The benefits of Brexit - the future of the United Kingdom

[IncredulousP]

or the Russian government fucking with everyone, It's the lefts complete and utter lack of ability to grasp why every single policy they endorse fails

Oof

 

[Xzi]

Just how much MSNBC do you watch? Russian interference usually is them just telling the truth, thats all they have to do. RT.com even usually just prints articles with links to the western media to point out when they get caught in a lie.

I get my news online, I don't watch cable news at all. And RT is literally state-sponsored media, but I suppose Republicans are comfortable with that sort of extreme spin coming from Fox. The two might as well be partnered.

The DNC also uses Marxist like tactics and tons of useful idiots who dont even realize they are going against their best interests. And yes I know the GOP is corrupt as well, but I dont feel the need to uncover what they do since its right in our face.

You're right, McConnell's connections to Russian oligarchs have been in our faces the whole time as he continues to block the vote on one election security bill after another. So if you're such a "free thinker," why are you repeating his talking points for him?

 

[Pipistrele]

From my viewpoint, It's not the Russian citizens or the Russian government fucking with everyone, It's the lefts complete and utter lack of ability to grasp why every single policy they endorse fails. Instead of facing upto this, they resort to usually one of two things. 1) Russia, 2) Racism.

To be fair, the left so far was pretty civil when it came to international political discussions - there are some obvious disagreements, but at least it rarely didn't feel like an actual discussion. It's the right wing where I get the biggest amount of personal insults and xenophobic remarks in my adress.

 

[Taleweaver]

From my viewpoint, It's not the Russian citizens or the Russian government fucking with everyone, It's the lefts complete and utter lack of ability to grasp why every single policy they endorse fails. Instead of facing upto this, they resort to usually one of two things. 1) Russia, 2) Racism.

...I take it that's why you're debating on gbatemp, where that stuff rarely happens?

Yes, about the last two pages just about everyone has jumped on a "it's (not) Russia"-bandwagon. Most of the 33 pages before that barely mentions either of the things you mention.


I'm not really sure how to imagine political left being racist, btw. Is that people complaining that potential immigrants might pollute or destroy the natural habitat of the squirrels?



EDIT: meanwhile, in the UK: an intermediary election (midterms? ) lowered Johnson's majority in the district Brecon&Radnorshire. Result: he has a majority...of 1 (320 vs 319). Not really the news you want to hear when you just get elected.


But (somewhat?) in his favor: apparently he's surrounding himself with capable ministers who all follow the hard brexit line. Of course, as a bremainder, this isn't the best news for me (and it's probably no coincidence that this caused this election result), but at least it's clear. Per comparison: the moment Trump got into power, he threw out his entire prepared transition team to start over with people who in some cases had barely heard of the departments they were set to be running. So at the very least, Johnson isn't joking around when he's preparing to accept a no deal brexit.
Whether the rest of the country will accept it is, of course, an entirely different matter.

 

[Doran754]

I'm not really sure how to imagine political left being racist, btw. Is that people complaining that potential immigrants might pollute or destroy the natural habitat of the squirrels?

You completely missed my point, I didn't say the left was racist, I said they either blame everything on Russia or racism. And I stand by that, the left is completely incapable of winning a debate without putting everything down to racism. The democratic debate the othernight proved that. Did any of the candidates go 2 minutes without saying racism?

Also It's pretty damn easy for the left to be racist.

Imagine thinking It's okay and not racist to assume black people must vote democrat. Imagine saying ALL white people are racist. This is the pollution of the left, your bs racism makes it okay for you to say things like this. "It's okay when we do it"

 

[FAST6191]

This Russia stuff is boring. How about we discuss the recent by election wherein the Conservatives lost and now have a lead of 1 in parliament overall (the speaker and deputies thereof don't vote save for tie breaking and even then).

https://www.express.co.uk/news/poli...con-and-Radnorshire-by-election-boris-johnson

Somewhat amusing to some might be that the Monster Raving Loony Party (a joke party dating back to 1983) scored higher than UKIP (though the brexit party there got 10% and if they are to be considered UKIP's sucessor party after a fashion then eh). Speaking of brexit party then despite this byelection being called as a result of the MP in question being forced to step down they fielded the same guy and still managed 38% so do we contemplate spoiler effects here (the lib dems, who won, only got 43%)?

Turnout was a pretty high 59.7 percent which is pretty high as these things go.

 

[notimp]

Going the unconventional, not at all socially accepted route on this one.

That person.

Might not be very bright. Judging form her writing, not her photo. So why are we discussing her œuvre here in this thread?

You can also judge her from the photo, I dont mind. Thats what humans do..

edit: Exhibit two, your honor:

Hey, its the same blouse!

Somebody was wrong on the internet syndrome? Again?

edit: Glasses do help a little:

Uh, and this one got boka!

 

[notimp]

I'm sorry - I showed prejudice.

Let her speak for herself. There she is with a talkingpoint that shamzie might enjoy:



(Talkinpoint: Democratic establishment have done nothing over the past decades, that wouldnt have caused wide spread disillusionment. )

Out of interest, shamzie, what does an image like this one do to you:

She was featured in Huffpost once, with this image, and a provocative statement.

Now you tell me that the same person might use provocation on twitter to gain mass attention?

Wow, the far right is even more naive than I thought... Now you are propagating her message? To then attack her?

 

[Taleweaver]

You completely missed my point, I didn't say the left was racist, I said they either blame everything on Russia or racism.

Okay. Fair enough. I can see that's what you meant to say. I accept your correction on your earlier post.

It doesn't mean I agree with it, of course. But ey... At least we're on the same page. So then... Since neither of us want to discuss these points, shall we get back on the topic about Johnson losing all but the narrowest majority possible? Or potential advantages of an actual brexit?

 

[FAST6191]

As well as margins there are some interesting things that could happen with the timings of things, and still the possibility of some real fun things as far as the UK's constitution.


Advantages sounds like an interesting topic to get back to, though will be tied to what deal is made (or not made). As the EU seems to be going for basically in but now an observer status or something more akin to that, especially if trade is involved, we can probably skip that as we already know how that works.

Striking out cold into the world without a deal at all and the EU (which represent the geographically nearest locations surrounding it, give or take a few tiny islands and non Eu members of Europe, most of which are absolutely tiny or effectively in the EU but for some quirks) being if not hostile then an unknown entity for a few years before new trade relations are generated and solidified (probably not the most favourable ones at that) could make for interesting times.

But the US, Canada and Australia...

If Canada is harmonising with the EU over many things that would still mean playing to EU standards if Canada is supposed to play, which is something of a bugbear for some though nothing I particularly find troubling -- I would like to be able to deafen myself with my electronics if I so choose but can see why it is not done (even if that might be more of a France thing and people just make a model for the EU).

Australia is pretty far away and does not play that much outside it and its nearby places in Asia. Does import some stuff though. New Zealand is a bit better in some regards but somewhat lacks population (as in less than 5 million, London alone is more than 8), and is also further still.

US. I don't know how many scraps the UK would have to beg from the US' table to make up for whatever is lost or lessened. I would also object to having to adopt more US style practices and standards for a lot of things -- I definitely do not want their IP laws coming over here and looking around the place the US definitely loves to try exporting those where it can. That said is trade that hard now and what might happen if a non trade el presidente gets in at some point soon (or soon as far as policy goes)? Does the US make that much that is worth importing and does the UK export that much that they would care about, including the export of paper pushers (the US seems to have its own finance thing going on pretty well and a big chunk of the UK's stuff for quite a few years has been English speaking gateway to Europe).

China? Does the UK really want this? What can be done that could not realistically be already done? Chinese companies already send loads of stuff, buy up infrastructure, send their kids to school, take back trained people, and handle more things. Also is China good for the long term? The wheels might not yet have come off but they are looking somewhat shaky if you look at the ghost cities stuff and reasons for that, and rising costs of doing business there (amusingly we have seen China export their low skilled labour from China as China is too expensive).

India? More of a possibility, and a better long term bet than China is looking right now.

Outside the traditional commonwealth* and "Asian tigers"?
Mid east and North Africa? How tantalising.
sub Saharan Africa? The space economy there is probably not going to kick off for a while (come back and have a chat in about 2070). Could be interesting to get in on the ground floor of some of the east African stuff though as their greater unity thing looks like it might be going places.
South Africa... ignoring the brics thing then what are the long term prospects for it right now?
Brazil? More possibilities here.
Russia? Other than gas which the hippies tell me we are supposed to be getting away from then do they export much of note and import much either? What are their long term prospects (their population/population age is going to be a fun one in a few years)?
Japan? They do have nice right hand drive cars, a lot of debt and some tech still hanging around.
As China gets a bit expensive and rather inward looking does that mean the UK can catch the wave of non China, non India countries starting to dabble in tech, finance and and pharma in a big way?

*one of the main things the leave campaign was sure of, and one of the things the joining the EU lark said to have snubbed years earlier. Not entirely sure it was as great a raising of the finger as some said but prepared to hear the case of how it was.

Would some combo of the lot offset things? I could just about see it in the short-mid term. Not sure it is particularly worth the effort, and quite a lot of instability there as time goes on.

This Irish border lark is also going to be fun. For those unfamiliar then the UK has Northern Ireland as part of it. It is thus the only major part of the UK (Gibralta is small and otherwise sorted) that shares a land border with another nation (the Republic of Ireland). A hard border there would, for complicated historical reasons, be completely untenable (as in more than decent chance of violence if it went into effect), one tends not to slice off portions of your own country from the rest of it (there is still a short water crossing between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK) and while technological options are a possibility they are probably years out, not something you could deploy in a few months (not to mention come with their own quirks). An unenforced border is not a great plan and a selectively enforced border... remember that violence thing from the previous sentence?

Some mention immigration controls (which the UK does have some of already) but OK. What benefits and troubles might be had or created here? A lot of things rely on cheap labour, and quite a few people pop over to Europe for things, if not spend much time there already.

 

[notimp]

The official 'british version of the story' documentary is out:

Portillo The Trouble With The Tories S01E01
and
Portillo The Trouble With The Tories S01E02

You can thank me later. (Thats a strong recommendation that you all should watch it.)
It gives more credence to shamzies position.

 

[Taleweaver]

In a strange way, the summer recess has almost more news items than during a similar period 2 or more years ago. Yet at the same time, there is a standstill.


Over the last weeks, I've read numerous reports that Johnson complains that the EU ministers don't want to negotiate a better deal. That's obviously true: there has been negotiations for the better part of two years (with Johnson as foreign minister, no less). If for no other reasons that fatigue, their stance is at least understandable. Why should the positions change when the prime minister changes?

Problem is also that there's hardly ever any talks about content. It would seem fair that if you want to strike a better deal for the UK, you should offer something for the EU that May wouldn't want. Instead, there's all this "no, we won't pay the agreed transfer sum!", suggestions that free travel for EU residents in the UK immediately ends with the deadline and dismissal of the Irish backstop. We get it: you want to leave the EU. We get it, Boris: you want to 'prorogue' the parliament if they dare to vote against a 'no deal'(1). We get it: you're more prepared for that one-in-a-million-chance of a no deal scenario than ever(2). We get it: you're very skilled at dancing around the issue of the Irish backstop. But come on...it's not realistic to expect the EU ministers to budge even an inch when all you do is (at least publicly) propose something that's strictly worse than what May negotiated.

Actually...let's talk about that Irish backstop some more. It was perhaps an issue before. I've currently revised that opinion, because issues can be resolved. Unless I'm missing something, it's an impossibility. Lemme explain...

Brexiteers are against the Irish backstop because it would, in effect, tether them to some EU regulations that would prevent them to strike trade negotiations with other countries. Okay...fair enough. Thus far, I've(3) pointed out that the reason the backstop is there is because it'd keep the peace in that borderline region. It's that "good friday" agreement thingy that people on both sides of that borders happy. This is the EU's (and my) stance, and brexiteers turn that into a mere opinion that can be dismissed. That isn't very fun (I wouldn't consider the possibility of armed conflicts "merely a disagreeing opinion"), but I can't deny that this is, indeed, my opinion.

In favor of the brexit camp is, you guessed it, the USA. Trump has been promising a great trade deal(4), and John Bolton said he'd get this deal through congress as quickly as possible. Sounds great, right?
Unfortunately...Bolton simply isn't in a position to make such claims, because congress isn't part of his department. And Pelosi recently came out and said that congress simply would refuse any trade deal that endangers the aforementioned good friday agreement.

This is a situation that's referred to as a deadlock. Or a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation:
By agreeing to the backstop, there can be no real trade deals with other countries (damnit!)
By removing the backstop, the largest economy (the US) won't ever pass a trade deal with the UK (damnit again!)


Of course this is a pretty simplified explanation. I'm sure there's wiggle room between these two broad options. Maybe there's a way to somehow keep the trade deals with a backstop? Maybe Canada doesn't give a damn about good fridays? Maybe there's a way to get rid of the backstop in a way that somehow doesn't threaten the good friday agreement? Maybe that something is even somehow something DIFFERENT than what May already proposed three f***ing times?

In any case: this is a pickle. One that need to be looked into, checked, considered and regarded as something that could make or break the whole project(5). but it somehow is not. I'm not saying that things like stocking up on foods and supplies (and...even making the first of november a bank holiday? ) aren't necessary steps(6), but it's like taking steps without properly making sure you're heading in a right direction.



(1): of course: wanting something won't mean it'll happen. Bercow's pretty straightforward on this: it simply won't happen.
(2): leaked documents from your government disagree on this, of course. But these are anonymous sources from within the government...what do they know?
(3): okay, okay: when I say "I", I of course mean EU officials. i'm saying "I" because they're not active on gbatemp
(4): again: no concrete propositions. But even under Obama or any other president, it'd be a safe assumption that this would mean "first and foremost for the US". After all: a modern country like the UK depends heavily on imports and exports. Cutting off ties with the EU means a need for another import FAST.
(5): yes, I'm dismissing the fact that nearly half of the UK residents don't want any sort of brexit in the first place (or even more...it's three years since that bloody referendum).
(6): they are. At the very least, everyone at least agrees that there will be delays as customs have to spend much more time checking everything that goes in and out of the island

 

[Pipistrele]

Going the unconventional, not at all socially accepted route on this one.

That person.

Might not be very bright. Judging form her writing, not her photo. So why are we discussing her œuvre here in this thread?

You can also judge her from the photo, I dont mind. Thats what humans do..

edit: Exhibit two, your honor:

Hey, its the same blouse!

Somebody was wrong on the internet syndrome? Again?

edit: Glasses do help a little:

Uh, and this one got boka!

She looks kinda wholesome, imo. Dunno why you're so overfocused on the photos

 

[notimp]

Disruptive strategy. If someone picks out a maybe not so well argued text from twitter, saying 'this is whats wrong with the world' I focus on the potential that the text maybe is not that well thought through.

Photos where the easiest way to do so. (But initially it was the text and the circumstance, that her claim to fame was getting into HuffPo - also with a rather provocative statement made on social media.)

Some people use social media as a tool to advance personal careers. Some of them might matter less, than they try to make you think on social media. Kind of that logic.

 

[UltraDolphinRevolution]

(4): again: no concrete propositions. But even under Obama or any other president, it'd be a safe assumption that this would mean "first and foremost for the US". After all: a modern country like the UK depends heavily on imports and exports. Cutting off ties with the EU means a need for another import FAST.

It's not like there will be no more import/export between the UK and EU countries. You can bet German car makers still want to sell to British consumers etc.
The EU politicians think highly of themselves, however, in a way they are just like Trump: mixing politics and economics. The political divide in Europe during the Cold War was as harsh as it could be but both spheres were kept separate. The USSR needed the money and the European countries needed their natural gas.
Abusing economics for political gains only hurts everyone in the long run because it impedes on long-term planning (and therefore the world economy).

 

[notimp]

Abusing politics for economic gains - is basically the entire game. Like - everywhere. Its like they are different sides of the same coin.

Also if you speak about "long term political planning" how long term do you mean? 100 years? 200?

Because the planning horizon of a big established company is 50-100 years (one, maybe two successful generational and orientation shifts), if thats too short term for you - boy, I'm interested in your political views...

 

[Taleweaver]

It's not like there will be no more import/export between the UK and EU countries. You can bet German car makers still want to sell to British consumers etc.
The EU politicians think highly of themselves, however, in a way they are just like Trump: mixing politics and economics. The political divide in Europe during the Cold War was as harsh as it could be but both spheres were kept separate. The USSR needed the money and the European countries needed their natural gas.
Abusing economics for political gains only hurts everyone in the long run because it impedes on long-term planning (and therefore the world economy).

True. But I capitalized the word 'fast' for a different reason. Cars are a luxury good. Sure, it might hurt a bit if your ordered German car takes a few days to make it through customs, but in the end you still have the same car. Food that isn't kept in proper environments during custom checks simply goes bad. So either the UK adjusts to this situation beforehand or risk trade deals going (literally) sour.

Also think of the impact of import taxes. German car makes might want to keep selling their cars after a (hard) brexit, but when their goods are taxed, it means that the prices goes up for the consumer as well. So they'll probably at least lower their production for cars with the steering wheel on the right side.

And...isn't the whole job of a politician to have a (hopefully positive) impact on his country's economy? I mean...brexit gets sold on sovereignty, sure...but that sovereignty is also explained as "to be able to make better treaties with others", right?

EDIT: heh...ninja'ed by @notimp. I guess you could call it "abusing" the economy, but I really don't see a way how it is an illegitimate use (yes, even when someone like Trump does it).

 

[notimp]

Yes, the issue is, that with hard brexit, political protection of trade is gone (WTO rules arent very 'functional' at the moment). So tariffs on cars, f.e. look like a very juicy leaver, every time the UK has a point to make towards the rest of europe. Also the other way around - although I'm actually not quite sure what britain is producing at the moment, other than financial derivatives and tourism.

But now back to your (second to last poster ) argument that democracy is bad - and long term political planning is good.

Democracy = Basically a process to ask individual people - who more often than not are driven by their own economic states ('health of the business sphere'), more so than anything else. Its basically a constant question of "are you comfortable with the current economic state" as filtered through populations.

 

[Doran754]

Which is it? Can't have it both ways! Are we stockpiling or aren't we? How can we be stockpiling because of brexit while simultaneously not be spending because of brexit. Such constant negative bullshit all the time.

The backstop isn't an issue. Both parties have said they won't enforce a hard border, It's simply a non issue that's been weaponised by the EU.

I'm just gonna dismiss everything else said in here recently.

Were doomed without our EU overlords, no water no food no stamps no medicine, god knows how we survived before tusk told us what to do. The more you argue about how bad it'll be the more we want to leave.

To be fair, I'm worried about the risk of shortages, I've started stockpiling fucks.

I'm so tired of hearing the same old be arguments. "ONE MILLION JOB LOSSES SIMPLY ON A VOTE TO LEAVE!!" "RECESSION!!" "IF YOU DONT JOIN THE EURO YOU'RE DOOOOOOMED"

I've heard it all before, were bored of it.

 

[notimp]

The backstop isn't an issue. Both parties have said they won't enforce a hard border, It's simply a non issue that's been weaponised by the EU.

The backstop is not an issue of 'whats been said' but 'whats been written'.

Lets say: Hard Brexit.

EU is forced to separate on their terms, creating a hard border in ireland, while being coined "the bad guy" in public in Ireland for doing so. Ireland would also be significantly economically impaired (see routes), so people in irland would be mad at the EU.

With backstop: UK is violating international law.
Without backstop: Less clear responsibilities.


So what actually saying "we want the backstop clause out" is - is playing a game of 'chicken', which would significantly increase both the outcome benefits and the likelyhood of a hard brexit for the UK.

So it is like taking the EU safety clause for a hard brexit (making it extremely unlikely that the UK will trigger one) out of the preliminary agreement.


Its literally the following. In final negotiations. One party holds kind of the golden ticket for 'whom the public in ireland will blame (the other side)', if the negotiations fail - and there is going to be a hard border.

The party thats holding the ticket (currently the EU) is in a slightly better negotiation position for a soft brexit (because they can always say - you dont want the hard brexit, do you?).

And this "ticket" doesnt go away, if the EU drops it. It just changes over to the other side.

So its actually a real political issue.