Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
asperity

Brexit dictionary

Recommended Posts

brexit%20dictionary.jpg?raw=1

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do wonder why the EU is so willing to grant us an extension to work out a deal and not just an extra month but up to another year.

Could they be worried that Britain leaving without any deal will throw the EU into financial meltdown with most of it's members going bankrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think they've done the political and financial maths Sid, unlike our Remoaner MPs; and worked out that the UK crashing out would see the EU crashing in. With most EU Countries on the verge of recession (Italy's already there),  Spain with 30% youth unemployment, French farmers and German car workers on the dole; Ireland cast adrift and to rub salt in, a 20% budget deficit that they would have a battle royal to sort out;   they need us to remain.   So I guess, knowing the state of politics in Parliament and UK Gov, they've decided to give us plenty of lead in the hope that the will of the people will collapse through sheer exhaustion, and we'll all give in and call the whole thing off.  The perfect solution for them, would be some kind of Norway model, where we still pay, but have no say (the Labour solution).  Afraid, unlike 1940, this hasn't been our finest hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's safe to assume that our Remoaner majority of MPs will never allow us to leave the EU, with or without a deal.  The only deal on offer from the EU, is the May deal (which ties us into the EU customs union indefinately).   So I guess we can expect a revocation of article 50 over the Summer and a return to slavery, until 2020, when the Lisbon Treaty will effectively prevent anyone leaving the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if remaining in the EU is the final outcome ,the country should remove the UK Parliament altogether & get direct rule from  Brussels. We don't need two tiers of government if our membership is to be permanent & the money wasted on Westminster could be used in our domestic economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only that were possible Davy, but the EU is a bureaucracy and the only thing a bureaucracy is good at is increasing its own size and power to the detriment of those it has power over. So instead of the size of the Westminster bubble decreasing, it would in all probablity balloon in inverse ratio to its influence in the whole EU project. We pay more to get less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Observer II said:

I think it's safe to assume that our Remoaner majority of MPs will never allow us to leave the EU, with or without a deal.  The only deal on offer from the EU, is the May deal (which ties us into the EU customs union indefinately).   So I guess we can expect a revocation of article 50 over the Summer and a return to slavery, until 2020, when the Lisbon Treaty will effectively prevent anyone leaving the EU.

The deal (The Withdrawal Agreement) does not tie us into the customs union indefinitely except in the circumstances of deadlock and if the backstop that everyone agrees to avoid comes into force. This is the kind of bending the truth that MPs have used to get us in this mess. The Political Agreement is not binding so is not a deal but Corbyn is too thick to understand even when the vote is only on the Withdrawal Agreement he still goes on about wanting the Customs Union you don't want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I have to thank all the leave voters for turning my country into an international laughing stock,  well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "legal" backstop has been included in the WA (Treaty), presumably at the behest of Eire;  which prevents a unilateral withdrawal from the customs union; thus tying us into the CU , and thus the EU.  TM, or rather her Remoaner civil servants were out negotiated by the EU, because imo, their hearts were never really in the enterprise,  plus we had a majority of Remoaner MPs in Parliament determined to sabotage any deal reached, in order to stop brexit;  thus creating the political pantomime that's turned us into a laughing stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, P J said:

I feel I have to thank all the leave voters for turning my country into an international laughing stock,  well done.

You could say the same about the remain voters, or the none voters all are equally to blame given that criteria, but really the only ones you can reasonably blame are the politicians who have prevaricated and procrastinated us into that position.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Observer II said:

The "legal" backstop has been included in the WA (Treaty), presumably at the behest of Eire;  which prevents a unilateral withdrawal from the customs union; thus tying us into the CU , and thus the EU.  TM, or rather her Remoaner civil servants were out negotiated by the EU, because imo, their hearts were never really in the enterprise,  plus we had a majority of Remoaner MPs in Parliament determined to sabotage any deal reached, in order to stop brexit;  thus creating the political pantomime that's turned us into a laughing stock.

The backstop is in the protocol on Northern Ireland and does not apply until we have left and then only when negotiations have failed to reach and agreement after whatever extension of the two year period has been agreed. Again you write as if it were applying from the outset, that is simply wrong. Then you claim being "into the CU and thus the EU"; that too is simply wrong. Norway is in a CU but is not in the EU but there are conditions. The agreement on NI says Customs Territory not Customs Union and by then the UK would have LEFT the EU already, it cannot tie us to what we have left.

Your statement about being out-negotiated because of the civil servants is just a conspiracy theory. The problem is and was the dreadful Article 50 which required future arrangements to be negotiated after leaving. Any country wanting to leave rather than being forced wants to know where it is going before it takes the first step. That is where the MPs are now but Article 50 does not permit it. So those MPs who demand certainty about the outcome of negotiations which we are not even allowed to start have to take a chance and they have decided not to trust anyone at all, so they are all stuck. Yet they clamoured to submit Article 50 to show they wanted to leave. It is a tragedy of gargantuan proportions.

MPs in all but destroying the Royal Prerogative over the last two years have prevented May from just saying we are leaving now and starting negotiations without knowing the final outcome. Corbyn and his mates are refusing to agree the WA without knowing what the outcome of the future negotiations is intended to be and ensuring that no one can change at all later on either side. On the other hand if he get into power he wants to change it. These people are stupid and childish. Frankly it is not the remoaner MPs alone who have turned us into a laughing stock, rather it is just as much the unicorn hunters in the ERG and the DUP who given something that is as close as they can expect to what they want have hung on for absolute victory and now risk losing everything they want because of hubris.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll keep it short, cos we're clearly not going to agree:  "absolute victory" is clearly the only outcome of a binary choice - it's either one or the other.  That was the majority view in the referendum, backed up by the Tory manifesto which spelled out the objective - to leave the single market, leave the customs union and leave the ECoJ.  It's ironic, that all that was required of politicians was to do nothing up to and including 29th March or 12th April, and it would all be over - will of the people fulfilled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 10:33 PM, asperity said:

If only that were possible Davy, but the EU is a bureaucracy and the only thing a bureaucracy is good at is increasing its own size and power to the detriment of those it has power over. So instead of the size of the Westminster bubble decreasing, it would in all probablity balloon in inverse ratio to its influence in the whole EU project. We pay more to get less.

A continuing theme throughout our EU membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting article by Mervyn King, ex Governor of the Bank of England:

Mervyn King, 4 December 2018, 05:25 GMT

Mervyn King, a professor at the New York University Stern School of Business, was governor of the Bank of England for a decade, beginning in 2003.

When Tony Blair and Boris Johnson unite in their condemnation of the “deal” under which Theresa May proposes that the U.K. should leave the EU, you know something has gone badly wrong. The withdrawal agreement is less a carefully crafted diplomatic compromise and more the result of incompetence of a high order. I have friends who are passionate Remainers and others who are passionate Leavers. None of them believe this deal makes any sense. It is time to think again, and the first step is to reject a deal that is the worst of all worlds.

There have been three episodes in modern history when the British political class let down the rest of the country: in the 1930s, with appeasement; in the 1970s, when the British economy was the “sick man” of Europe and the government saw its role as managing decline; and now, in the turmoil that has followed the Brexit referendum. In all three cases, the conventional wisdom of the day was wrong.

In the first two instances, it took a revolution: in 1940, the dismissal of the prime minister and his replacement by someone better suited to the role of wartime leader; in the 1970s, a political and intellectual upheaval, and a radical new government capable of changing course. Both times, the country escaped ruin by the skin of its teeth. Today’s challenge is of a similar order.

Britain is not facing an economic crisis. It is confronting a deep political crisis. Parliament has brought this on the country. It voted overwhelmingly to hold a referendum. The public were told they would decide. And the rules of the game were clear: Fifty percent of the vote plus one would settle the matter. The prime minister and the chancellor of the exchequer at the time said unequivocally that Brexit meant leaving Europe’s single market and customs union. This was the Brexit that, after the referendum, both main political parties promised to deliver.

But a majority of members of Parliament were against leaving, and both parties were split down the middle. For members of the Labour opposition, the opportunity to undermine the government outweighed their views on the issue at hand, momentous though it was. A divided governing party was unable to rely on a majority to support any plan to deliver Brexit.

To be sure, no coherent plan has ever been presented. There are arguments for remaining in the EU and arguments for leaving. But there is no case whatever for giving up the benefits of remaining without obtaining the benefits of leaving. Yet that is exactly what the government is now proposing. It simply beggars belief that a government could be hell-bent on a deal that hands over £39 billion, while giving the EU both the right to impose laws on the U.K. indefinitely and a veto on ending this state of fiefdom.

Preparations for Brexit based on trade under WTO terms should have started in 2016, immediately after the referendum, as I said at the time. Britain needed a fall-back position — it is foolish to negotiate without one — and that was the form it should have taken. An immigration policy for the post-Brexit world could and should have been published in 2016. But there was no such planning. Instead, the government pretended that everything could be postponed until an imaginary long-term deal could be negotiated. This was naïve at best, and in the event has proven disastrous. And so Project Fear turned into Project Impossible. It is incompetence on a monumental scale.

Before the referendum, official economic projections intended to scare the country into voting Remain didn’t succeed. Based on flimsy and arbitrary assumptions, they were subsequently proved wrong. The same strategy has resurfaced.

It saddens me to see the Bank of England unnecessarily drawn into this project. The Bank’s latest worst-case scenario shows the cost of leaving without a deal exceeding 10 percent of GDP. Two factors are responsible for the size of this effect: first, the assertion that productivity will fall because of lower trade; second, the assumption that disruption at borders — queues of lorries and interminable customs checks — will continue year after year. Neither is plausible. On this I concur with Paul Krugman. He’s no friend of Brexit and believes that Britain would be better off inside the EU — but on the claim of lower productivity, he describes the Bank’s estimates as “black box numbers” that are “dubious” and “questionable.” And on the claim of semi-permanent dislocation, he just says, “Really?” I agree: The British civil service may not be perfect, but it surely isn’t as bad as that.

The U.K. is a European country, and always will be. Trade and contacts among the nations of Europe can and should continue much as before. And I have no doubt they will do so. But the political nature of the EU has changed since monetary union. The EU failed to recognize that the euro would demand fiscal and political integration if it was to succeed, and that countries outside the euro area would require a different kind of EU membership. It was inevitable, therefore, that, sooner or later, Britain would decide to withdraw from a political project in which it had little interest apart from the shared desire for free trade.

Leaving the EU is not the end of the world, any more than it will deliver the promised land. Nonetheless the country is entitled to expect something better than a muddled commitment to perpetual subordination from which the U.K. cannot withdraw without the agreement of the EU.

Many MPs will argue that “we are where we are,” that it’s too late to change course, and that May’s deal is the only deal available. But remember, this is a political not an economic crisis. If Blair and Johnson, from opposing political viewpoints, can see the fatal weaknesses of this proposed deal, politicians of all hues should try to do the same. This deal will not end the divisiveness of the debate about Britain’s relationship with the EU. The Remain camp will continue to argue, correctly, that to align the country indefinitely with laws over which it has no influence is madness, and a second referendum is vital to escape from this continuing nightmare. And the Leave camp will argue, also correctly, that it is intolerable for the fifth largest economy in the world to continue indefinitely as a fiefdom.

If this deal is not abandoned, I believe that the U.K. will end up abrogating it unilaterally — regardless of the grave damage that would do to Britain’s reputation and standing. Vassal states do not go gently into that good night. They rage. If this parliament bequeaths to its successors the choice between a humiliating submission and the abrogation of a binding international treaty, it will not be forgiven — and will not deserve to be.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way forward now, is to fill Parliament with Brexit Party MPs, and the fight back starts with the Euro Election, which, in effect, provides the second referendum that the Remoaners keep calling for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Observer II said:

The only way forward now, is to fill Parliament with Brexit Party MPs, and the fight back starts with the Euro Election, which, in effect, provides the second referendum that the Remoaners keep calling for.

So you propose a General Election in which a single issue party should win and the government of all other affairs can go to hell for a period of five years. You are clearly no better that the current crop of MPs. Mervyn King is mostly correct in his analysis but there needs to be a way such as a general measure to bring this to an end. To start with an act to ban all future referendums other that one on Brexit, with a ban on repeal for forty years. Everyone will know it is aimed at the SNP so it will pass. Next a second referendum with multiple choices and transferable votes as well as a minimum threshold. That way there will be a decisive answer. Then make it an offence for an MP to not implement to will of the electorate, with being found guilty being incompatible with membership of the House of Commons for a minimum period of ten years. That is how to fix this mess, another election will just create another but different mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Errm, nope, a General Election would hopefully clear out the Parliamentary stables  of the Remoaner careerist s**t  and provide the opportunity to finally Leave (with no deal) as per the referendum decision.   There would then be a need to reform the political system to make it responsive to the public (popular) opinion, starting with the anachronistic and undemocratic House of Lords.  This has to be done and dusted before anything else, as we can't move on until the matter is concluded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Errm, nope, a General Election would hopefully clear out the Parliamentary stables  of the Remoaner careerist s**t  and provide the opportunity to finally Leave (with no deal) as per the referendum decision.   There would then be a need to reform the political system to make it responsive to the public (popular) opinion, starting with the anachronistic and undemocratic House of Lords.  This has to be done and dusted before anything else, as we can't move on until the matter is concluded.

So good to see you have an open mind to the opinions of others. Your belief in the rest of the electorate sharing you views and objectives is naïve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...