How do we think EU negotiations will go?
Discussion
ORD said:
Nobody thinks that is a serious possibility, do they? Really?
Britain was an economic basket case for almost every year from 1945 until it joined the EU. It has no track record of economic success other than in the EU. You could point to the financial services boom and say that it was not caused by membership, which is fair enough, but the other side of that coin is that financial services is one of the sectors most at risk from Brexit.
Technically speaking the UK was an economic basket case after it joined as well. You could make the argument the economic changes the UK made had nothing to do with the EEC/EU.Britain was an economic basket case for almost every year from 1945 until it joined the EU. It has no track record of economic success other than in the EU. You could point to the financial services boom and say that it was not caused by membership, which is fair enough, but the other side of that coin is that financial services is one of the sectors most at risk from Brexit.
If you ask me none of it will make a lot of difference. Leaving the EU is neither an economic disaster long term or economic nirvana either. Some sort of trade deal is important but if something sensible is sorted in the next 1-5 years and established long term it won't make a huge impact.
Life goes on, business goes on. It will have a political impact but overall whether we do OK economically or not will depend more on other decision taken rather than our membership or non-membership of the EU.
Dr Jekyll said:
Totally different. The role of the opposition is to win the next election, not overturn the result of the previous one. If the remainers want a vote to rejoin the EU after we've left, fine, but the decision to leave in the first place still stands. You can't keep re running a vote until you get the result you want.
Seems fairly simple to understand. 
alfie2244 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Totally different. The role of the opposition is to win the next election, not overturn the result of the previous one. If the remainers want a vote to rejoin the EU after we've left, fine, but the decision to leave in the first place still stands. You can't keep re running a vote until you get the result you want.
Seems fairly simple to understand. If circumstances change, it is undemocratic not to have a 2nd vote. There is no analogy with GEs, but the answer is obvious from 1st principles. If you want to know what the public wants today, you ask them today, not 2 years ago.
Eddie Strohacker said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Totally different. The role of the opposition is to win the next election, not overturn the result of the previous one. If the remainers want a vote to rejoin the EU after we've left, fine, but the decision to leave in the first place still stands. You can't keep re running a vote until you get the result you want.
The role of the opposition is to hold the government to account & if you didn't know that, you really shouldn't even be here.ORD said:
alfie2244 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Totally different. The role of the opposition is to win the next election, not overturn the result of the previous one. If the remainers want a vote to rejoin the EU after we've left, fine, but the decision to leave in the first place still stands. You can't keep re running a vote until you get the result you want.
Seems fairly simple to understand. If circumstances change, it is undemocratic not to have a 2nd vote. There is no analogy with GEs, but the answer is obvious from 1st principles. If you want to know what the public wants today, you ask them today, not 2 years ago.
alfie2244 said:
The only party opposing the Govt and it's plans to leave the EU is the Libdums but they don't seem to have much support and didn't do too well in the recent GE. But once the original referendum result is enacted it is not unreasonable to campaign to rejoin, perhaps a new party a la UKIP (Party for UK in the EU - PUKEU).
Yes, Labour are a shambolic mess. Nonetheless, the role of the opposition is to hold the government to account. That is literally what they're for, not to win a forthcoming election as was claimed above.ORD said:
And fairly obviously wrong.
If circumstances change, it is undemocratic not to have a 2nd vote. There is no analogy with GEs, but the answer is obvious from 1st principles. If you want to know what the public wants today, you ask them today, not 2 years ago.
There is a fair argument that so little was known about the eventual outcome of Brexit at the vote, just a binary in or out, then a further referendum once it is known is not unreasonable. But, as there are no facility in A50 to rescind the withdrawal notice it would be an utter waste of time.If circumstances change, it is undemocratic not to have a 2nd vote. There is no analogy with GEs, but the answer is obvious from 1st principles. If you want to know what the public wants today, you ask them today, not 2 years ago.
PurpleMoonlight said:
There is a fair argument that so little was known about the eventual outcome of Brexit at the vote, just a binary in or out, then a further referendum once it is known is not unreasonable. But, as there are no facility in A50 to rescind the withdrawal notice it would be an utter waste of time.
Nah.If the UK said "Can we stay in despite Article 50, please?", the answer would be "Not sure technically whether you would have to leave and rejoin; it's all a bit complex. But, sod it, we can just amend the Treaty to make it work. Welcome back!".
The vote was a farce. A "Yes" vote meant so many different things to so many different people that it was almost literally meaningless. It was a dereliction of duty to ask the public such a stupid question.
PurpleMoonlight said:
There is a fair argument that so little was known about the eventual outcome of Brexit at the vote, just a binary in or out, then a further referendum once it is known is not unreasonable. But, as there are no facility in A50 to rescind the withdrawal notice it would be an utter waste of time.
The EU would rub their hands at the prospect I strongly believe. No matter, we're leaving - you touch on a Brexiteer fear though - changing public opinion. Within one page on here, we've been told we can't oppose it because the vote is over, it's unpatriotic to even think differently & fifty quid says leave would win again by more! All so transparent what goes on in their heads.ORD said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
There is a fair argument that so little was known about the eventual outcome of Brexit at the vote, just a binary in or out, then a further referendum once it is known is not unreasonable. But, as there are no facility in A50 to rescind the withdrawal notice it would be an utter waste of time.
Nah.If the UK said "Can we stay in despite Article 50, please?", the answer would be "Not sure technically whether you would have to leave and rejoin; it's all a bit complex. But, sod it, we can just amend the Treaty to make it work. Welcome back!".
The vote was a farce. A "Yes" vote meant so many different things to so many different people that it was almost literally meaningless. It was a dereliction of duty to ask the public such a stupid question.
Eddie Strohacker said:
The EU would rub their hands at the prospect I strongly believe. No matter, we're leaving - you touch on a Brexiteer fear though - changing public opinion. Within one page on here, we've been told we can't oppose it because the vote is over, it's unpatriotic to even think differently & fifty quid says leave would win again by more! All so transparent what goes on in their heads.
I agree.Brexit was always a conspiracy buy a fairly small number of right-wing nutters to co-opt the public for just long enough to get it through and then return to shafting them.
The idea that Bo Jo or Rees-Mogg or Farage gives a damn about the troubles of working class white people is laughable. All they needed was to use the worse prejudices and fears of the people against them: whip up some racism and cod patriotism for just long enough to get the Brexit vote and then try to steer the country hard to the right.
It would almost make sense (and would be in my interests as a high earner), if it were not for the fact that it is about 2% likely that the Tories will win any GE once the economic damage is done. No idea why they think the country will suddenly veer with them to the right.
Eddie Strohacker said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
There is a fair argument that so little was known about the eventual outcome of Brexit at the vote, just a binary in or out, then a further referendum once it is known is not unreasonable. But, as there are no facility in A50 to rescind the withdrawal notice it would be an utter waste of time.
The EU would rub their hands at the prospect I strongly believe. No matter, we're leaving - you touch on a Brexiteer fear though - changing public opinion. Within one page on here, we've been told we can't oppose it because the vote is over, it's unpatriotic to even think differently & fifty quid says leave would win again by more! All so transparent what goes on in their heads.alfie2244 said:
Eddie Strohacker said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
There is a fair argument that so little was known about the eventual outcome of Brexit at the vote, just a binary in or out, then a further referendum once it is known is not unreasonable. But, as there are no facility in A50 to rescind the withdrawal notice it would be an utter waste of time.
The EU would rub their hands at the prospect I strongly believe. No matter, we're leaving - you touch on a Brexiteer fear though - changing public opinion. Within one page on here, we've been told we can't oppose it because the vote is over, it's unpatriotic to even think differently & fifty quid says leave would win again by more! All so transparent what goes on in their heads.ORD said:
I agree.
Brexit was always a conspiracy buy a fairly small number of right-wing nutters to co-opt the public for just long enough to get it through and then return to shafting them.
The idea that Bo Jo or Rees-Mogg or Farage gives a damn about the troubles of working class white people is laughable. All they needed was to use the worse prejudices and fears of the people against them: whip up some racism and cod patriotism for just long enough to get the Brexit vote and then try to steer the country hard to the right.
It would almost make sense (and would be in my interests as a high earner), if it were not for the fact that it is about 2% likely that the Tories will win any GE once the economic damage is done. No idea why they think the country will suddenly veer with them to the right.
Brexit was always a conspiracy buy a fairly small number of right-wing nutters to co-opt the public for just long enough to get it through and then return to shafting them.
The idea that Bo Jo or Rees-Mogg or Farage gives a damn about the troubles of working class white people is laughable. All they needed was to use the worse prejudices and fears of the people against them: whip up some racism and cod patriotism for just long enough to get the Brexit vote and then try to steer the country hard to the right.
It would almost make sense (and would be in my interests as a high earner), if it were not for the fact that it is about 2% likely that the Tories will win any GE once the economic damage is done. No idea why they think the country will suddenly veer with them to the right.
ORD said:
Nobody thinks that is a serious possibility, do they? Really?
Britain was an economic basket case for almost every year from 1945 until it joined the EU. It has no track record of economic success other than in the EU. You could point to the financial services boom and say that it was not caused by membership, which is fair enough, but the other side of that coin is that financial services is one of the sectors most at risk from Brexit.
You are ignoring the state the nation was in post WW2. The UK was bankrupt after fighting the Nazi war machine, almost single handed for some of that period. It also had to manage the break up of the Empire, which was enormously expensive for the country at the time.Britain was an economic basket case for almost every year from 1945 until it joined the EU. It has no track record of economic success other than in the EU. You could point to the financial services boom and say that it was not caused by membership, which is fair enough, but the other side of that coin is that financial services is one of the sectors most at risk from Brexit.
The programs that have been aired this week on the partition of India 75 years ago have been really interesting in terms of how the UK was in a real mess at that time, as it managed to rebuild post WW2 whilst dealing with a rapidly changing world. It's not that long ago we finally paid off the last war loans with the USA.
It's incredibly naïve to think the UK would not have grown rapidly post those issues being resolved without being members of the EU, that's ignoring all the changes that came in the marketplace in the 80's too.
You are also ignoring the UK prior to WW2, we have been the richest and most powerful nation on earth, so where do you get the no track record of economic success outside of the EU from?
ORD said:
It is quite cringe-worthy when people laud democracy as though it is anything more than the least bad option. Referendums are absolutely notorious for being decided by the strength of the campaigns on either side, rather than the merits of the underlying issue.
Which side spent £9m of taxpayers money, had virtually all the establishment, and majority of the media on their side, and had 40yrs of "EU benefits" to draw from and yet, by your reckoning, ran the weaker campaign ? rhetorical obviously.alfie2244 said:
Which side spent £9m of taxpayers money, had virtually all the establishment, and majority of the media on their side, and had 40yrs of "EU benefits" to draw from and yet, by your reckoning, ran the weaker campaign ? rhetorical obviously.
Not as rhetorical as you would believe.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39075244
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-inform...
Eddie Strohacker said:
alfie2244 said:
Which side spent £9m of taxpayers money, had virtually all the establishment, and majority of the media on their side, and had 40yrs of "EU benefits" to draw from and yet, by your reckoning, ran the weaker campaign ? rhetorical obviously.
Not as rhetorical as you would believe.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39075244
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-inform...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff