[Politics] Brexit

[Dave the OAP]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news...5bNw5QdYR8QXqraA0CM8xM7bSc8HiMqrg89vXqIDdNnfc

 

[Baldseagull]

The stated aim of the EU is ever closer political and financial union - it's well published if you want to look. So the EU already has a currency and a bank - hindering Eurozone members from making their own independent financial decisions ( ask Greece and Italy ). So what would YOU suggest the phrase 'ever closer political and financial union' means if it isn't a United States of Europe. Ted Heath admitted that was and always has been the plan.

Brexiteers were sneered at during the campaign for suggesting an EU Army was on the cards ...... and now we have Macron and Merkel suggesting that should be the direction of travel ..... less than two years later.

And our current terms of membership allow us to not enter into any new treaty we don't want without detriment. UK law requires a referendum before the UK signs up to any new treaty or significant amendment to existing ones, if we wanted to join an EU army, there would be referendum on it.

 

[Baldseagull]

Is there anyone who actually thinks this withdrawal deal is good?

I think it is about as good as can be expected.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Is there anyone who actually thinks this withdrawal deal is good?

Yes

- it takes a catastrophic *No deal* off the table ( at least until transition end ).

- the political declaration is legally non binding so anything from unicorn farms to Norway+++++ is still in play and fightable for.

- despite economic downside there is ( believe it or not ) a democratic upside to Brexit. So Brexit is not *all bad*.

- I have no problem whatsoever 'taking' about 20% of EU regulations ( which we will have persuasive input into, but no vote ). In most trade deals you 'take' a little of what you don't like anyway.


- Any new referendum - which includes the apocalyptic *No deal* as an option - is a failure of the Government's duty of care to the population, and will be manipulated by bad foreign actor Information Warfare attacks anyway. And it won't unite anyone.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Someone has speculated that Boris' cronies withdrew their letters when Mogg made a big thing about sending his letter in to make the plum talking tosser look ( even more ) stupid.

He chose the leader in 2016. He has to live with it.

[tweet]1064862730098827264[/tweet]

 

[Baldseagull]

He chose the leader in 2016. He has to live with it.

[tweet]1064862730098827264[/tweet]

The guy that talks of this deal being a surrender, of vassalage, of becoming a slave state, is upset that his attempts to remove Theresa May are being "over egged" when referred to as a coup.

 

[pb21]

I think it is about as good as can be expected.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean its good.

Yes

- it takes a catastrophic *No deal* off the table ( at least until transition end ).

- the political declaration is legally non binding so anything from unicorn farms to Norway+++++ is still in play and fightable for.

- despite economic downside there is ( believe it or not ) a democratic upside to Brexit. So Brexit is not *all bad*.

- I have no problem whatsoever 'taking' about 20% of EU regulations ( which we will have persuasive input into, but no vote ). In most trade deals you 'take' a little of what you don't like anyway.


- Any new referendum - which includes the apocalyptic *No deal* as an option - is a failure of the Government's duty of care to the population, and will be manipulated by bad foreign actor Information Warfare attacks anyway. And it won't unite anyone.

I largely agree with these points, although this still seems like you are saying it is better than the other options, rather than intrinsically good?

If there was a three way referendum:

This deal
No deal
Remain

I suspect this deal would get least support, despite 'no deal' obviously being the worst outcome.

If there was a two way referendum, or you were an MP, you would be forced to choose between the two. If it were me I would be forced to choose this deal, even though I think it isn't good. Due to the backstop arrangement and not having the ability to unilaterally stop this, puts us in a weak negotiating position and would mean that we will cede sovereignty if this pans out (something some brexit people think we took back). That aspect alone will incentivise us to take a worse long term deal.

At best this is the least bad option, at worse will likely mean we get a poorer future deal than we could otherwise get, or cede sovereignty.

 

[pastafarian]

You didn't notice the caveats then that made up the majority of my comment, and just saw "one referendum would do"?

If Remain had won and it transpired that a massive donor to the campaign looked like he may have been using foreign money and acting on behalf of a foreign power, or that the demographic was such that within 3 years the Leave voters outnumbered the Remain voters, or that bullshit was created and targeted using illegal data harvested from Facebook, as much as I would not want it, it would be hard to argue that we should not do it again fairly soon.
There would be less of a time pressure in the reverse outcome, and we could wait for a general election to see if a party standing on a referendum promise would win, without the situation becoming worse.
If we could rejoin on the same terms we have now, I might be willing to leave and wait till a general election to see if a party standing on rejoining could win, but as you know, the terms would be worse, I believe we will rejoin in the future despite this though. I am trying to preserve the excellent terms we have now, and avoid the disruption and stunting of the UK.

Actually it sounds like you are a bit worried about rejoining in the future if you are desperate to avoid having to ask the public if they want to rejoin when terms will be worse. Wont the public realise how wonderful the EU is even when we lose our opt outs and rebate, wont they still be ecstatic about joining the EU when they know the terms of accession as a new joiner will make us work toward adopting the EURO, what about if further groundwork for a future EU army is in place through PESCO……..……….yeah I don’t think so either, no wonder you are all desperate to stop brexit now

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Maybe, but that doesn't mean its good.



I largely agree with these points, although this still seems like you are saying it is better than the other options, rather than intrinsically good?

If there was a three way referendum:

This deal
No deal
Remain

I suspect this deal would get least support, despite 'no deal' obviously being the worst outcome.

If there was a two way referendum, or you were an MP, you would be forced to choose between the two. If it were me I would be forced to choose this deal, even though I think it isn't good. Due to the backstop arrangement and not having the ability to unilaterally stop this, puts us in a weak negotiating position and would mean that we will cede sovereignty if this pans out (something some brexit people think we took back). That aspect alone will incentivise us to take a worse long term deal.

At best this is the least bad option, at worse will likely mean we get a poorer future deal than we could otherwise get, or cede sovereignty.

It is not great, for sure.

But it does leave options open, and cool pragmatic heads to prevail.

Let's have less of this Us and Them Project Blame nonsense. At least one of the High Priests of this antagonistic approach - Mr Raab - has left the building.

 

[melias shoes]

Austrian company Easyjet?

Operating via UK, Switzerland and Austria.

 

[Butch Willykins]

Understand what trading under WTO rules means yet ? (You know, the whole basis of the 'no deal' you still think is a runner)

Stop stalking me you nause

 

[beorhthelm]

Is there anyone who actually thinks this withdrawal deal is good?

other than arguing over half a dozen points, probably. those half dozen points are of course the most difficult and contentious, but it seems unsolvable with a working agreement.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Ok. Why is a united states of Europe bad?

We'd lose over control of the following areas :

> Fiscal and monetary policy
> National taxation
> Benefits
> Defence
> Environmental policy
> Immigration policy

To name but a few. The UK would have as much control of what happens in the UK as B&H Council does in Brighton and Hove.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

[tweet]1064600922528075777[/tweet]

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Is there anyone who actually thinks this withdrawal deal is good?

Not even the leading Brexiteers think it is.

[tweet]1064503449272885248[/tweet]

 

[Stat Brother]

other than arguing over half a dozen points, probably. those half dozen points are of course the most difficult and contentious, but it seems unsolvable with a working agreement.

A little while ago, on 5Live, they were talking to a football agent. (I can't remember if it was Brexit specific or it just came up)

Anyhoo he said it was crazy for us to go into these negotiations without a 'professional team', civil servants and Davies was never going to get the job done.
He went onto explain what he would had done, after the team was put together.
I can't remember the specifics but Davies gave away reasonably minor (in the whole scheme of things) early, and then kept delaying the difficult stuff.

The agent in question talked a good fight, basically saying the UK should have done the exact opposite to what it actually did, acknowledging the deal at the end wouldn't please everybody, but they'd have got there sooner, giving less away.

 

[Stat Brother]

We'd had over control of the following areas :

> Fiscal and monetary policy
> National taxation
> Benefits
> Defence
> Environmental policy
> Immigration policy

To name but a few. The UK would have as much control of what happens in the UK as B&H Council does in Brighton and Hove.

I'm going to say "no, that just wouldn't happen" and hope someone else comes in with an actual reasoned explanation as to why.

 

[pb21]

other than arguing over half a dozen points, probably. those half dozen points are of course the most difficult and contentious, but it seems unsolvable with a working agreement.

It seems a bit Kafkaesque that we are going to get something that most people don’t really want (IMO) and at the same time something that we supposedly voted for.

 

[Baldseagull]

Actually it sounds like you are a bit worried about rejoining in the future if you are desperate to avoid having to ask the public if they want to rejoin when terms will be worse. Wont the public realise how wonderful the EU is even when we lose our opt outs and rebate, wont they still be ecstatic about joining the EU when they know the terms of accession as a new joiner will make us work toward adopting the EURO, what about if further groundwork for a future EU army is in place through PESCO……..……….yeah I don’t think so either, no wonder you are all desperate to stop brexit now

The terms will be lesser, and we may not rejoin, but if we do not, it will be because we have ended up with something that looks very much like Norway or Switzerland. If we try and stick to your version of Brexit, we will be back within 10 years.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Why would we lose those? And even in an extreme scenario, which seems to be the one you are painting, we would still have control over those things. Why would a USE not want to control any of those things!? Name one country that does not?

That's the point of a 'United States' though. To take policies that cover all 'members' and control them centrally. That's why Eurozone members gave away control on monetary policy to the ECB when they joined the Euro. The items I list are controlled centrally in the USA, Australia and were in the USSR. What would be the point of heading towards an USE if it isn't to provide a consistant policy on those items ?