Brexit Phase Two - Trade

Define "hiccups" - Empty shelves? Insufficient medicines? Several hundred thousand extra unemployed? Major employers moving out of the UK? Recession far worse than seen in 2008?

I mean, if it's just a few weeks of queues on the M20, it's a hiccup. If it's the Bank of England assessment of the impact of a disorderly or disruptive Brexit, it's a f***ing nightmare.

That same Bank of England that’s gotten every assssment totally wrong to date?
 
Andy, I agree about the French, but that is because those French elements believe it will cause the most harm to the UK.
The allemagne Francois committee of the 1935 allowed Vichy French officials to defend their actions in WW2 as seeing that greater cooperation between Germany and France in support of a new european order was more important than aligning themselves with a totalitarian dictator. (We’ve seen quite a bit from remainers about the weakness of democracy and the need to ignore democratic principals for the greater good.)

That committee of course had differing aims from the two main parties involved. France wished to use Franco German dominance as a means of weakening the U.K. the Germans saw it as a means of engaging with the U.K. positively. (Huge swathes of Germany can still be considered anglophiles)

This current abortion was kicked off with the adoption of the €. As @Wordsmith has pointed out, the € is the EUs Achilles heal.

Germany wanted greater political alignment before the adoption of a common currency. France forced through a common currency before political alignment was in place. (They managed this by clearly stating that Germany could not be unified unles Germany agree don’t on the concept of the €.)

You therefore have two main driving forces behind the €. One who’s reckless and likes being bankrolled by others. And a sensible one with a bad history who knows they’re left footing the bill but can’t be seen to be too aggressive.
 
This is where Brexiteer logic can be as contradictory as their referendum campaign.

Either a) Theresa May knows only too well that a successful Brexit will keep her, and her Party, in power - and she's working as hard as she can to achieve it, including some fairly scary brinkmanship to get the ERG to support her

Or b) Theresa May is a closet Remainer who has been working to sabotage the honest efforts of the relevant Ministers of State (Davis, Fox, and Johnson), and the utter failure to achieve the "easiest deal in history" is all down to her, and definitely not because Davis / Fox are incompetent twats and the Brexit campaign was promising an undeliverable outcome.

You can't have both.

She's either working to secure the Tories' survival (in the face of an unrealistic set of promises), or she's seeking to sabotage both her own Party and the will of the people. Guess which is more realistic?
With respect, you are painting it as a binary choice tinted by your confirmation bias.
 
Obviously you can't be talking about those directly-elected MEPs. Or the members of the commission, appointed by directly-elected Governments.
That's not exactly true is it?

MEP are elected by proportional representation. The ones that get elected are those the party machine has put at the head of their respective lists. For example, if Brexit is delayed and Farage's part contests them, he'll be elected because his name will be the first on the list. Ditto the candidates for the Tory Party, Labour party and Limp Dems.

You don't directly directly vote for MEP's, you vote for a party and the party machine determines the order candidates will be elected in. The best candidate in the world could be standing, but if they're 25th in the party ordained list, they aren't getting elected.

Our first past the post system has it's faults, but it means if a party parachute an unpopular candidate into an apparently safe seat, the electorate can say Foxtrot Oscar. That's not possible in a European election.

Don't make me laugh about "members of the commission, appointed by directly-elected Governments". That's the classic example of horse trading - you vote for my candidate for post X, and I'll vote for your candidate for post Y. In addition, the only commissioners that ever get elected are those in favour of further EU integration. Commissioners with different points of view haven't a prayer of getting a job on the European Commission.

It's also also a horse trading system that allow a non-entity like Baroness Ashton to become the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, a drunk like Juncker to become President of the European Commission or a widely loathed bureaucrat such as Martin Selmayr to be appointed to a post in direct contravention of the EU's own rules for such appointments.

Wordsmith
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
But, they are not. They are pushing the WA, and other options. The only ones pushing hard Brexit, is the ERG, and they are fading fast.
The EU are pushing, hard, the WA in full knowledge that there is no chance of it clearing parliament!
 
This is where Brexiteer logic can be as contradictory as their referendum campaign.

Either a) Theresa May knows only too well that a successful Brexit will keep her, and her Party, in power - and she's working as hard as she can to achieve it, including some fairly scary brinkmanship to get the ERG to support her

Or b) Theresa May is a closet Remainer who has been working to sabotage the honest efforts of the relevant Ministers of State (Davis, Fox, and Johnson), and the utter failure to achieve the "easiest deal in history" is all down to her, and definitely not because Davis / Fox are incompetent twats and the Brexit campaign was promising an undeliverable outcome.

You can't have both.

She's either working to secure the Tories' survival (in the face of an unrealistic set of promises), or she's seeking to sabotage both her own Party and the will of the people. Guess which is more realistic?
Theresa May has (a) a party that is still predominantly remain supporting, (b) made a pigs ear of the negotiations, (c) got an opposition determined to surreptitiously stop Brexit and (d) got an EU determined to foul up Brexit by fair means or foul.

The joker in the pack is the British electorate which doesn't care about those nuances and a large part of which will take revenge of the parity (or parties). seen as stopping Brexit. It's fear of the electorate that's making Brexit happen.

May already has one big black mark on her record - the 2017 GE. She won't want a bigger one on it: the woman who didn't deliver Brexit. It's not contradictory logic - the situation is far more complex and nuanced that can be explained in posts on ARRSE.

Wordsmith
 
The EU are pushing, hard, the WA in full knowledge that there is no chance of it clearing parliament!
The European Commission is deliberately setting impossible conditions. The only way the UK will get out of the EU is with a no-deal Brexit. The EU are gambling Westminster won't have the spine for that. I suspect the EU is going to be sadly mistaken.

If the UK doesn't exit the EU, no country will. Because the EU will set impossible conditions every time.

Wordsmith
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
That's not exactly true is it?

MEP are elected by proportional representation. The ones that get elected are those the party machine has put at the head of their respective lists. For example, if Brexit is delayed and Farage's part contests them, he'll be elected because his name will be the first on the list. Ditto the candidates for the Tory Party, Labour party and Limp Dems.

You don't directly directly vote for MEP's, you vote for a party and the party machine determines the order candidates will be elected in. The best candidate in the world could be standing, but if they're 25th in the party ordained list, they aren't getting elected.

Our first past the post system has it's faults, but it means if a party parachute an unpopular candidate into an apparently safe seat, the electorate can say Foxtrot Oscar. That's not possible in a European election.

Don't make me laugh about "members of the commission, appointed by directly-elected Governments". That's the classic example of horse trading - you vote for my candidate for post X, and I'll vote for your candidate for post Y. In addition, the only commissioners that ever get elected are those in favour of further EU integration. Commissioners with different points of view haven't a prayer of getting a job on the European Commission.

It's also also a horse trading system that allow a non-entity like Baroness Ashton to become the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs, a drunk like Juncker to become President of the European Commission or a widely loathed bureaucrat such as Martin Selmayr to be appointed to a post in direct contravention of the EU's own rules for such appointments.

Wordsmith
You sum up the EU accurately and succinctly. The EU Commission wouldn't recognise democracy if it bit them on their arse.
 
Or b) Theresa May is a closet Remainer who has been working to sabotage the honest efforts of the relevant Ministers of State (Davis, Fox, and Johnson), and the utter failure to achieve the "easiest deal in history" is all down to her, and definitely not because Davis / Fox are incompetent twats and the Brexit campaign was promising an undeliverable outcome.
or (c) there's a plan to revert to a pre Maastricht position
 
You sum up the EU accurately and succinctly. The EU Commission wouldn't recognise democracy if it bit them on their arse.
No civil service needs to. They are there carry out the instructions of Government. The essential difference is that here ministers (in theory) are overseeing it. In Brussels the Government ( CM) is being told to but out all because a British Peer drafted a pigs ear into A 50.
 
The European Commission is deliberately setting impossible conditions. The only way the UK will get out of the EU is with a no-deal Brexit. The EU are gambling Westminster won't have the spine for that. I suspect the EU is going to be sadly mistaken.

If the UK doesn't exit the EU, no country will. Because the EU will set impossible conditions every time.

Wordsmith
Ironically they have set a rather dangerous precedent in their ludicrous blackmail of the UK. About half their demand of cash is based on net contribution for the remaining 2 years of the 7 year budgetary round. If Poland put in article 50 now they would exit not long after the start of the next 7 year round, at €9 bil a year net, if they were consistent 'rules based' as O'Brien likes to to claim they'd owe Poland €63 billion for buggering off.
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
I'm asking if you think you will get what you thought you were voting for.
Oh I see, you weren't just trying to be a smart-arrse:rolleyes:

To quote someone you may know, we will just have to "wait and see". As things stand I am reasonably content that we will brexit on 29/03/19.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top