• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Whats the relevance of any of this?

In thirty years??? Is that your timeframe for success? Christ most of us will be dead by then. Certainly a huge chunk of leave campaigners will be.
Click to expand...

He was probably responding to some statement that most economist were for remain. I am guessing. Naturally this reek as using the same tactic as denialist telling that a few scientist do not believe in global warming and citing a list. Naturally one could point out that those persons he cited voted leave, but did not necessarily make a study of the effect of leave... If they did they did not release it for their peers to check their assumption.

Or maybe I am talking **** and he cited those for another reason.
 
Airfix said:
Economist Ruth Lea voted leave.
Patrick Minford, (he was advisor to Margaret Thatcher), voted leave.
Norman Lamont & Nigel Lawson, both former Chancellor's of the Exchequer, voted leave.
The head of Tate and Lyle voted leave.
JCB Chairman Lord Bamford voted leave.
Lord Owen, former foreign secretary and leading light of the 1975 EEC remain campaign, voted leave.
Click to expand...

And ?

The vast majority of people in the categories mentioned in your list, economists, politicians, industrialists and business leaders were recommending Remain.

In particular people like Lord Bamford (and James Dyson) have a lot to gain from leaving the EU because of where their manufacturing is based.
 
Airfix said:
And he was right, there was a short term risk. But in the long term, as Mervyn King has said, the economic risks were exaggerated by the remain camp. In 20 or 30 years, we'll look back and wonder what all the fuss was about.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...brexit-is-being-exaggerated-says-former-bank/

And crucially, the future of a federal project has been put into question.
Click to expand...

If true, Brexit has done tremendous damage to the continent, far in excess any elusive economic beenfits it might bring to the UK.

That aside, UK had an opt-out of the federal project, and wasn't 'threatned' by it.

I hope in the longer term, the federalised single market is replaced by a much looser collaboration of democracies with free trade agreements.
Click to expand...

Why?

McHrozni
 
We have to recognise that nothing has happened so far, the new departments don't have staff and are fighting various turf wars. The mapping exercise by civil servants of the laws that will need reformed is not complete and could take another 3-4 months, the question re the royal prerogative or Parliament has not yet been settled in court and above all the policy direction to be taken before Article 50 is put down is still unplanned.
It will be more interesting once actions start to be taken to see what the effect is on the economy particularly as the negotiations on the financial passporting in the City start. Add to that negotiations on not just free movement or not into the UK but an agreement to cover the status of almost 2 million Brits in Europe.
All of this is going to take a fair amount of time. Even joining the WTO ( if that is the route) is not done in a few months. There are issues there not just of trade but of Intellectual Property and ensuring that no deal is discriminatory to be taken into account. An example of this is India's WTOs Trade Facilitation Agreement which has taken 3 years just to get ratified and has still to be passed by two thirds of the WTO membership.
Every single thing in the next few years will have a potential effect on the city and the cost of just manning the trade deal negotiations and law repeal may cause a massive increase in the PSBR. We could easily end up with a Conservative Government increasing Public Sector spending for a minimum of 10 years which is certainly not in the Manifesto that had them voted into Parliament. I wonder how the City and the tax payer will react to that?
 
Last edited:
Now the "silly season" is coming to a close, the government are sitting down to work out what Brexit means:

Theresa May is to chair a meeting of her cabinet at Chequers to discuss the UK's approach to leaving the EU and its objectives in future negotiations.

The prime minister and senior ministers are gathering to debate the way forward amid reports of tensions and diverging priorities among key figures.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37219143

One piece of "good news" for those worried about the EU's democratic deficit, there will definitely be a lack of democracy as regards the post-Brexit situation:

Downing Street has also confirmed that Mrs May will not hold a second referendum or an early general election to give voters the chance to sign off on any deal struck between the UK and the EU.
Click to expand...

No-one got to pick Theresa May as prime minister, not even the 100,000 or so Conservative Party members. There will be no opportunity for the electorate to express an opinion about the post-Brexit position, either directly through a referendum or indirectly through a general election.
 
Last edited:
The Don said:
Now the "silly season" is coming to a close, it looks like the government is starting the process of trying to work out what Brexit actually means:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37219143
Click to expand...

They're starting this debate only one year before a reasonable voter would expect them to present the final results. Does that count as improvement for Brexit camp?

Given the urgency of the matter I recommend they resolve the key issues on remaining in the common market and immigration through a televised trial by combat. May the odds be always in their favor.

McHrozni
 
The Don said:
There will be no opportunity for the electorate to express an opinion about the post-Brexit position, either directly through a referendum or indirectly through a general election.
Click to expand...

Hasn't she also said that it won't be put to MPs for a vote either?
Or was that just whether to invoke Article 50?
 
The Don said:
She's on record saying that MPs will not be given a vote before initiating the process.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...gger-brexit-negotiations-without-commons-vot/
Click to expand...

Realistically ... it looks like a remain strategy. What better way to sabotage Brexit and pave the way for an early election than to have the Supreme court strike invoking article 50 down as unconstitutional (-equivalent) is there? At a minimum that could be used to trigger an election, or at least stall the decision until the elections.

Either that, or she is smoking some really high quality stuff.

McHrozni
 
Captain_Swoop said:
How would thry show that Article 50 was ' unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

Invoking the article without a vote in the House of Commons could very well be. It's not at all clear. Proceeding without a vote, and based solely on a result of a very close referendum, seems like a good way to sabotage the process and a very bad way to get UK out of EU.

Either Theresa is smart and is sabotaging Brexit from the inside, or she's the stupidest person to lead England or UK in ... huh ... centuries, certainly.

McHrozni
 
Gus O'Donnell had an interesting programme this morning from 11:0 to 11:30 on BBC

Radio 4.
 
McHrozni said:
... Either Theresa is smart and is sabotaging Brexit from the inside, or she's the stupidest person to lead England or UK in ... huh ... centuries, certainly.
Click to expand...
I don't see conspiracy or idiocy as the only two possibilities. I think political calculation is more probable. May is very much a right winger. To win the next election she needs the support of right wing voters and doesn't want to offend the Brexiteers more than she has to. So she is placating them as far as she can without incurring the active hostility of the centre right Tory establishment.

I don't imagine she has much love for the EU, and will support whatever policy towards it - for or against - that appears expedient at any particular time.
 
Craig B said:
I don't see conspiracy or idiocy as the only two possibilities. I think political calculation is more probable. May is very much a right winger. To win the next election she needs the support of right wing voters and doesn't want to offend the Brexiteers more than she has to. So she is placating them as far as she can without incurring the active hostility of the centre right Tory establishment.

I don't imagine she has much love for the EU, and will support whatever policy towards it - for or against - that appears expedient at any particular time.
Click to expand...

This is basically the same thing I said, but worded differently :)

It's clear that exiting the EU will have negative consequences for the UK, for a multitude of reasons. This means that reasonably soon supporting EU membership will become expedient. She's setting her cards for that eventuality rather well - appointing incompetent political animals to handle Brexit, giving them individual turfs ensures their progress will be even more impaired, invoking Brexit in an improper way to make it seem as if she is following the referendum but leaving a gaping legal hole that could easily be used to stall the progress if not stopping it outright ... none of these are actions of a literate, semi-competent politician that actually wants to further the agenda of Brexit.

McHrozni
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom