If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
And how short-sighted would that be? It would set back the cause of supra-national bodies decades....
I'm sorry, have I misunderstood you? Are you arguing that because bad things will happen to us, the EU will agree to our terms? That's not going to work.
I'm arguing that the idea of being tied into supra-national bodies will seem far less attractive if it seems you can never leave them, even with a democratic mandate to do so. Who else is going to look at the EU and think "Great!!"? They can wave goodbye to the likes of Norway or Switzerland ever wanting to join. (They've already thrown Turkey under the bus....)
Would serve you right for supporting her when she came out with Chequers.
You labour under the delusion that we have the power to change things (absent an election). We are people posting on the internet and none of us are in the Government or Parliament. A few of us are party members, but most of us are normal people: I'm a statistician, @Alanbrooke manufactures certain goods, @AlastairMeeks is a lawyer, @Sunil_Prasannan is part-academic, part-train, and so on. Stop thinking we're anything other than spectators in this.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
And how short-sighted would that be? It would set back the cause of supra-national bodies decades....
I'm sorry, have I misunderstood you? Are you arguing that because bad things will happen to us, the EU will agree to our terms? That's not going to work.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
It doesn't solve any of the No Deal problems, such as broken supply chains or contractual uncertainty. The government would also run out of money and not be able to pay pensions and so on. Apart from that, great plan.
If the UK implement unilateral free trade, all inbound supply chains will be unaffected as there will be no tariffs and no delays at customs. If the EU block UK exports into their own supply chains, then they damage themselves whch is stupid but not much we can do to prevent that!
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
And how short-sighted would that be? It would set back the cause of supra-national bodies decades....
I'm sorry, have I misunderstood you? Are you arguing that because bad things will happen to us, the EU will agree to our terms? That's not going to work.
I'm arguing that the idea of being tied into supra-national bodies will seem far less attractive if it seems you can never leave them, even with a democratic mandate to do so. Who else is going to look at the EU and think "Great!!"? They can wave goodbye to the likes of Norway or Switzerland ever wanting to join. (They've already thrown Turkey under the bus....)
I think that's already been priced in. You are correct that long-term it will be (one of) the causes of EU destruction, but that's a long-term problem that affect the EU. We have a rather pressing short-term problem that affects us. I really wish people would focus...
Completely O/T but Dundee recently had the opening of a branch of the V&A in the City. It is in a truly magnificent new building right on the water front. The architecture is outstanding.
I must confess that I was a little dubious that this would be the transformative event that many claimed, claims that in fairness have been backed up with a lot of investment in new hotel rooms in the city. I was therefore delighted to drive by today (the second weekend) and see a queue of several hundred people waiting to get in. Early days and all that but so far, so good.
It doesn't solve any of the No Deal problems, such as broken supply chains or contractual uncertainty. The government would also run out of money and not be able to pay pensions and so on. Apart from that, great plan.
If the UK implement unilateral free trade, all inbound supply chains will be unaffected as there will be no tariffs and no delays at customs. If the EU block UK exports into their own supply chains, then they damage themselves whch is stupid but not much we can do to prevent that!
Why would the Government run out of money?
They can’t get the parts for the printing presses?
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
And how short-sighted would that be? It would set back the cause of supra-national bodies decades....
I'm sorry, have I misunderstood you? Are you arguing that because bad things will happen to us, the EU will agree to our terms? That's not going to work.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
It won't be evenly spread. I think Ireland would suffer more then UK if obstacles to physical trade from EU into Britain were created. If the problems were perceived by Irish citizens as EU in origin then they might then lose another member.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
As previously discussed with @Big_G_NorthWales , I think the rEU's considerably bigger population[1] will insulate it from bad effects, a luxury we don't have.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
And how short-sighted would that be? It would set back the cause of supra-national bodies decades....
I'm sorry, have I misunderstood you? Are you arguing that because bad things will happen to us, the EU will agree to our terms? That's not going to work.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
It won't be evenly spread. I think Ireland would suffer more then UK if obstacles to physical trade from EU into Britain were created. If the problems were perceived by Irish citizens as EU in origin then they might then lose another member.
Well that would get rid of the problem of the border......
Mr. HYUFD, No Deal doesn't need to go through Parliament. A deal does.
Article 50 being passed makes leaving the default.
The European Court is already deciding based on a Scottish case whether Article 50 can be revoked before March, if that passes then no issue.
Otherwise if Remain won a second referendum it would be negotiations to rejoin the EU, Brexit would be dead
No its not. See my comments downthread.
Yes it would.
55% would back Remain if No Deal was the alternative as the poll I linked too earlier showed. There is no escape from the fact No Deal would kill Brexit. It would just be a matter of if not when Brexit was reversed
Would serve you right for supporting her when she came out with Chequers.
You labour under the delusion that we have the power to change things (absent an election). We are people posting on the internet and none of us are in the Government or Parliament. A few of us are party members, but most of us are normal people: I'm a statistician, @Alanbrooke manufactures certain goods, @AlastairMeeks is a lawyer, @Sunil_Prasannan is part-academic, part-train, and so on. Stop thinking we're anything other than spectators in this.
But people here back up their opinions with their money. And whilst we might not be able to change things, we can often spot when things are going tits up well before Government. Which is a worry....
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
As previously discussed with @Big_G_NorthWales , I think the rEU's considerably bigger population[1] will insulate it from bad effects, a luxury we don't have.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
Seven times. We represent 13% of total population albeit 15% of economic activity.
It doesn't solve any of the No Deal problems, such as broken supply chains or contractual uncertainty. The government would also run out of money and not be able to pay pensions and so on. Apart from that, great plan.
If the UK implement unilateral free trade, all inbound supply chains will be unaffected as there will be no tariffs and no delays at customs. If the EU block UK exports into their own supply chains, then they damage themselves whch is stupid but not much we can do to prevent that!
Why would the Government run out of money?
