Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
GreenDevil

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

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, crouch said:

To me the answer is a clear no - to that part of the economic aspect, which, as I say, is not the predominant reason most Leavers voted on.

Tell that to the ERG, Farage, Boris, Singham et al.....listening to them, they think that mutual recognition will be enough for frictionless trade... The truth needs to come out..not this cloak and dagger drive to this place of mythical free trade..

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Confusion of VIs said:

Accepting reality is usually a good starting point for a negotiation.

Why do you regard that a failure or surrender. We could have had as  good a deal as any other country in the world has been able to negotiate, probably quite a bit better given that we have some things the EU would like to keep access to.   

Instead we sold the electorate a fantasy and now finding we cannot have it are looking for someone to blame. 

Yes people voted for lots of other things than economics, unfortunately like immigration most of those things had little or nothing to do with our membership of the EU.   

  

 

Reality is what you are prepared to accept privately, that is your bottom line. You negotiate on the basis of your top line not your bottom. Your starting point is surrender.

With regard to being sold a fantasy this is a quote by Matthew Goodwin from an article in Unherd:

"There are several key obstacles to this. The first is that very few Leavers have changed their minds. In the nearly three years that have passed since the first referendum there has certainly been a slight drift toward Remain. But the scale of this shift is routinely exaggerated by the second referendum herd."

 

If they were sold a fantasy then surely by now they would have changed their minds?

So voting for sovereignty and an end to freedom of movement has nothing to do with our membership of the EU? These things are the essence of our membership of the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

Tell that to the ERG, Farage, Boris, Singham et al.....listening to them, they think that mutual recognition will be enough for frictionless trade... The truth needs to come out..not this cloak and dagger drive to this place of mythical free trade..

I'm sure that those you mention don't believe it's quite that simple but trade goes on quite satisfactorily between the EU and ROW so this is hardly an insuperable problem. However, it does require good faith and I do raise a question mark against the attitude of the EU in that respect. The "punishment" meme has been on fairly open display recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

And 58.84% chose no deal.

What a coincidence!

The first one is the only realistic Brexit option and the second is unicorn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, crouch said:

Right, so it's got to be sufficiently detailed to meet your idea of a business plan.

Now, I'm very naive because I always thought that you went into negotiations with your highest bid and were prepared to compromise. This would indicate to me that a degree of vagueness was not merely desirable but necessary and that requiring a considerable degree of detail is in fact self defeating, but of course being a thicko Leaver I just don't understand these issues.

You obviously do not understand because if you believe that silly little link you tabled as evidence and proof of a suitably detailed plan then the country would not be in this pickle going to the dogs every single day. Now would it? What a joke you leavers are. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, crouch said:

I'm sure that those you mention don't believe it's quite that simple but trade goes on quite satisfactorily between the EU and ROW so this is hardly an insuperable problem. However, it does require good faith and I do raise a question mark against the attitude of the EU in that respect. The "punishment" meme has been on fairly open display recently.

Yes they do believe it...Just last night, the ERG's favourite go to man, Mr Singham....

image.jpg

We, as a country need to have a discussion where our future lies post-Brexit...I will not let these shitehawks high jack it with their own agendas..

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

You obviously do not understand because if you believe that silly little link you tabled as evidence and proof of a suitably detailed plan then the country would not be in this pickle going to the dogs every single day. Now would it? What a joke you leavers are. 

I did not say it was a detailed plan; it was a framework of what Leave means; that's why the article is called: "Leave Looks Like".

I then gave reasons why a detailed plan is counter productive and something a negotiator is unlikely to use.

The problem many Remainers have is they don't think. Hey ho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Dave Beans said:

Yes they do believe it...Just last night, the ERG's favourite go to man, Mr Singham....

image.jpg

We, as a country need to have a discussion where our future lies post-Brexit...I will not let these shitehawks high jack it with their own agendas..

Yes I saw that clip earlier in the day. Singham makes it quite clear that their proposals constitute an opening bid and that it would be watered down in subsequent negotiation; it is an opening framework. Hennig was talking about the bottom line not the top, where we are most likely to end up. So the two points of view are not inconsistent but are those at different stages in the process.

We should not start the negotiations by surrendering.

I do agree that we need a substantive discussion on where the country is headed.

Edited by crouch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

This is going off at a bit of a tangent, but I think this addresses some of the philosophical assumptions of the EU.

In my opinion the only really important questions are philosophical ones. They're the ones that lead to misery or, well, less misery:

https://unherd.com/2019/02/youre-reaping-what-you-sowed-liberals/

If liberalism were a scientific hypothesis, it would have been falsified many times over. But for its disciples, it is far from being a mere hypothesis. As the ex-liberal Dostoevsky understood, liberalism is nothing if not a religion. In the past, this may have been a strength. Today it is a weakness, and possibly fatal. Shigalyov was right. Trashing old freedoms in order to bring about a new state of unbounded freedom can only lead to despotism. Liberals cannot stem the on-going retreat of liberal values because it is they that are driving it.

John Gray sounds like an interesting chap:

Gray has written several influential books, including False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism (1998), which argues that free market globalization is an unstable Enlightenment project currently in the process of disintegration; Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals(2003), which attacks philosophical humanism, a worldview which Gray sees as originating in religions; and Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia (2007), a critique of utopian thinking in the modern world.

Gray sees volition, and hence morality, as an illusion, and portrays humanity as a ravenous species engaged in wiping out other forms of life. Gray has written that "humans ... cannot destroy the Earth, but they can easily wreck the environment that sustains them."[3]

 

Two problems with both arguments.

1) Russia has not even a concept of liberalism. Never in its history. Hence the despot at its head.

2) Religiosity is what connects most of the right wing in the USA. Putin has purposely boosted the orthodox church in Russia to recapture the traditionalist audience. 

I would argue that morality is the few things that binds us. Trust has led to mankind's progress and why we lead the animal kingdom. We can work in groups

Gray needs to read this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0141039167

On the other hand, true unbound freedom, like that espoused by the hippies in the late 60s did not end well. But the right wing, like Nixon helped their demise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, crouch said:

Yes I saw that clip earlier in the day. Singham makes it quite clear that their proposals constitute an opening bid and that it would be watered down in subsequent negotiation; it is an opening framework. Hennig was talking about the bottom line not the top, where we are most likely to end up. So the two points of view are not inconsistent but are those at different stages in the process.

 We should not start the negotiations by surrendering.

Surrendering what (bar the money)?

Edited by Dave Beans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, crouch said:

Whatever.

This is going to be process that will never end.  The relationship will ever evolve....It isn't bargaining in a souk, if thats what you think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, crouch said:

Reality is what you are prepared to accept privately, that is your bottom line. You negotiate on the basis of your top line not your bottom. Your starting point is surrender.

With regard to being sold a fantasy this is a quote by Matthew Goodwin from an article in Unherd:

"There are several key obstacles to this. The first is that very few Leavers have changed their minds. In the nearly three years that have passed since the first referendum there has certainly been a slight drift toward Remain. But the scale of this shift is routinely exaggerated by the second referendum herd."

 

If they were sold a fantasy then surely by now they would have changed their minds?

So voting for sovereignty and an end to freedom of movement has nothing to do with our membership of the EU? These things are the essence of our membership of the EU.

So let's look at both of those.

First sovereignty. Does this mean another decade of stupidity by our great leaders. Unencumbered by regulation, tax evasion laws and standards?

Immigration. Well good luck with that. More lies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46384417

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jonb2 said:

Two problems with both arguments.

1) Russia has not even a concept of liberalism. Never in its history. Hence the despot at its head.

2) Religiosity is what connects most of the right wing in the USA. Putin has purposely boosted the orthodox church in Russia to recapture the traditionalist audience. 

I would argue that morality is the few things that binds us. Trust has led to mankind's progress and why we lead the animal kingdom. We can work in groups

Gray needs to read this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Religion/dp/0141039167

On the other hand, true unbound freedom, like that espoused by the hippies in the late 60s did not end well. But the right wing, like Nixon helped their demise.

1) I thought the point was that the young Dostoevsky & many others were liberals in opposition to the government. This has been true of many countries throughout history. I don't think it's true to say that Russians have never had a concept of liberalism.

2) I'm not saying religion is a solution. But there is a problem at the heart of liberalism which the article addresses:

Yet liberal humanists continue to rely on the belief that human beings are by nature freedom-loving – a view that is certainly not based on empirical observation. Liberals might respond by asserting that human nature is not fixed – it can be transformed by political action. But if human beings are free to alter their nature, what is there to say they will remake themselves as free beings? They may prefer the tranquillized peace of a society like that imagined in Huxley’s Brave New World. Or decide that the freedoms of the past are relics of oppression, which must be swept away for the sake of social justice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

So let's look at both of those.

First sovereignty. Does this mean another decade of stupidity by our great leaders. Unencumbered by regulation, tax evasion laws and standards?

Immigration. Well good luck with that. More lies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46384417

 

These things need to be addressed I quite agree but at least we are free to determine our own laws; inside the EU we are not.

As regards immigration with freedom of movement you cannot in principle prevent unfettered EU immigration; you have no control. The link you mentioned is irrelevant to the fact that outside the EU we do have control; the fact that we may not exercise it, and in fact have not exercised it, is up to us; it is our choice; in the EU it isn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jonb2 said:

So let's look at both of those.

First sovereignty. Does this mean another decade of stupidity by our great leaders. Unencumbered by regulation, tax evasion laws and standards?

Immigration. Well good luck with that. More lies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-46384417

 

Then form your own party, raise merry hell, awake the national consciousness to rally the majority to your cause!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kzb said:

I think he is being a bit over-emotional.  But I don't find myself offended by his comments.  It's a natural reaction of someone having their worldview upset.

What we should be doing is jumping in with "Donald, it's OK, this is the plan".  But of course we are not.

Judging by the gap toothed Belgian *****'s comments after his meeting with TM and JC's conciliatory letter earlier in the day I predict a WA with ' Norway Plus' enshrined in the Political declaration being pushed through with labour support by the end of the month followed in short order by the breakup of the Tory party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

1) I thought the point was that the young Dostoevsky & many others were liberals in opposition to the government. This has been true of many countries throughout history. I don't think it's true to say that Russians have never had a concept of liberalism.

2) I'm not saying religion is a solution. But there is a problem at the heart of liberalism which the article addresses:

Yet liberal humanists continue to rely on the belief that human beings are by nature freedom-loving – a view that is certainly not based on empirical observation. Liberals might respond by asserting that human nature is not fixed – it can be transformed by political action. But if human beings are free to alter their nature, what is there to say they will remake themselves as free beings? They may prefer the tranquillized peace of a society like that imagined in Huxley’s Brave New World. Or decide that the freedoms of the past are relics of oppression, which must be swept away for the sake of social justice.

 

Sure. I meant Russians may have a 'concept' of liberalism. But they have rarely been allowed to live in a liberal world.

Religion is an interesting thing. Some would say it was a control mechanism keenly supported by the wealthy elites. Others would argue that it groups us, makes us care about others in our group. This is the thesis of the book I linked to. He argues there are more virtues in the right wing type. But he later recants this saying his conclusion was unfinished.

I am not sure we aren't living in Brave New World. The smartphone is the new soma.

https://www.gq.com/story/cal-newport-digital-minimalism

But i think we are approaching more 1984, which worries me. I think the whole social justice thing has gone too far. Of course Brit inventions like the NHS and the welfare system were needed. But they too have been eroded. Is it down to immigration or the rotten greed of capitalism as John Gray argues? A lot of people are upset by immigration and they were ignored. This in my book does not make these people wrong. On the other hand why did Blair be the only one in Europe to open the flood gates to unchecked EU immigration, now put on steroids by the Tories for the last 8 years? Was the motive liberalism or capitalism?

For me, I prefer liberalism governed by rules. This would extend to not allowing religion to dominate and divide. I would include uber social justice as originated in the USA and now infecting people here - as a religion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Confusion of VIs said:

It wasn't an insult. It was fair comment given the crassness of your comment; and follow up.     

 

 

 

Was Tusk's remark crass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, crouch said:

Reality is what you are prepared to accept privately, that is your bottom line. You negotiate on the basis of your top line not your bottom. Your starting point is surrender.

With regard to being sold a fantasy this is a quote by Matthew Goodwin from an article in Unherd:

"There are several key obstacles to this. The first is that very few Leavers have changed their minds. In the nearly three years that have passed since the first referendum there has certainly been a slight drift toward Remain. But the scale of this shift is routinely exaggerated by the second referendum herd."

If they were sold a fantasy then surely by now they would have changed their minds?

So voting for sovereignty and an end to freedom of movement has nothing to do with our membership of the EU? These things are the essence of our membership of the EU.

True according to Curtis at most 2% have actually changed their minds. It is much easier to blame someone else, Remainer traitors or EU punishing us, than it is to admit you were wrong.

However, the demographics are changing the most committed cohort of Leave voters the +75 are literally being decimated each year and being replaced by 18 year old predominately Remain supporters. That itself will be enough to eliminate the Leave majority by the time a second referendum could be held.  Whether you think this is relevant depends on whether or not you prioritise the votes of living 18-21yr old voters over the dead voters. 

The EU had little or nothing to do with migration levels, it was UK government policy that created the demand (as revealed by Ivan Roger's description of how the UK government sought first mover advantage in the race for EE workers), if you doubt that look what is happening now that EE migration is slowing, they are being replaced one for one by increased migration from elsewhere mainly the sub continent. Brexit will do nothing to reduce migration that we couldn't have done inside the EU.

Leaving the EU will probably reduce our sovereignty as we are heading for a BRINO and will be following rules we have no say in setting. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Confusion of VIs said:

True according to Curtis at most 2% have actually changed their minds. It is much easier to blame someone else, Remainer traitors or EU punishing us, than it is to admit you were wrong.

However, the demographics are changing the most committed cohort of Leave voters the +75 are literally being decimated each year and being replaced by 18 year old predominately Remain supporters. That itself will be enough to eliminate the Leave majority by the time a second referendum could be held.  Whether you think this is relevant depends on whether or not you prioritise the votes of living 18-21yr old voters over the dead voters. 

The EU had little or nothing to do with migration levels, it was UK government policy that created the demand (as revealed by Ivan Roger's description of how the UK government sought first mover advantage in the race for EE workers), if you doubt that look what is happening now that EE migration is slowing, they are being replaced one for one by increased migration from elsewhere mainly the sub continent. Brexit will do nothing to reduce migration that we couldn't have done inside the EU.

Leaving the EU will probably reduce our sovereignty as we are heading for a BRINO and will be following rules we have no say in setting. 

We'll retain our seats at the top tables, where global rules are made.  The EU just "facilitate" these rules into the single market....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

...I'm not saying religion is a solution. But there is a problem at the heart of liberalism which the article addresses:

Yet liberal humanists continue to rely on the belief that human beings are by nature freedom-loving – a view that is certainly not based on empirical observation...

These are important points, but this seems an odd context in which to raise them.

Control of immigration is illiberal (but many liberals accept that immigration needs to limited if they are unable to follow the more consistently liberal position of removing benefits, at least for immigrants), but the other reasons for opposing the EU are liberal. In contrast the EU is prepared to restrict freedom in pursuit of other objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

The EU is a rule/treaty based organisation. There were a number of options open to us (depending on what obligations we were prepared to accept). The EU even produced a handy chart showing what they were.

It would have been quite practical to ask the vote Leave campaign to choose what form of Brexit they wanted to campaign for based upon this. Then the referendum could have been binding.

The problem with this is that none of them were anything like as attractive as the offered "have cake and eat it" Brexit promised by the vote Leave campaign and almost certainly wouldn't have gained a majority of the vote. 

 

++++1

We can keep saying the above till we're blue in the face - the Leaves cannot accept that we had set choices, we delayed making them...and now we are still trying to make a choice...all of the choices have 'no cherries'. Leavers think that negotiations mean horse trading and anything and everything is open to negotiation.... it was never so and will not be so....

When will they learn?? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 355 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.