Britain leaving the European Union.

yoganmahew · **Posted:** Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:06 pm

GameBlame wrote:

What I'm saying is that middle England may just stick with their initial decision to unhook themselves from Crazy Merkel's toxic empathy. If I was Theresa May I'd be doubling down on a push to the right on issues like migration.

Indeed, and by tieing themselves to unrestricted immigration from the Commonwealth. That'll show johnny european foreigner he can't mess with the plucky english!

NorthDub Paul · **Joined:** Oct 7, 2017 **Posts:** 54

I always see the Brexiteers referred to in this thread as 'English' but it's easy to forget that the Welsh voted to leave as did large numbers of both Scotland and NI.
This seems to be very much a UK decision.

dolanbaker · **Posted:** Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:38 pm

NorthDub Paul wrote:

I always see the Brexiteers referred to in this thread as 'English' but it's easy to forget that the Welsh voted to leave as did large numbers of both Scotland and NI.
This seems to be very much a UK decision.

It's also worth remembering that much of the "home" counties voted remain.
This is very much a vote based on the demographic make up of the population, those who benefited most from the "free market" voted remain, while those who were largely ignored by the elite and were losing out due to the "race to the bottom" voted leave.

If the referendum was about allowing immigration (both form EU & non EU), the results would have been similar, as in no to further immigration.

GameBlame · **Joined:** Dec 2, 2013 **Posts:** 2598

dolanbaker wrote:

NorthDub Paul wrote:

I always see the Brexiteers referred to in this thread as 'English' but it's easy to forget that the Welsh voted to leave as did large numbers of both Scotland and NI.
This seems to be very much a UK decision.

It's also worth remembering that much of the "home" counties voted remain.
This is very much a vote based on the demographic make up of the population, those who benefited most from the "free market" voted remain, while those who were largely ignored by the elite and were losing out due to the "race to the bottom" voted leave.

If the referendum was about allowing immigration (both form EU & non EU), the results would have been similar, as in no to further immigration.

I think it would have a been wider No to immigration. They thought they were voting against Muslim immigration but they're going to get more from the commonwealth. They're only marginally reducing it by stopping Merkel's whims.

And if Brexit goes wrong you have a good chance to see race riots / pogroms in North of England. England has a recent history of rioting and a long history of religious pogroms. There is effectively apartheid going on in places like Bradford. And the kind of people in the indigenous community who might do it would be delighted to get payback for the sexual abuse and grooming scandals. That won't be forgotten quickly.

Poacher turned gamekeeper · **Posted:** Sun Sep 16, 2018 6:22 am

mortgageboy wrote:

Evil_g wrote:

Poacher turned gamekeeper wrote:

Evil_g wrote:

In the event of the treaties upon which all European Law is based ceasing to apply to the UK, I'd expect that the UK civil service will be pretty snowed under.

I think it would take quite some time to prepare the necessary paperwork to replace this miniscule, relatively straightforward, element of the single market, to the satisfaction of all stakeholders.

It's taken half a century to build up, and if you withdraw from the whole thing, it is not going to be replaced in 72 hours.

Business contracts don't operate on a nod and a wink.

While I certainly take your point about unprecedented levels of uncertainty applying to everything connected to Brexit currently, I don't share the perception that it may cause systemic collapse or anything like it.

The respective civil services have years of experience of reinventing their own work practices based around events as they unfold, be they Directives or ongoing political or legal events. And while the noises coming from within the British civil service may be playing up suggestions of chaotic outcomes it needs to be remembered that many are the most vested of interests when it comes to maintaining the umbilical chord to Brussels. I cannot accept that journalists or contributors to an online forum such as this are ahead of the game vis a vis the people who will have direct responsibility for such matters come the day of reckoning.

So there may be a degree of disruption as there is with all change but as another poster previously noted, in 2008 the financial system did not collapse. The world kept turning and those with responsibility for such matters simply rewrote the manual to ensure that the wheels of commerce kept on keeping on....and I say that as someone who at that time very much bought into the notion that things would go apocalyptic.

The same will happen in this instance, albeit messily.

What you're saying, is that Brexit (whatever that ends up being) probably won't lead to systemic collapse.

What I'm saying, is that failure to have a withdrawal agreement, which includes a transition period, in place by the 29th of March next year would absolutely lead to systemic collapse. Certainly within the UK, and it would have very severe repercussions outside of the UK.

However, the most likely outcome, in my opinion, is that a withdrawal agreement will be reached, which will include a backstop provision very close to the current proposed wording. This will provide for a two year transition period during which the UK will have pretty much the same rights and obligations as they currently do.

It will also include some waffle about the EU's intention strike a uniquely special trade deal (in so far as this is possible with the UK's redlines). This will be presented (a) to the leavers in the UK parliament as "take it or no Brexit", and (b) to remainers in parliament as "take it or no withdrawal agreement". Nobody will care what the DUP think.

Then one of two things will happen.

(a) Either the Parliament will reject it, the government will fall, a general election will be announced, and the UK will ask nicely for an extension to the Article 50 period to allow the election be held. What the election will be fought on will depend on the public mood, but you'd hope some hard questions about where the fuck all of this is heading might be asked; or

(b) And I believe this is more likely, parliament will accept the deal.

If the deal is accepted, in early April, the UK will sit down as a third country, with seasoned EU trade negotiators to negotiate the first of their wonderful Global Britain Trade deals. They will initially request a unicorns and fairies Canada+++ deal based on imagination and good will from all sides. They will not be in a position to threaten to withhold future payments. They will not be in a position to threaten to partition Ireland.

They will be eviscerated.

No other country will enter into trade negotiations with them until their future relationship with Europe is clear.

And the clock will be ticking towards the end of the transition period in 2021, after which, you guessed it, the Treaties will cease to apply.

Once the UK population finally realise that absolutely nothing that is on the table is anywhere close to as good as their current arrangement
(surely the penny has to drop before the end of 2019) I see at least three possible outcomes (presented in order of least likely to most likely):

(a) The public will direct their anger towards the politicians who brought them to this point and demand that EU accession talks begin immediately;

(b) The public agree that the best they can hope for is (i) a Canada style deal which would disastrous for integrated supply chains and their services industry, or (ii) a Norway style deal which would be humiliating, expensive, and they'd still have to deal with those slightly brown people who talk funny; or

(c) The public demand that the government negotiate harder so that they can have their cake and eat it. To allow this take place the government ask for a good long extension to the transition period, with progressively fewer rights, but the same amount of obligations. Ten years ought to do it. We're not transitioning to nowhere, just transitioning to the point that no one in charge can be blamed for the problem.

So, yeah, I fully agree that Brexit probably won't result in systemic collapse.

So long as a withdrawal agreement is in place by March 29th next year.

A very good summary.

The Breixteers in England are still (although perhaps slightly less than before) wittering on about 'absurd' and 'silly' notions that UK aircraft could be grounded, or truck drivers prevented from driving on the continent, or animal products stopped at EU borders. Like Poacher above, they assume that because it 'makes sense' to keep things as they are in these areas, it will magically happen, even with no deal. But as the EU patiently and repeatedly point out, all these things require a legal framework, outside of which the UK has chosen to place itself. And in the absence of new arrangements which replace existing legal agreements, there are certain ineluctable consequences.

Yes Evil G's post is a worthy attempt at fleshing out the mechanics of what may happen should cirxumstances play themselves out in a particular manner.

However, it is one which appears to afford a degree of reverence to the legal and administrative practices that underpin the functioning of the EU and the manner in which it may conduct a relationship with the U.K. Ie yes that scenario is a possibility (and kudos to him/her for sticking his/her neck out and stating exactly what they believe will happen), but it is one (IMO) that is predicated on the adoption/maintenance of a particular political stance on the part of those charged with responsibility for charting the course of the post Brexit UK and EU.

In other words, (IMO) a degree of pragmatism and goodwill on the part of those involved woukd be quite capable of overcoming any obstacles that are likely to be encountered. For example consider the manner in which a Framework Decision is adopted and applied to Irish law. Generally work practices change absolutely within Givernment Departments,sometimes within the courts maybe within the Gardai, to name a few. There is generaly a 'window' period during which uncertainty applies, ongoing legal advice is required and back and forth continues over a period between the contacts in the respective agencies and member states with a view to ironing out such difficulties. The processes themselves may be held up for a time but they don't grind to a halt. New processes are established, new precedents are set and newer, broader knowledge is accumulated. Quite simply, people find solutions.

Obviously this is heightened and magnified in the case of Brexit but given the fact that people's livelihoods rather than mere administrative or legal practices will be at stake I would be confident that timelines for solutions could be a lot shorter than those associated with the workload of the average civil servant.

However, this is obviously based on the existence of the political will to do so. And there obviously exists the likelihood that the EU side may understably not wish to find solutions that could potentially render Brexit somewhat more succesful than would otherwise be the case. Likewise, it may not actually be in the personal interest of the individuals charged with negotiating on behalf of the U.K. to see Brexit succeed....and that some 'systemic collapse' up north or wherever might be just the ticket in PR terms.

Nontheless, my position is that such an outcome would be as a result of a political failure on the part of the individuals in question rather than any real inability on the part of people to arrive at solutions (in the short term) that would allow them to get on with the day to day business of living and trading with each other.

Skippy 3 · **Joined:** May 12, 2012 **Posts:** 2061

dolanbaker wrote:

It's also worth remembering that much of the "home" counties voted remain.

No they didn't. London voted to remain.

All of Essex, nearly all of Kent and about half of Sussex voted leave.

There is a ring of leave-voting districts that almost encircles London.

Look here.

People can understand why places on the east coast of England with low levels of education voted leave.

It is much harder to understand why Aylesbury - which is extremely prosperous and has done very well from low trade barriers and inward migration - voted to leave.

dolanbaker · **Posted:** Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:58 am

Skippy 3 wrote:

dolanbaker wrote:

It's also worth remembering that much of the "home" counties voted remain.

No they didn't. London voted to remain.

All of Essex, nearly all of Kent and about half of Sussex voted leave.

There is a ring of leave-voting districts that almost encircles London.

Look here.

People can understand why places on the east coast of England with low levels of education voted leave.

It is much harder to understand why Aylesbury - which is extremely prosperous and has done very well from low trade barriers and inward migration - voted to leave.

This is a perfect example why many people in the UK have lost faith in the elite and their leaders as they are being stigmatized as being "uneducated" because they voted the wrong way.

Many people have absolutely no idea what the "man in the street" is thinking and in many cases do not care, so just dismiss them as "uneducated".

Evil_g · **Joined:** Jan 14, 2009 **Posts:** 682

dolanbaker wrote:

This is a perfect example why many people in the UK have lost faith in the elite and their leaders as they are being stigmatized as being "uneducated" because they voted the wrong way.

Many people have absolutely no idea what the "man in the street" is thinking and in many cases do not care, so just dismiss them as "uneducated".

Educational attainment is highly correlated with voting to remain.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

Quote:

The most dramatic split is along the lines of education. 70% of voters whose educational attainment is only GCSE or lower voted to Leave, while 68% of voters with a university degree voted to Remain in the EU. Those with A levels and no degree were evenly split, 50% to 50%.

catbear · **Posted:** Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:48 am

dolanbaker wrote:

Many people have absolutely no idea what the "man in the street" is thinking and in many cases do not care, so just dismiss them as "uneducated".

Having moved to England just after the vote this is the thing that I most struggle with. The media here is just a partisan punch and judy show. In conversation the topic is barely mentoned by the average Brit and when it is broached I find their grasp on the EU is extremely limited, and don't even get me started on their ignorance of their own country! And many of these are professionals I'm talking about, many of whom have worked abroad!

National media is a battlefield, whereas sometimes just listening to the local radio is where you'll find out what the public are thinking. In a recent local radio vox pop both leave and remain voters up my way all expressed the desire to "just get on with it, stop mucking about." I don't believe there really is an appetite outside the remain bubbles for a "peoples vote", if anything it's probably rubbing people up the wrong way. Corbyn's absolutely right to not push on this.

I reckon on the ground ending of Freedom of Movement is the great masses redline around which they'll coalesce if pushed. Many conflated non-EU immigration with Freedom of Movement. Yeah, they haven't fully understood it means the dream of retiring to the Playa da Blackpool becomes harder but then they mentally never viewed those stomping grounds as foreign anyway!

This is why I reckon we're heading for a customs deal, and tough shít DUP, you're getting an Irish sea border. If the DUP collapse the government they'll get one with Corbyn anyway so that's why I reckon the DUP will spin it as a compromise somehow. Call it damage limitation after bringing forward the prospect of a border poll by a few generations!

dolanbaker · **Posted:** Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:08 pm

Evil_g wrote:

dolanbaker wrote:

This is a perfect example why many people in the UK have lost faith in the elite and their leaders as they are being stigmatized as being "uneducated" because they voted the wrong way.

Many people have absolutely no idea what the "man in the street" is thinking and in many cases do not care, so just dismiss them as "uneducated".

Educational attainment is highly correlated with voting to remain.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

Quote:

The most dramatic split is along the lines of education. 70% of voters whose educational attainment is only GCSE or lower voted to Leave, while 68% of voters with a university degree voted to Remain in the EU. Those with A levels and no degree were evenly split, 50% to 50%.

In a democracy, a poor(ly educated) man's vote has the same weight as a rich (educated) man's vote.
It's very dangerous to dismiss the less educated people, the Brexit vote is a classic example.

Evil_g · **Joined:** Jan 14, 2009 **Posts:** 682

dolanbaker wrote:

In a democracy, a poor(ly educated) man's vote has the same weight as a rich (educated) man's vote.
It's very dangerous to dismiss the less educated people, the Brexit vote is a classic example.

The uneducated weren't, and aren't being, dismissed. They are being courted, and pandered to, by large swathes of "the elite".

Most of the tabloid media, and 50% of so called "quality" sectors like the BBC, pander to the utter fantasy held by those who haven't the faintest idea of what the EU is, or how it works, (the uneducated), that the EU is a significant factor in the problems which they perceive, and that leaving the EU will somehow make their lives in anyway better.

The problem is not that the uneducated are being dismissed. The problem is that they are being lied to.

Madness of Crowds · **Joined:** Apr 4, 2010 **Posts:** 4685

dolanbaker wrote:

Evil_g wrote:

dolanbaker wrote:

This is a perfect example why many people in the UK have lost faith in the elite and their leaders as they are being stigmatized as being "uneducated" because they voted the wrong way.

Many people have absolutely no idea what the "man in the street" is thinking and in many cases do not care, so just dismiss them as "uneducated".

Educational attainment is highly correlated with voting to remain.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/

Quote:

The most dramatic split is along the lines of education. 70% of voters whose educational attainment is only GCSE or lower voted to Leave, while 68% of voters with a university degree voted to Remain in the EU. Those with A levels and no degree were evenly split, 50% to 50%.

In a democracy, a poor(ly educated) man's vote has the same weight as a rich (educated) man's vote.
It's very dangerous to dismiss the less educated people, the Brexit vote is a classic example.

They're not being dismissed. They're just being told that they won't like the probable consequences of their poorly informed votes, while at the same time, action is being taken to try to limit those consequences.

In a democracy, people have the freedom to vote to go to hell in a handcart. That doesn't mean they have the freedom to stop others saying "I told you so."

GameBlame · **Joined:** Dec 2, 2013 **Posts:** 2598

There's enough educated people in support of Brexit to make assertions about the inherent uneducatedness of taking a pro-Brexit position to be, well, dumb.

Given the number of Mickey Mouse degrees in surfing and media studies churned out since the 1990s, reliance on the notion that the average graduate now has more wisdom than the average graduate in 1975 is a bit shaky.

I wonder if you'd taken a poll in the year 2000 in Greece about the wisdom of joining the Euro ? I'd wager a higher proportion of Greek graduates than shepherds were in favour. Funnily enough despite their lack of educational attainment and knowledge of how the EU worked the shepherds were right.

GameBlame · **Joined:** Dec 2, 2013 **Posts:** 2598

It certainly looks like Brexit will be a cock-up founded on misleading assertions on what was achievable.

But how will a history student look back on the EU in 50 years time. It's a top-down political project with sclerotic governance. Every crisis over the last 10 years follows the same pattern - Greece, Ukraine, Migration :
- set piece crisis prime ministerial meetings with 90% pre-agreed outcomes
- late night decisions which turn out to be muddled fudges
- every minister rushes out to claim victory to his awaiting national broadcaster

Do you really think that's sustainable for 20 more years ?

Poacher turned gamekeeper · **Posted:** Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:55 am

Exactly.

This approach of highlighting the number of supposedly educated people in favour or against something is becoming standard schtick at this stage. It's a ploy that assumes that everyone not the same as 'us' aspires to be just like us.

It's basically an attempt at psychological manipulation that assumes a desire on the part of most people to self identify as 'progressive' etc or more correctly not 'non progressive' or whatever noun fits that description (in Ireland it usually entails reference to De Valera or the 1950s etc). It's a component of what Chomsky described as the manufacturing of consent. Clintons ' deplorables' comment fits into the same category and has less to do with a belief that those in possession of a university degree are more capable of interpreting the world than those without, and more to do with an assumption about the herd instinct of the majority. Indeed, as GB alludes to above, it's becoming more and more likely that people who never attended third level education may in fact be a lot more capable of independent thought than those who did.

Basically the millennial version of Mrs Bucket/Bouqet.....

Britain leaving the European Union.

Who is online