Brexit: Now What? Part II

[abaddon]

It isn't a dogma if it was one of the principle it was funded upon. Which is the case for EU.
You may as well use dogma as pejorative term for everything and anything which has a socio economical contract. Which makes it lose its sense to "dogmatism".

A dogma on the other hand is precisely well chosen on the idea that immigration was the sole pusher for the brexit vote, and such an important point that anything else including economy can suffer. While it was a top thematic, it was not the sole one, and neither the EU immigration make the whole of the UK immigration - the Uk could reduce severely its non EU immigration first for example.

Really? So you are OK with mysogynist suppression. really?

 

[ceptimus]

The UK already has control over non-EU immigration though it may choose not to exercise that control.

As a member of the EU under current EU rules, a country has no control at all over EU immigration.

That's the key difference and it's something that some other EU countries beside the UK wish to change.

 

[CoolSceptic]

Well, I thought I'd swing back by this thread see how things were going. Last time I was here I noted the utter failure of the economic predictions made by the BoE, the treasury etc., and unsurprisingly the remain camp had their head in the sand and insisted the predictions weren't wrong.

I'm glad to see that the people involved in making the predictions have bigger shoes than any of the so-called "skeptics" here, who I found simply did not have the numeracy required to assess economic predictions.

So we have Mark Haldane from the Bank of England drew comparisons between the dire Brexit economic predictions and Michael Fish's infamous 1987 storm gaffe. I know remainers are a bit touchy about certain news sources so I'll include a range:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/economic-forecasts-incorrect-big-data-artificial-intelligence-andy-haldane-a7514726.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/01/05/dont-panic-credit-card-boom-says-bank-england-chief-economist/

... the Bank of England, along with other forecasters, was too gloomy when it came to predicting an economic crash immediately after the Brexit vote. “It is true, it is a fair cop, we had foreseen a sharper slowdown than has happened,” he acknowledged.

Even the FT put its hand up:
Bank of England’s Haldane admits crisis in economic forecasting

(NB: if you don't have an FT account, google the headline, click the link, answer the question to see the page)

Even Morgan Stanley admitted they got it wrong too:

Morgan Stanley is 'eating humble pie' over its post-Brexit economic forecasts

So the "experts" got it all wrong, just as I said they had back in September, but I give them credit for putting their hands up and admitting to this - although I won't hold my breath for entrenched remainers to do the same.

 

[CoolSceptic]

But I'm saving my favourite article for last, this one:

https://www.ft.com/content/646cf682-d9bc-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

A great introspective from someone who gets the mistakes made by those easily swayed by flawed predictions (my emphasis):

The truth is that our ability to forecast the future beyond the current quarter is limited. We certainly cannot forecast the economic impact of a complex political event, such as Brexit or the election of a new US president. Too many future unforeseen events will intrude.

Let's compare that to my statements back in September:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11477235&postcount=3392

Also, economic predictions should account for the limit of predictability (defined as the ability of a model to outperform a naive baseline - well understood amongst those who study econometrics). For macroeconomic predictions, that is no more than 3-6 months. Beyond that, economics models are worthless. You may as well believe tea leaves.

and this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11477249&postcount=3393

Of course, the definition of long and short is highly dependent on the system at hand, and I've already noted the horizon of predictability for economies as around 3-6 months.

A simple point that neither Archie nor CapelDodger understood, but at least the guys at the FT acknowledge it, albeit some four months after I made the same point. It takes the guys at the FT a while to catch up with my thinking, bless 'em.

 

[abaddon]

The UK already has control over non-EU immigration though it may choose not to exercise that control.

As a member of the EU under current EU rules, a country has no control at all over EU immigration.

That's the key difference and it's something that some other EU countries beside the UK wish to change.

But it always had. All of those bangladeshi's, indians, pakistanies and so forth will not go away. They have never been any part of the EU, they are a consequence of the british defunct empire. Nothing to do with the EU at all.

Why do you think it does? Why do you think it will stop? You will still have to deal with that.

 

[CapelDodger]

The EU is dogmatically wedded to their interpretation of free movement, and the inter-connectedness of the 4 freedoms.

Something the EU is not supposed to be is a highly developed core where all the high-productivity, high-wage jobs are reserved for core nationals, with a hinterland of low-productivity, low wage economies whose nationals do the cheap grunt-work. Freedom of movement is necessary to prevent it being that.

Opponents of the EU like to present it as being that (usually with Germany as the quasi-Imperial core) but it really isn't. Disparities in prosperity obviously exist between member states, for historical reasons, but the EU operates so as to reduce those disparities over time (or at least tries to).

It is the confluence of these, and a refusal to compromise on both sides that will give us a Hard Brexit.

