Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Futuroid]

10 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

Good article from Larry Elliot, pointing out that, whatever happens, a return to the status quo is not an option.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/16/anger-north-brexit-vision-bridge-north-south-divide

It's nonsense.

Any of this could have happened when we were in the EU (his vision pretty much aligns with what Germany does already*). Why didn't it?

Larry Elliot is a leave voter who can see what is happening and has an inkling of how bad it's going to get so is now scrabbling around in the dirt looking for some crumb of good news to feed the people who about to become very, very angry indeed.  Brexit will be an expensive, embarrassing distraction that will slow down fixing the problems he identifies - simply because 50% of the population will refuse to believe any change is necessary because they have been convinced the problem was with the EU. 

Oh, and he might like to think about what a "reboot" in real life actually involves 

* - the KEY thing Germany has in it's favour is that it's managed to get unions and management working together, by making them understand that to do so is beneficial to both. The British parties and their class driven ideologies are emblematic of the problem Britain faces. 

[dryrot]

The calls to stop Brexit are coming thick and fast. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42014209 

"The chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, has suggested holding another referendum on Brexit. Mr Blankfein tweeted: "Here in UK, lots of hand-wringing from CEOs over #Brexit... So much at stake, why not make sure consensus still there?"

Good to hear. How DARE the plebs vote for freedom. Don't they know that they must obey their masters? Certainly, I will always do whatever is best for investment banks in general, and GS in particular. (They got £300m for getting Greece in the Euro - rich and deserved reward!)

[tomandlu]

9 minutes ago, dryrot said:

The calls to stop Brexit are coming thick and fast. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42014209 

"The chief executive of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, has suggested holding another referendum on Brexit. Mr Blankfein tweeted: "Here in UK, lots of hand-wringing from CEOs over #Brexit... So much at stake, why not make sure consensus still there?"

Good to hear. How DARE the plebs vote for freedom. Don't they know that they must obey their masters? Certainly, I will always do whatever is best for investment banks in general, and GS in particular. (They got £300m for getting Greece in the Euro - rich and deserved reward!)

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that I'm not sure that really, really rich people saying we should stay in the EU is really helping.

[Futuroid]

40 minutes ago, dryrot said:

Good to hear. How DARE the plebs vote for freedom.

You are so, so right. It's the will of the (Russian) elite people. 

[Futuroid]

33 minutes ago, tomandlu said:

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that I'm not sure that really, really rich people saying we should stay in the EU is really helping.

He's simply suggesting another referendum.

If one referendum on a major issue (that returned a colossal 51.9% in favour) is OK, surely having another to double-check that the will of the people hasn't changed, now they've had a taste of just how sweet "freedom" is going to be?

I mean, the majority might be even more resounding this time - 52.1% - a bona fide landslide. Just think of the negotiating power that would give David Davis!

[HairyOb1]

I actually think the only way out of this mess, and to stop the country being permanently divided, is to have a referendum on the final deal that we're expected to take.  Then we know precisely both sides of the argument factually, and can make a more balanced decision.

Then if it's 51.9 - 48.1 the other way around, we can expect the brexiteers to take it on the chin, which is what they continue to tell anyone who doesn't agree with them after the first one.

[Riedquat]

42 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

He's simply suggesting another referendum.

If one referendum on a major issue (that returned a colossal 51.9% in favour) is OK, surely having another to double-check that the will of the people hasn't changed, now they've had a taste of just how sweet "freedom" is going to be?

I mean, the majority might be even more resounding this time - 52.1% - a bona fide landslide. Just think of the negotiating power that would give David Davis!

Would you be saying the same thing now - that we need such a check, had Remain won?

[Futuroid]

2 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

I actually think the only way out of this mess, and to stop the country being permanently divided, is to have a referendum on the final deal that we're expected to take.  Then we know precisely both sides of the argument factually, and can make a more balanced decision.

Then if it's 51.9 - 48.1 the other way around, we can expect the brexiteers to take it on the chin, which is what they continue to tell anyone who doesn't agree with them after the first one.

I think the more likely route will be - collapse of support in current government -> general election -> Labour government -> Norway style EEA deal.

Either option will be utterly devastating for the Conservative party. Brexit is their baby and they've hitched their wagon to it. They go down with the ship.

[Futuroid]

Just now, Riedquat said:

Would you be saying the same thing now - that we need such a check, had Remain won?

If the result was as close as it was, and everything that the Remain camp had promised was in tatters and it then turned out there was surreptitious involvement by a foreign power I would support another referendum.

Even Sir Nigel of Farage would have been in favour...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

[HairyOb1]

3 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Would you be saying the same thing now - that we need such a check, had Remain won?

I know you know the answer to this one, as if we'd have voted to remain, then nothing would have changed, would it, so we'd not be getting a continued downward look on UK Inc every day, which we're getting having voted to leave.

As in any major decision, I think we do need to take stock of what potential damage is going to happen to the UK by the decision.  However, if the answer was to remain, then we need to discuss certain things that aren't working within the EU, but from a position of power, not helplessness.  Remember, too, that DD has just agreed that we'll not leave the EU in March 2019, that we'll still be continuing the same relationship, for 'around 2 years'.  So we're not going to leave until 2021 at the earliest, but the likelihood is, it's going to be after the next general election, where it can be fought over.

As I continue to state, there is a lot of mileage in this yet.  Lots, we're only just started slowly moving.

[Riedquat]

6 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

I think the more likely route will be - collapse of support in current government -> general election -> Labour government -> Norway style EEA deal.

Either option will be utterly devastating for the Conservative party. Brexit is their baby and they've hitched their wagon to it. They go down with the ship.

And you claim nothing good would come from Brexit (not that I trust Labour any better).

[HairyOb1]

2 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

If the result was as close as it was, and everything that the Remain camp had promised was in tatters and it then turned out there was surreptitious involvement by a foreign power I would support another referendum.

Even Sir Nigel of Farage would have been in favour...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

I know, this is the comical part of when folk ask for a second referendum and are shouted down as traitors, communists, deniers of democracy: their leading figure said he'd want one if the tables were turned.

[HairyOb1]

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

And you claim nothing good would come from Brexit (not that I trust Labour any better).

I think if it brings down the Conservatives, then brexit will not happen, so it wouldn't have brought them down (to coin ccc - Brexit hasn't happened yet   ), so it's a strange juxtaposition, really.

I definitely think if it brings the government down, then we'll have a second ref, as they'll lose power comprehensively, lots of folk will move to Lib Dems too.  I'm emboldened enough to say if this continues tearing the conservatives apart, then brexit will simply not happen.

Edited November 17, 2017 by HairyOb1

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

I know, this is the comical part of when folk ask for a second referendum and are shouted down as traitors, communists, deniers of democracy: their leading figure said he'd want one if the tables were turned.

If there was any suggestion that that was pointed at me personally, I've never expressed any support (or respect for that matter) for Farage, and have generally regarded him as a juvenile embrarrassment.

[HairyOb1]

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

If there was any suggestion that that was pointed at me personally, I've never expressed any support (or respect for that matter) for Farage, and have generally regarded him as a juvenile embrarrassment.

But the quote is genuine.  It was aimed at the campaign, not anyone personally.  

I actually believe anything that so fundamentally changes the country should have been I) 2/3rds majority, not FPTP and II) revisited after any negotiations took place, so those fundamental changes could be reviewed and the decision sanity checked.  But there you go.  As it was only an advisory, it was FPTP.

[Futuroid]

Just now, Riedquat said:

And you claim nothing good would come from Brexit (not that I trust Labour any better).

Nothing good will come from it short term. Any benefit will be so long term it will be:

i) Impossible to ascribe them to Brexit.

ii) A crap-shoot which party is in power when the benefits materialise.

We are 18 months in and we don't even have a coherent plan yet, in fact we don't even have an objective for the negotiations!

Remind me again where those impact assessments are? In a world where the people in power who wanted Brexit were excellent planners, with an eye for detail and a long history of excellence when it comes to implementation, there is a chance it could have worked. Even then, you are going against the wishes vast majority of the population who are under 50 and will be the ones who have to bankroll it via their taxes, etc.

TLDR: If the planets aligned there was a tiny chance. They didn't.

[Riedquat]

5 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

But the quote is genuine.  It was aimed at the campaign, not anyone personally.  

I actually believe anything that so fundamentally changes the country should have been I) 2/3rds majority, not FPTP and II) revisited after any negotiations took place, so those fundamental changes could be reviewed and the decision sanity checked.  But there you go.  As it was only an advisory, it was FPTP.

The argument for it being more than 50/50 is reasonable enough IMO. The one for another referendum is not, that's just searching for excuses to keep trying until you get the result you want.

[Riedquat]

10 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

Nothing good will come from it short term. Any benefit will be so long term it will be:

i) Impossible to ascribe them to Brexit.

ii) A crap-shoot which party is in power when the benefits materialise.

We are 18 months in and we don't even have a coherent plan yet, in fact we don't even have an objective for the negotiations!

Remind me again where those impact assessments are? In a world where the people in power who wanted Brexit were excellent planners, with an eye for detail and a long history of excellence when it comes to implementation, there is a chance it could have worked. Even then, you are going against the wishes vast majority of the population who are under 50 and will be the ones who have to bankroll it via their taxes, etc.

TLDR: If the planets aligned there was a tiny chance. They didn't.

As has been pointed out numerous times the people who wanted Brexit weren't the ones in power. What we've got are those in power not wanting to do what they're supposed to be doing, and I find it rather sad to see people using that to stick with the status quo. "Please hold us to ransom!"

On "impossible to ascribe to Brexit", hope you stick to that criteria for bad news too.

I'm still not seeing the sky falling in, and we're still on track to leaving. That's good enough for me. The "practical" considerations are largely secondary.

[HairyOb1]

9 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The argument for it being more than 50/50 is reasonable enough IMO. The one for another referendum is not, that's just searching for excuses to keep trying until you get the result you want.

The argument for another one is as plain as day - Everything we were told has changed.  Everything.  The day after, all people aboard the Unicorn Express, the one with £350m a week to the NHS, denied it, walked away from it.  Every single thing they said (a deal will be the easiest deal in the world to do, they need us more than we need them, we're not paying a penny, etc, etc) has been proven to be wrong at best, a lie at worst.  So, given absolutely every thing about the leave campaign has turned out to be wrong, I do think it's fair to give people a chance to either change their mind, given how misled they were, or to decide to carry on regardless.  That would be democratic.

If I put a deposit down on a new XC90 and on going to pick it up, was given a Seat Alteca, I'd been rightly disgruntled.  That's how brexit currently is.

To say otherwise, well, it's simply wrong.  We're not getting the brexit we voted for, therefore it's insane to argue we don't, or shouldn't, have the right to vote for the one we are going to get....

Edited November 17, 2017 by HairyOb1

[Riedquat]

You're going back to treating the picture someone painted in a referendum campaign as an election manifesto promise rather than "just our guess at how things could turn out." Nothing has changed.

[adarmo]

6 minutes ago, HairyOb1 said:

The argument for another one is as plain as day - Everything we were told has changed.  Everything.  The day after, all people aboard the Unicorn Express, the one with £350m a week to the NHS, denied it, walked away from it.  Every single thing they said (a deal will be the easiest deal in the world to do, they need us more than we need them, we're not paying a penny, etc, etc) has been proven to be wrong at best, a lie at worst.  So, given absolutely every thing about the leave campaign has turned out to be wrong, I do think it's fair to give people a chance to either change their mind, given how misled they were, or to decide to carry on regardless.  That would be democratic.

If I put a deposit down on a new XC90 and on going to pick it up, was given a Seat Alteca, I'd been rightly disgruntled.  That's how brexit currently is.

To say otherwise, well, it's simply wrong.  We're not getting the brexit we voted for, therefore it's insane to argue we on't have the right to vote for the one we are going to get....

Whether or not one agrees with Brexit, or the reasons people voted to leave (I have a very hard time believing that over half the turnout believed the £350m figure, just as I don't believe everyone voting Remain thought the EU was perfect) I find it extremely concerning that another referendum would be held and that should the result be a marginal Remain that would be the end of it. 

What's the plan for Brexit?

What's the plan for the EU?

They are different sides of the same coin. Nobody knows. 

[Futuroid]

20 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

As has been pointed out numerous times the people who wanted Brexit weren't the ones in power.

You might have pointed it out numerous times. But it's still wrong.

There were 110 Tory MPs who voted to Leave the EU. If you don't know their names, have a look here.

The best indication of voting intention in the general public was found to be the level of education, then age.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-education-higher-university-study-university-leave-eu-remain-voters-educated-a7881441.html

"Income and number of immigrants in an area were not found to be a significant factor in how people voted."

Another myth busted. You can thank me later 

[Futuroid]

Tick tock.

Brexit: Irish Prime Minister vows to block trade talks if Theresa May fails to explain border plans by next month

'They want us to take a leap in the dark and we are not prepared to do that,' source tells The Independent

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-irish-prime-minister-leo-varadkar-ireland-border-clarity-theresa-may-trade-talks-block-a8060046.html

It's funny that the Irish don't want to take a leap in the dark. Our government expect the British public to do precisely that.

[Futuroid]

David Davis has successfully achieved something that has not happened since Major's government.

He has broken the "satire barrier" - his real-life actions are now humourous enough to reported as satire:

“Don’t put politics above prosperity,” says man putting politics above prosperity

http://newsthump.com/2017/11/17/dont-put-politics-above-prosperity-says-man-putting-politics-above-prosperity/

What a guy! 

[Riedquat]

36 minutes ago, Futuroid said:

You might have pointed it out numerous times. But it's still wrong.

There were 110 Tory MPs who voted to Leave the EU. If you don't know their names, have a look here.

The best indication of voting intention in the general public was found to be the level of education, then age.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-education-higher-university-study-university-leave-eu-remain-voters-educated-a7881441.html

"Income and number of immigrants in an area were not found to be a significant factor in how people voted."

Another myth busted. You can thank me later 

What myth busted? Government policy was not "leave the EU", and indeed it supported the Remain campaign.