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

[dances with sheeple]

7 hours ago, jonb2 said:

I think this is deeper and is a hidden policy of the Tories. Boris just let the cat out of the bag.

We have investment bankers, hedge funds, private equity companies, tax avoiders, oligarchs  and arms sales. Enough money floating about for the Tories to enrich themselves by associating with enabling the deals. Who cares about normal business - when there is no money in it for the Tory talking heads and their mates. Parallel universes - them and us.

All other things are merely just empty words and pointless actions to keep the populace at rest. Nicely wrapped food parcels with no calories.

And so it goes on.

Can they still enable when JC is in Power or Is he just another enabler? If they want to still have their faces in the trough they need to get Brexit done ASAP, because a slight majority have woken up it seems.......better to enable  in a smaller cabbage patch than to have all your tools put back in the box by a Marxist and the Brexit party?

[Riedquat]

3 hours ago, Dorkins said:

I love the idea that if/when the UK is setting its own regulations for things that are currently decided at EU level, if you don't like a particular regulation you can just vote for a different candidate for MP and that will get the regulation changed. Sure it will.

Having to essentially reject the whole premise of democracy to make your point doesn't make it look like you've got a particularly sound one. Rebuttals that only work by treating the issue in the most extreme and simple way hit back as hard as a feather.

The idea that the EU is democratic because there happens to be a link to more democratic organisations is truly nonsense, no-one who has the vaguest idea of what democracy means could possibly say that with a straight face. A tenuous, second-hand link between policy makers and an electorate is not democratic. But you can repeat that to Remainers until you're blue in the face and all they'll see is "EU is democratic because blah blah blah blah link between policy makers and an electorate blah blah blah." I assume they'd have no problem with an elected House of Lords and an appointed House of Commons?

Edited June 13, 2019 by Riedquat

[Riedquat]

5 hours ago, thecrashingisles said:

This is wrong.  For example you might desire to live on Mars, but that's irrational because it's not possible.  In more earthly politics, you also need to be informed by what is possible before you start desiring things that don't exist.  That means accepting the geopolitical reality of the UK's position in the world of 2019.

Why does that make it an irrational desire? You're taking a position that'll mean it'll never be possible to live on Mars. Once the desire is established then you need to work rationally to bring it about. This may include putting it on the back burner so you can devote your energy mostly to other things you find desirable and easier to achieve.

There's no rationality or otherwise about desires, they just are. Rationality only comes in to figuring out how to pursue them. 100% objective, rational behaviour that isn't a means to an end determined by subjective assessment doesn't exist - what's the point in doing anything at all if it doesn't get you something you want, or work towards getting you something you want? And what is "want" if not a subjective desire?

[smash]

39 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Why does that make it an irrational desire? You're taking a position that'll mean it'll never be possible to live on Mars. Once the desire is established then you need to work rationally to bring it about. This may include putting it on the back burner so you can devote your energy mostly to other things you find desirable and easier to achieve.

There's no rationality or otherwise about desires, they just are. Rationality only comes in to figuring out how to pursue them. 100% objective, rational behaviour that isn't a means to an end determined by subjective assessment doesn't exist - what's the point in doing anything at all if it doesn't get you something you want, or work towards getting you something you want? And what is "want" if not a subjective desire?

Oh my goodness, jolly obfuscatory, its the Aristotle and Plato disagreement brainwashing us again !

[GrizzlyDave]

8 hours ago, dugsbody said:

I don't know enough to say if we'd be better or worse off in the long term. But in the short term, almost certainly worse off. So we've had the young being screwed by decades of asset inflation and being cut out of many things the older generations enjoyed, where mostly older people vote for these policies. Then as a final hurrah, they vote once again against the interests and wishes of the young, to cause yet another (probable) decade of economic hardship on a generation they've already screwed many times.

And why? Because of some misplaced sense of nationalism and anti-foreigner sentiment. And all backed by a campaign that was dishonest to the core by people who are dishonest to the core.

So ****** the long term, I'd never support something like that on principle.

If brexit doesn’t crash the housing market; nothing will.

Why are you on HPC?

[Dorkins]

6 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Having to essentially reject the whole premise of democracy to make your point doesn't make it look like you've got a particularly sound one. Rebuttals that only work by treating the issue in the most extreme and simple way hit back as hard as a feather.

The idea that the EU is democratic because there happens to be a link to more democratic organisations is truly nonsense, no-one who has the vaguest idea of what democracy means could possibly say that with a straight face. A tenuous, second-hand link between policy makers and an electorate is not democratic. But you can repeat that to Remainers until you're blue in the face and all they'll see is "EU is democratic because blah blah blah blah link between policy makers and an electorate blah blah blah." I assume they'd have no problem with an elected House of Lords and an appointed House of Commons?

I'm not rejecting the premise of representative democracy, I am perfectly happy with the idea that voters decide who is in charge and then the people in charge decide what happens. That means voters do not get to decide what the regulation says. Same in Westminster and Brussels.

I am fine with the UK's representative in Brussels being the UK government itself. All foreign policy and trade negotiation works like that. After Brexit you won't be directly electing the UK's trade negotiators, they will be nominated by the UK government just like all civil servants. The European Commission is basically just a civil service for running the single market. The national governments decide on policy and the EC implements it.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Dorkins

[dugsbody]

8 hours ago, yodigo said:

Don't know where you live, but where I work all the youngsters (20ish) are buying houses - gasp even new builds, and loaded with student debt too, and have new cars - so drop your nonsense where it belongs.

Spotted the brexit supporting old fart.

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

If brexit doesn’t crash the housing market; nothing will.

Why are you on HPC?

I've already explained my views on this. Multiple times.

Why do you ask the same questions repeatedly?

[GrizzlyDave]

2 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

I've already explained my views on this. Multiple times.

Why do you ask the same questions repeatedly?

Have I? My apologies.

[Dorkins]

5 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Spotted the brexit supporting old fart.

There has always been this type of troll on HPC saying "where I live 20somethings are just getting on with their lives" etc. The data show that homeownership has fallen in all regions of the UK.

Edited June 13, 2019 by Dorkins

[crouch]

9 hours ago, dugsbody said:

That is all very interesting, except, he quite clearly indicates that we're only brexiting because the brexit campaign refused to commit to any destination and allowed an otherwise fractured group of people to all believe their vision of brexit would be the one.

I'm afraid that neither he nor you know that. The clue is in the word "indicates". You would have know how many votes were swayed by the absence of detail; it may be some; it may not.

Destinations were talked about all through the campaign so people were not unaware that there were different types of Brexit which would mean different things. Perhaps they thought, like me, that it is the job of the politicians to work out the detail.

What cannot  be denied is that there is a deep and wide euroscepticism by a very significant proportion of the population and has been for many years as disclosed by surveys. To imply that we would have voted to stay if the alternatives had been made clearer is pure speculation.

The wording of the referendum question was determined by the government and the Electoral Commission not the Leave campaign and was on a binary basis. I hardly think it's useful to criticize the leave campaign for campaign for what was on the ballot paper.

10 hours ago, dugsbody said:

Sure, we might be ok in the long term, but the point is we're heading to a path that the majority of the country DO NOT WANT. That is wrong.

This is based on surveys now. It is before any campaign so your views are highly speculative. I seem to remember polls before the first referendum which indicated a majority for leave....

What is wrong is to make assumptions when there is little evidence for them.

[IMHAL]

6 hours ago, Riedquat said:

Why does that make it an irrational desire? You're taking a position that'll mean it'll never be possible to live on Mars. Once the desire is established then you need to work rationally to bring it about. This may include putting it on the back burner so you can devote your energy mostly to other things you find desirable and easier to achieve.

There's no rationality or otherwise about desires, they just are. Rationality only comes in to figuring out how to pursue them. 100% objective, rational behaviour that isn't a means to an end determined by subjective assessment doesn't exist - what's the point in doing anything at all if it doesn't get you something you want, or work towards getting you something you want? And what is "want" if not a subjective desire?

Except we have a bunch of idiots in charge who are threatening to burn Earth on the 31st October having no space craft, space suits or even an idea or agreement of what planet we should travel to or if it's possible that that planet can support us.

I suggest that a degree of rationality is needed ........ how do you propose that we bring people together or reach an agreed common position unless we have a rational thought out position that looks likely to work, even if it is not to the liking of the extreemes?

It is 'irrational want' to got us to this place but it is not going to get us to a destination. Your argument, just like Brexit, may work on a theoretical level, but in actuality it has little value.  

[crouch]

10 hours ago, dugsbody said:

I don't know enough to say if we'd be better or worse off in the long term. But in the short term, almost certainly worse off. So we've had the young being screwed by decades of asset inflation and being cut out of many things the older generations enjoyed, where mostly older people vote for these policies. Then as a final hurrah, they vote once again against the interests and wishes of the young, to cause yet another (probable) decade of economic hardship on a generation they've already screwed many times.

And why? Because of some misplaced sense of nationalism and anti-foreigner sentiment. And all backed by a campaign that was dishonest to the core by people who are dishonest to the core.

So ****** the long term, I'd never support something like that on principle.

In the short term you will be worse off; I believe that is nailed on.

As to your comments on older people they come across as really quite nasty and indeed hysterical. It also rests on the gigantic assumption that this was all engineered by older people and they actually want the result, a conspiracy. Delusional. 

Some are short sighted and cannot see but this is hardly a cause for vituperation is it? Many would say the same of you no doubt. And what decisions would you have made in their position? I guarantee you would be just like them because they are just like you.

As to the campaign being dishonest you don't really follow your own advice on facts. British Social Attitudes have been polling on attitudes to Europe for many years. During all of that time there has been substantial and growing euroscepticism. The referendum result tricked very few. Most were just like you; their minds were made up and nothing was going to change that.

[crouch]

12 hours ago, Dorkins said:

Brussels is democratically accountable. The leader of the European Commission is chosen by the member state governments, legislation goes through the European Parliament and the EU Council (made up of the member state governments) etc. There is no part of the EU institutions that doesn't ultimately answer to a democratically elected body.

This is true but unfortunately says far from everything; in fact it says not much at all.

What is important is the exercise of de facto power not the formal existence of de jure power.

This is interesting:

https://www.cer.eu/insights/what-wrong-european-commission

It shows quite clearly that the Commission has acted in an executive capacity and that the Eurozone management has added formal and extensive powers to intervene in the affairs of member states (see the spat about Italy's budget). This issue has shifted power from member states towards the Commission which may be chosen by member states but has inherent powers under treaties which allow it a very wide latitude.  

[Peter Hun]

On 09/06/2019 at 22:25, Dorkins said:

I wonder if that would still be the case if Scotland left the UK. I can imagine a lot of the sector would relocate to England where the political class are more distant from the population and there is a bigger supply of taxpayers for when it comes time for the next bailout.

Nope, it's a fundermental part of Scotlands DNA.

[crouch]

10 hours ago, IMHAL said:

You seem happy to pick snippet from Sir Ivan Rogers and totally ignore other messages. He is quite clear that brexit, whatever deal will be worse economically. You seem happy to take mainly the bits that suit you.

Sir Ivan would never say that Brexit will leave us worse economically. He knows perfectly well that no one can say that; it is impossible to say.

If you think he does believe that then give me the reference.

 

10 hours ago, IMHAL said:

How do you know that we would not have enough control of (eu) immigration?  We havn't even tried to control it using the methods at our disposal. I don't recall anyone asking for complete control, it was not specifically mentioned in the referendum....you are making all this up.

Actually this is very simple. We could if we wished in respect of ROW say that we will accept no immigration, or virtually none - as some like the Japanese do. In the most liberal interpretation of FOM could we do the same with immigration from the EU? I say definitely not.

Show me where I'm wrong. You can't because we have signed international treaties which prevent us from doing this.

[GrizzlyDave]

7 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

Nope, it's a fundermental part of Scotlands DNA.

What is?

