Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Nick]

46 minutes ago, bovril said:

I'll be honest, I find Alf's posts tedious and get a sinking feeling whenever I see he's posted.

 

[The Doctor]

49 minutes ago, MattP said:

Our membership of the European Union didn't and never has just boiled down to how EU law has shaped British law, we need no lecture nor guidance on things like that when you put the standards our nation has set compared to those on the continent over the last millenia.

As for the second line, parliament never gets it wrong do they? The problem with that sort of thinking is you allow them to vote on something a lot of them become directly involved in. How can some members of parliament (Stephen Kinnock springs to mind) have a completely unbiased viewpoint on something that has made his family very, very wealthy? There is no reason to believe some would vote in what was good for themselves rather than the people they represent, you can never be a judge in your own court case, to quote 'the Mogg', we need to indulge in the floccinaucinihilipilification of such practice.

 

History is littered with decisions parliament have made that the public wouldn't have that have been disastrous, for all we know this could have turned out to be another one had they not thrown it over to us.

Didnt say it just boiled down to that, but anyone who pretends that EU law isnt a massive part of our membership (or indeed the membership of any state) would likely struggle to pour water out a boot with instructions on the heel tbh. 

 

Parliament get things wrong, but as a proportion of the decisions they make, far fewer than the public, and given opinion polls on things like the death penalty, far fewer than the public likely would have given enough votes to be statistically significant.

 

Our membership has shaped the country far too much for anyone to be impartial, so that point is rather irrelevant.

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, bovril said:

I'll be honest, I find Alf's posts tedious and get a sinking feeling whenever I see he's posted.

 

 

That buzz of excitement just never penetrated the Balkan icon-hugging micro-clique, did it?

Still, at least that makes two of us. 

I get a sinking feeling whenever I realise how long I've spent composing tedious posts on FT. 

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

Even more worrying for the Brexiteers

 

https://pic.twitter.com/VWTRl2pdo5

Isn't that worrying for everyone and totally irrelevant to brexit?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Isn't that worrying for everyone and totally irrelevant to brexit?

Yes. But why make things worse?

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Yes. But why make things worse?

We haven't left yet and it's going down. How is leaving going to make it worse? We're still going to trade with Europe and the rest of the world after we've left.

 

Also saying trade has now peaked is a stupid statement. There are peaks and troughs all the way along that graph. Trade could quite easily go up again.

[Steven]

21 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Isn't that worrying for everyone and totally irrelevant to brexit?

No especially when taken in conjunction with the Free Trade deals concluded graph. It should be read as an environment where trade is going down and where the appetite for trade deals is also going down. Not an environment where getting new trade and concluding new trade deals is likely or easy as some Brexiteers would have you believe.

 

Indeed, ironically, the anti-establishment feeling that fuelled Brexit is one of the main reasons for a growing protectionism sentiment is so many countries around the world.

[Barky]

On the other hand you could say it shows a world where world trade as a percentage of gdp is about as high as it has ever been and hundreds and hundreds of trade deals are in place all over the world.

[Guest MattP]

56 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

Yes. But why make things worse?

If it's going to be harder to do these deals then it will make it better not worse, we'll be able to do them ourselves not having to worry they might collapse because a small province in Belgium that's nothing to do with us sees something wrong with it.

 

If these deals are going to be hard we'll be in a far better position, even more so given we would be attached to a continent starting to really suffer financially. If anyone watched Marr on Sunday the Colombian President was fantastic, no negativity, said he hopes for a free trade deal with Britain and he hopes it will be better than he could have got with the EU, if everyone has that attitude we'll be absolutely fine, posters like Steven want us to fail in these things as he's so desperate to be proved right on the referendum, hence why he only posts what he thinks are negative stories.

 

The only problem we have is making sure our trade with Europe can continue tariff free, the graph posted is completely irrelevent to anything when you actually think about it.

