OT: The News Thread
- Thread starter MindzEye
- Start date
Altair
Well-known member
Thank you Cameron. You're good for one thing at least.
LeafGm
Well-known member
On the face of it, it doesn't seem right to proceed with Brexit after the people have had their say, or to have a second referendum.
Problem is, nobody on the "leave" side seems to have thought of any coherent plan of how to proceed after a winning referendum, and they're also either reneging on the promises they made left right and centre, or they're coming out with fantasy-land scenarios like this:
Kind of reminds me of Quebec sovereigntists thinking Quebec would be able to leave Canada while continuing the use of Canadian currency, maintaining a seat at the Bank of Canada and without taking on any share of the debt on their way out the door.
Problem is, nobody on the "leave" side seems to have thought of any coherent plan of how to proceed after a winning referendum, and they're also either reneging on the promises they made left right and centre, or they're coming out with fantasy-land scenarios like this:
Kind of reminds me of Quebec sovereigntists thinking Quebec would be able to leave Canada while continuing the use of Canadian currency, maintaining a seat at the Bank of Canada and without taking on any share of the debt on their way out the door.
Altair
Well-known member
On the face of it, it doesn't seem right to proceed with Brexit after the people have had their say, or to have a second referendum.
Problem is, nobody on the "leave" side seems to have thought of any coherent plan of how to proceed after a winning referendum, and they're also either reneging on the promises they made left right and centre, or they're coming out with fantasy-land scenarios like this:
Kind of reminds me of Quebec sovereigntists thinking Quebec would be able to leave Canada while continuing the use of Canadian currency, maintaining a seat at the Bank of Canada and without taking on any share of the debt on their way out the door.
In all fairness quebec separatists were right on one of those three things.
They could continue to use the Canadian dollar.
http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/could-iceland-adopt-the-loonie-1.1239195
back when Iceland wanted to use the Canadian dollar it was simply a matter of buying enough of it. But no, they would need to pay their share of the debt and would not get a seat at the Bank of Canada.
JohnnyHolmes
Banned
Leaving the EU doesn't mean that England won't have a relationship with the EU.
Just maybe they'll be able to make their own decisions about that relationship.
I know I wouldn't want Kuntface Merkel dictating immigration quotas to me, as one example.
Already England (UK) have their own currency and their own visa requirements. They are not a Schengen country.
The UK can make their own deal with the EU and not much will change from the status quo.
The currency and the markets will stabilize. Now they're probably both being tanked intentionally to create fear and confusion.
England was once the most powerful country on the planet. Does anyone really think they can't handle their own affairs?
Of course they can, and they can do it without being in the EU.
The Brexit doesn't mean isolating themselves from the rest of Europe. It should be about getting more out of that relationship, and with the right leadership, should be easy enough to accomplish.
Just maybe they'll be able to make their own decisions about that relationship.
I know I wouldn't want Kuntface Merkel dictating immigration quotas to me, as one example.
Already England (UK) have their own currency and their own visa requirements. They are not a Schengen country.
The UK can make their own deal with the EU and not much will change from the status quo.
The currency and the markets will stabilize. Now they're probably both being tanked intentionally to create fear and confusion.
England was once the most powerful country on the planet. Does anyone really think they can't handle their own affairs?
Of course they can, and they can do it without being in the EU.
The Brexit doesn't mean isolating themselves from the rest of Europe. It should be about getting more out of that relationship, and with the right leadership, should be easy enough to accomplish.
IrishWolfman
New member
What's going on right now is an amazing study both in history and power politics.
The Leave side had no idea what to do if they won - that much is obvious now. That's because there were so many factions inside the Leave camp that there was not agreement on the EU's greatest deficiencies much less how to solve them.
So, you have Iain Duncan Smith saying money from the EU will be spent on the NHS, Nigel Farage saying it won't and Boris muttering incoherently.
You have Dan Hannan saying that he doesn't want to bring immigration levels down, just control who comes in. Nigel Farage, UKIP and many Labour Leave supporters saying 'no, the numbers have to come down'.
In this vacuum of ideas, we introduce a vacuum of leadership - Cameron stepping down.
The closest approximation to this is Chamberlain stepping down after the Norway debate. Only, back then, the transfer of Tory leadership occurred in one afternoon in a backroom. Now, it'll take months while MPs debate, bicker, scheme, vote and then take the best two pigs in the poke out to the Party membership for a vote.
Cameron stepping down bought Britain time to get its act together but it also gave the EU an excuse not to negotiate informally because there's no leadership to negotiate with.
There exists no mechanism I'm aware of for expelling a member from the EU and nothing Brussels can do can force Britain to enact Article 50. To be quite honest, the Eurocrats and some supposedly staunch western governments have behaved quite abominably to the UK in the last few days, in part to maintain the upper hand in bargaining but also because they doubtless dislike the campaign the Leave side waged with them as the Bad Guy.
So, they've said no informal negotiations without Article 50. But, Euroskepticism is on the rise across Europe. Marine Le Pen has already suggested she intends to use it and the Brexit vote in her campaign next year.
If the EU doesn't desist in its attempt to force the UK's hand, they could end up with a largely unsympathetic Prime Minister who wants to see the EU burn as much as the UK has been willing to manhandle London the last few days. It wouldn't be hard to play the Brexit card and Article 50 to the benefit of Euroskeptics on the continent, essentially light the EU on fire from within.
Not good for global markets. But, honestly, no less than Brussels deserves.
The Leave side had no idea what to do if they won - that much is obvious now. That's because there were so many factions inside the Leave camp that there was not agreement on the EU's greatest deficiencies much less how to solve them.
So, you have Iain Duncan Smith saying money from the EU will be spent on the NHS, Nigel Farage saying it won't and Boris muttering incoherently.
You have Dan Hannan saying that he doesn't want to bring immigration levels down, just control who comes in. Nigel Farage, UKIP and many Labour Leave supporters saying 'no, the numbers have to come down'.
In this vacuum of ideas, we introduce a vacuum of leadership - Cameron stepping down.
The closest approximation to this is Chamberlain stepping down after the Norway debate. Only, back then, the transfer of Tory leadership occurred in one afternoon in a backroom. Now, it'll take months while MPs debate, bicker, scheme, vote and then take the best two pigs in the poke out to the Party membership for a vote.
Cameron stepping down bought Britain time to get its act together but it also gave the EU an excuse not to negotiate informally because there's no leadership to negotiate with.
There exists no mechanism I'm aware of for expelling a member from the EU and nothing Brussels can do can force Britain to enact Article 50. To be quite honest, the Eurocrats and some supposedly staunch western governments have behaved quite abominably to the UK in the last few days, in part to maintain the upper hand in bargaining but also because they doubtless dislike the campaign the Leave side waged with them as the Bad Guy.
So, they've said no informal negotiations without Article 50. But, Euroskepticism is on the rise across Europe. Marine Le Pen has already suggested she intends to use it and the Brexit vote in her campaign next year.
If the EU doesn't desist in its attempt to force the UK's hand, they could end up with a largely unsympathetic Prime Minister who wants to see the EU burn as much as the UK has been willing to manhandle London the last few days. It wouldn't be hard to play the Brexit card and Article 50 to the benefit of Euroskeptics on the continent, essentially light the EU on fire from within.
Not good for global markets. But, honestly, no less than Brussels deserves.
CH1
The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
BTW, that's exactly what would have happened if the Yes side had won a Quebec referendum. Easier to say "we want our own country", harder to agree on what kind of country (union) you want.
Altair
Well-known member
The people did vote for that, but the government has yet to decide on the course of action to be taken. So yes,they ignore it. There is nothing that they can do at this moment anyways, they can't kick the UK out and the UK isn't going to trigger article 50 anytime soon.
So business as usual until they do.
IrishWolfman
New member
Actually, Angela Merkel's initial reaction was the responsible and correct one.
That was "Everyone calm down, there's no need to rush this". It's understandable coming from her, since the UK either is, or is among, the largest foreign markets for German automobile manufacturers.
No one has behaved with great distinction in this whole affair.
The EU should have bent over backwards to give the Brits terms that were suitable to keep them in and forestall the referendum.
But Brussels did what it always does, it dug in its heels
CH1
The Artist Formerly Known as chiggins.
I know it. But they still need to be tough optically -- gotta scare the uneducated voters in other countries. In the end, business will be fine.
Also, EU/Brussels has a ton of bureaucratic pro negotiators. England not so much.
JohnnyHolmes
Banned
The EU needs England a lot more than England needs the EU.
If they do get their shit together and get out successfully it will get pretty ugly. Next out will be France and without those two, the EU will all but die.
Maybe ultimately this will lead to reforms that will keep countries in.
If they do get their shit together and get out successfully it will get pretty ugly. Next out will be France and without those two, the EU will all but die.
Maybe ultimately this will lead to reforms that will keep countries in.
zeke
Well-known member
JohnnyHolmes
Banned
They might at the moment due to all the uncertainty, and of course they are trying to force them to invoke article 50 by Tuesday, but I think they know that England is the first domino.
If they lose the dick measuring contest, it's over for Brussels.
If they lose the dick measuring contest, it's over for Brussels.
lecoqsportif
Well-known member
You guys are ridiculous.
In a trade-based economy one group doesn't "need one more than the other" or "hold all the leverage". Trade is for mutual gain, barriers cause mutual pain. In terms of the basic macro, it's a mathematical fact this will have a more proportional impact on the UK. It's just math. 440>60 Ther will be some fairly signficant pain in a few sectors that rely the current trade arrangement.
In the the medium term, the UK will gain most-favoured-nation status under WTO rules. It will not be free trade, but it's not terrible. The EU does not have an incentive to just hand over free trade status to a drop out, it's self-harm and makes no sense.
All in all, kinda pointless. This will do nothing to alleviate problems in the north of England, the EU was not the source of their economic decline. Anyway. Whatever.
Edit: there is one area where the EU can be a bit prickish... financial services industry. They have little to lose, and thei size of their market does confer them some power. The UK will need to tread carefully.
In a trade-based economy one group doesn't "need one more than the other" or "hold all the leverage". Trade is for mutual gain, barriers cause mutual pain. In terms of the basic macro, it's a mathematical fact this will have a more proportional impact on the UK. It's just math. 440>60 Ther will be some fairly signficant pain in a few sectors that rely the current trade arrangement.
In the the medium term, the UK will gain most-favoured-nation status under WTO rules. It will not be free trade, but it's not terrible. The EU does not have an incentive to just hand over free trade status to a drop out, it's self-harm and makes no sense.
All in all, kinda pointless. This will do nothing to alleviate problems in the north of England, the EU was not the source of their economic decline. Anyway. Whatever.
Edit: there is one area where the EU can be a bit prickish... financial services industry. They have little to lose, and thei size of their market does confer them some power. The UK will need to tread carefully.
Last edited:
zeke
Well-known member
what exactly do you think the EU is? why would the EU grant the benefits of the partnership with a nation which has just refused to share the responsibilities of it? why would free trade with UK be more important than free trade with any other nation?
MapleLeafBlueJayBoy
Well-known member
Britains credit was downgraded yesterday.
