EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Furunculus]

I honestly don't think that the EU wants us in any more.
two and a half years of chaos and dire warnings after the vote and its still basically 50:50.
If art50 is revoked that leaves the EU with its second biggest member as a major headache for another generation.
blocking ever closer union every time they have a bright idea.

A pretty good exposition of the point above:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/10/even-if-brexit-is-cancelled-it-wont-erase-the-divisions-of-the-last-two-years

[Pannonian]

I honestly don't think that the EU wants us in any more.
two and a half years of chaos and dire warnings after the vote and its still basically 50:50.
If art50 is revoked that leaves the EU with its second biggest member as a major headache for another generation.
blocking ever closer union every time they have a bright idea.

A pretty good exposition of the point above:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/10/even-if-brexit-is-cancelled-it-wont-erase-the-divisions-of-the-last-two-years

Given all the lies that Brexiteers have told about the EU, and the degree of hatred they have for the EU, what do you expect? However, what Brexit has brought up is an equally intense fondness for the EU that there has not been before. Before Brexit, Eurosceptics have been allowed to use the EU as a scapegoat for all ills, while even Europhiles merely mildly liked the EU as a background fact. Post Brexit, the country is polarised. Leave won the vote. Leavers should own responsibility for the state of the country as they've brought it.

[Fragony]

Given all the lies that Brexiteers have told about the EU, and the degree of hatred they have for the EU, what do you expect? However, what Brexit has brought up is an equally intense fondness for the EU that there has not been before. Before Brexit, Eurosceptics have been allowed to use the EU as a scapegoat for all ills, while even Europhiles merely mildly liked the EU as a background fact. Post Brexit, the country is polarised. Leave won the vote. Leavers should own responsibility for the state of the country as they've brought it.

Yeah, give Them the billions you can keep

[Furunculus]

However, what Brexit has brought up is an equally intense fondness for the EU that there has not been before. Before Brexit, Eurosceptics have been allowed to use the EU as a scapegoat for all ills, while even Europhiles merely mildly liked the EU as a background fact. Post Brexit, the country is polarised.

what useful proportion of the electorate feels this way?

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39284/bsa35_full-report.pdf

Clue - table 1 page 119
Stay and increase EU’s powers = 4% (2017)
Work for single European government =3% (2017) altho, to be fair it has ticked up from the year before (2.0%!)

Clue - figure 1 page 121
European identiry stands at 17% - altho, to be fair is has ticked up in recent years (15%!)

[Pannonian]

what useful proportion of the electorate feels this way?

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39284/bsa35_full-report.pdf

Clue - table 1 page 119
Stay and increase EU’s powers = 4% (2017)
Work for single European government =3% (2017) altho, to be fair it has ticked up from the year before (2.0%!)

Clue - figure 1 page 121
European identiry stands at 17% - altho, to be fair is has ticked up in recent years (15%!)

What numbers turned up for the pro and anti Brexit rallies? Pro Brexit rallies muster around 5k. Anti Brexit rallies muster over 100 times that. Anti Brexiteers aren't going to go away. They're going to get more numerous and more intense in their belief after the effects of Brexit kick in.

If there is a vote before no deal and remain, which would you vote for? If the former, will you own responsibility for all the consequences of your vote?

[Pannonian]

Note for those who haven't been paying close attention: remember the Brexiteers have been holding up the ECJ as an example of how the UK yields sovereignty to an outside body. Despite the fact that any multilateral agreement must entail yielding in some part. Despite the fact that the ECJ has favoured the UK disproportionately (IIRC around 95% of UK-other disputes went in the UK's favour). That the ECJ is separate from the EU's administration, as any court should be, is ignored by Brexiteers; anything with "Europe" in the title is automatically taboo, hence withdrawal from Euratom and ECHR. The UK argued that, once article 50 had been invoked, it could no longer be revoked. The EU argued that, if the UK wanted to revoke, it must require the unanimous support of the other 27 countries to revoke, as per any new application to join. The ECJ ruled that the UK can unilaterally revoke, on the grounds of sovereignty.

1. The UK says article 50 can no longer be revoked (we have no power and it's the EU's fault).
2. The EU says the EU27 must agree for article 50 to be revoked (we demand power).
3. The ECJ says it's entirely within the UK's power to revoke (the UK is sovereign).

Funnily enough, out of the above three, it is only the ECJ that has defended the UK's sovereignty.

And further to that, the UK government last night postponed a scheduled vote on May's deal. A previous vote ensured that Parliament has the right to oversee the process before any Brexit can take place. But now the government is arguing that it can bypass Parliament until Brexit is a fait accompli. And so, the day after the maligned ECJ has upheld the UK's sovereignty, the UK government has suspended Parliament's rights, in the name of Brexit.

[Furunculus]

What numbers turned up for the pro and anti Brexit rallies? Pro Brexit rallies muster around 5k. Anti Brexit rallies muster over 100 times that. Anti Brexiteers aren't going to go away. They're going to get more numerous and more intense in their belief after the effects of Brexit kick in.

If there is a vote before no deal and remain, which would you vote for? If the former, will you own responsibility for all the consequences of your vote?

irrelevant - versus the comprehensive BES 2018 report.

no deal, of course. the eu wasn't good enough before, it wasn't good enough with cameron's deal, it certainly isn't good enough as the status quo minus medicine & financial regulators. it feels like you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here: this isn't simply a on-balance dry economic cost/benefit analysis. and i'm pretty sure i've pointed that out to you before.

but as I said: i support the deal, which seems only proper given that I am a pragmatic and reasonable middle-of-the-road kinda guy. ;)

[Pannonian]

irrelevant - versus the comprehensive BES 2018 report.

no deal, of course. the eu wasn't good enough before, it wasn't good enough with cameron's deal, it certainly isn't good enough as the status quo minus medicine & financial regulators. it feels like you're fundamentally misunderstanding something here: this isn't simply a on-balance dry economic cost/benefit analysis. and i'm pretty sure i've pointed that out to you before.

but as I said: i support the deal, which seems only proper given that I am a pragmatic and reasonable middle-of-the-road kinda guy. ;)

Do you support not allowing Parliament to vote on the deal?

[Furunculus]

Do you support not allowing Parliament to vote on the deal?

constitutionally, i'm in favour of:
1. the executive having responsibility for negotiating foriegn treaties
> though i'm happy to recognise that the EU is so pervasive that brexit is practically a domestic issue
2. that government legal advice should remain private
> to ensure that governments can ask for and receive comprehesive and non-evasive advice

but more than anything i'm in favour of [the process] of parliament and how gov't responds to the demands of a political constitution (rather than a legal one), so I'm quite accepting of the fact that parliament will have a 'meaninful' vote and got an extensive precis of the legal advice.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Sounds like a nearly perfect 50/50 split.

So, how does your system work? If it really is split 50/50 do you let the Lords break the tie, let the Sovereign make the call, or toss a coin?

~;)

[Furunculus]

good question...

[Pannonian]

constitutionally, i'm in favour of:
1. the executive having responsibility for negotiating foriegn treaties
> though i'm happy to recognise that the EU is so pervasive that brexit is practically a domestic issue
2. that government legal advice should remain private
> to ensure that governments can ask for and receive comprehesive and non-evasive advice

but more than anything i'm in favour of [the process] of parliament and how gov't responds to the demands of a political constitution (rather than a legal one), so I'm quite accepting of the fact that parliament will have a 'meaninful' vote and got an extensive precis of the legal advice.

Aren't these powers normally dependent on the executive having a demonstrable majority in Parliament? If the government wishes to bypass Parliament because they are not confident of having a demonstrable majority, what mandate do they have to do what they want to do? And what if the executive delays matters so that Parliament has no practical recourse to alternative courses of action? NB. Parliament has already authorised the amendment of any action the government wishes to take on the issue, so this isn't just theoretical. The executive wishes to evade this, and has already done by calling off last night's vote.

[Furunculus]

No, those which I list exist regardless of majorities, but as custom of a political constitution are subject to the dictate of Parliament, even if it's not an advisable course of action.

Making saugages is not something anyone wants to get too familiar with, but the process tends to produce a consistently palatable result. I hope we end with that situation here.

WIll you support May's deal, as a pragmatic and reasonable compromise?

[Pannonian]

No, those which I list exist regardless of majorities, but as custom of a political constitution are subject to the dictate of Parliament, even if it's not an advisable course of action.

Making saugages is not something anyone wants to get too familiar with, but the process tends to produce a consistently palatable result. I hope we end with that situation here.

WIll you support May's deal, as a pragmatic and reasonable compromise?

Brexit is not sausage making. It has far greater consequences, which sausage making does not. For that reason, glib comparisons are not appropriate. If you want to make comparisons, only political situations with similarly wide ranging consequences are comparable. You keep arguing about sovereignty, how it is a good thing that can not be ceded in any part to the EU. Yet it is the ECJ which has upheld British sovereignty, and the executive you continue to support that is setting aside Parliamentary sovereignty. You keep talking about the constitution, alluding to something nebulous that nonetheless supports your course of action. I'll remind you again, despite your denial of the fact, that the mandate of the executive is contingent on their possession of a demonstrable majority. If an executive does not have a demonstrable majority, it does not have a mandate. And if it bypasses Parliament to avoid the demonstrable fact that it does not have a majority, then it is abusing its power, and whatever it does has no democratic legitimacy.

How is a government formed? By asking the leader of the party with a majority of the seats in the Commons to form a government. Failing a majority, then the leader of the biggest party is invited to form a coalition that can form a majority of the seats in the Commons. If the biggest party cannot do this, then the second biggest party is invited to try. If this successive coalition forming cannot form a majority, then there is another election to clarify matters. A majority in the Commons is the basis of any mandate for the executive. The executive's mandate is contingent on a majority in the Commons. The executive's mandate does not exist separate from the Commons.

[Furunculus]

At what point have I discussed mandates? This begun with your question on a meaningful vote, and my response of constitutional conventions.

[Pannonian]

At what point have I discussed mandates? This begun with your question on a meaningful vote, and my response of constitutional conventions.

If you want to talk about constitutional conventions, how does that work in terms of the Grieve amendment? By that, Parliament can amend any action May takes on this issue. But to do so, it must be allowed to vote on whether or not May's deal passes. This was denied last night. You appear to support this denial. Was May right to call off the vote last night? Should she be allowed to delay any Parliamentary action until her deal or no deal is a fait accompli?

[Furunculus]

You first: do you suppot the deal?

[Pannonian]

You first: do you suppot the deal?

I'd have thought it was obvious. No I bloody well do not. And she should let Parliament demonstrate that they do not bloody well support it either.

Now do you think May was right to call off the vote last night?

[Furunculus]

I'd have thought it was obvious. No I bloody well do not. And she should let Parliament demonstrate that they do not bloody well support it either.

Now do you think May was right to call off the vote last night?

So, do you support some other deal, or withdrawing art50 and stopping brexit?

I'm fine with her delaying the vote if she thinks she can by her positive actions change the dial in favour of acceptance (but not by her negative actions of letting it run up to the deadline so no other choice is possible).

[Pannonian]

So, do you support some other deal, or withdrawing art50 and stopping brexit?

I'm fine with her delaying the vote if she thinks she can by her positive actions change the dial in favour of acceptance (but not by her negative actions of letting it run up to the deadline so no other choice is possible).

Withdrawing article 50, another referendum, except this time Leave has a manifesto to be measured up to, whatever. One thing that is definite and immediate is that Parliament has the right to amend whatever action May takes on this issue. This was established in the Grieve amendment, which passed in the Commons. By this, May does not have the authority to do whatever she likes without first passing it through the Commons. This is not theoretical, nor is it in some indefinite future. It has to be done before May can claim final authority for her actions. Without this, all her authority on this issue is provisional.

Edit: the EU have confirmed and reiterated that there will be no further renegotiation. The deal is the deal. They are willing to dress it up. But in concrete terms, there will be no further changes.

[Furunculus]

Are you willing to own your responsibility if no deal occurs, because you weren't willing to accept a reasonable and pragmatic compromise in support of the majority view of the referendum?

Sorry, couldn't resist. :D
But back to your point: as per the sausage machine analogy, i'm happy with the process of parliament and that is what it has produced.

I agree that there will be no substantial change made to the WA, at most we'll get pointless clarifications explaining what the text already says - as was the case with Spain on Gibraltar - but hopefully it will prove enough. I'm already 'okay' with it.

[Pannonian]

No, those which I list exist regardless of majorities, but as custom of a political constitution are subject to the dictate of Parliament, even if it's not an advisable course of action.

Making saugages is not something anyone wants to get too familiar with, but the process tends to produce a consistently palatable result. I hope we end with that situation here.

WIll you support May's deal, as a pragmatic and reasonable compromise?

The Queen, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional convention in the UK, seemingly agrees with me. May has apparently been called in for a chat, presumably for not having a working majority. And now the Tory party are gearing up for a leadership challenge, with the 48 letter mark rumoured to have been reached. What was it you said about delaying things past the deadline?

[Montmorency]

https://www.ft.com/content/6650dc0e-fd62-11e8-aebf-99e208d3e521

Have Merkel/Germans been relatively accommodating of the UK's perspective compared to France and Spain out of fear that hard Brexit would help precipitate global economic downswing (and thereby damage German export markets)?


How is a government formed? By asking the leader of the party with a majority of the seats in the Commons to form a government. Failing a majority, then the leader of the biggest party is invited to form a coalition that can form a majority of the seats in the Commons. If the biggest party cannot do this, then the second biggest party is invited to try. If this successive coalition forming cannot form a majority, then there is another election to clarify matters. A majority in the Commons is the basis of any mandate for the executive. The executive's mandate is contingent on a majority in the Commons. The executive's mandate does not exist separate from the Commons.

Or there is a minority government, which are fairly common and stable throughout modern European history. :shrug:


Are you willing to own your responsibility if no deal occurs, because you weren't willing to accept a reasonable and pragmatic compromise in support of the majority view of the referendum?

Poor juxtaposition, because Pan doesn't support or participate in this decision-making.

'The rich desire to hunt the homeless for sport. The government has reached a tentative deal to allow them to hunt the homeless only for food. The alternative to this reasonable and pragmatic compromise is that many cadavers will go to waste. You wouldn't want that, would you?'

[a completely inoffensive name]

Their hearts are not in it. Honestly, this is just a charade at this point.

[Furunculus]

The Queen, the ultimate arbiter of constitutional convention in the UK, seemingly agrees with me. May has apparently been called in for a chat, presumably for not having a working majority. And now the Tory party are gearing up for a leadership challenge, with the 48 letter mark rumoured to have been reached. What was it you said about delaying things past the deadline?

I think I was agreeing with you. Are you now manufacturing disagreement even where it does not exist, and does this help you?


"Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus - Are you willing to own your responsibility if no deal occurs, because you weren't willing to accept a reasonable and pragmatic compromise in support of the majority view of the referendum?"

Poor juxtaposition, because Pan doesn't support or participate in this decision-making.

Shouldn't the same generosity apply also to me? ;)


'The rich desire to hunt the homeless for sport. The government has reached a tentative deal to allow them to hunt the homeless only for food. The alternative to this reasonable and pragmatic compromise is that many cadavers will go to waste. You wouldn't want that, would you?'
To return to an earlier phrase: The idea that democratic self-governance will lead to societal collapse is absurdist fantasy.
I might not be the only person peddling poor juxtapositions, and at least I presented mine ironically and with a smile.

[Kagemusha]

When i look at this whole mess. I am starting to think that there will be another referendum and GB will revoke article 50. It is just a hunch, though dont hang me for it. :shrug:

I just leave this here.

[rory_20_uk]

Given the deadline is March 29th, I think that there is no referendum (lest the plebs get a taste for direct democracy) and just initially a postponing and then a drop of Brexit. Sure the UK looses the most, but many other countries in the EU would also loose, and with the riots in France and Italy and Greece being... themselves no change is fine.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

May will hold onto her spot, but her bill won't pass. So I guess everyone at this point is just playing games and running down the clock until they revoke Article 50.

[Furunculus]

I suspect it will pass.

[Montmorency]

Shouldn't the same generosity apply also to me? ;)

But you do support and have actively participated in this decision-making, as you've spent many posts emphasizing. ~:confused:


To return to an earlier phrase: The idea that democratic self-governance will lead to societal collapse is absurdist fantasy.

I'm not sure how that relates to my post, but the far left would agree with you.


I might not be the only person peddling poor juxtapositions, and at least I presented mine ironically and with a smile.

<poetry>

https://i.imgur.com/3i6GNnh.jpg

[Furunculus]

Sorry, but no member of the electorate gets to dodge this way.
we are collectively bound to accept the result of the democratic process, and uber Remainers are just as liable for a disorderly brexit as erg wing nuts.
If you want to distinguish between the degree of responsibility owned by a voter versus an MP, sure, I'm open to that case myself.

But I myself sit high on the alter of moral purity in supporting a reasonable and pragmatic compromise that reflects a close result on a divisive and far reaching issue. How terribly British of me! :D

I'm not the extremist here.

[Pannonian]

Sorry, but no member of the electorate gets to dodge this way.
we are collectively bound to accept the result of the democratic process, and uber Remainers are just as liable for a disorderly brexit as erg wing nuts.
If you want to distinguish between the degree of responsibility owned by a voter versus an MP, sure, I'm open to that case myself.

But I myself sit high on the alter of moral purity in supporting a reasonable and pragmatic compromise that reflects a close result on a divisive and far reaching issue. How terribly British of me! :D

I'm not the extremist here.

Bwahahaha. So the concrete unpreparedness of the UK for Brexit is partly the fault of the Remainers for not believing hard enough. Perhaps if we'd all united in prayer to the god of Brexit, all the problems would go away.

You won. We lost. This is your victory. Own it.

[Furunculus]

My victory would be May's deal.

I've already told you (a number of times) that while my personal preference was for a slightly more freebooting brexit Britain I didn't think this was justified given the result (or possible given the election), so I would content myself with a softer brexit.

Well here it is; May's deal.

[Montmorency]

Sorry, but no member of the electorate gets to dodge this way.
we are collectively bound to accept the result of the democratic process, and uber Remainers are just as liable for a disorderly brexit as erg wing nuts.
If you want to distinguish between the degree of responsibility owned by a voter versus an MP, sure, I'm open to that case myself.


Huh? It seems fairly obvious to me that someone who supports and votes for a course of action is more accountable and responsible for it than someone who votes against it and does not support it.

A-are you saying Remainers would have to discharge their responsibility by usurping the government through force? ~:confused:


I'm not the extremist here.

You've been very concerned about being seen as an extremist, have you?

[Husar]

If you told the captain there are icebergs ahead, you're just as responsible for sinking the ship as the captain who said you'll be fine and ordered to go full steam ahead. Common sense, guys.

[Fragony]

If you told the captain there are icebergs ahead, you're just as responsible for sinking the ship as the captain who said you'll be fine and ordered to go full steam ahead. Common sense, guys.

Don't you understand it, the iceberg is a succesful brexit. Ever heard about the orchestra now that we are innuando

[Furunculus]

Huh? It seems fairly obvious to me that someone who supports and votes for a course of action is more accountable and responsible for it than someone who votes against it and does not support it.

You've been very concerned about being seen as an extremist, have you?

no, i'm saying that if there is going to be endless whining about owning 'your' decision should no deal arrive that resposnibility lies equally with all parties that reject compromise, remainer and brexiter alike. if remainers had pulled for soft brexit instead of complaining about how unfair life is they might very well have achieved it, but they didn't.

every second post i receive in this topic invites me to "own my responsibility" for my policy choice, just pointing out that it isn't me coming across as the extremist here. i support May's reasonable and pragmatic deal, as one would expect from a middle-of-the-road compromising kinda guy... ;)

[Montmorency]

But that's rubbish. Remainers had no authority over Brexit negotiations to "pull for soft Brexit".

