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

[Confusion of VIs]

1 minute ago, Byron said:

Johnny,. just stop.

Brexit is on the way, not even the EU will want us now.

WE, the UK  are the poisoned chalice.

Certainly it is possible to imagine us being pushed out the door, with weak and wobbly Theresa clinging onto the frame saying wait I've changed my mind.     

[Riedquat]

30 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

You really are like a dog with a bone over this punishment thing, probably best to get over it as if even if it' was true (which in all your posts you have produced absolutely no evidence for) it's just another factor to take account of in the process.   

It's not my posts that have produced evidence for it, it's the impression I get from what all the Remainers and EU supporters post, and I have to assume they're trying to put as positive a spin as they can on the EU! I've certainly not heard anything at all suggesting that the EU has any interest in reaching a mutually beneficial deal from you lot, just the same old circular self-justification arguments you trot out every single time.

Quote

No deal means an immediate and permanent hit of around £108bn a year (average of main forecasts, or about £150bn if you take the Treasuries still current forecast), lasting all the way out to the 2030s.  What sort of bad deal were you thinking of that would be worse than that. 

What is that in percentage terms? And the 2030s isn't really that far off, certainly not "permanent". Are you just being short-termist again? Anyway who came up with these forecasts, the same people who first of all said everything would collapse immediately upon the announcement of the result if it was Leave, then shifted it to as soon as Article 50 was triggered?

Edited May 31, 2017 by Riedquat

[Confusion of VIs]

14 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

It's not my posts that have produced evidence for it, it's the impression I get from what all the Remainers and EU supporters post, and I have to assume they're trying to put as positive a spin as they can on the EU! I've certainly not heard anything at all suggesting that the EU has any interest in reaching a mutually beneficial deal from you lot, just the same old circular self-justification arguments you trot out every single time.

What is that in percentage terms? And the 2030s isn't really that far off, certainly not "permanent". Are you just being short-termist again? Anyway who came up with these forecasts, the same people who first of all said everything would collapse immediately upon the announcement of the result if it was Leave, then shifted it to as soon as Article 50 was triggered?

The EU has a strong interest in reaching a mutually beneficial deal, as their own economies will be impacted by a UK recession, however it has an ever stronger interest in not undermining the benefits of EU membership. We will be offered the best deal possible consistent with the latter.

2030 was as far out as the forecasts went, there was no implication that everything would get better after that.  

 

[Riedquat]

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The EU has a strong interest in reaching a mutually beneficial deal, as their own economies will be impacted by a UK recession, however it has an ever stronger interest in not undermining the benefits of EU membership. We will be offered the best deal possible consistent with the latter.

Exactly my point - it's motivated by self-justification and calls into question what purpose the EU actually serves. Membership doesn't offer enough benefits and too many downsides compared with a good deal, so without the membership benefits being able to stand on their own right it resorts to restricting good deals with non-members.

It's a little more debatable whether it wants to go further than that and try to hurt the UK in order to strengthen the EU (which still falls under "we will be offered the best deal possible consistent with the latter.")

Do you believe that the EU has any business existing in its own right, beyond whatever it might bring to its members? That if it could be demonstrated that they'd all be better off without the EU and other arrangements between them instead the EU should disband right away?

[pig]

2 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Exactly my point - it's motivated by self-justification and calls into question what purpose the EU actually serves. Membership doesn't offer enough benefits and too many downsides compared with a good deal, so without the membership benefits being able to stand on their own right it resorts to restricting good deals with non-members.

It's a little more debatable whether it wants to go further than that and try to hurt the UK in order to strengthen the EU (which still falls under "we will be offered the best deal possible consistent with the latter.")

Do you believe that the EU has any business existing in its own right, beyond whatever it might bring to its members? That if it could be demonstrated that they'd all be better off without the EU and other arrangements between them instead the EU should disband right away?

Its a debate worth having.

But as things stand you could could go through that entire post and replace questioning the EU with questioning the point of Brexit with considerably more certitude.

[Confusion of VIs]

3 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Exactly my point - it's motivated by self-justification and calls into question what purpose the EU actually serves. Membership doesn't offer enough benefits and too many downsides compared with a good deal, so without the membership benefits being able to stand on their own right it resorts to restricting good deals with non-members.

It's a little more debatable whether it wants to go further than that and try to hurt the UK in order to strengthen the EU (which still falls under "we will be offered the best deal possible consistent with the latter.")

Do you believe that the EU has any business existing in its own right, beyond whatever it might bring to its members? That if it could be demonstrated that they'd all be better off without the EU and other arrangements between them instead the EU should disband right away?

It's motivated by the self interest of the remaining 27 states and what exactly is wrong with that. You are arguing that the EU should damage its own members by providing the UK with a deal for free that others have to pay for. Even is that deal did no damage, the EU is comprised of human beings who like most of us have an aversion to seeing others being given something for free that they had to work and pay for.

No. Like any organisation the EU has no right to exist apart from its members wishing it to. However, it does exist and while you may not like what it has become that doesn't mean there is any likelihood of it being replaced.

Even Varoufakis is of the view that the EU is a necessary evil that cannot be uninvented.    

 

 

 

[rollover]

 

Quote

 

How Trump and Brexit are saving Europe

There is a surprising cheer spreading through the bars in the Brussels’s European quarter. Just a few months ago, the city’s European Union officials were glum and despondent, but the mood has changed now. The smiles are back. Europe, people whisper, has found its mojo again. And it is all thanks to two unlikely sources: Donald Trump and Brexit.

But instead, Mr Trump berated NATO members over defence spending, refused to endorse NATO’s famous Article 5 guaranteeing mutual defence, and ignored pleas to stick with the Paris climate change treaty. In public, he appeared to revel in displays of bullying, buffoonery and boorishness that not only disgusted Europeans, but made them newly proud of each other.

Meanwhile, as Britain prepares its exit from the EU, most Europeans have watched with a sense of morbid curiosity. If there were fears last year that other member states might follow the British out the door, these are long gone.

Viewed from the other EU capitals, the Brexit process looks woefully chaotic for Prime Minister Theresa May: her ministers seem unready, her officials under-resourced, her negotiating hand is weak, and she is heading for a future that will make Britain poorer and smaller. To the surprise even of Brussels officials, the other 27 EU members have stayed remarkably cohesive. They have moved on from the shock of Brexit. They regret the result but accept it. And now their priority is the unity and integrity of the EU-27

inews

 

Brexiting Britain did actually the EU a favour. Exactly the opposite what hard exiters hoped for.

[ccc]

42 minutes ago, rollover said:

 

Brexiting Britain did actually the EU a favour. Exactly the opposite what hard exiters hoped for.

You must be embarrassed quoting stuff like that as if it's actually worth reading ? 

"If there were fears last year that other member states might follow the British out the door, these are long gone."

[maverick73]

12 minutes ago, ccc said:

You must be embarrassed quoting stuff like that as if it's actually worth reading ? 

"If there were fears last year that other member states might follow the British out the door, these are long gone."

Hmmmm Italy is next on the exit hit list... fickle memories forget what happened last Christmas ?

[Lambie]

11 hours ago, Byron said:

Sort of like the man who jumped off the Eiffel Tower?

jusqu'ici tout vas bien.

We're about halfway down. So far so good.

[Peter Hun]

9 hours ago, Byron said:

We paid for our pensions

How do you work that out? unless you have a defined contribution pension, your pension is being paid for by tax payers and workers today. You most certainly did not fund the winter fuel allowance, thats a charity paid by a tax on workers.

[ccc]

1 hour ago, maverick73 said:

Hmmmm Italy is next on the exit hit list... fickle memories forget what happened last Christmas ?

Oh no - it's all long gone because not every country in the EU immediately left overnight !!

[Peter Hun]

1 hour ago, maverick73 said:

Hmmmm Italy is next on the exit hit list... fickle memories forget what happened last Christmas ?

After the massive economic hit on the UK, nobody will want to leave the EU.

That is the plan and we voted for it.

[Parkwell]

3 hours ago, rollover said:

 

Brexiting Britain did actually the EU a favour. Exactly the opposite what hard exiters hoped for.

Is that seriously a 'news' item about the EU being saved because they feel a bit smug about not being Donald Trump and not having to deal with an arduous set of trade deals over the next decade.

I didn't think your long line of biased news links could get any more absurd but keep on posting them, it's kind of entertaining.

 

[Locke]

23 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Sure, which is why the EU should never have tried to look anything like a government, and why people should stop supporting it in its current form.

What I'm saying is, any trading bloc where any of the members have governments is going to be political and if not in fact, then in spirit is always going to be a government and thus try to expand its power.

[thecrashingisles]

30 minutes ago, Locke said:

What I'm saying is, any trading bloc where any of the members have governments is going to be political and if not in fact, then in spirit is always going to be a government and thus try to expand its power.

Yes, it's a seriously odd position to say that having a common set of rules (in a limited sphere) is a good thing, but having proper institutions to decide those rules in a democratic way is an affront to democracy.

[Riedquat]

51 minutes ago, Locke said:

What I'm saying is, any trading bloc where any of the members have governments is going to be political and if not in fact, then in spirit is always going to be a government and thus try to expand its power.

We've covered that one before. Some politics is unavoidable, but it doesn't make sense to use that to shrug and accept any. The world is full of non-governmental organisations. What you say is what generally happens, which is why it should either not exist in the first place, and certainly not be supported if it does, or it needs to have goals, procedures, charters whathaveyou designed in from the start to deliberately attempt to limit that.

[Riedquat]

23 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Yes, it's a seriously odd position to say that having a common set of rules (in a limited sphere) is a good thing, but having proper institutions to decide those rules in a democratic way is an affront to democracy.

The sphere is not limited. That's a big part of the problem. If the sphere is limited enough there aren't enough decisions about rules to be made after its formed to need any sort of democracy (although arguing for a vote about whether to join it in the first place might be reasonable, depends what it is - the UK is a member of all sorts of other bodies that no-one gets particularly worked up about after all).

[thecrashingisles]

4 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

The sphere is not limited. That's a big part of the problem. If the sphere is limited enough there aren't enough decisions about rules to be made after its formed to need any sort of democracy

It is limited by treaty.  As for the bit in bold, your mask has slipped to reveal a vile anti-democrat who hates constitutional government and just wants to give power to some 'philosopher king'.

[Locke]

13 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

We've covered that one before. Some politics is unavoidable, but it doesn't make sense to use that to shrug and accept any. The world is full of non-governmental organisations. What you say is what generally happens, which is why it should either not exist in the first place, and certainly not be supported if it does, or it needs to have goals, procedures, charters whathaveyou designed in from the start to deliberately attempt to limit that.

Ah. I'll make my position clear: we should not accept any political interference in our lives at all. I'd prefer there to be no government, but that's not happening any time soon. 

In the context of a government, the only trading rules we should have are

1. Products sold here must conform to our standards
2. We won't tariff your goods if you don't tariff ours

You don't need a trading bloc for that.

[Locke]

7 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

It is limited by treaty.  As for the bit in bold, your mask has slipped to reveal a vile anti-democrat who hates constitutional government and just wants to give power to some 'philosopher king'.

You simply do not understand the argument.

A fully defined system can have no discussion. This is tautological, but not redundant. Since any discussion will not change the system, a democratic choice has no impact. This is not anti-democratic.

[thecrashingisles]

26 minutes ago, Locke said:

Ah. I'll make my position clear: we should not accept any political interference in our lives at all. I'd prefer there to be no government, but that's not happening any time soon. 

In the context of a government, the only trading rules we should have are

1. Products sold here must conform to our standards
2. We won't tariff your goods if you don't tariff ours

You don't need a trading bloc for that.

Define 'our'?  Do we need a 'bloc' of Scotland, England, Wales and NI?

[OnionTerror]

12 minutes ago, hotairmail said:

Are you likening the role of Wales in the UK to the UK's in the EU?

Putting aside history, language, culture, political set-up etc., size itself is important.

The smaller a country is, the more external trading it does. The Benelux countries always go on about how they export more per head than Japan....well they would wouldn't they. And the smaller it is, the more exporting to adjacent countries takes place too. Hence the problem with Ireland....they're not really a separate country looked at in terms of trade.

The UK's exports are more 'international' as it were....not run of the mill cross border stuff. It is really made up of things that are not done elsewhere, like financial services, premium cars etc. So there is a limit to which the economy as a whole will be affected I believe. Imports will be more affected than exports in any hard Brexit.

 

Under WTO, RTA (EU goods) will be allowed in, without much of a problem...UK goods will be left at BIP ports, left for batch testing...

[jonb2]

1 hour ago, hotairmail said:

Unlike Parliament where you hope everyone has our country's future with best intentions in mind, we have a rule setting regime made up of 27 unfriendly nations all trying to do you down.

Hmm, not the country or its people HAM - just people with money and corporations. A Mickey-Mouse size America and getting nearly as corrupt. I have never seen any incentive from a UK government to regulate corporation tax takes. At least the EU is big enough and active enough to go after the barons.

If it was me, I would ban all the non-payers from operating here until they do. No loss really. People will have to buy coffee from somewhere else, use Bing or DDG and MAYBE even find something else to do than spend their time putting their brain in a blender with Facebook.

At least with Corbyn, there's a chance this will change - certainly hope so.

 

[Riedquat]

15 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It's motivated by the self interest of the remaining 27 states and what exactly is wrong with that. You are arguing that the EU should damage its own members by providing the UK with a deal for free that others have to pay for. Even is that deal did no damage, the EU is comprised of human beings who like most of us have an aversion to seeing others being given something for free that they had to work and pay for.

No, I am definitely not arguing that the EU should damage its own members. I am arguing that the EU's stance damages its own members in order to preserve itself., the type of deal Britain wants would also benefit the members of the EU. If the UK can get them without cost, and it still benefits all sides, that just demonstrates that the costs are not justified. That seems like it is the case but the EU cannot admit that, no matter how badly that affects its members, because the key movers in the EU are only interested in the EU and its members exist only to serve it in their minds.