/ 'Special snow flakes' and Brexit etc

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
Timmd on 19 Sep 2016
Bootrock on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:
Have a like for making me chuckle, you wet lettuce libtard.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/the-social-media-whinging-from-remainers-is-already-unbea...

;)
Post edited at 15:04
Xharlie on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

I think the world needs more people to get angry. Really, really angry. Angry beyond Twitter and Facebook and, yes, even UKC forums.

People should be getting angry about things that are NOT going in their favour, however, not because things are going in their favour and others are opposing their opinions.

Dare I say people should not be taking it anymore?
Timmd on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> I think the world needs more people to get angry. Really, really angry. Angry beyond Twitter and Facebook and, yes, even UKC forums.
> People should be getting angry about things that are NOT going in their favour,
> Dare I say people should not be taking it anymore?

I think I agree.
pec on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> I think the world needs more people to get angry. Really, really angry. Angry beyond Twitter and Facebook and, yes, even UKC forums. >

Personally I find the world to be a much nicer place when people aren't angry. Its just so much more pleasant that way

Wanderer100 - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

Keep posting this boring trivial shit up and you'll be UKC number 1 poster for a second week.
pec on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> This struck a chord, I'm sure I've read similar on here. ;-)


You do realise the irony of a militant remainer who hasn't stopped bleating on about the bloody referendum result for the past 3 months posting a link such as that on a website where hardly any Brexiteers have bothered to post since the referendum because they can't be arsed arguing against the deafening chorus of self righteousness any more?

Wanderer100 - on 19 Sep 2016
Pete Pozman - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

What I don't get is this idea that we should all stop talking about this most important of political issues. "You lost! Deal with it! Move on!"
That's the level of debate which won the referendum for Brexit and they think it is enough to sustain our country now that their simplistic nationalism has won
But how am I supposed to deal with views and approaches that I fear and despise? What are you going to do to my country now that you've got it? Every response from Brexit apologists on this forum confirms my misgivings. Unseemly triumphalism ; nothing to reassure that things are going to be alright ; nothing.
Wanderer100 - on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

I think your partly right but the opposite is also true. Apart from weeping into your cornflakes at the unfairness of it all what solutions are being offered by those who were in the remain camp other than holding another referendum because the thick British public ticked the wrong box?

There comes a point where we will all have to move on and get on as best we can. The sooner the better.
pec on 19 Sep 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
I think you need to get yourself one of these.
http://tinyurl.com/jejfguq

As I said above, the irony of a militant remainer posting a link about ranting Brexiteers when all the apoplectic rage is on the part of remainers seems to be lost on you as well.
Post edited at 22:49
Big Ger - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:
Shamelessly ripped off from somewhere else;

> The EU referendum aftermath explained?

> So, let me get this straight… the leader of the opposition campaigned to stay but secretly wanted to leave, so his party held a non-binding vote to shame him into resigning so someone else could lead the campaign to ignore the result of the non-binding referendum which many people now think was just angry people trying to shame politicians into seeing they’d all done nothing to help them.

> Meanwhile, the man who campaigned to leave because he hoped losing would help him win the leadership of his party, accidentally won and ruined any chance of leading because the man who thought he couldn’t lose, did – but resigned before actually doing the thing the vote had been about. The man who’d always thought he’d lead next, campaigned so badly that everyone thought he was lying when he said the economy would crash – and he was, but it did, but he’s not resigned, but, like the man who lost and the man who won, also now can’t become leader. Which means the woman who quietly campaigned to stay but always said she wanted to leave is likely to become leader instead.

> Which means she holds the same view as the leader of the opposition but for opposite reasons, but her party’s view of this view is the opposite of the opposition’s. And the opposition aren’t yet opposing anything because the leader isn’t listening to his party, who aren’t listening to the country, who aren’t listening to experts or possibly paying that much attention at all. However, none of their opponents actually want to be the one to do the thing that the vote was about, so there’s not yet anything actually on the table to oppose anyway. And if no one ever does do the thing that most people asked them to do, it will be undemocratic and if anyone ever does do it, it will be awful.

> Clear?
Post edited at 04:15
Yanis Nayu - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> What I don't get is this idea that we should all stop talking about this most important of political issues. "You lost! Deal with it! Move on!"

> That's the level of debate which won the referendum for Brexit and they think it is enough to sustain our country now that their simplistic nationalism has won

> But how am I supposed to deal with views and approaches that I fear and despise? What are you going to do to my country now that you've got it? Every response from Brexit apologists on this forum confirms my misgivings. Unseemly triumphalism ; nothing to reassure that things are going to be alright ; nothing.

We got our country back, innit?
BnB - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:
> What I don't get is this idea that we should all stop talking about this most important of political issues. "You lost! Deal with it! Move on!"

> That's the level of debate which won the referendum for Brexit and they think it is enough to sustain our country now that their simplistic nationalism has won

> But how am I supposed to deal with views and approaches that I fear and despise? What are you going to do to my country now that you've got it? Every response from Brexit apologists on this forum confirms my misgivings. Unseemly triumphalism ; nothing to reassure that things are going to be alright ; nothing.

Actually I seem to recall a number of past threads in which you despaired in similar fashion and you seemed genuinely disappointed at the time that both Brexiters and economically literate Remainers could outline arguments that Brexit might not be the disaster you appear to wish it be. It seems your response to not having everyone see the world from the same perspective is to ask the same question again a month or so later. How often will you wring your hands before the do-ers prove to the complainers that just getting on with normal life will deliver a UK either a little bit more or a little bit less economically successful in the league table of nations (but in any case not materially different). And that society will adjust to mildly altered migration rules but continue to reflect a liberal middle class outlook because, unless you hadn't noticed, that's who buys more, makes the TV shows, runs all the businesses and fills most of the seats in parliament. If you can't see that, is it any wonder that respondents find themselves reduced to pointing out that the referendum result delivered a majority for Brexit.
Post edited at 08:08
KevinD - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> what solutions are being offered by those who were in the remain camp other than holding another referendum because the thick British public ticked the wrong box?

In fairness that is exactly what the out camp would have been demanding if they had lost. Indeed Farage is on the record as saying he would keep pushing for one.
jkarran - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

> If you can't see that, is it any wonder that respondents find themselves reduced to pointing out that the referendum result delivered a majority for Brexit.

An essentially even split would characterize the result more accurately.
jk
BnB - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to jkarran:

It would but that isn't the thrust of my post.
jkarran - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

No but it goes a long way to explaining why a lot of people feel, quite justifiably in my view, angry that we're doing a lot of harm to ourselves, our neighbors and our standing in the world for what at the very best may eventually prove to be small gains in limited areas. The repeated refrain from the politicians is 'we have a clear mandate'... they don't, they have a small majority gained off the back of a shameful campaign of outright lies that have since been largely disavowed. We're not getting what we were promised. We're getting f**ked.

I do understand your 'what's done is done, let's just get on with making the best of it' attitude, my thoughts were similar in the immediate aftermath of the vote but on reflection I don't agree. Remaining is the right thing to do and we should resist.
jk
wercat on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to jkarran:
that is my deep worry, effectively a really important vote that should have had a threshold may have been carried by a "noise spike". I hope cyberneticists can do better than that when they design autopilots and safety of life equipment.


Even more worrying when you find the demagogues who brought this about expressing admiration for Putin and cosying up to US presidential candidates who also like him as a "strong national leader" - perhaps I should have added that to the "things I thought I'd never see" thread
Post edited at 10:15
Xharlie on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

Personally, I don't give a flying f*ck about the "league table of nations" but I do care about my savings, valued in Pounds, and my passport with United Kingdom and "Citizen" written on it. Both of those have been and are being pissed away by idiots - not just Farage, Cameron too - and their campaigns of lies.

In reply to Big Ger... and whoever wrote the original post copied:

"The man", really? Just name the guys.

Cameron made the referendum part of his election platform because he was scared of UKIP. Arguably, he had to hold it because the Tories won. Cameron basically went "double or quits" on the issue because he was cock sure there was no doubt about a remain outcome. He has now suffered from his hubris.

UKIP are now more or less disbanded. They should be rounded up and lined up against the wall. I know they were a one-topic party and this was inevitable but, by winning and disbanding, calling the job done, they have only shown that they never had a clue, a plan or any intention of what they wanted to do after they won.

But solutions. Here's one: hold general elections immediately.

Labour are split over Corbyn. UKIP have disbanded. The Lib Dems are split over whether they should campaign for a second referendum or not. The Tories are split into ex-Cameronites (banished and exiled by May) and a plethora of other groups behind or opposed to individuals.

The future of the UK isn't up to them and their bickering. They are supposed to be representing us, the voters, so let's vote.

This will prompt them to reform into parties that actually stand for something. There will be the hard brexit parties, the other brexit flavour parties, the lib-dems and their "best of three" platform and perhaps parties that don't take a stand on brexit at all but rather focus on real issues such as the NHS and housing.

Then, once that's all cleared up, the people can go to the polls and make their opinions heard.

The alternative solution, the one we are on track for, is much simpler: we wait and see. We trigger article 50 and cede all power to Brussels - MEPs have no mandate to look to the interests of erstwhile members of the union - and ask them very nicely to be kind to jolly old Britain.
Mike Stretford - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> Apart from weeping into your cornflakes at the unfairness of it all what solutions are being offered by those who were in the remain camp other than holding another referendum because the thick British public ticked the wrong box?

That's simple, stay in the EEA, as some Bexiteers suggested before the vote.
Xharlie on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:

That choice isn't the UK's choice to make. The deafening message from Brussels is that the UK must trigger article 50 and live with the outcome, no negotiation. Perhaps they'll let us stay but asking nicely is about as much power as we have.,
Mike Stretford - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Xharlie:
> That choice isn't the UK's choice to make. The deafening message from Brussels is that the UK must trigger article 50 and live with the outcome, no negotiation. Perhaps they'll let us stay but asking nicely is about as much power as we have.,

They would, it's been implied by an number of European politicians, and it's less hassle for everybody when there's more important things to deal with.

The problem is selling it over here, even though it is completely consistent with the result of the vote.
Post edited at 11:17
Xharlie on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Nobody really knows that they would.

I agree that the general feeling is that the UK can stay, with strings attached (freedom of movement and immigration, for instance) but there are MEPs who say "out is out", like Schäuble, there are some who suggest that the UK should have access without these conditions, like Röttgen, and the decision would be made by them, not by us.

My point was not what the outcome would be, only that it wouldn't be the UK's choice to make.
summo on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Xharlie:

> That choice isn't the UK's choice to make. The deafening message from Brussels is that the UK must trigger article 50 and live with the outcome, no negotiation. Perhaps they'll let us stay but asking nicely is about as much power as we have.,

of course they will, 3 reasons;

1. Europe will still want to trade the UK
2. Europeans will still want to work in the UK, as it benefits their own finances, unemployment figures and so forth
3. The EU will still want the UK to take it's share of displaced migrants and refugees. (note; T May is trying to push for asylum seekers to only be allowed to stay in the very first country they land, which won't ever happen). But, she is making it look like she is doing the fight.

For whatever reason the bargaining chips of Trade and Migration are tied. Unlike all the other factors such as Fisheries, CAP, etc... which is little odd, but as the two biggest chips on the table, it's likely to stay that way now.
summo on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Xharlie:
> I agree that the general feeling is that the UK can stay, with strings attached (freedom of movement and immigration, for instance) but there are MEPs who say "out is out", like Sch£le, there are some who suggest that the UK should have access without these conditions, like R£en, and the decision would be made by them, not by us.

like all negotiations, what is said publically, stance trading, is very different to negotiations that will eventually happen behind closed doors. Like all deals, you aim high, or low, then agree somewhere in the middle and everyone feels like they got something agreeable to walk away with.

Some MEPs are bound to be bitter, they are about to lose a net contributor, to keep on dishing out the same money etc.. they have to ask other net contributors to pay more, or they cut their budgets a little. The EU only preaches Austerity to others, it doesn't practice it.
Post edited at 11:40
Wanderer100 - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> That's simple, stay in the EEA, as some Bexiteers suggested before the vote.

Worries? What worries?
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/lack-of-brexit-effects-proves-brexit-has-not-yet-happene...
BnB - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to jkarran:

The referendum delivered a very clear mandate. Not necessarily for exiting the EU, but the minute those immigration statistics came out with about 4 weeks to go, the campaign ceased to be about membership of an assembly of nations and shifted to a vox pop on immigration. And the message came through loud and clear: Enough!!.

Anyone who ignores that clarion voice has their liberal middle class head in the sand. Not all decisions have to be economically beneficial, do they? And to be fair to a good proportion of Remainers, many, post poll, are better persuaded that change is required on immigration than they are about the virtues of the EU. Theresa May for one.

I don't think the impact of Brexit will be particularly significant in the long run but I'm supportive of checks and balances to the Euro project and the UK, in its rebellion, might eventually prove to have prolonged and improved the EU's future.

PS I'm a liberal middle class Remain-voting child of Polish immigrants.
RomTheBear - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:
> The referendum delivered a very clear mandate. Not necessarily for exiting the EU, but the minute those immigration statistics came out with about 4 weeks to go, the campaign ceased to be about membership of an assembly of nations and shifted to a vox pop on immigration. And the message came through loud and clear: Enough!!.

> Anyone who ignores that clarion voice has their liberal middle class head in the sand. Not all decisions have to be economically beneficial, do they?

The question is WHY ? Why on earth would anyone put reducing immigration before the economy. I just don't get it.
What on earth have these immigrants done to us that is so bad.
Post edited at 20:55
Pete Pozman - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

The UK in its rebellion?

Now Brexit is being mythologised out of all recognition.
It was a massive upwelling of xenophobia cultivated and manipulated by utterly unscrupulous politicians and media. Whatever normal was, it has gone for a long time
This is a high summer of demagoguery the landscape is utterly changed.
andyfallsoff - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

That's also at odds with the post-referendum polls to ask what influenced people to vote leave - where the more nebulous "sovereignty" was more important than immigration.

Not saying immigration wasn't a big factor (or that those polls have to be right) but I just don't think we can say one way or another - at least not with the certainty we should be able to if we are going to base the future path of our country on it.
BnB - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

I saw the same post-referendum polls. Didn't it strike you then that "sovereignty" is a cypher for "control our borders"? It sounds so much more reasonable, so much less, well, I'll let you put your own name to it.
BnB - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> The UK in its rebellion?

> Now Brexit is being mythologised out of all recognition.

You flatter me, sir

> It was a massive upwelling of xenophobia cultivated and manipulated by utterly unscrupulous politicians and media. Whatever normal was, it has gone for a long time

It was. I agree. But it really won't have the impact you imagine. Calm down dear.
.

Lusk - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

> The question is WHY ? Why on earth would anyone put reducing immigration before the economy. I just don't get it.
> What on earth have these immigrants done to us that is so bad.

Aye, you're right, you just don't get it at all, in your fancy well paid professional banking job.
Try asking all the UK tradesmen whose livelihoods are being undermined by EU immigrants offering dirt cheap work, some with scant regards of any UK regulations.

Huge respect to BnB, who as a Remainer, has accepted the referendum result and is trying his best to move on.
RomTheBear - on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Lusk:
> Aye, you're right, you just don't get it at all, in your fancy well paid professional banking job.

I've not always had well paid professional banking job and did all sorts of jobs.

> Try asking all the UK tradesmen whose livelihoods are being undermined by EU immigrants offering dirt cheap work, some with scant regards of any UK regulations.

I've heard that before, but show it to me, the evidence, I'm eagerly waiting.

The construction industry is struggling to recruit skilled staff and the salaries in this sector have risen way faster than average earning in recent years.

http://www.citb.co.uk/news-events/uk/construction-wage-growth-double-the-national-average/

> Huge respect to BnB, who as a Remainer, has accepted the referendum result and is trying his best to move on.

I too accept the result, and I'm moving on, in fact I'm leaving the country.
It doesn't mean I have to accept the falsehoods that led to this result as truths, I've reviewed all the evidence I could find on the topic, staying as open minded as possible, but I just don't see it, sorry. Now, if you have any evidence to support what you are saying, I'm happy to see it.
Post edited at 23:35
pec on 20 Sep 2016
In reply to Xharlie:
Your post is high on opinion and assertion but has little grounding in reality, much of it is in the realms of fantasy.

> Personally, I don't give a flying f*ck about the "league table of nations" but I do care about my savings, valued in Pounds, and my passport with United Kingdom and "Citizen" written on it. >
Your savings, valued in pounds, are worth exactly the same as they were before and your passport, post brexit, will continue to say United Kingdom and citizen on it though it might be a different colour.

> UKIP are now more or less disbanded. >
Their long term future may be in doubt but they are in no way disbanded, where on Earth did you get that idea from?

> They should be rounded up and lined up against the wall. >
Why, because they disagree with you? Good to know where on the political spectrum you sit, somewhere next to Stalin.

> I know they were a one-topic party and this was inevitable but, by winning and disbanding, calling the job done, they have only shown that they never had a clue, a plan or any intention of what they wanted to do after they won. >
I repeat, they have not disbanded and they have a clear intention of pushing for a clean break from the EU. You may not like that but it very much is their intention.

> But solutions. Here's one: hold general elections immediately. >
Perhaps you need to have a word with Theresa because she's got other ideas and the fixed term parliament act makes it rather difficult anyway.

> Labour are split over Corbyn. UKIP have disbanded. >
No they haven't
> The Lib Dems are split over whether they should campaign for a second referendum or not. The Tories are split into ex-Cameronites (banished and exiled by May) and a plethora of other groups behind or opposed to individuals. >
But all very keen to make a public display of their unity behind Theresa May right now.

> The future of the UK isn't up to them and their bickering. They are supposed to be representing us, the voters, so let's vote. >
Sorry but until 2020 it is up to them, because that's how we did vote.

> This will prompt them to reform into parties that actually stand for something. There will be the hard brexit parties, the other brexit flavour parties, the lib-dems and their "best of three" platform and perhaps parties that don't take a stand on brexit at all but rather focus on real issues such as the NHS and housing. >

Nothing will prompt Labour to reform anytime soon short of the untimely demise of Corbyn, The Lib Dems are still trailing in the polls on about 8%, pretty much where they where when they were decimated at the last election and some way behind the (not disbanded) UKIP. The Tories are very much in the mood for showing a united front right now and would back Theresa May who has made her view on Brexit as clear as day. If the Tories were to go into an election with anything other than a clear Brexit message their supporters (who largely voted leave) would punish them by defecting to UKIP so its not going to happen.

> The alternative solution, the one we are on track for, is much simpler: we wait and see. We trigger article 50 and cede all power to Brussels - MEPs have no mandate to look to the interests of erstwhile members of the union - and ask them very nicely to be kind to jolly old Britain. >
We don't cede any power to Brussels by triggering article 50, ultimately we get the powers back we have already ceded to them and in between we enter into a negotiation in which they have as much to lose as we have if they want to be silly.

andyfallsoff - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:
Immigration was a separate option though, and some people did say that. I just don't think you can assume that people say one thing and mean another. And as I am above, I think we have to be crystal clear about what people do want if we are going to embark on a course of action that will fundamentally change this country, which a hard brexit is likely to.
Post edited at 00:05
andyfallsoff - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to pec:

There is a lot of nonsense in this response.

"Your savings are worth the same". Only if you want to (and are able to) buy things that are produced in the UK only. Which is nigh on impossible as a net importing country. Wasn't brexit supposed to be about being open to world trade anyway?

As for Theresa may making her views on brexit "clear as day" - how the hell do you work that one out? What will the system be for immigration - how will we determine who is allowed in? What rights will UK migrants into the EU have? Are we leaving the customs union? The single market? Will passporting be retained for financial services?
None of these points are clear. Yet again, someone who I presume voted out is making broad statements that ignore the detail.

As for the EU having as much to lose as we do - we make up a small section of EU exports, they make up something like 40% of ours. This ridiculous idea that the UK has some sort of trump hand in negotiation is not realistic.
Xharlie on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

The EU also know that they'll always get to trade with the UK on WTO rules in the worst case, defusing a lot of the bargaining power that the UK thinks it has.

I concede the point that "disbanded" was the wrong adjective to apply to UKIP. With Farage gone and only a policy of racism on which to stand, I think UKIP are largely spent but they haven't disbanded, yet.
BnB - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> There is a lot of nonsense in this response.

I'm not the respondee but I don't think any of us can be sure of the outcomes yet.

> "Your savings are worth the same". Only if you want to (and are able to) buy things that are produced in the UK only. Which is nigh on impossible as a net importing country. Wasn't brexit supposed to be about being open to world trade anyway?

It's highly likely that tariffs on goods will not form part of any post-EU trading agreement with Europe. We are Germany's second largest trading partner with a deficit of £55bn and they have a LOT more to lose than us with the imposition of tariffs. If all else is equal in the savings environment the effect on consumer purchasing power of Brexit is almost certain to be exactly zero. Of course all else won't be equal and that's where things get less transparent. It may be that new trading relationships in SE Asia in particular produce ever cheaper consumer goods and higher spending power while boosting our exports of services and engineering products. It could be that Asian consumers turn out not to be interesting in buying British-badged life insurance products and Jaguars, although the signs are good. What if GBP falls against EUR? Well, it already has and purchasing power has dropped in theory at least. But the Eurozone could equally find itself in an Italian banking crisis soon, or the sovereign debt crisis could scupper economic stability, and GBP is likely, albeit not in equal measure, to follow USD and CHF upwards as safe hard currencies. It's not certain what the effects will be and it's possible that the market will hold prices where they are. German car manufacturers have already stated they that don't expect to raise GBP prices any time soon.

> As for Theresa may making her views on brexit "clear as day" - how the hell do you work that one out? What will the system be for immigration - how will we determine who is allowed in? What rights will UK migrants into the EU have? Are we leaving the customs union? The single market? Will passporting be retained for financial services?

I think it's pretty clear that Theresa May wants the softest Brexit (in economic terms) that delivers (possibly not much more than an modicum of) migration controls. What she says in public is all politics and negotiating stance. Just like when Junker says no negotiation without notification while back-channelling furiously to the Foreign Office.

> None of these points are clear. Yet again, someone who I presume voted out is making broad statements that ignore the detail.

Both sides are guilty of this

> As for the EU having as much to lose as we do - we make up a small section of EU exports, they make up something like 40% of ours. This ridiculous idea that the UK has some sort of trump hand in negotiation is not realistic.

The UK's secession from the EU isn't just a game of economic top trumps. Brexit threatens the very existence of the EU project. The worries being aired in Europe are far more serious than Osborne's ill-advised "deficit of £4k per household". I voted Remain because I believe the EU has helped deliver peace across a continent previously divided and I still hold to that view and would vote Remain again for the same reason. The manner in which the EU deals with Brexit is a fundamental test of its moral authority and a failure to approach the negotiation progressively, no matter the public displays of hardball, would likely destabilise the whole Union. In short, the EU has a lot more to lose than we do. Juncker and his colleagues in Brussels know it, Merkel and Hollande know it, and the UK negotiators know it.

Edit: spelling
Post edited at 08:42
andyfallsoff - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

> It's highly likely that tariffs on goods will not form part of any post-EU trading agreement with Europe. We are Germany's second largest trading partner with a deficit of £55bn and they have a LOT more to lose than us with the imposition of tariffs. If all else is equal in the savings environment the effect on consumer purchasing power of Brexit is almost certain to be exactly zero. Of course all else won't be equal and that's where things get less transparent. It may be that new trading relationships in SE Asia in particular produce ever cheaper consumer goods and higher spending power while boosting our exports of services and engineering products. It could be that Asian consumers turn out not to be interesting in buying British-badged life insurance products and Jaguars, although the signs are good. What if GBP falls against EUR? Well, it already has and purchasing power has dropped in theory at least. But the Eurozone could equally find itself in an Italian banking crisis soon, or the sovereign debt crisis could scupper economic stability, and GBP is likely, albeit not in equal measure, to follow USD and CHF upwards as safe hard currencies. It's not certain what the effects will be and it's possible that the market will hold prices where they are. German car manufacturers have already stated they that don't expect to raise GBP prices any time soon.

