Brexit and the Consequences

[barjon]

Look, as foretold 2 years ago, we will leave without a deal, we will pay no money to the EU and the EU's collapse will speed up after we leave.

Meanwhile, when our dozy government finally wake up to the reality of a no deal, I expect Trump will make noises to the effect that a glorious future can be carved out for the west. Something that the UK should wholeheartedly embrace. It's time to ditch all this redistributive socialism and power ahead with proper free market economics.

Come on walnut....keep up

Yes, you’ve been pretty consistent in no deal but that’s not how it was sold by Gove, Johnson, Farage and the other leading Brexit proponents.

Macron summed it up in the aftermath of yeserday’s debacle when he said “Brexit is the choice of the British people pushed by those who predicted easy solutions. Those people are liars.”

 

[tomorton]

I voted Remain in the referendum, taking the conservative approach without much conviction, but I don't recall anyone saying anything about the favourability of a Brexit deal in the run-up.

It was either In or Out. The campaign and the voting wasn't conditional on "In because we will get a bad deal if we leave" or "Out but only as long as we get a good exit deal". It was In or Out. And there was no conclusive evidence that In or Out would be an economic disaster.

So I do think all this debate about the type of deal is more about politicians manoeuvering for their own advantage, either to secure power and/or evade responsibility. They're just jerkin' our chains.

 

[Atilla]

I voted Remain in the referendum, taking the conservative approach without much conviction, but I don't recall anyone saying anything about the favourability of a Brexit deal in the run-up.

It was either In or Out. The campaign and the voting wasn't conditional on "In because we will get a bad deal if we leave" or "Out but only as long as we get a good exit deal". It was In or Out. And there was no conclusive evidence that In or Out would be an economic disaster.

So I do think all this debate about the type of deal is more about politicians manoeuvering for their own advantage, either to secure power and/or evade responsibility. They're just jerkin' our chains.

Many things were said including countries would be queuing up to make deals with us, EU needs us more than we do and how easy making deals were compared to how EU handles them.

Just out of curiousity Trump pushed the same line. How many deals as he torn up and how many has he made?


I remember Cameron also bigging him self about when we are out we are out that's it!


I'm always amazed how so many people hold up what they've heard from politicians as if it is Gospel. The law. End of.

It's Parliament that governs the country not words from politicians mouths. Just as a police officer doesn't make laws only part of a cog that administers that process.


We were told many things. Hence, why vote by Parliament, new elections or vote on the new deal is a MUST!

 

[Splitlink]

Now the same gentleman is suggesting maybe we should have another referendum???

His either bored or confused?


Another fine mess indeed!

Well! I didn't know that!

 

[mike.]

On Monday I ordered some electrical parts from America, they were free postage and half the price I could buy anywhere else, they arrived this morning...what is there to be scared about on WTO ? Bring it on and stuff you junker,

 

[Atilla]

Well! I didn't know that!

Yes absolutely Split, his the one who said we could have a Norwegian or Swiss deal and that before the results were announced the referendum would make no differeence he would continue with his campaign (million pound job) talking down EU.

Another so called principalled politician.

Deserts his party when the job really gets going.

I have a sneaky feeling he'll be remembered as the modern day guy falkes.

 

[Splitlink]

The N.Ireland border problem is a can of worms, no doubt about it. Eire had a special relationship with UK before they both joined the EU. Now that only one of the two is leaving, there is bound to be a serious problem there.

I do believe that the N.Irish should have a referendum on this and the UK should abide by it. The politicians won't like it but it is the only way out.

I, still, am a Remainer but sympathise with TM on this very difficult point.

 

[Signalcalc]

TM looked very uncomfortable reading Ollie Robbins' script in Salzburg today.

 

[Atilla]

TM looked very uncomfortable reading Ollie Robbins' script in Salzburg today.

She wants a response.

I'll give her one representing the EU.

Currently there are 11 tiers of membership. Pick one!

 

[Signalcalc]

She wants a response.

I'll give her one representing the EU.

Currently there are 11 tiers of membership. Pick one!

I don't know why the EU didn't pick you as their negotiating 'tool', we would have arrived at a no deal Brexit much quicker and saved ourselves alot of channel hopping expense.

 

[Atilla]

I don't know why the EU didn't pick you as their negotiating 'tool', we would have arrived at a no deal Brexit much quicker and saved ourselves alot of channel hopping expense.

You are too kind

Cheers SignalC, I think between you and I we'd be like hand in glove reaching all sorts of possibilities.

 

[Signalcalc]

A little something for the weekend sir!

 

[Signalcalc]

All this sudden hard talk the BBC is reporting, it almost feels like contrived orchestration.

 

[Signalcalc]

All this sudden hard talk the BBC is reporting, it almost feels like contrived orchestration.

Or is it the first sign of the EU leadership cracking under the strain of, well, err, the EU ?

 

[timsk]

People’s Vote / Second Referendum - Your Views Please!

Apologies in advance folks as this post is a tad long!

The calls for a ‘People’s Vote’ or second referendum ('PV' from now on) appear to be growing in number and volume. Lots of people (Sir Vince Cable, Gina Miller etc.) back the idea, but I’ve not heard how they think the results should be interpreted and implemented. What follows is my take on it . . .

My understanding is that those demanding a PV think that the electorate should be able to vote on the following three options . . .
A. To leave the EU with whatever deal is on offer. Currently that’s Chequers (just!) which we’ll call ‘soft’ Brexit. (I know the current Chequers deal has a snowball’s chance in hell of making it to the end of next week - let alone to being an option on a PV ballot paper - but there could be something as bad!)
B. To leave the EU without any deal at all and revert to WTO rules. We’ll call that ‘hard’ Brexit.
C. To remain in the EU.
It’s obvious to me that to some extent Brexiteers will be split between the first two options and that if the split is 50:50 then, theoretically, remainers could win a PV with as little as 34% of the vote. For the sake of argument, if the 2016 results are repeated, and remain voters poll 48%, then one of the two leave options would need to poll 49%, 50%, 51% or 52% in order to win. And that is extremely unlikely, as it would require the other leave option to poll a mere 3% or less. On this basis, IMO, remain voters should only be able to claim victory if they get 51% or more of the total votes cast. However, thus far, I’ve not heard anyone say that.

There is another problem with this 3 option PV that could result in both leavers and remainers being unhappy. Imagine this scenario:- the polls have closed and the results are in . . .
A. 34% voted to leave the EU with the Chequers deal (‘soft’ Brexit)
B. 33% voted to leave the EU without any deal and revert to WTO rules (‘hard’ Brexit).
C. 33% voted to remain in the EU.
These figures suggest that we could end up with a soft Brexit that almost two thirds of the electorate don’t want. This then raises the prospect of tactical voting. Personally, if a bad Chequers style option gained support during pre-PV campaigning, I would seriously consider jumping ship and voting remain, as I think that would be preferable to a very week soft Brexit or ‘Brexit in name only’ (Brino).

Gina Miller recently launched her new campaign to ‘End the Brexit Chaos’. IMO, if her calls for a PV along the lines above are heeded, then, based on my assessment (if it’s correct), far from ending the chaos - it could make it a whole lot worse. So, I’m interested in your views - especially those of you on the remain side. (I think I know what most Brexiteers think about a PV, lol!) Is my take on a PV fair and accurate - or am I missing something?
Tim.

 

[tomorton]

Well done Tim. Much clearer analysis than most of what passes for journalism but which is actually news reporting.

 

[tomorton]

PS. No more referendums please.

 

[Atilla]

I concur with Tom's response. Having another advisory referendum is a daft idea as asking joe public for advice on a complex topic which they know nought about. Process will be hijacked by the usual me me me politicians and non-eu issues like those refugees in Calais

1. As before, my preference is for Parliament and Lords to debate, judge and vote on issue.

2. Alternatively, MPs identify their stance. We go to elections debating the new deal when all parties will have to tie their flags to the mast and people can vote on what's important to them not just on the issue of EU. Country before party. Tories and Labour should sort their shed out.

3. Finally, rather than a referendum I'd like to think of it as Peoples Vote on the new deal. Accept New Deal or Reject.

3 a - If Reject then all out on WTO rules or

3 b - All-in as we were.

It's difficult to summarise such a complex decision with a yes or no. So everybody should seriously think about and consider their position voting as they see in their best interest.


However, I can already hear all the difficult questions and how complex drafting appropriate wording is likely to be. So 1 or 2 for me. 2 may well be forced on current encumbent anyhow if only those Tories can muster some true grit!

Apologies in advance folks as this post is a tad long!

The calls for a ‘People’s Vote’ or second referendum ('PV' from now on) appear to be growing in number and volume. Lots of people (Sir Vince Cable, Gina Miller etc.) back the idea, but I’ve not heard how they think the results should be interpreted and implemented. What follows is my take on it . . .

My understanding is that those demanding a PV think that the electorate should be able to vote on the following three options . . .
A. To leave the EU with whatever deal is on offer. Currently that’s Chequers (just!) which we’ll call ‘soft’ Brexit. (I know the current Chequers deal has a snowball’s chance in hell of making it to the end of next week - let alone to being an option on a PV ballot paper - but there could be something as bad!)
B. To leave the EU without any deal at all and revert to WTO rules. We’ll call that ‘hard’ Brexit.
C. To remain in the EU.
It’s obvious to me that to some extent Brexiteers will be split between the first two options and that if the split is 50:50 then, theoretically, remainers could win a PV with as little as 34% of the vote. For the sake of argument, if the 2016 results are repeated, and remain voters poll 48%, then one of the two leave options would need to poll 49%, 50%, 51% or 52% in order to win. And that is extremely unlikely, as it would require the other leave option to poll a mere 3% or less. On this basis, IMO, remain voters should only be able to claim victory if they get 51% or more of the total votes cast. However, thus far, I’ve not heard anyone say that.

There is another problem with this 3 option PV that could result in both leavers and remainers being unhappy. Imagine this scenario:- the polls have closed and the results are in . . .
A. 34% voted to leave the EU with the Chequers deal (‘soft’ Brexit)
B. 33% voted to leave the EU without any deal and revert to WTO rules (‘hard’ Brexit).
C. 33% voted to remain in the EU.
These figures suggest that we could end up with a soft Brexit that almost two thirds of the electorate don’t want. This then raises the prospect of tactical voting. Personally, if a bad Chequers style option gained support during pre-PV campaigning, I would seriously consider jumping ship and voting remain, as I think that would be preferable to a very week soft Brexit or ‘Brexit in name only’ (Brino).

Gina Miller recently launched her new campaign to ‘End the Brexit Chaos’. IMO, if her calls for a PV along the lines above are heeded, then, based on my assessment (if it’s correct), far from ending the chaos - it could make it a whole lot worse. So, I’m interested in your views - especially those of you on the remain side. (I think I know what most Brexiteers think about a PV, lol!) Is my take on a PV fair and accurate - or am I missing something?
Tim.

 

[sminicooper]

Titanic Brexit

I'm now suffering from Chronic Brexit Fatigue (CBF) and I gather it's unlikely that any cure or pain relief will be found in the near future. I tried some of Attilla's walnuts which gave little remission, so I'm having to resort to humour as the only way out.

 

[Atilla]

Brexit means Brexit! :cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::cheesy::cheesy: