Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[11101]

What he's saying is largely incorrect though - austerity isn't the only approach to tackling debts and deficits. Plenty of economists have said so - the only reason the Tories pursued austerity was because the financial crisis gave them a convenient disguise for doing so. And the fact the party have went for Brexit so keenly shows they don't give a feck about good economic management of the country, it's always been an ideological desire for them to reduce the size of the state.

Because the financial crisis meant they had to. Increasing public spending during a recession is a quick way to economic ruin, especially after 10 prior years of increases.

When the Tories were voted in they took over economic commitments they couldn't get out of. You can't just cancel things like gilts and public contracts, some of which spiralled after the recession. When you're stuck with significant, increasing outgoings and declining GDP you have to aggressively cut the areas you can make cuts in until things come back under control.

 

[RedSky]

What he's saying is largely incorrect though.

It's only incorrect to people with an open mind.

 

[devilish]

No, its that the EU exports more to us than we do to them that's the nub of it. I doubt if either wants to get into a trade war or cutting noses off to spite face.

'Project fear' was always nonsense as was 'Cake and eat it', isn't it time we left these behind now surely!

I thought that the prosecco/German car industry BS will come out at one point.

This argument has 1 major flaw. For the UK to make Brexit work then it must sign multiple trade deals. There's no point leaving the EU only to keep its same standards and rules. Now that will require the UK to cut corners on standards else there's no way in hell a small market like the UK can ever sign better trade deals then the EU. So lets say that the UK buys 30% of its beef from Ireland. That beef is of the highest standard which means its very expensive compared to the hormone induced/maggot ridden 'food' bought from the US, which will flood the UK following a trade deal with the US. Thus the Irish farmers market share in the UK is set to shrink to the ridiculous irrespective whether the UK signs an FTA with the UK or not. As Brexiteer no 1 (and only?) economist Patrick Minford said the only way for Brexit to work would be to lower tariffs on everything which would concurrently end the manufacturing/farming industry in the UK. Using such logic then I can't see the Irish farmer succeeding in a market were even the locals will be failing using such same high standards.

Then there's the other two other main categories of things that the EU sells to the UK

a- perishable goods. Due to its geographical location the UK will have no choice but to buy them from the EU irrespective on whether they sign an FTA or not. That's not a problem for the EU which can ignore British produce and buy from somewhere else

b- high end products. Which strictly speaking isn't a real issue either. Those who can afford a Ferrari will still buy a Ferrari irrespective whether the UK decide to slap a 30% tariff on it or not

Thus such leverage is pretty much gone.

Lets go in the detail of what activating article 50 means. Article 50 focuses on the country's withdrawal from the EU. In simpler terms it gives the UK the opportunity to settle its bills and to give an indication of what sort of future relationship it wants with the EU. Due to the GFA such withdrawal not only goes into EU territory but also into international treaties as well. Both parts is a bone of contention with Brexiteers.

A- They weren't happy to settle the bills as that strips the UK from its main leverage
B- Because of the GFA they can't push for a no deal Brexit as that would require the UK to crush out on WTO rules which in turn would mean hard borders in Ireland.

Basically a no deal Brexit was off the table from the start simply. If the UK is stupid enough to agree to pay for its bills without getting anything in exchange (not even the time needed to negotiate other FTAs) ie satisfying Option A, it would still fail to fulfill B. The result to that would be that the UK would portray itself as an unreliable business partner who can change its mind on everything even on delicate international deals such as the GFA

The Brexiters tried to turn this huge disadvantage into an advantage by tying the withdrawal agreement to a half botched trade deal. That goes beyond the scope of Article 50 + it would risk breaching the EU's HUGE red line ie the integrity of the single market. Which leads to me asking you two questions. Have you ever wondered why the EU takes ages to sign an FTA and why it had turned bigger markets (ex the US) down? The answer to that is basically the same. The integrity of the single market represent the EU's biggest asset, something worth protecting far more then anything else. It means a huge and protectionist market were members (and a very short list of trusted and reliable friends) can sell their products freely while concurrently keeping other competitors at arm's length. Through the single market the EU controls who and how countries trade, it can ensure a level playing field between member countries while monitoring the standards of what comes into such market. A loophole in such system would risk upsetting the balance into the single market to the detriment of its members. For example imagine if the UK is allowed to repackage cheap hormone induced/maggot ridden/chlorinated 'food' and then sell it into the single market as beef. That has the potential to be far more damaging then losing the UK's market which is set to shrink for the reasons mentioned above + recession

There will be no trade wars because a market of 65m can never compete with that of an entire continent, especially since the former is set to become poorer + it depends on selling its goods/services to that continent far more then the EU depends on selling its good/services to that country. If the UK doesn't pay its 39b then that would give the EU the casus belli it needs to go tough on the UK. Meanwhile the UK inability to keep the terms of the GFA will give the message that the UK is an unreliable partner to deal with and a horrible neighbour

 

[NinjaFletch]

Ignoring a referendum where it was laid out in plain terms what voting out entailed (and all the scare mongering that came with it) and then demanding a second referendum before the results of the first one is even implemented or asking for a soft brexit which isn’t actually what leave was painted as (by both sides), is democratic I suppose?

You’re all asking for the far right to truly have cause to get behind by literally wanting to overturn the results of the referendum.

Oh, so you got a different ballot paper to the rest of us then?

 

[Brwned]

Ignoring a referendum where it was laid out in plain terms what voting out entailed (and all the scare mongering that came with it) and then demanding a second referendum before the results of the first one is even implemented or asking for a soft brexit which isn’t actually what leave was painted as (by both sides), is democratic I suppose?

You’re all asking for the far right to truly have cause to get behind by literally wanting to overturn the results of the referendum.

You don't need to listen to a lot of people to know that they didn't really know what Brexit entailed, what the consequences could be, or why it matters. Lots of people voted because it was just one of those things you were supposed to vote on, and they read some stories about it in the paper. Many of them, like that lady, were just as ambivalent at the time of voting as they are now.

That's not to say that a second referendum would solve that problem, or wouldn't have adverse effects. But it's totally ridiculous to suggest that people who voted for this expected anything like what they've seen since. It was not an informed choice and it's intellectually dishonest to suggest it was. That's true on both sides, too. People on the remain side elected themselves the educated choice, the people who didn't fall for the scare mongering, but many people voted to stay because "better the devil you know".

I didn't vote (sacrilege!) because I did not find the terms of the vote to be plain at all. The conditions were not there for an informed decision on a choice of such magnitude. We're undoubtedly in a better place on that front now, and there's every reason to expect that would allow people to make a better decision. Outright ruling that out on the false notion that holding multiple referendums on the same issue is unacceptable, when this was in fact the 2nd referendum on essentially the same issue, is at best misguided and in many cases much worse than that.

 

[Dante]

Ignoring a referendum where it was laid out in plain terms what voting out entailed (and all the scare mongering that came with it) and then demanding a second referendum before the results of the first one is even implemented or asking for a soft brexit which isn’t actually what leave was painted as (by both sides), is democratic I suppose?

You’re all asking for the far right to truly have cause to get behind by literally wanting to overturn the results of the referendum.

The Referdum wasn't ignored. It was followed through upon with numerous negotiations and votes in Parliament.

At risk of repeating myself, Democracy isn't a 'set it and forget it' process. It's a constant set of course corrections. If an elected official does a bad job, they're voted out. If they do a good job, they're kept in. If they lie, cheat, steal, act honourably, dishonourably, etc. the people have the option to register their opinions at regular intervals.

We've had 56 General Elections since the 1800s. There's a reason it wasn't just 1.

Brexit was a chance for the electorate to tell the powers-that-be the direction in which they'd like the ship to be steered. But that direction was set against a backdrop of lies and mistruths.

In any kind of proper Democratic system, we'd be allowed to change course. Instead, we're sailing in slow-motion into the rocks. Everybody knows it. Everybody sees it. Everybody knows how to stop it. But they won't out of stubborness for an idea that is the exact of opposite of the Democracy that is supposedly being protected.

If there was a General Election tomorrow, I'd vote out May for her incompetence because I think she's bad for the country and has proven to be so over the course of time. As a citizen of a first world country, I'd like the same option on Brexit in light of what's come to transpire since 2016. If you're going to have a vote to kick the process off, you should then also have equally significant votes at important junctures. Or else not have any votes on that particular matter at all.

A single vote was the worst of all worlds because it leaves the British people with no recourse to political mismanagement and dishonesty.

 

[Stanley Road]

Increasing public spending during a recession is a quick way to economic ruin

That all depends on who's economic model you follow, Paul Krugman would disagree with you but what does he know?

 

[Stanley Road]

We've had 56 General Elections since the 1800s. There's a reason it wasn't just 1

So a referendum every 5 years is the way to go?

 

[Dante]

So a referendum every 5 years is the way to go?

If you're going to quote the post, try reading the whole thing.

 

[Stanley Road]

I did

 

[Dante]

I did

To be fair, your posts are generally so shit I'm struggling to get to the end of this one.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

The Referdum wasn't ignored. It was followed through upon with numerous negotiations and votes in Parliament.

At risk of repeating myself, Democracy isn't a 'set it and forget it' process. It's a constant set of course corrections. If an elected official does a bad job, they're voted out. If they do a good job, they're kept in. If they lie, cheat, steal, act honourably, dishonourably, etc. the people have the option to register their opinions at regular intervals.

We've had 56 General Elections since the 1800s. There's a reason it wasn't just 1.

Brexit was a chance for the electorate to tell the powers-that-be the direction in which they'd like the ship to be steered. But that direction was set against a backdrop of lies and mistruths.

In any kind of proper Democratic system, we'd be allowed to change course. Instead, we're sailing in slow-motion into the rocks. Everybody knows it. Everybody sees it. Everybody knows how to stop it. But they won't out of stubborness for an idea that is the exact of opposite of the Democracy that is supposedly being protected.

If there was a General Election tomorrow, I'd vote out May for her incompetence because I think she's bad for the country and has proven to be so over the course of time. As a citizen of a first world country, I'd like the same option on Brexit in light of what's come to transpire since 2016. If you're going to have a vote to kick the process off, you should then also have equally significant votes at important junctures. Or else not have any votes on that particular matter at all.

A single vote was the worst of all worlds because it leaves the British people with no recourse to political mismanagement and dishonesty.

I don't disagree with you entirely but we had a vote to kick this whole thing off in the 70's. Then we didn't bother with any more votes for forty years despite huge changes in the organisation we joined. Now the vote went the other way so we have to revote over and over every two to three years, you have to admit that seems a bit one sided doesn't it?

 

[afrocentricity]

I did

Makes your response even more nonsensical then. Lost count the amount of times this has been posted and debunked

... seems a bit one sided doesn't it?

Don't recall anyone stating that upon having another referendum there can't be anymore? The only arguement I see is that there is more information around regarding the potential outcome of what we are about to do, and generally people are now informed, so maybe... just maybe... It might be a good idea to confirm whether or not we want to go ahead and jump?

If after the fact things drastically change and Leave want to try and get another referendum of the ground they can go for it. They said they would anyway didn't they?

 

[Cheesy]

I don't disagree with you entirely but we had a vote to kick this whole thing off in the 70's. Then we didn't bother with any more votes for forty years despite huge changes in the organisation we joined. Now the vote went the other way so we have to revote over and over every two to three years, you have to admit that seems a bit one sided doesn't it?

I mean, you only vote on something again if it's deemed as being worthy of a vote. For the most part people largely seemed fine with the EU, and the % when we joined who approved of it was much larger than the % who voted to leave in 2016. It was seen as a fairly comprehensive and resounding vote - 2016 was the opposite in that regard. Throughout the 90s and 2000s both major parties were generally led either by people who were highly approving of the EU, or who didn't oppose membership. It wasn't until after 2010 that UKIP started gaining a lot more traction.

 

[roseguy64]

 

[horsechoker]

Meeting at Chequers with Brexiteers, this can't be good.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

I don't disagree with you entirely but we had a vote to kick this whole thing off in the 70's. Then we didn't bother with any more votes for forty years despite huge changes in the organisation we joined. Now the vote went the other way so we have to revote over and over every two to three years, you have to admit that seems a bit one sided doesn't it?

And what principle are we preserving by not voting again on the final decision? It's not keep repeating until you get the result you want, it's ratifying a decision of staggering importance once it is better understood. It's about being adults.
If the concept of sovereignty, keeping people of other nationalities out of Britain and concerns about worker's rights/ federalism (which will of course be much better and the Tory fiefdom of the UK) are still of critical importance over the now clear cost of leaving, the people will have democratically ratified the decision. It's quite an important decision I'd say and worth being sure about. What is there to fear other than democracy?

 

[11101]

That all depends on who's economic model you follow, Paul Krugman would disagree with you but what does he know?

An academic who never has to put their ideas into practice? I'm more interested in what those who have actually done it have to say.

Expansionary economics does work to combat recession but only when done correctly. The UK was never in a position to do that as a mid sized economy in a massive global recession, and besides, austerity worked. The UK economy grew beyond expectation and the deficit reduced. It should have ended years ago though.

 

[Pexbo]

Meeting at Chequers with Brexiteers, this can't be good.

She will listen to the dozens of Brexiteers in parliament while she ignores the literal millions of marchers and petition signatories.

It’s fecking infuriating.

 

[Rado_N]

Remember that one coach though, there were no young people there.

 

[Sweet Square]

An academic who never has to put their ideas into practice? I'm more interested in what those who have actually done it have to say.

Expansionary economics does work to combat recession but only when done correctly. The UK was never in a position to do that as a mid sized economy in a massive global recession, and besides, austerity worked. The UK economy grew beyond expectation and the deficit reduced. It should have ended years ago though.

You know this is the brexit thread.

 

[stevoc]

That is my whole point, it was blinding obvious from the start that there never could be a 'good deal' because; a) that would have laid the EU open to a number of other requests to leave the club from others; b) A point well made by the EU and others, was that you can't have the same situation outside the club as being a member.

I get that but hypothetically what in your opinion would have been a good deal?

Hence the UK Government should, if it wanted to honour the results of the referendum, have given notice via A50 that it was leaving and spent the next 2 years making contingency plans for a 'No deal' scenario in the UK. There was IMO never any prospect of a 'good deal,' the withdrawal agreement favours only the EU (naturally), because they always insisted they couldn't discuss trade until we left the EU, so the priority for us was to leave, then see what terms for trade we could get, balancing the needs of our exporters, with those who import from the EU, as we will finish up having to do, if we leave (deal or no deal).

When you think about what you're suggesting objectively mate does it really make any sense?

Not even the most prominent Brexiters were championing leaving with No deal. It wasn't even mentioned in the lead up to the Referendum, and only really popped into the public consciousness when May idiotically said ''No deal is better than a bad deal''.

The EU has been and likely will continue to be the UK largest trading partner for the foreseeable future. The UK and EU will always have to have a relationship of some sort. The UK has also became deeply integrated with the EU over the past half century so it's only common sense that leaving couldn't and shouldn't happen overnight.

Thats where the Withdrawal Agreement ''The Deal'' comes in, it basically maintains the status quo while the UK/EU discuss, negotiate and agree a trade deal and figuring out their future relationship. This would ensure leaving the EU would run as smoothly as possible and the impact to UK business and Jobs etc. would be managed to an extent. But No Deal is the absolute antithesis of that common sense approach. And thats before we even get into the Good Friday Agreement, No Deal if it doesn't lead to the GFA being torn up right away it will certainly undermine it and risk the delicate peace in Ireland.

So taking that into consideration why exactly would the British Government have decided from the get go that they weren't even going to try to negotiate an amicable arrangement that would minimize disruption during the transition period right after leaving the EU. And just opt for a course of action that would probably also break or jeopardize an International peace treaty they are sworn to uphold and potentially destabilize an area enjoying its longest period of relative peace in a century?

 

[GloryHunter07]

Because the financial crisis meant they had to. Increasing public spending during a recession is a quick way to economic ruin

Sorry thats just not right.

 

[Cheesy]

An academic who never has to put their ideas into practice? I'm more interested in what those who have actually done it have to say.

Expansionary economics does work to combat recession but only when done correctly. The UK was never in a position to do that as a mid sized economy in a massive global recession, and besides, austerity worked. The UK economy grew beyond expectation and the deficit reduced. It should have ended years ago though.

While harming lots of ordinary people in the process. A growing economy is, of course, an ideal situation for any country to be in, but the problem is that lots of people who aren't particularly well off haven't seen the benefits of said growth, even though they had to endure the hardships of austerity. All the while those who were actually responsible for the crash in the first place have, if anything, actually benefited from the whole process.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

I mean, you only vote on something again if it's deemed as being worthy of a vote. For the most part people largely seemed fine with the EU, and the % when we joined who approved of it was much larger than the % who voted to leave in 2016. It was seen as a fairly comprehensive and resounding vote - 2016 was the opposite in that regard. Throughout the 90s and 2000s both major parties were generally led either by people who were highly approving of the EU, or who didn't oppose membership. It wasn't until after 2010 that UKIP started gaining a lot more traction.

But there were significant changes to the common market over the years and following the logic of the post, that should have resulted in re voting. or we only re vote if the vote is leave/ no?

 

[Sweet Square]

Even as someone who thinks Brexit is incredibly fecking stupid, I don't think a lot of the PV types do themselves any favours.

 

[Cheesy]

But there were significant changes to the common market over the years and following the logic of the post, that should have resulted in re voting. or we only re vote if the vote is leave/ no?

As EU members we were involved in plenty of those changes and yet in spite of that the electorate continued to vote for parties that were branding themselves as being primarily pro-EU. For the most part people were just sort of disinterested in Europe in general, I'd say, and it wasn't until the 2000s that started to change. Naturally a government aren't going to have a referendum on an issue if it's fairly obvious the public approve said move. That's why we have parliamentary democracy.

 

[Cheesy]

Beyond parody.

 

[Smores]

Even the IMF have debunked our austerity push and we still have people in here claiming people just don't understand the Tory logic

 

[11101]

Sorry thats just not right.

See my next post after that. In a country like the UK, with a global recession it is. We didn't have the means to spend our way out of something so massive. There's a reason why the US and EU spend their way out whilst individual European countries make cuts.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Just in the last few years we’ve seen the run on northern rock and how fecking close the system came to collapsing, we’ve seen the incompetence over Iraq and we have seen what happened to Greece. The govt lacks the competence and foresight to navigate safe passage thru brexit. I don’t trust them to get this right.

Brexit has focussed people's attention on MPs competence abilities more than ever before and it is rather worrying that people of such limited ability are running the country.
I haven't actually seen any of them, on all sides of parliament, really talk sensibly about how to deal with the consequences.

 

[11101]

While harming lots of ordinary people in the process. A growing economy is, of course, an ideal situation for any country to be in, but the problem is that lots of people who aren't particularly well off haven't seen the benefits of said growth, even though they had to endure the hardships of austerity. All the while those who were actually responsible for the crash in the first place have, if anything, actually benefited from the whole process.

Like i say, austerity should have ended years ago. It worked to pull the economy out of recession and restart growth but that was a long time ago now.

 

[Sassy Colin]

No point preaching to the converted either! So better to have a tough conversation and open someone's mind.

All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?

 

[NinjaFletch]

All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?

ha

hahaha

 

[Ramshock]

Is this the most signed up to online petition ever?

 

[Fingeredmouse]

Is this the most signed up to online petition ever?

The one calling for a second referendum created by a leaver expecting to lose pre ref 1 had 7million+ I think. The speed of this one though is incredible...running at a million a day.

 

[NinjaFletch]

The one calling for a second referendum created by a leaver expecting to lose pre ref 1 had 7million+ I think. The speed of this one though is incredible...running at a million a day.

Nah, it had just over 4m.

 

[Fluctuation0161]

All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?

Jeez. Do people actually think zero hour contracts work? Keep drinking that kool aid. I guess you've never been on a zero hour contract?

 

[NinjaFletch]

Jeez. Do people actually think zero hour contracts work? Keep drinking that kool aid. I guess you've never been on a zero hour contract?

It's ridiculous how much confidence Colin has in being completely and utterly wrong there.

 

[Don't Kill Bill]

And what principle are we preserving by not voting again on the final decision? It's not keep repeating until you get the result you want, it's ratifying a decision of staggering importance once it is better understood. It's about being adults.
If the concept of sovereignty, keeping people of other nationalities out of Britain and concerns about worker's rights/ federalism (which will of course be much better and the Tory fiefdom of the UK) are still of critical importance over the now clear cost of leaving, the people will have democratically ratified the decision. It's quite an important decision I'd say and worth being sure about. What is there to fear other than democracy?

Governability.

What is the question going to be and who decides it because we know the result will be determined by those as much as by the issue itself?

Deal or Cancel. No deal or deal. Leave or stay.

How often are we going to have these votes and who decides that ?

Are we just voting on Europe or do we broaden to other staggeringly important issues like taxation, foreign policy, bringing back hanging? If its just for EU membership on what basis in principle do you cut out the other issues?

Lets say we vote and take the deal what next, do we get another vote on each part of the trade negotiations with the EU that will follow or are we voting every bit as blind about the eventual outcome of the deal as we were on voting leave?

What if the public vote for contradicting premises or switch every other vote?



So quite a bit to fear other than democracy and when you think about it, wasn't it the fascists who liked peoples votes on issues they could frame and manipulate as a tool for autocracy hidden as direct democracy?