Brexit Discussion Thread.

[bovril]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm a firm believer that quality will always sell, the Guardian circulation is dropping like a stone. The only thing they do better than the Mail in my experience is keep the utter shit they often spout off the front page.

And I bet you and hundreds of thousands of others shared those stories on social media to show how awful the liberal elite are. Just like the thousands sharing outrageous Mail stories. Kerching!

[bovril]

Also turnips are great.

[ajthefox]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm a firm believer that quality will always sell, the Guardian circulation is dropping like a stone. The only thing they do better than the Mail in my experience is keep the utter shit they often spout off the front page.

Circulation figures will be skewed anyway because of the demographics they are aimed at/consumed by. I don't have any statistics but I don't think it's a stretch to suggest Mail readers will statistically be older (and more likely to buy a paper because of that) whereas a much bigger proportion of the guardian readership are younger and will never have been regular buyers of newspapers.

 

The headlines on the Guardian website do make for bad reading though.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, ajthefox said:

The wife and mother of my child decides to break up with me. In spite of weeks of talks about how I don't think we should and that we should remain together, she insists on leaving permanently. I help in the splitting up of belongings and in devising the best set up for our child's living arrangements. That doesn't make me a liar just because I enabled the process of splitting up even though I disagreed with the idea pf it. It makes me an adult who accepts the situation and does what he can to improve it. Not part-taking in that process ends up with you being the dick who doesn't get to see his kid.

 

 

Except the public in that scenario are the kid, not one of the couple. 

 

As for saying pretend to agree - because anyone who even now suggests that pulling out hard isn't best gets branded an enemy of the people ^tm or a saboteur - I'd like to argue for keeping the four freedoms, as close to a EFTA position as we can get - but that's constantly being denigrated as a position. If the option continues to be polarised to be a saboteur or go for a hard brexit then refusing to participate is the only way.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, bovril said:

And I bet you and hundreds of thousands of others shared those stories on social media to show how awful the liberal elite are. Just like the thousands sharing outrageous Mail stories. Kerching!

Nope, no Kerching either, they are in financial bother hence begging for donations. 

 

https://www.ft.com/content/f5be593a-51b5-11e6-9664-e0bdc13c3bef

 

They've already started making redundancies, Owen Jones now has to dress up in drag to do the Laurie Penny column and Giles Fraser is probably thieving from his collection plate.

[Spudulike]

29 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/28/eu-leaders-to-insist-uk-pays-its-brexit-bills-as-precursor-to-trade-talks

 

Not quite so straightforward then.

 

 

The EU approach to a separation between formalisation of withrawal and future trade deals doesn't seem compatible with Article 50....

 

Article 50 specifies that “In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the [EU] shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the [EU]”.

 

The lawyers are going to be busy (and even more wealthy)

[ajthefox]

3 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Except the public in that scenario are the kid, not one of the couple. 

 

As for saying pretend to agree - because anyone who even now suggests that pulling out hard isn't best gets branded an enemy of the people ^tm or a saboteur - I'd like to argue for keeping the four freedoms, as close to a EFTA position as we can get - but that's constantly being denigrated as a position. If the option continues to be polarised to be a saboteur or go for a hard brexit then refusing to participate is the only way.

Leave Vs Remain

Wife is leave, husband is remain.

Wife leaves, husband has to accept it and do what he can as part of the leave deal. The kid isn't the important part of the analogy. 

 

Ok well I see what you're getting at with that. I'm not that aware of that position being denigrated as such, more that it is a position which is not really a Brexit and is any case quite likely not one the EU will agree to anyway. I suppose it is a difficult negotiation because if you don't agree with leaving the EU, it's hard to argue about policy when you think the whole thing is a bad idea but you would hope that both sides will be willing to make concessions and admit that it isn't all good or all bad. I'd be amazed if any of the regulars on this board, regardless of which way they voted, don't appreciate that there are pros and cons to the EU. 

[Izzy]

44 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Not all opinions are equal, and mine is aligned with experts in a lot of fields. Frankly I like those odds.

 

We've not really got a say on it from here though, so the options presented are get behind it and pretend to agree with the decision, or don't. Like if city were to decide to sack off Shakespeare and appoint Harry Redknapp this summer. I'm not on the board, I don't get a say in who the manager is - all I can do is either pretend that I think it's the right call, or say that appointing Redknapp is moronic. Frankly, I'm not throwing myself behind brexit for the same reason I'd not throw myself behind 'arry - because I can't do so and preserve my integrity. 

 

As for saying I told you so - I don't want to have to be saying that, I've got a lot of roots here and don't particularly want to uproot to the continent if I can avoid it, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't expecting to.

But in this scenario, even if you disagreed with Arry's appointment and thought it moronic, you'd still follow Leicester because they're your team wouldn't you?

 

So for those who oppose Brexit, they're still British and surely want what's best for Britain don't they? - even though they didn't agree with the verdict.

 

And to continue the football analogy, it sounds to me like you think we'd be relegated under Redknapp and therefore you'd stop supporting Leicester and go and follow a different team instead 

 

[The Guvnor]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/28/eu-leaders-to-insist-uk-pays-its-brexit-bills-as-precursor-to-trade-talks

 

Not quite so straightforward then.

 

 

 

A lot of sabre rattling at the moment from both sides but it does appear that the mood is changing from the EU moving towards extremely tough negotiations, and to be honest I have suspected from day one that the EU are in total control with the negotiation process, they will almost certainly want their cake and eat it with a massive separation settlement and no compromise on free movement so there is a real chance of this whole proposed negotiation process being dead in the water at the first hurdle. So therefore the weeks and weeks of debating whether we should be aiming for a soft or hard brexit would be irrelevant. The EU hold all the aces they can quite easily ask for the ridiculous and if they get it great, if they don't we can fcuk off and if we are faced with that scenario that is exactly what we should do.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

But in this scenario, even if you disagreed with Arry's appointment and thought it moronic, you'd still follow Leicester because they're your team wouldn't you?

 

So for those who oppose Brexit, they're still British and surely want what's best for Britain don't they? - even though they didn't agree with the verdict.

 

And to continue the football analogy, it sounds to me like you think we'd be relegated under Redknapp and therefore you'd stop supporting Leicester and go and follow a different team instead 

 

Yes we want what's best for Britain - we're not going to stop working or voting. But iin the scenario, I'd support the team but retain the right to be bloody angry when Redknapp brought about relegation. 

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, ajthefox said:

Leave Vs Remain

Wife is leave, husband is remain.

Wife leaves, husband has to accept it and do what he can as part of the leave deal. The kid isn't the important part of the analogy. 

 

Ok well I see what you're getting at with that. I'm not that aware of that position being denigrated as such, more that it is a position which is not really a Brexit and is any case quite likely not one the EU will agree to anyway. I suppose it is a difficult negotiation because if you don't agree with leaving the EU, it's hard to argue about policy when you think the whole thing is a bad idea but you would hope that both sides will be willing to make concessions and admit that it isn't all good or all bad. I'd be amazed if any of the regulars on this board, regardless of which way they voted, don't appreciate that there are pros and cons to the EU. 

Thing is as of june 24th last year it switched from the partners being leave and remain to being parliament and the EU. The kids (public) can say all they want, the grown-ups have to decide it between themselves.

 

Eh, I'd say the headlines like "crush the saboteurs" when the main oppositions position is what I've taken suggests a polarization of hard brexit or nothing - and in a game like that the only way to win is not to play.

 

1 minute ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

But in this scenario, even if you disagreed with Arry's appointment and thought it moronic, you'd still follow Leicester because they're your team wouldn't you?

 

So for those who oppose Brexit, they're still British and surely want what's best for Britain don't they? - even though they didn't agree with the verdict.

 

And to continue the football analogy, it sounds to me like you think we'd be relegated under Redknapp and therefore you'd stop supporting Leicester and go and follow a different team instead 

 

Well yes I want what's best for Britain -  I just fundamentally disagree that brexit  is even in the general vicinity of that. Just like what's best for city in that scenario is arry being tarred, feathered and run out of town. 

[Strokes]

8 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

But in this scenario, even if you disagreed with Arry's appointment and thought it moronic, you'd still follow Leicester because they're your team wouldn't you?

 

So for those who oppose Brexit, they're still British and surely want what's best for Britain don't they? - even though they didn't agree with the verdict.

 

And to continue the football analogy, it sounds to me like you think we'd be relegated under Redknapp and therefore you'd stop supporting Leicester and go and follow a different team instead 

 

Nah I'd want Leicester to be relegated and go bust, so I can laugh and say I was right.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Nah I'd want Leicester to be relegated and go bust, so I can laugh and say I was right.

You seem pretty set on trying to position yourself so that if doesn't work out you can blame the remainers for their negativity. It doesn't matter what we think any more, you won, we all just have to see what happens next. Leavers were quite happy to discuss all the failings of being in the union, so I see no problem in having an opinion if Brexit fails. It's two sides of the same coin. Nobody WANTS it to go wrong, but we weren't the ones that took the risk. 

 

 

[Webbo]

58 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/28/eu-leaders-to-insist-uk-pays-its-brexit-bills-as-precursor-to-trade-talks

 

Not quite so straightforward then.

 

 

£20 billion of that is money we're going to pay in anyway, then you've got to subtract our share of the assets.

 

I'm sure we'll pay something, if for no other reason, than we have to let them have a win as well. But I doubt it'll the full £50 billion. Even if we do it'll be spread of several years, we'll be no worse off than paying our normal contribution.

[Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You seem pretty set on trying to position yourself so that if doesn't work out you can blame the remainers for their negativity. It doesn't matter what we think any more, you won, we all just have to see what happens next. Leavers were quite happy to discuss all the failings of being in the union, so I see no problem in having an opinion if Brexit fails. It's two sides of the same coin. Nobody WANTS it to go wrong, but we weren't the ones that took the risk. 

 

 

 

I find it strange that you are a proponent of the EU and therefore, I might assume, cooperation and working together but are so keen to adopt an 'us and them' attitude with the way people voted. Why so keen to divide?

[The Doctor]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Nah I'd want Leicester to be relegated and go bust, so I can laugh and say I was right.

Not really the position anyone is holding, dreading and expecting rather than wanting, but if you say so...

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

I find it strange that you are a proponent of the EU and therefore, I might assume, cooperation and working together but are so keen to adopt an 'us and them' attitude with the way people voted. Why so keen to divide?

Maybe he's keen to be seen as a 'Saboteur' or 'Enemy Of The People'.

 

Definitely not language of division that.

[Strokes]

24 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You seem pretty set on trying to position yourself so that if doesn't work out you can blame the remainers for their negativity. It doesn't matter what we think any more, you won, we all just have to see what happens next. Leavers were quite happy to discuss all the failings of being in the union, so I see no problem in having an opinion if Brexit fails. It's two sides of the same coin. Nobody WANTS it to go wrong, but we weren't the ones that took the risk. 

 

 

Blame, no. Not that I will need too. I fully accept and embrace the risks entailed with the liberation, and it won't be without consequences. It's not something that can ever be proved as right or wrong, so we will never get that (point and laugh) moment either way. Neither side would ever admit that their choice was wrong. I know which side I'd rather be on.

[Izzy]

22 minutes ago, Webbo said:

£20 billion of that is money we're going to pay in anyway, then you've got to subtract our share of the assets.

 

I'm sure we'll pay something, if for no other reason, than we have to let them have a win as well. But I doubt it'll the full £50 billion. Even if we do it'll be spread of several years, we'll be no worse off than paying our normal contribution.

And when we finally settle the bill and the divorce is sorted, does that mean Britain will save £20 billion a year by not being in the EU?

 

Surely it can't be that simple? 

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

And when we finally settle the bill and the divorce is sorted, does that mean Britain will save £20 billion a year by not being in the EU?

 

Surely it can't be that simple? 

It's around £10 billion net.

 

Personally I don't mind making some contribution to the EU budget, as long as it's spent  on infrastructure in the poorer countries rather than subsidising French farmers. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

And when we finally settle the bill and the divorce is sorted, does that mean Britain will save £20 billion a year by not being in the EU?

 

Surely it can't be that simple? 

It would depend on the final terms. It may or may not be that simple. At the moment the eu seems to be shaping up to make things difficult but we'll see. If we end up with no access to the single market then we'll be losing a lot more than we're gaining. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

It's around £10 billion net.

 

Personally I don't mind making some contribution to the EU budget, as long as it's spent  on infrastructure in the poorer countries rather than subsidising French farmers. 

 

That figure sounds about right - unless we chose not to replace EU funds spent in the UK on subsidising farmers, regional development in poorer regions of UK etc. I agree with the gist of your second comment, too. 

 

In narrow financial terms, the question then is how that £10bn saving compares to what we lose in net tax revenues (lower tax take and greater public spending) due to lost business, lost profits and loss of growth/employment if we leave the single market, have to pay tariffs, deal with extra regulations etc. Any attempt to put a figure on that lost revenue would be guesswork at the moment.

 

Of course, Brexit fans will say that we won't necessarily suffer these adverse economic effects as we'll be able to negotiate good new trade deals with both the EU and non-EU countries. That might be true in the long-term (5-10 years?), although I'm dubious about that - but is highly unlikely to be true for several years if we proceed with Hard Brexit. The EU won't just capitulate and alternative trade deals are likely to take a good few years to negotiate and then for firms to adapt and benefit fully. With Hard Brexit, at least in the short/medium-term, there will be a financial hit to set against that £10bn saving. Whether that negative impact is more or less than £10bn will depend on what is negotiated and how Govt and firms adapt to the new economic environment. I'm guessing that the adverse impact would outweigh the £10bn saving.....but that is a guess and "I would say that, wouldn't I?" 

 

The other way that the Govt can ensure that UK plc is not out of pocket is to slash public spending and/or increase tax. I'm sure that will be part of the Brexit plan. Indeed, the fact that the Govt is refusing to rule out increases in income tax, VAT and N.I. contributions and is refusing to guarantee the "triple lock" on pensions is a pretty good indicator of that being part of the plan (I don't disagree with either move, btw). There will then doubtless be a lot more cash saved from other areas of public spending: welfare benefits, payments to local authorities, NHS, education etc....plus tax rises as needed. That will drag down living standards and cause misery for some, maybe cause serious social problems but, as Major said, "if it isn't hurting, it isn't working". 

 

French farmers might still get a little more than they should, but the situation has changed massively from the days when subsidies to French farmers constituted a large proportion of the EU budget. France now contributes almost as much, net, to the EU budget as the UK does. UK farmers also get large subsidies and post-Brexit the UK will have to cover that unless it wants to risk large hikes in food prices and/or a mass exodus of farmers. A lot of the CAP money paid to farmers now (in the UK and France) is paid for them to maintain the land and environment re. pollution, flood prevention, wildlife, soil erosion etc. Due to low food prices, many farms would not be viable without such payments. Further change to farm subsidies probably needs to be a gradual process.

[The Guvnor]

Just a matter of interest as the EU appear to want to ensure that we have a punitive deal on trade to prevent others bailing out, what's the general consensus with regards an acceptable and worthwhile deal, should we pay up no matter what the cost?, for example if the deal is dependant on massive payments, combined divorce and continuing, the acceptance of free movement, and to guarantee that any EU nationals taking up residence in the UK must have protection from ECJ whilst they are living here including post repeal of EU law. Or if the deal had to include those caveats should we walk away.

 

[Alf Bentley]

14 hours ago, Webbo said:

I'm sure we'll pay something, if for no other reason, than we have to let them have a win as well. But I doubt it'll the full £50 billion. Even if we do it'll be spread of several years, we'll be no worse off than paying our normal contribution.

 

Fair point. Apart from current budget commitments and liabilities, my understanding is that most of this hypothetical £50bn comprises future commitments to EU projects, pensions contributions etc.

If we'd stayed in the EU, we'd have had to pay those sums over a few years. There might be some items that are negotiable (e.g. projects not yet signed off, pensions of staff still in post after Brexit).

Otherwise, it would make sense for the UK to proceed as planned to pay sums to which we're legally committed - staggered over a few years, as planned. That wouldn't be any sort of a "punitive payment", as some claim.

 

If that could be agreed quickly (but not all paid immediately), it would suit everyone as it would allow negotiations over a future trade deal to start.

 

The question is whether the Govt will see it that way, particularly if the press whips up a storm, talking about "£50bn punishment payments", the need for the UK to stand up to the EU and refuse to pay etc.

Maybe, if the Govt has its secure 5-year majority, it will be better able to stand up to the press and make such compromises - in the national interest - even if the press whips up outrage? I might be being unduly optimistic, though.... 

[Buce]

 

EU leaders agree tough stance on Brexit::

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/apr/29/eu-leaders-set-to-take-tough-stance-in-special-brexit-summit