If the EU block UK exports it damages us much more than it damages them. We'd be facing a deep deep recession that would make the 1930s look like a blip.
Completely O/T but Dundee recently had the opening of a branch of the V&A in the City. It is in a truly magnificent new building right on the water front. The architecture is outstanding.
I must confess that I was a little dubious that this would be the transformative event that many claimed, claims that in fairness have been backed up with a lot of investment in new hotel rooms in the city. I was therefore delighted to drive by today (the second weekend) and see a queue of several hundred people waiting to get in. Early days and all that but so far, so good.
Glad to hear it David, it certainly looks impressive from the photos. We'll certainly be making a (first) visit to Dundee for it next time we're on holiday in Scotland. These cultural venues can be transformative.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
As previously discussed with @Big_G_NorthWales , I think the rEU's considerably bigger population[1] will insulate it from bad effects, a luxury we don't have.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
It is in both the EU and the Uk’s interest to reach a Deal. So, I expect a deal will be reached.
The EU has a bigger population, sure. Some parts of the EU may be largely immune from No Deal, but some parts will suffer greatly.
I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that you don’t care if others suffer.
If Trump had tweeted something like “I don’t care if others suffer. It is my job to keep the American economy Great and our American families Safe”, he would be excoriated by liberals for his narrow-mindedness.
Corbyn has made clear he backs NI remaining in a CU (and if he becomes PM it will be without the DUP), May was moving towards that in all but name.
The UK government is ready to agree that, the EU is willing to accept that, the issue is the DUP if we still have a Tory PM but if the UK stays in the SM and CU in the transition period anyway NI will still be on the same terms as the rUK throughout that transition and even if a CETA deal is agreed NI would not be a million miles from the rUK and technically outside the SM
That is just gobbledygook. You can't be in a customs union 'in all but name' ou really need to understand.
The backstop only applies if the transition period ends without a Deal that avoids a hard border. As long as we remain in the transition period in practical terms it is irrelevant as the whole UK would still be in the SM and CU anyway including NI.
In terms of the backstop if either whatever technical terms proposed are not accepted by Barnier or a CU for NI proposal is still refused by the DUP then it may be the latter is either forced through by a new Tory leader or even a PM Corbyn after a new general election overruling the DUP to get a Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period
You are still talking in circles. The EU have expressly ruled out the transition period being extended as they are concerned it will produce de facto SM benefits without membership.
Under CETA, the NI backstop will have to kick in (if it was agreed) because regulations would diverge. The backstop has to be agreed now, not during transition. So the DUP veto now is all that is relevant. In fact, the Tory party as a whole will not agree a NI backstop in any event.
So as I keep explaining to you, if the NI-only backstop stays on the table, there will be no deal and no transition regardless of what else you think might be nice in the future. The only NI backstop that might work would be one where NI is not under the EU customs union - eg the EU back down.
That goes down the line as to if and when CETA is agreed, for the length of the transition period the whole UK would be in the single market and customs union.
Ultimately though if neither the DUP nor the EU compromise on the backstop the DUP will have to be ignored and the backstop agreed anyway to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period, either by May or by a new Tory PM or by a PM Corbyn after a general election.
Otherwise if there is no agreement on the backstop and No Deal results, Brexit is effectively dead and it is a matter of when not if Brexit is reversed, either in a second EU referendum or another general election
Completely O/T but Dundee recently had the opening of a branch of the V&A in the City. It is in a truly magnificent new building right on the water front. The architecture is outstanding.
I must confess that I was a little dubious that this would be the transformative event that many claimed, claims that in fairness have been backed up with a lot of investment in new hotel rooms in the city. I was therefore delighted to drive by today (the second weekend) and see a queue of several hundred people waiting to get in. Early days and all that but so far, so good.
Glad to hear it David, it certainly looks impressive from the photos. We'll certainly be making a (first) visit to Dundee for it next time we're on holiday in Scotland. These cultural venues can be transformative.
Their target is something like 500k visitors in the first year and 300k in year 2. If they get close to that it will be an enormous boost to Dundee.
Would serve you right for supporting her when she came out with Chequers.
You labour under the delusion that we have the power to change things (absent an election). We are people posting on the internet and none of us are in the Government or Parliament. A few of us are party members, but most of us are normal people: I'm a statistician, @Alanbrooke manufactures certain goods, @AlastairMeeks is a lawyer, @Sunil_Prasannan is part-academic, part-train, and so on. Stop thinking we're anything other than spectators in this.
But people here back up their opinions with their money. And whilst we might not be able to change things, we can often spot when things are going tits up well before Government. Which is a worry....
Would serve you right for supporting her when she came out with Chequers.
You labour under the delusion that we have the power to change things (absent an election). We are people posting on the internet and none of us are in the Government or Parliament. A few of us are party members, but most of us are normal people: I'm a statistician, @Alanbrooke manufactures certain goods, @AlastairMeeks is a lawyer, @Sunil_Prasannan is part-academic, part-train, and so on. Stop thinking we're anything other than spectators in this.
Mr. HYUFD, No Deal doesn't need to go through Parliament. A deal does.
Article 50 being passed makes leaving the default.
The European Court is already deciding based on a Scottish case whether Article 50 can be revoked before March, if that passes then no issue.
Otherwise if Remain won a second referendum it would be negotiations to rejoin the EU, Brexit would be dead
No its not. See my comments downthread.
Yes it would.
55% would back Remain if No Deal was the alternative as the poll I linked too earlier showed. There is no escape from the fact No Deal would kill Brexit. It would just be a matter of if not when Brexit was reversed
I think you have misunderstood. The CJEU is not "already deciding based on a Scottish case whether Article 50 can be revoked". A Scottish Court has ruled that they can be asked the question but that decision is subject to potential appeal and the CJEU has a discretion as to whether or not to answer it.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
And how short-sighted would that be? It would set back the cause of supra-national bodies decades....
I'm sorry, have I misunderstood you? Are you arguing that because bad things will happen to us, the EU will agree to our terms? That's not going to work.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
And Ireland is royally screwed.
How does that help us ? The example of Greece demonstrates that the EU is quite prepared to tolerate pain for one of its members - though no doubt they would show slightly more sympathy to Ireland, while blaming us for the fallout.
Would serve you right for supporting her when she came out with Chequers.
You labour under the delusion that we have the power to change things (absent an election). We are people posting on the internet and none of us are in the Government or Parliament. A few of us are party members, but most of us are normal people: I'm a statistician, @Alanbrooke manufactures certain goods, @AlastairMeeks is a lawyer, @Sunil_Prasannan is part-academic, part-train, and so on. Stop thinking we're anything other than spectators in this.
I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that you don’t care if others suffer.
Because there is nothing I can do to stop it, and my duty is to my family.
To expand. Life is, by its nature, hard. Many people suffer and some will suffer excruciatingly. We are enjoined to do what we can to ameliorate this (and *must* do so if we can), but our power to do so is limited. Placing emphasis on the suffering of others that we cannot fix is self-indulgent and distracts us from our duty to our own.
Completely O/T but Dundee recently had the opening of a branch of the V&A in the City. It is in a truly magnificent new building right on the water front. The architecture is outstanding.
I must confess that I was a little dubious that this would be the transformative event that many claimed, claims that in fairness have been backed up with a lot of investment in new hotel rooms in the city. I was therefore delighted to drive by today (the second weekend) and see a queue of several hundred people waiting to get in. Early days and all that but so far, so good.
Old enough to remember the opening of the Tay (road!) Bridge I recall one wag observing Dundee has one of the most beautiful settings of any city in Europe and one of the ugliest cities.....when challenged the response was “Fintry” (which in fairness isn’t visible from the water). A cousin performed in a choir at the opening and was very complimentary about the place. And the Ocean Liners exhibit is worth seeing too.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
Again, why Remainers bring up Black Wednesday I do not know.
It was the last time a Tory government made such a massive economic mess that they lost any reputation for competence for the next decade or more.
Black Wednesday was an economic failure. Brexit is a failure of economics, diplomacy and even morality (since based on a fraud).
It’s (Black Wednesday + Suez) x Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme.
Black Wednesday was not an economic failure, it was an economic success that led to several years of strong growth. It was a political failure because the government had committed themselves to a level of integration with the EU which are economy was not placed to bear as we were on a different economic cycle, had different drivers for growth and needed different exchange rates as a result. Once we broke away from the precursor of the Euro we did much better.
All economics is politics ultimately.
Disagree. I think the argument that all politics is ultimately economics is a better argument but even there you can argue about social policy. Economics is reality. Some things work (eg capitalism) and some things don't (eg socialism) no matter how many times you try or how many excuses are made. Political will can resist economics, sometimes for extended periods as we saw in the Soviet bloc, but ultimately reality intrudes. Black Wednesday was an example of that.
If the success of capitalism is so obvious and reliable, why at a time of real national emergency - eg World War 2 - did we not seek to rely on market forces rather than moving so sharply in the direction of a command economy requiring massive state intervention? Was the experience of capitalism in the interwar period really such a massive success?
Completely O/T but Dundee recently had the opening of a branch of the V&A in the City. It is in a truly magnificent new building right on the water front. The architecture is outstanding.
I must confess that I was a little dubious that this would be the transformative event that many claimed, claims that in fairness have been backed up with a lot of investment in new hotel rooms in the city. I was therefore delighted to drive by today (the second weekend) and see a queue of several hundred people waiting to get in. Early days and all that but so far, so good.
Glad to hear it David, it certainly looks impressive from the photos. We'll certainly be making a (first) visit to Dundee for it next time we're on holiday in Scotland. These cultural venues can be transformative.
Their target is something like 500k visitors in the first year and 300k in year 2. If they get close to that it will be an enormous boost to Dundee.
Do you know how many of those are expected to come from ex-Scotland? Is there enough else in Dundee and region to divert the American/Chinese/Japanese tours from the cycle of London, Chester, York, Edinburgh?
Edit - As an aside, I’ve always found if one finds innumerable galleries of textiles and ceramics disinteresting, the V&A is a less than thrilling affair. I may be unfair. Added to that, there’s a infatuation with the “space” and not the contents. The IWM in Manchester is particularly guilty of this.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
As previously discussed with @Big_G_NorthWales , I think the rEU's considerably bigger population[1] will insulate it from bad effects, a luxury we don't have.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
It is in both the EU and the Uk’s interest to reach a Deal. So, I expect a deal will be reached.
The EU has a bigger population, sure. Some parts of the EU may be largely immune from No Deal, but some parts will suffer greatly.
I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that you don’t care if others suffer.
If Trump had tweeted something like “I don’t care if others suffer. It is my job to keep the American economy Great and our American families Safe”, he would be excoriated by liberals for his narrow-mindedness.
It's not 'some parts,'* it's 'some sectors.'
For example, you wonder how banks will manage the day €120 billion of debt suddenly becomes effectively worthless:
Completely O/T but Dundee recently had the opening of a branch of the V&A in the City. It is in a truly magnificent new building right on the water front. The architecture is outstanding.
I must confess that I was a little dubious that this would be the transformative event that many claimed, claims that in fairness have been backed up with a lot of investment in new hotel rooms in the city. I was therefore delighted to drive by today (the second weekend) and see a queue of several hundred people waiting to get in. Early days and all that but so far, so good.
Old enough to remember the opening of the Tay (road!) Bridge I recall one wag observing Dundee has one of the most beautiful settings of any city in Europe and one of the ugliest cities.....when challenged the response was “Fintry” (which in fairness isn’t visible from the water). A cousin performed in a choir at the opening and was very complimentary about the place. And the Ocean Liners exhibit is worth seeing too.
I have a vague memory of going on the Fifie as a young child. Its one of those memories your are not sure is real or made up of being told about it. I must have been 5 or less at the time. Fintry, sadly, remains a dump.
If the success of capitalism is so obvious and reliable, why at a time of real national emergency - eg World War 2 - did we not seek to rely on market forces rather than moving so sharply in the direction of a command economy requiring massive state intervention? Was the experience of capitalism in the interwar period really such a massive success?
Because in war resources are not allocated according to capitalist principles of supply and demand, but according to need for survival.
I have no doubt that mechanics could have made more money minding Bentleys, but they had to temporarily take lower wages (and in both the first and second world wars wages were in real terms severely depressed as they fell far behind inflation) to service aircraft to keep the fight going.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
As previously discussed with @Big_G_NorthWales , I think the rEU's considerably bigger population[1] will insulate it from bad effects, a luxury we don't have.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
It is in both the EU and the Uk’s interest to reach a Deal. So, I expect a deal will be reached.
The EU has a bigger population, sure. Some parts of the EU may be largely immune from No Deal, but some parts will suffer greatly.
I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that you don’t care if others suffer.
If Trump had tweeted something like “I don’t care if others suffer. It is my job to keep the American economy Great and our American families Safe”, he would be excoriated by liberals for his narrow-mindedness.
It's not 'some parts,'* it's 'some sectors.'
For example, you wonder how banks will manage the day €120 billion of debt suddenly becomes effectively worthless:
Mr. HYUFD, No Deal doesn't need to go through Parliament. A deal does.
Article 50 being passed makes leaving the default.
The European Court is already deciding based on a Scottish case whether Article 50 can be revoked before March, if that passes then no issue.
Otherwise if Remain won a second referendum it would be negotiations to rejoin the EU, Brexit would be dead
No its not. See my comments downthread.
Yes it would.
55% would back Remain if No Deal was the alternative as the poll I linked too earlier showed. There is no escape from the fact No Deal would kill Brexit. It would just be a matter of if not when Brexit was reversed
I think you have misunderstood. The CJEU is not "already deciding based on a Scottish case whether Article 50 can be revoked". A Scottish Court has ruled that they can be asked the question but that decision is subject to potential appeal and the CJEU has a discretion as to whether or not to answer it.
Which is all semantics as to whether we were able to revoke Article 50 or renegotiated our readmission to the EU.
The central point remains that No Deal kills Brexit, whether at a second EU referendum or at the next general election all the polling shows there is no majority amongst the electorate for a No Deal Brexit
Completely O/T but Dundee recently had the opening of a branch of the V&A in the City. It is in a truly magnificent new building right on the water front. The architecture is outstanding.
I must confess that I was a little dubious that this would be the transformative event that many claimed, claims that in fairness have been backed up with a lot of investment in new hotel rooms in the city. I was therefore delighted to drive by today (the second weekend) and see a queue of several hundred people waiting to get in. Early days and all that but so far, so good.
Glad to hear it David, it certainly looks impressive from the photos. We'll certainly be making a (first) visit to Dundee for it next time we're on holiday in Scotland. These cultural venues can be transformative.
Their target is something like 500k visitors in the first year and 300k in year 2. If they get close to that it will be an enormous boost to Dundee.
Do you know how many of those are expected to come from ex-Scotland? Is there enough else in Dundee and region to divert the American/Chinese/Japanese tours from the cycle of London, Chester, York, Edinburgh?
Edit - As an aside, I’ve always found if one finds innumerable galleries of textiles and ceramics disinteresting, the V&A is a less than thrilling affair. I may be unfair. Added to that, there’s a infatuation with the “space” and not the contents. The IWM in Manchester is particularly guilty of this.
Not sure what the target is for international visitors. The V&A overlooks Captain Scott's Discovery which has been restored and is well worth a visit. Most international tourists come here for the golf in both St Andrews and Carnoustie. Dundee is roughly equidistant.
I actually agree with you about the contents. Certainly their first exhibition of clothing etc from the great liners doesn't thrill me but I am very keen to see the building itself from the inside.
If the success of capitalism is so obvious and reliable, why at a time of real national emergency - eg World War 2 - did we not seek to rely on market forces rather than moving so sharply in the direction of a command economy requiring massive state intervention? Was the experience of capitalism in the interwar period really such a massive success?
Because in war resources are not allocated according to capitalist principles of supply and demand, but according to need for survival.
I have no doubt that mechanics could have made more money minding Bentleys, but they had to temporarily take lower wages (and in both the first and second world wars wages were in real terms severely depressed as they fell far behind inflation) to service aircraft to keep the fight going.
I quite agree that survival is not guaranteed by relying on capitalist principles. Moreover the instability of the 1920s & 1930s hardly left a positive backdrop when it came to depending on such forces in the context of real national emergency.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
As previously discussed with @Big_G_NorthWales , I think the rEU's considerably bigger population[1] will insulate it from bad effects, a luxury we don't have.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
It is in both the EU and the Uk’s interest to reach a Deal. So, I expect a deal will be reached.
The EU has a bigger population, sure. Some parts of the EU may be largely immune from No Deal, but some parts will suffer greatly.
I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that you don’t care if others suffer.
If Trump had tweeted something like “I don’t care if others suffer. It is my job to keep the American economy Great and our American families Safe”, he would be excoriated by liberals for his narrow-mindedness.
It's not 'some parts,'* it's 'some sectors.'
For example, you wonder how banks will manage the day €120 billion of debt suddenly becomes effectively worthless:
If the success of capitalism is so obvious and reliable, why at a time of real national emergency - eg World War 2 - did we not seek to rely on market forces rather than moving so sharply in the direction of a command economy requiring massive state intervention? Was the experience of capitalism in the interwar period really such a massive success?
Because in war resources are not allocated according to capitalist principles of supply and demand, but according to need for survival.
I have no doubt that mechanics could have made more money minding Bentleys, but they had to temporarily take lower wages (and in both the first and second world wars wages were in real terms severely depressed as they fell far behind inflation) to service aircraft to keep the fight going.
I quite agree that survival is not guaranteed by relying on capitalist principles. Moreover the instability of the 1920s & 1930s hardly left a positive backdrop when it came to depending on such forces in the context of real national emergency.
In the Second World War, the example of the First World War and the setting up of the Ministry of Munitions (and later Food) was probably more decisive.
Have come late to this - but it's a good (if depressing) thread header Alastair. Thanks
Amazing to think that even now over two years after the referendum no one really knows what Brexit means. How ridiculous to have expected the elecotrate to have voted on a subject that is proving too complex for all politicians and pundits alike.
Black Wednesday was an economic failure. Brexit is a failure of economics, diplomacy and even morality (since based on a fraud).
It’s (Black Wednesday + Suez) x Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme.
Black Wednesday was not an economic failure, it was an economic success that led to several years of strong growth. It was a political failure because the government had committed themselves to a level of integration with the EU which are economy was not placed to bear as we were on a different economic cycle, had different drivers for growth and needed different exchange rates as a result. Once we broke away from the precursor of the Euro we did much better.
All economics is politics ultimately.
Disagree. I think the argument that all politics is ultimately economics is a better argument but even there you can argue about social policy. Economics is reality. Some things work (eg capitalism) and some things don't (eg socialism) no matter how many times you try or how many excuses are made. Political will can resist economics, sometimes for extended periods as we saw in the Soviet bloc, but ultimately reality intrudes. Black Wednesday was an example of that.
If the success of capitalism is so obvious and reliable, why at a time of real national emergency - eg World War 2 - did we not seek to rely on market forces rather than moving so sharply in the direction of a command economy requiring massive state intervention? Was the experience of capitalism in the interwar period really such a massive success?
During war resources are not allocated by economic efficiency but according to the needs of the State. This is damaging to long term growth and inefficient but that doesn't matter because the needs are so great and immediate. I did not say that capitalism is reliable, I said that it works. That involves periods of creative destruction which can be very uncomfortable and which the State has a duty to mitigate but they are nothing compared to the long term misery and poverty caused by socialism.
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
As previously discussed with @Big_G_NorthWales , I think the rEU's considerably bigger population[1] will insulate it from bad effects, a luxury we don't have.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
It is in both the EU and the Uk’s interest to reach a Deal. So, I expect a deal will be reached.
The EU has a bigger population, sure. Some parts of the EU may be largely immune from No Deal, but some parts will suffer greatly.
I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that you don’t care if others suffer.
If Trump had tweeted something like “I don’t care if others suffer. It is my job to keep the American economy Great and our American families Safe”, he would be excoriated by liberals for his narrow-mindedness.
It's not 'some parts,'* it's 'some sectors.'
For example, you wonder how banks will manage the day €120 billion of debt suddenly becomes effectively worthless:
*With the obvious exception of every North Sea and Channel port.
I don’t have access to the article. Why might it be worthless?
Because it is negotiated under British law, which will no longer be valid in the EU upon leaving.
We negotiate and document lots of contracts under New York or California law despite there being no reciprocal enforcement of judgements between most places (including EU states) and the US. The German courts have already driven through unilateral jurisdiction. As ever, it’s not that simple.
Edit - just stick an arbitration clause in will solve the problem in most cases. I don’t think we’ve stepped away from the NY convention (although don’t give people ideas).
Black Wednesday was an economic failure. Brexit is a failure of economics, diplomacy and even morality (since based on a fraud).
It’s (Black Wednesday + Suez) x Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme.
Black Wednesday was not an economic failure, it was an economic success that led to several years of strong growth. It was a political failure because the government had committed themselves to a level of integration with the EU which are economy was not placed to bear as we were on a different economic cycle, had different drivers for growth and needed different exchange rates as a result. Once we broke away from the precursor of the Euro we did much better.
All economics is politics ultimately.
Disagree. I think the argument that all politics is ultimately economics is a better argument but even there you can argue about social policy. Economics is reality. Some things work (eg capitalism) and some things don't (eg socialism) no matter how many times you try or how many excuses are made. Political will can resist economics, sometimes for extended periods as we saw in the Soviet bloc, but ultimately reality intrudes. Black Wednesday was an example of that.
If the success of capitalism is so obvious and reliable, why at a time of real national emergency - eg World War 2 - did we not seek to rely on market forces rather than moving so sharply in the direction of a command economy requiring massive state intervention? Was the experience of capitalism in the interwar period really such a massive success?
During war resources are not allocated by economic efficiency but according to the needs of the State. This is damaging to long term growth and inefficient but that doesn't matter because the needs are so great and immediate. I did not say that capitalism is reliable, I said that it works. That involves periods of creative destruction which can be very uncomfortable and which the State has a duty to mitigate but they are nothing compared to the long term misery and poverty caused by socialism.
What's the difference between capitalism and Socialism?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under Socialism it's the other way round.
Completely O/T but Dundee recently had the opening of a branch of the V&A in the City. It is in a truly magnificent new building right on the water front. The architecture is outstanding.
I must confess that I was a little dubious that this would be the transformative event that many claimed, claims that in fairness have been backed up with a lot of investment in new hotel rooms in the city. I was therefore delighted to drive by today (the second weekend) and see a queue of several hundred people waiting to get in. Early days and all that but so far, so good.
Glad to hear it David, it certainly looks impressive from the photos. We'll certainly be making a (first) visit to Dundee for it next time we're on holiday in Scotland. These cultural venues can be transformative.
Their target is something like 500k visitors in the first year and 300k in year 2. If they get close to that it will be an enormous boost to Dundee.
Do you know how many of those are expected to come from ex-Scotland? Is there enough else in Dundee and region to divert the American/Chinese/Japanese tours from the cycle of London, Chester, York, Edinburgh?
Edit - As an aside, I’ve always found if one finds innumerable galleries of textiles and ceramics disinteresting, the V&A is a less than thrilling affair. I may be unfair. Added to that, there’s a infatuation with the “space” and not the contents. The IWM in Manchester is particularly guilty of this.
I actually agree with you about the contents. Certainly their first exhibition of clothing etc from the great liners doesn't thrill me but I am very keen to see the building itself from the inside.
If it’s the same exhibition as they showed in London there’s a lot more to it than just clothing - including some stunning builders models and interior panels from the Normandie and lighting from the SS United States. And a rather sad tiara saved from the Lusitania by a lady who lost her daughter in the process.
If the Government does ultimately push forward with no deal as the "only" alternative to Chequers and opinion polls immediately beforehand show this is anywhere from moderately to wildly unpopular then it will take a very brave (foolish?) PM and Governing Party) to press ahead in that scenario.....even if it is deliverable politically
A No Deal Brexit has the serious potential to put the Tories out of power for a generation. It will make Black Wednesday look like a vicar's tea party.
It would likely make Corbyn PM but still a significant number of voters about 40% back No Deal
That 40% will vanish like snow in May, once the consequences hit.
What do you think the consequences would be?
Recession. Big time. Job losses etc etc
Foreign investment tanks.
GDP fall, followed by problems for the Treasury will deficit/debt management.
Food and medical supply issues.
Transport chaos. Lorry parks.
Issues with passports, visas, travel etc etc.
The consequences of No Deal will be relatively mild, assuming the UK Government respond appropriately. That is the bit that worries me.
It would need an aggressive and creative response that deliberately exploits the new advantages of the UK as against the EU. Unilateral free trade should be declared for a limited period whilst more permanent trade deals are done, with UK manufacturing bailed out as necessary. Large cuts in corporation tax should be made along with massive reductions in regulation, especially in services. Taxes on primary investment (as opposed to profits on secondary investment) should be slashed. Business rates should be cut. Future trade deals should be predicated on UK access to overseas services markets. If the EU take punitive an unnecessary action against the UK (for example by delaying UK imports or blocking flights) the UK should retaliate by blocking finance for the EU from the City of London. They will soon realise this is a zero sum game for them and a CETA deal will get trashed out pretty quickly.
The problem is likely to be that the civil service will do everything they can to block such moves and May does not have the vision to carry it out. In particular, exploiting the EUs weaknesses is something that the establishment will do everything to avoid as they will be desperate to 'keep them onside' so that eventual efforts can be made to rejoin.
I know you don't really give a shit, being far, far away, but what would all those tax cuts, alongside a tanking economy, do to the deficit, Archer?
55% would back Remain if No Deal was the alternative as the poll I linked too earlier showed. There is no escape from the fact No Deal would kill Brexit. It would just be a matter of if not when Brexit was reversed
I think you have misunderstood. The CJEU is not "already deciding based on a Scottish case whether Article 50 can be revoked". A Scottish Court has ruled that they can be asked the question but that decision is subject to potential appeal and the CJEU has a discretion as to whether or not to answer it.
Which is all semantics as to whether we were able to revoke Article 50 or renegotiated our readmission to the EU.
The central point remains that No Deal kills Brexit, whether at a second EU referendum or at the next general election all the polling shows there is no majority amongst the electorate for a No Deal Brexit
It's not semantics. The majority view (even Alastair and I agree on this) is that the UK leaves on 30th March next year unless all of the EU28 agree to either extend the period of Art 50 or allow us withdraw it. This is an important point and it is the point @Morris_Dancer was making earlier. This is not our choice anymore. We need to address the choices that are genuinely open to us. No deal does not kill Brexit, it implements it whether we like it or not. Any deal has to be looked at in that context and most deals will look attractive.
What we do when we are outside is also not up to us. The EU is under no obligation to allow us to reenter and in my opinion would not do so without evidence of a very substantial change of mindset amongst the UK populace.
Black Wednesday was an economic failure. Brexit is a failure of economics, diplomacy and even morality (since based on a fraud).
It’s (Black Wednesday + Suez) x Tanganikya Groundnut Scheme.
Black Wednesday was not an economic failure, it was an economic success that led to several years of strong growth. It was a political failure because the government had committed themselves to a level of integration with the EU which are economy was not placed to bear as we were on a different economic cycle, had different drivers for growth and needed different exchange rates as a result. Once we broke away from the precursor of the Euro we did much better.
All economics is politics ultimately.
Disagree. I think the argument that all politics is ultimately economics is a better argument but even there you can argue about social policy. Economics is reality. Some things work (eg capitalism) and some things don't (eg socialism) no matter how many times you try or how many excuses are made. Political will can resist economics, sometimes for extended periods as we saw in the Soviet bloc, but ultimately reality intrudes. Black Wednesday was an example of that.
If the success of capitalism is so obvious and reliable, why at a time of real national emergency - eg World War 2 - did we not seek to rely on market forces rather than moving so sharply in the direction of a command economy requiring massive state intervention? Was the experience of capitalism in the interwar period really such a massive success?
During war resources are not allocated by economic efficiency but according to the needs of the State. This is damaging to long term growth and inefficient but that doesn't matter because the needs are so great and immediate. I did not say that capitalism is reliable, I said that it works. That involves periods of creative destruction which can be very uncomfortable and which the State has a duty to mitigate but they are nothing compared to the long term misery and poverty caused by socialism.
What's the difference between capitalism and Socialism?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under Socialism it's the other way round.
I think I preferred the one that was on here the other day about capitalist and socialist hells.
What's the difference between capitalism and Socialism?
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under Socialism it's the other way round.
I think I preferred the one that was on here the other day about capitalist and socialist hells.
Let's have another go then:
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it possible to build socialism in Switzerland?” We’re answering: “It's possible, but why? What have the Swiss ever done to you?”
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
As previously discussed with @Big_G_NorthWales , I think the rEU's considerably bigger population[1] will insulate it from bad effects, a luxury we don't have.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
It is in both the EU and the Uk’s interest to reach a Deal. So, I expect a deal will be reached.
The EU has a bigger population, sure. Some parts of the EU may be largely immune from No Deal, but some parts will suffer greatly.
I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that you don’t care if others suffer.
If Trump had tweeted something like “I don’t care if others suffer. It is my job to keep the American economy Great and our American families Safe”, he would be excoriated by liberals for his narrow-mindedness.
It's not 'some parts,'* it's 'some sectors.'
For example, you wonder how banks will manage the day €120 billion of debt suddenly becomes effectively worthless:
*With the obvious exception of every North Sea and Channel port.
I don’t have access to the article. Why might it be worthless?
Because it is negotiated under British law, which will no longer be valid in the EU upon leaving.
That’s garbage though. Lots of contracts which have no connection to the U.K. are under English law. It’s the usual compromise position between two other jurisdictions
That general election would then likely see Corbyn become PM propped up by the LDs and SNP with a mandate to go back to the negotiating table with the EU or hold a second referendum
You keep churning out this nonsense, Mr HY. The Lib Dems have already ruled out the possibility of propping up a Corbyn-led Labour government. And for that matter, a May-led Tory government.
Mr. HYUFD, No Deal doesn't need to go through Parliament. A deal does.
Article 50 being passed makes leaving the default.
The European Court is already deciding based on a Scottish case whether Article 50 can be revoked before March, if that passes then no issue.
Otherwise if Remain won a second referendum it would be negotiations to rejoin the EU, Brexit would be dead
No its not. See my comments downthread.
Yes it would.
55% would back Remain if No Deal was the alternative as the poll I linked too earlier showed. There is no escape from the fact No Deal would kill Brexit. It would just be a matter of if not when Brexit was reversed
Why so definitive. Three quarters of the final polls before referendum day had remain ahead - the two published on 23 June had remain ahead by 4 and 10 points.
I merely assert nothing is certain once we get into the campaign itself. In summer 2015 one poll had remain ahead by 44 per cent!
No one yet knows what the deal will be or if there will be a deal No one can seem to agree what the questions for the second referendum will be - deal or no deal, deal or remain, deal, no deal or remain by AV. What does remain even mean now if we go back begging to the EU27 to rescind article 50 - wouldnt they squeeze the UK for anything they could get e.g. the rebate ends and possibly more? Even if a majority of MPs back a second vote - they actually have to agree when, how, and what the question asked will be.
And are we really going to send people out to campaign and vote in February? What happens if it is like last February and the entire country is covered in snow and ice and many people outside big cities simply can't get out to vote. If turnout was depressed massively due to the weather how would that play?
Instead of talking theoretically about a people's vote - let have some details. What exactly would Labour propose we do?
So, you think the bad things will only happen to us
In the scenario in which there is No Deal, there is plenty of badness to spare for the EU as well.
As previously discussed with @Big_G_NorthWales , I think the rEU's considerably bigger population[1] will insulate it from bad effects, a luxury we don't have.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
Seven times. We represent 13% of total population albeit 15% of economic activity.
So that 2:1 EU deficit of goods trade in cash terms is 1:3.5 relatively speaking if it all falls apart? Somebody should explain that to TM, or put that on the side of a bus.
55% would back Remain if No Deal was the alternative as the poll I linked too earlier showed. There is no escape from the fact No Deal would kill Brexit. It would just be a matter of if not when Brexit was reversed
I think you have misunderstood. The CJEU is not "already deciding based on a Scottish case whether Article 50 can be revoked". A Scottish Court has ruled that they can be asked the question but that decision is subject to potential appeal and the CJEU has a discretion as to whether or not to answer it.
Which is all semantics as to whether we were able to revoke Article 50 or renegotiated our readmission to the EU.
The central point remains that No Deal kills Brexit, whether at a second EU referendum or at the next general election all the polling shows there is no majority amongst the electorate for a No Deal Brexit
It's not semantics. The majority view (even Alastair and I agree on this) is that the UK leaves on 30th March next year unless all of the EU28 agree to either extend the period of Art 50 or allow us withdraw it. This is an important point and it is the point @Morris_Dancer was making earlier. This is not our choice anymore. We need to address the choices that are genuinely open to us. No deal does not kill Brexit, it implements it whether we like it or not. Any deal has to be looked at in that context and most deals will look attractive.
What we do when we are outside is also not up to us. The EU is under no obligation to allow us to reenter and in my opinion would not do so without evidence of a very substantial change of mindset amongst the UK populace.
It does kill it ultimately as you cannot implement a No Deal Brexit ultimately without the consent of the electorate. A second EU referendum won by Remain would be more than enough for the EU to readmit us and all the polling shows that Remain would win by at least 10% if a No Deal Brexit
That general election would then likely see Corbyn become PM propped up by the LDs and SNP with a mandate to go back to the negotiating table with the EU or hold a second referendum
You keep churning out this nonsense, Mr HY. The Lib Dems have already ruled out the possibility of propping up a Corbyn-led Labour government. And for that matter, a May-led Tory government.
So what? To get any legislation passed Corbyn or May would need LD votes on current polling
Mr. HYUFD, No Deal doesn't need to go through Parliament. A deal does.
Article 50 being passed makes leaving the default.
The European Court is already deciding based on a Scottish case whether Article 50 can be revoked before March, if that passes then no issue.
Otherwise if Remain won a second referendum it would be negotiations to rejoin the EU, Brexit would be dead
No its not. See my comments downthread.
Yes it would.
55% would back Remain if No Deal was the alternative as the poll I linked too earlier showed. There is no escape from the fact No Deal would kill Brexit. It would just be a matter of if not when Brexit was reversed
Why so definitive. Three quarters of the final polls before referendum day had remain ahead - the two published on 23 June had remain ahead by 4 and 10 points.
I merely assert nothing is certain once we get into the campaign itself. In summer 2015 one poll had remain ahead by 44 per cent!
No one yet knows what the deal will be or if there will be a deal No one can seem to agree what the questions for the second referendum will be - deal or no deal, deal or remain, deal, no deal or remain by AV. What does remain even mean now if we go back begging to the EU27 to rescind article 50 - wouldnt they squeeze the UK for anything they could get e.g. the rebate ends and possibly more? Even if a majority of MPs back a second vote - they actually have to agree when, how, and what the question asked will be.
And are we really going to send people out to campaign and vote in February? What happens if it is like last February and the entire country is covered in snow and ice and many people outside big cities simply can't get out to vote. If turnout was depressed massively due to the weather how would that play?
Instead of talking theoretically about a people's vote - let have some details. What exactly would Labour propose we do?
The rebate may go but otherwise it would be as we were.
If Brexiteers push No Deal they kill off Brexit. None of the final pre EU referendum polls have Remain as big a lead as they now have with No Deal
Comments
Why would the Government run out of money?
I must confess that I was a little dubious that this would be the transformative event that many claimed, claims that in fairness have been backed up with a lot of investment in new hotel rooms in the city. I was therefore delighted to drive by today (the second weekend) and see a queue of several hundred people waiting to get in. Early days and all that but so far, so good.
But there is a different point here: I don't care if the EU suffer, it's not relevant. I do care deeply if we suffer, because it is our job to keep the economy up and our families safe, and we are failing in that.
[1], they're what: seven, eight times our population?
55% would back Remain if No Deal was the alternative as the poll I linked too earlier showed. There is no escape from the fact No Deal would kill Brexit. It would just be a matter of if not when Brexit was reversed
The EU has a bigger population, sure. Some parts of the EU may be largely immune from No Deal, but some parts will suffer greatly.
I am not quite sure what to make of the fact that you don’t care if others suffer.
If Trump had tweeted something like “I don’t care if others suffer. It is my job to keep the American economy Great and our American families Safe”, he would be excoriated by liberals for his narrow-mindedness.
Ultimately though if neither the DUP nor the EU compromise on the backstop the DUP will have to be ignored and the backstop agreed anyway to get the Withdrawal Agreement and Transition Period, either by May or by a new Tory PM or by a PM Corbyn after a general election.
Otherwise if there is no agreement on the backstop and No Deal results, Brexit is effectively dead and it is a matter of when not if Brexit is reversed, either in a second EU referendum or another general election
Bit harsh on Sunil - I didn't know he did some academic work too.
The example of Greece demonstrates that the EU is quite prepared to tolerate pain for one of its members - though no doubt they would show slightly more sympathy to Ireland, while blaming us for the fallout.
To expand. Life is, by its nature, hard. Many people suffer and some will suffer excruciatingly. We are enjoined to do what we can to ameliorate this (and *must* do so if we can), but our power to do so is limited. Placing emphasis on the suffering of others that we cannot fix is self-indulgent and distracts us from our duty to our own.
Edit - As an aside, I’ve always found if one finds innumerable galleries of textiles and ceramics disinteresting, the V&A is a less than thrilling affair. I may be unfair. Added to that, there’s a infatuation with the “space” and not the contents. The IWM in Manchester is particularly guilty of this.
For example, you wonder how banks will manage the day €120 billion of debt suddenly becomes effectively worthless:
https://www.ft.com/content/53c6a884-8c01-11e8-bf9e-8771d5404543
*With the obvious exception of every North Sea and Channel port.
I have no doubt that mechanics could have made more money minding Bentleys, but they had to temporarily take lower wages (and in both the first and second world wars wages were in real terms severely depressed as they fell far behind inflation) to service aircraft to keep the fight going.
The central point remains that No Deal kills Brexit, whether at a second EU referendum or at the next general election all the polling shows there is no majority amongst the electorate for a No Deal Brexit
I actually agree with you about the contents. Certainly their first exhibition of clothing etc from the great liners doesn't thrill me but I am very keen to see the building itself from the inside.
Hint: maybe we could have begun to address some of the real issues: social care, productivity, housing, inequality...?
Amazing to think that even now over two years after the referendum no one really knows what Brexit means. How ridiculous to have expected the elecotrate to have voted on a subject that is proving too complex for all politicians and pundits alike.
Edit - just stick an arbitration clause in will solve the problem in most cases. I don’t think we’ve stepped away from the NY convention (although don’t give people ideas).
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under Socialism it's the other way round.
What we do when we are outside is also not up to us. The EU is under no obligation to allow us to reenter and in my opinion would not do so without evidence of a very substantial change of mindset amongst the UK populace.
Corbyn attacked with false smears and told to look in to the camera and apologise on #Marr
This is state propaganda worthy of the USSR.
This is Armenian Radio; our listeners asked us: “Is it possible to build socialism in Switzerland?”
We’re answering: “It's possible, but why? What have the Swiss ever done to you?”
NEW THREAD
I merely assert nothing is certain once we get into the campaign itself. In summer 2015 one poll had remain ahead by 44 per cent!
No one yet knows what the deal will be or if there will be a deal
No one can seem to agree what the questions for the second referendum will be - deal or no deal, deal or remain, deal, no deal or remain by AV.
What does remain even mean now if we go back begging to the EU27 to rescind article 50 - wouldnt they squeeze the UK for anything they could get e.g. the rebate ends and possibly more?
Even if a majority of MPs back a second vote - they actually have to agree when, how, and what the question asked will be.
And are we really going to send people out to campaign and vote in February? What happens if it is like last February and the entire country is covered in snow and ice and many people outside big cities simply can't get out to vote. If turnout was depressed massively due to the weather how would that play?
Instead of talking theoretically about a people's vote - let have some details. What exactly would Labour propose we do?
If Brexiteers push No Deal they kill off Brexit. None of the final pre EU referendum polls have Remain as big a lead as they now have with No Deal