The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[Bellow]

VP: How about you have a shiny gold mine in Russia Arron?
AB: Sure Vladimir, I'm in.
VP: What would really help this along is you making an £8m donation to the Leave campaign.
AB: Donation made Vlad, where's my gold mine?
VP: Same place as Trump's tower in Moscow. Now go F yourself.

No additional facts?

 

[st13phil]

While the more rabid commentators continue to prophesy doom and economic armageddon should the UK exit the UK without a deal (or "crash out of the EU" in their emotive parlance), Gabriel Felbermayr who, according to Wikipedia is an Austrian economist who specialises in international economics, international trade agreements, economic policy, and environmental economics, has authored an analysis for the German IFO Institut of the likely economic effects in a number of exit scenarios. One of these he terms as "Hard but Smart" in which the UK leaves without a deal but chooses to unilaterally eliminate many tariffs as of 30th March, so pretty much along the lines that have been leaked by HMG recently.

While his model shows that a "Hard Brexit" hits the UK's economy much harder than the EU 27 (-2.8% vs -0.8%), his modelling of a "Hard but Smart" exit shows the effect on the UK and the EU 27 is to all intents and purposes the same (-0.5% vs -0.6%) respectively, and suggests that the EU Commission perhaps ought to reconsider its position regarding the imperative to broker a free trade deal with the UK as a result. He has also included an analysis of the impact on a country-by-country basis which shows that under such a scenario the EU nation hit hardest would be Ireland, whose economy would shrink by almost 5.4%.

Details here (in German).

 

[Nat]

Yet you continue to ignore the point that Corbyn's involvement is entirely unofficial, has had no influence on May's deal and will have no impact on the terms under which we eventually leave.

Meanwhile, the actual Brexit negotiations are, and always have been, handled by the PM and her government.

What is it with you with your moving the goal post each time you post? If you don't agree then that's fine but to state Labour/Corbyn have had, as I stated #7038 - Are you really saying Labour hasn't had any say or involvement what so ever in the Brexit negotiations, is total nonsense even when your presented with a link of him going to the EU directly, recently. I didn't state to what degree, you did. I can do this with you all day and all week but my point still stands as in bold text where as your adding your opinions each time you post.

They failed because they lied unconvincingly. Somehow, Leavers' tall stories sounded more plausible to the British public. Neither side had a clue what Brexit would mean, but both spoke as if they held a crystal ball.

Who did, remain?

To state neither side had a clue is a massive insult to everyone who voted. You had your opportunity like everyone else legible to vote and yet almost 3 years later you use that predictable line like people should believe you? You're entitled to your opinion but don't confuse your opinion with fact.

 

[flowrider]

Does it matter?

He / they went over there on a pr excercise,
Sturgeon did the same after the Brexit ref and came back with egg on her face.
I couldn't see any practical purpose of any of them going to Brussels. The best they could hope for was a few photo's of them shaking hands with someone or other.

Rather like Tony Blairs trips to Brussels discussing Brexit, what makes him think he is talking for anyone but himself.

 

[markjay]

Who did, remain?

To state neither side had a clue is a massive insult to everyone who voted. You had your opportunity like everyone else legible to vote and yet almost 3 years later you use that predictable line like people should believe you? You're entitled to your opinion but don't confuse your opinion with fact.

I would argue that to speak with confidence about events that any economist will tell you are completely uncharted territory, is deliberately misleading, to say the least, and in any event it is an insult to the people they were trying to preach to.

We could have equally had a debate about how fantastic or how disastrous it would be if aliens landed on Earth. I have no doubt that there will be people arguing either case with great authority and conviction.

In short.... the side that won is the side that lied more convincingly. Might have gone the other way if Remainers were more imaginative and better liars.

The 'promises' made during the referendum campaign remind me of those ready meals that show a lovely photo on the box of a plate containing ingredients that are not actually in the dish, and the (very) small print says 'serving suggestion'. Apparently, Boris Johnson's Brexit Bus with the '£350 million a week for the NHS' was 'for visualisation only'. And David Cameron's 'warning' that every family will be 'precisely' £4,300 a year worse-off was based and several dozens of totally random assumptions that were reverse-engineered to arrive at this particular figure.

Of course significant part of the population had their mind all set up one way or the other and didn't listen to the propaganda either way. And that's fine. But somewhere there was a crucial bulk of 635,000 voters who found Remainers' stories less credible than those of the Leavers, and the vote went the way it did.

If I was to champion either cause, I would approach the public saying that we have no idea how things will pan out, whether the EU will play ball or not, whether we will be better-off or worse-off financially, etc, but we should (either) leave because we want to be free of the shackled of the EU, for better or worse, (or) stay because we are part of Europe whether we like it or not and we should be on board the ship trying to participate in its steering rather than jump overboard and float away on a dingy.

But no. They had to come-up with made-up figures that in reality were simply plucked out of thin air. And the rest is history.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

But no. They had to come-up with made-up figures that in reality were simply plucked out of thin air. And the rest is history.

If only...

 

[Scott_F]

What is it with you with your moving the goal post each time you post? If you don't agree then that's fine but to state Labour/Corbyn have had, as I stated #7038 - Are you really saying Labour hasn't had any say or involvement what so ever in the Brexit negotiations, is total nonsense even when your presented with a link of him going to the EU directly, recently. I didn't state to what degree, you did. I can do this with you all day and all week but my point still stands as in bold text where as your adding your opinions each time you post.

I haven't moved anything.

I consider the term "Brexit negotiations" to be something which refers to the interaction between the UK government that has been mandated by the electorate to deliver Brexit and representatives of the EU which will ultimately lead to a deal being agreed or to the UK leaving the EU with no deal in the event of a failure of both sides to reach an agreement.

You understand the term "Brexit negotiations" to be Jeremy Corbyn taking himself off to Brussels with no mandate from the UK electorate, the government or anyone else and engaging in talks which will have no bearing whatsoever on terms under which we'll leave the EU. The article in your own link describes his freelance activities as "highly unwelcome in Downing Street, and risks accusations that Labour is pursuing its own shadow negotiations" so thank you for that !

We will therefore have to agree to disagree on what is actually meant by the term but I'm sure you won't be at all surprised to learn that I'll be sticking with my own interpretation thanks all the same.

 

[Nat]

Reply to markjay - I started off by agreeing with you until you started to mention aliens. Then thought WTF! If you read back a few pages on here you'll see what my my opinion will be on the end result.

The rest of what your saying is basically you don't like the outcome and think there should be another vote? What would be on the ballot paper?

 

[Nat]

I haven't moved anything.

I consider the term "Brexit negotiations" to be something which refers to the interaction between the UK government that has been mandated by the electorate to deliver Brexit and representatives of the EU which will ultimately lead to a deal being agreed or to the UK leaving the EU with no deal in the event of a failure of both sides to reach an agreement.

You understand the term "Brexit negotiations" to be Jeremy Corbyn taking himself off to Brussels with no mandate from the UK electorate, the government or anyone else and engaging in talks which will have no bearing whatsoever on terms under which we'll leave the EU. The article in your own link describes his freelance activities as "highly unwelcome in Downing Street, and risks accusations that Labour is pursuing its own shadow negotiations" so thank you for that !

We will therefore have to agree to disagree on what is actually meant by the term but I'm sure you won't be at all surprised to learn that I'll be sticking with my own interpretation thanks all the same.

There you go again. I stated a few posts back about moving onwards but no, you had to carry on.

I'll keep this short and sweet but negotiations have not finished and unlike you I'm not going to continuously expand and divert my original posts that stated - Are you really saying Labour hasn't had any say or involvement what so ever in the Brexit negotiations? How on earth can you deny they have when presented with a quick google link stating they are meeting the Brexit negotiator who's primary role is to? Maybe your confusing the issue on the withdrawal agreement the EU want that didn't pass through the HOC?

 

[Bellow]

There you go again. I stated a few posts back about moving onwards but no, you had to carry on.

I'll keep this short and sweet but negotiations have not finished and unlike you I'm not going to continuously expand and divert my original posts that stated - Are you really saying Labour hasn't had any say or involvement what so ever in the Brexit negotiations? How on earth can you deny they have when presented with a quick google link stating they are meeting the Brexit negotiator who's primary role is to? Maybe your confusing the issue on the withdrawal agreement the EU want that didn't pass through the HOC?

First rule of selling: Talk only to those with 'buying power'. The buying power here resides with the government - not the opposition.

 

[Nat]

First rule of selling: Talk only to those with 'buying power'. The buying power here resides with the government - not the opposition.

This isn't just selling though is it? It's Brexit. Throughout life we all negotiate in more than one form or another whether it be a new job role, mortgages, loans, etc. If you don't like the terms do still continue or look for a better deal that suits you?

The problem with the current day Brexit is very clear. There is a remain PM who wants to remain and has angled her position to do just that. Are you happy with her deal and have you even read it?

If you're happy to remain in the EU then simply say so.

 

[Swotty]

First rule of selling: Talk only to those with 'buying power'. The buying power here resides with the government - not the opposition.

Buying power is only the half of it. Stakeholder influence is equally important.

And votes.

 

[Scott_F]

There you go again. I stated a few posts back about moving onwards but no, you had to carry on.

I'll keep this short and sweet but negotiations have not finished and unlike you I'm not going to continuously expand and divert my original posts that stated - Are you really saying Labour hasn't had any say or involvement what so ever in the Brexit negotiations? How on earth can you deny they have when presented with a quick google link stating they are meeting the Brexit negotiator who's primary role is to? Maybe your confusing the issue on the withdrawal agreement the EU want that didn't pass through the HOC?

We are talking about two completely different things so the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

I'm talking about the actual Brexit negotiations between the UK government and the EU which may or may not lead to a deal on the terms under which we leave.

You are talking about Corbyn's self-styled intervention in which he has no mandate to negotiate, no authority to agree anything and which will therefore have no bearing on the Withdrawal Agreement.

The article in your link explained this perfectly clearly so it would be helpful if you could at least try to understand the difference between the two before you move onwards.

 

[Nat]

We are talking about two completely different things so the answer to your question is a resounding yes.

I'm talking about the actual Brexit negotiations between the UK government and the EU which may or may not lead to a deal on the terms under which we leave.

You are talking about Corbyn's self-styled intervention in which he has no mandate to negotiate, no authority to agree anything and which will therefore have no bearing on the Withdrawal Agreement.

The article in your link explained this perfectly clearly so it would be helpful if you could at least try to understand the difference between the two before you move onwards.

Yet more waffle that leads to yet another reply different to the previous.

 

[m80]

Who remembers "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"?

Why are we even considering the Withdrawal Agreement?
Further reminders.

It offers no more than to continue negotiations that so far haven't had any success.
The WA causes us to accept ECJ rulings on any arbitration panel decision, that is set up by the eu, that we might disagree with.
Can anyone else see the bias of that set up?

The WA causes us to lose any say in continuing eu policies, but be bound by them.
Maybe paranoid, but those policies can then be developped at our disadvantage, and we have no say.

The Uk will pay the divorce bill, and continue to make the annual payments, for an undefined period until agreement is reached.
The UK pay as they do now, with possibility of any increases the eu policy decides. We also pay an extra £39billion.
We are no longer an unruly member with a veto but a tamed revenue provider.
Why would the eu 'ever' want to negotiate an agreement and change that lovely situation, for them?

Still today there are statements from the French that the Back Stop isn't desriable to be enforced by the eu, and if neccessary it they wouldn't want it for long. So make a legally binding statement then. Without it being part of the 'contract' they are just words, or as I prefer to view them LIES.

 

[Nat]

I've posted this before The 40 "Hidden Horrors" Of Theresa May's Brexit Deal

It's up to people to take it for what it is and it's source, but it's not just the time limit been an issue. But yeah, it's a shit shower and geared up - in my opinion - for a no leave scenario from day one.

 

[m80]

I don't recall seeing that before, but I am aware of some of the points within it.
Much more scary than my gentle comments.

The only answer to any part of it must be NO.

 

[Yugguy]

Corbyn 'reaches out' for Brexit compromise

What about this option? Common Market 2.0?

 

[John N]

Corbyn 'reaches out' for Brexit compromise

What about this option? Common Market 2.0?

Or better still Common Market 0

 

[flowrider]

Who remembers "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed"?

Why are we even considering the Withdrawal Agreement?
Further reminders.

It offers no more than to continue negotiations that so far haven't had any success.
The WA causes us to accept ECJ rulings on any arbitration panel decision, that is set up by the eu, that we might disagree with.
Can anyone else see the bias of that set up?

The WA causes us to lose any say in continuing eu policies, but be bound by them.
Maybe paranoid, but those policies can then be developped at our disadvantage, and we have no say.

The Uk will pay the divorce bill, and continue to make the annual payments, for an undefined period until agreement is reached.
The UK pay as they do now, with possibility of any increases the eu policy decides. We also pay an extra £39billion.
We are no longer an unruly member with a veto but a tamed revenue provider.
Why would the eu 'ever' want to negotiate an agreement and change that lovely situation, for them?

Still today there are statements from the French that the Back Stop isn't desriable to be enforced by the eu, and if neccessary it they wouldn't want it for long. So make a legally binding statement then. Without it being part of the 'contract' they are just words, or as I prefer to view them LIES.

The 39 billion includes our yearly payments cover the next 2 years, it is not in addition to them.