Brexit Negotiations

[Boomstick]

HA

The advantages are there in today's report. Something between £200bn and £1trn extra economic growth over the next 15 years.

It's blindingly obvious.

Why are you so concerned about protecting banks and big business? Which would stand to lose the most.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Politically, there is the historical fact that Europe (including the UK) has been a horrifically dangerous place when nations are in opposition.  The whole purpose of the European project has been to make people realise that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Working and trading together, and ceding a bit of your right to act as you damn well please is a better environment than trying to do down your neighbours.

Then there's the other point that  I've pointed out numerous times.

Democracy is not a given.

Within living memory, the following countries have been ruled by dictatorships.

France
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Croatia
Slovenia
Austria
Germany
Belgium
Netherlands
Denmark
Poland
Hungary
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Bulgaria
Romania
Greece.

The following countries have experienced military invasion or civil war within living memory.

UK
Spain
France
Italy
Austria
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
Poland
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Croatia
Slovenia
Romania
Bulgaria
Hungary
Greece
Cyprus

It is currently unthinkable for most of those countries to go back to dictatorships and a major part of that is the requirements of the EU.

I don't want to live in a continent where democracy is weak and countries fight with each other.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BS

Why do I feel like I'm on a hamster wheel?

I don't want to live in a country where banks and big business lose £200bn-£1trn of wealth. Because the effect of that will be utterly catastrophic for everyone in the country.

I don't know where this world is that you live in where ordinary people are magically insulated from what happens to Barclays Bank and Nissan, but if you have the directions, please pass them on.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Be fun in meetings between McDonnell and Corbyn tonight.

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2018/nov/28/labour-seize-second-brexit-vote-option-john-mcdonnell?__twitter_impression=true

I've been impressed by McDonnell over the past year. He has frequently but diplomatically told Corbyn over the past year that his, and Seamus Milne's student politics obsessions are not going to get in the way of Labour developing sensible strategic policies.

[drfchound]

The latest news confirms what BST has been banging on about for months.
ALL options for leaving the EU range from bad to disasterous.
We need another vote when hopefully the electorate will come to their senses and overturn the 2016 debacle.

Tommy, “ALL options for leaving the EU range from bad to disastrous”.

BST may have been banging on about that for some time but are you really surprised and did you need him to tell you that.

I voted to remain just because of that.


The thing I have asked is, if the outcome of a second vote turns out to be Leave yet again, just where does that put things.
We would be no further forward than we are now, would we?

I still wait in vain for someone to put forward an alternative Brexit deal, that will in fact be accepted by the EU.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Hound

That's precisely the point.

There IS no Brexit deal which combines:
1) Us leaving the EU
2) Us being economically no worse off
3) EU acceptance.

Those three things are mutually incompatible. That was clear from before the referendum, but Leave voters were promised some magical world in which inconvenient facts like that evaporated.

[drfchound]

Hound

That's precisely the point.

There IS no Brexit deal which combines:
1) Us leaving the EU
2) Us being economically no worse off
3) EU acceptance.

Those three things are mutually incompatible. That was clear from before the referendum, but Leave voters were promised some magical world in which inconvenient facts like that evaporated.

But, what happens then if the vote still ends in another leave victory.

[BillyStubbsTears]

If we vote Leave in full knowledge of the real consequences, not the bullshit that was spun in 2016, then I for one would accept that as the decision of the country.

[drfchound]

If we vote Leave in full knowledge of the real consequences, not the bullshit that was spun in 2016, then I for one would accept that as the decision of the country.

We would have to, BUT as I keep asking, what would happen with regards to with a deal or without a deal.
That situation would be exactly where we are now as far as I can see.

[BillyStubbsTears]

We'd be economically hammered. But we'd have made the decision in the full knowledge that we'd be economically hammered.

If people choose to leave the EU in the knowledge of what the consequences will be, that's democracy.

[drfchound]

We'd be economically hammered. But we'd have made the decision in the full knowledge that we'd be economically hammered.

If people choose to leave the EU in the knowledge of what the consequences will be, that's democracy.

Agreed, again.
But, the government would still have to make a decision on leave with or without a deal and whoever is in charge will have to make that decision and get hammered by everyone else.

[scawsby steve]

There's only one person responsible for this whole sorry mess, and that's David Cameron; he called an unnecessary referendum to fuel his own ego, because he was certain that Remain would win; when the result went against him, he just turned round and f*cked off.

There will be another vote, and Remain will win. Then just wait for the water cannons.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Which is why the referendum should be a 3-option one with a transferrable vote.

Do you want to:
a)Leave with No Deal
b) Leave with May's Deal
c) Remain

You put a 1 by your first choice and a 2 by your second.

All the 1s are added up and the option in third place rejected. Then all the people who voted 1 for the third placed option have their "2" votes reallocated to the other two options. Whichever one of those then wins is the final decision, to be implemented by Parliament.

THAT is democracy. It's easy and unambiguous.

[drfchound]

There's only one person responsible for this whole sorry mess, and that's David Cameron; he called an unnecessary referendum to fuel his own ego, because he was certain that Remain would win; when the result went against him, he just turned round and f*cked off.

There will be another vote, and Remain will win. Then just wait for the water cannons.

That is (the Cameron thing) quite true Steve.
I wouldn’t be too sure that Remain will win though mate.
I thought that last time.
BST says that all remainers should get up and vote but don’t forget that the leave campaigners will be telling people to get up and vote leave.

It will probably be quite a big turnout this time instead of the apathetic one last time.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Scawsby

He didn't do it for ego reasons.

He did it because he was spooked by the Euro-sceptic threat to his right wing.

The Euro-sceptic threat to his right was because of the rise of UKIP.

The rise of UKIP ties in exactly with the stagnation of living standards that came from Austerity.

Cameron chose to pursue Austerity because it helped him nearly win the GE in 2010.

He was an absolute car crash of a PM who has f**ked this country, first economically through Austerity, then socially through the divisions that Brexit has amplified. His reputation will be shredded by historians.

[drfchound]

Which is why the referendum should be a 3-option one with a transferrable vote.

Do you want to:
a)Leave with No Deal
b) Leave with May's Deal
c) Remain

You put a 1 by your first choice and a 2 by your second.

All the 1s are added up and the option in third place rejected. Then all the people who voted 1 for the third placed option have their "2" votes reallocated to the other two options. Whichever one of those then wins is the final decision, to be implemented by Parliament.

THAT is democracy. It's easy and unambiguous.

Billy, that is a very good option, except that the majority of voters wouldn’t have a clue whether no deal or Mays deal is the best option.
Anyone who watches the news or reads a paper has one side telling us how good one option is best while the other side tells us the polar opposite.
The general public has no idea who to believe.

A bit like the original leave or remain vote really.

[scawsby steve]

There's only one person responsible for this whole sorry mess, and that's David Cameron; he called an unnecessary referendum to fuel his own ego, because he was certain that Remain would win; when the result went against him, he just turned round and f*cked off.

There will be another vote, and Remain will win. Then just wait for the water cannons.

That is (the Cameron thing) quite true Steve.
I wouldn’t be too sure that Remain will win though mate.
I thought that last time.
BST says that all remainders should get up and vote but don’t forget that the leave campaigners will be telling people to get up and vote leave.

It will probably be quite a big turnout this time instead of the apathetic one last time.

I might be completely wrong here Hound, but wasn't there a high turnout for the referendum?.

[Herbert Anchovy]

Politically, there is the historical fact that Europe (including the UK) has been a horrifically dangerous place when nations are in opposition.  The whole purpose of the European project has been to make people realise that jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Working and trading together, and ceding a bit of your right to act as you damn well please is a better environment than trying to do down your neighbours.

Then there's the other point that  I've pointed out numerous times.

Democracy is not a given.

Within living memory, the following countries have been ruled by dictatorships.

France
Spain
Portugal
Italy
Croatia
Slovenia
Austria
Germany
Belgium
Netherlands
Denmark
Poland
Hungary
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Bulgaria
Romania
Greece.

The following countries have experienced military invasion or civil war within living memory.

UK
Spain
France
Italy
Austria
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Denmark
Poland
Lithuania
Latvia
Estonia
Croatia
Slovenia
Romania
Bulgaria
Hungary
Greece
Cyprus

It is currently unthinkable for most of those countries to go back to dictatorships and a major part of that is the requirements of the EU.

I don't want to live in a continent where democracy is weak and countries fight with each other.

Billy,

Countries will rarely, if ever, go to war when they have strong economic relationships, that's a given. However, the whole EU has delivered peace in Europe piece is significantly over stated.

Look at some facts:

The Treaty of Rome wasn't created until 12 years after the end of WW2, so if European nations were straining at the leash for conflict until the EU came along, how come there was no war during this 12 year period?

In 1957 only 6 out of over 30 nations in Europe became members of the EU and membership has increased incrementally over time. By 1973 there were only 9 members, 10 by 1981 and 12 by 1986. So, with only minority European membership, how did the EU prevent war?

The reason that we've not had a war is primarily because of the cold war standoff between the Warsaw pact and NATO alliance and NOT because of the EU

Also, the EU proved utterly ineffective in stopping the war in the Balkans in the 90's. In fact it was only after the USA and the UK stepped in that peace was restored.

So, in any future referendum, how would you like to see the remain camp promote the benefits of political influence within individual nations? For example, how do you believe that the UK and its population benefits from the EU controlling VAT limits?

[drfchound]

There's only one person responsible for this whole sorry mess, and that's David Cameron; he called an unnecessary referendum to fuel his own ego, because he was certain that Remain would win; when the result went against him, he just turned round and f*cked off.

There will be another vote, and Remain will win. Then just wait for the water cannons.

That is (the Cameron thing) quite true Steve.
I wouldn’t be too sure that Remain will win though mate.
I thought that last time.
BST says that all remainders should get up and vote but don’t forget that the leave campaigners will be telling people to get up and vote leave.

It will probably be quite a big turnout this time instead of the apathetic one last time.

I might be completely wrong here Hound, but wasn't there a high turnout for the referendum?.

28% of registered voters, that is approx 13million people, didn’t bother to vote.
The leave margin of victory was just 1,269,501.

[BillyStubbsTears]

HA

Your argument is getting confused. You're setting up straw men.

1) No-one said that the original Treaty of Rome countries were straining at the leash to go to war between 45 and 57. The cementing of the countries into a union was always intended to make it much less likely over the long run that they would go to war.

2) The countries of Yugoslavia weren't in the EU when they disintegrated into civil war. That is kind of the point. It is inconceivable now that Croatia would go to war with Serbia or Bosnia, because the EU would act as a restraining force.

3) Look at how recent democracy is to many European countries. Greece, Spain and Portugal were ruled by fascist military dictatorships only a decade or less before they joined the EU. NATO membership didn't stop that. A reversion to that condition now is unthinkable, again, because the EU demands democratic systems.

4) The Cold War ended nearly 30 years ago. So the idea that the stand-off between NATO and the WP was the guarantor of peace is a bit out of  date.

There's been three decades of post Cold War peace in Western Europe. No fighting. No revolutions. No military coups. Not only that, but it's nigh in inconceivable that fighting will recommence in the medium term future.

Look back through history at how rarely we've had periods of peace and stability of half a century in Western Europe. It's obtuse not to give a great deal of the credit for that to the binding together of countries that the EU has facilitated.

[Herbert Anchovy]

HA

Your argument is getting confused. You're setting up straw men.

1) No-one said that the original Treaty of Rome countries were straining at the leash to go to war between 45 and 57. The cementing of the countries into a union was always intended to make it much less likely over the long run that they would go to war.

2) The countries of Yugoslavia weren't in the EU when they disintegrated into civil war. That is kind of the point. It is inconceivable now that Croatia would go to war with Serbia or Bosnia, because the EU would act as a restraining force.

3) Look at how recent democracy is to many European countries. Greece, Spain and Portugal were ruled by fascist military dictatorships only a decade or less before they joined the EU. NATO membership didn't stop that. A reversion to that condition now is unthinkable, again, because the EU demands democratic systems.

4) The Cold War ended nearly 30 years ago. So the idea that the stand-off between NATO and the WP was the guarantor of peace is a bit out of  date.

There's been three decades of post Cold War peace in Western Europe. No fighting. No revolutions. No military coups. Not only that, but it's nigh in inconceivable that fighting will recommence in the medium term future.

Look back through history at how rarely we've had periods of peace and stability of half a century in Western Europe. It's obtuse not to give a great deal of the credit for that to the binding together of countries that the EU has facilitated.

Billy,

I’m not sure how my point is getting confused , but I’ll try again.

Ok, I’ll go with the fact that there’s been no dictatorships in Europe since the creation of the EU.

Regarding peace in Europe, I’m sure we both agree that there’s been no conflict in much of the continent since 1945. However, where I’m confused is how the EU can take credit for this when for much of the period since 1945, the majority of countries in Europe haven’t been members!

I’m aware that the Cold War ended 30 years ago, but for almost all of the 2nd half of the 20th Century that is what prevented war in Europe and not the EU!

Also, how about my point regarding political influence inside member states?

[BillyStubbsTears]

HA

You were asking for a positive political message about the EU, so if you don't mind, I'm going to stick on topic and not get sidetracked into the much broader question of political influence.

There were brutal civil wars in Yugoslavia and (to a lesser extent) Cyprus in the second half of the 20th century. None of the participants were in the EU at the time. NATO existed and its existence did nothing to prevent those wars from occuring. My point is that it is inconceivable that there would be civil wars or Inter-country wars in or between countries that ARE NOW members of the EU.

Similarly, the presence of NATO forces in Europe and the discipline of the Cold War did nothing to stop the Iberian peninsula being governed by fascist dictators up to the 1970s. Nor did it prevent a military coup d'etat in Greece.

It is inconceivable that any EU country would now see democracy collapse(*), and that is in large part due to discipline that membership of the EU imposes. It's one obvious reason why Turkey under Erdogan will never join the EU, despite the bald lies that the Leave campaign quietly pumped into vulnerable people's social media feeds in 2016.

And none of that covers the two FAR bigger issues. That the really dangerous historical fault lines in Europe have been between UK, France, Germany and Russia. The EU (and NATO, of course) has been instrumental in binding three if those together against the changing threat of the fourth. Why do you think Putin has invested so much time, money and effort in supporting anti-EU forces in the UK, France, Hungary, Poland, Italy...

That final point is the overwhelming political positive of the EU.

[SydneyRover]

So apart from reducing the possibility of member states going to war a better economy easier travel and improved working conditions and human rights what is the point of the
EU?

Seriously, can anyone please tell me why they voted out, what they were expecting and what will change their lives so much that they would be willing to risk any of the above to leave? even if you don't benefit personally think of the benefits to your fellow men/women.

[Herbert Anchovy]

HA

You were asking for a positive political message about the EU, so if you don't mind, I'm going to stick on topic and not get sidetracked into the much broader question of political influence.

There were brutal civil wars in Yugoslavia and (to a lesser extent) Cyprus in the second half of the 20th century. None of the participants were in the EU at the time. NATO existed and its existence did nothing to prevent those wars from occuring. My point is that it is inconceivable that there would be civil wars or Inter-country wars in or between countries that ARE NOW members of the EU.

Similarly, the presence of NATO forces in Europe and the discipline of the Cold War did nothing to stop the Iberian peninsula being governed by fascist dictators up to the 1970s. Nor did it prevent a military coup d'etat in Greece.

It is inconceivable that any EU country would now see democracy collapse(*), and that is in large part due to discipline that membership of the EU imposes. It's one obvious reason why Turkey under Erdogan will never join the EU, despite the bald lies that the Leave campaign quietly pumped into vulnerable people's social media feeds in 2016.

And none of that covers the two FAR bigger issues. That the really dangerous historical fault lines in Europe have been between UK, France, Germany and Russia. The EU (and NATO, of course) has been instrumental in binding three if those together against the changing threat of the fourth. Why do you think Putin has invested so much time, money and effort in supporting anti-EU forces in the UK, France, Hungary, Poland, Italy...

That final point is the overwhelming political positive of the EU.

Billy,

As I stated earlier, its a given that nations that have economic interests in each other will tend to avoid conflict.

NATO may not have prevented the Balkan War, but DID (well us and the USA) stop it
While of course there have been no wars involving EU members, we are seeing a different threat to peace in Europe from the rise in extreme parties. This increase has been caused in large part by things such as mass unemployment, social dislocation and migration which in turn has been influenced by the EU. Look at things that are going on in Italy, Hungry, Germany, Austria. So while we're not seeing wars of the same magnitude as WW1 or WW2, things are far from peaceful in the EU.

Anyway, I note that you avoided my question regarding political control from the EU on VAT limits, so let me try another broader question. According to  the BBC, between 1993 and 2014 62% of laws introduced in the UK implemented EU obligations including all EU regulations, EU related Acts of Parliament and EU related Statutory Instruments. How would you sell this to a leave supporter as being better for Britain?

[Filo]

2 years to sort this lot out, and here we are 4 months from the deadline and the PM is still playing for time, we have a debate in the House of Commons where everyone knows this deal is going to get thrown out, why not just have the debate now and give the Country more time to organise a 2nd referendum

[BillyStubbsTears]

HA

I'm not avoiding anything. YOU asked ME a very open question. I gave a response. You ignored much of the content and veered off into another question. 

Discussions tend to vanish into a black hole when they are conducted like that, so I'm staying on topic for now. Happy to address your other questions when we have thrashed this out.

I'm genuinely astonished at how glibly you glide over the EU's role in securing peace and democracy. You keep hammering on on a totally irrelevant topic ((how the Balkan civil war ended - irrelevant: the EU had no mechanism for enforcing anything there at that time). You entirely ignore the fact that in recent years, several EU countries had military dictatorships which is unthinkable now. You assume that peace will remain because of economic ties (have a look at the way in which economic trade between Britain, France and Germany grew in the period 1890-1914. It might surprise you.)

And you ignore the central issue. Why the only two major world leaders who support a weakening of the EU are Trump and Putin. That last point trump's (sorry) every other argument. But it has never once been addressed by the Leave supporters.

[SydneyRover]

''Anyway, I note that you avoided my question regarding political control from the EU on VAT limits, so let me try another broader question. According to  the BBC, between 1993 and 2014 62% of laws introduced in the UK implemented EU obligations including all EU regulations, EU related Acts of Parliament and EU related Statutory Instruments. How would you sell this to a leave supporter as being better for Britain?''

HA, I hope you are not overlooking the fact that Britain is and has been a major negotiator in all things EU including all those you mention above, the EU is not a mythical beast that makes up the conditions for the member nations, it's the other way around, no?

''The fiction that the EU wants to “punish Britain” conceals both the EU’s right to defend its own interests and the harm the UK is inflicting on itself''

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/20/brexiteers-trump-language-fake-news

[drfchound]

One of the things I heard this morning, on the news, is that some MPs are planning to abstain in the vote or even be absent from Parliament on the day of the vote.

WTF is that all about?

Surely they are elected to add their weight to such decisions, not dodge them.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The EU rules on VAT are based on the projection of harmonisation, ie every member state having the same rate of VAT so businesses don't have to muck about with intrastat and other faux harmonising legislation, and making inter-country trading even smoother. The 'restrictions' on the UK were because when we altered our rate of VAT we were bringing it closer to the rest of the EU, or giving away the zero rates (ie domestic fuel) that other countries, only us, had. Once we throw those away we can't have them back because we've harmonised with the rest of the EU. And the Chancellor who put VAT on domestic fuel knew damn well that was the case when he tried to put the full rate of VAT on it. We were only allowed to reduce it back to 5% because we did it within twelve months and thankfully a new government came in and did so.

On the same point about Chancellors knowing they can't reduce VAT if they bring it closer to harmonisation...do you remember the reason given for it going up from 15% to 17.5%?

[Glyn_Wigley]

One of the things I heard this morning, on the news, is that some MPs are planning to abstain in the vote or even be absent from Parliament on the day of the vote.

WTF is that all about?

Surely they are elected to add their weight to such decisions, not dodge them.

You mean they should be forced to vote on something they don't have an opinion on? Perhaps the whole electorate should be forced to vote, too, like they do in Australia. Then we can have the second referendum and be absolutely certain that everybody agrees with the result!