Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Sharpe's Fox]

@Alf Bentley I understand your points and it was one I wrestled with during the campaign. Handing control to the likes of Liam Fox and Boris Johnson was a thought I didn't like but at least I know who they are and what they stand for. Some Tories I do like, especially David Davis. As for the pound shop Thatcher threatening to turn us into some Singapore of the west I don't think the electorate will ever go for that if they knew what it meant.

 

In my own head I came to the conclusion that the opportunity to break away from Thatcherism was there in that vote and it was a chance that wouldn't arise again should the vote got the wrong way. I understand you and many others are struggling with holding your nose and voting for a Corbyn led Labour Party but the opportunity is there for you none the less.

[Buce]

6 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

@Alf Bentley I understand your points and it was one I wrestled with during the campaign. Handing control to the likes of Liam Fox and Boris Johnson was a thought I didn't like but at least I know who they are and what they stand for. Some Tories I do like, especially David Davis. As for the pound shop Thatcher threatening to turn us into some Singapore of the west I don't think the electorate will ever go for that if they knew what it meant.

 

In my own head I came to the conclusion that the opportunity to break away from Thatcherism was there in that vote and it was a chance that wouldn't arise again should the vote got the wrong way. I understand you and many others are struggling with holding your nose and voting for a Corbyn led Labour Party but the opportunity is there for you none the less.

 

They will keep the electorate in blissful ignorance with a mixture of lies and disinformation, ably abetted by the Tory media.

 

Surely Brexit taught us that, if nothing else.

[davieG]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

They will keep the electorate in blissful ignorance with a mixture of lies and disinformation, ably abetted by the Tory media.

 

Surely Brexit taught us that, if nothing else.

Hasn't that always been the way with politicians?

I'd learn't that by the time I reached my mid-twenties.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

18 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

And that sums you up really.

You brought the subject of kissing up first. You can kiss them all before they leave, if you so wish.

[Alf Bentley]

 

A brief musical interlude for @Swan Lesta and @DANGEROUS TIGER 

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

@Alf Bentley I understand your points and it was one I wrestled with during the campaign. Handing control to the likes of Liam Fox and Boris Johnson was a thought I didn't like but at least I know who they are and what they stand for. Some Tories I do like, especially David Davis. As for the pound shop Thatcher threatening to turn us into some Singapore of the west I don't think the electorate will ever go for that if they knew what it meant.

 

In my own head I came to the conclusion that the opportunity to break away from Thatcherism was there in that vote and it was a chance that wouldn't arise again should the vote got the wrong way. I understand you and many others are struggling with holding your nose and voting for a Corbyn led Labour Party but the opportunity is there for you none the less.

 

We're all second-guessing the future. Ultimately, I just thought there was more chance of good living standards, quality of life and social harmony within the EU than outside. Plus capital is now largely global, so politics needs to head in that direction or big capital can just play countries off against one another, demanding lower corporate tax and more deregulation at the expense of the public.

 

If Brexit is a roaring success or the EU collapses or a triumphant Corbyn turns Brexit Britain into a socialist paradise, my second-guessing will be proved wrong. Even under the most optimistic scenario, though, I suspect the next 5-10 years will be tough - and in 10 years, I'll be either dead or heading onto the pension and my daughter will be of working age.

 

I reckon Brexit might embed Thatcherism more deeply in Britain. Our economy is very dependent on big global firms already. Even a lot of the domestic economy comprises subcontractors to big global firms or domestic businesses dependent on the spending of employees of big business. Likewise, much of the tax for public spending comes from big business and its employees or subcontractors. If business with Europe becomes less profitable, will we have to cut corporation taxes to keep those firms? And what will be the consequences of doing that - or of not doing it? Even if Corbyn were capable of winning an election (and I don't believe he is), then the days of building "socialism in one country" are long gone, I think. If Brexit goes seriously wrong a few years down the line, then voters might turn against the Tories, but will they necessarily turn to Labour? They might turn to some right-wing populist movement instead - UKIP or some new force. Reforming the EU was/is a better prospect, I reckon.

 

I agree with you about Davis. He seems one of the more balanced Tories, a bit more in touch with real life - and one of the minority of politicians who tries to answer interviewers' questions. There have been press reports that he's making a better impression on officials than his colleagues are. Gove and Fox just seem like overgrown clever-dick schoolboys who think it's a frightfully good jape to pose as right-wing intellectuals, while Boris is just an attention-seeking opportunist with an amusing vocabulary and persona. He seems strangely subdued recently, though....maybe he realises what he's done and that he'll have to own the consequences?

[Alf Bentley]

 

Not much comment about May putting security cooperation on the negotiating table....what do people reckon to that?

 

Are we seriously prepared to use that as a bargaining chip? 

 

I know that British security is reputed to be better than most other security services, so it's an area of strength.

But would we be ready to share less security with our neighbours, risking more ISIS attacks on the continent?

We may have better security services, but would presumably still run a greater risk of terrorist attacks in the UK, too, if our neighbours didn't share their information with us.

 

Even it's a negotiating tactic and the intention is not to follow through on the threat, will it really help foster positive negotiations and make the EU27 more likely to make concessions?

Could have the opposite effect, I reckon.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Not much comment about May putting security cooperation on the negotiating table....what do people reckon to that?

 

Are we seriously prepared to use that as a bargaining chip? 

 

I know that British security is reputed to be better than most other security services, so it's an area of strength.

But would we be ready to share less security with our neighbours, risking more ISIS attacks on the continent?

We may have better security services, but would presumably still run a greater risk of terrorist attacks in the UK, too, if our neighbours didn't share their information with us.

 

Even it's a negotiating tactic and the intention is not to follow through on the threat, will it really help foster positive negotiations and make the EU27 more likely to make concessions?

Could have the opposite effect, I reckon.

I think it shows there's no level to which this country won't sink. Then again I saw the Brexit campaigns so nothing new sadly

[Jon the Hat]

I see literally no basis for the fear that seems to be so prevalent at the moment.  There is no good reason why we shouldn't have what the government is looking for, a good relationship based on trade and plenty of interaction.

 

I think the government has made it completely clear that it wants the maximum security co-operation.  What makes you think it is up for negotiation Alf?  Everything needs a new agreement even if we are just continuing as is.  If anything the trade terms should be the easy bit, stuff like this needs to be part of a new deal.

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Not much comment about May putting security cooperation on the negotiating table....what do people reckon to that?

 

Are we seriously prepared to use that as a bargaining chip? 

 

I know that British security is reputed to be better than most other security services, so it's an area of strength.

But would we be ready to share less security with our neighbours, risking more ISIS attacks on the continent?

We may have better security services, but would presumably still run a greater risk of terrorist attacks in the UK, too, if our neighbours didn't share their information with us.

 

Even it's a negotiating tactic and the intention is not to follow through on the threat, will it really help foster positive negotiations and make the EU27 more likely to make concessions?

Could have the opposite effect, I reckon.

What makes you think we would not co-operate. I thought the letter was 100% clear on our intentions here.

[Jon the Hat]

If we end up without Scotland, We would remain the united Kingdom.  Wales and NI aren't leaving any time soon.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

What makes you think we would not co-operate. I thought the letter was 100% clear on our intentions here.

 

The letter explicitly links security cooperation to a trade deal, when the EU27 are saying that the Brexit divorce has to be dealt with before any trade deal is negotiated - and the trade deal could take years.

Maybe they'll agree to discuss the post-Brexit trade deal alongside the Brexit divorce, but there's no obligation to do so under Article 50 and the letter reads like a threat: no security deal / weaker cooperation if you don't do a trade deal alongside Brexit:

 

Letter: "The United Kingdom wants to agree with the European Union a deep and special partnership that takes in both economic and security cooperation. To achieve this, we believe it is necessary to agree the terms of our future partnership alongside those of our withdrawal from the EU. If, however, we leave the European Union without an agreement the default position is that we would have to trade on World Trade Organisation terms. In security terms a failure to reach agreement would mean our cooperation in the fight against crime and terrorism would be weakened".

 

Politicians and media across the UK, Europe and the US are interpreting it as a threat:

https://www.ft.com/content/7c4ad152-1490-11e7-80f4-13e067d5072c

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-03-29/may-s-opening-brexit-bid-to-tie-security-to-trade-hits-eu-wall

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/30/article-50-letter-pain-and-puzzlement-among-european-newspapers

http://news.sky.com/story/guy-verhofstadt-hits-out-at-theresa-may-over-security-deal-threat-10818121

"The EU Parliament's chief Brexit negotiator has told Sky News that Britain cannot "abuse" the security of citizens to get a favourable exit deal.Guy Verhofstadt said Theresa May's Article 50 letter was "very constructive generally" but that the security "threat" was unacceptable.He said: "A big mistake that we could make from both sides is to start with launching threats to each other. "I find the letter of Mrs May very constructive, generally, but there is also one threat in it, in saying 'look, we want also to co-operate with you on security issues in our common fight against terrorism but you have to give us a good deal on trade and economy'. "It doesn't work like that - you cannot use, or abuse, I should say, the security of citizens to have then a good deal on something else."

[Izzy]

I'm guessing that @Alf Bentley is well and truly back from his sabbatical then! 

You just can't keep a good man down 

[The Guvnor]

This topic is hilarious there is as much political posturing by remainers and leavers on here as there is between Theresa May and Guy Verhofstadt .

[Alf Bentley]

Just now, Izzy Muzzett said:

I'm guessing that @Alf Bentley is well and truly back from his sabbatical then! 

You just can't keep a good man down 

 

At a loose end today. Will try to stay away more in future as this is going to be a long, long rollercoaster ride. 

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

I think it shows there's no level to which this country won't sink. Then again I saw the Brexit campaigns so nothing new sadly

Theresa May was part of the remain campaign.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Emilio Lestavez said:

I think it shows there's no level to which this country won't sink. Then again I saw the Brexit campaigns so nothing new sadly

 

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Theresa May was part of the remain campaign.

 

He did use the plural.

 

No politician comes out of Brexit with any credit.

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

 

He did use the plural.

 

No politician comes out of Brexit with any credit.

Glad you noticed that. Regardless of my politics i think the whole affair was a shambles

[Spudulike]

A wise old man (well, actually a bloke from work) told me the secret of elections and in particular referendums is to back the losing side. It's makes your life so much easier afterwards when you can knit-pick, claim it's not in your name and say 'I told you so' when it all goes pear-shaped.

[Innovindil]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Not much comment about May putting security cooperation on the negotiating table....what do people reckon to that?

 

Are we seriously prepared to use that as a bargaining chip? 

 

I know that British security is reputed to be better than most other security services, so it's an area of strength.

But would we be ready to share less security with our neighbours, risking more ISIS attacks on the continent?

We may have better security services, but would presumably still run a greater risk of terrorist attacks in the UK, too, if our neighbours didn't share their information with us.

 

Even it's a negotiating tactic and the intention is not to follow through on the threat, will it really help foster positive negotiations and make the EU27 more likely to make concessions?

Could have the opposite effect, I reckon.

I think we were told that the UK could, rightfully, not cherry pick what we wanted. 

 

I think putting our security services on the table is a way to show it works both ways. 

 

Security costs money. Why promise access to it while our economy is being threatened? There are a lot of EU countries already not paying their fair share into NATO. Why should they be protected on the cheap? 

 

These negotiations will be dirty, there's no doubt about it. Personally, I don't like it, but I like rolling over and having my belly tickled less. If we're being threatened with tariffs, huge exit bills and the like, it makes sense to use the little we have to our advantage, and whilst they take a lot of stick, our security services are of genuine high quality. 

[Thracian]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Not much comment about May putting security cooperation on the negotiating table....what do people reckon to that?

 

Are we seriously prepared to use that as a bargaining chip? 

 

I know that British security is reputed to be better than most other security services, so it's an area of strength.

But would we be ready to share less security with our neighbours, risking more ISIS attacks on the continent?

We may have better security services, but would presumably still run a greater risk of terrorist attacks in the UK, too, if our neighbours didn't share their information with us.

 

Even it's a negotiating tactic and the intention is not to follow through on the threat, will it really help foster positive negotiations and make the EU27 more likely to make concessions?

Could have the opposite effect, I reckon.

We should continue to share our security. It's the right thing to do and there's perhaps more to gain from that than trying to use it as a bargaining tool. I don't want to see people murdered by terrorists in France or, say,  Brussels just because some EU big wigs might have it in for us. .      

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I think we were told that the UK could, rightfully, not cherry pick what we wanted. 

 

I think putting our security services on the table is a way to show it works both ways. 

 

Security costs money. Why promise access to it while our economy is being threatened? There are a lot of EU countries already not paying their fair share into NATO. Why should they be protected on the cheap? 

 

These negotiations will be dirty, there's no doubt about it. Personally, I don't like it, but I like rolling over and having my belly tickled less. If we're being threatened with tariffs, huge exit bills and the like, it makes sense to use the little we have to our advantage, and whilst they take a lot of stick, our security services are of genuine high quality. 

Out NATO contributions are a percentage of our GDP, if Europe wants to punish us and make our economy suffer then the money will be reduced and cuts will have to made.

 

Anyway it's all grandstanding, both sides are making demands that they know they won't get. It's all part of the negotiations.

[Thracian]

15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

This. There's no need to confuse "disinclined to help/assist to be a success and being concerned with uncertainty" with "wanting to fail".

Even now I believe there's a lot of people would welcome any and every chance to reverse our exit. There's no confusion. They would celebrate the failing of the process as enthusiastically as some Brexiteers celebrated the triggering of Article 50.

 

 

      

[Thracian]

22 hours ago, l444ry said:

Oh the irony! So all those wanting to "take back control" of our country will be finally getting their wish and taking back one that is only half the size it was before Brexit. 

 

I'm not sure size necessarily equates to the quality of a society. We're supposed to be a United Kingdom but I've never been completely convinced and Sturgeon gives the impression that she and a good proportion of Scots would love to be independent again.

Also a great many Northern Irish would like their own island reunited too, from what I can gather. Personally I think it would be a pity if the union broke up but sometimes there's no point fighting against the tide and permanently disgruntled neighbours.

Perhaps we'll end up with 70 million people having nothing much to do but act as guides in the tourist industry like the old coal miners and firemen from the steam engine days.        

[SMX11]

9 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

Worth having a definition of "neo-liberalism", as it's a word sometimes used as an ill-defined insult (I'm not accusing Sharpe's Fox of that).

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

"Neoliberalism (neo-liberalism)^[1] refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.^[2]:7 These include extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society.^{[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980".

The problem is nobody in power practices these polices other than somewhere like Hong Kong. The term Neo-Liberalism means nothing as it is overused and used to describe anything other than socialism.