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

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

6 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

So you're a proponent of the British Empire now?

And staying in the EU is the loss of our country, never mind 'empire'

No I'm not. 

Just remarking on what seems to be a back story for some Brexit supporters. 

Essentially Brexit is a throw back reaction from World War 2 which gave the UK a fake feeling of importance as we all know we were doomed without the US. This gave the UK a chance to forget the losses above as the Sun Set on Empire. Now the Brexit lobby have sold Brexit as some great rekindling of this non existent greatness, when in reality as we now see it is a further dilution of the UK and in this case on our own shores. 

 

[allfiredup]

6 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

No I'm not. 

Just remarking on what seems to be a back story for some Brexit supporters. 

Essentially Brexit is a throw back reaction from World War 2 which gave the UK a fake feeling of importance as we all know we were doomed without the US. This gave the UK a chance to forget the losses above as the Sun Set on Empire. Now the Brexit lobby have sold Brexit as some great rekindling of this non existent greatness, when in reality as we now see it is a further dilution of the UK and in this case on our own shores. 

 

More upside down nonsense.

The British empire has naff all to do with Brexit. If anything Brexit is the complete opposite of empire building.

But oh hang on, whats that about Empires and the EU?

 

 

[wish I could afford one]

44 minutes ago, crouch said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The PD in BJ's deal puts us further out of the EU than TM's; the ERG have said they'll vote for it.

The unicorn argument doesn't stack up. We could have put a version on the 2016 referendum paper; but how do we know the EU would agree a deal on that basis? Is that any less of a unicorn than what was actually on the ballot paper?

Apologies, I'll try again.  Let's think of Brexit being on a scale of 1 to 100.  1 is what the ERG want - a hard Brexit, say 30 is what Boris is trying to head towards, 50 is what Theresa May tried for, 70 is what Labour want, 80 is what the Lib Dems want - Remain and 81 to 100 was never even on the table as it was maybe promised but not deliverable.  The referendum then gave us a choice.  Would you like 1 to 100 minus 80 or would you like 80.  52% said they wanted 1 to 100 minus 80.  48% said they want 80.

Right, now that 52% has to be implemented and it's of course impossible.  It's not hard enough for some and it's too hard for others.  Instead if the question was do you want a 30 or an 80 everyone else has to decide which is the best compromise for them.  If it wasn't desired to be so clear cut initially and we wanted more 'will of the people' then run a series of referendum to settle on the type of Brexit before putting it up against the 80. 

Re EU agree a deal.  Do you really think that a few grown-ups really didn't know what was possible?  The EU has many positives and negatives but what we know they are is procedural.  There is plenty of precedent to show what works and the UK had a pick'n'mix selection so nobody was being held hostage.

[longgone]

3 hours ago, Dorkins said:

I don't believe for one second that there won't be another round of banks begging for a bailout given how high house prices are in southern England. No doubt the modelling will all have been done on a very conservative calculation like "what would happen if house prices fell back to 2014 levels?" not "what would happen if house prices fell back to 2000 levels?"

I think a 30% crash was accounted for after HTB this is probably 2 years of rises.

I agree though they are not covered for a proper crash.

I would buy at 2000 levels ?

[wish I could afford one]

43 minutes ago, A17 said:

Cameron wasn't scared about Ukip winning seats. At most, they would have only one a couple. He was scared about Conservative voters switching to Ukip, causing them to lose marginal seats.

Multiple constituencies with C=55 L=45 turning to C=44 Ukip=11 L=45 was his nightmare.

Exactly, as I said he was worried about the conservative party becoming insignificant or needing to be in coalitions forever more.  It was never about the people.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

3 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

More upside down nonsense.

The British empire has naff all to do with Brexit. If anything Brexit is the complete opposite of empire building.

But oh hang on, whats that about Empires and the EU?

 

 

Have you been listening to InfoWars and Alex Jones? 

[Arpeggio]

15 minutes ago, prozac said:

The vote for UKIP is a cry for help, people hate the existing politicians "not fit for purpose" at the same time in my opinion our standard of living is going to go down, regardless of who is in power.

Things must have got drastically better in 2017 then when UKIP plummeted?

[allfiredup]

5 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:

Apologies, I'll try again.  Let's think of Brexit being on a scale of 1 to 100.  1 is what the ERG want - a hard Brexit, say 30 is what Boris is trying to head towards, 50 is what Theresa May tried for, 70 is what Labour want, 80 is what the Lib Dems want - Remain and 81 to 100 was never even on the table as it was maybe promised but not deliverable.  The referendum then gave us a choice.  Would you like 1 to 100 minus 80 or would you like 80.  52% said they wanted 1 to 100 minus 80.  48% said they want 80.

