Brexit: Now What? Part II

[commandlinegamer]

Seen today on Twitter:

 

[CapelDodger]

Depending on when it was run a significant chunk of the majority may already have disappeared thanks to 'natural wastage'

I prefer the term "demographic imperative" myself.

Also at least some voters who prefered an EEA option would vote against a hard Brexit.

Let's not forget that the Leave campaigns argued that Britain wouldn't leave the single market and claims that it would constituted Project Fear.

If the actual terms were presented and voted on I reckon about 60/40 against leaving at least.

Which explains why ceptimus thinks a vote on them would be undemocratic and against the Will Of The People (including dead ones, but excluding those who've reached voting-age after June 2016).

I'm reminded of the old African Model of democracy - One Man, One Vote, Once.

 

[CapelDodger]

Seen today on Twitter:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_35305588096e3a5db6.jpg

Excellent.

 

[CapelDodger]

I get the impression that despite the ECHR being a document that's grounded heavily in British ideas of freedom some people see it as a thing for Johnny Foreigner to follow, but not the British.

The British have these values by nature, doncha know. Always have, always will. Only Johnny Foreigner needs to have them imposed.

 

[The Don]

So how long until the UK declares independence from other organisations, such as the WTO, or the UN?

AFAIK, the UN doesn't impinge on UK activities much on a day-to-day basis so I don't think we'll have a problem with it unless they have something "unacceptable" to say about The Falklands or Gibraltar.

If the UK reverts to WTO terms, we'll suddenly become very vocal about how poor they are and try to come to some kind of arrangement where we "opt out" of various parts. When it's explained that it isn't possible and that WTO opt-outs amount to individual trade agreements we'll do what we usually do - throw our toys out of the pram

 

[Andy_Ross]

May speech, Jam Tomorrow.

 

[The Don]

May speech, Jam Tomorrow.

Yes and none of that foreign high-fruit "confiture" - proper English jam with plenty of tooth-rotting sugar

Remember how under EU legislation we weren't even allowed to call it jam ? We had to call it Fruit-flavoured Sugar Goop instead. Don't remember that ? Well maybe it didn't actually happen but in theory it maybe could have - which is close enough for a breathless Eurosceptic headline in the Daily Mail

 

[The Don]

Looks like the May approach of befuddling the public and blaming the EU if it goes wrong is working....

A YouGov survey carried out after the speech suggests that 55% of British people think the deal the prime minister is seeking will be good for the country, compared with 19% who feel it will be bad.

Personally I'd like to see the reasoning behind that - how is a deal that gets us out of the EEA "good for Britain" ? But nevermind....

But 20% of those who responded said they believed EU leaders would agree to the objectives Mrs May set out, while 56% thought they would not.

....but when it all falls apart it's due to the intransigence of the EU, not the unreasonableness of the UK's demands

Looks like my fears are being confirmed, wrap yourself in the Union Jack, invoke the Dunkirk spirit and blame foreigners for
everything that goes wrong


edited to add link.....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38669531

 

[CapelDodger]

Personally I'd like to see the reasoning behind that - how is a deal that gets us out of the EEA "good for Britain" ? But nevermind....

May's target deal gives Britain everything she wants and nothing she doesn't want. On the assumption that May has a clue, that would be a good deal - she wants the best for Britain, after all.

....but when it all falls apart it's due to the intransigence of the EU, not the unreasonableness of the UK's demands

It's more a recognition that you can't always get when you want to, and only fools expect to.

Looks like my fears are being confirmed, wrap yourself in the Union Jack, invoke the Dunkirk spirit and blame foreigners for
everything that goes wrong

Or blame Britain's fat, lazy, golf-playing business people for neglecting their public duty to the new Truly Global Britain. Their taxes will have to be increased, forcing them to work harder simply to maintain the lifestyles they've become accustomed to.

May's playing a cleverer, deeper game than you think.

 

[CapelDodger]

May speech, Jam Tomorrow.

And a right pickle today.

 

[CapelDodger]

AFAIK, the UN doesn't impinge on UK activities much on a day-to-day basis so I don't think we'll have a problem with it unless they have something "unacceptable" to say about The Falklands or Gibraltar.

Or tries to rob us of our Security Council veto. From our cold dead hands ...

 

[The Don]

Further indications that the Prime Minister's priorities are wrong IMO....

The prime minister has spoken of negotiating associate membership of the customs union with special access for certain sectors like car manufacturing. This will be a tough part of the negotiations. To other EU states it looks like the cherry-picking they have vowed to resist.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38676889

Yes, car manufacturers are prominent and important manufacturers which no doubt help to bolster national prestige as well but compared to the services sector they are tiny both in terms of GDP impact and number of people employed.

Even if magically-schmagically the UK car manufacturing doubled in size post-Brexit (and there's no indication that it would, holding steady would be a major achievement) it wouldn't offset a 1% contraction in the services sector.

 

[Henri McPhee]

Banks becoming a little clearer on their position post-Brexit in the event of a Hard Brexit:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38663537

Now I realise that the intention was to try an rebalance the UK economy and not rely so much on financial services. I had assumed that the objective was to grow the other sectors but I guess shrinking the financial services sector would also do it

Fear not, it's not like these are high-paying jobs that provide tens (hundreds ?) of millions in taxes to the Exchequer and underpin thousands of other jobs across the economy

Banking and insurance historically always has been a useful and lucrative business, but it isn't the only business. The banks are blackmailing the government into moving to Paris, or Frankfurt, or Jersey, or Ireland if they have to pay any tax. and it's not the few rich who suffer from that. It underfunds the local councils and the NHS. I think Prudential Insurance was thinking of moving to Hong Kong a few years ago. Personally, if the hedge funds and speculation ion currency firms moved to Frankfurt it wouldn't bother me.

Historically there were tragic bank failures in the UK in Victorian times. A few years ago the print media were saying there must be deregulation of the banks because there was no chance of a High Street Bank ever going bust, or having to be bailed out by the taxpayer. They were proved wrong about that, like well payed theoretical economists have been proved wrong with their forecasts.

Many years ago Neville Chamberlain proposed the Birmingham Municipal Bank which knew how to lend money safely, and it was a success until it was swallowed up by the big five banks. In the New Year honours lists there seemed to be hardly any brilliant engineers or brilliant doctors. It seemed to be full of pop stars and footballers and bankers. Dyson seems to have the right idea about industrial strategy, even though he makes many of his products in Malaysia. Mrs. May needs to get a thorough grasp of the subject.

 

[The Don]

Banking and insurance historically always has been a useful and lucrative business, but it isn't the only business. The banks are blackmailing the government into moving to Paris, or Frankfurt, or Jersey, or Ireland if they have to pay any tax. and it's not the few rich who suffer from that. It underfunds the local councils and the NHS. I think Prudential Insurance was thinking of moving to Hong Kong a few years ago. Personally, if the hedge funds and speculation ion currency firms moved to Frankfurt it wouldn't bother me.

The banks aren't attempting to blackmail the government into moving anywhere. The government isn't moving full stop, it's staying put, the banks on the other hand may be moving some or all of their staff.

The banks are major contributors to the exchequer both in terms of their corporation taxes and the taxes of their employees. AFAIK tax hasn't been a major factor in threats to relocate headquarters (please correct me if you have better information).

In the case of Prudential the (empty ?) threat to move to Hong Kong was motivated by regulation on capital requirements.

Historically there were tragic bank failures in the UK in Victorian times. A few years ago the print media were saying there must be deregulation of the banks because there was no chance of a High Street Bank ever going bust, or having to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

Evidence ? (I seem to write that a lot in response to your posts)

They were proved wrong about that, like well payed theoretical economists have been proved wrong with their forecasts.

and ?