I think the £'s fall is the key point immediately. Leaving aside what a fall in the £ means (the market is saying it expects lower growth prospects for the UK generally) this has already translated as higher prices in some consumer goods, and this will continue to tail in as various importers' currency hedges expire. As for other points (there could be an italian banking crisis etc) that could weaken the Euro - absolutely, that might be a windfall. But the same upward effect on the £ would have happened anyway, so we are still poorer relative to where we would have been.

> I think it's pretty clear that Theresa May wants the softest Brexit (in economic terms) that delivers (possibly not much more than an modicum of) migration controls. What she says in public is all politics and negotiating stance. Just like when Junker says no negotiation without notification while back-channelling furiously to the Foreign Office.

I wish I could see it as that clear. At the moment I genuinely don't know if we will get a soft or hard brexit - because the hard option seems suicidal, but the soft option politically impossible. We can speculate, but to say it is "clear as day" is not true.

> Both sides are guilty of this

Disagree. Have you read the detailed studies on impacts of leaving, e.g. treasury report? That isn't slim on detail. Compare that to the leaving plans...

> The UK's secession from the EU isn't just a game of economic top trumps. Brexit threatens the very existence of the EU project. The worries being aired in Europe are far more serious than Osborne's ill-advised "deficit of £4k per household". I voted Remain because I believe the EU has helped deliver peace across a continent previously divided and I still hold to that view and would vote Remain again for the same reason. The manner in which the EU deals with Brexit is a fundamental test of its moral authority and a failure to approach the negotiation progressively, no matter the public displays of hardball, would likely destabilise the whole Union. In short, the EU has a lot more to lose than we do. Juncker and his colleagues in Brussels know it, Merkel and Hollande know it, and the UK negotiators know it.

I agree with this, but it still requires the agreement of each MS. The indications we get so far are that several countries (see e.g. Denmark, in the news this morning) is that they do see a need not to be overly generous in the negotiation in order to deal with their own Eurosceptics. I agree that the EU will see it as a test - but what outcome that pushes it towards is not, as far as I can see, certain. To the extent that the UK still wants a deal which is never on the table (single market + no free movement), I don't think that the other EU countries will be minded to concede.


> Edit: spelling

johnjohn - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

> We are Germany's second largest trading partner with a deficit of £55bn and they have a LOT more to lose than us with the imposition of tariffs.

So?

I keep hearing this. Germany's part of the EU and can't do a bilateral deal with UK.
subtle on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

>
> I agree with this

We are so glad

BnB - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to johnjohn:

> So?

> I keep hearing this.

Then a lot of people must recognise it is important

> Germany's part of the EU and can't do a bilateral deal with UK.

Exactly. So the whole of the EU will have to tow the line with them.

DerwentDiluted - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to Timmd:
WTF is a 'snowflake' anyway? Someone who makes 6 good points?
Post edited at 12:09
ads.ukclimbing.com
andyfallsoff - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to subtle:

This is a forum, the general purpose is that people say things and others agree / disagree and say why, with the aim (as far as I'm concerned) being that we learn something about each other's points of view. If you don't like that format, you could leave?

johnjohn - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

> Germany's part of the EU and can't do a bilateral deal with UK.

Exactly. So the whole of the EU will have to tow the line with them.

How does that work then? Germany tells the rest of the EU to toe (couldn't let that go I'm afraid) the line and they do? Why did we bother leaving if all it takes if for a powerful member state to tell the others how it's going to be?
BnB - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to johnjohn:
> Exactly. So the whole of the EU will have to tow the line with them.

> How does that work then? Germany tells the rest of the EU to toe (couldn't let that go I'm afraid) the line and they do? Why did we bother leaving if all it takes if for a powerful member state to tell the others how it's going to be?

Brexiters would argue it's because the axis of power doesn't include the UK, and doesn't hold the UK's priorities dear. But I doubt this thread was intended as a recursive discussion about why we voted to leave. Isn't this thread about the reaction of either corner post-referendum?

Unless of course you're seeking to encapsulate your own reaction with that question.
Post edited at 14:12
johnjohn - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

and what would you argue? That the rest of the EU does what Germany wants because it's Germany, so if Germany wants us to have free access to the single market without accepting all its conditions, so they don't lose money, then we'll get this? I very much hope this is right, but it seems a little unlikely.
GrahamD - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

> Brexiters would argue it's because the axis of power doesn't include the UK, and doesn't hold the UK's priorities dear.

If there is an axis of power (which I doubt, given how well individual EU states tend to get on) - it certainly won't hold the UK's priorities clear now.
BnB - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to johnjohn:

It'll be true up to a point. Like most negotiations the meeting point is somewhere in the middle of the opening positions. Each side has to be able to claim a win for their own audience but allow the other to announce victory to theirs.

BnB - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to GrahamD:

> If there is an axis of power (which I doubt, given how well individual EU states tend to get on) - it certainly won't hold the UK's priorities clear now.

No, but if the original premise is true, it doesn't leave us much worse off, does it?
johnjohn - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

given there's 65m of us and 0.5bn of them, to whom do you think the middle position will be closer?
BnB - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to johnjohn:
Us, by a small margin. They have more to lose and their decision making is more divided.
Post edited at 14:45
andyfallsoff - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

I still don't agree with them having more to lose. As to their decision making being more fragmented - surely that would mean it is harder for them to agree something, I.e. the chances of us getting them to "see the light" and make sensible concessions are lower? Any deal has to get past 27 hurdles, each of which could block it...
GrahamD - on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

Well except that we had a real opportunity to be part of the mythical axis of power. In fact we probably were.
pec on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> "Your savings are worth the same". Only if you want to (and are able to) buy things that are produced in the UK only. Which is nigh on impossible as a net importing country.

Xharlie said " I do care about my savings, valued in Pounds" and I correctly pointed out that his savings valued in pounds are worth exactly the same now as before the referendum and with inflation currently running at around 0.5%, well short of tha BOE target of 2% its not losing its value any time soon.

> Wasn't brexit supposed to be about being open to world trade anyway? >
Well our exports have risen since the referendum, something a lot of EU countries would desperately like to do.

> As for Theresa may making her views on brexit "clear as day" - how the hell do you work that one out? What will the system be for immigration - how will we determine who is allowed in? What rights will UK migrants into the EU have? Are we leaving the customs union? The single market? Will passporting be retained for financial services? >
Perhaps I didn't make myself clear enough or perhaps you're being obtuse? What I meant was that in response to the endless calls for a second referendum or an early general election (with the EU being a central theme) Theresa May has made it quite clear that she isn't having either and that we will be leaving the EU, "Brexit means Brexit" etc.
Obviously I have no more idea of how exactly it will pan out than you because bnobody knows yet

> As for the EU having as much to lose as we do - we make up a small section of EU exports, they make up something like 40% of ours. This ridiculous idea that the UK has some sort of trump hand in negotiation is not realistic. >
Nevertheless we run a substantial trade deficit with the EU and most countries within it, in particular with the biggest EU countries who have the most clout and most to lose. Do you think our trade surplus with Malta, Bulgaria or Estonia will have much bearing on the negotiaitions?

pec on 21 Sep 2016
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I still don't agree with them having more to lose. As to their decision making being more fragmented - surely that would mean it is harder for them to agree something, I.e. the chances of us getting them to "see the light" and make sensible concessions are lower? Any deal has to get past 27 hurdles, each of which could block it... >

Look at it this way, if there is no deal we revert to WTO rules and tariffs. Most EU countries run a surplus with us so the cost of those tariffs to each of those countries will be greater than it is to us.
Depending on the nature of any deal, article 50 could be determined by qualified majority voting anyway but even if its not, the idea that a deal which suits Germany, France, Italy etc will be blocked by Croatia or Malta is nonsense. At some point somebody will take them to one side and "explain to them" which way they should vote in the way the EU always does.

Lurking Dave - on 23 Sep 2016
In reply to pec:

You don't seem to have a very good grasp on this...

> Xharlie said " I do care about my savings, valued in Pounds" and I correctly pointed out that his savings valued in pounds are worth exactly the same now as before the referendum and with inflation currently running at around 0.5%, well short of tha BOE target of 2% its not losing its value any time soon.

What if you want to purchase something that is imported? a car, a TV, go on an overseas holiday - these things are now more expensive. Then you bring up inflation - erm, did you mean interest rates?

LD



RomTheBear - on 24 Sep 2016
In reply to pec:


> Obviously I have no more idea of how exactly it will pan out than you because bnobody knows yet

You would have thought they had a plan... ho wait...


wercat on 24 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

they have to get their orders from Spectre, or is it Thrush?
Roadrunner5 - on 24 Sep 2016
In reply to Wanderer100:

> I think your partly right but the opposite is also true. Apart from weeping into your cornflakes at the unfairness of it all what solutions are being offered by those who were in the remain camp other than holding another referendum because the thick British public ticked the wrong box?

> There comes a point where we will all have to move on and get on as best we can. The sooner the better.

There really isnt.

Slavery wasnt defeated at first vote, women weren't easily given the right to vote. Democracy allows repeated challenges. Look at Scottish Independence, they've had two bites at the cherry and will no doubt get a third in our lifetime.

Its only wrong to take undemocratic action but it is right to fight decisions you disagree with through democratic mechanisms and it has been shown time and time again you don't have to just accept a decision and 'move on'.

The big thing is what Brexit means, May says it has to mean Brexit but a brexit lite approach is probably the most popular option and would leave many brexiters furious. In fact of the three options; remain in, Brexit-lite or Hard Brexit its almost certainly hard brexit that is the least popular as that 52% gets divided into two, whilst we know 48% wanted Remain...

There is a long way to go yet, more elections, more parliamentary votes.
Roadrunner5 - on 24 Sep 2016
In reply to BnB:

You are looking at this very UK centrically. The EU has played hard ball with other countries and to suddenly play softball with the UK will be a fundamental test of its moral authority. Remember it has played hard ball with the Swiss when they said they were shutting their borders after their referendum. Which was ignored in the end.

There isnt too much wiggle room for the EU on the major points unless they change for all. Then what was the point in leaving anyway... the main issues have been deal with time and time again. Single market access means open borders.
RomTheBear - on 24 Sep 2016
In reply to pec:

> Look at it this way, if there is no deal we revert to WTO rules and tariffs. Most EU countries run a surplus with us so the cost of those tariffs to each of those countries will be greater than it is to us.

You are of course forgetting the elephant in the room, although they have a surplus with us, that surplus is worth 5 times less to their economy than our export to them is worth to ours.
To make matters worse, most of their exports are goods, which would be covered and protected against unfair competition as part of WTO, and most of our exports are services, which for the most part are not included.
Roadrunner5 - on 24 Sep 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

He's also forgetting that when conditions change, things change. Most notably those companies exporting from the UK will consider relocating rather than risk other producers moving into the EU and taking their market.

The world really isn't that static.
RomTheBear - on 09:39 Sun
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> He's also forgetting that when conditions change, things change. Most notably those companies exporting from the UK will consider relocating rather than risk other producers moving into the EU and taking their market.

> The world really isn't that static.

I worked for two american companies here in Scotland, both set up big data centres in the UK specifically because they needed to be in the EU to serve European institutional customers, that need to have their data hosted in the EU because of EU data protection regulations, and had access to a multilingual workforce coming from all over the EU. Otherwise they would have probably run everything from the US.

It's one example but I expect that this kind of non-tariff barriers will be a problem across the board for large international businesses that have heavily invested in the UK, and I just don't really see what they can do apart from relocating.
pec on 12:05 Sun
In reply to Lurking Dave:

> You don't seem to have a very good grasp on this... >

Neither perhaps do you?

> What if you want to purchase something that is imported? a car, a TV, go on an overseas holiday - these things are now more expensive. Then you bring up inflation - erm, did you mean interest rates? >

I did mean inflation which IS currently about 0.5% and well below the BOE target of 2%. Historically that's incredibly low, of course within that figure some things are rising faster and some slower and others are actually decreasing. Its swings and roundabouts and if some imported goods get more expensive sales of some UK made goods will increase, rather good for our economy.
Most of us buy a range of products so unless his purchasing is heavily scewed to certain types of foreign made goods (because many of them will still be decreasing as manufacturing costs are driven down) the value of his savings in pounds as he originally specified remains barely altered at all.
pec on 12:09 Sun
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You are of course forgetting the elephant in the room, although they have a surplus with us, that surplus is worth 5 times less to their economy than our export to them is worth to ours. >

The elephant in the room is Germany, the biggest EU economy which runs the biggest surplus with us and largely bankrolls the EU who will not want to see tariffs imposed on their goods being sold to their biggest market.


RomTheBear - on 12:56 Sun
In reply to pec:
> The elephant in the room is Germany, the biggest EU economy which runs the biggest surplus with us and largely bankrolls the EU who will not want to see tariffs imposed on their goods being sold to their biggest market.

The UK is Germany's third biggest export market. Germany is our second biggest export market. You're also deluded as to the influence Germany has. They don't control the EU parliament, they don't control what's happening in other countries, and they don't "bankroll" the EU either.
The imposition of tariff wouldn't be a massive problems for them either, these things are reciprocal. If we impose high tariffs on EU imports, which are worth about 3% of EU GDP, you can be sure that the same tariffs will apply to our EU exports, which represent 14% of our GDP.
But anyway tariffs are largely irrelevant anyway, it's non-tariffs barriers that will be the main problem, especially for us, being mostly service oriented.

This seem to be all irrelevant anyway given that it looks like the UK will not seek to stay in a customs union with the EU, so even if the German were able to offer it to us (which they aren't), it looks like it wouldn't be politically acceptable for the hard brexiters,
Post edited at 13:25
Roadrunner5 - on 17:36 Sun
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'm not sure tarriffs will affect car sales too much anyway. German cars are generally higher end so paying an extra tarriff will probably not overly damage that market.
Wanderer100 - on 18:14 Sun
In reply to Roadrunner5:

> There really isnt.

> Slavery wasnt defeated at first vote, women weren't easily given the right to vote. Democracy allows repeated challenges. Look at Scottish Independence, they've had two bites at the cherry and will no doubt get a third in our lifetime.

Yes they probably will and I would expect the same outcome. If the SNP were that confident of winning they would have called one by now.

> Its only wrong to take undemocratic action but it is right to fight decisions you disagree with through democratic mechanisms and it has been shown time and time again you don't have to just accept a decision and 'move on'.

That'll be the next general election then which looks like the Tories will win with a handsome majority.

> The big thing is what Brexit means, May says it has to mean Brexit but a brexit lite approach is probably the most popular option and would leave many brexiters furious. In fact of the three options; remain in, Brexit-lite or Hard Brexit its almost certainly hard brexit that is the least popular as that 52% gets divided into two, whilst we know 48% wanted Remain...

Remain in is not an option or are you thinking the more you repeat that mantra the more likely it might happen?

> There is a long way to go yet, more elections, more parliamentary votes.

You and Rom the Bear are deluded. Elections yes, parliamentary votes maybe but with a majority in place Teresa May won't be having nightmares about the outcome.
Roadrunner5 - on 18:17 Sun
In reply to Wanderer100:
I disagree, I think remain is an option once the costs are known.

Look at switzerland. They voted to close borders, the EU said fine, close the door as you leave the single market.. nothing happened.

I do think you are right the Tories will win the next election, that doesn't mean we will get a hard brexit.

Re the SNP.. like this you mean..
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/714100/SNP-leader-Nicola-Sturgeon-call-second-Scottish-independence...

