The BREXIT Discussion Thread.

1171820222345

Comments

  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    SaintMark wrote: »
    She unlike most politicians has tried to follow the popular vote coming out of the referendum and she is willing to step back after the dust is settled, taking one for her party as main responsible person. This Brexit mess will know no winners and she is willing to lead.
    She might be a remainer but she is more faithful than most leavers to the outcome of the referendum.

    Yes, that is mostly true. Not sure at all about your last point, however. I was thinking more about the opportunistic way she embraced Brexit in order to become Prime Minister in 2016. One would have thought a Leave candidate would have had their heart in it more, whoever that would have ultimately been. Why should a Remain candidate have benefited so much from the referendum outcome? If she believed in it that much, she'd have stuck to her guns and identified herself as a Leaver before the fact of the referendum!
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    Getafix wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    At the risk of causing offence to some, I don't see the EU (in its present form at least) existing in a decade.

    There are lots of leavers in the UK who would like to think this is true but the fact is if the EU didn't already exist then Europe would be working to make it happen.

    The peace and prosperity the EU (and NATO) has brought to Europe is unparalleled. People forget that before the EU was created Europe (which includes the UK) had never seen such a prolonged period without war.

    Yes the EU may change, as it has done since the start, but the idea it's going to disappear is wishful thinking by it's enemies.

    Milton Friedman gave the Euro 10 years before it collapsed but it's still there 30 years later and is more popular amongst the European population than it's ever been.

    We get fed a constant diet of euroscepticism in the UK which distorts perceptions. There has also always been a strong tradition, particularly on the political right in the US, that wanted to see the EU fail, as it is perceived as a barrier to US economic hegemony on the continent. But the EU is still there, fortunately.
    The EU is a political and cultural construct. The reasons for its creation are well known. The single currency has several economic benefits as well.

    This has nothing to do with what I want, and it would be inappropriate to draw any conclusions or inferences about my level of enthusiasm for the EU based on my comment above. I am certainly not swayed by political ramblings on either side. I've never been politically inclined in any one direction. This has to do with what I observe about the model as it currently stands, and the stresses that it will inevitably face in the future.

    We are in a period of rapid economic flux and changing paradigms caused by massive wealth inequality and shifting political loyalties on account of realignments (these alignments were set first on account of Western colonialism, then post WW2 structures, then Soviet collapse, then then 911, then the rise of Asia and finally the financial crisis). These shifts are only going to accelerate on account of the massive debt that has been accumulated over the past decade (yes, since the financial crisis) and due to the policy responses that were employed to respond to that crisis. In addition, market volatility is accelerating as the US Federal Reserve Bank normalizes global rates. This increases the potential for another financial crisis. I'm not sure what the trigger will be this time, but there are many possible ones, including a currency run somewhere.

    In such an environment, and without the UK as a distraction, the stresses on the EU will only continue to mount despite attempts by those in power to quell it (by force, if necessary). I have always argued that a common fiscal policy was a prerequisite of this model surviving and thriving. A common currency and monetary policy alone were never going to be enough. Unfortunately, that was never instituted because it would have required further loss of sovereignty and societal buy-in which was politically unsellable.
    bondjames wrote: »
    At the risk of causing offence to some, I don't see the EU (in its present form at least) existing in a decade.

    10 years? That seems awfully quick. A lot would have to happen for the dissolution of the EU in that time.

    If anything I suspect the Brexit omni-shambles is the best advertisement for more fragile economies than the UK to remain in the EU. At the very least it will slow the dissolution down because it will make governments devise a slightly clearer plan than just asking:

    'Do you want to be in Europe?'
    'No - but how will that work?'
    'Oh we'll figure that out later'
    'Oh okay'.
    I'm not sure if it will necessarily dissolve in 10 years, but it wouldn't surprise me if another large economy chooses to exit within that time frame or it is restructured on account of economic pressures. That's my point about it existing in its present form.

    The UK's problems really are self inflicted. Democracy can certainly be a difficult thing, but it's ultimately cathartic. They'll get through it, but it won't be easy in the near term. This is a necessary moment of introspection and contemplation for the UK. Once they are out they will have an opportunity to honestly shape their linkages and involvement within the changing global landscape in a more modern way.

    Fair comment.

    All I am saying I suppose is all bets are off. Yes the EU could collapse but equally I wouldn't be surprised if it was still there in 100 years.

    How many people have the US a chance in its early years? I'm sure there were many predicting it's failure and pointing to it's inherent structural weaknesses. But look how that turned out.

    There are always people willing these big projects to fail and sometimes they do. But when there are overwhelmingly positive reasons for something to exist they tend to survive regardless. I suspect the EU is one of those things.

    Ultimately though nothing lasts for ever. everything comes to an end.
    Oh, I definitely agree with you. The political and cultural rationale for the common currency and EU are stronger than ever. My qualm is with the economic structuring of the model, which is inherently flawed in an environment of rapid change. It's similar (but not identical) to the Bretton Woods system which collapsed in 1971 - in the sense that it functions best when the environment is stable - in a period of flux it's like a tied branch in the wind and more likely to snap.

    There are a variety of ways in which the system can be strengthened including a requirement for more operating flexibility and buffers to be built in.
  • Posts: 11,425
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    She unlike most politicians has tried to follow the popular vote coming out of the referendum and she is willing to step back after the dust is settled, taking one for her party as main responsible person. This Brexit mess will know no winners and she is willing to lead.
    She might be a remainer but she is more faithful than most leavers to the outcome of the referendum.

    Yes, that is mostly true. Not sure at all about your last point, however. I was thinking more about the opportunistic way she embraced Brexit in order to become Prime Minister in 2016. One would have thought a Leave candidate would have had their heart in it more, whoever that would have ultimately been. Why should a Remain candidate have benefited so much from the referendum outcome? If she believed in it that much, she'd have stuck to her guns and identified herself as a Leaver before the fact of the referendum!

    Exactly. The way she became an overnight Brexiteer stinks of hypocrisy. She knew Brexit was a bad idea and yet she's stood there now telling us it's great.

    No wonder she can't sell anyone her rotten plan- she believes in it even less than everyone else.

    #ledbydonkeys
  • Posts: 7,653
    The Brexit plan was not well thought out to be gin with, I am not sure which British politician would have touched this poisoned chalice even Boris would not have taken the job once he found out that the job was loser in any way.
  • Posts: 11,425
    I think the problem was the whole electorate had gin to begin with
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited January 2019 Posts: 23,883
    Getafix wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    SaintMark wrote: »
    She unlike most politicians has tried to follow the popular vote coming out of the referendum and she is willing to step back after the dust is settled, taking one for her party as main responsible person. This Brexit mess will know no winners and she is willing to lead.
    She might be a remainer but she is more faithful than most leavers to the outcome of the referendum.

    Yes, that is mostly true. Not sure at all about your last point, however. I was thinking more about the opportunistic way she embraced Brexit in order to become Prime Minister in 2016. One would have thought a Leave candidate would have had their heart in it more, whoever that would have ultimately been. Why should a Remain candidate have benefited so much from the referendum outcome? If she believed in it that much, she'd have stuck to her guns and identified herself as a Leaver before the fact of the referendum!

    Exactly. The way she became an overnight Brexiteer stinks of hypocrisy. She knew Brexit was a bad idea and yet she's stood there now telling us it's great.

    No wonder she can't sell anyone her rotten plan- she believes in it even less than everyone else.

    #ledbydonkeys
    There is no good plan imho. At least not one that the EU will agree to. Only bad ones. That is inevitable. So I don't have a problem with a Remainer in charge and don't have a problem with May either. This is a thankless job. Either way the leader is screwed. She's being technocratic and mechanical about it and is going forward trying to achieve the best deal possible under difficult circumstances. My hat's off to her actually. I can't see anybody else doing a better job.
  • Posts: 11,425
    But she's an awful communicator and screwed up badly with the sudden election and her refusal to seek cross party consensus.

    I used to have some sympathy but no longer. I agree this is the best deal available but she has failed to make people understand that and that is her central failing as a leader.

    She initially told people they could have their cake and eat it when she should have been saying " this is going to be tough and we are going to have to make compromises".

    She's a key reason we are in this mess although ultimately the blame lies with Cameron and the easily conned people who voted leave. I have no time for suckers. Esp when all the facts are out there.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I completely agree on her being a bad politician and communicator. She lacks in these essential skills, including charisma. She wasn't honest because it probably would have added fuel to the fire. Managing the public is very difficult, especially when all the media and banking concentration is in London, which voted remain. The pot is being stirred daily.

    But she's a 'worker' as they say. A 'plodder'. The difficult act of divorce requires that now, just as Greece and Italy needed plodders in the recent past.

    Once it's over, then a charismatic showboater with flamboyance can come in and raise spirits again (e.g. a Blair or Cameron). It's probably a few years (or even a decade) out.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    I am sure the media and the bankers are concerned for the people.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I came across this from David Icke on Brexit dated from January 2019. I thought he puts together a very coherent case. Now before you dismiss him as a crank, lets not forget all the Jeremy Corbyn-isms that hardly cover him in glory. It's worth a listen...

  • DaltonCraig007DaltonCraig007 They say, "Evil prevails when good men fail to act." What they ought to say is, "Evil prevails."
    Posts: 15,718
    British MP's have once again voted against a motion endorsing the government's strategy by 303 to 258, with 66 Tory MPs abstaining.

    Theresa May will press on with efforts to secure a revised Brexit deal, despite another Commons defeat, and will return to Brussels "within days".

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47251134
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The Brexit debacle, currently, only serves to destabilise Europe -- including the UK -- as a whole, the UK specifically and the Western World in total. Some countries elsewhere are laughing their socks off.

    Why?

    Because the leavers have chosen tribalism over progress and Farage's mad fearmongering over reason; and because the remainders have chosen sabotage and friction over compliance and the principles of democracy.

    By trying to artificially wrench the 21st century back to some pre-WWII "golden ages" that really never were, the Brexit gooroos have done nothing if not given themselves the proverbial finger. But the people have spoken and so Brexit must happen no matter what. These endless debates are now making an obvious mistake even worse, sinking Britain ever deeper in that heap of horse bugger Farage and co have set up for their beloved kingdom.

    The country is left politically and economically weaker than before because pride is valued way more than common sense. But I have made peace with that. What I haven't made peace with yet is how things are being handled now. Perhaps we should just tell the Russians and the Chinese to go ahead and proceed without us, because this little domestic (as in European) quarrel may take a while.

    I take it Brexit is driven by racism, much like with Trump supporters in the US.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    Xenophobia, rather than racism, may be a part of it, but it surely wasn't the only driving force behind Brexit, @echo. I give the British people more credit than that.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 2019 Posts: 18,281
    echo wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    The Brexit debacle, currently, only serves to destabilise Europe -- including the UK -- as a whole, the UK specifically and the Western World in total. Some countries elsewhere are laughing their socks off.

    Why?

    Because the leavers have chosen tribalism over progress and Farage's mad fearmongering over reason; and because the remainders have chosen sabotage and friction over compliance and the principles of democracy.

    By trying to artificially wrench the 21st century back to some pre-WWII "golden ages" that really never were, the Brexit gooroos have done nothing if not given themselves the proverbial finger. But the people have spoken and so Brexit must happen no matter what. These endless debates are now making an obvious mistake even worse, sinking Britain ever deeper in that heap of horse bugger Farage and co have set up for their beloved kingdom.

    The country is left politically and economically weaker than before because pride is valued way more than common sense. But I have made peace with that. What I haven't made peace with yet is how things are being handled now. Perhaps we should just tell the Russians and the Chinese to go ahead and proceed without us, because this little domestic (as in European) quarrel may take a while.

    I take it Brexit is driven by racism, much like with Trump supporters in the US.

    If you've got a one-track mind I suppose you'll believe that. It's very far from being the truth, though. The word you are actually looking for is called "sovereignty". I will agree that of course "racism" is an easier word to type, though.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    edited February 2019 Posts: 6,304
    But sovereignty from what? The EU's immigration policy, right? Code for...you know.

    I can't imagine people are arguing that sovereignty makes any financial sense for the UK, not with the geographic proximity and decades of trade policy with continental Europe.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    Sovereignty?

    Isolation, you mean. A return to the glorious days of nineteen-never. A step backwards. An act of tribalist, chauvinist pride.

    Tell me, when has that ever worked out well for any nation?

    Where are the great promotors of Brexit now? Why did they flee before the real negotiations had to begin? Was it their way of saying, "oops"?
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 2019 Posts: 18,281
    echo wrote: »
    But sovereignty from what? The EU's immigration policy, right? Code for...you know.

    I can't imagine people are arguing that sovereignty makes any financial sense for the UK, not with the geographic proximity and decades of trade policy with continental Europe.

    Sovereignty from the doctrine of the supremacy of EU law against that of the individual member state, of course. Immigration from the EU to the UK was not an issue for me, personally. Immigration from various locations will always go on in the global economy the UK is part of. Of course, improvements can be made to ensure we get immigrants who are badly needed in the economy, but that is a side issue. I cannot speak for others of course, but to me that has always seemed like a red herring in this debate. On the sovereignty issue, why not read the Factortame series of cases to see why I (and many others) really voted to Leave the EU:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Factortame_Ltd)_v_Secretary_of_State_for_Transport

    Sovereignty made financial sense for hundreds of years before we joined the EEC in 1973, as it then was. There was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire. Are we supposed to believe that the deal we have now with the EU is better than what we managed as a proud island nation all on our own? Don't make me laugh!
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 2019 Posts: 18,281
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Sovereignty?

    Isolation, you mean. A return to the glorious days of nineteen-never. A step backwards. An act of tribalist, chauvinist pride.

    Tell me, when has that ever worked out well for any nation?

    Where are the great promotors of Brexit now? Why did they flee before the real negotiations had to begin? Was it their way of saying, "oops"?

    Isolationism was a wise move to avoid the interminable wars on the Continent over hundreds of years that Britain reluctantly had to get involved in sorting out from time to time. Britain is on the periphery of Europe, and much more than just geographically.

    I'll refer you to my answer directly above. It worked out just fine for hundreds of years when the British Empire was at its zenith. The problem with young people today is that they can never recall (or are historically ignorant) all the things the UK was able to do when standing firm on its own two feet.

    Perhaps the tendency to the Nanny State is to blame for this or the ingrained sense of entitlement of the so-called "snowflake" generation.
  • DarthDimiDarthDimi Behind you!Moderator
    Posts: 24,184
    @Dragonpol, that may be true. But the world has changed, dramatically I might add. What in my opinion has never worked is to take a step backwards, to try and relive the "old" days by pursuing obsolete tactics. Many have tried, none have succeeded. The Roman Republic stood very proud once, but I'm not anxious to see us return to those days either. I'm sorry, I know I'm not supposed to have a voice in this debate, but I can't help thinking that this will leave a dark stain on the pages of Britain's history books.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    It's impossible to talk about Brexit, or Trump's policies, without discussing immigration. That's the core issue.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/134507/brexit-vote-really-just-one-thing
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 2019 Posts: 18,281
    echo wrote: »
    It's impossible to talk about Brexit, or Trump's policies, without discussing immigration. That's the core issue.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/134507/brexit-vote-really-just-one-thing

    Did you actually read what I wrote above? Posting a link to an article from a very liberal publication suggests not. You don't seem to want to engage on the issue of legal and political sovereignty from the supremacy doctrine at the very heart of EU law. It's also at the very heart of Brexit, but so many want to brush it under the carpet as it doesn't tally with their utterly nonsensical "racism" reasoning about why a majority of people voted Leave.

    I'm not talking about Trump either. That's not what this thread is about. There are and were plenty of other Trump bashing threads, many now thankfully closed. I don't need to waste my time with that debate which is totally separate to the subject at hand.

    I would say that immigration is a issue, but not the issue. It certainly wasn't my reason for voting Leave.
  • Posts: 12,526
    One disaster to another.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    It's impossible to talk about Brexit, or Trump's policies, without discussing immigration. That's the core issue.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/134507/brexit-vote-really-just-one-thing

    Did you actually read what I wrote above? Posting a link to an article from a very liberal publication suggests not. You don't seem to want to engage on the issue of legal and political sovereignty from the supremacy doctrine at the very heart of EU law. It's also at the very heart of Brexit, but so many want to brush it under the carpet as it doesn't tally with their utterly nonsensical "racism" reasoning about why a majority of people voted Leave.

    I'm not talking about Trump either. That's not what this thread is about. There are and were plenty of other Trump bashing threads, many now thankfully closed. I don't need to waste my time with that debate which is totally separate to the subject at hand.

    I would say that immigration is a issue, but not the issue. It certainly wasn't my reason for voting Leave.

    It's the issue. Fear of the other. Fear of society changing. It happens time and time again in history.

    There is a worldwide wave of isolationism and fear at this point in time. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way again.
  • echo wrote: »
    It's impossible to talk about Brexit, or Trump's policies, without discussing immigration. That's the core issue.

    https://newrepublic.com/article/134507/brexit-vote-really-just-one-thing

    No, it's impossible to speak of Trump's policies without discussing the degree to which he is ECONOMICALLY INDEBTED to Russia... and any discussion of Trump's electoral victory, or for that matter the Brexit vote, without acknowledging the impact of Russian meddling in the issue, is doomed to be incomplete. Russian meddling is THE core issue for much of the difficulties facing the Western democracies today.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    That depends if you think he legitimately won the election or not. If yes, then it's the voters and their anti-immigrant isolationism. If no, then it's Russia/Assange. And it's complicated by Syria, which is both.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    echo wrote: »
    That depends if you think he legitimately won the election or not. If yes, then it's the voters and their anti-immigrant isolationism. If no, then it's Russia/Assange. And it's complicated by Syria, which is both.

    Heaven forbid that he'd actually have won it on his own merits compared to the demerits of his opponents. I suppose the reason is that it's very hard to give credit where it is due to those whom many despise. It must just be human nature.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    Brexiteers would argue a black cat is white.

    Some are so wrapped up with leaving because they voted for it, that they don't care the consequences.

    I've actually heard some say, it will take a good decade to come good but after that we'll be in a great,
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Sovereignty?

    Isolation, you mean. A return to the glorious days of nineteen-never. A step backwards. An act of tribalist, chauvinist pride.

    Tell me, when has that ever worked out well for any nation?

    Where are the great promotors of Brexit now? Why did they flee before the real negotiations had to begin? Was it their way of saying, "oops"?

    Isolationism was a wise move to avoid the interminable wars on the Continent over hundreds of years that Britain reluctantly had to get involved in sorting out from time to time. Britain is on the periphery of Europe, and much more than just geographically.

    I'll refer you to my answer directly above. It worked out just fine for hundreds of years when the British Empire was at its zenith. The problem with young people today is that they can never recall (or are historically ignorant) all the things the UK was able to do when standing firm on its own two feet.

    Perhaps the tendency to the Nanny State is to blame for this or the ingrained sense of entitlement of the so-called "snowflake" generation.

    The British Empire?

    You think we are going back to that kind of influence and power on the back of Brexit?

    Dragonpol you aren't that deluded to think this country is going to rise from the ashes like that, are you?

    Standing on its own two feet? Don't you mean standing on the backs of other nations, never mind the bloodshed and oppression that was exacted on others to achieve it.

    This exactly the kind of thing the far right would come out with.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    edited February 2019 Posts: 18,281
    Shardlake wrote: »
    Brexiteers would argue a black cat is white.

    Some are so wrapped up with leaving because they voted for it, that they don't care the consequences.

    I've actually heard some say, it will take a good decade to come good but after that we'll be in a great,
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    DarthDimi wrote: »
    Sovereignty?

    Isolation, you mean. A return to the glorious days of nineteen-never. A step backwards. An act of tribalist, chauvinist pride.

    Tell me, when has that ever worked out well for any nation?

    Where are the great promotors of Brexit now? Why did they flee before the real negotiations had to begin? Was it their way of saying, "oops"?

    Isolationism was a wise move to avoid the interminable wars on the Continent over hundreds of years that Britain reluctantly had to get involved in sorting out from time to time. Britain is on the periphery of Europe, and much more than just geographically.

    I'll refer you to my answer directly above. It worked out just fine for hundreds of years when the British Empire was at its zenith. The problem with young people today is that they can never recall (or are historically ignorant) all the things the UK was able to do when standing firm on its own two feet.

    Perhaps the tendency to the Nanny State is to blame for this or the ingrained sense of entitlement of the so-called "snowflake" generation.

    The British Empire?

    You think we are going back to that kind of influence and power on the back of Brexit?

    Dragonpol you aren't that deluded to think this country is going to rise from the ashes like that, are you?

    Standing on its own two feet? Don't you mean standing on the backs of other nations, never mind the bloodshed and oppression that was exacted on others to achieve it.

    This exactly the kind of thing the far right would come out with.

    No, quite true, the British Empire is past, over, finished. I've no desire to see it replicated in this postcolonial world.

    No, I was merely using the past as an example of how going it alone worked in the past and of how it can work again in the future outside of the auspices of the EU.

    And I'm not part of the Far Right either. That's just yet more hyperbole from the Remainer side of the debate. Sadly name-calling is now what passes for debate from that camp.
  • echoecho 007 in New York
    Posts: 6,304
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    That depends if you think he legitimately won the election or not. If yes, then it's the voters and their anti-immigrant isolationism. If no, then it's Russia/Assange. And it's complicated by Syria, which is both.

    Heaven forbid that he'd actually have won it on his own merits compared to the demerits of his opponents. I suppose the reason is that it's very hard to give credit where it is due to those whom many despise. It must just be human nature.

    That's not what I said. If he won on his own, then it was because the voters liked his immigration policy. If it was the Russians, it was the Russians.
  • DragonpolDragonpol https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
    Posts: 18,281
    echo wrote: »
    Dragonpol wrote: »
    echo wrote: »
    That depends if you think he legitimately won the election or not. If yes, then it's the voters and their anti-immigrant isolationism. If no, then it's Russia/Assange. And it's complicated by Syria, which is both.

    Heaven forbid that he'd actually have won it on his own merits compared to the demerits of his opponents. I suppose the reason is that it's very hard to give credit where it is due to those whom many despise. It must just be human nature.

    That's not what I said. If he won on his own, then it was because the voters liked his immigration policy. If it was the Russians, it was the Russians.

    Those are the two options, yes. The jury's out on that one currently.
This discussion has been closed.