Many years ago Neville Chamberlain proposed the Birmingham Municipal Bank which knew how to lend money safely, and it was a success until it was swallowed up by the big five banks. In the New Year honours lists there seemed to be hardly any brilliant engineers or brilliant doctors.

Evidence ?

It seemed to be full of pop stars and footballers and bankers. Dyson seems to have the right idea about industrial strategy, even though he makes many of his products in Malaysia. Mrs. May needs to get a thorough grasp of the subject.

Dyson is one of the key architects of Brexit, one of the largest threats to UK prosperity.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is hilarious:

Two factors had strengthened Mrs May's hand. Firstly, the intervention of Donald Trump. The president-elect declared he was willing to fast-track a trade deal with the UK. There was no more talk about Britain being consigned to the back of the queue.

Nobody of sound mind attaches any significance to things Trump says. What's Gove going to do on the day Trump looks him straight in the eye and tells him "I never said that"? Call him a bounder?

The second "factor" involves economic news which will be old in March, let alone when the negotiations are under way, and of course occurred within the EU.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Dyson is one of the key architects of Brexit, one of the largest threats to UK prosperity.

Not sure if he is an architect so much as a cheerleader but when you are worth a few billion you can probably take a risk on such things. it's not as if he is going to lose his house or struggle to feed his kids.

 

[Lothian]

Dyson seems to have the right idea about industrial strategy, even though he makes many of his products in Malaysia. Mrs. May needs to get a thorough grasp of the subject.

Dyson's idea is that we design and innovate in the UK, manufacture abroad, and import those goods free of tax and duty allowing a greater profit for the manufacturer.

Basically kill off UK manufacturing and replace it with tech start ups.

I am sure those factory workers will walk straight into the new jobs. I mean surely putting things together is fairly similar to designing new things to fit together?

Say we have about 100 designers at Nissan and 5000 assemblers. If we had 5100 designers we would have 50 times as many cars. 50 times the sales. What could go wrong?

 

[The Don]

Shockingly enough* Jeremy Corbyn is applying a three-line whip to Labour MPs to vote in favour of Brexit.

There are rumours of a rebellion.

Dozens of Labour MPs might be prepared to go against the party's leadership if there is a vote on starting the Brexit process, the BBC understands.

Jeremy Corbyn has said all his MPs will be told to approve the triggering of Article 50 because they should accept the result of last year's referendum.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38689400

IMO the Labour Party should listen to the 2/3 of their supporters who voted remain.



* of course he's in favour of triggering article 50, not only is he in favour of Brexit in any case (regardless of his quarter-hearted support for the Remain campaign) but he lacks the leadership vision to see that he could be the focus for the 48% who voted Remain (plus however many of those who voted Leave but didn't want a Hard Brexit and no more money for the NHS).

Instead he's going to risk losing the 2/3 of Labour voters who voted Remain in a (probably IMO futiile) attempt to stop some or all of the 1/3 who voted Leave switching to UKIP.

 

[Craig B]

Shockingly enough* Jeremy Corbyn is applying a three-line whip to Labour MPs to vote in favour of Brexit.

There are rumours of a rebellion.

Would it not be morally reasonable to abstain? The ones who voted for this - let them get on with it, and I won't stand in their way; but don't expect any help from me.

 

[The Don]

Would it not be morally reasonable to abstain? The ones who voted for this - let them get on with it, and I won't stand in their way; but don't expect any help from me.

Not really IMO.

At least not if you think Brexit will be as damaging as I think it is, and the mandate for Brexit is as weak as it is (and the mandate for Hard Brexit being absent).

Those MPs should stand by their principles (and in many cases the wishes of their constituents) and properly challenge this. For decades Parliament overrode the wishes of the electorate by opposing the death penalty.

In this case IMO they should vote against Brexit to demonstrate that there is actually significant opposition to it and not just the "troublesome Scots" and a handful of LibDems.