The UK is Out - New PM - and whither now for Article 50
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 415 Fun & Games
- 111 BA Predictor Threads
- 34 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 299 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 117 Current West Ham
- 200 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 12 PL2 & Academy
- 32 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 27 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 401 Match Threads
- 72 MOTM
- 9 West Ham Nostalgia
- 35 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 121 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 270 Other Teams & Matches
- 26 Other Players & Staff
Comments
In the EU, out of the EU, capitalism and globalism are here to stay (imo).
And we are going to be worse off (again, imo), out.
I am incredibly frustrated and ;angry if your belief that people voted Leave to either (a) stick it to the man or (b) overthrow capitalism and usher in a new world order is correct.
Because (a) is selfish, childish, short sighted and foolish. For a short-term feel-good factor (hell yeah, I showed HIM who's boss!) the risks are massive and the future uncertain, Could be good. Could be bad. But even if things will improve economically in the long term - really?! To make a decision for the reasons specified is ridiculous.
And in the case of (b) they were voting for a question that wasn't asked. Didn't they read the ballot paper?
Just my opinion.
Discussion of what would be a better system, capitalism, socialism, Marxism, Anarchism ... all very interesting, but not what's on the table in the context of the decision we were asked to make.
And it doesn't address the consequences of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Unless you (not 'you' you, but people) think any number of babies are worth sacrificing for a clean and shiny bathtub. (Always assuming you have an effective cleaning agent, which it might turn out not to be.)
The most chilling realisation that will hit brexiters will be to do with something Hammond said today which went along the lines of ' we can deal with such high borrowing because the economy is credible' . That credibility is leaking from all angles however and when the market loses confidence and charges more and more to borrow then it's game over. The anarchy that follows wont look like we may like, it will be violent and the weakest and poorest will be treated most brutally.
What is now a circumstance termed just managing quite possibly may look like a far off utopia.
Funniest thing is the degree we have now become the beggar of the world, Theresa in a sari in India two weeks ago and now Boris is courting Pakistan, when you need rely on Pakistan. Our fall from grace may end up unprecedented.
What you (not you you but the collective you) appear not to do is to spend much time or effort laying out your arguments for the benefits of remaining in the EU.
Some time ago I tried to explain my reasons for voting leave. I won't go through it all again but, in essence, it was based on my view that the benefits of membership (to the UK) to date were few and largely illusionary - I believe we would have fared at least as well had we remained outside.
Perhaps, more importantly, the research I have carried out convinces me that the EU is a failing project whose demise will only accelerate with the enlargement of the group and the inclusion of the Eastern European states.
This is, of course, just my opinion.
What I would be interested in is your, or indeed, any others views as to what you think the EU's future plans and programs are and how they might specifically benefit the UK?
However you ask my reasons for remaining and that is an entirely different thing and the reason for that is it is strategically far to much risk versus too little reward at this point. The economy is the centre of any country and although not without issue was pretty strong and heading in the right direction according to all the usual barometers. By voting to leave we took a massive risk and the reward is too small. So for me its all about national strategy. We had a better deal from being in the EU than most, I say sit and watch as it will be going through stress tests in a very real way over the next 5 years, it will either come through them and be stronger or it will fail, we did not need potentially sacrifice ourselves to be one of those stress tests. Sit watch, from outside the Euro zone and see what happens, we can leave at any time by invoking article 50, but if we do that at a time that suits us lets do it because of a carefully debated and strategically prudent position, not a referendum through a plebiscite who may be inclined to vote through sentiment and philosophy and media persuasion rather than strategically measured reasons. I don't like some of what the EU do whilst some I think is good and well intentioned, I cannot find an argument for why it is in our interest to have leaving forced upon us at a particular moment however as this vote has done, and that is David Camerons fault.
If I am wrong I will own that but I really don't think I am on this, I cant find a reason why leaving at this time is correct, I don't think any MP could make a case for how it makes our future at this point in time look better, they make cases of whats wrong with the EU, but that is a different thing.
What I was looking for was a specific list of the planned actions and initiatives of the EU which lead you and others to believe that it is some sort of safe haven for the future.
Quite frankly I do not think that the 'politic speak' of stress testing and narratives is anymore than gobbledegook.
What I see are two things.
1. The proposed reforms (agriculture/fisheries etc etc) never happen. And the EU has been allowed to become a vast slow moving bureaucracy which achieves very little other than providing jobs for professional bureaurocrates whose key target is to keep their massively well rewarded berths.
2. There is no coherent plan to incorporate the recent Eastern European states in a way that they will ever become nett contributors to the EU.
Romania and Hungary are currently being allowed to export their problems (massive unemployment and economic bankruptcy) to the west whilst failing to accept the rules and constraints (and so called freedoms) imposed on others. There acceptance into the EU was, in my opinion, a vanity project by the real power brokers and will ultimately be a key driver in the failure of this attempt to create a federal state.
Anyway, again I would ask that you list what you see as the specific future plans and projects of the EU and how you think they will benefit the UK?
I think the words narrative and stress test are just language and perfectly useful within what we are taking about as there is a large degree of politics taking place throughout this issue, party politics in the UK which brought about the referendum and EU politics in trying to keep together the union, politics is all about selling narratives to a populous. The stress tests that will take place on the idea of the EU has been coming about for the last 5 or 6 years through Greece etc from a financial point of view, and immigration is also testing the idea now, we could have waited to see how the union stood up from a position of relative safety, and if it collapsed we would be in a better place to withstand the fall due to not using the Euro, which is still it's weak point in my view.
Our view of the EU is very similar as I feel it grew too quick and rushed to sign up nations that were not in as robust a place as necessary nor with big enough economies, this meant the straight jacket of the Euro was not helpful to them and also encouraged economic migration which we are suffering from more than most because of our tax credit benefit system. I don't think it was a vanity project but well intended to unite and bring peace and prosperity, but like many things the ideal is very difficult to achieve when human nature is involved.
I think two questions have become entangled and feel that what's wrong with the EU has become tangled with is it in our interest to leave at this point in time. There is a number of things wrong with the EU, but in my view none that are worth taking on the massive risk and hit to our economy that we stand to at this time. My view of the EU and whether we should leave at present are two different things to me and the first doesn't automatically answer the second. Just our national debt alone that relies on our economic credibility to service, is reason enough without anything else to make me want to stay put at present.
As an aside one thing that has not been mentioned is we also have no negotiating position because the referendum has been adopted as final, we have to leave, so we have no leverage now, were it taken as advisory, which it was designated as, she could have gone and said look if you don't give me a reason to stay we are out, she may have got something worth having. Cameron did it the other way around and bargained before the referendum and they didn't believe we would vote out in a million years as they see it as suicide. Now we cannot ask anything, they will simply run down the clock after article 50 is triggered whilst TM squirms. Yes they will suffer with their exports but they will not choose keeping the UK export market over the potential collapse of the whole thing due to it being seen that leaving gets you benefits. our bargaining power is about a 3 out of ten in my view, our potential risk to the nation is a 9 out of ten, and they know this. If I were the EU going into a negotiation with a player who has already had their hand decided for them by a vote which they cannot ignore I would just smile and shake my head unless they gave me what I wanted and if they didn't just run down the clock which moves them nearer the cliff edge with every passing month.
If you read the posts from Brexiteers, you'll find them littered with "I'm pretty certain", "I reckon", "I'm guessing that", etc. - you get the picture.
In other words, all wishful thinking, because none of them have any idea of, or refuse to admit, the consequences of Brexit, although we all had been warned of the economic dangers of leaving.
And this is what it's all about - the economy, and we've now had the Autumn statement indicating that the economy will take a £122bn hit.
Who stands to win in all this and who stands to lose? Well, to borrow a Brexiteer line, I'm pretty certain it won't affect the likes of Arron Banks, nor any other of the rich men who backed Brexit. They'll still be in champagne and caviar on their yachts no matter what the result had been.
The people who are going to be worse off are ironically the majority of those who voted to leave - a perfect example of mass self-harming if ever there was one.
And then we have this clown Farage who to quote a poster on BBC HYS "is doing his usual trick of reducing complex political issues to dogwhistle statements, thinly-disguised threats and pretending it's all some big joke. His irresponsibility is downright dangerous"
claretandblue, as you stated "we also have no negotiating position because the referendum has been adopted as final, we have to leave, so we have no leverage now, were it taken as advisory, which it was designated as". I still can't understand why TM et al have been allowed to translate the advisory status into a binding, legally enforceable. ;angry
This is worth reading:
http://labourlist.org/2016/11/the-eu-referendum-was-purely-advisory-labour-must-be-brave-and-be-prepared-to-vote-against-article-50/
https://fullfact.org/europe/tariffs-and-barriers-trade-between-britain-and-eu/
It seems to me that no-one knows what will happen, it also seems to me that the UK will continue to trade with the EU under WTO rules. It also says that the EU will not be able to discriminate against the UK in a negative fashion. One key point for me was something James Dyson said during the campaign. He said that even if we were trading with the EU under the worst possible tariff conditions (I think 2% but I may have made that up) that this, as a serious barrier to trade is laughable, it is no barrier at all between two countries/two companies that want to trade goods and services because that particular deal would be mutually beneficial. He went on to say that negligible trade barriers mean diddly squat in a World where currencies fluctuate on a daily basis by more than any tariff anyway. If deals between countries and companies were THAT sensitive to tiny price shifts no business would be done at all.
Going it alone SHOULD encourage us to me more reactive, more industrious. A simple idea I know, but as an independent country we would be free to make our own decisions, if for instance we wanted to encourage manufacturing (for younger readers that means making things you use) we could pass a simple law that says "From next June we will no longer import thermos flasks" sounds crazy, but I`m sure there`s a law that currently says "We are not allowed to import cocaine" so the idea is not too "out there". With this scenario ratified the industrious beavers amongst us may think "it may be a good idea to set up a thermos flask factory". Richard Branson may ring James Dyson who may in turn ring the chap from The Apprentice (can never think of his name) ;hmm Sid James and between them they may open a thermos flask factory and employ some of the people returning from the EU who currently push bits of paper around.
There is NOTHING like necessity to promote human endeavour. We may even recover some of that "Dunkirk spirit" that "make do and mend" attitude, the typically British "musn`t grumble" outlook. What is SO wrong with us as a country, as a set of individuals, that operating outside the confines of The EU is SO frightening, almost incomprehensible. And Mrs G, even if capitalism and globalisation are here to stay, does it necessarily follow that we have to adhere to its rules as part of a club, surely if capitalism is to be the ruling creed then the very nature of the beast demands individuals to be self reliant, flexible, competitive, adaptable, entrepreneurial, and the very rules, regulations and huge layers of bureaucracy endemic within the EU run against the basic tenets of free market capitalism and are indeed counter intuitive.
If the bureaucratic layers of the EU disappeared tomorrow, if the tens of thousands of pointless employees were to be locked out of their offices tomorrow, would the World end. We probably wouldn`t even notice. If Germany wanted ten thousand bandages from a factory in Newcastle because of an earthquake on the outskirts of Dresden had left germans cut and bleeding, would the order not be fulfilled because Jason wasn`t at his desk in Brussels?
Remainers are constantly demanding "a plan" from Brexiters and yet are offering nothing as alternatives themselves apart from the "status quo". Well I thought there was a general consensus was that the status quo was a little shaky. The one thing that the Brexit and Trump votes have produced is a "shake up". The World needs a shake up, it needs a radical shake up. If Remain had won, if Hillary had won, then we would be faced with nothing but "more of the same". More of the same surely is a far more disturbing prospect than the hint of change. More of the same is absolutely guaranteed to lead to, well, more of the same, and even the most ardent Remainer and Clintonite would recognise that, for a lot of people, more of the same is pretty intolerable.
I think you are mistaken in transferring your own wish to see a radical change to the intentions of those who voted Brexit or Trump.
There will be no radical change as a result of either choice, imo.
There may well be a lurch to the political right, but that is hardly going to rip up the political hand-book, unless they go full out Fascism and get rid of democracy, human rights etc.
NE, if the Labour party wanted to be brave it wouldn`t be pussy footing around the article 50 issue, they would be putting forth radical policies that put people first. For instance:
Halt all further privatisation of services.
Re-nationalise ALL former public services such as trains, post office, electricity, water, communications etc etc.
Set an absolute maximum wage as well as an absolute minimum wage.
Outlaw zero hours contracts.
Abolish all draconian union laws.
Put workers on an equal footing with bosses at decision making level.
Scrap ALL healthcare charges.
Grant Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland full independence.
Re-introduce the concept of council housing.
Support British business with positive intervention.
Minimal rent/rates for high street shops
I am hoping that the "shock" of the Brexit and Trump votes will shake the established structures in a positive way, a catalyst. I have said that none of what I would like to see would happen with either Trump or May or Farage, but what the votes have done is force the politicians and establishment to look at how they currently do things and (hopefully conclude) that as for providing for normal people the structures as they currently stand are wholly inadequate. I know that Trump and Farage in themselves are not a step forward for humankind, but the very fact that those at the top have been critically appraised, that those at the top can`t simply "carry on regardless" (although they are making a bloomping good fist of trying) is a positive in my book.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11693529/John-Lewis-is-UKs-biggest-mutual-after-Co-op-falls-from-top-spot.html
So to summarise your position 'sit tight and wait because it is to risky to leave now' - is this correct?
If this is so I would ask that you consider an alternative view.
First a bit of background. In 1991 I organised and led an aid convoy to Romania - what we found was absolutely shocking. The luxury of the ruling elite contrasted with children living in the sewers of Bucherest. The political and religious persecution of significant numbers (particularly Roma). The poverty which led the poor to steal the medical supplies we carried then sell those supplies to the very hospitals and children's homes we had tried to deliver to.
Fast forward to 2014 - I was back in Romania working on an infrastructure project. Nothing much has changed. Children still live in the sewers and the hospitals are closing down or falling down. There is one major change however - the Roma families (and it is that selective) are being given grants and assistance to migrate west. They are being sold the western states (including the UK) as a dream destination where they will be given work, homes and healthcare for nothing.
Additionally, I found out the the Romanian government are selling a 'nationality and EU passport package' to non EU nationals. This was described as a measure to attract skilled labour to Romania - what it has actually done is to provide Russian nationals with a route into the EU (many with fairly basic skills) without them being subject to the normal evaluation procedures. The company I worked for were told, in no uncertain terms, that the nationality and permission to work could not be questioned. Many now work on infrastructure projects in London for low wages (self employed), live in sub standard accommodation and send most of their earnings home.
My point(s) are: none of the above appears in political narratives or 'stress testing' - these issues will escalate - the Eastern states are, and will remain outside of the management and influence of the EU. The impact on the UK of having to support large numbers of unskilled migrants, many engaged in seasonal work but able to remain on a permanent basis and continue to benefit from welfare support (we will not turn people away at the hospital door).
In my view the "lets wait and see, we can always pull out later" scenario ignores the real issues, which leave many of us to believe the whole EU project is failing now and will unravel quickly, and it will be the Western states with relatively stable economies (including the UK) who will pick up the bill. This bill will absolutely dwarf the projected (and contested) cost of the UK leaving now. All in my opinion of course - well apart from the facts that is.
And have you seen the Autumn budget statement? Not much there about fairer ways of spreading the burden, really. I'll see if I can get you the relevant figures.
Two hundred years ago people were told that slavery is a natural and just order. It was normal practice. It was only when people started to challenge this commonly held belief that a movement began to end the establishment of slavery. It seems crazy now that slavery would be considered "normal practice". What makes the EU in its current guise so undeniably, powerfully right that to challenge its existence is seen as nothing short of lunacy?? Perhaps the EU is the best way of organising people, the truth is NO-ONE knows, but to not even consider, that "other ways" exist beyond the slavishly, bureaucratic machinations of Brussels is bonkers. I know that the average person would not have had the ideals of social revolution at the forefront of their minds when they ticked the out box, but having ticked the outbox, having been given this opportunity, surely it gives us a chance, as the UK, of going against the grain, doing things a little different. Not wholesale revolution (?) but small, progressive steps. The EU and what it represents is dead. People power is alive.
And have you seen the Autumn budget statement? Not much there about fairer ways of spreading the burden, really. I'll see if I can get you the relevant figures.
Mrs G, I said she is making the right noises, I know, that as a politician, she will renege on the majority of what she has said. Mr G, even though I live in hope, I believe what you have said above (sadly) is probably right, so despite arguing vigorously against remaining in the EU, I have clicked an agree re the above. Although I do retain the right to "unagree" at any point in the future.
I really don't think it is.
And you always seem to equate 'the people' with those who chose what you approve of.
I didn't vote for Brexit, and I would never have voted for Trump.
I am still 'one of the people' however you choose to define that term, and frankly I'm a bit tired of you assuming that since I don't share your views I therefore don't think about things, and sheepishly go along with the status quo.
Anarchism isn't the only philosophy that looks for a fairer world.
I think as I have said before and have found tends to shape quite often whether someone is a leaver or remainer, is the question what is wrong with the EU or is it in our interest to leave at this very point. Some people conclude the answer to the second question from the first and others answer them separately. I agree with you and many others about the failings of the EU, although there is also much to like not least the very idea and attempt at greater unity which should be applauded wherever it is found and whatever level, but I simply don't feel their failings mean it's in our national interest to leave.
It's not a great example but If I lived in a house which was leaving a lot to be desired, leaking roof, windows not sealed properly and a little cold in winter, would I decide the house was not good and just leave? or would I make sure it was in my interest to leave by having a better home to move into or able to be in such a position I could stay in a hotel whilst finding another which was expected on all known information to be available?
That vote was forcing us from our home without any prior strategy about what we will do and without knowing if the home we will move into is any better, upon first impressions it now looks a worse home and time will tell, but nobody would just leave their home due to being so incensed with it's failings without knowing where it will go. Most remainers are now asking TM where we will go? what will brexit look like - and she says ah, I cant tell you that, but going means going? It's not helpful, intelligent or unifying in my view. She is afraid of brexiters in my view, not least within her own party and the press, and so she is not the leader for the task in my view.
I'm not quite sure that your figure of £500m per year comes from - is that a fact, assumption or a number you plucked out of the air to support your point?
As to your analogy regarding a house - your right it is a pretty poor example. And you lost me a bit with the option to move into a hotel. But to extend it - if I lived in such a house - and it was in such a state that it was, in my view, about to fall down, I would want to get my family and myself out immediately, whatever the cost.
Your response to my analogy and suggesting if your house were about to fall down you would want to get out immediately whatever the cost is of course natural, but the your house in this analogy wasn't about to fall down at all, the nation had low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment, and the second best economy in Europe, and was rated among the safest in the street by the credit ratings agency.
It had problems still but they were mainly from Tory austerity, which we could have dealt with better from where we sat had we the inclination, May now has decided she has the inclination, but has reduced her ability to do so by brexit.
In your first post you seem to be equating your house to the EU as in - in poor condition but something we are choosing to leave. But then you are describing (in your later post) a house which equates to the UK? And what's more suggesting it is in good condition. If this is the case are you suggesting that we voted to leave the UK. Or are you suggesting the only thing that makes the UK habitable is continued membership of the EU?
They made the best estimate they could within their remit.
They might have been able to be more accurate if the government had supplied them with information they were entitled to, but did not receive.
Perhaps, in the circumstances they should have refused to produce any forecast and stated they had not been supplied with the information they required to produce a meaningful number. This might have helped to reinforce their claimed Independant status - and perhaps done something to help repair their woeful reputation as forecasters ( which isn't particularly good following their pre referendum performance).
you would choose to live in a cold, damp and leaky house. ;biggrin
Also, they made very clear what basis they made their forecasts. Note, it is precisely that - a forecast.
Questioning why the OBR used the parameters they did is a nice way to take attention away from the fact that the govt targets set after the election have been missed, massively. And that the measures since then and just announced, are wholly regressive.
While the future absolute figures are obviously estimates, what isn't affected should the actual figures turn out to be higher or lower is the relative gap between the rich and poor has widened (that's fact), and is set to widen further.
Moreover, the policies and budgetary decisions made by the govt have had, and will continue to have, a greater negative effect on the poorest.
That's saying they could be 50% lower, or 50% higher.
I don't think, therefore, that it is fair to imply they are being biased to present an very negative scenario.
Was really responding to C&B's use of that number (without any reference to its status as a forecast) and making a comparison with a totally hyperthetical number that he plucked from mid air to prove a point.