan, such as Farage had always campaigned for a Norway membership, we would not be in the mess we are in.

Instead the drivers of Brexit have no agreed plan and now seem to be closest to "you may not want to be associated with them and hence not be a member of the club". But with the EU, that is impossible. The UK cannot function without trading etc with the EU.

A number of key Brexiteers really do seem to believe that the UK could invoke article 24 of WTO and continue to deal with the EU on exactly the same basis as we do today for the next 10 years by which time the EU will have come to their senses, realised that they need us far more than we need them and will then offer us all the benefits of EU membership but none of the responsibilities.

There is an overlap between this group and another group who think that a rise in trade with the US, China, India and so on can more than offset any reduction in trade with the EU - as soon as we're free of those pesky EU regulations.

They're deluded but they appear to be honestly deluded

 

[Nessie]

A number of key Brexiteers really do seem to believe that the UK could invoke article 24 of WTO and continue to deal with the EU on exactly the same basis as we do today for the next 10 years...

The issue being that means zero tariffs on all UK trade with the rest of the world. Apparently WTO rules mean we cannot discriminate.

... by which time the EU will have come to their senses, realised that they need us far more than we need them and will then offer us all the benefits of EU membership but none of the responsibilities.

That harks back to the time of Empire when the UK could tell large parts of the world what to do. They really are a deluded bunch.

There is an overlap between this group and another group who think that a rise in trade with the US, China, India and so on can more than offset any reduction in trade with the EU - as soon as we're free of those pesky EU regulations.

They're deluded but they appear to be honestly deluded

Deluded in an incredibly arrogant way, where they think the UK is way more powerful than it actually is.

If we have tariff free trade with the EU, we have to have it with the US, China, India etc.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/

as they are also in the WTO.

 

[The Don]

The issue being that means zero tariffs on all UK trade with the rest of the world. Apparently WTO rules mean we cannot discriminate.



That harks back to the time of Empire when the UK could tell large parts of the world what to do. They really are a deluded bunch.



Deluded in an incredibly arrogant way, where they think the UK is way more powerful than it actually is.

If we have tariff free trade with the EU, we have to have it with the US, China, India etc.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/brexit/no-deal-brexit-and-wto-article-24-explained/

as they are also in the WTO.

In any case, and worse , that won't even attempt to address the "soft" barriers which would likely hit the service sector particularly hard. The loss of "passporting" has been highlighted as a major issue for the financial services sector but it's probably just the tip of the iceberg (both for financial services and for the service sector in general).

 

[ponderingturtle]

I suppose that there are very limited set of circumstances where that can be true. Examples include:

• That membership confers a series of benefits but you only need a small subset of them so it's better not to be a member, or to change your membership to a different type (say just be a social member to allow use of the bar but not the sporting facilities)
• That you use the facilities so infrequently that it's more cost effective to pay on a per use basis rather than joining
• That there are other aspects of being a member which mean that you'd rather not be a member of the club - for example if members of a club have a reputation for being not nice people, you may not want to be associated with them and hence not be a member of the club
• Being a member of one club, prohibits you from being a member of another club you want to be member of

None of these have any bearing on the UK's membership of the EU.

You actually have enough power to intimidate them into doing what you want to their detriment.

 

[McHrozni]

A number of key Brexiteers really do seem to believe that the UK could invoke article 24 of WTO and continue to deal with the EU on exactly the same basis as we do today for the next 10 years

Well, it could do that, if EU agreed - we have a deal, just change it so the transition period is 10 years instead of 1.5 and we're done. I'm certain EU would oblige.

Indeed, it might be the best solution right now. Brexit, with a very long Norway+ style transition. There will be at least two more general elections in between, something is bound to break the deadlock in the meantime. It is enough time to implement the Irish unicorn, if one is indeed possible, it is enough time to run a series of indicative referendums if you will. UK ends up in a Norway+ style union with EU, a toothless ruletaker, but not eviscerated. All in all it might be the lesser evil.

Now just convince BJ and Farage to take credit and you're good to go.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Well, it could do that, if EU agreed - we have a deal, just change it so the transition period is 10 years instead of 1.5 and we're done. I'm certain EU would oblige.

Indeed, it might be the best solution right now. Brexit, with a very long Norway+ style transition. There will be at least two more general elections in between, something is bound to break the deadlock in the meantime. It is enough time to implement the Irish unicorn, if one is indeed possible, it is enough time to run a series of indicative referendums if you will. UK ends up in a Norway+ style union with EU, a toothless ruletaker, but not eviscerated. All in all it might be the lesser evil.

Now just convince BJ and Farage to take credit and you're good to go.

McHrozni

I don't think that the EU would agree, because as well as continuing to trade with the EU, the Brexiteers would want the UK to diverge from the EU on standards and not be bound by EU laws and so on.

In the Brexiteers mind, the UK would not be a toothless ruletaker, it would be proudly setting its own rules and standards (perhaps loosening employee and environmental legislation to US levels) whilst at the same time continuing to do business with the EU on the current basis.