They've repeatedly said this
Post edited at 18:19
Lurking Dave - on 22:38 Sun
In reply to pec:

> Most of us buy a range of products so unless his purchasing is heavily scewed to certain types of foreign made goods (because many of them will still be decreasing as manufacturing costs are driven down) the value of his savings in pounds as he originally specified remains barely altered at all.


I don't know where to begin.
LD

RomTheBear - on 23:14 Sun
In reply to Wanderer100:
> You and Rom the Bear are deluded. Elections yes, parliamentary votes maybe but with a majority in place Teresa May won't be having nightmares about the outcome.

Well no I'm not, unlike Roadrunner, I'm pretty convinced that at this point hard Brexit is unavoidable. Even if it comes at a high economic cost, this is really the only option available, and the only non-suicidal option for T May.
Liam Fox is going to make a speech at the WTO asking for Britain to become a member. So it looks like the decision to be outside of the single market, and the customs union has already been taken (with no democratic mandate whatsoever, of course, as predicted).

On Scottish independence, not going to happen either, a referendum would be winnable, with a starting point at 45-47%, but I just don't see any reason why a Tory majority would grant a legally binding Scottish independence referendum, ever. If anything, I bet they'll attempts to scrap the Scottish parliament and the Barnett Formula as soon as practical, as it woudl be an easy way to get more votes whenever they need them. Once they exit the EU the disillusioned Brexit voter will have to find something else than the EU to blame.
Post edited at 23:28
tom_in_edinburgh - on 00:28 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> On Scottish independence, not going to happen either, a referendum would be winnable, with a starting point at 45-47%, but I just don't see any reason why a Tory majority would grant a legally binding Scottish independence referendum, ever. If anything, I bet they'll attempts to scrap the Scottish parliament and the Barnett Formula as soon as practical, as it woudl be an easy way to get more votes whenever they need them. Once they exit the EU the disillusioned Brexit voter will have to find something else than the EU to blame.

If Theresa May plays Tory party internal politics and gives the hard Brexit wing free rein she will play straight into Nicola Sturgeon's hands. There's a false calm at the moment because nobody can campaign against her Brexit policy until it becomes clear what it is. The harder the variant of Brexit she goes for the more turmoil there is going to be and the easier it will be for the SNP to hold and win a second referendum. If she throws in provocations like cutting Barnett or limiting the Scottish Parliament's powers it will be Christmas for the SNP.


Roadrunner5 - on 00:59 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

I disagree, once a hard Brexit is announced UK industry will be hit badly. Nissan etc.

The economic cost will be so great that it will either lead to a re-think or end the current Government who did it.

We will see.. TBH I never thought for one moment we'd be so f*cking stupid to saw of our noses like this so who knows....
Big Ger - on 01:29 Mon
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Or....

A hard Berexit is announced, and we work our way through it, taking on some hardships, and learning who our real friends are, and come out the other end changed but the same.

Glass is half full here.


Let's not forget that our EU chums are not without their problems


> Italy’s banking dilemma has caused financial analysts and European policymakers many sleepless nights. Italian banks have approximately €360 billion ($400 billion) in bad loans along with the real possibility that one of the world’s oldest banks may collapse due to this crisis. Italy’s banking problems not only have economic consequences for the European Union (EU), making up 9 percent of its banking sector, but also political since an upstart Italian party is using this crisis to call for a euro exit and possibly costing Prime Minister Matteo Renzi his job in an October national referendum. The situation is bad and may actually get worse.


> Deutsche Bank said it would fight a $14 billion demand from the US Department of Justice to settle claims it missold mortgage-backed securities, a shock bill that raises questions about the future of Germany’s largest lender. The claim against Deutsche, which is likely to trigger several months of talks, far exceeds the bank’s expectations that the DoJ would be looking for a figure of only up to 3 billion euros ($3.4 billion). The demand adds to the problems facing Deutsche Bank’s Chief Executive John Cryan, a Briton who has been in the job for a year. The bank only scraped through European stress tests in July and has warned it may need deeper cost cuts to turn itself around after revenue fell sharply in the second quarter due to challenging markets and low interest rates.

> They are far from being alone. A year after debt-stricken Greece received its third financial rescue in the form of international funding worth €86bn, such survival techniques have become commonplace. For a middle class eviscerated by relentless rounds of cuts and tax rises – the price of the country’s ongoing struggle to avert bankruptcy – the draconian conditions attached to the latest bailout are invariably invoked in their defence. Measures ranging from the overhaul of the pension system to indirect duties – slapped on beer, fuel and almost everything in between – and a controversial increase in VAT are similarly cited by Greeks now reneging on loan repayments, property taxes and energy bills. Against a backdrop of monumental debt – €320bn, or 180% of GDP, the accumulation of decades of profligacy – fatalism is fast replacing pessimism on the streets. “Our country is doomed,” sighs Savvas Tzironis, summing up the mood. “Everything goes from bad to worse.”
Post edited at 01:34
Roadrunner5 - on 01:39 Mon
In reply to Big Ger:

The thing is, as has been pointed out, we trade a lot with Europe... so what happens if the EU crashes.. the UK magically rides that out too?
Big Ger - on 02:36 Mon
In reply to Roadrunner5:
If the EU crashes, then that will take some of the heat off the UK surely?

All the speculation so far from the fearful crowd has been of the EU denying the UK, demanding of the UK, or forcing the UK, or shutting out the UK.

If they go into financial meltdown, then their ability to deny, demand, force or shut out will be likewise weakened.

Also, the resulting self protection will weaken the unity of the EU.


> As if to prove the point, EU member states' leaders (with the exception of UK Prime Minister Theresa May) met recently in Bratislava, Slovakia, in an attempt to demonstrate solidarity, and to kick-start the post-Brexit reform process. The attendees made some progress toward creating a European Defense Union, which should be welcomed, and toward admitting that the EU's current organisational framework is unsustainable; but there was scant talk of meaningful institutional or economic reform.

> Meanwhile, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi's refusal, at the close of the summit, to appear onstage with French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel all but confirmed fears that rudderless leadership is fueling institutional dysfunction. A summit that was supposed to be a display of unity revealed only further division.
Post edited at 02:40
Roadrunner5 - on 04:29 Mon
In reply to Big Ger:

Not really.. had we joined the EU back when it would be stronger.. had we all given up fiscal sovereignty it would be must stronger..

I dont think the EU will end, but likewise I still think we will take a brexit lite approach if we dont remain.. I still think that may happen. This was advisory. That then leads to talks and the government make the calls.

I think for us and the EU its better we remain in. But also world security. TBH with Trump getting close, Putin kicking off, North Korea, Iran, ISIS.. the world isn't so stable. In fact it could turn very shit within a few years.
Big Ger - on 04:49 Mon
In reply to Roadrunner5:

Oh I don't think the EU will end, I think it will change though. If the big cash cows, Germany, France, Italy and Spain find the cost of supporting the debtor nations too onerous without the UK's cash, it will have to.
RomTheBear - on 06:50 Mon
In reply to Big Ger:

> Or....

> A hard Berexit is announced, and we work our way through it, taking on some hardships, and learning who our real friends are, and come out the other end changed but the same.

"Learning who our real friends are"
Exactly he kind of rethoric I'm worried about.

RomTheBear - on 07:03 Mon
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> If Theresa May plays Tory party internal politics and gives the hard Brexit wing free rein she will play straight into Nicola Sturgeon's hands. There's a false calm at the moment because nobody can campaign against her Brexit policy until it becomes clear what it is.

It's starting to become clear. It will be outside of the single market, and outside of the customs union.

> The harder the variant of Brexit she goes for the more turmoil there is going to be and the easier it will be for the SNP to hold and win a second referendum. If she throws in provocations like cutting Barnett or limiting the Scottish Parliament's powers it will be Christmas for the SNP.

Yes, but what could they do ? There is nothing the Scottish parliament can do against hard brexit. And if Westminster decided to scrap the Barnett formula or scrap the Scottish parliament, all is needed is a majority of MPs at Westminster to do it.