Right, now that 52% has to be implemented and it's of course impossible.  It's not hard enough for some and it's too hard for others.  Instead if the question was do you want a 30 or an 80 everyone else has to decide which is the best compromise for them.  If it wasn't desired to be so clear cut initially and we wanted more 'will of the people' then run a series of referendum to settle on the type of Brexit before putting it up against the 80. 

Re EU agree a deal.  Do you really think that a few grown-ups really didn't know what was possible?  The EU has many positives and negatives but what we know they are is procedural.  There is plenty of precedent to show what works and the UK had a pick'n'mix selection so nobody was being held hostage.

Have you been to the Diane Abbott school of maths?

 

[wish I could afford one]

38 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

In such a scenario I wonder if the referendum may not have happened. The referendum was supposed to consolidate a remain position (before it was too late) in light of what was going on with regards to the 2015 election being the most disproportionate in history. A real vote in response to something that was coming under question for actually being democratic.

I don't know.  If UKIP did their job well by gradually heading more and more to the left while keeping their extreme right wingers they might have eventually made the conservatives insignificant.  That sounds like a really tough job but at that point they wouldn't have needed a referendum and could have explained the Brexit they wanted in a manifesto then chanced their arm.  As it turns out they went the other way and have disappeared into obscurity.

[simvastatin]

2 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

Things must have got drastically better in 2017 then when UKIP plummeted?

The big economic crash is just starting.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/job-losses-no-deal-brexit-europe-leuven/

The mega job losses would have occurred with or without brexit

 

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

2 hours ago, Bruce Banner said:

Let's wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say about that.

Indeed, the Benn Act was clearly written and was expressed in such a way as to avoid such silly evasions.

Boris is like the slightly thick motorist on a drink driving charge making up stories as to why the blood test is wrong. Alcohol that accidentally fermented in oranges territory. 

[allfiredup]

5 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Have you been listening to InfoWars and Alex Jones? 

Do you approve of silencing voices you dont agree with?

[crouch]

4 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:

The EU has many positives and negatives but what we know they are is procedural.  There is plenty of precedent to show what works and the UK had a pick'n'mix selection so nobody was being held hostage.

Your contention rests on this; that the EU already has templates and it's just a question of deciding which template is your preferred option. Is it? The EU has different agreements with different countries because that's what comes out of negotiation. You assume that the UK will shoehorn its interests into one of those templates as the basis for a deal. On what basis do you make that assumption?

[wish I could afford one]

2 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

Have you been to the Diane Abbott school of maths?

 

Rather than some flippant comment at best or insult at worst how about you do a better job of explaining how we find ourselves in a situation where everybody thinks something different is what was voted for?  My hypothesis is the question was and still is poorly worded.  A poor specification.

[Arpeggio]

2 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:

I don't know.  If UKIP did their job well by gradually heading more and more to the left while keeping their extreme right wingers they might have eventually made the conservatives insignificant.  That sounds like a really tough job but at that point they wouldn't have needed a referendum and could have explained the Brexit they wanted in a manifesto then chanced their arm.  As it turns out they went the other way and have disappeared into obscurity.

Sound a bit like the lib dems at the moment on the opposite side of the same continuum.

 

3 minutes ago, prozac said:

The big economic crash is just starting.

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/job-losses-no-deal-brexit-europe-leuven/

The mega job losses would have occurred with or without brexit

You've posted a link to an article citing a study from a Belgian university saying heavy job losses will occur due to Brexit, while saying it's already starting and would have happened with or without brexit.

[allfiredup]

3 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:

Rather than some flippant comment at best or insult at worst how about you do a better job of explaining how we find ourselves in a situation where everybody thinks something different is what was voted for?  My hypothesis is the question was and still is poorly worded.  A poor specification.

If the question was posed as you suggest, the 52/48 is irrelevant.

It was leave or stay, leave won. We should leave, cleanly.

 

In fact I have a suggestion.

We should just leave on no deal, clean break. 

Because then we can move the whole debate from what parts of the EU we don't like, to what parts we do like

It will be a much more positive debate

 

[simvastatin]

1 minute ago, Arpeggio said:

Sound a bit like the lib dems at the moment on the opposite side of the same continuum.

 

You've posted a link to an article citing a study from a Belgian university saying heavy job losses will occur due to Brexit, while saying it's already starting and would have happened with or without brexit.

Yes, i think the mega job losses and the social fracturing are related to the internet changing the business model, Brexit will not help, i think it will speed up the job losses.

Have you not noticed all the restaurant chains shutting down.

[wish I could afford one]

3 minutes ago, crouch said:

Your contention rests on this; that the EU already has templates and it's just a question of deciding which template is your preferred option. Is it? The EU has different agreements with different countries because that's what comes out of negotiation. You assume that the UK will shoehorn its interests into one of those templates as the basis for a deal. On what basis do you make that assumption?

I think there are some simple questions the UK needed to ask for which the consequences are well known.  For example do we want to be within the ECJ jurisdiction, do we want free movement, do we want regulatory autonomy, do we want to make a financial contribution etc.  Answer those questions and the option appears which is somewhere between and includes remain and WTO.  So I think the answer is generally yes.

That said, I agree there will be some nuances with each final negotiation but that's more detail around the edges.  We are failing at the "Heads of Terms" phase and not at the "Contract" phase.  That's all still to come.

[wish I could afford one]

5 minutes ago, Arpeggio said:

Sound a bit like the lib dems at the moment on the opposite side of the same continuum.

...

Good point.  Not for a second was I saying it was easy but it would have been less disruptive to the UK than what we have now.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

12 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

Do you approve of silencing voices you dont agree with?

Here we go, that is a yes then!! 

How many Brexiters think we need Brexit to overturn the New World Order I wonder? 

[wish I could afford one]

4 minutes ago, allfiredup said:

If the question was posed as you suggest, the 52/48 is irrelevant.

It was leave or stay, leave won. We should leave, cleanly.

 

In fact I have a suggestion.

We should just leave on no deal, clean break. 

Because then we can move the whole debate from what parts of the EU we don't like, to what parts we do like

It will be a much more positive debate

 

Please define cleanly?  My hypothesis is that is another poorly defined specification and is just the type of thing that's put us in the current mess.  Leave on no deal will certainly not be clean.

"We should just leave on no deal..." was most definitely not what I heard in Brexit debates.  So no you don't get to have that one as there is no majority for it.  Labour/LibDems/many Cons/et al won't vote for the ERG option.

"Because then we can move the whole debate from what parts of the EU we don't like, to what parts we do like."  is impossible because the EU, like most things in life, is far from perfect.  You now want your cake and eat it.  With every do like there is a dislike.  For example we like the SM/CU when it comes to shipping goods to/from the EU but we don't like that we don't get to do a FTA with the US solely on our terms.  We need to choose which is the most palatable for us as a majority.

[allfiredup]

5 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Here we go, that is a yes then!! 

How many Brexiters think we need Brexit to overturn the New World Order I wonder? 

So that's a yes then, you ignored (silenced) my point by bringing up Alex Jones..

And have you been listening to Guy?

 

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

4 minutes ago, prozac said:

Yes, i think the mega job losses and the social fracturing are related to the internet changing the business model, Brexit will not help, i think it will speed up the job losses.

Have you not noticed all the restaurant chains shutting down.

Brexit definitely makes things worse.

Also there is a race to bottom on costs in the trade; so the food in these chain restaurants has got worse. Essentially we are heading to a UK where only those on 6 figures salaries will be able to afford to eat out. This means fewer restaurants and the ones remaining will ultimately be better quality ones only. 

The chains that cater for the masses will die out as the masses can't afford them. However, until we get there we will see cost cutting, quality reduction and substitution. I am talking Prawn Toast made with Pork Fat rather than Prawns, and Pizza made with that Vegetable oil synthetic cheese substitute. 

That is Brexit, Pork Fat Toast, Chlorine Chicken and synthetic cheese. 

 

 

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

1 minute ago, allfiredup said:

So that's a yes then, you ignored (silenced) my point by bringing up Alex Jones..

And have you been listening to Guy?

 

 

And? Just an expression, not a Conspiracy. 

[allfiredup]

2 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:

Please define cleanly?  My hypothesis is that is another poorly defined specification and is just the type of thing that's put us in the current mess.  Leave on no deal will certainly not be clean.

"We should just leave on no deal..." was most definitely not what I heard in Brexit debates.  So no you don't get to have that one as there is no majority for it.  Labour/LibDems/many Cons/et al won't vote for the ERG option.

"Because then we can move the whole debate from what parts of the EU we don't like, to what parts we do like."  is impossible because the EU, like most things in life, is far from perfect.  You now want your cake and eat it.  With every do like there is a dislike.  For example we like the SM/CU when it comes to shipping goods to/from the EU but we don't like that we don't get to do a FTA with the US solely on our terms.  We need to choose which is the most palatable for us as a majority.

My point is the current process of leaving is not working. So lets try a new approach.