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

[HairyOb1]

19 minutes ago, dryrot said:

The "transition" may be as above, but that's only for 18 months. We have little if any influence anyway, especially with QMV. I'd prefer a clean Brexit in a year, wth control of our own laws, and no further contributions EU from us - an extra 10Bn for the UK! - but can live with 18months of fudge. 

For now.  That's the nature of can kicking, as when a deadline looms, it gets kicked soem more.

As for the £10m for the UK, well, sorry but that's colossally silly.

1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Absolute rot. We used to be on the winning side in +90% often being the swing vote that tipped the decision in our favour.

Once we are outside of we will find many more votes going against our preferred outcome and because, to retain access to the single market, we will still follow EU rules/regulations we will have les sovereignty than we have today.    

The £10bn (£8.6bn actually but I know leavers aren't good with numbers) is long gone as the hit the economy has already taken from the vote has already exceeded this, and is forecast to be more £20bn by the time we actually leave.  

Transition over in 18 months   

There was a metric released the other day pointing out how little we've actually been on the wrong end of a vote in the EU.

From what I understand, 1% of growth is £10bn.  Given we're at the bottom of growth in the G20, directly attributed to leaving, there's an argument we're already behind the game.

As for 18 months, quite   

[Confusion of VIs]

24 minutes ago, kzb said:

And yet we are told this is not true (CoVI). 

As long as we applied the same laws across everything, then we could have banned live animal transport.  Yet here we (apparently) have an ECJ ruling that backs up what the BBC said -that taking this action would be a barrier to trade and would be illegal.

Your self proclaimed critical thinking is letting you down again.

Our attempt to discriminate against the Spanish failed, and it would fail again if we tried the same trick after leaving the EU, except it would be the WTO rules that caught us this time.

You are confusing the right to set consistent rules governing the transport of animals with the right to discriminate against other states.

 

 

[dryrot]

3 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Absolute rot. We used to be on the winning side in +90% often being the swing vote that tipped the decision in our favour.

Once we are outside of we will find many more votes going against our preferred outcome and because, to retain access to the single market, we will still follow EU rules/regulations we will have les sovereignty than we have today.    

The £10bn (£8.6bn actually but I know leavers aren't good with numbers) is long gone as the hit the economy has already taken from the vote has already exceeded this, and is forecast to be more £20bn by the time we actually leave.  

Transition over in 18 months   

Para 1. For a measured account, try https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/ It does'nt talk about "swing" votes - can you provide evidence? (but then, you ignore the reality on tariffs and live animal transport, so why bother with the real world here?)

Para 2 is the usual FUD, (Sigh) When exporting to the EU we will of course be bound by their rules, as when exporting to any country we must follow their rules. Likewise those exporting to the UK have to abide by our regs. But, once out of the EU, we dont have to implement EU laws and rules in our own country - as has been pointed out many, many times...

Para 3. thx for the conformation on our net loss in EU contributions. wrt the economy, Project Fear is two years old...  You  losing it abit!  

[Confusion of VIs]

1 hour ago, dryrot said:

Para 1. For a measured account, try https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-uk-influence/ It does'nt talk about "swing" votes - can you provide evidence? (but then, you ignore the reality on tariffs and live animal transport, so why bother with the real world here?)

Para 2 is the usual FUD, (Sigh) When exporting to the EU we will of course be bound by their rules, as when exporting to any country we must follow their rules. Likewise those exporting to the UK have to abide by our regs. But, once out of the EU, we dont have to implement EU laws and rules in our own country - as has been pointed out many, many times...

Para 3. thx for the conformation on our net loss in EU contributions. wrt the economy, Project Fear is two years old...  You  losing it abit!  

1.  Why bother trying to explain complex issues to people who either don't want to or cannot understand them more like. 

2. Fine if you are happy to add costs/friction to UK trade with by far our biggest trade partner. The reality is common sense will prevail and to minimise te economic damage we will agree to "choose to" follow EU rules going forward. 

3. Project fear has so far proved to be a lot closer the mark than the fantasies that won the vote for Leave, did you ever get around to reading the OECD report of the impact to date. Things are looking up a bit because business thinks are heading for a BRINO.  

Re the UK often being as the swing vote: How can anyone with an interest in Brexit not have  considered this (on the other hand why am I not surprised). For many votes the EU divides into a Northern and Southern block with the UK forming part of the Northern block. Generally the North won but without the UK's votes  many votes would have gone, and will go, the other way. Without the UK's vote the EU will probably evolve along more free spending and protectionist lines, something the UK won't like but will be impacted by. 

You can do your own research  on the Europa website as all votes are published online.  

Edited April 17, 2018 by Confusion of VIs

[kzb]

37 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Can you provide an example of a non allowed "solution". 

Full nationalisation of the railways.

[Confusion of VIs]

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

Full nationalisation of the railways.

As far I am aware it is allowed under EU rules, the problem is that Labour would have to pay market prices to take over the privatised components rather than steal them.

Anyway what exactly would nationalising the railways be a solution to. 

[thehowler]

16 hours ago, Dave Beans said:

We wont be a member of the EU, but will be still part of the single market & customs union.  So not a "true" third country...

M. Barnier is explicit...

We need to reach an agreement by autumn 2018 on the conditions of the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal from the European Union. The UK will become a third country on 30 March 2019.

That was in September, but I'm not aware of any subsequent statement that contradicts this. Third country is significant as it marks the end of the Art 50 process and quashes speculation on revoking or reversing Art 50 thereafter.

[IMHAL]

3 hours ago, HairyOb1 said:

Ironically giving up the info that you looked

I think CC is speaking from experience.....being banned from the other website is the ultimate in 'ignore functions' 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

As far I am aware it is allowed under EU rules, the problem is that Labour would have to pay market prices to take over the privatised components rather than steal them.

Anyway what exactly would nationalising the railways be a solution to. 

It would mean that our extortionate rail fares no longer subsidise Deutche Bahn, the Netherlands state and so on:

http://www.cityam.com/256824/owns-uks-railways-well-not-british-firms-many-cases

Quote

The sale of the C2C rail franchise – labelled by consumer groups as the best network into London – has once again sparked concerns that Britain's railways are being taken over by foreign, often state-owned, firms.

AIUI, there is no need to take over the TOCs - just let their franchises expire and award them to 'New BR' when we're hopefully no longer bound by EU rules that mean bids have to be open to companies (and somehow state organisations) across the EU.

The real problem with nationalisation AFAICS is the ROSCOs that own all 'our' trains: http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2015/who-really-owns-britains-trains/ - most of the intermediate bankster owners have sold out, but unlike the TOCs they don't have short term contracts that will run out.

[HairyOb1]

32 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

I think CC is speaking from experience.....being banned from the other website is the ultimate in 'ignore functions' 

Oh gawd, did he get banned off the 'unbanable' site?  That's acutely good work 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Absolute rot. We used to be on the winning side in +90% often being the swing vote that tipped the decision in our favour.

Once we are outside of we will find many more votes going against our preferred outcome and because, to retain access to the single market, we will still follow EU rules/regulations we will have les sovereignty than we have today.    

The £10bn (£8.6bn actually but I know leavers aren't good with numbers) is long gone as the hit the economy has already taken from the vote has already exceeded this, and is forecast to be more £20bn by the time we actually leave.  

Transition over in 18 months   

I do not understand the argument that "we'll lose our voice in the EU".

We, the people, have no voice in the EU - perhaps a little tiny one if an MEP has ever accomplished much.

Our unrepresentative politicians have some small voice in the EU - but most HPCers are agreed that Westminster doesn't give a fig about the people - our politicians don't actually represent our best interests, but their own corporate & other vested interests.

Many remainers believe in the Stockholm Syndrome Argument - i.e. the EU protects us from our own politicians. This seems to be incompatible with worrying that Westminster politicians will lose the little influence they have over the EU.

[HairyOb1]

4 minutes ago, highYield said:

I do not understand the argument that "we'll lose our voice in the EU".

We, the people, have no voice in the EU - perhaps a little tiny one if an MEP has ever accomplished much.

Our unrepresentative politicians have some small voice in the EU - but most HPCers are agreed that Westminster doesn't give a fig about the people - our politicians don't actually represent our best interests, but their own corporate & other vested interests.

Many remainers believe in the Stockholm Syndrome Argument - i.e. the EU protects us from our own politicians. This seems to be incompatible with worrying that Westminster politicians will lose the little influence they have over the EU.

They're two very different arguments.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, HairyOb1 said:

They're two very different arguments.

Stockholm Syndrome (i.e. the EU saves us from Westminster) ... vs ... Westminster politicians mustn't lose (their small VI) influence over the EU? 

How so? We have virtually no say in the EU. 

As a Europhile, wouldn't you be happy that our venal Westminster politicians will lose their small voice in the EU?

[pig]

20 hours ago, GregBowman said:

Nicely put genuinely. I guess my view is there was a white lie on both sides and we are heading for a long overdue 'normal' recession, Brexit will be convenient for all concerned

Well that knocked me off balance lol - thanks !

Im just not that magnanimous. Farage screwed UKIP, UKIP screwed the Tories, the Tories screwed over the country. Sure there was wild rhetoric on both sides but really Leave was wall to wall bull backed by your worst nightmare - there’s no equivalence there and hasn’t been since.

Mercer and Bannon wanted to ‘change the culture’ - and with all the Leaver parroting of ‘populist’ TPTB memes,  how ‘the culture’ has been prised away from rational discourse is the story I’m kind of expecting to hear next. There’s a lot more arguing the toss than giving a toss coming from Leavers on this thread for example.

Brexit hobbles our ability to deal with recessions irrespective of how it’s caused and politically speaking  if it can all be a woolly TPTB conspiracy (as opposed to actual billionaires spending on actual psi-ops propaganda in cahoots with actual political cliques) there won’t be pragmatic democratic diagnosis either.

[ccc]

Lots of remain hissyfits today it seems. 

[jonb2]

1 hour ago, pig said:

Well that knocked me off balance lol - thanks !

Im just not that magnanimous. Farage screwed UKIP, UKIP screwed the Tories, the Tories screwed over the country. Sure there was wild rhetoric on both sides but really Leave was wall to wall bull backed by your worst nightmare - there’s no equivalence there and hasn’t been since.

Mercer and Bannon wanted to ‘change the culture’ - and with all the Leaver parroting of ‘populist’ TPTB memes,  how ‘the culture’ has been prised away from rational discourse is the story I’m kind of expecting to hear next. There’s a lot more arguing the toss than giving a toss coming from Leavers on this thread for example.

Brexit hobbles our ability to deal with recessions irrespective of how it’s caused and politically speaking  if it can all be a woolly TPTB conspiracy (as opposed to actual billionaires spending on actual psi-ops propaganda in cahoots with actual political cliques) there won’t be pragmatic democratic diagnosis either.

Dead right. Hitler's (populist) tactics. Find an enemy and blame them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43793546

[OnionTerror]

3 hours ago, thehowler said:

M. Barnier is explicit...

We need to reach an agreement by autumn 2018 on the conditions of the United Kingdom's orderly withdrawal from the European Union. The UK will become a third country on 30 March 2019.

That was in September, but I'm not aware of any subsequent statement that contradicts this. Third country is significant as it marks the end of the Art 50 process and quashes speculation on revoking or reversing Art 50 thereafter.

It is a bit of an anomaly...Technically we would be third country, and would have left, however, as you know..."True" third countries wouldn't be bound to the below...

All existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures will also apply. The extent is made clear by a later addition not found in the draft. That, we are told, includes "the competence of the Court of Justice of the European Union". 
......

To all intents and purposes, for the entire transition period, we remain in the EU – but on the worst of all possible terms. We may escape the queues at Dover and all the other problems for the time being (if only to confront them again when the transition period is over) but, on 29 March 2019, we see Brexit in name only. We will not actually leave, at the earliest, until 29 March 2021 – with just a year to go to the general election, if Mrs May is still in office. 

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86705

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

Dead right. Hitler's (populist) tactics. Find an enemy and blame them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43793546

Sigh. Not "populist". HPC is a populist website.

More accurately, an Austrian/Germanic (happily defunct) brand of authoritarian populism.

[ccc]

Do the remain posters on here have some sort of bonus pool for mentioning Hitler and the Nazis ?

It really is frankly - utterly pathetic. 

[jonb2]

1 hour ago, ccc said:

Do the remain posters on here have some sort of bonus pool for mentioning Hitler and the Nazis ?

It really is frankly - utterly pathetic. 

From the article:

"Meanwhile, Leave.EU's Andy Wigmore has been recorded appearing to compare the tactics it used to keep immigration at the top of the referendum debate to the "clever" techniques of the Nazis."

"Mr Wigmore admitted that campaigners were concerned they would be blamed for creating "a wave of hatred and racism"."

"He told Ms Briant: "The propaganda machine of the Nazis, for instance - you take away all the hideous horror and that kind of stuff, it was very clever, the way they managed to do what they did."

I was summarising your leave colleagues views. Sorry if you find Hitler and the Nazis irrelevant, but it's clear they were inspiration for a leave.eu spokesman. Which Pig mentioned describing them as one's worst nightmare. Those inspired by Nazi tactics are a little bit frowned upon where I come from.

[jonb2]

2 hours ago, highYield said:

Sigh. Not "populist". HPC is a populist website.

More accurately, an Austrian/Germanic (happily defunct) brand of authoritarian populism.

This is how it's applied today. Mainly right-wing nationalism.

Orban, Duterte, Trump, Erdogan, Le Pen, Chavez, Farage, Berlusconi ...

"In short, populism is an illiberal democratic response to undemocratic liberalism. It criticises the exclusion of important issues from the political agenda by the elites and calls for their repoliticisation. However, this comes at a price. Populism’s black and white views and uncompromising stand leads to a polarised society – for which, of course, both sides share responsibility – and its majoritarian extremism denies legitimacy to opponents’ views and weakens the rights of minorities. While leftwing populism is often less exclusionary than rightwing populism, the main difference between them is not whether they exclude, but whom they exclude, which is largely determined by their accompanying ideology (eg nationalism or socialism)."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/17/problem-populism-syriza-podemos-dark-side-europe

And human rights are effected too.

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/dangerous-rise-of-populism

 

[Confusion of VIs]

6 hours ago, highYield said:

It would mean that our extortionate rail fares no longer subsidise Deutche Bahn, the Netherlands state and so on:

http://www.cityam.com/256824/owns-uks-railways-well-not-british-firms-many-cases

 

Two points:

As the winning bidders presumably offered the best overall deal (including price), preventing them from bidding would just force prices up further.

Do you also object to British firms selling their expertise abroad, or are you thinking of a one way ban.

 

 

[Confusion of VIs]

6 hours ago, highYield said:

I do not understand the argument that "we'll lose our voice in the EU".

We, the people, have no voice in the EU - perhaps a little tiny one if an MEP has ever accomplished much.

Our unrepresentative politicians have some small voice in the EU - but most HPCers are agreed that Westminster doesn't give a fig about the people - our politicians don't actually represent our best interests, but their own corporate & other vested interests.

Many remainers believe in the Stockholm Syndrome Argument - i.e. the EU protects us from our own politicians. This seems to be incompatible with worrying that Westminster politicians will lose the little influence they have over the EU.

Most, probably 90% of, people have no voice at all in the UK parliament. As unless you happen to live in a marginal seat your vote is effectively meaningless.  At least with PR you do have a voice, albeit a small one, when you vote for your MEP.

I would imagine most MP's are interested in helping their constituents, certainly London based MP's cannot be in it for the money.   Living in London on £74k is not easy (at least since the expenses gravy train was derailed), it would just about cover  a basic lifestyle living in a 2 bed flat in zone 2 or 3.

As for the cod psychology, a report out today said that voting leave was strongly correlated with a fear of change. So if you actually believe in it, Leave voters would be much more likely to fall victim to Stockholm Syndrome.

Unfortunately in their case they are being held hostage by a fantasy and contrary to what they would have you believe voted to try to stop change     

Another report was rather less flattering https://www.gold.ac.uk/news/xenophobia-brexit/  

[Confusion of VIs]

At last some good Brexit News

The analysis found that a bespoke deal could also bring in £27bn extra to the Treasury, including from customs revenue and EU budget savings.

There are of course a few teeny drawbacks but if we ignore these, as any self respecting Leaver will, it's all looking good. 

 

[pig]

9 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

At last some good Brexit News

The analysis found that a bespoke deal could also bring in £27bn extra to the Treasury, including from customs revenue and EU budget savings.

There are of course a few teeny drawbacks but if we ignore these, as any self respecting Leaver will, it's all looking good. 

 

Wow - I’m guessing the people who voted for £350m for the NHS, were then happy with WTO/no deal scenario and discover today that means losing 44% of the NHS budget have been on a bit of a journey...