RomTheBear - on 07:10 Mon
In reply to Roadrunner5:
> Not really.. had we joined the EU back when it would be stronger.. had we all given up fiscal sovereignty it would be must stronger..

> I dont think the EU will end, but likewise I still think we will take a brexit lite approach if we dont remain.. I still think that may happen. This was advisory. That then leads to talks and the government make the calls.

> I think for us and the EU its better we remain in. But also world security. TBH with Trump getting close, Putin kicking off, North Korea, Iran, ISIS.. the world isn't so stable. In fact it could turn very shit within a few years.

I think you've been away from the UK too long. In my experience many of the brexiteers WANT Europe to fail, they can't wait for things to turn to shit, they can't wait for an adversarial relationship. It's a weird sort of nihilism.
Post edited at 07:10
summo on 07:32 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:
> I think you've been away from the UK too long. In my experience many of the brexiteers WANT Europe to fail,

I think many brexiteers thought that after the UK voted out, the EU would see the light and perhaps consider a little reform to give other wavering nations an incentive to stay. Instead it thought it could solve the waverers by pushing ahead faster with its master plan, playing right into the hands of the far right. German elections since brexit have shown this, Penn will be gain more support in France, Merkel is admitting she made wrong decisions on tackling the refugee problem.. the EU and mainland Europe leaders are steering Europe towards failure, because they refuse to admit things are wrong or need reform. It isn't the UK's fault for exiting, it's the EU for not listening to the startling obvious warning signs.

The EU might have worked, if it had been developed slower and more carefully over multiple generations, ie a 100 years, allowing for countries and populations to adapt, their economies to align more etc... But, their desire for instant power blew it.
Post edited at 07:33
RomTheBear - on 08:40 Mon
In reply to summo:
> I think many brexiteers thought that after the UK voted out, the EU would see the light and perhaps consider a little reform to give other wavering nations an incentive to stay. Instead it thought it could solve the waverers by pushing ahead faster with its master plan, playing right into the hands of the far right.

You still don't get it how the EU works, do you ? nothing can be reformed without treaty change, treaty change can happen only with all the countries agreeing, not only you claim that it's "pushing faster" are bollocks, but the opposite is true, it cannot change fast enough precisely because of the threat of the far right making any treaty change impossible.

If anything I think the UK leaving the EU makes it more likely that the EU will succeed, as necessary changes won't be impaired by the UK dragging its feet anymore.
Post edited at 08:57
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11:02 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It's starting to become clear. It will be outside of the single market, and outside of the customs union.

> Yes, but what could they do ? There is nothing the Scottish parliament can do against hard brexit. And if Westminster decided to scrap the Barnett formula or scrap the Scottish parliament, all is needed is a majority of MPs at Westminster to do it.

There's a lot more than a majority at Westminster needed to impose something like that: not that Theresa May could get a majority for something that provocative anyway in the present parliament.
summo on 12:14 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You still don't get it how the EU works, do you ? nothing can be reformed without treaty change, treaty change can happen only with all the countries agreeing, not only you claim that it's "pushing faster" are bollocks, but the opposite is true, it cannot change fast enough precisely because of the threat of the far right making any treaty change impossible.

Isn't that cause and effect? If the majority of EMPs / Euro leaders weren't pushing for further integration over the past 10-20years, then they wouldn't be feeding the far right. You'd have nations with their individual traits, operating within the free trade area and no extreme far right parties with 10-15% of the vote in most countries.

Maybe the far right and many in middle don't want it to change at all, never mind fast or slowly.

RomTheBear - on 12:28 Mon
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> There's a lot more than a majority at Westminster needed to impose something like that:

Like what ? As far as I understand, uk parliament is supreme. All is needed is a majority.

> not that Theresa May could get a majority for something that provocative anyway in the present parliament.

Here you go.


RomTheBear - on 12:30 Mon
In reply to summo:

> Isn't that cause and effect? If the majority of EMPs / Euro leaders weren't pushing for further integration over the past 10-20years, then they wouldn't be feeding the far right. You'd have nations with their individual traits, operating within the free trade area and no extreme far right parties with 10-15% of the vote in most countries.

You still don't get it how treaty changes are made and ratified. I give up.



ads.ukclimbing.com
tom_in_edinburgh - on 12:42 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:
> Like what ? As far as I understand, uk parliament is supreme. All is needed is a majority.

I'm sure the UK parliament had a majority in favour of keeping the US as a colony. Also many other currently independent countries. A lot more than just a parliamentary majority in Westminster would be needed to take away a devolved government which pretty much everyone in Scotland wants to retain.

Scotland doesn't interest the right wing of the Tory party they'd rather cut us loose than have a long and expensive struggle to force us to stay.
Post edited at 12:51
Bob Hughes - on 12:44 Mon
In reply to summo:

> Isn't that cause and effect? If the majority of EMPs / Euro leaders weren't pushing for further integration over the past 10-20years, then they wouldn't be feeding the far right. You'd have nations with their individual traits, operating within the free trade area and no extreme far right parties with 10-15% of the vote in most countries.

While I'm sure that European integration is grist to the far right mill, its a stretch to say that without it there would be no far right parties with 10%-15%. Without European integration you'd still have stagnant wage growth and an immigration crisis, for example.
RomTheBear - on 13:05 Mon
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> I'm sure the UK parliament had a majority in favour of keeping the US as a colony.

Yes, and they couldn't keep it essentially because they lost control of it on the battleground. Not something that is either possible not even remotely desirable in the case of Scotland.

> Also many other currently independent countries. A lot more than just a parliamentary majority in Westminster would be needed to take away a devolved government which pretty much everyone in Scotland wants to retain.

A lot more ? Like what ? There is absolutely nothing preventing a uk parliament to vote tomorrow to scrap the Scottish parliament. Nothing. It would sure piss of many people in Scotland, but there is absolutely nothing they could do.



RomTheBear - on 13:12 Mon
In reply to Bob Hughes:
> While I'm sure that European integration is grist to the far right mill, its a stretch to say that without it there would be no far right parties with 10%-15%. Without European integration you'd still have stagnant wage growth and an immigration crisis, for example.

Not only that, but the UK, which had opt out on pretty much everything and was always in a position to block any further integration being imposed on them, ended up being the country where the far right managed to get the country to leave the EU.
At the end of the day, it's all about identity, even in Greece where many people are frustrated with the Junckers & co, there is still a strong sense of belonging to the EU (they even think they invented the thing). You can't go anywhere in Greece without seeing the EU flag flying on every official building. Put one up in Lincolnshire and someone would probably burn it in a matter of hours.
Post edited at 13:13
summo on 15:26 Mon
In reply to Bob Hughes:

> . Without European integration you'd still have stagnant wage growth and an immigration crisis, for example.

Is this fact?

Are you saying that with a free trade area and freedom to travel for 'employment', Europe would not have done so well. Have all the other factors like CAP, Fisheries, the Euro been the factors that generated growth, or simply free trade and huge borrowing?
summo on 15:29 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> At the end of the day, it's all about identity, even in Greece where many people are frustrated with the Junckers & co, there is still a strong sense of belonging to the EU (they even think they invented the thing). You can't go anywhere in Greece without seeing the EU flag flying on every official building. Put one up in Lincolnshire and someone would probably burn it in a matter of hours.

Which highlights the point, they are forced to display the flag on EU funded project (as you know it's part of the funding agreement/contract), which Greek isn't going to want other countries money being spent in Greece? The flags aren't a sign of EU love, but a sign that the EU is bankrolling them, in more than one respect in Greece's case.
summo on 15:37 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> You still don't get it how treaty changes are made and ratified. I give up.

I do, it's a fact that the EU commissioners would love it if treaties could be forced without all agreeing. Luckily everyone has to agree. But, just like Gordon Brown sneaking off for a quick signing, many nations haven't really been given a say over just what they are being signed up for.

I think it's also the hypocrisy in general, when you have eastern Europeans countries saying that the UK must allow their people to travel to the UK for work in the future, yet at the same time building fences and refusing to accept any refugees etc.. cake and eat it nations, many people are simply fed up with their attitude. Happy to share the EU pot around their countries or have their workers travel, but unwilling to take their share of responsibility in other respects.
RomTheBear - on 15:41 Mon
In reply to summo:

> Which highlights the point, they are forced to display the flag on EU funded project (as you know it's part of the funding agreement/contract), which Greek isn't going to want other countries money being spent in Greece? The flags aren't a sign of EU love, but a sign that the EU is bankrolling them, in more than one respect in Greece's case.

Which is a good thing. Better bankroll them than letting them fall back to where they were 20 years ago. And at the same time be tough and ask then to make necessary reforms. That's what friends are for.

summo on 15:45 Mon
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Which is a good thing. Better bankroll them than letting them fall back to where they were 20 years ago. And at the same time be tough and ask then to make necessary reforms. That's what friends are for.

and lend them money from your own nation's banks at a good rate for you, then let them buy goods back from you. Win for some EU nations, not so good for Greece in the long run.

those reforms were was only requested once Greece couldn't pay anymore though, not as a condition of lending them money in the first place. So now they borrowing just to keep up with the interest payments, is that really the way the EU want's to manage things or example of an organisation that should be in a position to demand ever increasing amounts of money from member nations.
Bob Hughes - on 16:10 Mon
In reply to summo:

> Is this fact?

Obviously not, it is a counter-factual. But the immigration crisis and stagnant wage growth are caused by factors which are external to the EU. In the case of immigration - wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, on-going crap in the horn of Africa, civil war in Syria etc etc. In the case of stagnant wage growth: the financial crisis and demographics.

Of course, the EU didn't necessarily help - especially the Eurozone and banking integration - but its hard to believe that there would be no immigration crisis or that the EU would have been unchanged by the financial crisis. At the very least, the German banks would be almost as screwed as they are today as were heavily exposed to the US sub-prime mortgage market.

> Are you saying that with a free trade area and freedom to travel for 'employment', Europe would not have done so well.

No, i'm saying Europe would have done better. But not so much better that we wouldn't have an immigration crisis or stagnant wage growth and therefore we'd still be seeing the far right getting excited.



Bob Hughes - on 16:11 Mon
In reply to summo:

> "cake and eat it nations,"

Snort! Heaven forbid!
RomTheBear - on 16:29 Mon
In reply to summo:
> I do, it's a fact that the EU commissioners would love it if treaties could be forced without all agreeing. Luckily everyone has to agree. But, just like Gordon Brown sneaking off for a quick signing, many nations haven't really been given a say over just what they are being signed up for.

Indeed, but explain to me how on earth the fact that government have been signing international treaties without democratic mandate from their people, has anything to do with the EU ?
It's an internal problem, not an EU problem.
As for the uk, it's likely to be made even worse, do you think the public will be given a say on future UK trade deals ? Everything is being prepared in secret, even the MPs are not in the loop.

> I think it's also the hypocrisy in general, when you have eastern Europeans countries saying that the UK must allow their people to travel to the UK for work in the future, yet at the same time building fences and refusing to accept any refugees etc.. cake and eat it nations, many people are simply fed up with their attitude. Happy to share the EU pot around their countries or have their workers travel, but unwilling to take their share of responsibility in other respects.

You mean like the UK ?
Post edited at 16:30
RomTheBear - on 16:33 Mon
In reply to summo:
> and lend them money from your own nation's banks at a good rate for you, then let them buy goods back from you. Win for some EU nations, not so good for Greece in the long run.

> those reforms were was only requested once Greece couldn't pay anymore though, not as a condition of lending them money in the first place. So now they borrowing just to keep up with the interest payments, is that really the way the EU want's to manage things or example of an organisation that should be in a position to demand ever increasing amounts of money from member nations.


Do you think that if Greece had been let down by the EU and they had to go to the IMF alonr for a bailout the IMF would have given a single f*ck ? No way. They'd be bankrupt, and would struggle to fulfill the basic needs of their population.

The troika gave substantial debt relief, and the debt is now spread over a century, it gives them ample time to fix the structural issues in their economy.
Post edited at 16:38
summo on 05:52 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Indeed, but explain to me how on earth the fact that government have been signing international treaties without democratic mandate from their people, has anything to do with the EU ?
> It's an internal problem, not an EU problem.

I agree, but it could have been, just like the last referendum.

> As for the uk, it's likely to be made even worse, do you think the public will be given a say on future UK trade deals ? Everything is being prepared in secret, even the MPs are not in the loop.

Most trade deals are confidential for obvious business reasons until complete. Just like the EU's TTIP negotiations, the public isn't exactly well informed on that, thankfully that one looks likely to crash.

I don't think the UK population minds not voting on trade deals, although it is after all the ONLY other time they were actually asked to vote on anything involving the EU roughly 40 years ago. CAP, Fisheries, Migration, Legal, etc.. etc.. were all pushed through afterwards without any public say. They have changed the face of Europe much more than any trade deal.

> You mean like the UK ?

The UK has been a net contributor for a very long time and will be forever more. I was thinking more on Eastern Bloc nations wanting to send workers to the UK, but refusing migrants themselves. Especially when the whole the migrant workers issue as a red line in brexit negotiations, at the same time other EU nations are taking truly massive proportions of refugees. All those nations taking the refugees like Germany and Sweden are also net contributors, if they keep trying to milk the cash cows too much, it's going to get fed up and go find another field.
summo on 05:56 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Do you think that if Greece had been let down by the EU and they had to go to the IMF alonr for a bailout the IMF would have given a single f*ck ? No way. They'd be bankrupt, and would struggle to fulfill the basic needs of their population.

They were let down by the EU in the first place. They should never have been allowed to join the Euro without serious reform.

Then the they were lent more money, then more, then eventually when on the brink of bankruptcy and riots on the street they were forced to reform, 20 years too late in the big scheme of things.

> The troika gave substantial debt relief, and the debt is now spread over a century, it gives them ample time to fix the structural issues in their economy.

Their biggest structural issue is being tied to the Euro and only being able to make the interest payments, they won't ever fix their problems.
RomTheBear - on 06:52 Tue
In reply to summo:

> They were let down by the EU in the first place. They should never have been allowed to join the Euro without serious reform.

> Then the they were lent more money, then more, then eventually when on the brink of bankruptcy and riots on the street they were forced to reform, 20 years too late in the big scheme of things.

> Their biggest structural issue is being tied to the Euro and only being able to make the interest payments, they won't ever fix their problems.

May I remind you that the uk's debt to GDP grew as much in the uk, outside the euro, as it did in Greece.
The only difference is that we had a better starting point, whilst Greece were already starting from a bad situation due to decades of mismanagement, largely unrelated to the euro or the EU.
summo on 07:19 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:
> May I remind you that the uk's debt to GDP grew as much in the uk, outside the euro, as it did in Greece.

Which isn't relevant because we aren't in the Euro and can control our own currency. We also don't have same internal problems as Greece, so whilst proportionally the debt could be even more, the UK can borrow at much better rates, which is probably more relevant than the actual individual amount. Greece could have half the debt of the UK, but if the interest rate it pays is thrice, then it is still worse off.

> , whilst Greece were already starting from a bad situation due to decades of mismanagement, largely unrelated to the euro or the EU.

Which would suggest it was foolish to let them join the Euro. Better to help them gain some stability and fix their internal economics before tying their hands with a Euro.
Post edited at 07:20
tom_in_edinburgh - on 11:08 Tue
In reply to RomTheBear:

> A lot more ? Like what ? There is absolutely nothing preventing a uk parliament to vote tomorrow to scrap the Scottish parliament. Nothing. It would sure piss of many people in Scotland, but there is absolutely nothing they could do.

Of course there is. Firstly, it is far from clear the UK parliament has the legal authority to take back powers from the Scottish Parliament without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Police, courts and tax collection are all devolved and an SNP government in Scotland is not going to meekly acquiesce if Westminster tries to remove powers from the Scottish Parliament.

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.