Compromise on the interlocked freedoms by the EU would involve it becoming just what it doesn't want to be, and just what the hard Exit people would like it to be - a protected prosperous core, including Britain, serviced by low-wage satellite economies.

I'm not sure what polling has been done to confirm the role of immigration in the Brexit vote, but politicians (of all parties) seem to be agreed on its importance.

I don't doubt it, but then people who were against membership generally bought the whole package, £350m a week and all. Sovereignty. Taking Back Control. Project Fear - who remembers when having to leave the single market was something to fear and wouldn't happen because Project Fear? Now it transpires it's what they wanted all along, they just didn't want to confuse people by making the case for it during the campaign.

The next Act in this farce is May's big speech.

 

[CapelDodger]

A simple point that neither Archie nor CapelDodger understood, but at least the guys at the FT acknowledge it, albeit some four months after I made the same point. It takes the guys at the FT a while to catch up with my thinking, bless 'em.

Macroeconomics tells us that UK inflation is going to go up markedly and stay up for the next couple of years. What you're fixating on is weather : macroeconomics is more akin to climate.

 

[CapelDodger]

But it always had. All of those bangladeshi's, indians, pakistanies and so forth will not go away. They have never been any part of the EU, they are a consequence of the british defunct empire.

And a labour shortage.

Nothing to do with the EU at all.

Why do you think it does?

According to Trump it forced Britain to take "all those refugees".

Which reminds me of the Ugandan Asians who were so going to swamp our culture, which they did in the sense that shops appeared that opened outside working hours. It's been downhill ever since, obviously.

 

[Darat]

If May is shot of the "troublesome Scots" that strengthens the position from an English perspective. It also ensures a Conservative government for England in perpetuity.

I can see her allowing an independence referendum...

I can't.

 

[McHrozni]

The thing is, IMO Conservatives (and tbh the vast majority of politicians of whatever hue) don't care about the wellbeing of the country so much as:

• Their own immediate wellbeing and re-election
• Seeing their own political dogma being implemented

It's the same reason why Corbyn is pursuing his own course. He doesn't care about national wellbeing (if he did he'd be attempting to form a broad coalition of SNP, LibDem, Labour and Remain Tories to fight Brexit), instead he's choosing to live out his 6th form fantasies instead.

MPs don't care if the country takes a big hit and in the case of most Conservatives, anything with a blue rosette would win their constituency.

Yes, and herein lies the problem. A large majority of sitting MPs view their jobs as a way to earn easy money and to pursue their own ideology, not as what they're supposed to be: servicing the country to the best of their ability.

That said perhaps not all of them are like that. As I said earlier you don't need many - one in thirty should do.

Money plays a much smaller part in UK politics than it does in the US. For a start there are strict spending limits during elections, the party "machines" are much smaller and in any case the sums involved are orders of magnitude smaller.

A small number of pro-Brexit donors can provide plenty of finance in the short to medium term and that's all they need.

It's an incentive to turn away. No tool should be discarded simply because it looks as if it is too weak to be useful on the first glance.

Oh, for sure the legal angles to block and/or frustrate Brexit will, and should, be pursued but IMO it's almost certain that they will fail. The government will simply legislate around them and/or ignore them.

Theresa May will announce Hard Brexit tomorrow. I wouldn't be shocked if she triggers Article 50 to put the Remainers on the back foot.

Possibly. About the legislation however, the more they legislate around it the more chances there are that a few Tory MPs go rogue and dissent in favor of something more reasonable for UK. It also takes time and as I mentioned earlier, time is not on their side.

They can and will, and they don't care about the legitimacy of Brexit and more specifically Hard Brexit because it's irreversible and they have got their way.

Maybe, but the more lopsided their arguments become, the more they're forced to go against the well-being of the state and the more they have to stretch their resources the greater the chance of something breaking. It doesn't take too much, a court deciding that since membership in EEA is relevant to devolved powers, leaving it requires accent of all four parliaments could derail hard Brexit for at least a year.

It's an opportunity but it simply will not happen. The Conservative party will wrap themselves in the Union Jack and portray any pro-Remain vote as being unpatriotic. The English electorate are suckers for that kind of **** and will vote them in.

The SNP will likely do equally well as the last time in Scotland, but as a regional party they wield little power in the UK as a whole.

IMO Labour will be savaged at the next election because of their pathetic leadership and ambiguous policies. UKIP will win dozens of seats in Labour's Northern heartland from Labour and Labour will be as relevant politically in the second quarter of the 21st century as the Liberals were in the second quarter of the 20th.

The LibDems will do very well by their standards but still end up with fewer seats than the SNP.

