The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[HanoiVillan]

It obviously isn't the case that Britain is going to attract *no direct investment whatsoever*. The argument is that, in aggregate, hiring and investment decisions will be much less favourable for the UK following a Leave vote, not that nobody will get a job or no money will be invested in the UK. 

[Awol]

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

It obviously isn't the case that Britain is going to attract *no direct investment whatsoever*. The argument is that, in aggregate, hiring and investment decisions will be much less favourable for the UK following a Leave vote, not that nobody will get a job or no money will be invested in the UK. 

So do you think we can expect endless counter factual and unprovable speculation until people finally forget that there was once an EU?

 

51 minutes ago, Xann said:

This thread could easily descend into a lame version of 'There's A Hole In My Bucket'.

We got there about a year ago, but how to fix it? 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

This thread could easily descend into a lame version of 'There's A Hole In My Bucket'.

Or a pail imitation.

[blandy]

34 minutes ago, Awol said:

how to fix it? 

I can't quite get a handle on the answer.

[blandy]

sorry for the tin-pot puns.

[HanoiVillan]

36 minutes ago, Awol said:

So do you think we can expect endless counter factual and unprovable speculation until people finally forget that there was once an EU?

Probably. I'm not sure I fully understand the question.

If you're asking what I think will happen in the future, it obviously depends on the arrangements. If there's a 'cliff-edge' deal/Hard Brexit/whatever (where we fail to make a deal and either revert to WTO rules or not even that) then that seems likely to have fairly fast negative consequences that are visible to the man on the street (as in a timescale of less than six months, not 'it looks like 28 Days Later the following morning'). If we make some kind of arrangement, I doubt much will visibly change to people who aren't paying much attention, except gradual lowering of inward investment, more 'offshoring' of jobs and a general sense of decline. My personal view is that, some time around 2030 or 2035, people will start looking around and saying to themselves 'didn't we used to be richer than Ireland, once upon a time?'

[StefanAVFC]

8 minutes ago, blandy said:

sorry for the tin-pot puns.

You've posted them in spades.

[bickster]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

You've posted them in spades.

Talking like a Kipper there

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

If there's a 'cliff-edge' deal/Hard Brexit/whatever (where we fail to make a deal and either revert to WTO rules

Speaking of which, disgraced former defence minister Fox sneaked out a statement last week. scumbag

Quote

Liam Fox released a very revealing written statement yesterday. His department has started to do the preliminary work at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) required for when Britain leaves the EU.

Members of the WTO have things called schedules, these are basically a description of your trading relationship with the world. They list things like your tariffs and your services commitments. Britain's are currently held under an EU umbrella and they'll need to be extracted ahead of leaving.

This should be the chance to create that confident, independent, global trading nation Fox and the other Brexiters are always talking about. Finally Britain can construct a trading arrangement which suits it, not the continent.

For instance, we can get rid of the special rule on oranges, which we don't grow but have to labour under because of the Mediterranean states in the EU which do. We can prioritise the sugar cane that Tate & Lyle uses in their sugar, rather than the sugar beet which is used in Europe. We can finally create a customised trading arrangement for this country, rather than one for a continent with which we sometimes share very few economic interests. This is exactly what Brexit was all about.

Except Fox isn't going to do any of that.

"In order to minimise disruption to global trade as we leave the EU, over the coming period the government will prepare the necessary draft schedules which replicate as far as possible our current obligations." [italics added]

It is a startling admission. The UK's extracted WTO schedules will "replicate as far as possible" it's current status. So we'll keep the special rule for oranges, even though we don't grow them. We will continue to protect a sugar process designed for Europe and continue failing to protect one used by one of our major companies, despite its years of lobbying to change the system.

In short, despite all the sound and the fury, despite all the attacks against immigrants and the threats against EU citizens in the UK, despite all the Brexit votes and the Richmond rebellions and the sudden change in this country's political dynamic, the government is not aiming to change anything of any substance. Britain will keep the exact EU tariff system which Brexiters for so long said was strangling it.

what a c-womble.

[HanoiVillan]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Speaking of which, disgraced former defence minister Fox sneaked out a statement last week. scumbag

what a c-womble.

This is exactly of a piece with the reality of Brexit, which is that there are a wide range of possible outcomes, which vary between 'slightly worse than the arrangements we have now' and 'considerably worse than the arrangements we have now', but none of which are actually better, in any obvious way. The Disgraced Dr Fox's admission is consistent with a government straining mightily to achieve the 'slightly worse arrangements than we have now' result. 

[blandy]

18 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is exactly of a piece with the reality of Brexit,

Well kind of, but it's also completely different to what they said "we need to leave the EU and take back control because all the rules are holding us back" to "when we leave we're going to keep the rules, because, well if we don't we're stuffed and won't be able to trade with anyone" Yes another reason for leaving which turns out to have been a lie.

Yeah, just put it over there on the fire with the 350 million a week for the NHS...

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Well kind of, but it's also completely different to what they said "we need to leave the EU and take back control because all the rules are holding us back" to "when we leave we're going to keep the rules, because, well if we don't we're stuffed and won't be able to trade with anyone" Yes another reason for leaving which turns out to have been a lie.

Yeah, just put it over there on the fire with the 350 million a week for the NHS...

Oh, definitely. It's nothing like what they said at all, and feet do need to be held over the fire for that. I'm not trying to normalise it. 

[peterms]

Wren-Lewis on Brexit.

Quote

A little English coup

In August 1991, hardline elements in the army and KGB staged a coup against Mikhail Gorbachev, shortly after Gorbachev had agreed to reorganise the USSR as a new confederation. To many this seemed like an end to the reforms that Gorbachev had brought, as the coup leaders appeared to have the support of the whole military. Yeltsin was defiant in Moscow, but those who remembered the Prague Spring probably thought the tanks would win out. Then the coup’s nominal leader, Gennady Yanayev, gave a press conference in which he looked nervous with his hands shaking, and it became clear that the coup leaders were meeting serious resistance. It collapsed shortly afterward.

I remembered this when watching the proponents of hard Brexit shout down any concern about what the government might agree following the EU referendum, and attack anyone who pointed out the difficulties that leaving the single market might bring. They too have carried out a sort of coup against parliamentary democracy, and maybe declaring judges enemies of the people is the equivalent of Yanayev’s shaking hand. They cannot quite believe what they have done, and fear it may all collapse when people realise what is going on. Our Prime Minister has had to draw on her faith in God to enable her to continue leading this coup.

If you think coup is too strong a word, think about what has happened. An advisory referendum decided by a very narrow majority to leave the EU. That is all this slim majority of the electorate decided. They did not vote to leave the single market (SM), partly because most leaders of the Leave campaign told us (correctly) that leaving the EU was quite compatible with staying in the SM. They did not vote to end freedom of movement. Leaving the EU is not one policy, but a whole range of possible policies with quite different effects, and the electorate have said nothing about their preferences among these possibilities. In short, the referendum was about the EU and not the SM, and whatever they say now we know that you can be in the SM without being part of the EU.

Yet a new government, with no mandate from the voters, has decided that only it should be allowed to interpret what leaving the EU should amount to, and the electorate through their representatives in parliament should have no say in the matter. The people, having indicated a change in direction, are to be allowed no say whatsoever in where exactly they are to be led. The differences between these alternative paths out of the EU are immense, and this choice on how exactly to leave the EU will have a huge impact on every citizen. Yet the people and their representatives are not even to be allowed to know what options the government are aiming for. (The OBR was even denied knowledge of how the government intending fulfilling its guarantees to Nissan.) The pretext for this coup, involving keeping their negotiating hand secret, is as thin as the Soviet coup’s claims that Gorbachev was unwell.

Any attempt at parliamentary control over what might happen is described as trying to stop Brexit. Why not seek to stay in the SM? Just asking that question means to the coup leaders that you are trying to stop Brexit (of course it does not). Why not see what might be on offer before starting the clock on being thrown out with nothing? That is just a delaying tactic, they say. Why not have a second referendum on the final deal? Finding out what the electorate thinks once that the exit deal is clear would be against the will of the people, they chime without irony. When you are told that consulting the people or their representatives is against the will of the people, you know there has been a kind of coup.

But I fear that in this case the coup leaders’ nervousness is unwarranted. Three judges have thrown MPs a lifeline, a chance to stop this coup, and MPs look like throwing it right back. Those Conservative MPs who know what damage this will do have decided they can do nothing to stop the Conservative party being taken over by fanatics. The Labour party appears pathetic: its leadership wanting exit from the SM for their own reasons (talking shamelessly about ‘access’ in the hope of muddying the water) and the PLP is more concerned about losing votes than improving their electorate’s welfare (it is the story of austerity all over again). They had a chance of coming together to lead the opposition to this coup and they have blown it. Instead of Boris Yeltsin, we have Tom Watson, who joins in the mantra that opposing triggering Article 50 is going against the will of the people.

And instead of courageous citizens of Moscow we have Labour party members saying it is best to bide time and work within for change. This timidity is obnoxious to see: they should instead be demanding their MPs take back control. It is their prosperity that will be diminished by this coup, their right to work in the EU taken away. It seems to me that approving Article 50 is the last chance for representative democracy to have its say. Once that vote is in the bag, the government can do what it likes and nothing can be certain to stop them. (A vote on any final deal is no choice, because the consequences of saying no will be far worse.)

So MPs are acting like turkeys voting for Christmas. They know that in all likelihood voting to trigger Article 50 will throw away their chance to stop the government ending our membership of the SM, thereby reducing their constituents access to public services and the chance to keep young people’s right to work in the EU. They will be handing all the levers of power to a government that seems to be run by a minority of fanatics. Is this what a once proud country has allowed itself to become? Is this what a parliament that once stood up to kings has been reduced to?

 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

20 hours ago, brommy said:

I think it's way too early to regret voting either way. I'll be judging whether the result was the correct decision in 10 years or so.

If all you're interested in is stats then yeah, maybe. 

[StefanAVFC]

"it's too early to judge" is such a cop-out.

[brommy]

24 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

"it's too early to judge" is such a cop-out.

Why?

[TrentVilla]

15 minutes ago, brommy said:

Why?

Too soon to say.

[StefanAVFC]

Because things are already pretty bad. Country is in total division, opposition in disarray, hate crime up.

Pete's article above explains how things seem pretty awful so far.

And anyway, when isn't it too early to judge? Why 10 years?

[tonyh29]

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Country is in total division

tell me about it , the streets of Surrey have now been divided by a white line and I had to take an 8 mile detour so I didn't stray into the half designated as a remoaner safe zone

but for a few that won't let it go  I doubt it barely registers behind Honey G and Strictly on the conversations down the pub scale

 

interestingly (or not) Homophobic attacks have increased 157% since Brexit (v 41% on Johnny foreigner )  ... it's a worrying trend in both cases , but it would appear too simplistic just to blame it on Brexit

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by tonyh29
word corercted

[brommy]

Leaving the EU and whatever it entails is going to be a long and difficult journey, but that doesn't mean the journey won't be worth it. What people think of where we eventually get to will be highly subjective, but let's at least get there.

I'm genuinely reminded of my last house move. I thought it was the right decision to move but I couldn't be certain whether I'd like the new area, whether the neighbours would be nice or whether the house would have issues not picked up in the survey. The seller turned out to be a very dodgy character. When I refused to meet his demand for an extra £2000 for the carpets (half of which were royal blue, FFS!), he kept delaying the move. After months and months of hassle with him and his solicitor, the moving day finally arrived. He obviously hadn't cleaned it since my final viewing, some months earlier. The carpets had been removed or damaged, the kitchen was thick with grease and the oven was broken, the showers and toilets were filthy and blocked, all the sink plugs had been ripped off their chains and taken, all the light bulbs had been removed or smashed. The day reduced my wife to tears. It took a lot of hard work, money and a long time to get our new house the way we wanted it. Two of our neighbours weren't that nice so for a couple years it was awkward at times. One of the awkward neighbours moved away after 3 years and the other 'grew up' and is now pretty decent.

If I'd have judged the move after a week of putting the first offer in, or even two years after the actual move, I might have regretted it. After 5 years or so, our house finally felt like our home. It's now 18 years after the somewhat traumatic move it turned out to be one of the best things my wife and I have done for our Villa family. 

I occasionally drive past where I lived 20 years ago; it has gone downhill.