Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Mb194dc]

I doubt that simply due to the fact we'd have to take euro on which would be a massive no from pretty much everyone in the country.

We all know they'd give us an exception again, what the EU really want is to make sure we're still in there economic sphere for trade, and don't go elsewhere, if / when we wanted to rejoin I'm certain they would facilitate it and bend the rules as required if they thought it was keeping us locked in.

Just as we saw with everyone going on about 29th being the "deadline", then suddenly it gets extended. I hadn't even realised that was possible, and indeed now it seems with a PM who doesn't want no deal, I now find it pretty hard to see how it that just won't keep happening.

 

[711]

We all know they'd give us an exception again, what the EU really want is to make sure we're still in there economic sphere for trade, and don't go elsewhere, if / when we wanted to rejoin I'm certain they would facilitate it and bend the rules as required if they thought it was keeping us locked in.

Just as we saw with everyone going on about 29th being the "deadline", then suddenly it gets extended. I hadn't even realised that was possible, and indeed now it seems with a PM who doesn't want no deal, I now find it pretty hard to see how it that just won't keep happening.

Who are 'we all'? Not me for one.

 

[Siorac]

I doubt that simply due to the fact we'd have to take euro on which would be a massive no from pretty much everyone in the country.

I don't really get this, though I read it often. The Eurozone has 19 members out of 28 (18 out of 27 once the UK is out). Sweden and Denmark, for example, simply don't want it.

 

[Wibble]

As I've said before , when I voted in 1975 I didn't vote to stay so that British Leyland could sell its cars more easily to France. Freedom of movement, working and living in Europe and closer cultural unity and peace were the main reasons.
The same debates were on TV then with as you say Benn plus Barbara Castle, Michael Foot and others against the EEC/EU. But people are no more informed now than they were then , that is patently obvious.

The UK have not or never would have joined the Euro, they've opted out of all sorts of things, they get rebates.
Furthermore they can leave when they like - but they don't seem to like the consequences of leaving.
The benefits far outweigh any negativity.

Unfortunately they will only realise the benefits when it is too late.

I was a bit too young to vote but my folks, who both voted Tory, felt the same.

 

[Buster15]

Yet Australia did just or rather managed to.avoud recession with big public spending.

As did Canada.

 

[JPRouve]

I don't really get this, though I read it often. The Eurozone has 19 members out of 28 (18 out of 27 once the UK is out). Sweden and Denmark, for example, simply don't want it.

Current members have opt outs on all treaties that's why not everyone is in everything but future members are supposed to take the EU has a package, that's the default position. Now in practice and based on the TEU, every candidature is subject to a deal with current members and I'm not sure if there are actual limits to the content of that deal.

 

[Ecstatic]

Ugh, what you quoted is a 3-year EUR 2,5m (so nothing) research project aimed at tackling "emerging trends such as nationalism, regionalism and protectionism", if you believe that this serves you as a proof that the EU is "a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries" then I have little words.

You'll find similar research projects funded by various governments all around the world, not only among EU member states, also aimed at tackling nationalism, regionalism, protectionism or so. And I'm not sure you'd say they want to destroy sovereign countries

There is nothing controversial in my post.

The ultimate goal of the European project is to create the United States of Europe but with more powers attributed to the Federal Government.

 

[JPRouve]

There is nothing controversial in my post.

The ultimate goal of the European project is to create the United States of Europe but with more powers attributed to the Federal Government.

That's not exactly true for two reasons. First where the EU goes is totally reliant on what member states want, there is no actual ultimate goal other than being ever closer. Secondly mentioning a constitutional format is strange because of the first point, since you don't know how close member states will want to be in the future.

 

[Red Star One]

There is nothing controversial in my post.

The ultimate goal of the European project is to create the United States of Europe but with more powers attributed to the Federal Government.

Never said it's controversial, I merely pointed out that what you think proves that the EU is "a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries" is a very small scale, minor research scheme, which has completely nothing to do with "the ultimate goal of the European project".

Not even that I'm against the "creation of the United States of Europe", but to talk about it as if it indeed was a vocally presented, dominant idea among European leaders is a strong exaggeration too. You won't find that many federalists in the meetings of the European Council, trust me on that.

 

[JPRouve]

Never said it's controversial, I merely pointed out that what you think proves that the EU is "a project whose ultimate goal is to destroy sovereign countries" is a very small scale, minor research scheme, which has completely nothing to do with "the ultimate goal of the European project".

Not even that I'm against the "creation of the United States of Europe", but to talk about it as if it indeed was a vocally presented, dominant idea among European leaders is a strong exaggeration too. You won't find that many federalists in the meetings of the European Council, trust me on that.

Exactly, federalists exist but they are not dominant. Most leaders and politicians have absolutely no intention to share their local and national powers.

