Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
Don't Kill Bill said:
I don't disagree with you entirely but we had a vote to kick this whole thing off in the 70's. Then we didn't bother with any more votes for forty years despite huge changes in the organisation we joined. Now the vote went the other way so we have to revote over and over every two to three years, you have to admit that seems a bit one sided doesn't it?
Click to expand...
And what principle are we preserving by not voting again on the final decision? It's not keep repeating until you get the result you want, it's ratifying a decision of staggering importance once it is better understood. It's about being adults.
If the concept of sovereignty, keeping people of other nationalities out of Britain and concerns about worker's rights/ federalism (which will of course be much better and the Tory fiefdom of the UK) are still of critical importance over the now clear cost of leaving, the people will have democratically ratified the decision. It's quite an important decision I'd say and worth being sure about. What is there to fear other than democracy?
 
Stanley Road said:
That all depends on who's economic model you follow, Paul Krugman would disagree with you but what does he know?
Click to expand...

An academic who never has to put their ideas into practice? I'm more interested in what those who have actually done it have to say.

Expansionary economics does work to combat recession but only when done correctly. The UK was never in a position to do that as a mid sized economy in a massive global recession, and besides, austerity worked. The UK economy grew beyond expectation and the deficit reduced. It should have ended years ago though.
 
horsechoker said:
Meeting at Chequers with Brexiteers, this can't be good.
Click to expand...

She will listen to the dozens of Brexiteers in parliament while she ignores the literal millions of marchers and petition signatories.

It’s fecking infuriating.
 
11101 said:
An academic who never has to put their ideas into practice? I'm more interested in what those who have actually done it have to say.

Expansionary economics does work to combat recession but only when done correctly. The UK was never in a position to do that as a mid sized economy in a massive global recession, and besides, austerity worked. The UK economy grew beyond expectation and the deficit reduced. It should have ended years ago though.
Click to expand...
:lol:

You know this is the brexit thread.
 
Last edited:
Maticmaker said:
That is my whole point, it was blinding obvious from the start that there never could be a 'good deal' because; a) that would have laid the EU open to a number of other requests to leave the club from others; b) A point well made by the EU and others, was that you can't have the same situation outside the club as being a member.
Click to expand...

I get that but hypothetically what in your opinion would have been a good deal?

Maticmaker said:
Hence the UK Government should, if it wanted to honour the results of the referendum, have given notice via A50 that it was leaving and spent the next 2 years making contingency plans for a 'No deal' scenario in the UK. There was IMO never any prospect of a 'good deal,' the withdrawal agreement favours only the EU (naturally), because they always insisted they couldn't discuss trade until we left the EU, so the priority for us was to leave, then see what terms for trade we could get, balancing the needs of our exporters, with those who import from the EU, as we will finish up having to do, if we leave (deal or no deal).
Click to expand...

When you think about what you're suggesting objectively mate does it really make any sense?

Not even the most prominent Brexiters were championing leaving with No deal. It wasn't even mentioned in the lead up to the Referendum, and only really popped into the public consciousness when May idiotically said ''No deal is better than a bad deal''.

The EU has been and likely will continue to be the UK largest trading partner for the foreseeable future. The UK and EU will always have to have a relationship of some sort. The UK has also became deeply integrated with the EU over the past half century so it's only common sense that leaving couldn't and shouldn't happen overnight.

Thats where the Withdrawal Agreement ''The Deal'' comes in, it basically maintains the status quo while the UK/EU discuss, negotiate and agree a trade deal and figuring out their future relationship. This would ensure leaving the EU would run as smoothly as possible and the impact to UK business and Jobs etc. would be managed to an extent. But No Deal is the absolute antithesis of that common sense approach. And thats before we even get into the Good Friday Agreement, No Deal if it doesn't lead to the GFA being torn up right away it will certainly undermine it and risk the delicate peace in Ireland.

So taking that into consideration why exactly would the British Government have decided from the get go that they weren't even going to try to negotiate an amicable arrangement that would minimize disruption during the transition period right after leaving the EU. And just opt for a course of action that would probably also break or jeopardize an International peace treaty they are sworn to uphold and potentially destabilize an area enjoying its longest period of relative peace in a century?
 
11101 said:
An academic who never has to put their ideas into practice? I'm more interested in what those who have actually done it have to say.

Expansionary economics does work to combat recession but only when done correctly. The UK was never in a position to do that as a mid sized economy in a massive global recession, and besides, austerity worked. The UK economy grew beyond expectation and the deficit reduced. It should have ended years ago though.
Click to expand...

While harming lots of ordinary people in the process. A growing economy is, of course, an ideal situation for any country to be in, but the problem is that lots of people who aren't particularly well off haven't seen the benefits of said growth, even though they had to endure the hardships of austerity. All the while those who were actually responsible for the crash in the first place have, if anything, actually benefited from the whole process.
 
Cheesy said:
I mean, you only vote on something again if it's deemed as being worthy of a vote. For the most part people largely seemed fine with the EU, and the % when we joined who approved of it was much larger than the % who voted to leave in 2016. It was seen as a fairly comprehensive and resounding vote - 2016 was the opposite in that regard. Throughout the 90s and 2000s both major parties were generally led either by people who were highly approving of the EU, or who didn't oppose membership. It wasn't until after 2010 that UKIP started gaining a lot more traction.
Click to expand...

But there were significant changes to the common market over the years and following the logic of the post, that should have resulted in re voting. or we only re vote if the vote is leave/ no?
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
But there were significant changes to the common market over the years and following the logic of the post, that should have resulted in re voting. or we only re vote if the vote is leave/ no?
Click to expand...

As EU members we were involved in plenty of those changes and yet in spite of that the electorate continued to vote for parties that were branding themselves as being primarily pro-EU. For the most part people were just sort of disinterested in Europe in general, I'd say, and it wasn't until the 2000s that started to change. Naturally a government aren't going to have a referendum on an issue if it's fairly obvious the public approve said move. That's why we have parliamentary democracy.
 
Even the IMF have debunked our austerity push and we still have people in here claiming people just don't understand the Tory logic :lol:
 
GloryHunter07 said:
Sorry thats just not right.
Click to expand...

See my next post after that. In a country like the UK, with a global recession it is. We didn't have the means to spend our way out of something so massive. There's a reason why the US and EU spend their way out whilst individual European countries make cuts.
 
nickm said:
Just in the last few years we’ve seen the run on northern rock and how fecking close the system came to collapsing, we’ve seen the incompetence over Iraq and we have seen what happened to Greece. The govt lacks the competence and foresight to navigate safe passage thru brexit. I don’t trust them to get this right.
Click to expand...

Brexit has focussed people's attention on MPs competence abilities more than ever before and it is rather worrying that people of such limited ability are running the country.
I haven't actually seen any of them, on all sides of parliament, really talk sensibly about how to deal with the consequences.
 
Cheesy said:
While harming lots of ordinary people in the process. A growing economy is, of course, an ideal situation for any country to be in, but the problem is that lots of people who aren't particularly well off haven't seen the benefits of said growth, even though they had to endure the hardships of austerity. All the while those who were actually responsible for the crash in the first place have, if anything, actually benefited from the whole process.
Click to expand...

Like i say, austerity should have ended years ago. It worked to pull the economy out of recession and restart growth but that was a long time ago now.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
No point preaching to the converted either! So better to have a tough conversation and open someone's mind.
Click to expand...

All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?
 
Sassy Colin said:
All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?
Click to expand...

ha

hahaha
 
Sassy Colin said:
All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?
Click to expand...
Jeez. Do people actually think zero hour contracts work? Keep drinking that kool aid. I guess you've never been on a zero hour contract?
 
Fingeredmouse said:
And what principle are we preserving by not voting again on the final decision? It's not keep repeating until you get the result you want, it's ratifying a decision of staggering importance once it is better understood. It's about being adults.
If the concept of sovereignty, keeping people of other nationalities out of Britain and concerns about worker's rights/ federalism (which will of course be much better and the Tory fiefdom of the UK) are still of critical importance over the now clear cost of leaving, the people will have democratically ratified the decision. It's quite an important decision I'd say and worth being sure about. What is there to fear other than democracy?
Click to expand...

Governability.

What is the question going to be and who decides it because we know the result will be determined by those as much as by the issue itself?

Deal or Cancel. No deal or deal. Leave or stay.

How often are we going to have these votes and who decides that ?

Are we just voting on Europe or do we broaden to other staggeringly important issues like taxation, foreign policy, bringing back hanging? If its just for EU membership on what basis in principle do you cut out the other issues?

Lets say we vote and take the deal what next, do we get another vote on each part of the trade negotiations with the EU that will follow or are we voting every bit as blind about the eventual outcome of the deal as we were on voting leave?

What if the public vote for contradicting premises or switch every other vote?



So quite a bit to fear other than democracy and when you think about it, wasn't it the fascists who liked peoples votes on issues they could frame and manipulate as a tool for autocracy hidden as direct democracy?
 
Sassy Colin said:
All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?
Click to expand...

Tell you what Colin why dont you leave your current job and take up one of these zero hour contract jobs and tell us how you are getting on. Sound good?
 
Ramshock said:
Tell you what Colin why dont you leave your current job and take up one of these zero hour contract jobs and tell us how you are getting on. Sound good?
Click to expand...
Ignore him, I can't take the words seriously from a man who spends his weekends sniffing women's shoes that he finds abandoned down at the nearest derelict train station whilst wearing his aunt's G-string. Probably
 
Sassy Colin said:
All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?
Click to expand...
No way are you being serious here? :confused:
 
Sassy Colin said:
All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?
Click to expand...

Many do, I know plenty of students who have for example - it's still exploitative for those who need work though.
 
RedTillI'mDead said:
Good counter and I just get frustrated by people who blame Conservatives for reduced public spending when often this is a counter to rising debt.

The truth is somewhere in the middle. You are right to some extent that with cheap debt it's a good time to invest in profit making investments. For example, privatising trains would be a huge investment, but could be good all round. Instead of money to shareholders leaking out of the country, it could instead fuel the economy.

Regarding the cut of austerity there are multiple elements. For a start forecasts are inherently difficult to get right as the global economy is not easy to predict, secondly there is no benefit in saying austerity will last for a massive period of time, it's more palatable to drip feed this information. Otherwise many may change their career routes damaging the needs of the country.

As for zero hours contracts. What would you prefer someone who racks up 10-20 hours on a zero hour contract and pays some tax or someone claiming benefits and thus extracting taxes, some of which will or course flow back into the economy, but some of it will be sunk in cigarette, alcohol, gas & electric companies, etc.
Click to expand...

People blame the conservatives because there are multiple ways to counter rising debt, they just seem to use the only one that lines up with their economic ideology.
Economic deficit isn’t to be treated like an unpaid credit card bill, most macroeconomists disagreed with their strategy because they understand the impact would stagnate the British economy for years - and that’s exactly what happened.

Despite the Tories being seen as the party for economic stability & growth, the last 10 years has been anything but - which has led to such strong condemnation.

Also I only brought up the zero contract hours because you seemed to imply that the low unemployment numbers correlate with Tory policy, and they don’t. They simply mask a deeper problem of people working for longer, on less pay because austerity has led to cuts in benefits, housing, wages, but increases to inflation, transport and living expenses among others.
 
Ian Reus said:
Aren't they also counting people who have 2 jobs to stay afloat as part of their employment rate success?
Click to expand...

Probably. Not to mention they probably encompass a lot of people who do part-time work as well - again can be ideal for those who want flexibility, but for many it's not really enough to survive comfortably.
 
devilish said:
I thought that the prosecco/German car industry BS will come out at one point. :D

This argument has 1 major flaw. For the UK to make Brexit work then it must sign multiple trade deals. There's no point leaving the EU only to keep its same standards and rules. Now that will require the UK to cut corners on standards else there's no way in hell a small market like the UK can ever sign better trade deals then the EU. So lets say that the UK buys 30% of its beef from Ireland. That beef is of the highest standard which means its very expensive compared to the hormone induced/maggot ridden 'food' bought from the US, which will flood the UK following a trade deal with the US. Thus the Irish farmers market share in the UK is set to shrink to the ridiculous irrespective whether the UK signs an FTA with the UK or not. As Brexiteer no 1 (and only?) economist Patrick Minford said the only way for Brexit to work would be to lower tariffs on everything which would concurrently end the manufacturing/farming industry in the UK. Using such logic then I can't see the Irish farmer succeeding in a market were even the locals will be failing using such same high standards.

Then there's the other two other main categories of things that the EU sells to the UK

a- perishable goods. Due to its geographical location the UK will have no choice but to buy them from the EU irrespective on whether they sign an FTA or not. That's not a problem for the EU which can ignore British produce and buy from somewhere else

b- high end products. Which strictly speaking isn't a real issue either. Those who can afford a Ferrari will still buy a Ferrari irrespective whether the UK decide to slap a 30% tariff on it or not

Thus such leverage is pretty much gone.

Lets go in the detail of what activating article 50 means. Article 50 focuses on the country's withdrawal from the EU. In simpler terms it gives the UK the opportunity to settle its bills and to give an indication of what sort of future relationship it wants with the EU. Due to the GFA such withdrawal not only goes into EU territory but also into international treaties as well. Both parts is a bone of contention with Brexiteers.

A- They weren't happy to settle the bills as that strips the UK from its main leverage
B- Because of the GFA they can't push for a no deal Brexit as that would require the UK to crush out on WTO rules which in turn would mean hard borders in Ireland.

Basically a no deal Brexit was off the table from the start simply. If the UK is stupid enough to agree to pay for its bills without getting anything in exchange (not even the time needed to negotiate other FTAs) ie satisfying Option A, it would still fail to fulfill B. The result to that would be that the UK would portray itself as an unreliable business partner who can change its mind on everything even on delicate international deals such as the GFA

The Brexiters tried to turn this huge disadvantage into an advantage by tying the withdrawal agreement to a half botched trade deal. That goes beyond the scope of Article 50 + it would risk breaching the EU's HUGE red line ie the integrity of the single market. Which leads to me asking you two questions. Have you ever wondered why the EU takes ages to sign an FTA and why it had turned bigger markets (ex the US) down? The answer to that is basically the same. The integrity of the single market represent the EU's biggest asset, something worth protecting far more then anything else. It means a huge and protectionist market were members (and a very short list of trusted and reliable friends) can sell their products freely while concurrently keeping other competitors at arm's length. Through the single market the EU controls who and how countries trade, it can ensure a level playing field between member countries while monitoring the standards of what comes into such market. A loophole in such system would risk upsetting the balance into the single market to the detriment of its members. For example imagine if the UK is allowed to repackage cheap hormone induced/maggot ridden/chlorinated 'food' and then sell it into the single market as beef. That has the potential to be far more damaging then losing the UK's market which is set to shrink for the reasons mentioned above + recession

There will be no trade wars because a market of 65m can never compete with that of an entire continent, especially since the former is set to become poorer + it depends on selling its goods/services to that continent far more then the EU depends on selling its good/services to that country. If the UK doesn't pay its 39b then that would give the EU the casus belli it needs to go tough on the UK. Meanwhile the UK inability to keep the terms of the GFA will give the message that the UK is an unreliable partner to deal with and a horrible neighbour
Click to expand...

I think the Irish already believe this from history, don't you?
There will not be any return to a hard border between North and South on the island of Ireland. The Irish (North and South) don't want it, the UK doesn't want it and the EU says it doesn't want it... so who is going to implement it?
 
Sassy Colin said:
All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?
Click to expand...

No there are not, especially north.

And so many come here because many places, such as warehouses advertise in their country, such as the place I work.

0 hour contracts are exploitative and insulting.
 
Sassy Colin said:
All this zero hours contract stuff is a red herring too. It's almost like people think there are 5 million people sitting at home, twiddling their thumbs, just hoping for the phone to ring.

Many people sign up exactly because it gives them flexibility in working. Those who want to work 35, or more, hours per week will be doing just that. It's a boon for working mums who want to work around their kids.

There are plenty of jobs, why do so many European foreigners come here, otherwise?
Click to expand...
Do you have any personal experience working on a zero hours contract out of interest?

Im interested in anyone that has tbh.
 
I see that both Liddington and Gove have distanced themselves from the PM job. Why anyone would want that job at the moment without a GE is beyond me.
 
Abizzz said:
Most newspapers (and trash that masquerades as newspaper) are money loosing businesses these days. They are kept alive to preserve their influence for those owning them. The owners of the Telegraph, Sun, Times, and Sunday Times (last 3 are all Murdoch) are all on record as pro Brexit.

They are no longer businesses in the traditional sense (they won't make money again, ever, by themselves), they are propaganda outlets for corporations with an agenda.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I now understand a crucial element which makes the Brexit possible

https://thebrexitsyndicate.com/2018/07/04/the-rupert-murdoch-empire/

In France, those who own the media are generally French with diverse activities in France, which explain why they are very pro-European.

Those who want more protectionism, nationalizations and sovereignty are severely demonized.

The 2 cases can't be compared because France has the Euro, which makes a Frexit just impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.