The Brexit Consequences Thread

JuniorBod

War Hero
But the German constitutional court is the ultimate arbiter of whether the German constitution is being infringed. And could throw a large spanner into the works by stating that - legally - it is. In which case, the only option open to the German parliament would be a referendum to change the constitution. Which in turn might result in two fingers from the electorate.

Wordsmith
I thought the basic law governing the court was set up in such a way to prevent politicians fiddling with the court or changing its remit in any way....

Local history an all...

JB
 
The Federal Constitutional Court should be just that. He's had run-ins with the ECJ before.
Nevertheless, the constitution is changeable with the exception of a few articles which have a so-called eternity guarantee.

As it looks like the politicians are wildly determined to push through this nonsense and they will certainly not be stopped by such trivialities as the constitution or a Federal Constitutional Court.

In times of COVID-19 where large parts of the population cheerfully accept every restriction of basic rights this is really the smallest hindrance.
The problem is that if Germany wants to have its European Union i.e. guaranteed export market for its manufacturing industries, it is going to have to pay for it. Now that the UK is no longer going to help foot the bills, that could prove to be expensive, so someone's view is going to have to prevail.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
The problem is that if Germany wants to have its European Union i.e. guaranteed export market for its manufacturing industries, it is going to have to pay for it. Now that the UK is no longer going to help foot the bills, that could prove to be expensive, so someone's view is going to have to prevail.
There's also an eye-watering bill to bail out Club Med incoming - either that or the euro going splat.

Either bill is likely to make the German electorate wonder about the wisdom of euro membership, profitable thus far though its been for Germany..

TANSTAFAL....

Wordsmith
 
AS I've said before, it's the parties to the left of the political spectrum that want to stay in the EU - Labour, the Limp Dems, Greens, SNP. That's because they want to expand the role of the state. And the EU has been doing just that by steadily expanding its areas of competence - and impacting on the UK statute book.

It's the parties to the right of centre who want out of the EU, because they want to scale back the role of the state. (Tories, UKIP). And we can only scale back the role of the state once outside of the EU and it's laws/regulations.

Wordsmith
You should probably have mailed that to Sir Ed of the Irrelevance Party.
 
The only time I will worry is when the SNP come up with an Indy Scotland financial plan that will stand up to any form of basic scrutiny! The SNP and gravelbelly can winge all they like about leaving the EU but the recent CV outbreak has clearly demonstrated that without the RotUK we would truly be up sh it creek and the EU would not be running to our aid. Any Indy campaign would have to put that front and centre and also explain to the sizeable chubk of their supporters why tying ourselves back to EU is independence!
If they were ever serious about independence they would be fighting tooth and nail to give England a vote on Scottish independence, the fact that would speaks volumes about their intentions

They care about staying in power, they care as much about independence as the Labour Party care about the working class
 
The problem is that if Germany wants to have its European Union i.e. guaranteed export market for its manufacturing industries, it is going to have to pay for it. Now that the UK is no longer going to help foot the bills, that could prove to be expensive, so someone's view is going to have to prevail.
My fear is that they have already decided to follow the "Whatever it takes approach". This is then packaged in small, handy, easily digestible 750 milliard bites and everyone is happy. Juncker didn't announce the following in 1999: "We decide on something, then put it in the room and wait a while to see what happens. If there is no great shouting and no riots, because most people don't even understand what has been decided, then we continue - step by step, until there is no turning back." for nothing.

That's the way it's going to be with the "Ever closer Union"
After all it is only the taxpayers money.
 
My fear is that they have already decided to follow the "Whatever it takes approach". This is then packaged in small, handy, easily digestible 750 milliard bites and everyone is happy. Juncker didn't announce the following in 1999: "We decide on something, then put it in the room and wait a while to see what happens. If there is no great shouting and no riots, because most people don't even understand what has been decided, then we continue - step by step, until there is no turning back." for nothing.

That's the way it's going to be with the "Ever closer Union"
After all it is only the taxpayers money.
Germany will regret it bitterly in the end.
 
We belong to an uncompetitive trading bloc at the moment. Broadly, allowing for the UK's departure, the EU's share of world trade has halved over the last 40 years. We're leaving an over taxed and over regulated EU for a more uncertain future...
Here's another graph from that page; I don't think that it's quite as simple as your first would suggest. My question is whether the big gains made by non-EU countries could ever be matched by the EU, whatever the regulations or tax regime.

Take China: year-on-year growth at incredible levels, because they were beginning from such an awful start point. You could argue that the big GDP gains kick in for the World as a whole, once non-NATO countries realise that centrally-controlled economies and "Five-Year Plans" are a crap way to do business.

If you said "well, the EU has 15% of world GDP, but only 5% of world population", you could argue that it's the rest of the world catching up. For instance, the USA also has a $20 trillion dollar GDP, and slightly fewer people.

If you'd said "the UK is underperforming in terms of GDP value per capita (link)", then I'd agree - but the question is whether that lower productivity on the part of UK workforce is caused by "EU regulations and tax regimes", or caused by long-term underinvestment in education and training over the past few decades, backed up by UK firms failing to invest in research & development... and whether the Universities currently doing the basic research that leads to big gains a decade down the line, will gain or lose competitiveness from our eventual trading agreements with the EU.




Boris wants to be a 2 - 3 term prime minister, and he only gets to do that if he gets Brexit right. And there are encouraging signs. I'll cite just one. Cummings is advertising for a data scientist who can crunch numbers for the government. Which means that future government decisions will be increasingly evidence based.
The question is whether the data science he's interested in, is "how do we make the best decisions", rather than a much simpler "how do we track and tweak key voting segment opinion so as to keep winning elections".

Cummings is a bright guy, but he doesn't appear to have much self-doubt. Take, for instance, the decision in March that Boris should announce that he wasn't going to wear a mask, that he was going to carry on shaking hands, and that there was nothing to worry about: was that evidence-based? And when he did catch Covid-19 as a result, not to follow Government advice: was that "data science suggested that driving to Barnard Castle was a good idea"?

My evidence-based assessment is that Cummings does what's best for Cummings.
 
Last edited:
He said, without a hint of irony.

Feel free to enlighten us with some examples of my work. I am particularly interested in "distortions of the truth"

Many thanks in advance

(Although I will not be holding my breath)
You've just done it for heaven's sake.

I said:'A certain part of the Brexit camp is utterly obnoxious'.

Which you twist to:'You labelled Brexit voters obnoxious' and then pile in on the back of that distortion.

Can you really not see what you are doing?

Probably not..
 
Here's another graph from that page; I don't think that it's quite as simple as your first would suggest. My question is whether the big gains made by non-EU countries could ever be matched by the EU, whatever the regulations or tax regime.

Take China: year-on-year growth at incredible levels, because they were beginning from such an awful start point. You could argue that the big GDP gains kick in for the World as a whole, once non-NATO countries realise that centrally-controlled economies and "Five-Year Plans" are a crap way to do business.

If you said "well, the EU has 15% of world GDP, but only 5% of world population", you could argue that it's the rest of the world catching up. For instance, the USA also has a $20 trillion dollar GDP, and slightly fewer people.

If you'd said "the UK is underperforming in terms of GDP value per capita (link)", then I'd agree - but the question is whether that lower productivity on the part of UK workforce is caused by "EU regulations and tax regimes", or caused by long-term underinvestment in education and training over the past few decades, backed up by UK firms failing to invest in research & development...


All your mental gymnastics seem to be predicated on the remain voters lip wobbling assumption that we will never do any trade whatsoever with the EU after 1 Jan 2021. Do you realise how daft that is.
FYI, that chart includes the UK so will change significantly......... very shortly.

Chin up old chap.
 
This guy is a leading academic (apparently).
We had a democratic exercise in the form of a referendum, Leave or Remain.

Leave won.

This man thinks I'm the obnoxious one:

A C Grayling

#FBPE

#Reform

#RejoinEU

@acgrayling



Brexit is worse than pointless: it is a huge negative, an act of monstrous national self-harm aimed at benefiting a very, very few people. It is chaos capitalism for gamblers, people with investments in nothing but themselves. They have used our trashy constitution to cheat us.

9:45 am · 13 Jul 2020·Twitter for iPhone
 

UncivilServant

Old-Salt
A reasonably interesting post, if you really care about one side of an argument about coffee machines, but it is a classic example of a certain part of the Brexit camp that is utterly obnoxious.

Everything has to come complete with a snarl, a bullying tone and a fanatic's one eyed certainty that anyone who may even have a mildly different opinion, or shows a scintilla of doubt, is weak, deserves to be abused, stamped on and reviled.

All very un-British.
I know. If only they were all as friendly and rational as the remain camp, eh?
 

Truxx

LE
You've just done it for heaven's sake.

I said:'A certain part of the Brexit camp is utterly obnoxious'.

Which you twist to:'You labelled Brexit voters obnoxious' and then pile in on the back of that distortion.

Can you really not see what you are doing?

Probably not..
You are of course correct.

You did indeed call a certain part of the pro- Brexit camp (?) obnoxious.

Which is not an insult. No siree.

Now we could dance on the head of a pin but I did ask you to come up with examples of where I have "distorted the truth". Noting, of course that an opinion is not a fact, thus if I were to state a contrary opinion to your own then that would be an opinion, and not a "distortion of the truth".
 

Truxx

LE
This guy is a leading academic (apparently).
We had a democratic exercise in the form of a referendum, Leave or Remain.

Leave won.

This man thinks I'm the obnoxious one:

A C Grayling

#FBPE

#Reform

#RejoinEU

@acgrayling



Brexit is worse than pointless: it is a huge negative, an act of monstrous national self-harm aimed at benefiting a very, very few people. It is chaos capitalism for gamblers, people with investments in nothing but themselves. They have used our trashy constitution to cheat us.

9:45 am · 13 Jul 2020·Twitter for iPhone
That Starkey bloke was a "leading academic too wasn't he?
 
If @ acgrayling thinks that "Brexit is worse than pointless: it is a huge negative, an act of monstrous national self-harm aimed at benefiting a very, very few people. It is chaos capitalism for gamblers, people with investments in nothing but themselves. They have used our trashy constitution to cheat us."


Then perhaps a simplification of what has happened, put into simple terms, which this cr*p seems to need!!!

UK provided the second biggest amount of money funding the EU.

The UK was consistently sh*t upon by the EU.

The UK politely requested fairer treatment in proportion to its contributions... and was told to get f*cked.

Uk decided to leave.

We are in the process of leaving.

What’s left to debate/understand/go on whinging about?
 

Latest Threads

Top