You don't get to arrogate labels like "reasonable" and "pragmatic" to yourself on the basis of self-identification, they have to be demonstrated. I don't know what your standards for "reasonable" are, but for something to be pragmatic suggests it as an optimal or optimized response to existing conditions, which given my understanding of your own posts over time and the Brexit process over time comes across as flagrant goal-post moving.

For the government to propose something does not make it reasonable, pragmatic, nor a compromise by virtue of being conclusive. If your only ideological condition is not being subject to a framework for future political integration and you accept whatever fulfills that one ideological criterion, that doesn't make your "middle of the road" and those who disagree with you extremists. You're getting what you want at the expense of others.

A: Let's stay home and cook dinner.
B: I refuse to eat at home.
A: I would prefer not to spend money eating out.
B: Get in the car. I'm driving us for dinner.
A: Can't we talk this over?

***3 days later***

A: We're at the other end of the country. Please, let's go home.
B: Don't be so extreme. Here, I'll compromise and stop at this Cracker Barrel we're coming up on.

[Pannonian]

no, i'm saying that if there is going to be endless whining about owning 'your' decision should no deal arrive that resposnibility lies equally with all parties that reject compromise, remainer and brexiter alike. if remainers had pulled for soft brexit instead of complaining about how unfair life is they might very well have achieved it, but they didn't.

every second post i receive in this topic invites me to "own my responsibility" for my policy choice, just pointing out that it isn't me coming across as the extremist here. i support May's reasonable and pragmatic deal, as one would expect from a middle-of-the-road compromising kinda guy... ;)

Which vote of mine brought about this situation, may I ask? Was it my pro-EU vote in 2016? Or was it my pro-EU vote in 2017? Would the thousands of customs officers that we're short of have been found had I believed harder in May? Would the severe jams predicted by Kent Council Council from Dover to Maidstone be solved if I'd believed harder in May? Would the WTO drop their demands on the NI-Ireland border if I'd believed harder in May? Etc. Explain how your vote to Leave absolves you of responsibility whilst passing it onto my vote to Remain.

[Pannonian]

But that's rubbish. Remainers had no authority over Brexit negotiations to "pull for soft Brexit".

You don't get to arrogate labels like "reasonable" and "pragmatic" to yourself on the basis of self-identification, they have to be demonstrated. I don't know what your standards for "reasonable" are, but for something to be pragmatic suggests it as an optimal or optimized response to existing conditions, which given my understanding of your own posts over time and the Brexit process over time comes across as flagrant goal-post moving.

For the government to propose something does not make it reasonable, pragmatic, nor a compromise by virtue of being conclusive. If your only ideological condition is not being subject to a framework for future political integration and you accept whatever fulfills that one ideological criterion, that doesn't make your "middle of the road" and those who disagree with you extremists. You're getting what you want at the expense of others.

A: Let's stay home and cook dinner.
B: I refuse to eat at home.
A: I would prefer not to spend money eating out.
B: Get in the car. I'm driving us for dinner.
A: Can't we talk this over?

***3 days later***

A: We're at the other end of the country. Please, let's go home.
B: Don't be so extreme. Here, I'll compromise and stop at this Cracker Barrel we're coming up on.

All I wanted was for tomorrow to be reasonably like today. That's extremism, apparently.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All I wanted was for tomorrow to be reasonably like today. That's extremism, apparently.

Now it's three days later and you're at Cracker Barrel. Do you want the biscuits or the cornbread with your greens? Remember to pay your check in the gift shop (enjoy the AKUS Christmas music!) on the way out.

[Pannonian]

If you want to call yourself pragmatic, use the engineering model.

1. Do not use drastically new solutions, unless it is thoroughly tested, first in theory, and then in practice via small scale models. If you can't provide proof of concept, assume revolutionary new solutions do not work.
2. Use tried and tested solutions, adapted to the problem at hand. The closer a tried and tested solution is to the defined problem, the more reliably you can assume its implementation to be. If the context is completely different from that of your chosen solution, do not assume that it will work.
3. Peer review by acknowledged experts. There will always be differing views. But if an overwhelming majority of experts on the subject hold an opinion, it is more likely than not that their received opinion is the correct one.
4. When implementing, start with as small a scale as possible. Always leave yourself a way to reverse your actions.
5. If evidence suggests your model is wrong, reverse your actions and return to the baseline.

Brexit fails every one of these points, extravagantly.

[Furunculus]

All I wanted was for tomorrow to be reasonably like today. That's extremism, apparently.

But the world changes and successful societies meet that change by adapting appropriately.
brexit is a policy choice, much the same as opting to be a more collective society and doing some corbyn style nationalisation while weakening the foundation of property ownership.

And, this is me having fun with the weakness in your own position in accusing me of being the extremist while refusing to compromise.

[Furunculus]

If you want to call yourself pragmatic, use the engineering model.

1. Do not use drastically new solutions, unless it is thoroughly tested, first in theory, and then in practice via small scale models. If you can't provide proof of concept, assume revolutionary new solutions do not work.
2. Use tried and tested solutions, adapted to the problem at hand. The closer a tried and tested solution is to the defined problem, the more reliably you can assume its implementation to be. If the context is completely different from that of your chosen solution, do not assume that it will work.
3. Peer review by acknowledged experts. There will always be differing views. But if an overwhelming majority of experts on the subject hold an opinion, it is more likely than not that their received opinion is the correct one.
4. When implementing, start with as small a scale as possible. Always leave yourself a way to reverse your actions.
5. If evidence suggests your model is wrong, reverse your actions and return to the baseline.

Brexit fails every one of these points, extravagantly.

I'm an it project manager working to the agile methodology, so I recognise much of the sense inherent in the above.
this is indeed how you develop an [existing] product, but at the same time existing products do get engineered into a corner, whereby the changing environment leaves them unfit for purpose.
and the response may to replace the product.

You might argue that May's new 'product' does meet these same principles, in that 8t attempts to change as little as possible:
Common rule book for good.
non regression on flanking policies
keeping competition policy
Retaining lots of programs
Keeping a close security relationship

Rebuilding the services relationship and the new institutional relationship are the closest elements to revolutionary change.

[Furunculus]

But that's rubbish. Remainers had no authority over Brexit negotiations to "pull for soft Brexit".

You don't get to arrogate labels like "reasonable" and "pragmatic" to yourself on the basis of self-identification, they have to be demonstrated.... SNIP (some stuff)
I'll do whatever I damn well please. :)
Especially when I am having fun pointing out the illogical point of view.

[Montmorency]

I'll do whatever I damn well please. :)
Especially when I am having fun pointing out the illogical point of view.


But the world changes and successful societies meet that change by adapting appropriately.
brexit is a policy choice, much the same as opting to be a more collective society and doing some corbyn style nationalisation while weakening the foundation of property ownership.

And, this is me having fun with the weakness in your own position in accusing me of being the extremist while refusing to compromise.

Bad logic.

If Corbyn as PM demanded the nationalization of all private property and the deportation of all persons judged to hold a net worth in the 99th percentile to holding facilities in the far north, would you say it is a compromise to proceed with the nationalization but not the gulags? If there is essentially a binary outcome, and all the results fall on your side of the binary, it is laughable to speak of extremism or resistance to compromise by the other side. It is a bad-faith rhetorical trick.

Now, if you would like to look down Pannonian for holding the values he does, that's your prerogative, and his in turn. But you can't accuse him of resistance to compromise when, aside from not having any power to affect a compromise, the compromises you deign to present all violate his values just as a "compromise" that ensured greater UK political integration into the EU would violate yours.

[Pannonian]

Bad logic.

If Corbyn as PM demanded the nationalization of all private property and the deportation of all persons judged to hold a net worth in the 99th percentile to holding facilities in the far north, would you say it is a compromise to proceed with the nationalization but not the gulags? If there is essentially a binary outcome, and all the results fall on your side of the binary, it is laughable to speak of extremism or resistance to compromise by the other side. It is a bad-faith rhetorical trick.

Now, if you would like to look down Pannonian for holding the values he does, that's your prerogative, and his in turn. But you can't accuse him of resistance to compromise when, aside from not having any power to affect a compromise, the compromises you deign to present all violate his values just as a "compromise" that ensured greater UK political integration into the EU would violate yours.

Funnily enough, the EU had already compromised with the UK on Furunculus's terms. Increased political integration would not apply to the UK; only other countries. F's complaint was that this would affect the UK's ability to effect power blocs within the EU, as the natural fault lines would leave the UK 1 short. Because these natural fault lines leave the UK short (and note that the support for the EU universally went up across the EU27 following the referendum), he wants revolution which we are patently unprepared for. And on top of that, he blames Remainers. Now this is why I keep reminding Leavers to take responsibility for their win; it is a habit of theirs to blame others for the world not being as they'd want it to be.

[Beskar]

https://i.imgur.com/2aRPrPD.jpg
(someone else linked this, but the narrative amused me.)

[Furunculus]

It is not deportation of people, its just leaving a political institution that is going in a direction we can't follow.

This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.

[Pannonian]

It is not deportation of people, its just leaving a political institution that is going in a direction we can't follow.

This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.

Reality is legitimate. Fantasy is not.

[Montmorency]

It is not deportation of people, its just leaving a political institution that is going in a direction we can't follow.

This is the point precisely; I never never looked down on pannonian for his remain views, but never have I had that courtesy extended to me. His choice is legitimate, mine apparently is not.

My point was over your use of "compromise" and "extremism", not whether the choice to change the institutional relationship with the EU, or leave it, is radical in itself. (Though I have contended elsewhere that it is simply because of the depth and complexity of the actually-existing built relationship).

But your stance is extreme whereas his is not. You can accept almost anything short of retracting Article 50, whereas Pan prefers whatever produces the least disruption. You occupy almost all the area in which there is space to offer compromise.

To say something is extreme is not to say that it is bad or illegitimate. Defending Jews in Nazi Germany was extreme. Labor militancy was and remains extreme. All I'm telling you in this latest sub-thread is that calling Pannonian (fundamentally a conservative) extreme and averse to compromise is gross projection and you ought to walk it back.


Funnily enough, the EU had already compromised with the UK on Furunculus's terms. Increased political integration would not apply to the UK; only other countries. F's complaint was that this would affect the UK's ability to effect power blocs within the EU, as the natural fault lines would leave the UK 1 short. Because these natural fault lines leave the UK short (and note that the support for the EU universally went up across the EU27 following the referendum), he wants revolution which we are patently unprepared for. And on top of that, he blames Remainers. Now this is why I keep reminding Leavers to take responsibility for their win; it is a habit of theirs to blame others for the world not being as they'd want it to be.

I thought the idea was a deepening political union between the rest of the EU, along with declining UK influence on the major decisions of EU structure, will end in de jure political union, or de facto union in which the UK passively assents to whatever the EU imposes.



On a lighter note:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tjp5OmoDYQM&t=0s&list=LLnV16lLmZdGUyvrHqSwjkcQ&index=2

[Furunculus]

Funnily enough, the EU had already compromised with the UK on Furunculus's terms. Increased political integration would not apply to the UK; only other countries.

Yes. But a hollow gift unless other peripheral states have an interest in joining us against the consensus, which was disallowed by Belguim (cuck move or what?). The result is as you describe below:


F's complaint was that this would affect the UK's ability to effect power blocs within the EU, as the natural fault lines would leave the UK 1 short.

Yes. As I am sure you'll recall me saying: First we didn't care becuase we had a veto, then we didn't care because we had the vote weight to block QMV, then when the vote weight changed post lisbon cameron tried to get us a red card. what we were offered was a notional exemption for britain which had little real meaning unless the other euro-outs had an incentive to join. Belgium said no.

So when you say this:


Because these natural fault lines leave the UK short (and note that the support for the EU universally went up across the EU27 following the referendum), he wants revolution which we are patently unprepared for.
You are only partially right; the peripheral nations would be very happy to preserve core fiscal and economic independence by forgoing the euro, but that was not an option, so no the fault lines did leave us short.

So we left!


Reality is legitimate. Fantasy is not.


I'm not at all sure how that relates to what i said. Would be spiffing if you might further explain, please.

[Pannonian]

I thought the idea was a deepening political union between the rest of the EU, along with declining UK influence on the major decisions of EU structure, will end in de jure political union, or de facto union in which the UK passively assents to whatever the EU imposes.


But within the existing structure, we can still persuade others to our POV if our case is sound enough. All that Brexiteers demand, we can still do, in a fashion, within the EU. See Frag's admission that immigration from outside the EU is one of the reasons why he supports Brexit; this is entirely controllable by a UK government within the EU, and post-referendum immigration from outside the EU has actually gone up. See Corbyn's wish to nationalise the railways; this is doable within the EU.

Compare with Furunculus's suggestion a couple of pages back of invoking some clause or other that might delay Brexit, not to aid transition or other practical use, but just to invoke a once only clause so that no one else can do so after.

[Furunculus]

But your stance is extreme whereas his is not. You can accept almost anything short of retracting Article 50, whereas Pan prefers whatever produces the least disruption. You occupy almost all the area in which there is space to offer compromise.

To say something is extreme is not to say that it is bad or illegitimate. Defending Jews in Nazi Germany was extreme. Labor militancy was and remains extreme. All I'm telling you in this latest sub-thread is that calling Pannonian (fundamentally a conservative) extreme and averse to compromise is gross projection and you ought to walk it back.


those three sentences are funny when read together: I occupy all the space for compromise... because I am reasonable?

i agree the whole argument produces no value, it doesn't get us anywhere meaningful, and it does not make interesting debate here on this thread. I simply got bored of being traduced time after time and decided to make a point of dishing some back. more than happy to return to the implications of the policy rather than playing the man.




Compare with Furunculus's suggestion a couple of pages back of invoking some clause or other that might delay Brexit, not to aid transition or other practical use, but just to invoke a once only clause so that no one else can do so after.
My point is that the backstop is actually pretty good for us, if they'd offered that to Cameron we'd have bitten Junkers arm off!

But, my fear, is that we end up with labour sometime within the transition and they do something stupid. again. like blair did in 1997 when he immediately threw away Major's opt-out from the social chapter - which I contend was the single biggest feeding cause of the 2012 promise to hold a referendum. i.e. because the the transition can be extended by "up to two years", that would go into the period beyond the latest possible GE date. And, frankly, i'd rather the WA/PD/FTA is all sorted before they get back into power. After all comrade corbyn wants an end of the competition regs on state aid, so if he ditches that just so he can re-open the coal mines it will come at tremendous cost.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Very interesting report YouGov has put out. By going solely of First Preferences (first past the post) it looks like Remain is the clear winner.
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).

May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/12/06/mays-brexit-deal-leads-just-two-constituencies-it-

[Montmorency]

Furunculus, Не говорит ерунду


Very interesting report YouGov has put out. By going solely of First Preferences (first past the post) it looks like Remain is the clear winner.
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).

May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2018/12/06/mays-brexit-deal-leads-just-two-constituencies-it-

ACIN, the hard limitation to the usefulness of any MP constituency analysis is that Brexit will not be decided on a per-constituency vote per se, whether in Parliament or by another referendum. The fact that [EDIT: Corrected because I thought I was referring to the figures in Table 13, but was actually giving figures from Table 14 on the Condorcet vote within MP incumbent supporters] almost 80% of Tory constituencies have Deal as their Condorcet vote, and almost 60% of Labour constituencies have Remain as their Condorcet vote, is therefore electorally not meaningful. More interesting to me is that Remain is basically still only 50-50 against either Deal-Brexit or No-Deal-Brexit, also confirming reports that there has been minimal movement between positions within the electorate (i.e. polarization).

46% have Remain at 1st preference vs 27% for Deal vs 27 for No Deal. So Leavers are evenly split, but almost all Leavers have the other form of leaving as their second choice. (Deal wins overwhelmingly against No Deal because Remainers prefer Deal to No Deal, ACIN.)

Also interesting, a majority of respondents who actually voted Leave in 2016 prefer No Deal to Deal (51-40). (I'm looking at the full report.)

[Gilrandir]

Furunculus, Не говорит ерунду



You meant Не говори ерунду. What you wrote means "Doesn't say nonsense" and you must have meant "Don't say nonsense" as a request/order.

[Husar]

Very interesting report YouGov has put out. By going solely of First Preferences (first past the post) it looks like Remain is the clear winner.
However, we all know FPTP has its issues, so they set up each option in head to head choices to determine the Condorcet method winner (possibly the closest we can get mathematically to picking a winner that meets the preferences of the voters).

May's deal comes out dominating (372 constituencies to Remain's 262) when you actually apply math and take into account the varying preferences of voters for different options. Maybe it's time I step aside from the commentary and recognize that Brexit isn't as frivolous as Pannonian makes it out to be. When it comes down to it, May's deal is the closest Brexiteers will get to their ideal state with the least amount of economic turmoil, on some level this is recognized as Deal beat out No Deal 2 to 1 in the head to head pick.

In my endless Europhile arrogance and without fully understanding the methodical differences you're talking about, I might just as well claim that this only tells us something about how bad the British school system is and how much they hate us. Maybe trying to invade them wasn't so wrong after all, since they hate us landlubbers and always tried to divide us and meddle in our affairs while whining that we would meddle in theirs. And on the side they took millions of other peoples' freedoms, and are still proud of it while whining the EU would be taking theirs...

Just because something is democratic, that doesn't mean it can't be stupid. That said, I hope they leave now! Get off my europhile lawn!
I like to be ruled by drunken squirrels from tax havens and why wouldn't I, seeing what the British like!?!

[Pannonian]

I welcome the approval of the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement yesterday, which could boost UK GDP by up to £3bn in the long run. Japan is a vocal defender of free trade and this agreement will form the basis of our new, stronger trading relationship as we leave the EU.

No it won't moron. Its an agreement with the EU (of which the UK is still a member and would benefit enormously from). Because of YOUR hatred of the EU you and your robotic Far Right ideological nutcase agenda you plan to take us out and away from all these benefits- :daisy: YOU FOX

Except Japan has said this FTA will not form the basis of a JP-UK trade deal IF we leave the EU. Do keep up Liam.

Liam, the UK is leaving the EU so won't benefit from this Japan/EU free trade deal. If you look at the paperwork, Japan is precluded from offering an equivalent deal to the UK.

Now Liam. It isn’t right to be taking the Michael out of us all like this. The EU Japan Trade Deal starts just as we are supposed to be exiting.

Are Brexiteers liars or just idiots?

[Kagemusha]

Are Brexiteers liars or just idiots?

So there goes another 3bn£ out from the window. I guess for some reason EU gets better deals then Britain alone..

More i think about this, less i understand this Brexit. Who is actually benefiting from it and how?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So there goes another 3bn£ out from the window. I guess for some reason EU gets better deals then Britain alone..

More i think about this, less i understand this Brexit. Who is actually benefiting from it and how?

Pretty much nobody, though some (including, according to Pannonian, some of the loudest exit voices) are pretty well insulated from the downsides.

It is possible that the UK will be stronger for a hard Brexit independence....but the positives aren't quite certain and won't be felt for a generation while the suckage will be immediate and encompass most of a decade.

It remains to be seen how long it takes for the UK to rebound from the price it pays for such an exit.

[Montmorency]

You meant Не говори ерунду. What you wrote means "Doesn't say nonsense" and you must have meant "Don't say nonsense" as a request/order.

Can't I use the infinitive imperative (http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/verbs2.htm) in this context? Is it allowed in the first-person plural (present indicative) form?


In my endless Europhile arrogance and without fully understanding the methodical differences you're talking about, I might just as well claim that this only tells us something about how bad the British school system is and how much they hate us. Maybe trying to invade them wasn't so wrong after all, since they hate us landlubbers and always tried to divide us and meddle in our affairs while whining that we would meddle in theirs. And on the side they took millions of other peoples' freedoms, and are still proud of it while whining the EU would be taking theirs...

Just because something is democratic, that doesn't mean it can't be stupid. That said, I hope they leave now! Get off my europhile lawn!
I like to be ruled by drunken squirrels from tax havens and why wouldn't I, seeing what the British like!?!