[pig]

On 11/06/2019 at 17:17, crouch said:

No, Ivan Rogers says in the video that he's very optimistic about the UK in the long term but there will be a "sticky" period of 8 - 10 years. By "sticky" I don't think he means just economic;he's talking about politically and perhaps socially because this matter has opened Pandora's box. The "all being a disaster" is the refrain of Remainers who think it bad, bad, bad from the get go and forever more. 

 

There are some who believe that the Euro was pushed through knowing its faults. Sooner or later there would be a crisis and that crisis would pressure the member states to complete the EZ architecture and thereby not only secure the Euro but take a giant step to a federal state. I don't believe in that conspiracy myself but it has some marginal credibility.

If it fails Brexit is indeed of no value. I hope it doesn't and in fact I hope for more. It would be far better for us to have a prosperous and stable Europe next to us while we are going through the "sticky" period but I don't think this will happen. As Ivan Rogers says: the EU has huge problems of its own and Brexit is a sideshow.

Well look at least you’re now accepting analysis  of the future.

But it’s pretty clear that you’ve started with Brexit as the answer and worked  backwards to find a peculiar way of interpreting that analysis to support that answer. 

So really, what is your actual reason for wanting Brexit ?

[crouch]

2 minutes ago, pig said:

Well look at least you’re now accepting analysis  of the future.

Well, I've always done that. What I've never accepted is specious economic forecasts years ahead which aren't worth the paper they are written on. And I've never accepted the fact that the issue is solely about economics anyway.

 

4 minutes ago, pig said:

But it’s pretty clear that you’ve started with Brexit as the answer and worked  backwards to find a peculiar way of interpreting that analysis to support that answer.

No.

4 minutes ago, pig said:

So really, what is your actual reason for wanting Brexit ?

Many reasons.

Perhaps the first is the blindingly obvious. Is it useful in any way to tie 28 disparate nations together in an all encompassing project like the EU apart from trade? Disparate nations in terms of language, culture, economic structure, customs and traditions. What is achieved by this structure that cannot be achieved by intergovernmental co-operation?

Economically I can see the benefit of a customs union and the promotion of free trade within Europe. Non tariff barriers and services could be negotiated under a different pan European body so the EU is not necessary.

Put it another way: do we need a bulldozer to shift something when a pick up truck would be better. Why do we need the EU?

It's my view that the Gaullist notion of a Europe of nations is better than an EU.

This is a view that is based on the assumption that diversity is good and the EU is anti diversity. It is very good at process and removing discrimination among members but is is far less good at actually doing something positive, mainly because you cannot get agreement with 28 members in many cases; size hampers efficiency.

Unfortunately it is the positive things that count in the long run. Far too much energy is expended in getting regulation down to a (usually German) level rather than considering whether what is being regulated should be regulated at all.

Innovative industries, the future, need less regulation not more, a risk taking environment, and that is the one thing the EU will not encourage and that is a fatal weakness. Regulations are barriers to entry and, over time, this tends to encourage monopoly and oligopoly which further militates against innovation.

There are more but that will do to be getting on with.

 

[btl_hater]

12 hours ago, dugsbody said:

I don't know enough to say if we'd be better or worse off in the long term. But in the short term, almost certainly worse off. So we've had the young being screwed by decades of asset inflation and being cut out of many things the older generations enjoyed, where mostly older people vote for these policies. Then as a final hurrah, they vote once again against the interests and wishes of the young, to cause yet another (probable) decade of economic hardship on a generation they've already screwed many times.

And why? Because of some misplaced sense of nationalism and anti-foreigner sentiment. And all backed by a campaign that was dishonest to the core by people who are dishonest to the core.

So ****** the long term, I'd never support something like that on principle.

Absolutely nailed it. 

I hope all these retired Brexiteer tuncs don’t hang around for too long.

[Exiled Canadian]

15 hours ago, crouch said:

Can you define "consequences"? In terms of broad alternatives there are not many - see Barnier's diagram which shows broad options. Are you talking about something else?

I suppose the consequence I'm talking about is the level of short term economic disruption and the real defined benefits - including on repatriation of legislative competencies.

For each of the options on the Barnier slide it would have been possible to give some indication of the short term (ie. 1 to 3 year) economic impact on a qualitative if not quantitative basis (ie. goods will have to be subject to customs checks which will disrupt trade/we will fall outside of the common external tariff which means that exports from a number of sectors in our economy will be at competitive disadvantage in the EU/the price of imported food from non EU countries will be cheaper).  It would have also been possible to give some assessment of the level of legislative competence that would be repatriated and ongoing EU budgetary contribution that would be required as well as the likely impact on free movement.

I'd accept that the longer term economic outcome of any of the options is more difficult to evaluate - as they do depend on the reaction of the UK economy post Brexit - no doubt these would be a subject for discussion and people would have views.  However the immediate consequences can be defined, in qualitative terms at least.

[winkie]

1 hour ago, GrizzlyDave said:

What is?

What if half Scottish?

[IMHAL]

42 minutes ago, crouch said:

Sir Ivan would never say that Brexit will leave us worse economically. He knows perfectly well that no one can say that; it is impossible to say.

If you think he does believe that then give me the reference.

 

Actually this is very simple. We could if we wished in respect of ROW say that we will accept no immigration, or virtually none - as some like the Japanese do. In the most liberal interpretation of FOM could we do the same with immigration from the EU? I say definitely not.

Show me where I'm wrong. You can't because we have signed international treaties which prevent us from doing this.

At the moment we still don't know the destination so we can't say with any certainty what level of economic suffering we can expect.

What Sir Ivan says is that there will be increased friction, due to Brexit, with our biggest trade partner (Europe) and that will have an impact, depending on the type of end destination we choose. It is obvious that this impact will be negative, we are going to get a worse deal outside the club than inside the club (see 31.56 mins) for his explaination of where we stand with services (our biggest export) and the EU post Brexit. He is really as clear as  diplomat can be than we are going to be worse off - what he is also clear about is that politicians are not telling us the consequences and the trade offs we are making..maybe because they fail to understand it... or that they can't be seen to have actually put the British people in this position in the first place. 

Immigration. 

It was you who said we don't have enough control over immigration. That is an assumption that has not been tested. I asserted that we had not used the levers that we do have to control it. You are making an assumption that the methods we have are not sufficient when they havn't been tried .......cardinal Crouchy sin....tut tut...but a nice attempt at diversion.

 

 

[GrizzlyDave]

13 minutes ago, winkie said:

What if half Scottish?

?

[crouch]

34 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said:

I suppose the consequence I'm talking about is the level of short term economic disruption and the real defined benefits - including on repatriation of legislative competencies.

I thought so.

But this is a long term matter - it's 46 six years since we joined the EEC. IMV there will be short term disruption and loss, some of which may be reversed, and this could continue for some years.

As to the long term you simply cannot tell. Even if you could see that far ahead into the future there is no counterfactual which would enable you to answer the question of whether we would have been better off to stay in the EU; it is all purely speculative, indeed grossly speculative.

I'm inclined to agree with Mervyn King, the ex Govenor of the BOE who has said he believes over the long term it will make very little difference.

42 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said:

For each of the options on the Barnier slide it would have been possible to give some indication of the short term (ie. 1 to 3 year) economic impact on a qualitative if not quantitative basis (ie. goods will have to be subject to customs checks which will disrupt trade/we will fall outside of the common external tariff which means that exports from a number of sectors in our economy will be at competitive disadvantage in the EU/the price of imported food from non EU countries will be cheaper).  It would have also been possible to give some assessment of the level of legislative competence that would be repatriated and ongoing EU budgetary contribution that would be required as well as the likely impact on free movement.

Certainly, but as I said, this is a decision for the long term.  

The other point is that there are more subtle and intangible issues which many would dismiss as "airy fairy" but which I believe could be very important - see my post to pig above.

To answer your question directly there will be short term adverse consequences to Brexit; IMV that is inevitable and as near certainty as you can get. But it is the long term that matters.