Brexit: Now What? Part III

[The Don]

Read this thread.

https://twitter.com/IanDunt/status/841942015482966021

Whilst it is gratifying to see Davis sweat, this is the idiot who will be leading the negotiations and parliament will have no say on the outcome

Until now I thought, that with all my negative sentiments and predictions, I was being pessimistic about Brexit, I now see that even I was being hopelessly optimistic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Whilst it is gratifying to see Davis sweat, this is the idiot who will be leading the negotiations and parliament will have no say on the outcome

Until now I thought, that with all my negative sentiments and predictions, I was being pessimistic about Brexit, I now see that even I was being hopelessly optimistic.

At least you will be able to say you were there when it all went down. Imagine when Davis comes back from Brussels with his signed agreement and waves it for the press. That's going to trump even Neville Chamberlain's piece of paper.

The lunatics are driving the bus and don't believe in steering wheels. Might as well buckle up and do your best to enjoy the ride.

 

[jimbob]

This was shared on my Facebook feed. I won't hotlink because I am not sure if that site allows, but it seems an accurate metaphor.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6kQig9XUAAT0zt.jpg

 

[Aepervius]

Still waiting to see any hint of a plan from the EU side.

And you still don't get it they do not have to announce one ? That is the UK brexiting EU. Not EU brexiting UK.

How about putting the horse before the cart ?

 

[McHrozni]

I was just about to post that link.

If Corbyn had been remotely competent, he'd have been all over this - even if only to get a better chance of having a United Soviet Socialist Kingdom as a consequence of Brexit.

If he was screaming about dangers of government incompetence, Labour would stand to obtain a decisive electoral advantage. The Traitor is destroying both his country and his party for the sake of ensuring UK leaves EU. The whole situation is bizarre to the point of absurd. I know I'm repeating myself, but I can understand throwing the country to the wolves for electoral gain. Mugabe, Chavez and other such paragons of good governance did that, and it worked too, they remained in power long after their policies have turned the country into a basket case.

Not Corbyn though. He threw the country to the wolves for no reason or benefit whatsoever. This is far worse than those two and their kin.

I'm slowly getting convinced Tories really did want to scuttle Brexit by sabotaging it from the inside and the tactic backfired because Labour turned out to be more incompetent than it was assumed to be.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

At least you will be able to say you were there when it all went down.

I must mention this to the next Hiroshima survivor I meet. I'm sure (s)he will be pleased with the logic.

McHrozni

 

[Garrison]

It looks like you agree with me that they don't have a plan.

And ignoring your attempt to twist logic into a pretzel, the EU doesn't need much of a plan, GB does. The EU will continue with its current trading relationship with the rest of the world, it's Britain that needs to negotiate new deals.

 

[Garrison]

I'm slowly getting convinced Tories really did want to scuttle Brexit by sabotaging it from the inside and the tactic backfired because Labour turned out to be more incompetent than it was assumed to be.
McHrozni

I pity the historian who has to figure out what side politicians were really on during the Brexit referendum.

 

[Architect]

There's a BA Baracus quote in there somewhere.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I pity the historian who has to figure out what side politicians were really on during the Brexit referendum.

Whichever side they thought would enhance their position at the time.

 

[McHrozni]

I pity the historian who has to figure out what side politicians were really on during the Brexit referendum.

With luck we might have that studied by psychiatrists once these people are institutionalized.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

Here is some vague optimism from FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/5b7690ce-0b08-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43

A sensible Brexit deal is "likely". This assuming Theresa May stops doing everything wrong for a change, of course. I wouldn't hold my breath on that. It also assumes British negotiators are up to the task and won't be swindled by the larger and more skilled body of European negotiators to accept deals that will benefit EU, first and foremost, while only limiting damage to UK.

There is talk about Britain pushing for an interim deal for ten years:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-go...terim-post-brexit-trade-deal-eu-report-2017-3

The problem with that is rather obvious, if Labour regain their senses, replace the Traitor with someone more competent (which shouldn't be hard, most farm animals fit that criteria) and push, they face two elections in the meantime. Between Labour, LibDems, UKIP and SNP, they could be on the hook for a few stinging electoral defeats.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Here is some vague optimism from FT:

https://www.ft.com/content/5b7690ce-0b08-11e7-ac5a-903b21361b43

A sensible Brexit deal is "likely". This assuming Theresa May stops doing everything wrong for a change, of course. I wouldn't hold my breath on that. It also assumes British negotiators are up to the task and won't be swindled by the larger and more skilled body of European negotiators to accept deals that will benefit EU, first and foremost, while only limiting damage to UK.

I take exception to the highlighted word. The UK negotiators could be comprehensively outmanoeuvred without them having been swindled.

As usual the article mentions parts of the economy which are prominent but marginal economically - in this case the car industry and its supply chain - and ignores the engine of the UK economy, the service sector. I fear that the UK negotiators will do the same, expend all their energy and goodwill getting "good" deals for farmers, fishermen, manufacturers and so on and ignoring the other 85% of the economy (which has accounted for 200% of the growth).

There is talk about Britain pushing for an interim deal for ten years:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-go...terim-post-brexit-trade-deal-eu-report-2017-3

The problem with that is rather obvious, if Labour regain their senses, replace the Traitor with someone more competent (which shouldn't be hard, most farm animals fit that criteria) and push, they face two elections in the meantime. Between Labour, LibDems, UKIP and SNP, they could be on the hook for a few stinging electoral defeats.

McHrozni

I don't see it myself, not least because of the number of opposition parties. From a Westminster perspective, the Conservatives are almost dead in Scotland. IMO their last MP represents a seat (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) which is as Scottish as Monmouthshire is Welsh and so there's no more damage the SNP can do to the Conservatives in Scotland. Maggie killed off their prospects there decades ago.

My concern is that unless the LibDems and Labour enter some kind of electoral pact (and they won't IMO) then they will just split the Remain and/or anti-Conservative vote.

No matter how much of a hash the Conservatives make out of Brexit, I can only see their majority increasing

 

[McHrozni]

I take exception to the highlighted word. The UK negotiators could be comprehensively outmanoeuvred without them having been swindled.

I was speaking from the perspective of an average Brexiteer

As usual the article mentions parts of the economy which are prominent but marginal economically - in this case the car industry and its supply chain - and ignores the engine of the UK economy, the service sector. I fear that the UK negotiators will do the same, expend all their energy and goodwill getting "good" deals for farmers, fishermen, manufacturers and so on and ignoring the other 85% of the economy (which has accounted for 200% of the growth).

Case in point, I think. Once this blindness starts to bite, the brave Brexiteers will point to the evil EU because it failed to do their heavy lifting and provide a deal that was good for UK.

My concern is that unless the LibDems and Labour enter some kind of electoral pact (and they won't IMO) then they will just split the Remain and/or anti-Conservative vote.

Ah yes, the evils of a FPTP system.

LibDems are aiming for pro-business Tories by the way. There is reason yet for optimism.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/8-reasons-conservative-party-of-business

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

Ah yes, the evils of a FPTP system.

LibDems are aiming for pro-business Tories by the way. There is reason yet for optimism.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/8-reasons-conservative-party-of-business

McHrozni

All good news but I think you're underestimating British electoral inertia. At the moment, the LibDems have 9 MPs. If they could double that to 18 at the next election then that would be a stunning gain - they'd need about 180 to compensate for Labour's losses and to deny the Conservatives a majority.

They must continue to do this kind of thing but I think it prudent to temper expectations.

 

[McHrozni]

All good news but I think you're underestimating British electoral inertia. At the moment, the LibDems have 9 MPs. If they could double that to 18 at the next election then that would be a stunning gain - they'd need about 180 to compensate for Labour's losses and to deny the Conservatives a majority.

They must continue to do this kind of thing but I think it prudent to temper expectations.

You have to look at it a bit wider than that.

If Labour grows something resembling an endoskeleton (spine is preferred, but I'd settle for two ribs and a patella) in the meantime, loss of pro-business Tory voters and donations from businesses could suffice to stage quite a few upsets. LibDems don't have to win for Tories to lose.

McHrozni

 

[The Don]

You have to look at it a bit wider than that.

If Labour grows something resembling an endoskeleton (spine is preferred, but I'd settle for two ribs and a patella) in the meantime, loss of pro-business Tory voters and donations from businesses could suffice to stage quite a few upsets. LibDems don't have to win for Tories to lose.

McHrozni

You may be right - I hope you are - but I'm cautious.

btw, money is much less of a factor in UK elections than it is in US elections. If a few business donors drop out it will make little or no difference to election prospects (though it may leave them having to plug a deficit in the years following the election).

 

[McHrozni]

btw, money is much less of a factor in UK elections than it is in US elections. If a few business donors drop out it will make little or no difference to election prospects (though it may leave them having to plug a deficit in the years following the election).

Brexit can become something that will haunt Tories for much, much longer than one or two election cycles. Look at LibDems, who are still paying for the sin of supporting a Tory government.

Multiply that by a quadrillion, and you begin to see the brinks of how what a drag Brexit could become for Tories (and Labour).

McHrozni

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Still waiting to see any hint of a plan from the EU side.

Are you trying to take the cake for pie in the sky modeling of current events? You'll need to do better; Trumpians are far in the lead on that score.

Speaking as a "Continental," I'd say the mood and objective on this side of the Channel has been clear for a long time. Out means out, not harshly, not with a kick in the rear, but out. What there is to negotiate is how to work out any issues arising from the separation, and close out the arrangement. After that, it's generic WTO rules. Moreover, thanks to Trump and Putin, the EU is recalling its role as a guarantor of freedom and security, and in no mood to make concessions that would harm its own cohesion and purpose.

The most worrisome part of comments like this from the Tories and their supporters is that the attitude - that everyone needs me more than I need them - clearly indicates a dreamy fascination with imagined glories and a misplaced sense of self. It is untethered wishful thinking. Fine when I do it D), not so good for the UK.

 

[Amazer]

Are you trying to take the cake for pie in the sky modeling of current events? You'll need to do better; Trumpians are far in the lead on that score.

Speaking as a "Continental," I'd say the mood and objective on this side of the Channel has been clear for a long time. Out means out, not harshly, not with a kick in the rear, but out. What there is to negotiate is how to work out any issues arising from the separation, and close out the arrangement. After that, it's generic WTO rules. Moreover, thanks to Trump and Putin, the EU is recalling its role as a guarantor of freedom and security, and in no mood to make concessions that would harm its own cohesion and purpose.

I agree with the highlighted part.... but disagree with the rest. The sense I get is that continental EU wants the UK to be clear on the kind of Brexit that it wants and first and foremost they want the process to get started. I don't get the sense that a hard Brexit is what is being pursued with much vigour.

The most worrisome part of comments like this from the Tories and their supporters is that the attitude - that everyone needs me more than I need them - clearly indicates a dreamy fascination with imagined glories and a misplaced sense of self. It is untethered wishful thinking. Fine when I do it D), not so good for the UK.

Indeed... and it's quite surprising that they expect everyone else to respond rationally to their irrational decision.