не болтай, солнышко



Apparently there's an HBO TV movie coming out starring Benedict Cumberbatch. Too soon?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5S1EMmCWAE

[Gilrandir]

Can't I use the infinitive imperative (http://russianmentor.net/gram/mailbag/topics/verbs2.htm) in this context? Is it allowed in the first-person plural (present indicative) form?


Не говорит is not an infinitive of any kind. It is present tense 3rd person singular. The infinitive is (не) говорить, but it can hardly be used as an imperative with a direct object (like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?). Не разговаривать may be used as an order addressing a group (for example in a class room = stop talking), but it is an intransitive verb which can't be followed by an object (ерунду). Говорить = say, tell, Разговаривать = talk, speak, more or less. Singular imperative is не говори, plural imperative (or a deferential form) is не говорите.

I wonder who will want to learn Russian (or any other Slavic language) after this post.

[Furunculus]

Sorry, but what was the purpose of the original comment? I confess I missed the original, and largely bypassed subsequent discussion.

[Husar]

не болтай, солнышко

You probably don't know this, but I once failed a Russian A1 class at the University, didn't have the time to learn for it even though I found it quite interesting.

Google says you told me: "Don't talk, the sun." I can only assume that "the sun" in this case stands for the daisy emoticon that you would use to hide an insult here on the Org. :creep:

[Gilrandir]

You probably don't know this, but I once failed a Russian A1 class at the University, didn't have the time to learn for it even though I found it quite interesting.

Google says you told me: "Don't talk, the sun." I can only assume that "the sun" in this case stands for the daisy emoticon that you would use to hide an insult here on the Org. :creep:

Rather "don't babble, honey".

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rather "don't babble, honey".
If we all followed this advice, the Backroom would have to shut down....

Along with most of the elected leadership in Europe and North America.

[Montmorency]

Не говорит is not an infinitive of any kind. It is present tense 3rd person singular.

I forgot the soft sign.


The infinitive is (не) говорить, but it can hardly be used as an imperative with a direct object (like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?). Не разговаривать may be used as an order addressing a group (for example in a class room = stop talking), but it is an intransitive verb which can't be followed by an object (ерунду). Говорить = say, tell, Разговаривать = talk, speak, more or less. Singular imperative is не говори, plural imperative (or a deferential form) is не говорите.

What if a group of partisans have been captured by the Germans and are debating whether to give up intel?

лично не сдаю родину.
Всё, капут. Говорим (~ расскажем?)

Are you sure transitive verbs can never be used as infinitival imperatives? Aside from По траве не ходить in the link, does this work:

Я открою дверь.
Не откривать (дверь)!

Or:

Дрова не рубить.
Печку не топить.
Кашу не варить.

Maybe even:

Если овощи есть, есть овощи.

(I'll admit though Google Translate likes these, my reference people don't)


(like you can hardly say "not to talk nonsense" addressing someone in English, can you?).

English has "not to worry" , but it's probably a unique formula (idiom).


Rather "don't babble, honey".

I prefer Liebchen, a terrific German word.

[Pannonian]

I am catching up on the last few months of the Economist and I am frankly just tired of Brexit taking up the entire "Britain" section every damn issue.

WHen am I supposed to hear about all the other policies that the UK is fucking up?

A powerful cross-party group of MPs today warns Theresa May that Brexit is “sucking the life” out of her government – as cabinet sources admit that the crisis is forcing vital domestic business off the government’s timetable.

With the deadlock over May’s Brexit deal unresolved, and a key vote in parliament postponed until mid-January, the chairpersons of six all-party select committees have signed a statement saying long-drawn-out arguments over Brexit are having a “serious detrimental effect” on wider domestic policy.

While the six have very different views on Brexit they agree that the government is letting people down with its near-total preoccupation with the issue at a time of crisis in the NHS and social care, rising knife crime, failing public transport, chronic homelessness and environmental challenges. Labour members including Creagh say government austerity has made neglect of poorer communities by government even more shocking.

Their intervention follows news on Friday that chaos over Brexit has forced NHS leaders to postpone a new long-term plan for the NHS and put back, yet again, a long-awaited green paper on the future of social care until January. Both decisions dismayed MPs and organisations across the health and social care sectors.

Asked why the social care green paper had been delayed, a government source told the Observer the crisis over Brexit had “wiped the grid clean and meant we have had to push stuff back. So social care won’t be until January.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/15/mps-warn-brexit-deadlock-sucking-life-out-of-government

Practically all government has stopped since the 2016 referendum pending the conclusion of Brexit. And the harder the Brexit, the longer acting to ameliorate its effects will continue to affect government. Eg. No deal will reduce government revenue by an amount equivalent to 100% of the Defence budget. If the UK leaves with no deal, as the ERG (over a third of the ruling party) is urging, there will be widespread and deep spending cuts, as the government will have to prioritise some services and drop others just to avoid collapse. With the 2016 result, no plans are possible as all normality is gone.

[Gilrandir]

What if a group of partisans have been captured by the Germans and are debating whether to give up intel?

лично не сдаю родину.
Всё, капут. Говорим (~ расскажем?)


The example is strange. Are these remarks belonging to two different people? If so, расскажем should be followed by some object(s) like расскажем им всё. Говорим is also possible, but it I wouldn't put it that way.



Are you sure transitive verbs can never be used as infinitival imperatives?
Не откривать (дверь)!

Or:

Дрова не рубить.
Печку не топить.
Кашу не варить.



I never said it. My observations concerned the verb говорить and I said "hardly possible". Generally, all of these possible and gramatically correct, but they sound impersonal (as used on signs По газонам не ходить or Животных не кормить - in the zoo) and a bit rude if used addressing someone. More natural and emotionally neutral would be an imperative.

A funny sign plate (using infinitive as an imperative) allegedly spotted in a Soviet diner: Пальцами и яйцами в солонку не лазить. It may be understood in two ways since яйца means both "eggs" and (informal) "testicles".

Oh, and Не откривать (дверь)! > открЫвать

[Beskar]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46586673

May says doing a final referendum on the choices before us would say to the people democracy doesn't work. I would argue that it shows it does work, by giving people the say on the matter instead of the failed politics which have been at play. Leave will face the scrutiny and accountability behind the agenda. All those people who voted for buses and 'soft brexit', Norway model, etc, will most likely go with the remain-within-EU camp given the other choice is the May Deal and Hard Brexit.

Also the responsibility of what happens is transferred to the people so something gets done, whatever the outcome, instead of the constant ankle biting.

[Fragony]

May the force be with you. I admire her, she was never a supporter of a brexit herself, that is ok, never deny a mind.of your own people will always disagree. She is brave. At this point there should be a second chance though. Remainers do not understand that everything will be fine, and that is what worries eurocrats the most, doing Just fine. Do you want anders enhanced version of an Orwellian dystopia, vote for it but don't call me

[Furunculus]

i don't really care about a sec ref one way or another, as long as the question is usefully representative of the dilemma faced.

i do think it will reflect badly on parliament if they prove unable to deal with the policy around the decision that was given to them at their request in 2016.

fair warning: anyone who thinks public discourse has been ugly up until now will get a surprise if a sec ref narrowly overturns the first result.

[Pannonian]

i don't really care about a sec ref one way or another, as long as the question is usefully representative of the dilemma faced.

i do think it will reflect badly on parliament if they prove unable to deal with the policy around the decision that was given to them at their request in 2016.

fair warning: anyone who thinks public discourse has been ugly up until now will get a surprise if a sec ref narrowly overturns the first result.

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way."

Nigel Farage, 17th May 2016

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A second referendum would be a great expression of democratic orientation in decision making. It would also be a total cop-out by government, since the goal of government representatives is to balance the will of the people with the best interests of the people and pass laws and resolutions that embody that. Else, why have a legislature? Hold annual referenda covering questions of governance and let ministries manage it.

The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.

[Pannonian]

A second referendum would be a great expression of democratic orientation in decision making. It would also be a total cop-out by government, since the goal of government representatives is to balance the will of the people with the best interests of the people and pass laws and resolutions that embody that. Else, why have a legislature? Hold annual referenda covering questions of governance and let ministries manage it.

The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.

"Will of the people" - Jeremy Corbyn.
"I think we've had enough of experts" - Michael Gove.
"Enemies of the people" - Daily Mail.

Three indicators and drivers of said cop out. All arguments for good government founder when matched against the above. The "will of the people" of the people must be carried out, and anyone standing in the way are "enemies of the people". And all reasoned arguments are dismissed because "I think we've had enough of experts". Such is Brexit. And as Furunculus threatens, if Brexit doesn't happen, things will turn ugly, presumably due to Leavers.

[Fragony]

A second referendum would be a great expression of democratic orientation in decision making. It would also be a total cop-out by government, since the goal of government representatives is to balance the will of the people with the best interests of the people and pass laws and resolutions that embody that. Else, why have a legislature? Hold annual referenda covering questions of governance and let ministries manage it.

The Lords could continue as before, since signing in and then taking a bit of a kip doesn't get in the way overmuch.

Agreed, brexiteers should get a second chance, nobody should deny them that. Just fair play as things have gotten more complicated. I hope the answer will be the same, but if it isn't I really should stfu and watch things roll out. Your choice I will just have respect it. But do remainers have everything succombing

[a completely inoffensive name]

So I started listening to a podcast called "Talking Politics" hosted by a professor from Cambridge University. Turns out he had an earlier podcast called "Election" leading up to the 2015 general election. Just for fun I have been listening to some of these early episodes and there are quite a few precursors leading up to the Brexit vote that have really caught my attention.

As a whole, British political elite seem to be particularly blind to the art of politicking. Many of the guests the host brings on for conversations seem to be in complete agreement that neither Labour or the Conservatives are looped into a 21st century dialogue with their constituents. Compared to the high degree of political penetration that US politicians pursue every day, the following issues were brought up multiple times by multiple parties.

A. Lack of interest in online presence.
Both Milliband and Cameron never used twitter as a platform for quick vitriolic/rhetorical messages in a way that US politicians did following 2008 (and Trump to a greater success later in 2016).
Neither Milliband nor Cameron (at the time of the episodes I listened to), reached out with an AMA on Reddit or with an interactive Q&A session on Facebook or with any social media platform at all really. Completely disconnected to the forums that young people spend their time in.
Most importantly, neither party seems to have learned from Barack Obama's fundraising and community outreach strategy, where most of his campaign money came from millions of small online donations that kept those donors (average middle class citizens) interested in their investment and motivated to give more when asked.

B. Lack of interest in television presence.
At the time (I assume, based on the host implication, they never really explained the history of this) the 2015 election was the first/second? election with television debates. But with so many parties all on the stage, it is a bit of clusterfuck and you are not going to get the message out clearly with all these different brands being pushed at the same time. Some of the debates were cancelled due to disagreements between parties. But really, if you were the labour or the conservative party, why would you dilute your message down like this? Get a debate between you and your biggest opponent and cut him down 1 on 1 as many times as you can. UKIP and Greens and Lib Dems would only serve to undermine your positions and shift the dialogue in directions you can't anticipate. Why have UK political parties only started television debates in the 21st century?!? US politicians have been arguing on air since the 1960s.

C. Lack of dominance in the political realm.
With a first past the post system, the Tories and Labour are structurally advantaged to dominate as the two historically large tent parties. But despite their structural advantage, each only command roughly 30% of the electorate while four other parties split the rest. Why did the Tories lose members to UKIP up until the Brexit vote when the goals of UKIP were achieved and the party was no longer needed? Why is Labour, even under the more leftist Corbyn, not captured the Lib Dem vote? Unless I misunderstand the Lib Dems policy positions (are they more similar to New Labour under Blair?).

All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them.

With leaders like these, what hope does the United Kingdom have of maintaining itself whether they go full Brexit or stay in the EU?

EDIT: Fixed some words

[Furunculus]

"All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them."

An argument might be made that that MP's have become increasingly superfluous as ever-closer-union brought the EU in to do more.
It is often said that politicians are made from ambitious people who wish to wield the levers of power. How disappointing to reach that position of pre-eminence only to to find out that those levers are no longer connected to anything...
Forty years of the Mother of all Parliaments acting as a rubber stamp for statutory instruments created on behalf of the EU, agreed by the executive in Brussels.

Quelle surprise - that modern politics is more vacuous than visceral, more charlatanry than considerate.

[Fragony]

Quelle surprise, look at the bright side your French has improved

[Beskar]

Thousands of troops on standby for Brexit, as No10 warns families to prepare for No Deal
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/thousands-of-troops-on-standby-for-brexit-defence-secretary-reveals-a4020741.html?


I think these headlines underestimate the armchair politics of the British electorate...

[Fragony]

That is dumb, did they ever consider that at last half of them doesn't agree with wat they want them to do. Just givethe referendum a second chance, this kind of escalation isn't necesary

[rory_20_uk]

UK politics are NOT disconnected from the important people. It is just the important people are not the voters - the decision has been made long before they are involved. Conservatives and Labour choose who stands to be an MP in closed-door events with local party members and Party Grandees choosing.

When one becomes a MP, one doesn't want anything but one's job to continue for as long as possible. No sitting MP wants a competitive landscape - some stranger might win but they might loose!

So don't engage the populace. There's really no need and far better they vote like sheep once every 5 years or so for the party of their choice without really knowing much about who they are voting for.

Different voting systems would change the dynamic and mean that the populace are important. But I'm not holding my breath.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Obviously UK politics need more capitalism to stop them from being a zero sum game. With capitalism, everyone could have a seat! Just allow banks to loan out ten seats for every seat an MP stores at the bank. :clown:

[Pannonian]

UK politics are NOT disconnected from the important people. It is just the important people are not the voters - the decision has been made long before they are involved. Conservatives and Labour choose who stands to be an MP in closed-door events with local party members and Party Grandees choosing.

When one becomes a MP, one doesn't want anything but one's job to continue for as long as possible. No sitting MP wants a competitive landscape - some stranger might win but they might loose!

So don't engage the populace. There's really no need and far better they vote like sheep once every 5 years or so for the party of their choice without really knowing much about who they are voting for.

Different voting systems would change the dynamic and mean that the populace are important. But I'm not holding my breath.

~:smoking:

And see Brexit for what happens when you have direct engagement. Ignore the vote, listen to the reasoning given by voters. Liam Fox's welcoming of the EU-Japan deal as a vindication of Brexit is symptomatic of the disconnect between mouth and brain of many Leave voters, who are unable to do much more than repeat slogans, regardless of how one sentence directly contradicts another uttered just a few seconds earlier. The House of Lords needs to be empowered as a House of Technocrats, staffed with people who are appointed for their expertise in fields that your bog standard citizen won't have.

In a jury, the closest thing we have to an everyday citizens' decision-making body, the jurors are directed by experts in procedure, and the status quo is presumed unless there is a super-super majority. And if one or more sides outright lies or tries to deceive through one trick or another, the judge will drag them up on it, prejudicing their argument. In the Brexit referendum, Leave lied and deceived like no other political campaign in my life time, and with a narrow majority, the government is planning for a radical implementation, up to and including calling out troops.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"All of this seems to indicate from the beginning that the UK has been at least for the past two decades been managed by a political elite that is so far disconnected from their constituents they have neglected to build the infrastructure necessary to communicate with them, and perhaps even understand them."

An argument might be made that that MP's have become increasingly superfluous as ever-closer-union brought the EU in to do more.
It is often said that politicians are made from ambitious people who wish to wield the levers of power. How disappointing to reach that position of pre-eminence only to to find out that those levers are no longer connected to anything...
Forty years of the Mother of all Parliaments acting as a rubber stamp for statutory instruments created on behalf of the EU, agreed by the executive in Brussels.

Quelle surprise - that modern politics is more vacuous than visceral, more charlatanry than considerate.

You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow less vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books.

[Pannonian]

You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow less vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books.

See the infamous (passed) state congressional motion to set pi to 3.2. Eventually overturned by the state senate on the grounds that the motion was stupid and bore no relation to reality. Brexit is similarly stupid, but this time Der People have got the bit between their teeth and are determined to run off the cliff in a democratic fashion. If Brexiteers had been living in the 19th century, they'd have been foaming at the mouth at the presumption of a senate to overturn the democratically declared will of the people, would have been threatening all sorts if the senate did not ratify their motion to set pi to 3.2.

Will any Brexiteers admit that it might not be a good idea to drink the kool aid, even though 52% of Jonestown voted to do so? Does it not ring any bells that the leaders who'd urged them to drink said kool aid have all made excuses to be elsewhere when the moment of drinking comes? When most of the Leave campaign is based on lies, deception and fantasy, whereas much of what Remain said that had been dismissed as Project Fear is now coming true, does it not occur to you that Remain may have been correct, and Leave may have been wrong? If there is another referendum, between Remain and No Deal, would you vote for No Deal?

[Furunculus]

Will any Brexiteers admit that it might not be a good idea to drink the kool aid, even though 52% of Jonestown voted to do so? ... When most of the Leave campaign is based on lies, deception and fantasy

Lol, that is sweet; you still presume that a large proportion of the electorate were swayed in the run up to the vote by Nige pointing at foriegners, and boris being a clown!

Somehow, your enormous optimism persuades you to ignore the:
1. decade of opinion polls that showed leave sitting around 40-50%
2. decade of opinion polls that showed the need for a refgerendum at 50-60%
3. decades of eustat polls showing that only 15-20% of the electorate consider 'europe' to be an important part of their political identity

The EU is going to a place we cannot follow, and the factor that made that judgement concrete was the outcome of Cameron's renegotiation.

[Pannonian]

Putin explicitly supports Brexit. What do Brexiteers think of his urge to implement "the will of the people"?

[Furunculus]

Let me repeat:


Lol, that is sweet; you still presume that a large proportion of the electorate were swayed in the run up to the vote by Nige pointing at foriegners, Boris being a clown, and Putin rolling his twitter-bots!

Somehow, your enormous optimism persuades you to ignore the:
1. decade of opinion polls that showed leave sitting around 40-50%
2. decade of opinion polls that showed the need for a refgerendum at 50-60%
3. decades of eustat polls showing that only 15-20% of the electorate consider 'europe' to be an important part of their political identity

The EU is going to a place we cannot follow, and the factor that made that judgement concrete was the outcome of Cameron's renegotiation.

[Fragony]

Putin explicitly supports Brexit. What do Brexiteers think of his urge to implement "the will of the people"?
Wat do you think of It, russia isn't hostile

[Pannonian]

Wat do you think of It, russia isn't hostile

Explain that to Dawn Sturgess.

[Beskar]

As the saying goes, if you Brexit, you Buyit.

[Pannonian]

Gatwick completely down and Heathrow with many flights grounded from IT crash. And Brexiteers dismiss the importance of the Calais-Dover trade route.

[Furunculus]

You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow less vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books.

"less", or do you mean "more"?

@ Pannonian - no real reply/response to this then?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053788298&viewfull=1#post2053788298

[Pannonian]

If a referendum is held in Northern Ireland as to the province's status in 2019: (https://twitter.com/hayward_katy/status/1075897624606183424)

Based on May's deal, roughly equal numbers in favour of remaining in UK and becoming part of Ireland.
Based on no deal: Large majority in favour of becoming part of Ireland (60%), with 48% definite.
Based on UK's continued membership of the EU: a large majority (60%) in favour of remaining in UK, with 47% definite.

I'd imagine the numbers in Scotland won't be much more in favour of remaining within the UK. Brexiteers, is the break up of the UK a price worth paying for Brexit? Did it factor into your considerations when voting Leave? It was what Remainers had warned, after all.

[Pannonian]

Let me repeat:

What do you think of that Northern Ireland poll I linked to? A price worth paying? Also, what do you think of the government's warnings as to what preparations are necessary?

[Furunculus]

I noticed you didn't address the point made, again, choosing instead to divert conversation off a tangent.

It is a very recognisable debating style. Not one I favour, but horses for courses...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"less", or do you mean "more"?

@ Pannonian - no real reply/response to this then?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php/152610-EXIT-NEGOTIATIONS?p=2053788298&viewfull=1#post2053788298

oops. you were correct

[Pannonian]

I noticed you didn't address the point made, again, choosing instead to divert conversation off a tangent.

It is a very recognisable debating style. Not one I favour, but horses for courses...

I'll address your point then, with the answer that I've given before. A stupid idea does not stop being a stupid idea just because it's been democratically voted through. Democracy is good for preventing tyranny. It's not good for preventing stupidity. Or at least not without safeguards, which Parliament is supposed to be. I'll point you to the example of the Georgian state congress that I cited earlier. Just because that motion got voted through, does not make it a good idea, and it was eventually overturned for being a bloody stupid idea that bore no relation to reality.

My other point is that anything that Russia is in favour of, Britain should be automatically suspicious of, and double check the arguments. If Russia says Brexit is good, double check the arguments involving Brexit. Since the referendum, what evidence is there favouring Brexit? Apart from, we won, you lost, get over it. There is plenty of evidence saying it's a stupendously bad idea. Double check the arguments. What does the evidence indicate?

[Furunculus]

You are, in my opinion, overly optimistic in assuming that modern politics is somehow more vacuous than historical politics. The old stuff just gets a better short summary write up in the history books.

i take the point, but I think we can look at other workplaces and see the enormous increase in productivity and professionalism** that has occurred in just the last generation.
then we look at politics and wonder why similar improvements are gloriously absent...

** i work in local government, so perhaps we had more catching up to do...

[Pannonian]

i take the point, but I think we can look at other workplaces and see the enormous increase in productivity and professionalism** that has occurred in just the last generation.
then we look at politics and wonder why similar improvements are gloriously absent...

** i work in local government, so perhaps we had more catching up to do...

I've not worked in government, but I have served in a jury. While we were theoretically free to decide, that freedom had limits, and quite rightly. The status quo unless there were 10 out of 12 in favour of changing it. This stopped a bare majority from returning a contentious decision. Anything approaching a BS argument got pulled up by the judge. This stopped clever lawyers from bamboozling an average citizen body with rhetoric. A foreman advised on procedure. This stopped said average citizen body from just running off in a direction without precedent.

That worked well enough for what it was supposed to do. On the same basis, Brexit fails every safeguard. BS arguments were allowed to run rampant without check. Evidential arguments were dropped in favour of nebulous arguments of principle, with responsibility for making it real brushed aside. A bare majority is used to justify radical measures not seen since WW2.

Other than, we won, you lost, how does Brexit make this country better? Are there other ways of going about things, without the damage that brexit involves?

[Fragony]

How about a 6 procent growth of youreconomy

[Pannonian]

How about a 6 procent growth of youreconomy

Given that the head of ERG reckons we may not see material benefits of Brexit for another 50 years, I'm not sure where you got that number from, if you're suggesting a jump in economic growth as a result of Brexit. However, what is actual historical evidence, and not supposition pulled from one's backside, is that the UK had the highest growth rate of the big EU countries prior to the referendum, while it is now bottom of the EU 28. Perhaps that jump will come as a result of the recent EU-Japan trade agreement, as suggested by our Trade Minister Liam Fox.

[Furunculus]

I've not worked in government, but I have served in a jury. While we were theoretically free to decide, that freedom had limits, and quite rightly. The status quo unless there were 10 out of 12 in favour of changing it. This stopped a bare majority from returning a contentious decision. Anything approaching a BS argument got pulled up by the judge. This stopped clever lawyers from bamboozling an average citizen body with rhetoric. A foreman advised on procedure. This stopped said average citizen body from just running off in a direction without precedent.

That worked well enough for what it was supposed to do. On the same basis, Brexit fails every safeguard. BS arguments were allowed to run rampant without check. Evidential arguments were dropped in favour of nebulous arguments of principle, with responsibility for making it real brushed aside. A bare majority is used to justify radical measures not seen since WW2.

Other than, we won, you lost, how does Brexit make this country better? Are there other ways of going about things, without the damage that brexit involves?

I realise that some countries do have lots of safeguards to guide society down the 'appropriate' path, and there is nothing wrong with it per-se, but it is not what I want for britain.
I believe there is a need for a society and culture that embraces change, and is able to focus sufficiently on the objective of shaping that change in its favour.

The biggest threat to an attitude that embraces change is fear. A fear that demands comforting certainties. Certainties best provided for by creating institutional blocks to ‘dangerous’ change.

Such institutions would include:
A desire for a consensual political culture, one where disagreement results in calibration rather than adversarial challenge.
Formalised by a proportional electoral system that fractures ideology among smaller more coherent parties, and forces them to compromise to achieve a governing coalition.
A desire for a less dangerous political governance, one where potential bandwidth for action is deliberately limited in order likewise limit the scale of possible damage.
Formalised by a constitutional roadblocks where the power of parliament is curtailed, where elements of the constitution remain verboten, and super-majorities are required to legitimise change.
A desire for a less fractious political discourse, one where contentious issues are dealt with by ‘taking the politics out of the matter’, and leaving it to expert opinion to arbitrate.
Formalised by a supranational system of governance that categorises democracy into areas of fixed technocratic competence, and a residual component left for the state to play with.

The biggest threat to the focus required to shape external events is a lack of confidence. A lack of confidence that instinctively hedges against perceived inadequacies. Hedging that creates institutions incapable of asserting legitimacy in the face of contention.

Such institutions would include:
A desire for accommodation of multiple identities, in which the nation accepts the aims and expectations of sub-groups as not achievable within the wider whole.
Formalised by a highly federalised structure of regional parliaments, leaving a ‘national’ Senate without the political legitimacy to pursue an activist Foreign Policy.
A desire to prioritise social equity, in which areas of government activity which do not meet this goal are steadily re-prioritised to the point where they are no longer strategic in capability.
Formalised by the political downgrading of Defence & Foreign Policy as important offices of state, and the growing functional co-dependence on allied nations to fill in fundamental gaps in capability.
A desire to prioritise understood outcomes over leaps in progress, in which the framework of operation militates against risk.
Formalised by the gradual encroachment of the Precautionary Principle in public policy making, beyond existential problems with long term horizons.

So, Mr. F, you might ask, is the above just a long and convoluted way of saying; “change is great, as long as it’s only the change I am comfortable with”?

Not an unreasonable question, I suppose, and the answer is “yes”. But it’s worth pointing out that these preferences only enable possibility, they do not mandate it, and that that possibility for change has no direction, either for or against my own preferences. I’m fine with that.
I live in an area where my vote will never elect a Parliamentary representative, but I do not seek a proportional electoral system whereby my ‘wasted’ ballot will have some direct purpose.
I firmly believe in both free enterprise and a world where Jeremy Corbyn could end it if elected, and I do not seek a political consensus that excludes what I consider to be his extreme ideas.

I am doubly amused by outrage against brexiter rejection of experts. The outraged are busy creating a straw-man for their own angry rejection, serving only to build a tempest of fury that takes them further away from the real motivations of those they despise.

What happened is simply this: In a normal representative democracy an institution can appeal to your identity as a powerful representation of your beneficial-collective, or, appeal as an institution intended to create a public good on behalf of that collective. Beyond this point you leave political policy making and move into dry civil-service implementation. But the EU is a hybrid that crosses policy and implementation. What was sold as a very technocratic body designed to do quite apolitical things – such as facilitate the convergence of technical standards – has now morphed into an arbiter of public policy. Indeed, key areas of political policy making such as a justice, social, and economic policy.Should prisoners vote? What is the maximum number of hours that can be worked? Should we discourage high-frequency trading?

These areas of policy could not be questioned, because, well, that is the nature of the aquis! As an EU competence they could not be amended or scrapped by national lawmaking. This sits rather poorly with the notion of a Sovereign Parliament, able to lawfully enact anything that a simple majority of its lawmakers agree to. Sorry, out of bounds. This sits equally poorly with a public culture that accepts a majoritarian electoral system, and expects the same lack of impediments to direct plebiscites. Hold on there, that’s not for you to decide. So what is to be done? Simples; pretend the EU isn’t making political choices upon which success or failure can be pronounced. No, it is all simply technocratic implementation of common standards. It is not subject to preference, the appropriate committee has deemed this outcome to be optimal.

This is the context into which Gove dropped his bombshell on experts. He called time on the conspiracy that hid political governance behind a façade of dry technocratic implementation.

[Husar]

i take the point, but I think we can look at other workplaces and see the enormous increase in productivity and professionalism** that has occurred in just the last generation.
then we look at politics and wonder why similar improvements are gloriously absent...

That sounds like an apples and oranges comparison. Where are the big productivity improvements in kindergartens and in sports? Do your footballers run 100% faster now and do your kindergarten teachers care for 500 children each? You can't just compare every "people business" with a factory that produces shoes. Unless you actually want to replace politicians with an AI...

[Montmorency]

Given that the head of ERG reckons we may not see material benefits of Brexit for another 50 years, I'm not sure where you got that number from, if you're suggesting a jump in economic growth as a result of Brexit. However, what is actual historical evidence, and not supposition pulled from one's backside, is that the UK had the highest growth rate of the big EU countries prior to the referendum, while it is now bottom of the EU 28. Perhaps that jump will come as a result of the recent EU-Japan trade agreement, as suggested by our Trade Minister Liam Fox.

Spain had bigger. In 2015 3.4 vs. UK's 2.3, according to the World Bank. (Ireland had up to 26% because taxes and bookkeeping. China wishes they could formulate numbers like that.)


<snip>

So you're a post-political (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-politics) radical without any particular agenda? ~D

[Furunculus]

So you're a post-political (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-politics) radical without any particular agenda? ~D

i certainly sympathise, but I don't consider myself part of [their] movement, as my polity retained a robust adversarial political system rather than having it emerge at the end of the cold war...

[Montmorency]

i certainly sympathise, but I don't consider myself part of [their] movement, as my polity retained a robust adversarial political system rather than having it emerge at the end of the cold war...

You misunderstand. This isn't an Eastern-European "movement" - the fall of the East bloc was merely a defining moment in the post-political order and dynamic, as sloganized in "the end of history". The critique of post-politics is a broader philosophical reaction to the postwar liberal consensus (originally by leftist radicals). Now for example, the "alt-right" can be considered a post-political movement seeking a return to the dynamics of the "properly political" - which for them happens to be either fascism or monarchism, really. Reading about the "post-political" is helpful in understanding what the 20th century was, and how the 21st century is different.

[Furunculus]

You misunderstand. This isn't an Eastern-European "movement" - the fall of the East bloc was merely a defining moment in the post-political order and dynamic, as sloganized in "the end of history". The critique of post-politics is a broader philosophical reaction to the postwar liberal consensus (originally by leftist radicals). Now for example, the "alt-right" can be considered a post-political movement seeking a return to the dynamics of the "properly political" - which for them happens to be either fascism or monarchism, really. Reading about the "post-political" is helpful in understanding what the 20th century was, and how the 21st century is different.

you know more about it than i.

perhaps I placed too much stress on the word "emergence" in the first line of the linked article:

"Post-politics refers to the critique of the emergence, in the post-Cold War period, of a politics of consensus on a global scale"

[Pannonian]

Leavers already starting to campaign in a second referendum, and in the same old manner. This (https://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2018/12/16/what-would-happen-if-we-voted-to-stay-in-the-eu/) has apparently been going round sympathetic Facebook circles. I won't pin that blog's extreme right politics on Mr.Knocker, so I'll just look at his own words and the points that he makes. Most of the stuff is deceptive in some way, but some of it is just plain lies to anyone with even a bare minimum of knowledge on the matter. Unfortunately, as our Trade Minister shows, most of the UK don't have even that much. I'll highlight a couple of points first.


Let’s reverse this and look at the consequences of staying. This time telling the truth.

These outcomes have already been agreed and would happen:
...
5: The EU Parliament and ECJ become supreme over all legislative bodies of the UK.
6: The UK will adopt 100% of whatever the EU Parliament and ECJ lays down without any means of abstention or veto, negating the need for the UK to have the Lords or even the Commons as we know it today.

5. The ECJ have actually ruled the exact opposite. With both the UK government and the EU27 both arguing, for different reasons, that article 50 was now out of their hands, the ECJ ruled that all member states remained sovereign, and that the UK can do whatever it likes on article 50 for as long as it was a member state. That's the big nasty ECJ defending the UK's sovereignty against the UK government's and EU27's attempts to allocate blame and control.
6. Contrary to the claim at the head of the list, the agreement is that, should the UK decide to remain, it would do so under existing conditions. So the whip hand that Ireland and the other members of the EU27 currently have over the UK would also be in the UK's hands. The UK is desperate enough for a border solution that it is willing to give up Northern Ireland to achieve this; this is a testament to how much leverage a member state has over an outside state. Adopting 100% of what the EU decides without a voice isn't a consequence of Remain; it is a consequence of May's or indeed any agreement, which needs "equivalence" in order to facilitate trade, but which has withdrawn from the EU. In short, it's not Remain that causes the UK to have to adopt everything without a voice; it is Leave.

This is an example of the lies and deception that is currency in Leave's campaign, how it often directly contradicts reality, and how it shifts all responsibility onto Remainers. When the discourse is as filled with lies as this, how much authority does a democratic decision have?

[Pannonian]

Not quoted in the blog post, but was in the original Facebook post being circulated, here's the opening section citing Richard Knocker as the author of the list of facts.


From: Richard Knocker (Ex-pilot in the Gulf wars)

OK so we’ve had the worst-case scenario for leaving the EU given to us by numerous outlets ranging from the Bank of England to the spoiled prepubescent acting momentum supporter and everyone in-between.
So, I am now going to tell you the worst-case scenario of remaining in the EU based on actual known factors and figures, sourced from the public records of the UK Government, the EU Parliament, The Bank of England, the CBI, Migration watch, The Stock exchanges around the world, the IMF, and the UN.
So those of you who think that this little rant is a tin foil hat moment by myself think again and go and fully research and cross reference what I am about to tell you and remember this is worst-case scenario that could happen unless I clearly point out where it will happen by either a date or other factor.

Note the author, titled as "Richard Knocker (Ex-pilot in the Gulf wars)", thus appealing to patriots who support soldiers. Except that Mr.Knocker has denied being the author of this post.


Q: Are you responsible for this rubbish too?
Richard Knocker: Nope wasn't me I am afraid someone has used my name but I definitely didn't write it
Richard Knocker: I don't know that many words and I definitely haven't read the Lisbon treaty!
Richard Knocker: I saw it on another FB post somewhere but not written or posted by me
Carly Jeffrey: It's doing the rounds


Is this legitimate freedom of speech, leading to a healthy debate and an appropriate democratic decision?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Given that the head of ERG reckons we may not see material benefits of Brexit for another 50 years, I'm not sure where you got that number from, if you're suggesting a jump in economic growth as a result of Brexit. However, what is actual historical evidence, and not supposition pulled from one's backside, is that the UK had the highest growth rate of the big EU countries prior to the referendum, while it is now bottom of the EU 28. Perhaps that jump will come as a result of the recent EU-Japan trade agreement, as suggested by our Trade Minister Liam Fox.

While I agree that Frag's "6%" is not in the immediate offing, I would suggest that almost any economic projection 50 years out is a bit flawed.

If a hard Brexit takes place, the UK will be thumped pretty hard. After that, not being idiots or nincompoops, they will adjust to the new economic realities. It will not take two generations to reestablish a healthy economy, just as it will not leap to 6% growth after a single year's "hiccough."

[Pannonian]

While I agree that Frag's "6%" is not in the immediate offing, I would suggest that almost any economic projection 50 years out is a bit flawed.

If a hard Brexit takes place, the UK will be thumped pretty hard. After that, not being idiots or nincompoops, they will adjust to the new economic realities. It will not take two generations to reestablish a healthy economy, just as it will not leap to 6% growth after a single year's "hiccough."

50 years is a number to ensure that today's leading Brexiteers will never have to be called to account for their promises, whilst still just being within reach of the very young.

[Husar]

Leavers already starting to campaign in a second referendum, and in the same old manner. This (https://www.bruceonpolitics.com/2018/12/16/what-would-happen-if-we-voted-to-stay-in-the-eu/) has apparently been going round sympathetic Facebook circles.

Come on, he probably copy-pasted that from The Onion for fun. If anyone believes all that, you need to fund the school system instead of the NHS.

[Pannonian]

Come on, he probably copy-pasted that from The Onion for fun. If anyone believes all that, you need to fund the school system instead of the NHS.

It's circulating around Facebook circles, which was a strategy used by Leave last time round (after having phished people to get a list of likely receptives). Due to how social media and Facebook in particular is run, posts like these go around in an echo chamber that reinforces what people are inclined to believe without admitting the relevance of actual facts and evidence. Leave realised last time round that, in a democratic system, everyone has the same number of votes, and it's much easier to reinforce voter opinions within these echo chambers than it is to rebut lies. Last time round, they ran a competition, fronted by celebs, seemingly to get football fans to talk about football and win prizes, but whose actual purpose was to get a list of football fans whose demographic can be relied on to identify with a tribe without too much analysis or debate. They've already got that list and the echo chamber they'd set up, and all they need to do is disseminate the new lies/re-disseminate the old ones.

NB. The above isn't conspiracy theory. The head of the Leave campaign actually admitted this was what they did. The HoC were, the last I heard, trying to compile a list of ads that Leave ran within that echo chamber, but Leave weren't cooperating, and the ads only circulated within those circles. The initial phishing alone would have invalidated normal electoral campaigns, but since the referendum wasn't run using those rules (being theoretically advisory rather than legally enforceable), Leave was free to abuse the rules as much as they liked.

[Pannonian]

A Christmas tale (https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1076458808703180800) by JK Rowling (the author of the Harry Potter books).

And lo, unto her did appear a host of Corbyn defenders, who did descend upon her mentions, and she was not sore afraid, because she was used to it. And the host did sing with one voice, ‘ungodly woman, thou foolest us not. We know the true reason thou despisest Saint Jeremy.’ 1

And she did say unto them ‘share thy hot take.’ And with righteous wrath they did declare, ‘thou fearest Saint Jeremy, friend of the poor, because he shall take from thee in taxation much more even than Herod, and so thou attackest the meek and honest saviour of this land.’ 2

And she did reply, ‘I shall not call ye dimwits, for it is the season of goodwill, but tis not Saint Jeremy who shall tax me, nay, not even if he enters the house of Number Ten, for my tax rates are set by Queen Nicola, in whose kingdom I do abide, and unto her I do pay
3

my full portion, seeking neither to flee to Monaco nor to hide my gold in far flung lands, like St Jacob, Patron Saint of Filthy Hypocrites.’ ‘Speak not of hypocrites!’ cried the host, ‘for thou dost claim to care about the poor yet doth rail against their champion, St Jeremy!’ 4

And she did answer, ‘How shall the poor fare under Brexit, which thy Saint hath always in his secret heart desired, yet he hath not admitted what was in his heart, lest fewer attend his next Sermon on the Glastonbury B Stage.’ And they did answer, ‘Saint Jeremy will achieve
5

a miracle, and he shall bring forth a Jobs First Brexit and all the land shall rejoice.’ And she did answer, ‘bollocks.’ But she bethought her of the season of goodwill, and repenting of her ire she did speak further. ‘I have, for all my life, voted Labour, yet now I cannot.’ 6

‘But his goodness doth shine out of his every orifice!’ cried the host, swarming anew into her mentions. ‘Behold his beard! Look upon this picture of him being led off by police when he was protesting racism in all its forms!’ And she did say, ‘I have looked upon his beard 7

...and also upon this picture. It is a good picture and I do like a beard, as I have oft declared. Yet must I protest, thou it breaketh my heart so to do, that this party of Labour, which I have so long loved, has become, under St Jeremy -‘
8

‘Speak not of the Jews!’ cried the host. ‘Why must thou speak so oft of the Jews?’ ‘Yea, I must speak,’ said she, ‘for when Jews no longer feel safe in Labour then I too must leave.’ And one of the host did shout something about the Rothschilds
9

and he was hastily hushed by his brethren, who did declare, ‘he is not one of ours, thou he sports a #JC4PM halo.’ And another did speak and he said, ‘it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel,’ and she did put her face in her hands and want to weep. 10

But she did then look up and see many stars shining brightly in the sky and lo, they did arrange themselves before her eyes into a ‘who would make the best Prime Minister poll’ and she did cry, ‘Will ye not raise up your eyes to the Heavens? See there the People’s mind!’ 11

And they did look up at the stars and read there that St Jeremy was, as for ages past, in third place after Pontus May and Don’t Know. And she spake further, ‘do ye not see that St Jeremy is hurting your party, yea, that his inability even to organise a vote of no confidence
12

doth embolden and strengthen this calamitous government, of which all despair?’ But they did close their eyes to the stars and some did answer, ‘you are a fool who doth not understand St Jeremy’s master plan’
13

and others still did beseech the woman to descend from the ivory tower in which, for the purposes of this story, they would wish her to dwell. And they besought her to descend into Bethlehem, and go to a certain allotment,
14

where she would find the Messiah busy with his marrows and she would be filled with the spirit of Momentum. But she did shake her head and declare that she was and would remain an unbeliever, yet full sorrowful she was, for Labour had been her home. 15

And the host did despise and condemn her, and many did tell her to fuck off and join the Tories, and before they did depart one of their number cried unto her, ‘it’s because he’ll tax you more, isn’t it,’ and she did sigh and wished him a Merry Christmas. 16X

[Husar]

I know Facebook, I have an account there. :laugh4:

And I also know that some people believe anything posted there, especially if it fits their existing beliefs.
The point was to say that a) I strongly believe this is crazy and b) something needs to be done.

Earlier today I saw some American on Facebook who claimed Belgium could only afford a healthcare system because all the EU members send it so much money and that these special circumstances just can't work everywhere. :laugh4:
I did however try to explain (in short) why he was wrong after I told him how his argument is very stupid and wrong.

Anyway, remember to fund your schools with all the excess money you will have after leaving.

[Fragony]

A Christmas tale (https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1076458808703180800) by JK Rowling (the author of the Harry Potter books).

And lo, unto her did appear a host of Corbyn defenders, who did descend upon her mentions, and she was not sore afraid, because she was used to it. And the host did sing with one voice, ‘ungodly woman, thou foolest us not. We know the true reason thou despisest Saint Jeremy.’ 1

And she did say unto them ‘share thy hot take.’ And with righteous wrath they did declare, ‘thou fearest Saint Jeremy, friend of the poor, because he shall take from thee in taxation much more even than Herod, and so thou attackest the meek and honest saviour of this land.’ 2

And she did reply, ‘I shall not call ye dimwits, for it is the season of goodwill, but tis not Saint Jeremy who shall tax me, nay, not even if he enters the house of Number Ten, for my tax rates are set by Queen Nicola, in whose kingdom I do abide, and unto her I do pay
3

my full portion, seeking neither to flee to Monaco nor to hide my gold in far flung lands, like St Jacob, Patron Saint of Filthy Hypocrites.’ ‘Speak not of hypocrites!’ cried the host, ‘for thou dost claim to care about the poor yet doth rail against their champion, St Jeremy!’ 4

And she did answer, ‘How shall the poor fare under Brexit, which thy Saint hath always in his secret heart desired, yet he hath not admitted what was in his heart, lest fewer attend his next Sermon on the Glastonbury B Stage.’ And they did answer, ‘Saint Jeremy will achieve
5

a miracle, and he shall bring forth a Jobs First Brexit and all the land shall rejoice.’ And she did answer, ‘bollocks.’ But she bethought her of the season of goodwill, and repenting of her ire she did speak further. ‘I have, for all my life, voted Labour, yet now I cannot.’ 6

‘But his goodness doth shine out of his every orifice!’ cried the host, swarming anew into her mentions. ‘Behold his beard! Look upon this picture of him being led off by police when he was protesting racism in all its forms!’ And she did say, ‘I have looked upon his beard 7

...and also upon this picture. It is a good picture and I do like a beard, as I have oft declared. Yet must I protest, thou it breaketh my heart so to do, that this party of Labour, which I have so long loved, has become, under St Jeremy -‘
8

‘Speak not of the Jews!’ cried the host. ‘Why must thou speak so oft of the Jews?’ ‘Yea, I must speak,’ said she, ‘for when Jews no longer feel safe in Labour then I too must leave.’ And one of the host did shout something about the Rothschilds
9

and he was hastily hushed by his brethren, who did declare, ‘he is not one of ours, thou he sports a #JC4PM halo.’ And another did speak and he said, ‘it is not antisemitic to criticise Israel,’ and she did put her face in her hands and want to weep. 10

But she did then look up and see many stars shining brightly in the sky and lo, they did arrange themselves before her eyes into a ‘who would make the best Prime Minister poll’ and she did cry, ‘Will ye not raise up your eyes to the Heavens? See there the People’s mind!’ 11

And they did look up at the stars and read there that St Jeremy was, as for ages past, in third place after Pontus May and Don’t Know. And she spake further, ‘do ye not see that St Jeremy is hurting your party, yea, that his inability even to organise a vote of no confidence
12

doth embolden and strengthen this calamitous government, of which all despair?’ But they did close their eyes to the stars and some did answer, ‘you are a fool who doth not understand St Jeremy’s master plan’
13

and others still did beseech the woman to descend from the ivory tower in which, for the purposes of this story, they would wish her to dwell. And they besought her to descend into Bethlehem, and go to a certain allotment,
14

where she would find the Messiah busy with his marrows and she would be filled with the spirit of Momentum. But she did shake her head and declare that she was and would remain an unbeliever, yet full sorrowful she was, for Labour had been her home. 15

And the host did despise and condemn her, and many did tell her to fuck off and join the Tories, and before they did depart one of their number cried unto her, ‘it’s because he’ll tax you more, isn’t it,’ and she did sigh and wished him a Merry Christmas. 16X
Harry Putter.

Love Rowling though, not as much as Roald Dahl but she certainly knows how to write cool children's books, love the Harry Potter books

[Pannonian]

I know Facebook, I have an account there. :laugh4:

And I also know that some people believe anything posted there, especially if it fits their existing beliefs.
The point was to say that a) I strongly believe this is crazy and b) something needs to be done.

Earlier today I saw some American on Facebook who claimed Belgium could only afford a healthcare system because all the EU members send it so much money and that these special circumstances just can't work everywhere. :laugh4:
I did however try to explain (in short) why he was wrong after I told him how his argument is very stupid and wrong.

Anyway, remember to fund your schools with all the excess money you will have after leaving.

Don't think that, just because something is plainly idiotic, people won't believe it. Our Trade Minister, Liam Fox, welcomed the recently concluded EU-Japan trade agreement, saying that it would mean an extra several billion in trade for the UK, making Brexit a success. His twitter readers pulled him up on the bloody obvious; the agreement is between Japan and the EU, which thanks to Brexiteers like Fox, the UK will no longer be part of, meaning that even within the confines of a single tweet, Fox managed to contradict himself and claim something that was plainly false. This is our Trade Minister, on a subject matter which he is supposed to be the designated expert on in the Cabinet.

A lot of Brexiteering among the voters is just apathetic ignorance. But most of the Brexiteering from their theorists is just straight out mendacity, seen most clearly in dismissing the vast body of expert opinion whilst pointing to obscure publications and think tanks with outlying opinions. You'd have to be well read up to know of the latter, but you'd have to be mendacious to dismiss the former. They know how the game works: all voters have one vote each, whether they're qualified experts in economics or members of a Facebook echo chamber.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

50 years is a number to ensure that today's leading Brexiteers will never have to be called to account for their promises, whilst still just being within reach of the very young.

True. And economic modeling at that range in years with the untold variables involved make climate science look exacting by comparison.

[Furunculus]

everything I read from you, Pan, is completely absent of nuance or empathy.

everything you describe is a Manichean dichotomy between the obvious moral worth of Remain and obvious mendacious deceit of leaving.

am I wrong in thinking this, perhaps a misunderstanding I have created, from misreading some quirk of the way you write?
do you hold any recognition that:
1. people can be honest in their motivations to leave
2. people can have well thought out motivations to leave, even if you disagree with those motivations
3. that a surprising percentage of leave voters will combine both honest and well thought out motivations

i don't understand how someone can be so totally absent any kind of understanding over why 52% of your fellow elecorate may have come to a different opinion than yourself. it is a little frightening!

[Husar]

everything I read from you, Pan, is completely absent of nuance or empathy.

everything you describe is a Manichean dichotomy between the obvious moral worth of Remain and obvious mendacious deceit of leaving.

am I wrong in thinking this, perhaps a misunderstanding I have created, from misreading some quirk of the way you write?
do you hold any recognition that:
1. people can be honest in their motivations to leave
2. people can have well thought out motivations to leave, even if you disagree with those motivations
3. that a surprising percentage of leave voters will combine both honest and well thought out motivations

i don't understand how someone can be so totally absent any kind of understanding over why 52% of your fellow elecorate may have come to a different opinion than yourself. it is a little frightening!

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No, that group is nowhere near the entire 52%. :laugh4:

And I still think their position is heavily flawed. Being sincere doesn't make a position intelligent and being well-thought-out does not make it moral. This also means that in many cases 1 and 2 appear mutually exclusive to me, making the group of 3 very small.

[Fragony]

That's right, some people just not like IT even they want you to do something. There where perfectly fine trade agreements long before the EU overhead existed. Thee are stil there. IT is just a needless bureaucracy trying to survive (IT won't)

[Husar]

I don't know why Information Technology bothers you so much. :shrug:

[Pannonian]

That's right, some people just not like IT even they want you to do something. There where perfectly fine trade agreements long before the EU overhead existed. Thee are stil there. IT is just a needless bureaucracy trying to survive (IT won't)

Like the fine trade agreement that our Trade Minister recently welcomed, saying that it will increase the UK's trade by several billion? That was the last concrete matter that our relevant minister spoke about on the subject. Do you agree with his assessment?

[Pannonian]

everything I read from you, Pan, is completely absent of nuance or empathy.

everything you describe is a Manichean dichotomy between the obvious moral worth of Remain and obvious mendacious deceit of leaving.

am I wrong in thinking this, perhaps a misunderstanding I have created, from misreading some quirk of the way you write?
do you hold any recognition that:
1. people can be honest in their motivations to leave
2. people can have well thought out motivations to leave, even if you disagree with those motivations
3. that a surprising percentage of leave voters will combine both honest and well thought out motivations

i don't understand how someone can be so totally absent any kind of understanding over why 52% of your fellow elecorate may have come to a different opinion than yourself. it is a little frightening!

On 1, see what the Brexit leaders are doing. I know of Lawson (former chairman of Leave), Farage, Rees Mogg and Redwood making preparations to evacuate themselves or their investments abroad. In Redwood's case, he's actually written that economic prospects post-Brexit aren't good, and his clients should hold off on investing in Britain. I don't see how, in any value system, hypocrisy can be seen as honest.

On 2, see the overwhelming weight of expert opinion. 90+% of economics experts have predicted economic downturn post-Brexit, and even the head of ERG does not see any upturn for some 50 years. And the opinions of the haulage industry which you refuse even to look at. How is that well thought out? The overwhelming body of opinion said that pi is a complex number that cannot be simply expressed. Versus the lone opinion that pi is 3.2. The Georgian congress passed a Bill ruling that pi equals 3.2. Should people have been understanding of the possibility that this exercise of democratic will has its case?

Democracy does not prevent stupidity. If something is stupid given all the evidence showing it to be so, the democratic argument does not mean otherwise. Stupid is stupid, no matter how democratic it is dressed up to be.

[Furunculus]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. No, that group is nowhere near the entire 52%. :laugh4:

And I still think their position is heavily flawed. Being sincere doesn't make a position intelligent and being well-thought-out does not make it moral. This also means that in many cases 1 and 2 appear mutually exclusive to me, making the group of 3 very small.
Congratulations. You pass the adult test, whereby it is possible to acknowledge the validity of other points of view. Even where you do not agree with them!

[Furunculus]

On 1, see what the Brexit leaders are doing. I know of Lawson (former chairman of Leave), Farage, Rees Mogg and Redwood making preparations to evacuate themselves or their investments abroad. In Redwood's case, he's actually written that economic prospects post-Brexit aren't good, and his clients should hold off on investing in Britain. I don't see how, in any value system, hypocrisy can be seen as honest.

On 2, see the overwhelming weight of expert opinion. 90+% of economics experts have predicted economic downturn post-Brexit, and even the head of ERG does not see any upturn for some 50 years. And the opinions of the haulage industry which you refuse even to look at. How is that well thought out? The overwhelming body of opinion said that pi is a complex number that cannot be simply expressed. Versus the lone opinion that pi is 3.2. The Georgian congress passed a Bill ruling that pi equals 3.2. Should people have been understanding of the possibility that this exercise of democratic will has its case?

Democracy does not prevent stupidity. If something is stupid given all the evidence showing it to be so, the democratic argument does not mean otherwise. Stupid is stupid, no matter how democratic it is dressed up to be.

Hmmm, fails the adult test where it is possible to acknowledge the validity of ideas you do not yourself hold.

[Fragony]

Like the fine trade agreement that our Trade Minister recently welcomed, saying that it will in, tadecrease the UK's trade by several billion? That was the last concrete matter that our relevant minister spoke about on the subject. Do you agree with his assessment?

Several billions is wat tof pay the EU, tradedeals that were already done at whatsapp we call the are left undone, and these are all you need. Tot make IT look live you are suddenly isolated you are only lees messed with in reality

[Kagemusha]

What amazes me is how few facts are being used as context in the Brexit talks. Arguments like following a result of a referendum are being talked to no end, but i am sure the normal people would be more interested in things like food price.

UK imports 51% of its food supply. From that 51%, EU countries are importing 70%. Those who support no deal. One has to wonder how much the price of food is going up?

Tariff for non EU food products are currently 9% and additional customs costs 2%. So conservative estimate would be 5% increase to food prices, while 20% of food imports would switch to non EU countries.

[Pannonian]

What amazes me is how few facts are being used as context in the Brexit talks. Arguments like following a result of a referendum are being talked to no end, but i am sure the normal people would be more interested in things like food price.

UK imports 51% of its food supply. From that 51%, EU countries are importing 70%. Those who support no deal. One has to wonder how much the price of food is going up?

Tariff for non EU food products are currently 9% and additional customs costs 2%. So conservative estimate would be 5% increase to food prices, while 20% of food imports would switch to non EU countries.

Gove, one of the leading Leave figures and a current Cabinet minister, has said that no deal will see food prices rise. Do Brexit supporters address this point? I don't think I've seen any Brexiteers address the issues raised by the Haulage people either, the people whom trade is reliant on. They're usually more keen to talk about theoretical macro-economic models that the 1 in 20 pet economist touts, whilst ignoring the nuts and bolts that macro-economies consist of. Basically pushing the line that everything will be ok, whilst dismissing all concrete evidence against. The only concrete argument Brexiteers have is the 52%. Every other bit of evidence is against them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Was talking with a friend about Brexit over sushi. Neither of us think the MPs have the balls to go through with no deal. I think the battle over May's deal is the end game. If it doesn't pass, Brexit is over.

[Beskar]

Been a few news updates on Brexit over the last week...

The Ferry Contract
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46714984

A Furunculus Solution? Britain to join CPTPP (UK has expressed interest, they are open to it) at cost of EU trade?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cptpp-will-be-a-force-for-good-in-promoting-free-trade

Labour wants Second Referendum (72%), except for Corbyn wanting an alternative
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/02/corbyn-tells-may-to-strike-new-brexit-deal-labour-can-back

With some big firms moving to France due to the wanting to remain within EU markets and a few more stories floating around. Brexit is the gift that keeps on giving.

[Pannonian]

Will anyone accept the Seaborne contract? It has all the hallmarks of graft, which now seems to be the reality of implemented Brexit. Government contract farmed out to a private company, without going through due process, without undertaking due diligence despite what the minister claims. The claim is patently false, because the company has no experience in doing what it's being contracted to do, has no assets at all, and has already pushed back expected delivery date. Is there any aspect of this contract that does not smell dodgy?

[Pannonian]

Labour wants Second Referendum (72%), except for Corbyn wanting an alternative
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/02/corbyn-tells-may-to-strike-new-brexit-deal-labour-can-back


I had quite a few arguments with grizzly and other Corbyn supporters. Are they still as keen on Corbyn now that he's shown his true colours on Brexit?

[Pannonian]

It seems the Seaborne website had terms and conditions copied and pasted from a pizza delivery site, although that has now been changed. However, the login is still nothing but a linked image taking you to Google. I could do a better site than that using Notepad. And the government has awarded them a 14 million GBP contract. This is Brexit, folks. Corruption and incompetence from top down to bottom. What needs to be asked is, is it the local council or figures in Parliament who are benefiting from this? Or both?

[Fragony]

You keep talking economy, most of your trade is outside the eurozone. Eurozone Will become more expensive, that's true, but the rest Will be cheaper. It will of course have consequences but everybody knew that or should have known that the EU wants your money and won't let you out of their grasp very easily. They need your billions

Edit, very sucking autocorrect, it is so annoying

[Pannonian]

You keep talking economy, most of your trade is outside the eurozone. Eurozone Will become more expensive, that's true, but the rest Will be cheaper. It will of course have consequences but everybody knew that or should have known that the EU wants your money and won't let you out of their grasp very easily. They need your billions

Edit, very sucking autocorrect, it is so annoying

Still peddling the they need us more than we need them line. The head of the ERG has said that it may take up to 50 years for the benefits of Brexit to show. The government are preparing to deploy 30k troops (scaled up from 3k), and the MoD has already sent military advisers to various ministries. Meanwhile the government hands out multi-million contracts to companies without assets, and the minister evades questions on how this is being handled. Oh, and the PM postponed the promised vote because the numbers were looking good.

No material benefits envisaged even by the leaders of Brexit. The government refuses to be accountable to Parliament. The military being deployed in Britain. This is Brexit.

[Fragony]

This is all not as easy as I though it would be, in theory it should have been but major forces are working against it. I was wrong I guess

[Pannonian]

This is all not as easy as I though it would be, in theory it should have been but major forces are working against it. I was wrong I guess

Can you clarify what you mean by major forces working against it. How would it have been easy in theory? What do you think of the government thinking that it needs to deploy the military in order to effect Brexit?

[Fragony]

Can you clarify what you mean by major forces working against it. How would it have been easy in theory? What do you think of the government thinking that it needs to deploy the military in order to effect Brexit?

I have no answer, maybe you were right the whole time

[edyzmedieval]

There's a very serious chance this Brexit will end very badly for the United Kingdom - deal or no-deal. The fact that the PM is staring down the rabbit hole on a decisive vote shows how horrible this whole thing is to be fair.

[Pannonian]

There's a very serious chance this Brexit will end very badly for the United Kingdom - deal or no-deal. The fact that the PM is staring down the rabbit hole on a decisive vote shows how horrible this whole thing is to be fair.

May's tactic has been to delay everything and then threaten Remainers with a binary choice between her deal or no deal. To this end, she postponed what was supposed to be a pre-Christmas vote till after Christmas, making her threat even more effective. Cross-party machinations are forcing her to go through Parliament before going no deal and having to be quick about it, so she's changed tack and is now threatening Leavers with a binary choice of either her deal or no Brexit. And her transport minister is threatening riots in the street by the far right if there is no Brexit.

Every aspect of Brexit has been irrational, free of evidence and heavy on doctrine, inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy, and just plain stupid. See the future of EU thread where Furunculus urged me to read a think tank study he'd posted, without offering me any summary or comment. When I read it and found holes within a first browse, he noted that its conclusion didn't fit my worldview, when the study itself and its methodology was immediately and obviously dodgy. I urged him to reciprocate by listening to an account by a truck driver of the realities of logistics, which he had previously dismissed without a hearing, but which is considered an expert opinion to the point where the government has formulated policy based on it. Furunculus didn't respond. Brexit is do as I say, not as I do. Brexit is a great idea, say the leaders of Brexit. As they hurriedly prepare escape routes into the EU for themselves and theirs. Do as I say, not as I do.

[Furunculus]

Ya ya ya, got some fine whine to sell us all today?

[Fragony]

Looks like things go your way Pan's, it would be a missed chance imho but I do understand it

[Beskar]

May had a better chance via a second referendum than through Parliament. She missed the shot badly. She got a bad hand and played it worse.

[Furunculus]

the sausage machine isn't a pretty process, granted, but i still think we'll get sausage at the end. ;)

[Beskar]

the sausage machine isn't a pretty process, granted, but i still think we'll get sausage at the end. ;)

Not all things sausage-shaped are sausages. Don't want to mistake a colon for a sausage-machine.

[Furunculus]

Decision is already made.
my point is that tonight is just another stanza in the parliamentary song and dance, this is the process.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Not all things sausage-shaped are sausages. Don't want to mistake a colon for a sausage-machine.

"Natural casings," Beskie, "natural casings." Certain phrasings are NOT preferred for marketing purposes.

[Ronin]

Can you clarify what you mean by major forces working against it. How would it have been easy in theory? What do you think of the government thinking that it needs to deploy the military in order to effect Brexit?


I would definitely consider reality a 'major force'

[Pannonian]

I would definitely consider reality a 'major force'

Liam Fox, Trade Secretary and leading Brexiter (https://twitter.com/liamfox/status/1073298501746991104?lang=en)


I welcome the approval of the EU-Japan economic partnership agreement yesterday, which could boost UK GDP by up to £3bn in the long run. Japan is a vocal defender of free trade and this agreement will form the basis of our new, stronger trading relationship as we leave the EU.

Brexiters don't do reality or logic. They don't even do consistency within a single tweet.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
Brexiters don't do reality or logic. They don't even do consistency within a single tweet.

Welcome to our world. Internally inconsistent tweets are now the focus of our executive.

[vomit smiley here]

[Montmorency]

So May faces the second-biggest party defection ever (?) over the Deal, with Blair somewhat ahead in the Iraq War vote at 139 Labor defections -


(lol)


https://www.economist.com/britain/2019/01/14/theresa-may-prepares-for-a-drubbing

The scale of the defeat matters to more than just politics nerds (although, we admit, we are rapt). If Mrs May loses by a narrow margin—fewer than 50 votes overall, say—she might just about be able plausibly to claim that, with a few tweaks, she could get the deal through on a second attempt. The EU is unlikely to agree to any big changes. But a few warm words in the formal political declaration that accompanies the legal text of the agreement might be enough to give wavering Tory rebels a ladder to climb down, should Britain approach its planned departure day on March 29th with no deal in sight.

If, on the other hand, Mrs May loses heavily—by more than 100 votes, for the sake of argument—it is hard to see how further fiddling in Brussels could change enough minds in Parliament to get the deal through. At that point the government would have to consider stronger medicine: a general election, a second referendum or leaving with no deal at all. If she loses the vote, Mrs May must outline her plans to Parliament within three working days, by January 21st. It is looking ever more likely that Britain’s scheduled exit will be delayed. And the odds are also shortening on Britain not leaving at all.

and subsequently survives a confidence vote falling perfectly along party lines. Lark.

https://i.imgur.com/qBbLzDr.gif

Cute gif.

[Pannonian]

May has called the other EU leaders again with the same demands as before, despite her government policy having been defeated by the largest margin in history. The other party leaders who've talked to her report the same; no change in her position. What authority does she have on this?

[edyzmedieval]

I've watched Parliamentary debates for the first time ever in the last 2 weeks - I never thought the UK Parliament is so entertaining!

ORDAAH!

[Pannonian]

The government has already planned for a deployment of the Army in the event of no deal. Now it's asked the Navy to help transport medicines. The Navy declined, citing the time it takes to refit ships and that it will not be ready in time for the leave date.

[Furunculus]

Increase in the navy budget, alright.

My wife is about to get £65 back from HMG. Yay!

[Pannonian]

Does anyone know what the term is when a politician lobbies a foreign government to act against their own country?

[Pannonian]

"Any attempts by Remainer MPs to delay or obstruct #Brexit must be opposed. Today I have formally asked Polish Government to veto any motions by EU to allow extension of Article 50. We are leaving 11pm on March 29th as promised."

Daniel Kawczynski, Conservative MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham, has no position in the UK government. Q for US posters: would this come under the Logan Act were this a US Congressman?

[Furunculus]

I think I asked the same question about someone else a while back.

[Pannonian]

Also, James Dyson, one of the most prominent backers of Brexit, is moving his HQ to Singapore, having already moved most of the manufacturing overseas. What is it about Brexiteers and hypocrisy? They talk about sovereignty and ask foreign governments to overrule Parliament. They talk about post-Brexit opportunity and move their investments abroad.

[Husar]

I'm reading a whole lot of corporations are preparing for Brexit, but some also see a chance: That German corporations can get lucrative opportunities within the EU once the former British suppliers are out of the picture due to tariffs and other logistical problems.

The logistical problems of having border controls on a very narrow road with trucks piling up for kilometers also came up in the article.
"May you live in exciting times!" I always forget whether that was meant as a blessing or a curse. :sweatdrop:

[Pannonian]

I'm reading a whole lot of corporations are preparing for Brexit, but some also see a chance: That German corporations can get lucrative opportunities within the EU once the former British suppliers are out of the picture due to tariffs and other logistical problems.

The logistical problems of having border controls on a very narrow road with trucks piling up for kilometers also came up in the article.
"May you live in exciting time!" I always forget whether that was meant as a blessing or a curse. :sweatdrop:

Richard North, a Brexit advocate until the ERG seized control of the agenda, reckons there won't be queues of lorries, as they'll go through their inventories and work out what can and can't be transported, and that there will be abnormally low traffic instead. Instead, we'll be screwed another way, as there will simply be less trade due to barriers that can't be prepared for.

Another point about Dyson, who was one of the leading business advocates for Brexit. Singapore recently signed a trade treaty with the EU. So after having taken the UK out of the EU on the grounds that our prospects are better outside, he's now moved his business out of the UK and to somewhere that has a new agreement with the EU. It's unbelievable how hypocritical the Brexiteers get yet their followers will continue to make excuses for them and maintain that Brexit is a good idea, in denial of the evidence of their heroes' actions.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ya'll missed your chance to elect Lord Buckethead. I liked his platform.

[Gilrandir]

"May you live in exciting time!"

It should read: "May, you live in exciting time!"

[Husar]

It should read: "May, you live in exciting time!"

Times should be plural either way.

What has May actually achieved if there is a hard brexit?At the moment it's not very interesting though, because anything could still happen and the rest is guesswork.

[Pannonian]

Rees Mogg now suggests the government should suspend Parliament if no deal is blocked. Do the Brexiteers here agree with this tactic, to suspend Parliament until the March deadline is passed and Brexit is safely through?

[Montmorency]

Article (https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/27256/why-britain-s-labour-party-is-locked-into-a-broken-strategy-on-brexit) suggests Corbyn supports Brexit not (merely) out of some ideological drive but because the electoral picture is one of deep-red Remain constituencies and 'purple' swing constituencies (such as in smaller industrial cities), and the purple constituencies are heavily pro-Brexit...


First-past-the-post forces Britain’s political parties to prioritize marginal seats with small majorities over those where their support is strongest. In the case of Brexit, it appears that Corbyn has decided to abandon his most devoted followers out of fear of alienating provincial Leavers. Labour currently holds 29 of the 30 safest parliamentary seats in the entire country. These seats are overwhelmingly concentrated in densely populated cities, London most of all, that returned large majorities for Remain in 2016. Labour’s lead in towns populated by socially conservative, working-class voters that voted out, however, is much smaller.

According to a paper published by the London-based think tank Policy Network, 49 of Labour’s top 100 target seats—the party needs to gain 64 to achieve a parliamentary majority in the next election—are located in English “town” constituencies. The Labour leadership clearly fears that endorsing anti-Brexit policies popular with its metropolitan diehards, like a second referendum, risks repelling the town-dwelling voters that it needs to secure a parliamentary majority. Members of Corbyn’s shadow Cabinet are so terrified by this prospect that several have threatened to resign if the party backs a so-called People’s Vote.

Of course, the reverse is possible as well, but the uncomfortable truth for metropolitan voters is that Labour can afford to shed votes in cities. The party won Liverpool Walton, its safest seat, by 32,551 votes in 2017. By contrast, in Dudley North, a constituency outside Birmingham, where the Leave vote stood at 67.6 percent, a mere 22 votes nudged Labour to victory in the last election. The chances of Labour losing its majority in Walton borders on zero, which certainly isn’t the case in Dudley. And while backing a second referendum might endear the Labour Party to metropolitan voters, they’re not the ones that the party needs to win over. In 2017, the Conservatives edged Labour in 54 seats by a margin of less than 10 percent; 47 of those marginal constituencies voted Leave. Corbyn clearly feels that honoring the Brexit vote is key to defending Labour’s paper-thin majorities in Leave-voting towns and seizing marginal seats currently held by the Tories.

Maybe Corbyn is more "pragmatic" than has been assumed. How... American.

However...


Labour’s electoral predicament highlights a much deeper dysfunction in Britain’s political system. It’s often said that Brexit has paralyzed politics in the U.K., but Brexit is only a symptom of that paralysis rather than its cause. The real root of the problem lies in first-past-the-post, which denies truly proportional representation.

Rory is vindicated!


The past two decades have seen a major realignment in British politics. It’s widely believed that by accepting Margaret Thatcher’s free-market consensus, Tony Blair’s “New Labour” abandoned working-class voters, who Blair and his allies regarded as unlikely to switch to the Tories in significant numbers. But support for Labour among skilled workers dropped 9 percentage points during Blair’s first two terms as prime minister, between 1997 and 2005. The drop was even greater among unskilled workers, sliding 13 points in the same period. According to a report by the Fabian Society, a London think tank, the 63 most working-class constituencies have swung toward the Conservatives by 3.6 percent since 2005, while cities have moved toward Labour by 5.6 percent.

Labour has increasingly become the party of liberal-minded, university-educated professionals and ethnic minority voters concentrated in metropolitan constituencies, yet it remains electorally dependent on votes from homogenous, working-class towns—particularly since the 2015 general election, when a Scottish National Party landslide decimated Labour in Scotland. The first-past-the-post system forces disparate voters with opposing values together into a brittle, schizophrenic coalition, one that neuters Labour’s capacity to act as an effective opposition. The party’s fear of alienating either side of its coalition is so great that it has largely avoided taking a concrete stand on Brexit at all, aside from demanding permanent Customs Union membership. This means that Labour has helped facilitate Brexit without shaping it in any meaningful way.


Under proportional representation, there would be no need for Labour to pursue such a broken strategy. It would be free to adopt a firm anti-Brexit position that would help it extend its majority in cities, court the 39 percent of Conservatives that backed Remain, and steal votes from the Liberal Democrats. This would allow a much more natural coalition to emerge, one that’s more in line with the changing profile of the Labour vote. But until first-past-the-post is discarded, the party will remain beholden to its Leave minority.

[Pannonian]

Article (https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/27256/why-britain-s-labour-party-is-locked-into-a-broken-strategy-on-brexit) suggests Corbyn supports Brexit not (merely) out of some ideological drive but because the electoral picture is one of deep-red Remain constituencies and 'purple' swing constituencies (such as in smaller industrial cities), and the purple constituencies are heavily pro-Brexit...

Maybe Corbyn is more "pragmatic" than has been assumed. How... American.

However...

Rory is vindicated!

Corbyn: “Article 50 has to be invoked now” (https://labourlist.org/2016/06/corbyn-article-50-has-to-be-invoked-now/)

Note the date and time. Corbyn is ideologically pro-Brexit. He probably voted Leave in the privacy of the voting booth.

[edyzmedieval]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/jan/29/brexit-vote-commons-latest-news-developments-liam-fox-says-may-now-saying-withdrawal-deal-text-must-be-rewritten-politics-live

As expected, this did not go down well. No chance of a soft landing Brexit, it's either a hard deal or bye bye with no-deal.

This is going to be really bad.

[CrossLOPER]

Also, James Dyson, one of the most prominent backers of Brexit, is moving his HQ to Singapore, having already moved most of the manufacturing overseas. What is it about Brexiteers and hypocrisy? They talk about sovereignty and ask foreign governments to overrule Parliament. They talk about post-Brexit opportunity and move their investments abroad.

Video games are not entertaining enough, so they moved on to troll-playthroughs in real life?

[a completely inoffensive name]

So, reading a recap of May's key decisions that influenced the Brexit outcome.

1. Delayed invoking Article 50 for several months after the vote.
2. Called snap election that reduced a great lead to a weak DUP-Tory government.
3. Kept ministers out of the loop from negotiations.
4. Delayed vote on deal while refusing to renegotiate.

There are others I am forgetting but I mean...she has to be willingly stacking the deck against a competent Brexit. I think May has been covertly sandbagging the whole process and making Brexit as bad of an option as possible.
Question is, is she incompetent and I am wrong or am I right? We will only find out at the very end. If she commits to No Deal and refuses a second referendum, then she really is the worst PM the UK has ever had. Otherwise if she "caves", my money is on her driving politics to be as chaotic as possible for the last two years to justify another direct vote by the people, with the remain camp more energized after two years of Brexit fatigue.

[Furunculus]

Or is it just the most difficult geopolitical act (outside total war) that any advanced and integrated state has attempted in modern history?

[rory_20_uk]

Visa-free travel to the EU for up to 90 days every 180 days (https://news.sky.com/story/eu-agrees-to-visa-free-travel-for-uk-citizens-even-after-no-deal-brexit-11624541). For the cost of under £7 every 3 years. And why? Because allowing this is beneficial to the EU (as well as the UK of course).

Oddly the article focuses on whether Gibraltar is called a colony or not... Otherwise this could make a no-deal Brexit seem less bad - and the Politicians are not interested in such messages.

What next? Pointing out that the Irish consistently point to the "Spirit" of the Good Friday Agreement at risk of being breached since even a hard boarder would no be breaching the legal agreement... An agreement that was in essence made with Terrorists.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Or is it just the most difficult geopolitical act (outside total war) that any advanced and integrated state has attempted in modern history?

Perhaps, and once you've successfully completed it, you can celebrate your tremendous bravery in the ruins that used to be your cities. ~;p

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Perhaps, and once you've successfully completed it, you can celebrate your tremendous bravery in the ruins that used to be your cities. ~;p

Europe has had its share of that.

[Husar]

Europe has had its share of that.

And will continue to have had it, Britain is not Europe anymore in April, it's an island and it's very special. Those won't just be ruins, they will be Great Ruins!

[rory_20_uk]

And will continue to have had it, Britain is not Europe anymore in April, it's an island and it's very special. Those won't just be ruins, they will be Great Ruins!

No - the UK will be in Europe, not the EU. The two are very different. One is a geographic location, the other is a metastatised trade body.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

No - the UK will be in Europe, not the EU. The two are very different. One is a geographic location, the other is a metastatised trade body.

~:smoking:

That snide remark dissing British exceptionalism flew right past your head? :sweatdrop:

[a completely inoffensive name]

Or is it just the most difficult geopolitical act (outside total war) that any advanced and integrated state has attempted in modern history?

The difficulty of the act doesn't fully explain her actions.

[Furunculus]

Well, quite.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Having returned to mourn Fragony let me just leave you with this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47143135

I'd say negotiations are over, wouldn't you?

Also - Donald Tusk is apparently more of an arsehole than Donald Trump.

[Don Corleone]

I have been trying to follow on what's going on with the whole Brexit negotiations. It seems to me that the primary sticking point is the Irish backstop? UK politicians (who are Leavers) are insisting on an open trading border between Ireland and Northern Ireland? And the EU government is unwilling to entertain this option? Do I have that correct?

Also, is this truly the crux of the failed Brexit plan? Or is it a fig leaf?

[Pannonian]

I have been trying to follow on what's going on with the whole Brexit negotiations. It seems to me that the primary sticking point is the Irish backstop? UK politicians (who are Leavers) are insisting on an open trading border between Ireland and Northern Ireland? And the EU government is unwilling to entertain this option? Do I have that correct?

Also, is this truly the crux of the failed Brexit plan? Or is it a fig leaf?

The GFA, a bilateral treaty between the UK and RoI, requires an open border between NI and RoI. The UK wants to exit the customs union and single market. The EU, to allow these contradictory demands, has suggested an open border between NI and RoI (thus keeping the GFA), with the customs border only coming into effect between GB and NI. The DUP, whose votes are propping up the government on Brexit-related matters (since the Tories do not have a majority), won't accept a border between GB and NI. The newest revelations are that the UK will throw open the borders. Which will kill agriculture among other industries, as exports will be subject to tariffs (and will thus be uncompetitive), but imports will not (and thus will undercut homegrown produce). That's the rub when Brexit theorists talk about switching to a Singapore style globalised service economy. The UK has an agricultural industry. Singapore does not. Singapore can implement certain measures the UK cannot, if the UK wants to keep its agriculture. Free trade cities like Singapore and Hong Kong are also only possible because of a different, more urbanised mentality.

If you can reconcile all these contradicting requirements with a practical solution that does not solely consist of hating the EU, feel free to email HM government. Tusk's announcement that PFH has taken exception to is the culmination of the EU's frustration with the UK not having any clear idea what it wants, except to blame the EU for all ills. And contrary to what PFH says, this is not the end of negotiations. Negotiations ended with May's withdrawal agreement, which was defeated in the Commons by the largest margin in recorded history. After May finalised that agreement, the EU said that was it; there will be no further changes without a change in the UK's position. The UK has not changed its demands, except to repeat them louder with louder threats of taking down the EU with us. And each time May and co has done this, the EU has repeated its position: there will be no further changes without changes in the UK's position. This day in, day out, repeat of this routine is the reason for Jean-Claude Juncker's quote, “I’m less Catholic than my good friend Donald. He strongly believes in heaven and by opposite in hell. I believe in heaven and I have never seen hell, apart [from] during the time I was doing my job here. It’s a hell,” (http://www.theirishworld.com/special-place-in-hell-for-brexiteer-politicians-says-tusk/)

Another quote from Tusk, less highlighted by Brexiteers but of greater importance, is "There is little chance of the UK remaining in the EU as both May and Corbyn are “pro-Brexit” and there is “no effective leadership for Remain”. Corbyn, as leader of the loyal Opposition, should have been holding the loyal government's actions to account by scrutinising their suggestions. Instead, Corbyn was the first to call for an immediate exit, before any plans had been made, and has kept it up since. Farage said before the vote that a 52-48 result in favour of Remain would not mean the end of the story, but he and his mates would continue to campaign for Brexit. After the 52-48 result in favour of Leave, the main parties have been competing to interpret the result to mean the fringes of the Leave argument, that nearly every Leave campaigner had assured would not happen, while the Remainers have been completely ignored.

[Don Corleone]

Wow, thanks for the synopsis, Pannonian. This is actually quite disturbing. Not much hope for progress in 7 weeks.

[Husar]

That's the rub when Brexit theorists talk about switching to a Singapore style globalised service economy. The UK has an agricultural industry. Singapore does not. Singapore can implement certain measures the UK cannot, if the UK wants to keep its agriculture. Free trade cities like Singapore and Hong Kong are also only possible because of a different, more urbanised mentality.

There is also a small difference in terms of population. Is there even enough demand for that many people in a new service economy? Surely you can transform into a service economy, but if noone wants that service, it may not turn out to be a very profitable decision.

[Furunculus]

An easy answer would be to Signal that a single rulebook for goods is an end goal of the fta negotiations in the political declaration.

Goods can move, people can move regardless because of the cta.

We're not a million miles away with the backstop...

[Pannonian]

An easy answer would be to Signal that a single rulebook for goods is an end goal of the fta negotiations in the political declaration.

Goods can move, people can move regardless because of the cta.

We're not a million miles away with the backstop...

What does your signalling mean in concrete terms? This government has repeatedly indicated that informal agreements are there to be broken, and even bilateral treaties should be unilaterally breakable by the UK, so no one in their right minds will believe anything that isn't legally nailed down. Oh, and the deadline is due in less than 2 months, upon which we will be treated to your wonderland of no deal Brexit. Liam Fox reckons it's "survivable". Did that word appear on a bus during the campaign?

[Furunculus]

Not signalling from the UK, it is not in our gift to provide. No, by the EU.

Too much drama about no deal, let's face it the Eurozone lives with 10%unemployment and verges on a technical recession. Oh what a model to worship.

[Pannonian]

Analysts predict that in the event of no deal, sterling could fall by over 20%. Is this such a bad thing?

In other news, representatives of the food industry have urged cessation of discussions with the government on matters not related to Brexit, as their resources are already stretched dealing with the latter. "Businesses throughout the UK food chain - and their trade associations - are now totally focused on working to mitigate the catastrophic impact of a no-deal Brexit".


The letter comes just two weeks after major retailers warned MPs that a no-deal Brexit would cause huge disruption to the industry, leading to higher prices and empty shelves in the short-term.

Sainsbury's, Asda and McDonald's were among those who warned stockpiling fresh food was impossible, and that the UK was very reliant on the EU for produce.

[Pannonian]

Remember I talked about truck drivers and permits? Over 11k permits have been applied for, but fewer than 1k have been issued so far. Another 2.5k have been promised in time for Brexit, but the Haulliers Association say that's still 10% of what's needed. The food retailers probably had this in mind when they warned of higher prices and empty shelves. Still, food shortages are worth it in order not to be subject to the nefarious ECJ, which has ruled in favour of the UK in 95% of claims.

[Furunculus]

trucks and planes will still move:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8444442/brexit-scaremongers-eu-transport-agreement/

[Pannonian]

trucks and planes will still move:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/brexit/8444442/brexit-scaremongers-eu-transport-agreement/

Lucky you didn't post that in the reddit football forums. They've banned the Sun as a source there.

[Husar]

Wow, secret deals and reports, I've got some more:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6054661/EU-secret-report-No-deal-Brexit-worse-EU-UK.html

No deal Brexit 'would be worse for the EU than Britain because red tape would slow down efforts to respond quickly, Brussels believes'

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1079909/Brexit-news-UK-EU-latest-no-deal-vote-Dominic-Raab-Irish-border-backstop

EU PLOT: Secret Brussels plan to 'CONTROL' Britain after Brexit REVEALED

That secret deal of the Sun seems really new: https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/uk-and-eu-deny-reaching-a-secret-brexit-deal/

5 NOVEMBER 2018
UK and EU deny reaching a “secret Brexit deal”

The conspiracy is even worse though:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytNYpGakV8w

No, seriously, I'll believe it when it comes from something other than a neoliberal propaganda rag.

[Pannonian]

Wow, secret deals and reports, I've got some more:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6054661/EU-secret-report-No-deal-Brexit-worse-EU-UK.html


https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1079909/Brexit-news-UK-EU-latest-no-deal-vote-Dominic-Raab-Irish-border-backstop


That secret deal of the Sun seems really new: https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/uk-and-eu-deny-reaching-a-secret-brexit-deal/


The conspiracy is even worse though:

No, seriously, I'll believe it when it comes from something other than a neoliberal propaganda rag.

The Sun isn't banned on football forums because it's neoliberal. It's banned because it lies as a matter of course. The Mail doesn't have a good reputation either. The Express is notorious for its Diana-fixation and lack of trustworthiness on everything else that might be termed news. I'd be looking at the broadsheets for a good source. Preferably Financial Times, although the Times or Guardian will do.

[Pannonian]

Husar, I'm not going to check out the Sun story, so if you've read it, perhaps you can summarise it. However, from the headline, the closest I can find from reputable sources is the plan to waive checks on goods coming from the EU, which has been reported on numerous media including all the broadsheets, and one of the heads of the Haulliers Association, who handle the logistics taking goods into and from Britain, saying that the suggested 3.5k permits is only 10% of what is needed. If Furunculus's story from the Sun supersedes this, I'd like to know what their source is. The plan I cited above isn't secret and can be enacted unilaterally, although it isn't practical and is blatantly open to abuse, while the second is traceable to a named source who is an expert on the subject in practice. Furunculus's stories tend to come from theorists with little understanding of how things work. The better stories of his anyway.

[Montmorency]

No, seriously, I'll believe it when it comes from something other than a neoliberal propaganda rag.

Whence "neoliberal"? I could at least see where you're coming from if it were the Economist, but the Sun is but a standard tabloid.



Husar, I'm not going to check out the Sun story, so if you've read it, perhaps you can summarise it. However, from the headline, the closest I can find from reputable sources is the plan to waive checks on goods coming from the EU, which has been reported on numerous media including all the broadsheets, and one of the heads of the Haulliers Association, who handle the logistics taking goods into and from Britain, saying that the suggested 3.5k permits is only 10% of what is needed. If Furunculus's story from the Sun supersedes this, I'd like to know what their source is. The plan I cited above isn't secret and can be enacted unilaterally, although it isn't practical and is blatantly open to abuse, while the second is traceable to a named source who is an expert on the subject in practice. Furunculus's stories tend to come from theorists with little understanding of how things work. The better stories of his anyway.

It's vituperation (a notch harsher than Pann-tone) against "Project Fear" but no sources, only links to older Sun articles. With a Google search I guess it must be prompted by something related to this EU press release (https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/15/basic-road-connectivity-in-the-event-of-no-deal-brexit-council-agrees-its-position/) dated Feb. 15:


Basic road connectivity in the event of no-deal Brexit – Council agrees its position

The EU is introducing a set of temporary and limited measures to ensure basic road freight and road passenger connectivity in order to mitigate the most severe disruption in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a negotiated agreement. Today, member states' ambassadors in the Council's Permanent Representatives Committee approved a mandate for the Romanian presidency to negotiate with the European Parliament on enabling UK-licenced road hauliers and coach and bus operators to carry goods and passengers between the UK and the remaining 27 member states. The rights granted by these measures will be conditional on equivalent rights being conferred by the UK to operators from the 27 member states and subject to conditions ensuring fair competition.

The temporary measures are without prejudice to any future negotiations with the UK.

The regulation will cease to apply on 31 December 2019.

A meeting with the Parliament to agree on the final text will take place on 18 February.

Background
According to the overall principles for non-deal Brexit contingency measures, all such measures consist of unilateral EU-level action, on the assumption that the UK will reciprocate. The measures are exceptional in nature and strictly time-limited. The transport connectivity measures are not intended to replicate the status quo under EU law, but rather to preserve basic connectivity between the EU and the UK.

[Furunculus]

See what can be achieved when you remove the blinkers and cease trying to play the man.

[Pannonian]

See what can be achieved when you remove the blinkers and cease trying to play the man.

Blinkers? I, like many English football fans, absolutely refuse to click on any Sun link, assuming as a matter of course that said rag will be lying. If you have a story to push, use another source.

[Furunculus]

I think it is a junk rag to, but what twitter turned up was:
Interesting, &
informative, &
accurate

Quite frankly nothing else matters.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I think it is a junk rag to, but what twitter turned up was:
Interesting, &
informative, &
accurate

Quite frankly nothing else matters.

So, you're suggesting that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while?

[Husar]

The Sun isn't banned on football forums because it's neoliberal. It's banned because it lies as a matter of course. The Mail doesn't have a good reputation either. The Express is notorious for its Diana-fixation and lack of trustworthiness on everything else that might be termed news. I'd be looking at the broadsheets for a good source. Preferably Financial Times, although the Times or Guardian will do.

I specifically linked to untrustworthy ones as they all posted these crazy conspiracy bullhorn (it's a family forum...) stories.
The Financial Times is obviously a neoliberal capitalist rag and the Gruniad is a leftist biased newspaper that Furunculus would never take seriously. If I really wanted to convince him, I'd link to https://www.wsws.org for example. ~;)


Whence "neoliberal"? I could at least see where you're coming from if it were the Economist, but the Sun is but a standard tabloid.

It's owned by Rupert Murdoch and he wants to rule the world. Isn't that enough? :sweatdrop:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Sun isn't banned on football forums because it's neoliberal. It's banned because it lies as a matter of course. The Mail doesn't have a good reputation either. The Express is notorious for its Diana-fixation and lack of trustworthiness on everything else that might be termed news. I'd be looking at the broadsheets for a good source. Preferably Financial Times, although the Times or Guardian will do.

The Torygraph is just as reliable as the Gruniard.

I've apparently been dragged back in.

So here's my prediction, if we have a "no deal" Brexit the following will happen:

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

After all, there's no infrastructure to enforce a border and no present impetus from the UK to change any of our rules regarding agriculture, product safety, etc.

The EU may wish to impose Tariffs, that will probably take at least a month, but if it does so it will be at the EU's impetus, making them the "bad guys" and I understand, to add insult to injury, they have considered erecting the border in Mainland Europe and excluding Ireland for safety's sake.

If that's even seriously mooted it will cause serious, lasting, damage to the EU.

As regards to what I objected to - I object to Donald Tusk invoking the language of divine punishment which is usually reserved for mass-murders and child molesters.

[Furunculus]

I specifically linked to untrustworthy ones as they all posted these crazy conspiracy bullhorn (it's a family forum...) stories.
The Financial Times is obviously a neoliberal capitalist rag and the Gruniad is a leftist biased newspaper that Furunculus would never take seriously. If I really wanted to convince him, I'd link to https://www.wsws.org for example. ~;)



It's owned by Rupert Murdoch and he wants to rule the world. Isn't that enough? :sweatdrop:

The Grauniad is [the] paper I read before all others.
Read daily.

[edyzmedieval]

While everyone is trying to negotiate, let's not forget a no-deal can still happen. And when that happens...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaBQfSAVt0s

[Pannonian]

The Torygraph is just as reliable as the Gruniard.

I've apparently been dragged back in.

So here's my prediction, if we have a "no deal" Brexit the following will happen:

Nothing, absolutely nothing.

After all, there's no infrastructure to enforce a border and no present impetus from the UK to change any of our rules regarding agriculture, product safety, etc.

The EU may wish to impose Tariffs, that will probably take at least a month, but if it does so it will be at the EU's impetus, making them the "bad guys" and I understand, to add insult to injury, they have considered erecting the border in Mainland Europe and excluding Ireland for safety's sake.

If that's even seriously mooted it will cause serious, lasting, damage to the EU.

As regards to what I objected to - I object to Donald Tusk invoking the language of divine punishment which is usually reserved for mass-murders and child molesters.

Can you explain how this works? IIRC the Maltese commissioner, whom I would have thought to be closer to us than some other EU countries, called for us to be made to suffer. It's the Germans in particular who've been toning down the language. Strictly enforcing the WTO rules and making us squirm would be rather popular in most parts of Europe.

Oh, and you might want to check out Mark Francois (Conservative MP) if you want inflammatory language, repeatedly. Or our defence secretary, for that matter, who's managed to screw up relations with China and Japan in the space of two weeks. Tusk? He was aiming at our politicians. Not so much our Brexiter MPs, who've been threatening whole countries. There's an entire faction who've been calling for unilateral tearing up of bilateral/multilateral treaties; the kind of stuff I've only read about in history books.

[Husar]

The Grauniad is [the] paper I read before all others.
Read daily.

Are you sure? Or do you just read it to dismiss everything in there?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/brexit-disaster-decades-in-the-making
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/disaster-capitalists-no-deal-brexit-environment
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/19/no-deal-brexit-disaster-madness-war
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/brexit-disaster-economic-data-uk-eu

These are just from a quick headline search, I don't remember any Guardian articles that were particularly happy about Brexit or saying it would all be just fine.

[Pannonian]

In other news, Honda have announced the closure of the plant in Swindon (54.7% leave, 10k majority), with the loss of 3.5k jobs. Union reps explain that the usual formula is 3 related jobs to each one, so that's around 14k point and supply chain jobs lost, plus knock on effects on local prosperity. FT points to the loss of the JIT supply chain, with stockpiling components for 9 days requiring one of the largest buildings in the world.

Oh, and one of the richest men in the UK (well, he was in the UK), a Brexit supporter, has left the UK to live in a tax haven. Did I mention that Dyson, one of the most prominent businessmen supporting Leave, has disowned his company as "British"?

[edyzmedieval]

Regardless of what newspaper you read, we can agree on the fact that Brexit will be an economic problem. Leave the Irish backstops for a moment, think of the initial supply chain disruption that will happen in the first 6 months. Adding to that, if a no-backstop deal is done, then it will raise the problem of enforcing goods at the Irish border... and we all know what the Irish border means.

This is in no way shape or form a positive outcome for anyone. Brexit is going to be a huge mess, it already is in fact.

[Pannonian]

Regardless of what newspaper you read, we can agree on the fact that Brexit will be an economic problem. Leave the Irish backstops for a moment, think of the initial supply chain disruption that will happen in the first 6 months. Adding to that, if a no-backstop deal is done, then it will raise the problem of enforcing goods at the Irish border... and we all know what the Irish border means.

This is in no way shape or form a positive outcome for anyone. Brexit is going to be a huge mess, it already is in fact.

Brexiters already have a back up plan. Plan A is to threaten the EU and say that "they need us more than we need them", that damaging us would take the EU with us. Fall back plan should we exit with no deal is to blame the EU. You can see it in PFH's post where he says that enforcing WTO rules will cause serious, lasting damage to the EU, and that doing so will make them the bad guys. There are no plans for making it work. The only plans are to threaten or blame the EU.

Liam Fox (trade secretary) has said that we will open up the borders, in effect requiring no tariffs to be paid. This will kill the agricultural industry, as produce with no tariffs or standards will be able to enter Britain while our farmers' own produce will have tariffs imposed should they want to sell abroad. Michael Gove (environment and food minister) has said that tariffs will be imposed on foreign produce. Two mutually contradicting positions on a fundamental issue with a month and a bit to go before no deal exit. Will Leavers accept responsibility for the results of Brexit? Or will they once more blame the EU?

[Pannonian]

Read why the pro-EU argument that we'll lose job creators when we #LeaveEU can be turfed out

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYviRulWAAAVUma.jpg


Not sure this tweet has aged very well!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dzw_kckWoAAiqGA.jpg

NB. Leave.eu and its backer Aaron Banks were fined for breaking electoral laws during the referendum campaign.

[Furunculus]

Are you sure? Or do you just read it to dismiss everything in there?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/brexit-disaster-decades-in-the-making
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/07/disaster-capitalists-no-deal-brexit-environment
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/19/no-deal-brexit-disaster-madness-war
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/29/brexit-disaster-economic-data-uk-eu

These are just from a quick headline search, I don't remember any Guardian articles that were particularly happy about Brexit or saying it would all be just fine.

I need to let you in on a little secret. Two in fact:

1) life is complicated, and people who try to boil it down to manichean simplicity of good and evil lack the mental tools to assess the world.
A bit like sticking fingers in your ears and screaming "neoliberalism!" whenever uncomfortable opinions Hove into view.
2) There is a vital distinction between news and editorial. One is fact, the other opinion, and the grauniad is a fine newspaper with batpoop crazy opinion writers.
fox news has lost the ability to distinguish between news and editorial, as have the identity politics left who ignore facts when presented by a hated messenger.

I hope this proves a valuable response for you.

[Husar]

1) life is complicated, and people who try to boil it down to manichean simplicity of good and evil lack the mental tools to assess the world.
A bit like sticking fingers in your ears and screaming "neoliberalism!" whenever uncomfortable opinions Hove into view.

Oh, you mean like people who constantly harp on about how someone else uses the word "neoliberalism" too often without even understanding why they do that or that they're being triggered on purpose? Yeah, I think you exemplified your point very well! ~;p


2) There is a vital distinction between news and editorial. One is fact, the other opinion, and the grauniad is a fine newspaper with batpoop crazy opinion writers.
fox news has lost the ability to distinguish between news and editorial, as have the identity politics left who ignore facts when presented by a hated messenger.

I hope this proves a valuable response for you.

Yes and no, I thought you might say that, but news aren't fact per se, sometimes rumors are reported as news or the style of reporting is biased. Not to say this is the case for the Gruniad though. I'm happy that you're happy with the Gruniad as a news source.

[Beskar]

NB. Leave.eu and its backer Aaron Banks were fined for breaking electoral laws during the referendum campaign.

I saw that, but I forgot to post it over on here.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...
2) There is a vital distinction between news and editorial. One is fact, the other opinion, and the grauniad is a fine newspaper with batpoop crazy opinion writers.
fox news has lost the ability to distinguish between news and editorial, as have the identity politics left who ignore facts when presented by a hated messenger....

Sadly, pretty much all of our broadcast news on this side of the pond -- aside from some of the business-specialty programs -- have blurred that distinction to a fair-the-well. When I want news with the opinions kept to the editorial section, I listen to BBC.


And FOX has NOT lost the ability to distinguish between news and editorial. It never had it in the first place. It was formed to be as distorted as its "mainstream" competitors but with a 'reverse-of-the-coin' slant.

[Pannonian]

Sadly, pretty much all of our broadcast news on this side of the pond -- aside from some of the business-specialty programs -- have blurred that distinction to a fair-the-well. When I want news with the opinions kept to the editorial section, I listen to BBC.


And FOX has NOT lost the ability to distinguish between news and editorial. It never had it in the first place. It was formed to be as distorted as its "mainstream" competitors but with a 'reverse-of-the-coin' slant.

There are complaints about the BBC having to be balanced in its coverage, where covering both sides is more important than actually reporting facts. Scientists have given up appearing on their discussion programmes, as the BBC balances their coverage by giving wingnut extremists the same weight as academics with decades of experience in specialist fields. I've talked before about us currently having the worst aspects of liberal democracy, with the Brexit debate showcasing them in all their glory. Rather than liberalism giving us rights rooted in western philosophy and democracy guarding us against tyranny by the few, we have liberalism giving us rights that we take for granted, and democracy giving parrots the same weight as informed opinion.

There is some pushing back though. Some in the BBC are now arguing that truth and accuracy is more important than balance, that proven lies should not be given the same weight or airing as proven truth.

[Montmorency]

There are complaints about the BBC having to be balanced in its coverage, where covering both sides is more important than actually reporting facts. Scientists have given up appearing on their discussion programmes, as the BBC balances their coverage by giving wingnut extremists the same weight as academics with decades of experience in specialist fields.

Our cable news and broadcasters do the same (without even touching on print media). This is because they have the mission of reaching a broad audience, making entertainment and profitability the priorities - even in the case of the technically non-commercial NPR. Contra Seamus, this contributes to a pervasive conservative slant by default. FOX is sui generis because it was designed from the outset with an ideological agenda rather than a strictly commercial one (which is just the 'submerged' ideology of capitalism).

Returning to Brexit, the EU has released a couple of statements regarding temporary arrangements for road and air traffic in the case of No Deal. How do these affect the outlook?

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/15/basic-road-connectivity-in-the-event-of-no-deal-brexit-council-agrees-its-position/
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/19/basic-air-connectivity-in-the-event-of-no-deal-brexit-provisional-agreement-with-the-parliament/

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Dang. I missed the truth again. Some days I wonder how I manage to get from A to B.

[Montmorency]

Dang. I missed the truth again. Some days I wonder how I manage to get from A to B.

Bro Mr. Fermanagh, we offer one another disagreement often enough without apparent friction. What blooms dolorous in those few instances you snap so bitterly?

[Pannonian]

Our cable news and broadcasters do the same (without even touching on print media). This is because they have the mission of reaching a broad audience, making entertainment and profitability the priorities - even in the case of the technically non-commercial NPR. Contra Seamus, this contributes to a pervasive conservative slant by default. FOX is sui generis because it was designed from the outset with an ideological agenda rather than a strictly commercial one (which is just the 'submerged' ideology of capitalism).

Returning to Brexit, the EU has released a couple of statements regarding temporary arrangements for road and air traffic in the case of No Deal. How do these affect the outlook?

https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/15/basic-road-connectivity-in-the-event-of-no-deal-brexit-council-agrees-its-position/
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2019/02/19/basic-air-connectivity-in-the-event-of-no-deal-brexit-provisional-agreement-with-the-parliament/

I think this covers the permits problem, raised by the Haulliers Association. Which allows us to look at the customs problem. We don't have the infrastructure or personnel to enforce a customs regime. The trade minister says we will effectively throw open the borders (not enforce the regime at the border). Our agriculture minister says we will enforce the regime. As you can see, that's two ministers saying contradictory things. And in case you want to dismiss the agriculture minister as holding a lesser office, he's the bookmaker's favourite to be the next PM when the Tories stab May in the back. And the trade minister was the one who welcomed the EU-Japan trade deal in January, proclaiming that it will bring greater prosperity to the UK in years to come, forgetting we're leaving the EU in March (and thus being flamed by readers for being an effing idiot).

NB. throwing open the border kills our agriculture and manufacturing industry. The latter looks to be a lesser problem now, as it's leaving anyway due to the loss of JIT. The former is why the agriculture minister assured panicked farmers that we will be enforcing a customs regime. Which we don't have the infrastructure or manpower for. However, enforcing a customs regime results in delays. Which is problematic for produce that can spoil. Hence the food industry is warning against Brexit.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Bro Mr. Fermanagh, we offer one another disagreement often enough without apparent friction. What blooms dolorous in those few instances you snap so bitterly?

You have a tendency to respond to those points with which you disagree without acknowledging those areas of commonality that do exist; coupled with your propensity to post both voluminously and with a somewhat 'black and white' evaluative tone, you come over somewhat dismissive to me.

As a communication scholar, I am well aware that such may not be your intent (and I presume very probably is not), and I am virtually certain that you bear me no personal animus, but at 55 with 45 years as a political observer -- and NOT one of the self-chosen ignorati endlessly numbed with the latest talent discovery or reality show soap opera -- it does sometimes rub me the wrong way.


If often find myself taking week-long breaks from the backroom to adjust my own attitude. As an academic, the line between the personal and the intellectual is not as sharply drawn as it probably should be in this age of websites, posts, and tweets.


And please call me Seamus. If we are going to go for titles and the like it gets too stuffy, and mister's not the correct formal title anyway.

[Gilrandir]

And please call me Seamus. If we are going to go for titles and the like it gets too stuffy, and mister's not the correct formal title anyway.

"Master" will be closer to the mark. ~;)

[Montmorency]

You have a tendency to respond to those points with which you disagree without acknowledging those areas of commonality that do exist; coupled with your propensity to post both voluminously and with a somewhat 'black and white' evaluative tone, you come over somewhat dismissive to me.

This is a well-established personality trait of mine, but at least it isn't personal - if you read my posts it's clear I interact with everyone that way eventually. It's more readily available for me to address disagreement than agreement, and indeed it is to the disagreement I seek to elicit a treatment from the readers; I hope that my silence gets interpreted as agreement or a lack of comment. I might also be less intense here than if the Backroom existed offline, since textual interaction affords more time to think. I tend to elide smoothing niceties of the general sort offline, making my default posture by turns a markedly reserved or abrasive one. Since in my mind the Backroom is the place for 'unrestricted political conversations', that's what I conform my presentation toward.

Usually if I feel I'm drafting a gratuitous post it's easier for me to refrain from posting at all than to modify my approach. I do at times try to post more graciously, but without feedback on that score I don't know how well I'm doing.

I will make an effort to accommodate your feelings, but barring a concussive blow to the head or other epiphany my personality won't change. The way I see it there are two ways to orient my reception: take my tone in stride if it's my standard, or call me out when I'm being more of a bitch than you are willing to tolerate.


If often find myself taking week-long breaks from the backroom to adjust my own attitude. As an academic, the line between the personal and the intellectual is not as sharply drawn as it probably should be in this age of websites, posts, and tweets.

I'm sorry.


your propensity to post both voluminously

Ironically, the less activity in a space there is the more active I become. This too manifests offline.


and with a somewhat 'black and white' evaluative tone

I hedge my evaluations much of the time though.

[Beskar]

Pannonian, do you support the agenda of the www.theindependent.group ? It seems that it might be up your street, at a glance.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Master" will be closer to the mark. ~;)

Kind of you, Gil', though it would be "doctor" in fact. UT - Austin Summer 1997. Hook 'em Horns!

[Pannonian]

Pannonian, do you support the agenda of the www.theindependent.group ? It seems that it might be up your street, at a glance.

Without a new centrist party, I would have voted Lib Dem. If TIG turns into a party fielding a candidate in my constituency, I'll vote for them in the next election, and possibly the one after that, to give the new party a chance to strike roots. TIG has the advantage over both the Tories and Labour in that the front bench would not be batshit insane, and I, an ordinary joe off the street, do not feel superior to them in intellect, as I do the Tory and Labour front benches. It's remarkable that the extremely low bar, do not be an idiot, already produces better talent than the cabinet and shadow cabinet. And do not be a :daisy: produces better policy than both.

[Gilrandir]

Kind of you, Gil', though it would be "doctor" in fact. UT - Austin Summer 1997. Hook 'em Horns!

I meant like Master Kenobi.

[Pannonian]

What is the Single Market? Professor Michael Dougan explains the key facts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6F0inyJPDc)

Britain under Thatcher was one of the main drivers of this.

[Pannonian]

With a month to go until Brexit, and the government having promised a substantial vote on the matter, May has again postponed the vote. How is this acceptable?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

What is the Single Market? Professor Michael Dougan explains the key facts (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6F0inyJPDc)

Britain under Thatcher was one of the main drivers of this.

Indeed. And, as has been evidenced before in this thread, most of the pro-brexit voices would be entirely happy with Britain reverting to the connection it shared with Europe under the EEC. That's not the part that engendered the 'leave' votes.

[Pannonian]

Indeed. And, as has been evidenced before in this thread, most of the pro-brexit voices would be entirely happy with Britain reverting to the connection it shared with Europe under the EEC. That's not the part that engendered the 'leave' votes.

Rory cites the ECJ as his main barrier. The ECJ is the arbitrator for EU law, which primarily means common market law. Someone said that the UK is generally a law-abiding country. Which shows in the ECJ's overwhelmingly pro-UK body of judgements (around 95% of disputes involving the UK going in favour of the UK). Rory and other Brexiteers don't like the idea that a non-British institution can rule on UK affairs, even if said institution is overwhelmingly pro-UK. Hence the idea of unilaterally reneging on bi and multilateral agreements/treaties. And resulting from that, hence the EU's determination to nail everything down in law and not taking the UK's word for it. I've read about this kind of behaviour before, but it was usually from the bad guys during the inter-war years, when the Axis countries unilaterally left international bodies because the latter weren't amenable to their ambitions. Britain, so I read, were the good guys, supporting international bodies and obeying international treaties and so on. I was proud of Britain's behaviour from that period, standing up to the unilateralist bad guys, and being part of the new international community after the war as well. So I'm confused by our behaviour today.

In other good news, "Ministers are planning a hardship fund for Britons hardest hit by a no-deal Brexit with cash handouts for those left out of work, leaked document reveals (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6741123/Ministers-planning-hardship-fund-Britons-hardest-hit-no-deal-Brexit.html)".

[Furunculus]

in addition to the many fine qualities you have taken time to elucidate; it is also an activist court driving forward its guiding mandate of ever closer union.
it has a remit that is wider than single market regulation, and yet also when necessary very capable of reinterpreting the treaties in order to define new areas of activity as falling under the single market regs it rules.

it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.

[Pannonian]

in addition to the many fine qualities you have taken time to elucidate; it is also an activist court driving forward its guiding mandate of ever closer union.
it has a remit that is wider than single market regulation, and yet also when necessary very capable of reinterpreting the treaties in order to define new areas of activity as falling under the single market regs it rules.

it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.

Can you point me to examples of where the ECJ has driven ever closer union over the borders of the UK's sovereignty? Because I'll point you to the demands made by other countries as preconditions for trade agreements. In many cases, they want more work visas or even free movement which is one of May's red lines. In the case of the US, there is a massive list that amounts to dropping EU standards. How is this better?

[Furunculus]

seems like a good start:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2017.1281652

or this:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/aug/10/european-court-justice-legal-political


it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.

[Pannonian]

seems like a good start:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2017.1281652

or this:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2010/aug/10/european-court-justice-legal-political


it is not simply an economic tribunal in the same we would view the efta court.

What is your view on ever closer union with the US (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47036119)?

[Furunculus]

a swift diversion to another another tendentious question?

firstly:
1. let us be clear, that any attempt to infer a plan for political union with the US would be a little dishonest. there is no comparison to be made between the political ambitions of the EU and the trade ambitions of US.
2. in principle I don't have a problem with chlorine washed chicken or hormone grown beef on a food safety basis. this is mainly because unless an area of activity is subject to catastrophic harm, over a time period that cannot be easily dealt with within the normal political horizon, then I prefer regulating based on demonstrable harm rather than the precautionary principle. food standards is a separate point entirely, but there is no food safety issue.

[edyzmedieval]

Postponing the exit will only make it worse IMHO - this should not have happened in the first place. Leave properly, and in orderly fashion, as you desire, or stay. Why 2 years and still no order?

[Beskar]

Why 2 years and still no order?

Because the whole thing is a sham.

For a start, the referendum was meant to be a remain victory with the government using tactics employed against the Scottish referendum. Whilst economic arguments might have won out for Scotland to remain, they severely underestimated the leave campaign of promise everything paradise from fantasy land for everyone and anyone. David Cameron shot himself in the foot and went "Well, that's that" and left. The Brexit leaders Nigel and Boris went "Well, we did this for the Popularity. Brexit would suicide... nevermind the fact we're totally incompetent" and they ran off to do their own thing. This left the biggest poo-fest in the hands of someone who actually voted for remain to lead the country into Brexit, Theresa May. Theresa May has a pretty horrible track record in cabinet and made a terrible job of our police force, but because she was a conservative of the supposed law & order party, this flew past people blindly.

There is also the fundamental problem of "What is Brexit?". You see, the leave campaign was completely unaccountable and promised everything to everyone, with lies blazoned across their own campaign bus. So you got a mixture of people who want to join leave the EU but remain in the EFTA, People who want to keep everything great about the EU except the part about smelly east Europeans coming in, then you go others who believe Britain can revive the Empire with a "Commonwealth Union" of sorts, and others with an outdated view of Britains position on the world stage that somehow without the 'shackles of Europe' we will soar like an eagle and dominant the seas & trade for a thousand years. All the nuance ends up thrown out the regardless of what anyone actually voted for because "Brexit means Brexit" which the entire thing hijacked by radicals who just want to see the world burn.

So you have a leader who no one wants, who is left to deal with the biggest international crisis of our current time against her will and better judgement, in the probably one of the biggest toxic British political environment in a long time with a barely tied together coalition government with the lunatic fringe minority grouping of Northern Ireland who would like the government to somehow detach Northern Ireland from the Republic Ireland and slap it somewhere near the North of England with a land-border despite the better judgement of all Irish peoples on bothsides of the border, the European Union and the United Kingdom itself.


Personally, I would love to see a second referendum. Not because "hurr durr you voted remains and just want to steal our Brexit!" like the Brexiteers would like you to believe. It is because the whole thing is a total sham and we actually need to get some paddles to steer us out of poo-creek with our head screwed on. There needs to be a well-defined referendum with multiple options of what people want or willing to accept. There should be things like "Remain", "Theresa May's Deal". "EFTA", "Opt-Out of Everything/Hard Brexit". Then we should get to vote, then when the results come out, we actually got something, even if it is as a country choosing to have a Hard Brexit, it has been done and decided. Instead of this constant wishy-washy time-wastey nebulous "Brexit means Brexit" we have had to endure for the last two years of deals, no deals, promised-nonsense deals which certainly would not be agreed to, etc. If we want to vote to see everything burn as a country, let's actually do that, opposed to pouring petrol upon ourselves because people voted to have free money because it was on the side of a bus.

[Pannonian]

Because the whole thing is a sham.

For a start, the referendum was meant to be a remain victory with the government using tactics employed against the Scottish referendum. Whilst economic arguments might have won out for Scotland to remain, they severely underestimated the leave campaign of promise everything paradise from fantasy land for everyone and anyone. David Cameron shot himself in the foot and went "Well, that's that" and left. The Brexit leaders Nigel and Boris went "Well, we did this for the Popularity. Brexit would suicide... nevermind the fact we're totally incompetent" and they ran off to do their own thing. This left the biggest poo-fest in the hands of someone who actually voted for remain to lead the country into Brexit, Theresa May. Theresa May has a pretty horrible track record in cabinet and made a terrible job of our police force, but because she was a conservative of the supposed law & order party, this flew past people blindly.

There is also the fundamental problem of "What is Brexit?". You see, the leave campaign was completely unaccountable and promised everything to everyone, with lies blazoned across their own campaign bus. So you got a mixture of people who want to join leave the EU but remain in the EFTA, People who want to keep everything great about the EU except the part about smelly east Europeans coming in, then you go others who believe Britain can revive the Empire with a "Commonwealth Union" of sorts, and others with an outdated view of Britains position on the world stage. All the nuance ends up thrown out the regardless of what anyone actually voted for because "Brexit means Brexit" which the entire thing hijacked by radicals who just want to see the world burn.

So you have a leader who no one wants, who is left to deal with the biggest international crisis of our current time against her will and better judgement, in the probably one of the biggest toxic British political environment in a long time with a barely tied together coalition government with the lunatic fringe minority grouping of Northern Ireland who would like the government to somehow detach Northern Ireland from the Republic Ireland and slap it somewhere near the North of England with a land-border despite the better judgement of all Irish peoples on bothsides of the border.

The referendum campaign was asymmetrical. One side had something concrete to be examined, with promises to be held accountable for. The other merely had to say everything but, and even its supporters say that its promises did not have to be kept. The implementer of the result has also promised different things to different people, with a track record during implementation of breaking her promises. All these promises are mutually exclusive except via an agreement, that was defeated in Parliament by the biggest margin in recorded history. Where's the solution?

[Beskar]

Where's the solution?

Second Referendum. It is really the only way.

As things are looking, we would will probably go spiralling out of the EU through an economic crash, getting royally screwed over by anyone and everyone. The government will have completely no legitimacy and nothing will get done as the country would be completely polarised on the subject there is simply no sight of a middle ground with a parliament who are completely incapable to reflect the will of it's citizen body. Even if the supposed savour Corbyn takes the reins, the country would be further plunged into turmoil. Next decade of politics would be a quagmire and when order is finally restored, the country would be a shell of its former self and probably the act of union would be completely dissolved with the countries independently rejoining the European Union.

As much as Furunculus might like a hard Brexit, I don't think in a million years he would like to see the outcome I just predicted.

[Pannonian]

Second Referendum. It is really the only way.

As things are looking, we would will probably go spiralling out of the EU through an economic crash, getting royally screwed over by anyone and everyone. The government will have completely no legitimacy and nothing will get done as the country would be completely polarised on the subject there is simply no sight of a middle ground with a parliament who are completely incapable to reflect the will of it's citizen body. Even if the supposed savour Corbyn takes the reign, the country would be further plunged into turmoil. Next decade of politics would be a quagmire and when order is finally restored, the country would be a shell of its former self and probably the act of union would be completely dissolved with the countries independently rejoining the European Union.

As much as Furunculus might like a hard Brexit, I don't think in a million years he would like to see the outcome I just predicted.

The ever closer union that Furunculus crows about at least gives us a voice in what that union consists of, with arbitration bodies that are overwhelmingly pro-our world view. The list of demands submitted to the Trump administration by lobbyists in return for any US-UK trade deal wouldn't stand a chance of passing if submitted to the UK public in a proper election, with electoral laws applying (which they did not for the referendum, since the referendum was supposedly only advisory and thus not worthy of such stringent rules). When the US-UK trade deal is agreed, do we get to vote on whether or not to accept it, or whether to stay close to our current world view?

Throughout all this, the constant is a bare majority against whatever is posed (apart from May's deal that Furunculus supports, that has the biggest majority in history against it). The biggest support for a solution that can be defined and examined is for EU membership, that barely missed the half way mark in 2016, and according to all polls is in a majority now.

BTW, you mean when Corbyn takes the reins. It's a horsey metaphor.

[Furunculus]

Second Referendum. It is really the only way.

As things are looking, we would will probably go spiralling out of the EU through an economic crash, getting royally screwed over by anyone and everyone. The government will have completely no legitimacy and nothing will get done as the country would be completely polarised on the subject there is simply no sight of a middle ground with a parliament who are completely incapable to reflect the will of it's citizen body. Even if the supposed savour Corbyn takes the reign, the country would be further plunged into turmoil. Next decade of politics would be a quagmire and when order is finally restored, the country would be a shell of its former self and probably the act of union would be completely dissolved with the countries independently rejoining the European Union.

As much as Furunculus might like a hard Brexit, I don't think in a million years he would like to see the outcome I just predicted.

both you and pann gloss over the equally complicit fairy tales remain told over the consequences of remaining.

i don't want hard brexit, as i have said many times i support mays deal, even suggesting we should align with all the goods regs required for northern ireland.

no i wiuldnt want the apocalypse you describe, but nor too do i believe that would emerge from no deal. you might consider the move from euro social democracy to an oz/ca market economy to be a disaster, but i do not share that view.

[Beskar]

no i wiuldnt want the apocalypse you describe, but nor too do i believe that would emerge from no deal. you might consider the move from euro social democracy to an oz/ca market economy to be a disaster, but i do not share that view.

I disagree. It is not because it is a disaster, it is because your idea of a oz/ca market economy won't occur.

[Furunculus]

Why ever not ?

[Gilrandir]

Second Referendum. It is really the only way.



In a deeply cloven society it will solve nothing. If the stay side wins, the argument will continue, with the leave side clamoring for a third referendum.

[Beskar]

Why ever not ?

That is easy. Who is going to implement this?
Even if you think the Conservatives would, would they have the political capital to institute such changes given no other political party would support them in it?
As for Jeremy Corbyn... I have a strong feeling that is a no.


In a deeply cloven society it will solve nothing. If the stay side wins, the argument will continue, with the leave side clamoring for a third referendum.

I call for a definite referendum and not a wishy-washy one. That makes a big difference in itself. The country is certainly not 50/50 Hard Brexit despite the rhetoric. It is more like 80/20 Hard Brexit. Having Theresa May's deal as an option will attract the majority of the Brexit votes and it might even attract people who voted remain initially just to get the whole thing over. It would have a serious chance of winning and would circumvent parliament gridlock. Under alternative vote, it would also attract all those who want Hard Brexit which would be eliminated first.

[Gilrandir]

I call for a definite referendum and not a wishy-washy one. That makes a big difference in itself. The country is certainly not 50/50 Hard Brexit despite the rhetoric. It is more like 80/20 Hard Brexit.

So the UK has a special law that differentiates a referendum from a definite referendum, and you would like to hold the latter?

And you may call for whatever you wish (wish-wash), only the results of it seem to be far from definite. The figures that you expect may be far from what the referendum would yield. And what then? Call for still a more definite referendum? The problem is not in referenda, but in the society which is likely to stay as divided as it is now.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In a deeply cloven society it will solve nothing. If the stay side wins, the argument will continue, with the leave side clamoring for a third referendum.

This is correct.

There is, according to current polling, a slight edge for Remain - but that was true three years ago. Another Referendum will solve nothing, and it will feed into the anti-democratic mythos of the EU. If the people give the wrong result in a vote, make them vote again.

What would the question even be?

Take the Deal or leave without one?

Take the Deal or stay?

Two Referendums?

I'm sure Beskar would suggest a three-option referendum but that would be an utter disaster.