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

[Little Frank]

17 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

Absolute rot.  Do you think John Major ran a tyrannous government?  At the time he could barely do anything and was derided by Tony Blair as 'weak, weak, weak'.

Twisted argument (seems de riguer on here!)

Farcical you're claiming Major (or Blair) governed with a mandate from the majority of the electorate. to copy your wilful misinterpretation 

 

[LondonIsFallingDown]

2 hours ago, hotairmail said:

 

LOL

 

Anyway, meanwhile we have the ongoing story of Italian banks and a little kicker at the end of the article.....

https://notayesmanseconomics.wordpress.com/2016/11/24/the-problems-of-the-italian-banks-continue/

 

Wasn't there some news on yet another bailout for Monte  Paschi yesterday?

[thecrashingisles]

Just now, Little Frank said:

Twisted argument (seems de riguer on here!)

Farcical you're claiming Major (or Blair) governed with a mandate from the majority of the electorate. to copy your wilful misinterpretation

They didn't have absolute power to impose their will and were constrained by all the normal forces that apply in a functioning democratic state.  Whether the majority voted for them is irrelevant.

[kotf]

42 minutes ago, Little Frank said:

That's a normal election result. Including Major's administration. No political party wins >50% in UK elections

A normal election results in parliamentary representation for more than just the winning party. It may not be proportional to the votes cast, but it is there to some degree. The vocal leavers in this debate seem to want no representation at all for the views of the 48%. The equivalent in a General Election would be banning all opposition parties from having any MPs. That is why this is the tyranny of the majority.

[Little Frank]

1 minute ago, thecrashingisles said:

They didn't have absolute power to impose their will and were constrained by all the normal forces that apply in a functioning democratic state.  Whether the majority voted for them is irrelevant.

 Which is exactly what I said. For British establishment democracy is irrelevant. Now you agree (you can't do much else since that's how British government works)

[canbuywontbuy]

Erdogan threatens to open Turkey's borders to Europe in protest at EU

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/25/erdogan-threatens-open-turkeys-borders-europe-protest-eu/

Quote

 

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has threatened to throw open Turkey's gates for migrants and refugees after the European Parliament voted to suspend EU membership negotiations with Ankara. 

“If you go any further, these border gates will be opened. Neither me nor my people will be affected by these empty threats,” Mr Erdogan said at a women’s justice congress in Istanbul on Friday. 

“It wouldn’t matter if all of you approved the vote,” he added, referring to the European Parliament’s motion a day earlier. 

 

 

[Little Frank]

1 minute ago, kotf said:

A normal election results in parliamentary representation for more than just the winning party. It may not be proportional to the votes cast, but it is there to some degree. The vocal leavers in this debate seem to want no representation at all for the views of the 48%. The equivalent in a General Election would be banning all opposition parties from having any MPs. That is why this is the tyranny of the majority.

Your bias. 

You are claiming Scots Nats, Labour, Libs & Tory remainers have no representation in parliament (upper & lower)? 

Patently absurd. Hence Major is talking nonsense.

[Riedquat]

51 minutes ago, Little Frank said:

That's a normal election result. Including Major's administration. No political party wins >50% in UK elections.

British establishment hate democracy that's why we don't have one.

No political party wins >50% but we generally (I'm sure there have been exceptions) end up with the one that more people voted for than any of the others. An inevitable result of having more than two choices. The winning party (with less than 50% of the votes) calling the shots isn't as unappealing as the one who came second trying to do so.

[kotf]

2 minutes ago, Little Frank said:

Your bias. 

You are claiming Scots Nats, Labour, Libs & Tory remainers have no representation in parliament (upper & lower)? 

Patently absurd. Hence Major is talking nonsense.

No - if you're happy for parliament to take this forward from now on and do what it thinks is in the best interests of the country then that is fine by me. My objection is to those who insist that the referendum result means we cannot consider membership of the single market or customs union.

[Errol]

16 minutes ago, kotf said:

The vocal leavers in this debate seem to want no representation at all for the views of the 48%. 

This is nonsense. I don't think anyone has said this at all. However, there can be no 'views' from the 48% on the core issue of leaving the EU. The question was quite clear, and a vote to leave the EU means leaving the EU. Membership is specifically referred to in the question. A vote to leave was a vote to rescind membership and all that that entails.

EVERYONE now needs to come together to work on leaving the EU.

Edited November 25, 2016 by Errol

[Confusion of VIs]

56 minutes ago, Errol said:

Also, anyone want to bet whether they would have referred to a 'Remain' win as the 'tyranny of the majority' forcing their will on those who want to leave?

I think not. They are hypocrites to a man. If remain had won they would have shut up shop and proceeded with all the lovely EU plans they had in store for us.

From their perspective Cameron allowing the referendum was a monstrous blunder; which is presumably why he was kicked out along with his pal Osborne.

I would have hoped that if the result had gone the other way, we would have taken account of the views of the 48% and pushed extremely hard for reforms of the EU that would address as many as possible of the concerns that led them to vote leave. 

However, the parallel with what we have now would be. Cameron triumphantly announcing we voted for Remain so lets now go the whole hog, join the Euro, help set up an EU army and agree to/push for ever closer union.   

 

[pig]

13 minutes ago, kotf said:

A normal election results in parliamentary representation for more than just the winning party. It may not be proportional to the votes cast, but it is there to some degree. The vocal leavers in this debate seem to want no representation at all for the views of the 48%. The equivalent in a General Election would be banning all opposition parties from having any MPs. That is why this is the tyranny of the majority.

Maybe they want it both ways.

Theres the Tyranny of the Batshit Bonkers Brexiter minority who insist we voted specifically for 'batshit' and then there's the majority who simply voted to leave the EU. 

While I understand Majors point, all the same 'tyranny' is a bit of a harsh adjective for the majority of Leavers, I actually think it applies more to the 'batshit' minority hiding inside.

[GrizzlyDave]

6 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I would have hoped that if the result had gone the other way, we would have taken account of the views of the 48% and pushed extremely hard for reforms of the EU that would address as many as possible of the concerns that led them to vote leave. 

However, the parallel with what we have now would be. Cameron triumphantly announcing we voted for Remain so lets now go the whole hog, join the Euro, help set up an EU army and agree to/push for ever closer union.   

 

I genuinely think that if we had a narrow remain result, we would have zero negotiation ability in terms of reform. Whilst Brexit progresses at what ever pace it moves at, other factors are at play. A Le Penn will would not IMHO Break the EU (I see a back pedal on the rhetoric along Thrump lines); but substantial reform will have to take place in the EU as a result.

Proper decent reform of the EU is what I have wanted all along; to acknowledge the shortcomings and adapt accordingly. But it is heads in the sand every time.

Brexit could be the best thing to happen to the EU, never underestimate the opportunity of a crisis and all that.

[Timak]

The thing is I still can't see any agreement about what leaving the EU actually means, let alone the practicalities of it.

Some people relish leaving and sticking two fingers up at the rest of the world.

Others want a full trading relationship but no freedom of movement

Others would be satisfied with the Norway model.

If we end up with the Norway model we'd have left but effectively we'd see no difference. So all that would happen is a very slight reduction in fees but we'd have no say in anything. Clearly worse than we already have but it allows them to say they've done what people wanted.

Would that satisfy Brexiteers?

[kotf]

11 minutes ago, Errol said:

This is nonsense. I don't think anyone has said this at all. However, there can be no 'views' from the 48% on the core issue of leaving the EU. The question was quite clear, and a vote to leave the EU means leaving the EU. Membership is specifically referred to in the question. A vote to leave was a vote to rescind membership and all that that entails.

EVERYONE now needs to come together to work on leaving the EU.

Does "all that that entails" include membership of the WTO? There seem to be a lot of leavers that think that on departure we should automatically apply to join the WTO but not the single market or customs union, and that their view should prevail. That is what I mean by the 48% not having representation.

[Riedquat]

18 minutes ago, Timak said:

If we end up with the Norway model we'd have left but effectively we'd see no difference. So all that would happen is a very slight reduction in fees but we'd have no say in anything. Clearly worse than we already have but it allows them to say they've done what people wanted.

Does Norway have every EU law written in to its own laws, or does it just have to abide by the EU ones when dealing with the EU but by whatever it wants internally, and whatever other countries have when dealing with them?

[the gardener]

2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

True but that applies to just about everyone.

The NHS's problem is that its using contractors to fill permanent posts where they cannot attract competent staff at the current pay rates, so the impact of any crack down will be many of these posts being filled by incompetents. Unfortunately for patients these posts often have a direct impact on the quality of care received and the clinical outcomes.

 

They cannot attact staff at those rates because the self-same staff see the rates (and reduced responsibility) available to contractors and they leave to become contract staff themselves.

It is no surprise this happens since the NHS offer two pay rates, one vastly higher than the other, with more flexibility and less responsibility. What would you expect the outcome of such a policy to be?

It's a pity the endless incompetent management consultants the NHS employs can't tell them that. Unfortunately most of them couldn't be trusted to sit the right way on a toilet.

[Confusion of VIs]

25 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

I genuinely think that if we had a narrow remain result, we would have zero negotiation ability in terms of reform. Whilst Brexit progresses at what ever pace it moves at, other factors are at play. A Le Penn will would not IMHO Break the EU (I see a back pedal on the rhetoric along Thrump lines); but substantial reform will have to take place in the EU as a result.

Proper decent reform of the EU is what I have wanted all along; to acknowledge the shortcomings and adapt accordingly. But it is heads in the sand every time.

Brexit could be the best thing to happen to the EU, never underestimate the opportunity of a crisis and all that.

I agree, its just unfortunate that the UK will be the one suffering the collateral damage.

[Confusion of VIs]

27 minutes ago, Timak said:

The thing is I still can't see any agreement about what leaving the EU actually means, let alone the practicalities of it.

Some people relish leaving and sticking two fingers up at the rest of the world.

Others want a full trading relationship but no freedom of movement

Others would be satisfied with the Norway model.

If we end up with the Norway model we'd have left but effectively we'd see no difference. So all that would happen is a very slight reduction in fees but we'd have no say in anything. Clearly worse than we already have but it allows them to say they've done what people wanted.

Would that satisfy Brexiteers?

Interesting interview with the head of the OBR on the daily politics today, he revealed that the government was unable to give him any direction about what type of Brexit to model and admitted that made his forecast pretty much pure guesswork. He also admitted it was more optimistic than most forecasters central case. Amazingly it is still being used by the Treasury as the basis for their planning.  

Hard to think of more conclusive evidence that there is no plan long term or otherwise for Brexit.

 

[GrizzlyDave]

6 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I agree, its just unfortunate that the UK will be the one suffering the collateral damage.

If the EU brings about some chunky reforms including axing the Euro, Central bank, FOM, and ever closer union, it will be re-born. And in that basis I guarantee we'd have a referendum to stay. Clearly the timescales have to overlap; but if we don't have this degree of change in the next five years it is toast.

[ccc]

20 years 

Shameful. 

Embarrassing.

Defeatist.

Pathetic.

Nae ********.

 

To name but a few.

[GrizzlyDave]

4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Hard to think of more conclusive evidence that there is no plan long term or otherwise for Brexit.

Was there a long term plan before Brexit?

[Timak]

2 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Interesting interview with the head of the OBR on the daily politics today, he revealed that the government was unable to give him any direction about what type of Brexit to model and admitted that made his forecast pretty much pure guesswork. He also admitted it was more optimistic than most forecasters central case. Amazingly it is still being used by the Treasury as the basis for their planning.  

Hard to think of more conclusive evidence that there is no plan long term or otherwise for Brexit.

 

That is because there isn't a plan.

There is no leadership. They had a job fare for civil servants interested in working on Brexit this week. Lots of people attended but were basically told that they had no idea what posts would be available as there was no strategy coming from above. They don't even know what they are supposed to be doing, or how it might happen. People like to imagine there are lots of smart people who have a vision of post-Brexit britain would look like and are working towards it. The simple fact is these people don't exist. 

[thecrashingisles]

5 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

axing the Euro,

Why would it want to do that?

[thecrashingisles]

1 minute ago, Timak said:

That is because there isn't a plan.

There is no leadership. They had a job fare for civil servants interested in working on Brexit this week. Lots of people attended but were basically told that they had no idea what posts would be available as there was no strategy coming from above. They don't even know what they are supposed to be doing, or how it might happen. People like to imagine there are lots of smart people who have a vision of post-Brexit britain would look like and are working towards it. The simple fact is these people don't exist. 

Just look at the body language when David Davis was in Brussels this week: