-
I'll admit that I have enjoyed an embarrassing amount of schadenfreude about the process and potential difficulties for the UK, simply because my parents were nearly put out of business in the early 70s. They ended up selling the family farm when exports were affected, even as subsidies came to try and help them out - then went out as the country nearly went bankrupt - while interest rates went above 20%! So fuck the UK.
Sorry, that's out my system now.
Hopefully, there will be a good trade deal for NZ farmers.
-
I'll admit that I have enjoyed an embarrassing amount of schadenfreude about the process and potential difficulties for the UK, simply because my parents were nearly put out of business in the early 70s. They ended up selling the family farm when exports were affected, even as subsidies came to try and help them out - then went out as the country nearly went bankrupt - while interest rates went above 20%! So fuck the UK.
Sorry, that's out my system now.
Hopefully, there will be a good trade deal for NZ farmers.
It's funny isn't it? Imagine if there had been the same level of campaigning back in 73 with the then Brexiteers suggesting staying in the UK would bankrupt our cousins down under. Personally I think that would have a been a very good emotional tug. (NB: Tug in this instance does not mean what @mariner4life or @MN5 think it means).
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
She hasn't covered herself in glory to date has she?
That said, we are where we are, and her comments on people being pissed off with MPs and just wanting to get on with things was spot on.
As for Corbyn, who's spent the last year preaching on the need to reach out and get a consensus on a deal, walking out on May's party leaders meeting because a Labour defector was in the room.... Jesus wept.
I'm happy that Corbyn if showing everyone just what kind of pathetic leader he would make. There is still a danger of an election and the more Corbyn looks like a poor option the better. Brexit + backward policies will be even more of a disaster.
As for 'just get on with it' we come back to the big problem that caused all of this in fighting and inaction - what is 'it'. All very well trotting out 'leave means leave' and 'Brexit means Brexit' but there are obvious complexities that need decisions made that aren't quite that simple.
-
Interesting snippet on the radio news this morning from an EU spokesman, unfortunately I did not catch the name. He spelled out the agreement reached and listed the three options the UK now has:-
Extend Brexit until May 22nd dependent on the current deal getting parliamentary approval next week
Extend Brexit to April 11th assuming no parliamentary approvalUK Revoke Article 50
Which would imply that this has been discussed as an option with Theresa May. Hmmm.
-
As for 'just get on with it' we come back to the big problem that caused all of this in fighting and inaction - what is 'it'
This is how I see it. Apologies for length.
The "it" was actually very clear in 2016 - voting Leave meant exiting the Single Market, Customs Union, ECJ & ending free movement. Loads of video/articles from Remainers like Vince Cable, Corbyn, Heseltine, etc, etc to confirm this.
Most people naively believed MPs would respect the referendum result ,and implement "it. There would be some debate about timing, trade deals with the EU and sensible integration of EU policies etc. (I accept a few clowns said everything would be easy...). Possibly some debate that it might be advantageous - despite the Referendum result - to be in a Customs Union in some circumstances or for a while. I voted Remain and that's how i expected things to pan out. How naive we all were.
My guess is that "it" will be a Customs Union with the EU, voted in as a safe, option to keep foreign-controlled manufacturing facilities intact. I don't expect there will be much, if any, discussion of the downsides of outsourcing UK trade policy to the EU. E.g, the NHS being opened up to US healthcare companies as a result of a EU/US trade deal a la TTP.
The best way forward could well be a referendum on what sort of deal we exit with. But that's too sensible for one side of the HoC and the other side would need to respect the referendum result.
-
As for 'just get on with it' we come back to the big problem that caused all of this in fighting and inaction - what is 'it'. All very well trotting out 'leave means leave' and 'Brexit means Brexit' but there are obvious complexities that need decisions made that aren't quite that simple.
The "just get on with it" sentiment I think is more about a mindset and approach to negotations/preperations for an exit rather than a specific plan.
It would be very fucking strange if after three years of tumultuous separation/divorce proceedings the party who "I know I decided unequivocally to leave you, but now I'm concerned this alimony thing is going to comprimise the next five years of my financial life so maybe we can make this work?"
A divorce is not a financial windfall.
Get on with it means leave, seperate, go. VM's description of what 'it' is, is spot on IMO. In a decision between May's Deal and No Deal the answer should be obvious - go, get the fuck out and worry about the details later.
-
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
UK Revoke Article 50
"Revoke Article 50", "have another referendum" I just can't get my head around the utter stupidity of people who think this would resolve anything.
Don't these MP's think? Do they expect the 17.2m who voted to leave to simply shrug their shoulders and accept staying in the EU or to respect the result of a 2nd referendum if the vote is to remain? Dangerous naivety of a staggering degree.
PM May may have fucked things up but she hasn't anything like the self-indulgence and contempt for voters whole swathes of MPs have.
-
As for 'just get on with it' we come back to the big problem that caused all of this in fighting and inaction - what is 'it'. All very well trotting out 'leave means leave' and 'Brexit means Brexit' but there are obvious complexities that need decisions made that aren't quite that simple.
The "just get on with it" sentiment I think is more about a mindset and approach to negotations/preperations for an exit rather than a specific plan.
It would be very fucking strange if after three years of tumultuous separation/divorce proceedings the party who "I know I decided unequivocally to leave you, but now I'm concerned this alimony thing is going to comprimise the next five years of my financial life so maybe we can make this work?"
A divorce is not a financial windfall.
Get on with it means leave, seperate, go. VM's description of what 'it' is, is spot on IMO. In a decision between May's Deal and No Deal the answer should be obvious - go, get the fuck out and worry about the details later.
….and we come full circle to Northern Ireland.
(the 'details' aren't insignificant or quickly remedied either)Once again, as we see over and over at the moment, partisan type arguments whereby extreme views are painted as the views of all that take a 'side' in order to ridicule or shout down sensible debate.
Mention no deal hardships or difficulties and the cries of 'scaremonger' ring out and then counter claims of empty shops and blocked roads get said.
It is totally irresponsible for anyone with a public mouthpiece on this topic to dismiss or hide the very real difficulties and hardships people will face with no transition period and a chance to work through the issues.
Goods from Europe WILL likely increase in price as WTO rules state that no preference can be given.
British farmers will have to offload their product domestically as it will be over priced in Europe
A year ago 5,500 UK financial businesses relied on EU passporting rights that generated £9B to the UK. Some of those will have either upped sticks already or set up subsidiaries to do their EU work but the fact remains that a no deal will simply cut that cord altogether.
That's just a couple of facts that aren't scaremongering. Others would be loss of easy movement for business and leisure travel. The French border control have already thrown their toys out the cot over the extra workload and the official advice is not to try and Eurostar back from Paris because you simply wont get through control in time for your train.
Loads and loads of little things that a part of general UK life and taken for granted with regard to Europe. eg no phone roaming charges, no geoblocking, holiday and flight rules regarding cancellations and compensation. Currently about 15% of flights being sold in the UK may have to be cancelled as the landing rights for newly added flights are 'up in the air'
No, the sun will still come up and try and peak through the cloudy skies but instead of sweeping statements on both sides surely the impacts should be being made very clear to people. -
@Catogrande option 2 is rather vague!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
UK Revoke Article 50
"Revoke Article 50", "have another referendum" I just can't get my head around the utter stupidity of people who think this would resolve anything.
Don't these MP's think? Do they expect the 17.2m who voted to leave to simply shrug their shoulders and accept staying in the EU or to respect the result of a 2nd referendum if the vote is to remain? Dangerous naivety of a staggering degree.
The dangers of a winner takes all referendum. At the moment the 16.4m who voted to remain are being expected to shrug their shoulders an accept leaving.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
UK Revoke Article 50
"Revoke Article 50", "have another referendum" I just can't get my head around the utter stupidity of people who think this would resolve anything.
Don't these MP's think? Do they expect the 17.2m who voted to leave to simply shrug their shoulders and accept staying in the EU or to respect the result of a 2nd referendum if the vote is to remain? Dangerous naivety of a staggering degree.
PM May may have fucked things up but she hasn't anything like the self-indulgence and contempt for voters whole swathes of MPs have.
I think you may have mis-read my post, either that or I am mis-understanding your point. The UK revoke Article 50 was not from any MPs (in this instance) but an EU spokesman.
-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@Catogrande option 2 is rather vague!
Ah, sorry. We fuck off with no deal on the table.
-
At the moment the 16.4m who voted to remain are being expected to shrug their shoulders an accept leaving.
That's how it works. That's how the HoC - which voted by a huge margin for the referendum - told the people it would work.
If it didn't work that way there'd be no point in holding any vote - not even for your local MP
-
@Catogrande I was referring to the MPs and campaign groups who want to simply revoke A50 as well as the EU suggesting that as an option . My fault - I should have made it clearer,
-
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@Catogrande option 2 is rather vague!
Ah, sorry. We fuck off with no deal on the table.
Think EU made it clear last night that ain’t happening!!!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
At the moment the 16.4m who voted to remain are being expected to shrug their shoulders an accept leaving.
That's how it works. That's how the HoC - which voted by a huge margin for the referendum - told the people it would work.
If it didn't work that way there'd be no point in holding any vote - not even for your local MP
I understand that’s how it works. Doesn’t change the fact that just under half the country didn’t want any of this. That’s a sizeable chunk of the population if you are talking about people’s wants being ignored.
That’s why I said it was a problem with winner takes all.
The MP situation is different. You get to confirm or deny the result at set periods -
Doesn’t change the fact that just under half the country didn’t want any of this.
Isn't the same with any election though - including the referendum on joining the EU 40+ years ago? And accepting the will of the majority has always been the covenant between the electorate and government.
Enough of the seriousness shit - here's Guido's take on May and yesterdays' EU summit...
-
@Victor-Meldrew its just seems incongruous to talk about 'ignoring the will of 17.2million' when the nature of the referendum also means 'ignoring the will of 16.4 million'
The big difference is the effect of the outcome and no facility to charge your mind three years later if it turns out wrong. -
-
Also worth adding that I dont agree that it was at all clear what you thought "it" was is what would happen.
There was huge talk from the bulk of Leave campaigners about how we could retain all sorts of benefits which were total bollocks unless some form of membership was kept.
The "will of the people" is an absolute rubbish phrase in such a close referendum (and it was extremely close!)
I am one of the "idiots" who happens to think that clearly what was voted for is very hard to implement and should be subject to a confirmation referendum. All this talk of damaging democracy is just people knowing that they have a chance their "side" will lose now that the general public can see what is actually involved. More democracy based on facts rather than supposition is a good idea for this scale of long lasting change.
Cameron's legacy is fucked and May is a joke but there is still a good way to check if this is the cliff we want to leap over and if it is the right thing it will be easy to win another referendum.
Remember, it doesn't end with the deal, it hasn't even fucking started yet with the future relationship! This will be hanging over everyone in the UK for years and I personally think it is a mistake but if people vote with the facts at hand to still go ahead it is hard to argue.
Expect to be pilloried here as a big proportion of the posters are what I would call more "right wing" but I do like to challenge my own views by reading your thoughts so figured I should chip in occasionally.
Brexit