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

[skomer]

36 minutes ago, crouch said:

I'm sure you're right about a split. The problem is that it splits the Tory vote as did the formation of the SDP split the Labour vote in the early eighties and they realize this.

However, I think if Labour split then that could encourage a Tory split as they would "cancel" each other out. This is now much more likely and there is open talk about a Labour split amid very serious disenchantment with Corbyn.  

Isn't this what Blair and his money-backers was lobbying for the other week.  .... opportunity to set up a new Macron like party to stop any form of Brexit and stop Corbyn....

They will go for Corbyn this May after the local elections if he does badly...

 

[Kosmin]

4 minutes ago, crouch said:

Most people are disappointed in life.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549375369&sr=1-1&keywords=better+never+to+have+been

[crouch]

21 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

I don't think I asserted above that people voted for any specific reason. If I did I misspoke. Nobody knows why people voted to Leave or to Remain. I only assume that points that were made prominently by key figures were probably important (Why would campaigners put a slogan on a bus or a poster, or make a claim in debates, if they didn't think it was persuasive?). Leave and Remain campaigners generally argued that Leave and Remain would be preferable in multiple ways. There may have been some Leave campaigners who said the issues are only sovereignty and relatedly control of our borders and explicitly said: "I don't know what will happen to the economy" or "I expect it to be worse" but unless they were a prominent part of the campaign it's not clear to me what proportion of Leave voters share this indifference to the impact of Brexit on the economy.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "lies were largely about how much better off we'd be on your own admission whereas most Leave voters voted because of sovereignty and immigration." I don't think anyone knows why people voted. Even if you think we can rely on polling, we are still relying on people's ability to discern what influenced them. People were probably positively influenced by claims about the ease of making trade deals even if they thought immigration was the key issue.

I think what campaigners and politicians talked about it is really important. Jonb2 quotes of Leavers saying it will be very easy, done over a cup of coffee etc. aren't just statements that we can question them about later (What do they think of these statements? Do they still think they could be made easily, but there were obstacles they did not predict? Do they now realise they were ignorant of certain factors? Were the statements made despite not knowing whether it would be easy? Did they suspect it would be hard, but thought it was worth lying because they wanted to Leave and thought the end justified lying? Did they think lying didn't matter because they didn't expect to win the referendum?). They also indicate that this were considered to be important points. They thought that people would be more likely to vote Leave if they were reassured about trade deals. I think this is an incredibly important point. A lot of people say it doesn't matter what kind of deal we have, we didn't vote on deals, we only voted to Leave. But if the intention were to Leave without a deal this would or should have been more prominent in the debates. I'm only aware of Patrick Minford making an argument like this and only once at his IEA book launch (I don't think he went around making speeches and debating like Farage, Johnson, Hannan, Stuart etc.).

Finally, regarding your comment that people who: "said "gotcha" and duly put their cross in the wrong place," regardless of whether people think they were wrong to vote Leave, we still ought to try to find out what they want, as that can be useful in informing opinions about what we should prioritise in negotiations.

"I don't think anyone knows why people voted". Not true. See this:

http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/?p=1153

With regard to statements made by politicians they might have made them in good faith at the time. The fact that they have been proven erroneous does not nullify their good faith so criticism may be regarded as a little harsh.

There is less excuse with the economic projections because these were unconditional and virtually worthless but people do take notice. Incidentally in the White Paper of 1971 on EEC entry there were no economic projections because it was said that the economic outcome depended on how individuals and businesses reacted to the chaNged circumstances in the EEC.

 

[crouch]

9 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence/dp/0199549265/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1549375369&sr=1-1&keywords=better+never+to+have+been

Thanks I'll read that. 

[PeanutButter]

17 minutes ago, skomer said:

Isn't this what Blair and his money-backers was lobbying for the other week.  .... opportunity to set up a new Macron like party to stop any form of Brexit and stop Corbyn....

They will go for Corbyn this May after the local elections if he does badly...

 

Now, more than any other time we could have done with a strong opposition leader and team. Instead most people are backing the liars and backstabbers already in power, rather than risk things with the floppy whingers in Labour. 

[Dorkins]

37 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Now, more than any other time we could have done with a strong opposition leader and team. Instead most people are backing the liars and backstabbers already in power, rather than risk things with the floppy whingers in Labour. 

What should Corbyn/Labour have done differently?

I don't blame Corbyn for taking the approach he has. Let the Tories rip themselves to shreds, conserve your energy and watch for your opportunity to enter government. It's very Sun Tzu.

[PeanutButter]

2 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

What should Corbyn/Labour have done differently?

I don't blame Corbyn for taking the approach he has. Let the Tories rip themselves to shreds, conserve your energy and watch for your opportunity to enter government. It's very Sun Tzu.

IMO a leader should LEAD and I only see him following. It's passive, not active. It's weak, not strong. It's all very well suggesting that the Tories will fail and he'll scoop the dividend but if a charismatic LEADER emerges from either party I expect people would be tempted to give them a shot first. Am I in the minority? Maybe. Perhaps most people want chaos and indecision. I don't know. 

[IMHAL]

4 hours ago, kzb said:

Watched some of David Davis again last night.

Here is something he said about any 2nd ref. options:

People say that there should be a 2nd referendum because now we know what the facts are.  We now know what the realistic choices are, which we didn't before.

This is completely mistaken.  We don't know what the outcomes are until we've done it. 

All we know are a lot of assertions.  They are not facts.  

Ok - I've eradicated DD out of my mind and onto the his declaration.

He is basically saying no point in a second referendum because we still don't have real choices. 

In fact he is right.....2 1/2 years later and we still don' have any real Brexit choices...no preferred paths, nothing....just like the first time.

The difference this time is that we know it, we also know that FTA's will not not be the easiest thing in the world, we know that trade will take a hit, we know that investment will start to leave the UK.

In the event of a Brexit path being chosen, then we know it will not be one that many Leave votes wanted, because they where never told this in the first place. Leavers voted from Hard Brexit to Norway and everything in between because it was never specified. Many of them will be unhappy that it has crystallised into this or that and may in turn regret their decision.

I have changed my mind about DD - he is a Remainers hero.. It is also a very poor attempt at stymieing a second ref. 

Edited February 5, 2019 by IMHAL

[kzb]

1 hour ago, IMHAL said:

Ok - I've eradicated DD out of my mind and onto the his declaration.

He is basically saying no point in a second referendum because we still don't have real choices. 

In fact he is right.....2 1/2 years later and we still don' have any real Brexit choices...no preferred paths, nothing....just like the first time.

The difference this time is that we know it, we also know that FTA's will not not be the easiest thing in the world, we know that trade will take a hit, we know that investment will start to leave the UK.(1)

In the event of a Brexit path being chosen, then we know it will not be one that many Leave votes wanted, because they where never told this in the first place. Leavers voted from Hard Brexit to Norway and everything in between because it was never specified (2). Many of them will be unhappy that it has crystallised into this or that and may in turn regret their decision.

I have changed my mind about DD - he is a Remainers hero.. It is also a very poor attempt at stymieing a second ref. (3)

(1)  What you have here are assertions.  We do not know what the outcome will be, this is the whole point.

(2) From this point of view, the soft/hard Brexit choice is not relevant because you do not know the outcome of any option.  You only have the assertions of those who presume to predict the outcome.

(3) He had plenty other reasons to reject a 2nd ref, not the least of which is it weakens our negotiating position.

Another statement was that Germany was being consulted about everything.  It sounded like we were not negotiating with the EU as a whole (as advertised), but rather Germany was in control of what the EU side were doing.

Also, DD maintained the UK was voted down in the EU Parliament more often than any other country.  The EU is very much the Germany-France show.

 

 

 

 

[Sheeple Splinter]

15 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

But that argument would apply with or without the Diesel emissions cost. If its cheaper to make them in Japan why not do it.

The real Elephant in the room is that uncertainty about our long term relationship makes it impossible to justify any new investment in UK production with a pay back time measured in anything more than months.

Also the EU/Japan trade deal undermines the long term future of all the assembly plants. I wonder if the deal would have gone through in its current form is the UK had not voted for Brexit.

 

Precisely, with the tapering of duties and NTB's, that is the risk the EU28 face and it's not just cars... 

Not at all, I don't think 'uncertainty vs new investment' fits the metaphor as witnessed by this thread's 3110 pages to date.

That said, I agree that 36 months of political uncertainty has and will continue to have an impact on the UK until a definitive position is reached. I have to say, I find the hypocrisy of those politicos & voters delaying the process and then complaining about its effects rather tedious.

Yes, this has been mentioned upthread already but, and this is a big but...  it's not just Japan!

Are you suggesting that the EU28 modified the terms to punish the UK? 

[IMHAL]

49 minutes ago, kzb said:

(1)  What you have here are assertions.  We do not know what the outcome will be, this is the whole point.

(2) From this point of view, the soft/hard Brexit choice is not relevant because you do not know the outcome of any option.  You only have the assertions of those who presume to predict the outcome.

(3) He had plenty other reasons to reject a 2nd ref, not the least of which is it weakens our negotiating position.

Another statement was that Germany was being consulted about everything.  It sounded like we were not negotiating with the EU as a whole (as advertised), but rather Germany was in control of what the EU side were doing.

Also, DD maintained the UK was voted down in the EU Parliament more often than any other country.  The EU is very much the Germany-France show.

 

 

 

 

1 We know that signing an FTA '2 minutes' after 29th March is pure fiction. Fact

2 Soft/Hard (Norway vs WTO) are different paths with very different legislative/framework outcomes. They are different and will produce different outcomes. Fact 

3 His reasoning is wrong wrt a second ref. When you choose a path, Norway, EFTA then you have chosen a path and you negotiate through this path. Choosing a path does not weaken your negotiating position down this path, it simply means you have chosen one. Fact

These all sound like variations of fake news, the future is unknowable, all experts are elitists etc.....sad attempts to set aside logic.

 

Edited February 5, 2019 by IMHAL

[kzb]

15 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

Precisely, with the tapering of duties and NTB's, that is the risk the EU28 face and it's not just cars... 

Not at all, I don't think 'uncertainty vs new investment' fits the metaphor as witnessed by this thread's 3110 pages to date.

That said, I agree that 36 months of political uncertainty has and will continue to have an impact on the UK until a definitive position is reached. I have to say, I find the hypocrisy of those politicos & voters delaying the process and then complaining about its effects rather tedious.

Yes, this has been mentioned upthread already but, and this is a big but...  it's not just Japan!

Are you suggesting that the EU28 modified the terms to punish the UK?  *

*  I think this is doubtful.  This Japan-EU trade deal has been "announced" several times over the last few years.  You could probably trace any evolution of the motor trade tariffs etc over that time.  I bet there hasn't been a significant change since the referendum.

[kzb]

6 minutes ago, IMHAL said:

1 We know that signing an FTA '2 minutes' after 29th March is pure fiction. Fact

2 Soft/Hard (Norway vs WTO) are different paths with very legislative/framework outcomes. They are different. Fact.

3 His reasoning is wrong wrt a second ref. When you choose a path, Norway, EFTA then you have chosen a path and you negotiate through this path. Choosing a path does not weaken your negotiating position down this path, it simply means you have . Fact

These all sound like variations of fake news, the future is unknowable, all experts are elitists etc.....sad attempts to set aside logic.

 

Remember what we are talking about here is choices to offer on the referendum ballot paper.  Just because you offer them does not mean they will be available, and if they are, you do not know in what form.

I think perhaps you should watch it for yourself.  Possibly I am not putting it across very well.

[Sheeple Splinter]

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

*  I think this is doubtful.  This Japan-EU trade deal has been "announced" several times over the last few years.  You could probably trace any evolution of the motor trade tariffs etc over that time.  I bet there hasn't been a significant change since the referendum.

Maybe, but CoVI does have contacts within the EU.

IIRC, the EU tightened the screws on the A.50 framework after Macron beat Le Pen.

[rollover]

2 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

IMO a leader should LEAD and I only see him following. It's passive, not active. It's weak, not strong. It's all very well suggesting that the Tories will fail and he'll scoop the dividend but if a charismatic LEADER emerges from either party I expect people would be tempted to give them a shot first. Am I in the minority? Maybe. Perhaps most people want chaos and indecision. I don't know. 

Do you mean opposition leader should lead like in Venezuela?

[GrizzlyDave]

2 hours ago, IMHAL said:

Ok - I've eradicated DD out of my mind and onto the his declaration.

He is basically saying no point in a second referendum because we still don't have real choices. 

In fact he is right.....2 1/2 years later and we still don' have any real Brexit choices...no preferred paths, nothing....just like the first time.

The difference this time is that we know it, we also know that FTA's will not not be the easiest thing in the world, we know that trade will take a hit, we know that investment will start to leave the UK.

In the event of a Brexit path being chosen, then we know it will not be one that many Leave votes wanted, because they where never told this in the first place. Leavers voted from Hard Brexit to Norway and everything in between because it was never specified. Many of them will be unhappy that it has crystallised into this or that and may in turn regret their decision.

I have changed my mind about DD - he is a Remainers hero.. It is also a very poor attempt at stymieing a second ref. 

Politics aside - there’s something about his “I don’t give a feck” approach that’s quite refreshing...

[Dorkins]

50 minutes ago, kzb said:

Also, DD maintained the UK was voted down in the EU Parliament more often than any other country.  The EU is very much the Germany-France show.

That's a bit of a selective interpretation though, classic politician half-truth speak. MEPs don't sit in the EU Parliament by country, they sit according to political groups (e.g. centre-left, centre-right, greens etc). The 2014 European Parliament election in the UK returned 24 UKIP MEPs out of 73 total (most of the rest went to Labour and Conservative) on a 35.6% turnout. I can certainly imagine that the UKIP MEPs were voting against pretty much everything (when they bothered to turn up). But when UKIP MEPs vote one way and Labour MEPs vote the other and Labour's side win is that "the UK being voted down"?

Edited February 5, 2019 by Dorkins

[Bruce Banner]

2 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Politics aside - there’s something about his “I don’t give a feck” approach that’s quite refreshing...

 

[Dorkins]

3 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

Politics aside - there’s something about his “I don’t give a feck” approach that’s quite refreshing...

It seems more like a "I'm not very good at this" approach most of the time.

[Dorkins]

7 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

IIRC, the EU tightened the screws on the A.50 framework after Macron beat Le Pen.

A50 is in the Lisbon Treaty so could only be changed through a new treaty. There hasn't been a new treaty since Lisbon in 2009.

[kzb]

The EU/UK volte face on diesels

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2019/02/05/the-euuk-volte-face-on-diesels/

quote:

<<In the UK it is especially perverse. The government claims to want a bigger and more vibrant motor industry here in the UK, and is very worried by any possible threat to it. Yet at the same time its policy has done serial damage to the diesel car sector, the very sector they had most praised and had done most to build up in previous years.

Nissan drew attention to these issues in its recent decision not to go ahead with new assembly and extra capacity for a diesel vehicle at Sunderland.>>

 

 

[PeanutButter]

21 minutes ago, rollover said:

Do you mean opposition leader should lead like in Venezuela?

Please list 5 things the UK political situation in 2019 has in common with your chosen comparative country of Venezuela.

 

Or perhaps you’d like to list the 5 outstanding leadership characteristics of Jeremy Corbyn?

 

I’ll wait.

[zugzwang]

3 hours ago, PeanutButter said:

IMO a leader should LEAD and I only see him following. It's passive, not active. It's weak, not strong. It's all very well suggesting that the Tories will fail and he'll scoop the dividend but if a charismatic LEADER emerges from either party I expect people would be tempted to give them a shot first. Am I in the minority? Maybe. Perhaps most people want chaos and indecision. I don't know. 

I'm disappointed JC didn't make the lefty case for Leave but the Blairites would have caused an even bigger stink if he had so I can understand the reluctance. Since the yellow press either ignores him, misrepresents him or showers him with vitriol this stance has left him rather invisible. On the other hand, Brexit is an empty contrivance when set against the existential threat posed by the UK's dysfunctional economy. Corbyn's right to want to prioritise that debate over every other.

 

[zugzwang]

51 minutes ago, PeanutButter said:

Please list 5 things the UK political situation in 2019 has in common with your chosen comparative country of Venezuela.

 

Or perhaps you’d like to list the 5 outstanding leadership characteristics of Jeremy Corbyn?

 

I’ll wait.

1. Political integrity.

2. Revolutionary zeal.

3. Zen-like demeanour.

4. Social conscience.

5. Approachable.

[rollover]

1 hour ago, PeanutButter said:

Please list 5 things the UK political situation in 2019 has in common with your chosen comparative country of Venezuela.

 

Or perhaps you’d like to list the 5 outstanding leadership characteristics of Jeremy Corbyn?

 

I’ll wait.

1. Unicorn promised to everyone  - hopeful people still waiting to be delivered

2. Country split in half

3. The change is undeliverable and may never happen

4. Russia steering up people's emotion  and USA waiting to benefit from the following chaos

5.  Investors leaving

Edited February 5, 2019 by rollover