Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The terrible truth about Brexit
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The terrible truth about Brexit
Young lawyers are given eclectic reading recommendations. I think the idea is to broaden their minds and to make them more commercially aware. Or perhaps their mentors just think they should read more. Some of the suggested reading, regrettably, includes business management books. The least scientific and most cynical books tend to be most useful in practice. I have often drawn on the early chapters of Parkinson’s Law in meetings. Who Moved My Blackberry is a how-to manual for all too many executives.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
What an absolute shit-show the Buccaneering Brexiteers have inflicted on us all. Never have so many been so screwed by so few, to paraphrase the Cod Churchill they are so fond of.
"What of a referendum? That is merely a route for choosing between different options Before one is offered, the government had better make sure that the options offered are all available."
This is what so many pro-referendum people are forgetting. We're in this mess because leave were too lazy and too desperate to win to decide what a win would mean. If people want 'remain' on the ballot, they'd better be sure it's available, and the public know the terms before they vote.
Otherwise we'll just be in this mess again - or perhaps even then, if the result is close.
Regardless of whether they believe the “forecasts” or not, the politicians are gambling with people’s lives and livelihoods in a way they have no right to do. Every single one of them should be thoroughly ashamed. Instead all they care about is who gets the blame.
The force for “no change/disruption” has always been powerful in this country for good reason (It was almost certainly what drove a large portion of the remain vote). Because however justified few believe in the ability of politicians to deliver radical change successfully. Brexit is no different. The deal offers a way out/a get out that they don’t really deserve. And yet having been offered that olive branch they all want to plough on regardless and continue gambling. To continue with the analogy it’s as if they’ve backed something with a stake they can’t afford to lose but have been given an opportunity to lay off at a small loss. But they’re compulsive gamblers so they don’t.
It’s not though their money (they think) that they’re gambling with. Which makes it all the more shameful.
Really. They want the market access, the freedom for their citizens, the extra geopolitical clout, the restraints on competition through lower labour or environmental standards and the money. Not withstanding a non-zero risk of terrorism by exceptionally organised Leave terrorists who manage to pull off an attack in Brussels instead of just stabbing their local MP, narked off voters are an internal British problem.
Have a nice day, everyone.
Proponents for leave - some of whom had been working on this for decades, failed to make their position clear, which is why we're in this mess.
Consider what would have happened if Cameron's government had tried to define leave. If they had come up with a soft EEA-style Brexit, then the Europhobes would have been screaming about betrayal and how he was going to let millions of rapists in. If he'd gone for a hard Brexit, then the EEAers would have been screaming about how it was too much, there was a better way, etc. In reality, all leavers would have been screaming about whatever position the government chose for leave, because that's the path to victory for them.
And because leavers like nothing more than complaining, stamping their feet and screaming.
It's easy to see why the EU might decide we're more trouble than we're worth, and how continued membership might even imperil the organisation.
The onyl way around this would be a stonking win for remain. Which we are not going to get.
Always wanting to hold up integration steps is a PITA, but the recent treaties have defused most of the possible denial-of-service vectors with QMV and Enhanced Cooperation.
It's a false hope that shows no understanding of how much people loathe the EU for a wide variety of reasons, but it's proving even more poisonous than the campaign itself.
You are right that there are good reasons they might want us to remain. I just think there are other good (and weightier) reasons they'll want to say au revoir if we don't have a stonking majority for remain.
If you could actually physically *move* the UK so it was no longer near the EU and no longer had a land border with an EU member then you might be onto something, but this would be extremely expensive, and attract opposition from the RSPB.
In addition, the likes of Farage wouldn't have sat on such a commission unless they could utterly control it, lest it come up with an answer they didn't like and their presence legitimised that answer. Better for them to be outside and able to freely criticise.
And to be fair, Brexit is far more complex than a referendum on the monarchy.
People are making the mistake of thinking that leave didn't want to win. They wanted to win, and would have reacted to *anything* anyone remotely remainy said or did (including the government) in a way that would best bring them victory.
I'd go as far as to say, if Cameron had done such a commission, leave would have won by more, and the Brexit we'd be heading for would not be whatever the commission came up with.
Actually I think Remain will be easier than the lead suggests; intrinsically it represents a win and gives the EU what it wants. It's principal concern is likely to be that we won't repreat the whole fiasco in a few years time; the way things are going the public appetite for that would be close to nil.
The problem is the publics' opinion on the EU in the UK. Unless that changes, continued membership is probably pointless.
The ordinary Leavers I know had an idea sold to them that we could 'just Leave' and everything would be as it was before we joined; after all we traded with France, Germany and so on before, and we traded with Australia and so so. I think there's a hazy, and probably justified idea, idea, too, that we 'let down' the Aussies and the Kiwis when we joined back in 1973, and they'd want the relationship back, but nowadays, from what I can see, they seem to be doing OK, and aren't particularly bothered about 'then'. Like meeting your ex after 20 years and thinking it had been a mistake, but the ex has moved on very happily, thank you.
Anyway, being in the EU isn't a bar to trading outside it. Members of my family work in companies which happily sell (mostly) British kit to all sorts of people all over the world.
Both many remainers and many leavers have failed to account for it.
The same is true of the May-haters. May is reviled by a number of posters in terms just as hateful and misogynistic as Tennesse Williams’ description of Blanche Dubois.
But, the UKs negotiating position was always terribly weak, even more so as the 52:48 split was not even uniform across the UK (Scotland).
Noone could have negotiated a great deal with only 52 % of the country behind them. And, if we end up remaining, Remainers will have a similar problem.
Offer a referendum, once the Leavers presented a written manifesto. They would still be squabbling like rats and we would still be members of the EU with the referendum still a distant prize for the malcontents.
Law firm managing partners love a business management book.
A Brexit that doesn't deliver for Hartlepool, Great Yarmouth and Port Talbot seems on the cards. Instead it looks like another lost decade of austerity for them. I struggle to find much sympathy.
That's why i think it's as much about the non-entities trying to get themselves in the public eye than it is about the UK's position in Europe.
The uncertainty - the Schrodinger's Brexit - is what won it for them.
No, the EU doesn't yet have a proper democracy, but if one thinks about, neither does this country.
Cameron at the despatch box. "I will call the referendum as soon as you produce the document"
"We don't want to" wouldn't cut it...
When the European Commission acts with borderline criminality, which under Juncker it does - how does it get removed?
People keep banging on about the betrayal of Brexit voters if we don't leave. Have they considered the betrayal to these voters if we crash out? It's fine for daodao to talk about GDP per capita, but does that argument did the practical logistical and legal issues of us crashing out? We're sorry Brexit voters in Hartlepool that you lost your job and have seen food availability reduced and prices spike, but because foreigners have been able to leave you are less worse off per capita than you would have been.
The things I voted remain to prevent have already happened now: if there is another referendum I’ll probably switch my vote.
I don't a fucking clue where we go form here but it probably involves a radical restructuring of the social and political orders.
https://youtu.be/sdg6R2s-d04
Not terribly historically accurate as it happens, but still terrific.
What is quite wrong is to criticise a public official for doing what he is mandated by law to do. For an MP to do so is a mark of utter irresponsibility.
So far as Brexit is concerned there is once again a complete failure of any sense of proportion and all my subsequent comments should be seen in that light. We are talking about tenths of a percent on growth. People used to say that using decimal points showed that economists had a sense of humour but I am not sure who is laughing now.
Mogg is increasingly looking like a complete fool as opposed to simply a twat. His attacks on Carney yesterday were ridiculous but that does not make the BoE forecasts correct or credible. As usual Matt's response was much better.
The effects of leaving the EU on whatever terms will be relatively modest and overwhelmed by far more important developments in both domestic policy and world trade. If we leave without a deal there will be more short term disruption and, possibly, a reduction in investment for a period. Whether that would be offset in the medium term by greater freedom of movement is hard to say. As examples the level playing field part of the WA is intended to stop us from being ultra aggressive on tax policy, state support, domestic preference in tendering, etc. Many of those are good things but if we leave with no deal all bets are off and we can do what we like.
If we leave with May's deal that disruption will be largely eliminated but at the cost of us having made future commitments which will tie our hands in the next, more important, round of negotiations. I think that trade off is worth it and we should take the deal but there is plenty of room for disagreement about that.
If we remain I foresee us paying a heavy price. Our democracy will have been severely damaged. We may in many respects have been asked a damn fool question but we gave our answer. I do agree with Alastair that the EU would extract a price for agreeing to any revocation of the Article 50 and it may well be significant. We would suffer humiliation as a nation which I fear would do far, far more damage than the trivial costs of leaving. Having lived through the crisis of confidence that this country endured in the 1970's I have no desire to see any repeat.
FWIW my impression is that if we ask to withdraw A50 we will be allowed back on the same terms. This is the default position until we withdraw - they would need to make an actively hostile move to take the rebate away. I follow politics on the Continent closely and I'm convinced that they'll see a change of mind as so important (not least as it will conclusively establish the precedent that leaving is a crap idea) that their interest in setting up hurdles will be zero. It would be possible before any referendum to get agreement to that.
But we can't do it without some form of popular consent without really deep disillusion. That's why - and I know it's hard to separate from my usual Labour loyalism - McDonnell's 3-step process makes sense. First we need to reject the May deal, which would lock us semi-permanently into an associate status that nearly everyone dislikes. Second we need to deal with the question of whether an election is needed. I expect the Commons to vote "no" to that. Then we need a referendum that offers the only two realistic oiptions - proposing to remain and deciding to leave with a minimal No Deal. The latest poll shows a 10-point Remain lead on that basis and in the light of what's happened I suspect it would grow, but if people vote for hard Brexit, so be it - they're now quite well-informed.
On the general issue of referendums, I agree that they should only be offered if the Government sees both alternatives as defensible. Giving people a choice between placebo and poison on the assumption that they'll prefer the placebo is reckless.
Leaving aside the total lack of understanding of the situation in Northern Ireland itself that such a remark would reveal, it's odd that he considers the loss of a war torn, impoverished and controversial area of the UK and a resulting £10 billion annual boost to the Treasury would be a 'punishment.'
It would however punish the EU quite nastily by unleashing a further round of the Troubles - which would be ironic given one of the most ridiculed planks of the Remain campaign was a claim our leaving the EU could lead to war!
Are you entirely sanguine about the same applying to a Corbyn government ?
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-usa-airlines/u-s-uk-reach-new-post-brexit-deal-on-air-services-idUKKCN1NX2WT
It is quite possible that we would shift to net emmigration, but I suspect that would only accelerate the decline in GDP per Capita, because it would be the above average earners with the wherewithal to move abroad.
@AlastairMeeks is right, and there is no good oitcome, but the least bad is a #peoplesvote vote for Remain, with May's Vassal state probably second best option. I am glad to have my assets deployed to mitigate against No Deal though, and the ultimate in safe job with gold plated pension.
If the Commission President is generally a bit rubbish but not actively corrupt, their next term depends on them being reselected as spitzenkandidat by their group then that group winning the elections.
In behaving like glorified case workers this consumes time that would be better spent thinking big picture stuff
And the media makes life very unpleasant so a lot of good people no longer participate in the public sphere
I think there are two practical options for the future relationship: EU membership and a very close do as you are told relationship based on the Single Market, Customs Union and a shared approach to third country relationships. Canada was always a near impossible negotiation and the Irish backstop probably kills it entirely.
Both arrangements likely will need to be lubricated with cash. Why not? Brexit was always going to be extremely costly. The Brexit Dividend is just another Leaver lie.
https://twitter.com/PeteNorth303/status/1067908221178994688
They'd use this to argue against the document being the basis of the campaign.
And if the referendum had been held, we'd have had two campaigns (as we had in 2016), with one holding a worthless piece of paper, and the other claiming they were the one true Brexit, with the polling about immigration and other matters backing them up.
We'd be in exactly the position we are now. The document would have been as useless as Chamberlain's piece of paper.
Then there is the question, as mentioned below, about whether the EU would support whatever the document said. Again, you'd have thought that leavers would have spent the decades they's be screaming about the EU talking to them about any potential divorce.
But no.
And do what instead? The only option would have been No Deal, which any sensible person knows isn’t an option.
“The text meets the U.S. objectives of a smooth transition in the transatlantic aviation market post-Brexit and increased market access for U.S. carriers,” the official said.
This country has become a farce. The interesting parts which are ALL Remain should hive themselves off and leave the crap areas to organise themselves as they wish. We could start with London declaring UDI. A Monaco in the heart of England.
Stoke Hartlepool Preston Sunderland Boston Jaywick Northern Ireland ,,,,, Leave them to their own choices
........and if you're going to miss them hoot your horn.......
However, it's a weaselly way of trying to make a series of statements that you know will be reported as predictions but saying they aren't, so if they don't happen you can pretend you weren't predicting anything.
I do ruminate on a range of potential bets when I put together pre-race blogs. But I always nail my colours to the mast with at least one race tip. What Carney seemed to be doing was browsing Ladbrokes, picking out this bet and that one, saying none of them are tips, just that they might come off.
[Been reading through my 2018 ramblings for some post- and inter-season writing. Surprised I forgot I tipped Perez each way for the Azerbaijan win at 326 and he came third, thus one place off a 108 winner, and two places off a 326 winner. Humbug].
More seriously I sometimes wonder if anybody there really wants to remain in The UK. Loyalists usually seem pretty darn angry at the government too frankly.