Maybe. Then again, this is a situation that can easily change in three months. Labor has a major array of weapons to use, and if Tories really do push for UK becoming a tax heaven they will have to make severe cuts elsewhere. The vaunted NHS will have to go for sure, and I'm reasonably certain even Corbyn could effectively pounce on that. Hard Brexit plus Tory response to it looks so bad it's unreal, using it should be easy enough even for political imbeciles like him.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Your analysis is sound but I think it fails to take into account the following:

Right now as far as Conservative MPs are concerned, the opposition is largely irrelevant. If you are a sitting Conservative MP IMO your only barriers to re-election are:

- dropping dead (or being otherwise unavailable for election)
- being de-selected
- being ousted by UKIP

The last two can be avoided by being strongly pro-Brexit regardless of your own views on the subject. IMO the revolt will not happen

A fair number of Labour MPs are already, or will have to become pro-Brexit. UKIP has targeted the lumpen proletariat in the North and other traditional Labour areas as the next recipients of their mixture of jingoism and xenophobia. It's a heady mix and Trump has already demonstrated how effective it can be. Those Labour MPs will have to become pro-Brexit to keep their seats.

In any case, the government will ensure that there is as little opportunity to rebel. I think it's very unlikely that anything relating to Brexit will ever come close to having a vote. There may be a debate but no vote, and if there is a vote, IMO it will not be binding on the government (ironically).


I'd love there to be a united front against Brexit but the recent absence of contradictory noises from the Conservative Party means that they have clearly decided that continuing in government is more important that the good of the country (and who can blame them, it's a job after all)

Perhaps. Perhaps not. My point is that if you concede defeat before the contest even starts because it looks like the other guy (or gal in this case) has the upper hand, you are sure to lose. If you fight it you might still lose, but you could also win. A win in this case doesn't even need to be stopping Brexit. Keeping EEA membership is close enough, since any sensible UK government would reapply for membership within a decade. You'd have to say bye to the Pound and hi to Shengen probably, but that's the price of allowing stupid people to vote I'm afraid. We all pay it.

I suspect that Brexit and Trump were high points of the deplorable vote. They will regress towards the mean soon enough. They don't know what they voted for for the most part and most certainly won't get what they thought they were voting for. Fake patriotism can only work so far. The first test of how well it will work in UK is when triple lock is cancelled or changed in order to plug the budget hole created by Brexit. The elderly deplorables form the backbone of Brexit supporters, without their support Brexit lacks even plurality of votes.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Evidence of this?

She is dogmatically wedded to the idea of control over immigration. The EU is dogmatically wedded to their interpretation of free movement, and the inter-connectedness of the 4 freedoms. It is the confluence of these, and a refusal to compromise on both sides that will give us a Hard Brexit.

I'm not sure what polling has been done to confirm the role of immigration in the Brexit vote, but politicians (of all parties) seem to be agreed on its importance.

One issue is how much is control of immigration a real issue for political jackals and how much is it a tool to justify a hard Brexit, come hell or high water, or maybe it is just a negotiating (well, extortion) tactic of EU to allow for a better deal. The Don is convinced it is a tool to justify a hard Brexit, it does look that way, but I'm not convinced. It could be any of the three - a real concern, a tool or indeed just a negotiating tactic from a schoolyard.

I'm sure EU would accommodate British control over immigration while keeping the other three freedoms intact, if UK would compensate for it in a way that would make for a deal that would still be clearly worse for UK. I don't know how that could be accomplished, but it should be possible - maybe by significantly increasing UK contributions to the budget while slashing EU funds to UK. The deplorables would just love that I'm sure, but that's for Brexitards to explain to them.

McHrozni

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But I'm saving my favourite article for last, this one:

https://www.ft.com/content/646cf682-d9bc-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e

A great introspective from someone who gets the mistakes made by those easily swayed by flawed predictions (my emphasis):



Let's compare that to my statements back in September:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11477235&postcount=3392



and this one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11477249&postcount=3393



A simple point that neither Archie nor CapelDodger understood, but at least the guys at the FT acknowledge it, albeit some four months after I made the same point. It takes the guys at the FT a while to catch up with my thinking, bless 'em.

And of course there is no difference between the word 'limited' and 'worthless'. Time to take another break from the forum for you I think while you think up more ways to be wrong.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I'm sure EU would accommodate British control over immigration while keeping the other three freedoms intact,

McHrozni

Why are you sure on that? I'd like to think the EU has more sense.

 

[McHrozni]

Corbyn is advocating muddling through.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-better-off-out-of-eu-with-managed-migration

“Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle. But nor can we afford to lose full access to the European single market on which so many British businesses and jobs depend. Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations,” he will say.

