Brexit - The UK leaves the EU
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- 6,870 comments
- 301,748 views
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It was down to the Thatcher tax breaks in the 70s. And RHD/LHD was probably a far easier swap in those days.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,760
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Aviva and Natwest to move billions out of the UK.
Quite clear its Brexit related and will not be coming back.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-b...join-brexodus-of-business-to-eu-idUKKCN1Q81YW
Quite clear its Brexit related and will not be coming back.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-b...join-brexodus-of-business-to-eu-idUKKCN1Q81YW
What duty? No one voted to economically **** the country, they ignorantly voted to make it better.
If as it turns out that isn’t possible, why the **** would anyone continue?
The government had done no serious economic studies or anything even close to due diligence before carrying out this farce.
That’s not her duty, her duty is to make this country a better and ‘stronger’ place in the world by serving her people. She’s categorically and aggressively failed in her duties as leader of a nation.
- 29,379
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The trouble is, it is not possible to do a 'serious economic study' on the impact of a deal that hasn't even started to be negotiated yet - that doesn't excuse any lack of preparation (by either side) for a possible No Deal outcome, but it does explain the reason why the kind of analysis that most people would like to see cannot be done until the terms of a deal are agreed.
Explain to me in depth why this is the case please.
- 17,346
- United Kingdom
@Touring Mars The reason I asked for this, is because it isn't true. You can do a serious economic study (and people did), what differentiates it from other fields is that you cannot test economic theory in a laboratory. This leads to the false conclusion that you cannot predict anything economically.
It was clear, from the outset that Brexit would pose a serious economic threat to the country. Politically and economically it was clear that we would be at a disadvantage from the off, as so much of our trade is setup through the EU. This is something Farage and the other Brexiters' knew as they had been active in 'workshops' about how to actually leave the EU for some number of years. The conclusion after years of debate between Euroskeptics (across Europe) was that it wasn't feasible to leave the EU on favourable grounds. This is why their campaign was based on racist propaganda and lies. Any serious talk about the effects on the economy was shrugged off as part of 'project fear', yet now that it's coming to pass it's not just nonsense, it's 'a surprise' and something that was 'impossible to predict'.
As such, the Prime Minister has failed the country on a level unseen in living memory. The contempt she has shown and the blind stupidity on display during her time as leader has irrevocably damaged this country.
- 29,379
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
It would have helped if you had quoted me in full instead of selectively quoting to create a false impression.
I didn't just say "The trouble is, it is not possible to do a 'serious economic study'" - I said "The trouble is, it is not possible to do a 'serious economic study' on the impact of a deal that hasn't even started to be negotiated yet"... and when I said 'deal' here, I'm specifically talking about the UK's future trading relationship with the EU. Of course there have been serious studies on a wide range of possible scenarios, but my point is that the major source of uncertainty here originates from the order of negotiations and the Article 50 process itself. I agree, however, that it is fairly ludicrous to expect anyone to make permanent and legally binding commitments to a future trading relationship that hasn't even been discussed yet, but that the fault here lies as much with the EU as with anyone else - of course, the EU's object is to frustrate Brexit and hence not having a clear picture of what we can expect after Brexit is a very deliberate part of their strategy.
I agree, but that the eu was going to be playing hardball was clear.
First of they spent time and money negotiating a deal they knew was going to rub the citizens of other member states the wrong way. After which Cameron thinks it's a great idea to ask the nation if they want that deal or to leave the eu (a worse deal because why did we negotiate the other one before?) while thinking the people would be smart enough to realise that.
Which they apparently weren't,... because they believed that after voting to get out, I don't know, we would cave? I still can't see the line of thinking here.
All the while anti eu sentiment is growing, which in turn makes sure the UK needs to be used as an example.
In the above I'm not claiming what the eu does is ethicly correct in every way. What I do claim is that this was obvious from the start and anyone that didn't realise this was blinded by the lies or their ego about the UK being a world power going through the roof.
Why did people belief this was going to go britains way?
Why did cameron instal a referendum he knew could lead the country he sworn to serve down this dark path?
- 17,346
- United Kingdom
Because, he probably didn't think it would, and he needed to keep the euros-skeptic element of his party on side rather than risk loosing them to the UK independence party (UKIP), so the Tories could maintain power. Therefore he promised an EU referendum, and then was (reasonably) expected to deliver one.
I actually don't blame him for this, but I do think it should have been made clear it was to be an advisory referendum, and he should absolutely not have said (without legal basis) that we would honor the result.
- 29,379
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The fact is that a referendum is an advisory vote and not legally binding, but I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise of holding a referendum if you intend to ignore the result. In any case, it didn't really matter whether Cameron or anyone else said they would honor the result - it was put into the hands of MPs and they voted to trigger Article 50, not because they were legally obliged to, but because they were advised to do so by a majority of their constituents. Of course, I regret the outcome of the referendum, but I reckon it would have set a very dangerous precedent to hold a referendum on the basis that the result can be ignored - indeed, most MPs and campaigners on both sides were quite clear before the referendum that the result should be respected... but clearly, both sides expected to win and now many on the side that lost have now changed their tune.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/u...e/news/79094/vince-cable-hits-out-tim-farrons
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/...atic-way-out-of-the-brexit-maze-a4022561.html
Then why not hold a referendum before the negotiations?
Why first spend time and money and when that's done s now let's hold this contract above a fireplace and see if it's going to catch fire?
I think this was an irrespobsible move.
And he didn't think it would go that way but had to because people within his own party would leave otherwise is something that seems rather strange and close to double think.
Edit: I don't even know what 'side' you are on, so I don't blame you for any of this or I don't say what you posted isn't true. I just don't get how people accept this answer as an explanation.
- 17,346
- United Kingdom
I completely disagree, the fact that a referendum can either be legally binding or not dictates that the mechanism entirely exists to ignore the result... and I think it's irrelevant what precedent it sets unless we can also agree that charging ahead with an ill-conceived, ill-informed, marginal decision that directly overrules the wishes of two of the countries within the Kingdom, that was voted for based on an partially illegal campaign by a minority of the population ALSO sets a dangerous precedent... rather than simply stepping back and taking an open, pragmatic look at the situation. Setting a precedent where something is not legally binding but can be assumed to be is probably rather dangerous too.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,603
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
He needed a sop to keep the right of his party onside. He needed to try to stop his voters moving to Ukip. He didn't think he'd win. All the polls indicated a hung parliament. When he won he had a problem. He'd promised a referendum and it was in the manifesto. He couldn't avoid it from then on. How could he have done anything else?
- 17,346
- United Kingdom
I used to be a remainer, now I don't care about Brexit and will only be happy once Parliament is smoldering wreck collapsing into the Thames.
Whether people accept it now or not is kind of irrelevant. The people had 2, maybe 3 opportunities to have a say in this. When we elected DavCams conservative party, when we voted to leave the EU, and when we voted in Mays' conservative party after the referendum. With our democracy, the fact these things happened validates the process and the decision. If 'we' didn't accept it, 'we' should have voted against it*
*though with our system none of this was voted for by a majority of the people.
Again why didn't he clear this up before negotiating a deal with the eu?
I hear a lot of people say that a second referendum is not ok. Yet it's perfectly accepted to negotiate a deal to then say we're going to vote wheter we want a better one or not. And then somehow the people believed they'd actually get a better one of they voted to not uphold the negotiated deal?
I really don't get people. People in general.
I fundamentally can't understand how 'the people' always work themself into this foreseen **** and then act ****ing suprised as if no one warned them.
From a punative pov I agree with the eu's negotiating tactic.
Also why do ****tards always want to keep their rascist/xenofobic base? **** them move on and find a base that votes for your party that's more respectable.
To be clear belgiul has the same **** with NVA not willing to lose votes to VB. But I don't get that, I can't excuse certain idea's/statements people make but that doesn't seem an issue with other people. That's why I say I don't understand people.
Tired Tyres
Premium
- 12,603
- West Yorkshire
- Tired_Tyres
- Tired Tyres
- 29,379
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Yes, but the opportunity to ignore the result was presented to Parliament and was (IMO, correctly) rejected - the mechanism to respect the result also exists and that's what happened. MPs overwhelmingly voted to trigger Article 50 and that ended the debate on the referendum result itself.
But that was not the case - to the best of my knowledge, the referendum was never described or assumed to be legally binding by anyone... but triggering Article 50 is legally binding, and that was done by a large majority of MPs on the basis that most constituencies in the UK voted to leave the EU.
However, this pre-supposes the notion that the UK-EU negotiations prior to triggering Article 50 were going to fail. The decision made by the British people was not legally binding, but the vote(s) in Parliament are. The Leave campaign(s) claims and promises were, similarly, not binding - and have had no direct impact on how the UK Government and Parliament has conducted their negotiations with the EU. I agree, however, that it does send out a bad message to Scottish, Northern Irish and London voters who voted to remain and many of whom feel this justifies different treatment, but I disagree that it sets a precedent, since that has been the case for some time irrespective of Brexit i.e. the UK is sovereign, whereas Scotland, NI and London are not.
-
Warning: do not click on this link if you have a mouthful of coffee, as you may break your laptop...
https://www.qmul.ac.uk/media/news/2...-leads-to-hard-brexit-says-yvette-cooper.html
Last edited:
I trimmed the quote because you needlessly complicated it and tried to frame it as “well who could’ve know!?” When we all knew. I apologise if this wasn’t the intent, but this is how it read to me. The number of times I had to put up with ‘project fear’ being shouted at me and then told you can’t predict the economy, look at the 2008 crisis!
You can’t do a study on the possible deal(s)* when we have a government that wouldn’t at any point take any meaningful stance and a shadow government that’s only stance was; “we’ll do better than the other guys, for sure”.
The EU where clear from the outset what they wanted. They had the power and clearly defined demands. We had neither.
You can’t do a study on the possible deal(s)* when we have a government that wouldn’t at any point take any meaningful stance and a shadow government that’s only stance was; “we’ll do better than the other guys, for sure”.
The EU where clear from the outset what they wanted. They had the power and clearly defined demands. We had neither.
Last edited:
- 29,379
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Erm, no. You stripped it of context.
The fact is that there has been some dire predictions made that have already been proven wrong. Let me be clear here and state that I'm talking about the predictions of doom and gloom as a result of the referendum result itself. Even HM Treasury predicted that a vote to leave would 'represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy' and cost anywhere between 500,000-800,000 jobs losses and a drop in GDP of up to 6%. They could hardly have been more wrong.
That said, I don't doubt that a No Deal Brexit really will leave us relatively worse off* - but I don't buy the dire predictions being made by the Treasury and others that focus on worst-case scenarios, but especially when the future shape of our trading relationship with the EU hasn't even been discussed yet (and will not be until after Brexit).
* But even this is a relative term. As this LSE analysis points out, a 'loss of GDP' is defined in terms of 'Leave' v 'Remain' scenarios, e.g. a drop of 6% by 2030 relative to staying in the EU means that if the UK's economy were to grow 30% within the EU, our economy would grow by 24% outside the EU... in other words, still better off, but not as much as it might have been.
Last edited:
- 17,346
- United Kingdom
Once it was clear what the UK apparently wanted, the EU said that no negotiations could take place until we'd triggered article 50. Therefore we were only ever going to have 2 years to sort it out with the EU... unfortunately, we did not take the time to sort out the stability of our government first.
Well this is true, but the PM of the time still led the public to believe something would happen that neither legally had to nor would happen automatically, had the MP's voted not to trigger article 50, half the electorate would reasonably believe the PM had lied.
As for MP's voting strongly in favour of leaving... see my comment above about parliament and the Thames! And for the record, it's not that I hold this view because I disagree with the decision made, it's because I believe the people, and the system that puts those people in power are/is unfit for purpose.
Most people do not understand how a referendum works, I'm no expert, most of what I know I learned from reading links in this thread... but you must move in fairly enlightened circles if you've never spoken to anyone who didn't believe the government had to do what the people voted for.
IIRC, as I stated above, the EU said no negotiations until article 50 was triggered, so while clearly not a 'failure', still a dangerous and pivotal unknown. Clearly there was nothing our government could to about this, but they absolutely could have delayed article 50 until our government had sorted itself internally - instead of making the biggest decision I've ever seen them make after a decade of some of the weakest leadership mandates we've seen. 36 days to go, and we still look like a monkey ****ing a football.
You'd be worse off...
It's relatice to the state you'd be in, not relative to now, otherwise the argument 'being better off' is absolutely useless with the exception where you'd tank your economy into the stone ages...
Edit:
But I'm talking about the negotiations before the referenfum the ones finished before Cameron went ahead and called for a.referendum.
Why didn't he first hold a referendum and then based on those results negotiate either to leave or to stay.
No what he did was wast the eu's time with negotiations for a deal he then throws out the window because people voted to leave for all the wrong reason?
Why first negotiate tot then ask wheter to stay or not? He should have known this put him at a disadvantage entering the leave negotiations?
Last edited:
Context that was needless added. I stated that the PM had pushed us down the path of economic ruin, that this was predictable and preventable. You then stated that you cannot predict what would possibly have agreed in a future deal. This isn't what I was stating or even mentioned, by adding this stipulation you seem to be suggesting that this situation we find ourselves in is not wholly of our own making, which is false.
Correct, but again, you seem to be fighting the battles for the people who put us in this situation. People like this;
"There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside"
-David Davis, 10 October 2016
"The day after we vote to leave, we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want"
-Micheal Gove, 9 April 2016
"Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards"
-John Redwood, July 17 2016
"The free trade agreement that we will have to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history"
-Liam Fox, 20 July 2017
Further lies here
Lets look at the reality, Brexit will (and has) make us poorer.;
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/28/brexit-make-poorer-three-reports-britain-eu
As I originally stated, the government and the PM as leader of the government have categorically failed in every aspect of their jobs. They have rushed into something they don't understand, don't care to understand and something that has and will damage the British public and the country for a long time to come.
I also read that report, yet; UK economy set for worst year since financial crisis, says Bank of England