 

[Adisa]

In other news, 1 + 1 = 2

 

[horsechoker]

In other news, 1 + 1 = 2

To paraphrase him "a trade deal with the EU will be the easiest in history"

 

[Pexbo]

In other news, 1 + 1 = 2

Yeah but we’ve taken something back haven’t we?

They will no longer be able to look after our human rights for a start, that’ll show em!

 

[villain]

Thoughts?

 

[MadMike]

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

Yet Australia did just or rather managed to.avoud recession with big public spending.

As did Canada.

Massive oversimplification, guys. I haven't read about Canada, but Australia is not a good analogy. It had a healthier economy to start off with and a milder storm to weather.

Australia in 2008 (pre-Crisis) was debt-free and running surplus budgets on the back of the mining boom, so it was in a far better situation than pretty much all western economies. It was at record low unemployment going into it. On top of it, its financial sector had only an indirect exposure to the crisis. Its banks weren't directly involved in the underwriting of large volumes of US mortgage-backed securities, which went bust, unlike US and major European banks. So they didn't need large injections of cash to stay afloat, they simply shrunk. Therefore Aus could use the stimulus packages to help the general economy instead of just propping up banks.

Generally speaking, it's easier to "spend your way into growth" when you start off a healthy base. I don't think for example Greece and Italy who had debts over 100% of GDP and running budget deficits over 5% of GDP going into the recession, could spend their way out of trouble. No one would lend them for that to start off with.

 

[711]

As did Canada.

Is it a coincidence both Australia and Canada benefited particularly from the commodities boom and super-cycle? As well as having a far smaller banking sector than the UK, which is what caused the problem in the first place. I'm sure there is an argument for increased public spending in times of recession, but I'm not swallowing Australia and Canada as the proof.

edit: although Mike put it better

 

[Wibble]

Massive oversimplification, guys. I haven't read about Canada, but Australia is not a good analogy. It had a healthier economy to start off with and a milder storm to weather.

Australia in 2008 (pre-Crisis) was debt-free and running surplus budgets on the back of the mining boom, so it was in a far better situation than pretty much all western economies. It was at record low unemployment going into it. On top of it, its financial sector had only an indirect exposure to the crisis. Its banks weren't directly involved in the underwriting of large volumes of US mortgage-backed securities, which went bust, unlike US and major European banks. So they didn't need large injections of cash to stay afloat, they simply shrunk. Therefore Aus could use the stimulus packages to help the general economy instead of just propping up banks.

Generally speaking, it's easier to "spend your way into growth" when you start off a healthy base. I don't think for example Greece and Italy who had debts over 100% of GDP and running budget deficits over 5% of GDP, could spend their way out of trouble. No one would lend them for that to start off with.

The point remains that spending stimulates an economy.

 

[Ultimate Grib]

Thoughts?

Country split on Brexit shocker.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

 

[SteveJ]

Government could ignore indicative Brexit votes, says Liam Fox
International trade secretary says real choice is still between Theresa May’s deal and no deal

 

[MadMike]

The point remains that spending stimulates an economy.

I don't quite get the debating point with that statement. Did anyone argue that giving free money does not encourage spending? The post you responded to said:
"Increasing public spending during a recession is a quick way to economic ruin".

The debating point, I thought, was whether spending can destroy or improve an economy in recession. To which the answer is: it can do either, depending on the case.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Thoughts?

I'm going to have a chicken wrap for lunch

 

[afrocentricity]

I'm going to have a chicken wrap for lunch

Great idea

 

[Mb194dc]

Yes, or they'll just extend again, or pull article 50 etc

It's just more of the same, nothing changed since December. May's deal hasn't changed since its record defeat.

This government really is abysmal in so many ways.

 

[Smores]

May's deal is still the worst option, it hasn't really changed since December and the subsequent record defeat. May needs to go as well and it doesn't make the deal any better.

It looks like there isn't going to be anything better on offer, just even worse versions of the deal or things including the single market and / or the customs union. In which case, what is the point we're in a better situation than that already. Even if we did "leave" to one of these options, you can bet a big movement to fully rejoin would immediately kick off and would succeed pretty quickly.

Voting for an obviously inferior situation just to deliver "Brexit" would be moronic and unsustainable anyway.

The best option is to revoke, leavers should see what they wanted and what won the vote for leave in the 2016 vote isn't on offer, (no one was arguing for no deal in 2016 due to the economic risks) remainers should accept if we revoke it doesn't change the referendum result. Then we start again with a general election and the political parties have to figure out what to do next.

That logic doesn't make sense in terms of brexit, people voted to be in a worse situation.

If leavers are happy to go down the route of a pointless brexit with SM access and the custom union then that's what we should do. However that needs another people's vote to establish given the first one was so vague on terms.

 

[villain]

Country split on Brexit shocker.

I'm going to have a chicken wrap for lunch

In relation to Corbyn's position on Brexit.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Thoughts?

Seems weird to me to use the election in 2017 as a barometer of Corbyn's ability to 'keep the party together' in the near two years since.

 

[SteveJ]

Government could ignore reality, says Liam Fox
International trade secretary says real choice is still between kick in the balls and punch in the gob

 

[Jippy]

Thoughts?

We slide into no deal through a deadlock-fuelled inertia.

As an aside, we all knew we'll get worse trade deals post-Brexit, yet in Liam Fox we had a business secretary who now admits this, yet he was still a massive Brexit supporter

 

[villain]

Seems weird to me to use the election in 2017 as a barometer of Corbyn's ability to 'keep the party together' in the near two years since.

Why is it weird, and what else can they use?
Those are still Labour constituencies, and at the next GE he (or whoever the leader is) would want them to remain Labour.

 

[Wibble]

I don't quite get the debating point with that statement. Did anyone argue that giving free money does not encourage spending? The post you responded to said:
"Increasing public spending during a recession is a quick way to economic ruin".

The debating point, I thought, was whether spending can destroy or improve an economy in recession. To which the answer is: it can do either, depending on the case.

Which is untrue. Spending during a recession can stimulate the economy rather than ruin it, so it isn't automatically a quick way to economic ruin.

Free money? Huh?

Your final sentence sounds like we agree anyway.

 

[dwd]

I wouldn't exactly say that.

It was a poison chalis of a job from the beginning. She took on the impossible, in fact, whoever took over from Cameron to negotiate Brexit was always going to be under fire from all sides, there are too many factions in parliament, forces pulling in different directions. No one deal from the EU would get through the house right now - it's too fragmented, too many different ideas and far too much party politics.

But the same would be said for whoever had done the negotiating.

...and under the circumstances, I feel sorry for her. On the one hand, she's got the EU telling her it's the only deal in town, and on the other, a parliament with a dozen factions, a divided party and very little public support - and it's literally because everybody has a different idea about what should happen next. It's not just that she can't please everybody, it's literally that she has to piss off everyone just to offer something up to the house.

I think she's done, and I think that's best for her. She's exhausted and despite her fortitude and tenacity, even she knows it's over for her deal. It's time somebody else took up the same poison challis, and probably they'll take us out with no deal.

Do you mean poisoned chalice? If so, I agree, but when everything is said and done, history will not look back on her kindly.

 

[MadMike]

Thoughts?

Seems weird to me to use the election in 2017 as a barometer of Corbyn's ability to 'keep the party together' in the near two years since.

Yep, it being dated is one thing. But it's Novara Media. Isn't that where Bastani is publishing from isn't the whole group a pro-Corbyn mouthpiece?

My question would be, what exactly has he done? Because he hasn't done anything really, he avoids taking a stance on pretty much anything which seems to be pissing off everyone at the moment.

As for those lists...

On the one side: Rotherham, Blackpool, Stoke, Dudley, West Bromwich, Walsall
On the other side: Brighton, Cambridge, Bristol, Edinburgh, London boroughs.

That's a poor-rich divide if I ever so one. Which is why everyone is saying that this was a protest vote. Turkeys disillusioned with their prospects, voted for Christmas. Failing to communicate the benefits of the EU and the failures of UK governments is what led us here.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

I'm sorry if this seems like a silly question at this stage - but why was the referendum organised for the electorate in the first place? Why wasn't it put to vote in Parliament instead, leaving the responsibility of understanding the nuances involved in such a decision to the elected representatives of the people?

It seems to me that a remain-inclined government is having to negotiate a WA for a leave-inclined electorate, and something like that should never have happened if the principles of democracy were properly followed.

 

[SteveJ]

I'm sorry if this seems like a silly question at this stage - but why was the referendum organised for the electorate in the first place? Why wasn't it put to vote in Parliament instead, leaving the responsibility of understanding the nuances involved in such a decision to the elected representatives of the people?

Because the monied interests behind all this knew it wouldn't get through Parliament.

 

[Stanley Road]

Anyway, this is the Brexit thread so we should end this line of conversation.

They are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps you still don't get why people voted for Brexit.

 

[Adisa]

Thoughts?

Imo, the biggest reason Labour haven't completely disintegrated over brexit is the fact they're not in government.

 

[Gandalf Greyhame]

Because the monied interests behind all this knew it wouldn't get through Parliament.

The monied interests being the financiers of Vote Leave and Leave.EU, I presume?

 

[That'sHernandez]

Why is it weird, and what else can they use?
Those are still Labour constituencies, and at the next GE he (or whoever the leader is) would want them to remain Labour.

Yeah, he's kept the party together if you ignore the eight MPs who felt they had to leave the party in part because of his policy on Brexit...

 

[SteveJ]

The monied interests being the financiers of Vote Leave and Leave.EU, I presume?

And other newfound allies too, I think...including those who might benefit from signing-off on future trade deals.