How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
ORD said:
jsf said:
The UK paid a heavy price that didn't end on VE day for ridding the world of the Nazi regime.
It was the only choice, even though the people knew it would mean a destroyed infrastructure, a lost generation and an enormous financial burden on future generations.
You need help. That analogy makes you look either extremely stupid or slightly deranged. It was the only choice, even though the people knew it would mean a destroyed infrastructure, a lost generation and an enormous financial burden on future generations.
The Dangerous Elk said:
The third, four and that special No 5 referenda should be fun then.
Turning that on it's head, if Remain had initially won 52:48 we know that wouldn't really be the end of it "for a generation". What sort of circumstances (or time) do you feel would then make a second referendum appropriate/necessary? Obviously there's no need to wait for the result of the first to be implemented in that case...
Not point-scoring, just trying to understand opinions here.
ORD said:
psi310398 said:
Damage limitation for Remain? I think we'd all agree with that.
And bugger the majority who voted Leave.
I asked previously and I ask again, even if Remain were successful at overturning the result, what consequences do you imagine would ensue.
I assume you believe that we window-licking serfs will just shrug our shoulders, give up and retreat to our hovels, and just glare balefully at you gentry when pass by, all the while tugging our forelocks?
I think you'll be rapidly disabused of that notion.
Another Brexiteer classic. And bugger the majority who voted Leave.
I asked previously and I ask again, even if Remain were successful at overturning the result, what consequences do you imagine would ensue.
I assume you believe that we window-licking serfs will just shrug our shoulders, give up and retreat to our hovels, and just glare balefully at you gentry when pass by, all the while tugging our forelocks?
I think you'll be rapidly disabused of that notion.
‘If we don’t get Hard Brexit, we’ll smash everything up! Coz we’re well hard!’
Doesn’t sit terribly well with the argument that the Brexit mob on here are really Thinking Brexiteers with deeply held (but very unclear) feelings about different modes of economic alignment.
Where did I say anything about smashing things up?
You'd be hard pressed on principle to deny a call for another referendum and Leavers would return the Remainer favours in trumps and capitalise on every cock-up the government made (and the EU can be completely relied on to continue to provide bad news stories). Large parts of print media would be hostile to the government from the get go. And unless you plan on limiting the franchise to those who vote the "right" way, you can expect to see hundreds of incumbent MPs not returned to Parliament - if Remain prevails, the vote will fragment back to party lines and the Leavers are likely to coalesce around whoever can depose the incumbent.
Doesn't sound very violent to me but nor does it sound like peace in our time.
ORD said:
b
ks. It’s entirely irrelevant unless you meant to draw some analogy with the cost of leaving the EU. It would also be blisteringly obvious and not worth saying.
It was you who brought into the discussion the perilous state the UK was in post war, as if that was as a sole result of the UK being sks. It’s entirely irrelevant unless you meant to draw some analogy with the cost of leaving the EU. It would also be blisteringly obvious and not worth saying. t.Maybe you could explain how any nation that had paid such a heavy price in blood and treasure whilst receiving no compensation for that sacrifice could do better.
ORD said:
No, we didn’t. We flirted with economic collapse for decades. We were a shambles.
The 1950s saw a sustained rise in Living standards so not sure were you got the "decades" aspect from. GDP per head was $6.6K in 1947 and $8.6K in 1960.Rationing continued for so long in order to maintain our balance of payments and, probably, because once the government takes control over a particular area they are loath to let go.
ORD said:
jsf said:
Its not an anology. Its a statement of fact in response to your nonsense.
bks. It’s entirely irrelevant unless you meant to draw some analogy with the cost of leaving the EU. It would also be blisteringly obvious and not worth saying. ks.JagLover said:
If we leave with no deal whatsoever it will indeed be very disruptive, and you can be certain the EU will try and ensure it is as disruptive as possible . Sensible precautions will indeed include the army.
I am not willing to continue as a vassal state for the sake of a few months disruption and, as long as we are properly prepared, it is nothing to fear.
This country was not only cut off from Europe in WW2 it had uboats attacking ships bringing supplies from the rest of the world. But we survived, endured, and later prospered.
I am not willing to continue as a vassal state for the sake of a few months disruption and, as long as we are properly prepared, it is nothing to fear.
This country was not only cut off from Europe in WW2 it had uboats attacking ships bringing supplies from the rest of the world. But we survived, endured, and later prospered.
ORD said:
No, we didn’t. We flirted with economic collapse for decades. We were a shambles.
jsf said:
The UK paid a heavy price that didn't end on VE day for ridding the world of the Nazi regime.
It was the only choice, even though the people knew it would mean a destroyed infrastructure, a lost generation and an enormous financial burden on future generations.
It was the only choice, even though the people knew it would mean a destroyed infrastructure, a lost generation and an enormous financial burden on future generations.
psi310398 said:
Can you not help misrepresenting everything?
Where did I say anything about smashing things up?
You'd be hard pressed on principle to deny a call for another referendum and Leavers would return the Remainer favours in trumps and capitalise on every cock-up the government made (and the EU can be completely relied on to continue to provide bad news stories). Large parts of print media would be hostile to the government from the get go. And unless you plan on limiting the franchise to those who vote the "right" way, you can expect to see hundreds of incumbent MPs not returned to Parliament - if Remain prevails, the vote will fragment back to party lines and the Leavers are likely to coalesce around whoever can depose the incumbent.
Doesn't sound very violent to me but nor does it sound like peace in our time.
I apologise if I misunderstood.Where did I say anything about smashing things up?
You'd be hard pressed on principle to deny a call for another referendum and Leavers would return the Remainer favours in trumps and capitalise on every cock-up the government made (and the EU can be completely relied on to continue to provide bad news stories). Large parts of print media would be hostile to the government from the get go. And unless you plan on limiting the franchise to those who vote the "right" way, you can expect to see hundreds of incumbent MPs not returned to Parliament - if Remain prevails, the vote will fragment back to party lines and the Leavers are likely to coalesce around whoever can depose the incumbent.
Doesn't sound very violent to me but nor does it sound like peace in our time.
There’ll be massive political turmoil whatever happens. The Conservatives are dead in the water - it’s just choosing the particular type of collapse that they have.
ORD said:
sidicks said:
As many people have explained, there were many reasons for people choosing to vote to leave the EU.
Are you one of those people who wasn't well enough informed before making your decision?
Really? I thought it was now abundantly clear that every single Leave voter was absolutely insistent on leaving the Single Market and Customs Union? Just kidding: we all know that’s utter bAre you one of those people who wasn't well enough informed before making your decision?
ks for the reason you give.So it’s all up for grabs, and the softest of possible Brexits is the only rational outcome. It’s about damage limitation.
Remain set the rules, Remain said that if you leave, you must leave the SM/CU. Leave voters said 'OK then'.
Leave won, and the conservatives were re-elected on a manifesto confirming no SM/CU. The reason it was stated in the manifesto is because it was widely understood that thats exactly what Brexit would entail.
Over a year later you're still trying to re-write history and pretend that nobody said anything of the sort
Perhaps you need to re-watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
JagLover said:
The 1950s saw a sustained rise in Living standards so not sure were you got the "decades" aspect from. GDP per head was $6.6K in 1947 and $8.6K in 1960.
Rationing continued for so long in order to maintain our balance of payments and, probably, because once the government takes control over a particular area they are loath to let go.
This.Rationing continued for so long in order to maintain our balance of payments and, probably, because once the government takes control over a particular area they are loath to let go.
They wanted the same kind of control they had during wartime.
In West Germany on the other hand, economic minister Ludwig Erhard who had been lucky to stay out of jail under the Nazis abolished rationing in1948 against the direct advice of the occupiers and the economy took off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder
ORD said:
I apologise if I misunderstood.
There’ll be massive political turmoil whatever happens. The Conservatives are dead in the water - it’s just choosing the particular type of collapse that they have.
I really don't give a toss about the Tories or Labour. Both parties exist to serve the electorate. If they can't do that, they deserve to become extinct. There’ll be massive political turmoil whatever happens. The Conservatives are dead in the water - it’s just choosing the particular type of collapse that they have.
The turmoil that will be unleashed if one group of people gets away with determining that the free vote of someone they disagree with is worth less than their own will be on a completely different level.
I know plenty of Remainers who are aghast at May's behaviour. Because they can think. Stealing elections and referenda is a slippery slope. If it happens once, it can happen again.
Dr Jekyll said:
This.
They wanted the same kind of control they had during wartime.
In West Germany on the other hand, economic minister Ludwig Erhard who had been lucky to stay out of jail under the Nazis abolished rationing in1948 against the direct advice of the occupiers and the economy took off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder
The enormous injection of cash from the USA and the desire not to repeat the errors made after WW1 that created the conditions required for the rise of the Nazis played a major role in the subsequent success of Germany. They wanted the same kind of control they had during wartime.
In West Germany on the other hand, economic minister Ludwig Erhard who had been lucky to stay out of jail under the Nazis abolished rationing in1948 against the direct advice of the occupiers and the economy took off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtschaftswunder
amusingduck said:
ORD said:
sidicks said:
As many people have explained, there were many reasons for people choosing to vote to leave the EU.
Are you one of those people who wasn't well enough informed before making your decision?
Really? I thought it was now abundantly clear that every single Leave voter was absolutely insistent on leaving the Single Market and Customs Union? Just kidding: we all know that’s utter bAre you one of those people who wasn't well enough informed before making your decision?
ks for the reason you give.So it’s all up for grabs, and the softest of possible Brexits is the only rational outcome. It’s about damage limitation.
Remain set the rules, Remain said that if you leave, you must leave the SM/CU. Leave voters said 'OK then'.
Leave won, and the conservatives were re-elected on a manifesto confirming no SM/CU. The reason it was stated in the manifesto is because it was widely understood that thats exactly what Brexit would entail.
Over a year later you're still trying to re-write history and pretend that nobody said anything of the sort
Perhaps you need to re-watch this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fDn0MvcHQ4
Unbelievable!
ORD said:
Quite. But pretending that the UK was fine and dandy despite WW2 is rubbish. It crushed this country. If it shows anything of relevance, it’s that countries can take decades to recover from economic shocks.
And yet we fed the Germans until they were back on their feet (despite suffering rationing ourselves), established the NHS, reformed the education system and successfully decolonised all the while. Amazing what can be done with a bit of will...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff