EXIT NEGOTIATIONS

[Beskar]

Incoming Electoral Pact with the Brexit Party will be interesting. If they are competitive, Conservatives could be in for a defeat.

[rory_20_uk]

Why

A starter for ten.

Countries that want to move towards a Command economy can't at the same time rely on the wider world to buy its debt right at the same time they are stealing a lot of money from them. I would imagine if the UK decides to Nationalise all the industries they say they will the countries that loose money from this will reciprocate by taking UK company assets abroad (or taking the UK to the courts).

So we'd of course not be self sustaining, be haemorrhaging money before capital controls are brought in and that is just some of the policies they are prepared to tell us about.

So, even if you loathe Boris and everything he stands for, unless you are prepared to have the UK economy implode to levels we've probably not seen for 50 or more years you're really out of options.

[Idaho]

It's also really debatable to what extent the term "Zionist" is actually useful today - Israel exists and the majority of its citizens were born there, in Israel today there are "Zionists" who simply want this state of affairs to continue, and also those who want to expand Israel.

Interestingly, the people who use this arguement are the same people who say "Palestinians don't exist, they are a made up people".

[Idaho]

A starter for ten.

Countries that want to move towards a Command economy can't at the same time rely on the wider world to buy its debt right at the same time they are stealing a lot of money from them. I would imagine if the UK decides to Nationalise all the industries they say they will the countries that loose money from this will reciprocate by taking UK company assets abroad (or taking the UK to the courts).:

Yes nationalised industries are terrible. We need to protect our private electricity companies like EDF, who I pay for my power... What? That's owned by the French state?

Oh at least I can jump on board a train owned by good honest private money! The docklands light railway will speed me into the heart of London's proud home of capital... What? That's owned by keolis? Yes, so what? Oh... That is owned by the French and Canadian States... Oh...

Right, I will show commie Johnny foreigner! I will be sternly waving the flag for st George when I take the fast train to our national airport. No foreign state will get my money when I ride the Heathrow express...
... what do you mean that's owned by the Qatar government?

It's not on! We should have our utilities and key services run by British private companies. Like Hong Kong based CK industries (who own a number of British water and electricity companies) or Australian Macquarie group (who do likewise).


Honestly... The idea that there is no option for our key industries other than whoring ourselves out to big money overseas corporations or sovereign wealth funds, is utter nonsense and without evidence. The only people who benefit from this are city traders and big accountancy firms getting paid for managing the buying and selling of these "little pieces" between corporations and swfs.

[rory_20_uk]

Yes nationalised industries are terrible. We need to protect our private electricity companies like EDF, who I pay for my power... What? That's owned by the French state?

Oh at least I can jump on board a train owned by good honest private money! The docklands light railway will speed me into the heart of London's proud home of capital... What? That's owned by keolis? Yes, so what? Oh... That is owned by the French and Canadian States... Oh...

Right, I will show commie Johnny foreigner! I will be sternly waving the flag for st George when I take the fast train to our national airport. No foreign state will get my money when I ride the Heathrow express...
... what do you mean that's owned by the Qatar government?

It's not on! We should have our utilities and key services run by British private companies. Like Hong Kong based CK industries (who own a number of British water and electricity companies) or Australian Macquarie group (who do likewise).


Honestly... The idea that there is no option for our key industries other than whoring ourselves out to big money overseas corporations or sovereign wealth funds, is utter nonsense and without evidence. The only people who benefit from this are city traders and big accountancy firms getting paid for managing the buying and selling of these "little pieces" between corporations and swfs.

Well done missing the point - I can always rely on you!

To put it simply - the UK does not run a fiscal surplus. OK. You grasp this?

This is not about the principles in who should own what, but the macroeconomic effects of all these policies simultaneously.

The money the Government got from selling these assets has been spent. There isn't the funds to purchase them back. So either Corbyn is printing money (devaluing the currency), selling debt (pretty much the same thing) or will just take it (which has its own problems).

So, as I said, either become a Command economy - like those successes of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea - y'know - all the big successes - or work within the existing system. And this wouldn't achieve the changes they want.

To recap for the hard of thinking - you can't try to sell debt to the same people you've taken the property of.

[Idaho]

To recap for the hard of thinking - you can't try to sell debt to the same people you've taken the property of.

Lol... Tell that to all of us suckers who paid for the bank bailout, then watched savings get devoured by a combination of low interest rates and rising inflation.

[rory_20_uk]

Lol... Tell that to all of us suckers who paid for the bank bailout, then watched savings get devoured by a combination of low interest rates and rising inflation.

Does that answer any part of what I wrote? No? Thought not.

[Idaho]

You are saying that it's only economically sensible for money to flow from the majority to the minority.

[rory_20_uk]

You are saying that it's only economically sensible for money to flow from the majority to the minority.

[Sigh]

No I'm saying - and focus carefully here - that to nationalise many industries below market value whilst also looking to raise capital from the capital markets (privately owned - boo! Baddies) whilst forcing all large companies to give 10% of their shares to their UK employees (not really - most of the money would go to the State) is not possible.

Norway could do this easily. They. Have. The. Money. It is in a wealth fund and is worth over a trillion dollars. The UK either prints it directly or indirectly - or flat out steals it.

This has nothing to do with your sense of fairness. Corbyn's ideas might well be geared towards a fairer society. But sadly pouting and saying that it should work because you want it to isn't going to cut it.

Corbyn's ideas are fine as a backbencher. He has the purity of not having to deal with reality for decades and the 25W lightbulb of a brain that ensures he doesn't challenge his beliefs.

You too might have good intentions. But your puerile approach in trying to snarkily attack straw men is fine for a discussion forum (well, does not harm) but not running a country.

[Pannonian]

Well done missing the point - I can always rely on you!

To put it simply - the UK does not run a fiscal surplus. OK. You grasp this?

This is not about the principles in who should own what, but the macroeconomic effects of all these policies simultaneously.

The money the Government got from selling these assets has been spent. There isn't the funds to purchase them back. So either Corbyn is printing money (devaluing the currency), selling debt (pretty much the same thing) or will just take it (which has its own problems).

So, as I said, either become a Command economy - like those successes of Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea - y'know - all the big successes - or work within the existing system. And this wouldn't achieve the changes they want.

To recap for the hard of thinking - you can't try to sell debt to the same people you've taken the property of.

All some of us wanted was to try and get things working better within the present system, without having to account for revolutions. If you're understandably leery of Corbynomics, why not reject Brexolution as well and try to work within the present system. That recent interview, with a medical expert on the one hand talking about the no deal preparations he'd made, and Rees Mogg on the other hand saying that the former didn't know what he was talking about. If you're a fan of reason and reality, why is there a blind spot regarding Brexit?

[rory_20_uk]

All some of us wanted was to try and get things working better within the present system, without having to account for revolutions. If you're understandably leery of Corbynomics, why not reject Brexolution as well and try to work within the present system. That recent interview, with a medical expert on the one hand talking about the no deal preparations he'd made, and Rees Mogg on the other hand saying that the former didn't know what he was talking about. If you're a fan of reason and reality, why is there a blind spot regarding Brexit?

Fair point.

To put it simply, many countries all around the world manage just fine outside of the EU. That one doctor has made plans doesn't make him an expert since the vast majority of clinicians do not deal with logistics in supplying drugs. If the Head of (for example) Novartis said they had no idea how they would supply the UK and keep in line with GDP then I'd be more worried.

I am not aware of any countries anywhere that manage to implement Corbyn's policies unless they have a mass of external funding (Cuba and the USSR; arguably several countries in the Middle East with petrochemical dollars).

As I have repeatedly said, I am not advocating mining the channel or viewing this as some sort of European Cold War. The UK is just leaving the rules of the EU and will go on working with the EU as well as the rest of the world and would continue to uphold free markets and the rule of law. If further systems structured similarly to NATO were to be created that would be great - the EU that achieves the aims without the massive bureaucratic overheads.

Corbyn - or at least some of his colleagues - seem to view both free trade as well as international laws as optional.

[Pannonian]

Fair point.

To put it simply, many countries all around the world manage just fine outside of the EU. That one doctor has made plans doesn't make him an expert since the vast majority of clinicians do not deal with logistics in supplying drugs. If the Head of (for example) Novartis said they had no idea how they would supply the UK and keep in line with GDP then I'd be more worried.

I am not aware of any countries anywhere that manage to implement Corbyn's policies unless they have a mass of external funding (Cuba and the USSR; arguably several countries in the Middle East with petrochemical dollars).

As I have repeatedly said, I am not advocating mining the channel or viewing this as some sort of European Cold War. The UK is just leaving the rules of the EU and will go on working with the EU as well as the rest of the world and would continue to uphold free markets and the rule of law. If further systems structured similarly to NATO were to be created that would be great - the EU that achieves the aims without the massive bureaucratic overheads.

Corbyn - or at least some of his colleagues - seem to view both free trade as well as international laws as optional.

So you'd back Rees Mogg on this rather than someone who's been actively involved in the field? What about the numerous warnings that some drugs cannot be stockpiled, versus the government's insistence that there is nothing to worry about? I've seen loads of instances of experts in their fields warning of the consequences of Brexit, particularly no deal Brexit, and the government saying that there is nothing to worry about. Who is right, and are you prepared to stand by your answer?

[rory_20_uk]

So you'd back Rees Mogg on this rather than someone who's been actively involved in the field? What about the numerous warnings that some drugs cannot be stockpiled, versus the government's insistence that there is nothing to worry about? I've seen loads of instances of experts in their fields warning of the consequences of Brexit, particularly no deal Brexit, and the government saying that there is nothing to worry about. Who is right, and are you prepared to stand by your answer?

Channelling Idaho are we? Actually I don't have faith in either of them - I've no idea why two people who are not experts in the field are talking.

Again with warnings I would be much more worried if those who are supplying the drugs were saying they'll struggle to get them to the UK as opposed to saying they have plans to do so. Are any companies stating that they'll be unable to provide medications?

I am not claiming to be omniscient - I merely said that I would put some store if they asked those who know what they're talking about and in this case that would be those who are responsible for distributing medicines in the UK. Many Pharma companies are grumbling about the costs so far incurred but none appear to be concerned about there being shortages... I imagine the best way to create shortages is for people to panic and (as with any other resource) it will run out.

[Idaho]

[Sigh]

No I'm saying - and focus carefully here - that to nationalise many industries below market value whilst also looking to raise capital from the capital markets (privately owned - boo! Baddies) whilst forcing all large companies to give 10% of their shares to their UK employees (not really - most of the money would go to the State) is not possible.

Norway could do this easily. They. Have. The. Money. It is in a wealth fund and is worth over a trillion dollars. The UK either prints it directly or indirectly - or flat out steals it.

So you are saying the UK is a poor country and unable to afford to finance long term projects without either running a budget surplus or raising huge sums on the international money markets? This is nonsense I'm afraid. Governments around the world, with far fewer resources than us, are routinely running large and expensive projects.

This has nothing to do with your sense of fairness. Corbyn's ideas might well be geared towards a fairer society. But sadly pouting and saying that it should work because you want it to isn't going to cut it.

Corbyn's ideas are fine as a backbencher. He has the purity of not having to deal with reality for decades and the 25W lightbulb of a brain that ensures he doesn't challenge his beliefs.

You too might have good intentions. But your puerile approach in trying to snarkily attack straw men is fine for a discussion forum (well, does not harm) but not running a country.

Your simplification and characterisation of my views (dreamt up from your private schooled little brain) are at best irritating, at worst just shove all discussion onto the rails you are most familiar with.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the two of you are talking past each other, you've both lowered yourself to ad hominem attacks, and you're both partially right.

Idaho is clearly right to point out that the UK is not poor, by any definition.

However, Rory is also correct that the UK is impoverished.

Much like a country Earl with huge estates we are rich but cannot even meet our basic obligations. The reason for this is the same as if the UK was a lordly estate - chronic, shortsighted, miss-management over decades. Most of the strategic decisions made by the UK government post war have been poor ones. Withdrawing from the Suez Canal when we had basically won, forcing major industries to first conglomerate into inefficient titans and then nationalising them, privatising and breaking up major infrastructure, building two gigantic Aircraft Carriers (rather than three mid-sized ones) which we can't afford enough planes to justify.

There's plenty of blame to go around, on both the Left and Right and for the Conservatives and Labour.

One upside of us leaving the EU - there are a couple - is that at least the UK government will be neither hamstrung, nor have the excuse, that EU regulations tie its hands.

[Pannonian]

I think the two of you are talking past each other, you've both lowered yourself to ad hominem attacks, and you're both partially right.

Idaho is clearly right to point out that the UK is not poor, by any definition.

However, Rory is also correct that the UK is impoverished.

Much like a country Earl with huge estates we are rich but cannot even meet our basic obligations. The reason for this is the same as if the UK was a lordly estate - chronic, shortsighted, miss-management over decades. Most of the strategic decisions made by the UK government post war have been poor ones. Withdrawing from the Suez Canal when we had basically won, forcing major industries to first conglomerate into inefficient titans and then nationalising them, privatising and breaking up major infrastructure, building two gigantic Aircraft Carriers (rather than three mid-sized ones) which we can't afford enough planes to justify.

There's plenty of blame to go around, on both the Left and Right and for the Conservatives and Labour.

One upside of us leaving the EU - there are a couple - is that at least the UK government will be neither hamstrung, nor have the excuse, that EU regulations tie its hands.

That's just saying that it has no one else to blame, and as we've already seen, those who support Leave will still blame the EU for everything. More concretely, the EU's new laws against tax evasion are due to come into effect soon, and the backers of Leave need us to be out before then. The country wouldn't be nearly as impoverished if Leave's backers in the media pay the taxes they're supposed to.

[rory_20_uk]

That's just saying that it has no one else to blame, and as we've already seen, those who support Leave will still blame the EU for everything. More concretely, the EU's new laws against tax evasion are due to come into effect soon, and the backers of Leave need us to be out before then. The country wouldn't be nearly as impoverished if Leave's backers in the media pay the taxes they're supposed to.

Can you post a link on the tax evasion legislation please?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's just saying that it has no one else to blame, and as we've already seen, those who support Leave will still blame the EU for everything. More concretely, the EU's new laws against tax evasion are due to come into effect soon, and the backers of Leave need us to be out before then. The country wouldn't be nearly as impoverished if Leave's backers in the media pay the taxes they're supposed to.

You're the second person to trot this out to me today, must be something in the water.

All relevant legislation came into force in January 2019, before the original Brexit date. Some of the regulations won't come into force until the end of the year but preventing that would require new legislation.

I don't think anyone has time for that right now, do you?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Johnson now calling for election: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49584907

[Idaho]

Ok, imagine we are all impartial, political advisors, setting aside our personal bugbears, working for either the conservative party or Labour. How would you play this election gambit?

Would it make sense for Labour to go into an election as a "soft Brexit"party? How far can the Tories get as the Brexit party in an election with farage type factions sucking up votes.

How about the liberals? Are they doomed playing the remain card, or could it actually work for them?

[rory_20_uk]

Ok, imagine we are all impartial, political advisors, setting aside our personal bugbears, working for either the conservative party or Labour. How would you play this election gambit?

Would it make sense for Labour to go into an election as a "soft Brexit"party? How far can the Tories get as the Brexit party in an election with farage type factions sucking up votes.

How about the liberals? Are they doomed playing the remain card, or could it actually work for them?

Boris is an amoral pragmatist.
Corbyn is a moronic idealist.

Based on what they should do...

Labour should refuse an early election. Let the Tories continue to implode. Keep the 21 new independents in the Commons. Let voters really hate them and pin all the problems on them. A vote of no confidence might be the only thing that will draw people together - sure, they can't stand Boris but the only thing worse is Corbyn! Perhaps if this paralysis has suppurated for another 6 months or so enough people might overlook what Corbyn might do and vote for him anyway... Frankly they should ditch him ASAP and get someone more mainstream who can do another Blair. The middle ground is wide open - someone who is a soft remainer and wants to trot out another version of the Big Society.
So, Labour should continue their woolly "we'd do better than them" approach where they probably push for "sort of leave but sort of remain" - shout "Brexit!!!" in those seats where people voted to leave and "Customs Union!!!!!" in those that voted to remain. Both are close enough to the truth for politicians.

I think Boris needs an election. Unlike May he excels at campaigning: he's convinced two mistresses to marry him! He'd clean out the dissenters and by being "properly" Brexit he'd probably take most votes form the two protest parties which have nothing else to say.
Boris is probably in a similar situation - blame the EU for their intransigence in not agreeing to terms they never would do and never said they would do - and in the meantime blame everyone else for blocking him in Parliament and the wonderful future that would already be here if he'd got his way.

[Idaho]

I don't think either party can campaign on remain. They have too critical reliance on Brexit votes and democratic visibility (which for some reason it's fine to change the entire direction of the country every 5 years, but not change a marginal single issue decision - maybe IA can explain that... I can't figure it out.

[Idaho]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=share&v=9Vha59srSks

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Boris can campaign on his current "do or die" Brexit - it's less hard-line than Farage's "Hard Brexit" whilst still cutting the legs out from under the Brexit Party. UKIP support has collapsed and the Brexit party is literally, and explicitely, just a protest platform. With our FPTP system they don't stand a chance of winning any seats if Johnson sticks to the same rhetoric.

Corbyn has said he wants an election, but not until the "No No-Deal" Bill becomes law. With the current Parliamentary arithmetic voters will probably forgive Johnson for failing to deliver Brexit so long as he "goes down fighting". Further, many of his most effective opponents - like Sir Oliver Letwin - have indicated they won't contest the next election.

Having called for an election for the last two years Corbyn has now rejected one. He can get away with that just once, I think. It will already have cost him votes among the working class but gained him votes in the middle class. he can't wait much longer as today another of his former MP's from TiGfC joined the Lib Dems. With the Lib Dem machine behind them most of these former Labour MP's will be re-elected. The outcome of this Parliament has been a reduction in both Conservative and Labour "manpower" but thus far the 21 Conservatives with the whip withdrawn look likely to simply resign their seats rather than defect. What's more, the Lib Dems can't really host 21 Conservatives without turning an attractive shade of burnt orange and morphing back into the Liberal Party.

As has been said, neither party can hop to win on a simply "Remain" ticket and I don't think a "soft Brexit" ticket is a winner either. What has made Johnson's position (more) popular is not the belief that he can get a deal, but the belief it will finally be over. Corbyn is basically offering more torture before, eventually, getting to the same "no Deal".

As the "Remain" Party the Lib Dems will benefit from a Corbyn Government failing to get a deal and then holding another Referendum, or even if they don't hold one and decide to crash us out.

[edyzmedieval]

I really don't think I've seen a more entertaining political campaign than the one in the Parliament. Many many times it feels like a shouting match with fancy suits, elegant manners and a very crowded place.

ORDAAAAH

[Beskar]

What gets me is how when Boris loses his majority by one, he thinks the best plan of action is to kick out a further 23 MPs from his party.

[Beskar]

One interesting theory I came across is that Boris wants to call an election to disband government then change the date, forcing the UK to crash out of the EU as he breaks the law by not enacting the bill which passed.

Guy Fawkes has nothing compared to the spirally explosive disintegration of our parliament.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

One interesting theory I came across is that Boris wants to call an election to disband government then change the date, forcing the UK to crash out of the EU as he breaks the law by not enacting the bill which passed.

Guy Fawkes has nothing compared to the spirally explosive disintegration of our parliament.

I don't really credit that much.

Think about it.

Boris calls election - with enough time after for a new Government to delay Brexit - then changes the date?

He'd only do that is he was sure he was going to lose and only cared about Brexit.

What he MIGHT conceivably do in the case of a Hung Parliament is try to delay the formation of a Government to trigger No Deal by default but he'd probably still need to be Prime Minister at the end of it.

If Boris engages in "shenanigans" that trigger a "default" No Deal and he's replaced the EU would probably be willing to grant a retrospective extension.

So, I don't really credit that, either.

[Pannonian]

I don't really credit that much.

Think about it.

Boris calls election - with enough time after for a new Government to delay Brexit - then changes the date?

He'd only do that is he was sure he was going to lose and only cared about Brexit.

What he MIGHT conceivably do in the case of a Hung Parliament is try to delay the formation of a Government to trigger No Deal by default but he'd probably still need to be Prime Minister at the end of it.

If Boris engages in "shenanigans" that trigger a "default" No Deal and he's replaced the EU would probably be willing to grant a retrospective extension.

So, I don't really credit that, either.

Parliament versus the People. See IA's hints about how the MPs are getting what's coming to them for an example of how this works. Brexit is now about punishing the unbelievers, not about any constructive way of making things better.

[Beskar]

The problem is shifting of the goal posts.

The majority who voted Brexit did not want a 'no deal' and 'no deal' was actively campaigned against by pro-remain and those who wanted Brexit, especially as they believed they could get a deal. Under Theresa May, No Deal/Hard Brexit became radicalised and the position of those who advocated for Brexit. There have been the witch hunts in certain media outlets and a war against the evil 'remainers', now it even come to the point where those who desired 'Soft Brexit' are being held up as traitors. All the while using the referendum as justification, when what is being shoved down our throats is not what was voted for, especially as a lot of those advocating for Brexit were making suggestions such as Norway-Plus model.

Our politics have been an international joke for the last three years due to Brexit. The country is an embarrassment and everyone should be ashamed of themselves, some more than others.