“Labour supports fair rules and reasonably managed migration as part of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU.”

He also pounced on the lies spouted by the Leave campaign, such as financing for NHS:

“The British people voted to refinance the NHS, and we will deliver it.,” he will say. Sources would not say whether that would necessarily amount to a commitment of £350m a week.

The problem this referendum was that most of the pledges made were either flat-out lies (£350m a week) or significantly more complex than they were presented (four freedoms). It is obvious that any Brexit will have to break a vast majority of promises made to the electorate, simply because the campaign was so full of lies. This should also mean that a large proportion - likely a majority - of Leave voters will be disappointed over Brexit, simply because the Leavers promised them the impossible.

As far as his strategy goes it's not bad per se - criticize the government as reckless (English language doesn't have an adequate adjective here unfortunately, they're all understatements), try to fight for the economy, repeatedly call Brexiards out on their lies, demand the government deliver all the benefits of Brexit and demand they stop all the downsides, all the while not opposing Brexit on principle in order to be pleasing to deplorables.

Come to think of it, this could be how you win the deplorable vote and stop Brexit. It's basically the same tactic that brought us Brexit in the first place.

If they somehow get in power before Brexit is concluded - and this tactic plus stalling has a reasonable chance of working - all they need to do is to call a referendum which offers more options than just in/out, and go with the plurality of votes. Since about 45% (and possibly more) voters could be reasonably counted upon to vote Remain, and since Brexit vote would be split into three or so options, Remain would almost certainly win. You could also go for STV and it would be either Remain or Remain with EEA.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

I suspect that Brexit and Trump were high points of the deplorable vote. They will regress towards the mean soon enough. They don't know what they voted for for the most part and most certainly won't get what they thought they were voting for. Fake patriotism can only work so far. The first test of how well it will work in UK is when triple lock is cancelled or changed in order to plug the budget hole created by Brexit. The elderly deplorables form the backbone of Brexit supporters, without their support Brexit lacks even plurality of votes.

McHrozni

I hope you are right - I fear you are wrong.

I think you are fundamentally underestimating the British capacity for bloodymindedness. The worse Brexit becomes, the more firmly wedded large parts of British society will become to it - even if they didn't vote for it originally. In England in particular, wrapping herself in the Union Jack if everything is falling apart around her will absolutely protect May IMO.

The "triple lock" will also be the last thing to go even once the NHS has been largely defunded and non-working and disabled benefits have been gutted. IMO it'll be 20+ years before it's even reviewed, much less dismantled. By then it'll be far too late, we're already ******

 

[Aepervius]

Really? So you are OK with mysogynist suppression. really?

I have no idea how you conclude that from my post.

 

[McHrozni]

Why are you sure on that? I'd like to think the EU has more sense.

I'm sure EU would still accommodate this wish for, say, 10% of British GDP in contributions. It's a bad enough deal it wouldn't drastically affect the leave desire, and it would allow EU to solve it's problems.

Brits might even suffer less than in an all-out deal.

McHrozni

 

[Aepervius]

The UK already has control over non-EU immigration though it may choose not to exercise that control.

As a member of the EU under current EU rules, a country has no control at all over EU immigration.

That's the key difference and it's something that some other EU countries beside the UK wish to change.

It is hypocritical to ask control of EU immigration when you are not doing any control on the non EU immigration, no step to lower it. If you had taken step to that effect before it would be understandable. But you have not. Therefore it is not even a real economical matter, but rather only a psychological projection.

 

[McHrozni]

I hope you are right - I fear you are wrong.

I think you are fundamentally underestimating the British capacity for bloodymindedness. The worse Brexit becomes, the more firmly wedded large parts of British society will become to it - even if they didn't vote for it originally. In England in particular, wrapping herself in the Union Jack if everything is falling apart around her will absolutely protect May IMO.

Maybe. But the point is that if I'm wrong, there is nothing that can be done anyway. If I'm right however, it could well be Brexit or at least fallout from a hard Brexit can be prevented. If you just accept defeat immediately you stand no chance at winning at all.

That said, I am sure I'm right in my mini analysis about why people voted for Brexit. Most didn't know what they were voting for and most of those won't get what they thought they were voting for. This does leave Tories wide open for criticism and it can be used to threaten their seats.

The "triple lock" will also be the last thing to go even once the NHS has been largely defunded and non-working and disabled benefits have been gutted. IMO it'll be 20+ years before it's even reviewed, much less dismantled. By then it'll be far too late, we're already ******

Incidentally, how do you think voting public would react to cutting NHS funds and Labor making a big stink out of it? Something like this is almost certainly coming, and not even Corbyn would let that opportunity go.

McHrozni