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

No especially when taken in conjunction with the Free Trade deals concluded graph. It should be read as an environment where trade is going down and where the appetite for trade deals is also going down. Not an environment where getting new trade and concluding new trade deals is likely or easy as some Brexiteers would have you believe.

 

Indeed, ironically, the anti-establishment feeling that fuelled Brexit is one of the main reasons for a growing protectionism sentiment is so many countries around the world.

Looking at that graph it seems to start going down around 08/09 the time of the crash so it's hardly surprising that trade went down a bit. Parts of the Eurozone are barely just recovering now. It make no difference to brexit at all.

[Barky]

Tories have been talking big on investing in infrastructure in the wake of brexit but they dont have the bottle

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-37908735

 

Interesting day to choose to renege on your promises as well, not buried quite well enouh though, perhaps should have waited til the morning

[Sharpe's Fox]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37910431

 

just a glimpse of what could start to happen with a EU signed up to TTIP

[Steven]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/09/uk-trade-deficit-widens-september-exports-fall-pound-drop

 

UK trade deficit widens unexpectedly as exports fall despite pound drop

Goods trade deficit rose in September by £1.6bn to £12.7bn with exports falling by £200m despite many goods being cheaper

 

Britain’s trade deficit with the rest of the world widened unexpectedly in September as the sharp fall in the pound since the Brexit vote failed to boost exports.

[Spudulike]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/09/uk-trade-deficit-widens-september-exports-fall-pound-drop

 

UK trade deficit widens unexpectedly as exports fall despite pound drop

Goods trade deficit rose in September by £1.6bn to £12.7bn with exports falling by £200m despite many goods being cheaper

 

Britain’s trade deficit with the rest of the world widened unexpectedly in September as the sharp fall in the pound since the Brexit vote failed to boost exports.

" Although the pound fell sharply after the Brexit vote, the ONS said there was little direct evidence so far of currency effects on trade."

 

" In the three months to September, Britain's economy slowed much less than most economists had expected, with signs that it was supported by continued robust consumer spending."

 

BBC

[Guest MattP]

So how do we think a Trump Presidency impacts on this?

 

I'll miss out points about controlling borders, jobs, infrastructure etc as that was already done in the EU referendum but with regards to Trump being elected, it should certainly help us post-Brexit, for a start we do now have a leader that likes Britain and says he wants to trade with us, rather than one who was so arrogant he was prepared to come over to these shores and threaten us that we'll be at the back of the queue if we didn't do what he said.

 

Although I think the real benefit for us here could be that the EU takes it's eye off the ball, Brexit may not even be now the biggest crisis it faces now, Merkel's reception to him was very lukewarm and with his previous statements about Europe "not paying it's way" on things like NATO it's a problem they might have to finally address, Obama and Clinton would have looked the other way, no guarantee Trump will.

 

If Newt Gingrich is appointed Secretary of State, which is possible, we could have all sorts of fun and games (and by that I mean realpolitik and war) he's openly said things along the lines of how he couldn't less if Russia made incursions onto ex-Soviet states, if America doesnt take it's committment to NATO seriously, it becomes a lot more likely Russia will happily make it's incursions and it could be upto this "EU Army" to defend it, something we'll absolutely be delighted to be out of.

 

TTIP has now gone, finito, no way is Trump going to follow that up so again , with our position and providing the promise is kept that we are "at the front of the queue" for our trade deal, we all of a sudden look far better out than in, it also shows what a shrewd appointment Liam Fox is as trade minister, has to be complete luck from Theresa May but this a man who has a lot of links and friends in the Republican party.

[Innovindil]

A trump presidency could be the best thing to happen to post-brexit Britain. 

 

In the massively optimistic view, if he keeps to his word and puts us first in line for a trade deal then that could lead to good things. 

 

Securing a decent trade deal with USA and China would give us a good base for negotiations with the eu, since we wouldn't be so dependant on them. 

 

If, and it's a giant if, we manage to keep the left wing "OMG WE CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT THE SINGLE MARKET" in check, secure a fair deal with the eu then carry on to deals with the rest of the world (Canada, India, Australia etc etc). And then invest heavily in this country's infrastructure (like the hs2, 3rd runway etc etc) then May's view of being a genuine global trade hub could be realised. 

 

But considering all of this is dependant on the word of what is essentially a mad man, and cooperation between us and a country we've already insulted this year by saying we don't really trust them with a nuclear power plant, then it could all be a pipe dream. 

 

Interesting times ahead. 

[Buce]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

So how do we think a Trump Presidency impacts on this?

 

I'll miss out points about controlling borders, jobs, infrastructure etc as that was already done in the EU referendum but with regards to Trump being elected, it should certainly help us post-Brexit, for a start we do now have a leader that likes Britain and says he wants to trade with us, rather than one who was so arrogant he was prepared to come over to these shores and threaten us that we'll be at the back of the queue if we didn't do what he said.

 

That depends on how forgiving he is of Boris Johnson; May wasn't exactly complimentary to him either.

 

Although I think the real benefit for us here could be that the EU takes it's eye off the ball, Brexit may not even be now the biggest crisis it faces now, Merkel's reception to him was very lukewarm and with his previous statements about Europe "not paying it's way" on things like NATO it's a problem they might have to finally address, Obama and Clinton would have looked the other way, no guarantee Trump will.

 

It's possible that this might strengthen plans for an EU army, once it dawns on Europe that we can't hide behind the Yanks anymore. With Russia possibly having a free-hand in the Baltics, Europe will have to commit to spending more and more on arms. More arms and increasing nationalism is an undesirable mix. imo.

 

If Newt Gingrich is appointed Secretary of State, which is possible, we could have all sorts of fun and games (and by that I mean realpolitik and war) he's openly said things along the lines of how he couldn't less if Russia made incursions onto ex-Soviet states, if America doesnt take it's committment to NATO seriously, it becomes a lot more likely Russia will happily make it's incursions and it could be upto this "EU Army" to defend it, something we'll absolutely be delighted to be out of.

 

What America does regarding fulfilling its NATO obligations, is neither here nor there as far as we're concerned. We are still a member of NATO and have our own obligations to give military aid to any member nation that is attacked. Unless we are prepared to break a treaty (and surely that would go against everything that you believe about this 'great' country), if Putin invades a Balkan state, we are obliged to respond, with or without the bloody Yanks. Again.

 

 

 

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

On ‎08‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 15:22, Webbo said:

We haven't left yet and it's going down. How is leaving going to make it worse? We're still going to trade with Europe and the rest of the world after we've left.

 

Also saying trade has now peaked is a stupid statement. There are peaks and troughs all the way along that graph. Trade could quite easily go up again.

Exactly this.

[davieG]

Some MPs 'ready to vote against triggering Brexit'

By Ross HawkinsPolitical correspondent, BBC Radio 4 Today

3 hours ago

 

From the sectionUK Politics

Share

Image copyrightAFP

Image captionThe High Court ruled that MPs must vote on whether the UK can start the process of Brexit

Liberal Democrat, Labour and SDLP MPs have told the BBC they are prepared to vote against triggering Article 50.

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said his party would oppose it, unless they were promised a second referendum on the UK's Brexit deal with EU leaders.

Several Labour MPs are also willing to vote against it, despite the Labour Party pledging not to do so.

The government says it will stick to its timetable and begin the process of leaving the EU by the end of March.

With the support of Conservative MPs and the support or abstention of most Labour MPs, the bill is well placed to pass through the Commons.

But the opposition of some MPs is likely to embolden critics in the House of Lords.

'Red line'

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a referendum on the outcome of the government's negotiations with EU, but only now have they said they will definitely vote against Article 50 if their demand is not met.

Mr Farron, whose party has eight MPs in the Commons, told BBC Radio 4's Today: "Article 50 would proceed but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal and if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government."

Image copyrightPA

Image captionTim Farron wants a second referendum on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations

For Labour, shadow minister Catherine West, former leadership contender Owen Smith and south London MP Helen Hayes all made clear they were prepared to vote against Article 50 - which begins formal exit negotiations with the EU - if amendments were not accepted.

Former Labour minister David Lammy and shadow transport minister Daniel Zeichner have said they would oppose Article 50. Opposition whip Thangam Debbonaire said she would also vote against it, if a vote were held imminently.

The SNP's 54 MPs may join them. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said they will not vote for anything that undermines the will of the Scottish people, and has previously said they will vote against a bill to write EU provisions into British law to prepare for Brexit.

'Genuine distress'

Dulwich Labour MP Hayes said she was prepared to defy Labour whips to oppose the measure unless the government promised a second referendum.

She said: "I had somebody in my surgery last week who was in tears because of Brexit and I see genuine distress amongst my constituents about what this path means.

"I would not be representing them if I voted to trigger Article 50 on the basis of no information from the government about the path that they would then take us on."

In posts on Twitter and Facebook earlier this week, shadow Foreign Office minister Catherine West wrote: "As I have said before, I stand with the people of Hornsey & Wood Green, and I will vote against Brexit in Parliament."

'Unconditional' support

Owen Smith confirmed to Today that if his bid for a second referendum failed, he was likely to oppose the bill.

The SDLP's three MPs will also oppose the measure.

Last week the High Court ruled Parliament must be consulted about leaving the European Union.

Unless the Supreme Court overturns the judgement in December, a bill to invoke Article 50 is expected in the new year.

Labour made clear its official position would be not to frustrate the process of leaving the EU after a newspaper report said the party leader Jeremy Corbyn intended to force a general election unless ministers caved in to demands.

After the story broke Labour sources said that while it would seek to amend the bill, it would provide "unconditional" support.

Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said Labour would not frustrate the process and would not vote down Article 50.

However, Labour and Liberal Democrat peers will try to amend the bill in the House of Lords. So too will one Conservative peer - Baroness Wheatcroft.

[Guest MattP]

3 hours ago, davieG said:

Some MPs 'ready to vote against triggering Brexit'

By Ross HawkinsPolitical correspondent, BBC Radio 4 Today

3 hours ago

 

From the sectionUK Politics

Share

Image copyrightAFP

Image captionThe High Court ruled that MPs must vote on whether the UK can start the process of Brexit

Liberal Democrat, Labour and SDLP MPs have told the BBC they are prepared to vote against triggering Article 50.

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said his party would oppose it, unless they were promised a second referendum on the UK's Brexit deal with EU leaders.

Several Labour MPs are also willing to vote against it, despite the Labour Party pledging not to do so.

The government says it will stick to its timetable and begin the process of leaving the EU by the end of March.

With the support of Conservative MPs and the support or abstention of most Labour MPs, the bill is well placed to pass through the Commons.

But the opposition of some MPs is likely to embolden critics in the House of Lords.

'Red line'

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a referendum on the outcome of the government's negotiations with EU, but only now have they said they will definitely vote against Article 50 if their demand is not met.

Mr Farron, whose party has eight MPs in the Commons, told BBC Radio 4's Today: "Article 50 would proceed but only if there is a referendum on the terms of the deal and if the British people are not respected then, yes, that is a red line and we would vote against the government."

Image copyrightPA

Image captionTim Farron wants a second referendum on the outcome of the Brexit negotiations

For Labour, shadow minister Catherine West, former leadership contender Owen Smith and south London MP Helen Hayes all made clear they were prepared to vote against Article 50 - which begins formal exit negotiations with the EU - if amendments were not accepted.

Former Labour minister David Lammy and shadow transport minister Daniel Zeichner have said they would oppose Article 50. Opposition whip Thangam Debbonaire said she would also vote against it, if a vote were held imminently.

The SNP's 54 MPs may join them. First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has said they will not vote for anything that undermines the will of the Scottish people, and has previously said they will vote against a bill to write EU provisions into British law to prepare for Brexit.

'Genuine distress'

Dulwich Labour MP Hayes said she was prepared to defy Labour whips to oppose the measure unless the government promised a second referendum.

She said: "I had somebody in my surgery last week who was in tears because of Brexit and I see genuine distress amongst my constituents about what this path means.

"I would not be representing them if I voted to trigger Article 50 on the basis of no information from the government about the path that they would then take us on."

In posts on Twitter and Facebook earlier this week, shadow Foreign Office minister Catherine West wrote: "As I have said before, I stand with the people of Hornsey & Wood Green, and I will vote against Brexit in Parliament."

'Unconditional' support

Owen Smith confirmed to Today that if his bid for a second referendum failed, he was likely to oppose the bill.

The SDLP's three MPs will also oppose the measure.

Last week the High Court ruled Parliament must be consulted about leaving the European Union.

Unless the Supreme Court overturns the judgement in December, a bill to invoke Article 50 is expected in the new year.

Labour made clear its official position would be not to frustrate the process of leaving the EU after a newspaper report said the party leader Jeremy Corbyn intended to force a general election unless ministers caved in to demands.

After the story broke Labour sources said that while it would seek to amend the bill, it would provide "unconditional" support.

Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said Labour would not frustrate the process and would not vote down Article 50.

However, Labour and Liberal Democrat peers will try to amend the bill in the House of Lords. So too will one Conservative peer - Baroness Wheatcroft.

 

Parody of themselves now, every issue, I've got a upset constituent so I'm having to vote this way, just show some balls and admit you don't agree with the decision the people took so you are going to override it, don't hide behind thing.

 

Farron needs to do the honourable thing and remove the word "Democrats" from his party as well.

[Steven]

UK construction at weakest level for four years as housebuilding stalls

Official data echoes reports from builders of growing economic uncertainty following vote to leave the EU

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/11/housebuilding-stalls-britain-eu-construction

[Spudulike]

3 hours ago, Steven said:

UK construction at weakest level for four years as housebuilding stalls

Official data echoes reports from builders of growing economic uncertainty following vote to leave the EU

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/nov/11/housebuilding-stalls-britain-eu-construction

ONS statistician Kate Davies said. "Construction output has remained broadly flat in the last year, both before and after the recent referendum."

bbc

It's all about how it's spun

[foxinexile]

This is an interesting article:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-freedom-of-movement-passport-how-to-keep-parliament-live-move-abroad-a7405196.html

 

Strangely Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign, is apparently very unhappy at the thought of people being allowed to keep the rights enjoyed by EU citizens if they wish. Makes me wonder why? 17.4 million people got what they wanted. Why should 16 million people not be allowed to keep what they want? I'm not sure quite how it affects her, but it's an interesting idea all the same. Whether it happens (which I doubt to be honest), it'd be interesting to see what the take-up of this would be. More than 16 million I imagine.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

This is an interesting article:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizenship-freedom-of-movement-passport-how-to-keep-parliament-live-move-abroad-a7405196.html

 

Strangely Jayne Adye, director of the Get Britain Out campaign, is apparently very unhappy at the thought of people being allowed to keep the rights enjoyed by EU citizens if they wish. Makes me wonder why? 17.4 million people got what they wanted. Why should 16 million people not be allowed to keep what they want? I'm not sure quite how it affects her, but it's an interesting idea all the same. Whether it happens (which I doubt to be honest), it'd be interesting to see what the take-up of this would be. More than 16 million I imagine.

"Brexit campaigners in Britain reacted with anger to the idea, arguing that it would discriminate against Leave voters and that it was “an outrage”."

 

Jesus wept!

[bovril]

8 minutes ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

"Brexit campaigners in Britain reacted with anger to the idea, arguing that it would discriminate against Leave voters and that it was “an outrage”."

 

Jesus wept!

I find the whole debate completely surreal by now.