Brexit: Now What? Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
McHrozni said:
In other words, she's a retard. Possibly, I wanted to know your views :)

Death penalty is what I call a petty issue. Having the death penalty doesn't significantly improve the country in any way, and not having it doesn't improve the country significantly. The greatest advantage of not having it is that court errors don't turn deadly. That is desirable, but if it's used rarely enough doesn't amount to significantly improving the country (life in prison for something you didn't do still destroys your life, it just doesn't end it).

It is however hugely controversial and it would require lots of energy to push through. This energy could be spent better in so many ways it's a real waste of reintroducing it. Abolishing it did improve the country somewhat and was far less inherently controversial, so it could be worth the effort. Reintroducing it is just not worth it unless there is a clear reason to do so - and there isn't one.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

That's your, and my, view.

Theresa May OTOH is a firm advocate of the death penalty and thinks it's important and effective (despite all evidence to the contrary)
 
The Don said:
That's your, and my, view.

Theresa May OTOH is a firm advocate of the death penalty and thinks it's important and effective (despite all evidence to the contrary)
Click to expand...

Well it can be hugely effective if it is carried out in the right way. Knowing you could be humanely put down instead of being incarcerated for life is a minor deterrent - and in fact I can imagine quite a few could actually prefer it that way.

Knowing you will be slowly tortured for half a day, then emasculated, eviscerated, quartered and put on display until your corpse skeletalizes and then turned into soap for your family is a much more effective deterrent.

That said, since the procedure that makes the death penalty an effective deterrent is illegal (for good reason too), there is little reason to keep the death penalty as well. The effort just isn't worth it.

McHrozni
 
Last edited:
Re: economists eating humble pie.
What got lost in all that nonsense was Carney pointing out that the actions of the BoE (cutting interest rates to 0.25% for example) had a direct effect on the economy, essentially delaying the shock. The result was some extra spending in the run up to Christmas, and the ability of traders to absorb some of the extra import costs.

That's all gone now, as we can see in the latest inflation figures, and their projection into the year. Be interesting to see what happens when the BoE is forced to increase rates to try and rein in inflation later in the year...especially with a shaky pound that drops every time May says something stupid.
 
Tolls said:
Re: economists eating humble pie.
What got lost in all that nonsense was Carney pointing out that the actions of the BoE (cutting interest rates to 0.25% for example) had a direct effect on the economy, essentially delaying the shock. The result was some extra spending in the run up to Christmas, and the ability of traders to absorb some of the extra import costs.

That's all gone now, as we can see in the latest inflation figures, and their projection into the year. Be interesting to see what happens when the BoE is forced to increase rates to try and rein in inflation later in the year...especially with a shaky pound that drops every time May says something stupid.
Click to expand...

Well in theory, a rise in UK interest rates should help to bolster the value of the pound and help to constrain inflation by both reducing available cash AND by making imports cheaper.


edited to add....

and it will actually benefit those who voted overwhelmingly in favour of Brexit - the old - because they tend to have savings rather than debts so will be better off thanks to higher interest rates :mad:
 
Last edited:
I'm tracking the SpeechTM on BBC, and it seems the Parliament will have a final say on the deal, if and when it is reached.

The obvious question is what happens if the Parliament then rejects the deal? It really seems like something that should be known before there is a chance of it happening. Westminster isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp body, what happens if it doesn't accept the deal?

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
I'm tracking the SpeechTM on BBC, and it seems the Parliament will have a final say on the deal, if and when it is reached.

The obvious question is what happens if the Parliament then rejects the deal? It really seems like something that should be known before there is a chance of it happening. Westminster isn't supposed to be a rubber stamp body, what happens if it doesn't accept the deal?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

I suppose it depends on how it's presented.

If it were me in May's shoes I'd go "all in" and make it a vote of confidence. Any Conservative waverers will be compelled to vote for it or lose the Conservative whip which means any revolt would be tiny and in any case lots of Labour MPs would support the Brexit motion in order to help fend of UKIP.

If it passes then she's got parliamentary support.

If it doesn't she's still a nailed on certainty to win the subsequent general election due to the complete disarray of the opposition under (Brexit supporter or at least Brexit agnostic) Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives will purge themselves of Europhillic candidates, wrap themselves in the flag and canter to victory IMO.

Whether she has the stones for such a move is a different matter.
 
Looks like the UK is out of the single market once we leave the EU :(


Hard Brexit all the way - as I predicted, and feared :(
 
Looks like Labour are rubber-stamping Brexit :(

Labour's Barry Gardiner says a speech is not enough and he expects the government to bring a white paper to the Commons for scrutiny.

The opposition reserves the right to try to amend it, he says, while not standing in the way of Brexit.
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
If it doesn't she's still a nailed on certainty to win the subsequent general election due to the complete disarray of the opposition under (Brexit supporter or at least Brexit agnostic) Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives will purge themselves of Europhillic candidates, wrap themselves in the flag and canter to victory IMO.
Click to expand...

That's assuming Labour doesn't fix itself in the next three years. It's a bit much to ask of them, don't you think?

McHrozni
 
Well here we are - economic "suicide" to appease racists and xenophobes

May: No membership of single market
Posted at
12:20
Theresa May says she wants a "bold and ambitious" trade arrangement with the EU but insists this cannot mean continued membership of the single market.

This would involve the UK accepting continued jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice - which would effectively "mean not leaving the EU at all".

This would be unacceptable and she says:

We do not seek membership of the single market but the greatest possible access to it."
She raises the possibility that the UK might make an "appropriate contribution" to retain access to the single market - an idea backed by some ministers.

But she says the days of the UK "paying vast sums of money to the EU every day" will soon be over
Click to expand...
 
McHrozni said:
They're trying to alter it to the best of their ability. That's the very opposite of rubber stamping it.

McHrozni
Click to expand...

They will table amendments - which will all fail - not least because a significant proportion of the Labour Party will vote against them.
 
Not leaving the common market would mean not leaving the EU according to Theresa. I didn't realize Norway was a member. Do Norwegians know?

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
That's assuming Labour doesn't fix itself in the next three years. It's a bit much to ask of them, don't you think?

McHrozni
Click to expand...

IMO Labour is as relevant now, as the Liberals became in the 1920s and 1930s. Still having a fair few seats but being completely shot as a political party capable of leading a government.

In 15 years time Labour will have fewer than 50 seats and fewer seats than the right wing populist party that will either be UKIP or evolve from it :(
 
I don't understand what happens if parliament rejects the negotiated deal - what's the alternative?

Would the EU be prepared to return to the situation that applied prior to the referendum?

What if the EU says, "Sorry - once article 50 was triggered there was no going back to how things were before" ?

Perhaps the rules don't allow the EU to do that?
 
The Don said:
IMO Labour is as relevant now, as the Liberals became in the 1920s and 1930s. Still having a fair few seats but being completely shot as a political party capable of leading a government.

In 15 years time Labour will have fewer than 50 seats and fewer seats than the right wing populist party that will either be UKIP or evolve from it :(
Click to expand...

Maybe, but this will mean some other party on the left will take its place. Labour may be weak, but people who disagree with the self-destructive path of the deplorables will continue to exist in great numbers and vote for whomever they think will be best suited to counter them,

The best cure for right-wing populism is that they win elections. They don't deliver and are voted out sooner rather than later. Left-wing populism is often more dangerous.

McHrozni
 
ceptimus said:
I don't understand what happens if parliament rejects the negotiated deal - what's the alternative?
Click to expand...

UK is booted out of EU and left to trade by WTO rules. Parliament vote is a red herring, there is no alternative once things come that far. It just serves to give a facade of due process to leaving EU. It basically reduces the role of the Parliament to rubber stamping.

I'd challenge that in court right away. There is no reason not to.

Would the EU be prepared to return to the situation that applied prior to the referendum?

What if the EU says, "Sorry - once article 50 was triggered there was no going back to how things were before" ?

Perhaps the rules don't allow the EU to do that?
Click to expand...

If EU is unanimous it can agree to extend the deadline for another deal to be struck. Seeing as Theresa wants a customs union, and seeing as those usually take much longer than 18 months to agree upon, it could be this will be necessary anyway.

That, or WTO rules. Any dissent from within the EU could do that.

McHrozni
 
ceptimus said:
I don't understand what happens if parliament rejects the negotiated deal - what's the alternative?

Would the EU be prepared to return to the situation that applied prior to the referendum?

What if the EU says, "Sorry - once article 50 was triggered there was no going back to how things were before" ?

Perhaps the rules don't allow the EU to do that?
Click to expand...
The bit in red should be carry on as were were before the referendum and since. Nothing has happened since the referendum. Sure the pound is down inflation is up but that is simply market reaction to the expectation of Brexit. Nothing so far has happens to the rights we have under the EU. We can still take the EU fast queue at airports,bring back all the french wine we can carry and trade without financial and administrative barriers.

The rules are silent on a withdrawal from a triggered article. I dare say something could be added very quickly allowing a change of mind.
 
Lothian said:
The rules are silent on a withdrawal from a triggered article. I dare say something could be added very quickly allowing a change of mind.
Click to expand...

Maybe, providing the EU is willing. But in the absence of such rules, May's offer of a vote to parliament to accept or reject the negotiated deal is worthless and mendacious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom