Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[pocketscience]

That particular list of conditions would be politically impossible and lead to a sure exit of the EU by the UK. This is one of the problems with the idea of ruling by referendum - we must leave at any cost or we must stay at any cost. Both are stupid positions.

you asked for an example, I gave you three.
A second referendum with remain winning wouldn't be an automatic reversal of A50 and it wouldn't absolve us from further negotiations. It would put us in a much weaker position than now.

Greece showed us that the Eu is run by a bunch of vindictive sociopaths, who once have the upper-hand in a negotiation will go to any length to further demoralise their opponent and squeeze them for every last morsel they have.
We are now their opponents. It would take a Labour government to restore diplomatic order now, however the outcome of the negotiations. Better Labour doing that from the outside imo.

 

[Kaka Tim]

What do you think capital flight is except by an attempt by capital to punish labour.

I've not talked about agents of capital. And as for cold hard sums, well you mean like the cold hard sums of the OBR, which they've admitted have been bollocks for the last decade. Economics is an ideology not a science. As for things having a real impact on people, I couldn't agree more, the attacks of the EU on Greece have lead to a 5% increase in the infant mortality rate.

The uk would be even more of the bitch of international capital outside the EU. As would greece - which is why they had no choice but to stay.

And the UK is not in the Euro - which gives it considerably more freedom of action than other EU nationals - unlike other EU countries the UK did not have to chose austerity to appease the ECB.

As for the list of unpleasant demands that the EU might make on the UK - well that entirely hypothetical and would completely change the nature of the debate wrt abandoning brexit. But noboby - AFAIK - is suggesting that the EU would make those demands.
the uk is not greece - it has a much bigger economy, is not bankrupt, its one of the biggest financial centres in the world, it has (i think) the largest military capacity in the EU, is a much larger market, has a seat on the security council, its a major world centre for research and academia and a lot of EU nationals live and work here- these things matter.

Im waiting to see one single positive argument for brexit in terms of material conditions. All im getting is junkers a cunt, the EU are cunts, it will tweak the nose of international capital, it might open up possibilities for a more socialist economy - maybe, fingers crossed.

None of that is going to build a single council house, save a hospital from closure or stop a family going to the wall.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

you asked for an example, I gave you three.
A second referendum with remain winning wouldn't be an automatic reversal of A50 and it wouldn't absolve us from further negotiations. It would put us in a much weaker position than now.

Greece showed us that the Eu is run by a bunch of vindictive sociopaths, who once have the upper-hand in a negotiation will go to any length to further demoralise their opponent and squeeze them for every last morsel they have.
We are now their opponents. It would take a Labour government to restore diplomatic order now, however the outcome of the negotiations. Better Labour doing that from the outside imo.

You give no indication as to how those things would be forced on the UK in the way that measures were forced on Greece.

 

[SpackleFrog]

But the tories are fucked whatever they do. Labour government still in the EU will have far more opportunity to do something positive than labour government inheriting hard brexit. mainly because the economy will be fucked.
Arguing for the option that doesn't see the poorest half of the population get even more fucked is not "bottling it". What a pathetic comment.

What would be the point of a Labour govt if it isn't radical enough to get us kicked out of the EU?

 

[SpackleFrog]

The uk would be even more of the bitch of international capital outside the EU. As would greece - which is why they had no choice but to stay.

There is no alternative?

 

[pocketscience]

You give no indication as to how those things would be forced on the UK in the way that measures were forced on Greece.

The obvious one would be If they string the 2 year limit of a50 out with the legal arguement that A50 is not reversable, then we'd be technically out of the Eu. We'd need to reapply for membership if we wanted back in, at which point they can enforce whatever the want.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

What would be the point of a Labour govt if it isn't radical enough to get us kicked out of the EU?

Radicals are ignorant of cold, hard, economic facts y'ken.

 

[pocketscience]

.
As for the list of unpleasant demands that the EU might make on the UK - well that entirely hypothetical and would completely change the nature of the debate wrt abandoning brexit. But noboby - AFAIK - is suggesting that the EU would make those demands..

Hasn't stopped you banging on about the hypothetical effects of a hard brexit here.

.
the uk is not greece - it has a much bigger economy, is not bankrupt, its one of the biggest financial centres in the world, it has (i think) the largest military capacity in the EU, is a much larger market, has a seat on the security council, its a major world centre for research and academia - these things matter.
... Snip...
None of that is going to build a single council house, save a hospital from closure or stop a family going to the wall.

 

[Winot]

The obvious one would be If they string the 2 year limit of a50 out with the legal arguement that A50 is not reversable, then we'd be technically out of the Eu. We'd need to reapply for membership if we wanted back in, at which point they can enforce whatever the want.

What are you talking about? Article 50(3) requires our agreement to extend the 2 year period. How is that “forcing” a measure on the UK?

 

[pocketscience]

What are you talking about? Article 50(3) requires our agreement to extend the 2 year period. How is that “forcing” a measure on the UK?

i didn't mention a50 being extended

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

What are you talking about? Article 50(3) requires our agreement to extend the 2 year period. How is that “forcing” a measure on the UK?

Clearly talking about the realistic scenario that would occur after a 2nd ref. You get your second ref, it's remain(I'm not even sure that's likely) but 2 year period stands. Would be near enough impossible to get back in without joining the Eurozone you would expect. Corbyn govt is now EXACTLY in the same position Syriza was. At the very least it would get LBJ to stop reminding us the UK isn't in the Eurozone :-D

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What would be the point of a Labour govt if it isn't radical enough to get us kicked out of the EU?

This is a good question. An alternative approach is one that agitates to change the eu. But as France has shown many eu rules are unenforceable against a powerful state, which the UK still is comparatively speaking.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Clearly talking about the realistic scenario that would occur after a 2nd ref. You get your second ref, it's remain(I'm not even sure that's likely) but 2 year period stands. Would be near enough impossible to get back in without joining the Eurozone you would expect. Corbyn govt is now EXACTLY in the same position Syriza was. At the very least it would get LBJ to stop reminding us the UK isn't in the Eurozone :-D

If the terms are that shit you stick with brexit. It's not hard.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

This is a good question. An alternative approach is one that agitates to change the eu. But as France has shown many eu rules are unenforceable against a powerful state, which the UK still is comparatively speaking.

And people that have agitated to change the EU have shown us what a waste of time that is.

 

[Winot]

Clearly talking about the realistic scenario that would occur after a 2nd ref. You get your second ref, it's remain(I'm not even sure that's likely) but 2 year period stands. Would be near enough impossible to get back in without joining the Eurozone you would expect. Corbyn govt is now EXACTLY in the same position Syriza was. At the very least it would get LBJ to stop reminding us the UK isn't in the Eurozone :-D

OK, I understand now. So the scenario is that having decided to leave, if we changed our mind then we would be in a weaker position than before.

Yes, I agree that’s the case. It’s one reason why I voted remain.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

If the terms are that shit you stick with brexit. It's not hard.

Eh? So in this post second ref scenario the Tories are suddenly going to be really incensed when the terms are shit for workers and what, give us a third one? Sigh.

 

[Raheem]

Eh? So in this post second ref scenario the Tories are suddenly going to be really incensed when the terms are shit for workers and what, give us a third one? Sigh.

It's a scenario that relies on the idea that it's in the interests of the EU27 to force the UK out even if it comes back on its hands and knees begging to be allowed to stay. If that happens, the integrity of the EU is saved and the economic damage to them as well as to us is averted.

In any case, when and how did it come about that predicting domesday Brexit outcomes became a plank of pro-Brexit arguments?

 

[pocketscience]

In any case, when and how did it come about that predicting domesday Brexit outcomes became a plank of pro-Brexit arguments?

We're talking remain atm... Hence the domesday shizzle.
All in the interest of balanced discussion

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

It's a scenario that relies on the idea that it's in the interests of the EU27 to force the UK out even if it comes back on its hands and knees begging to be allowed to stay. If that happens, the integrity of the EU is saved and the economic damage to them as well as to us is averted.

In any case, when and how did it come about that predicting domesday Brexit outcomes became a plank of pro-Brexit arguments?

We were talking about the terms we are likely to get back in on though. As it stands all UK would have to do to put them in a position that would make them vulnerable to a Greece type scenario is agree to a couple of clauses in yon offending article of the Maastricht treaty that they are currently exempt from. As I understand it, the EU have always been pissed off that we are in the position we are in. Given the standard of debate on this issue and the extent to which VoteRemain diehards are desperate that we stay in, i'd be surprised if anyone even noticed these shitter terms, far less kick up a stink about them. So who would decide that we Brexit in that case? Not a hard decision from our point of view but would Be a hard one to fight- most Remain voters do not, like many on urban, even accept the EU is really shit.

All hypothetical of course!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Eh? So in this post second ref scenario the Tories are suddenly going to be really incensed when the terms are shit for workers and what, give us a third one? Sigh.

We're already in fantasy land with the idea of a punitive all powerful eu dictating punitive terms.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't want a second ref btw. It's not a popular position on here but I didn't want the first one

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

We're already in fantasy land with the idea of a punitive all powerful eu dictating punitive terms.

Nope, just the upper hand.

I don't want a second ref btw. It's not a popular position on here but I didn't want the first one

We kind of need to move on from that though, we've had it. Don't the circular arguments hurt people's heads? I guess not, two minutes on twitter proves that.

 

[Raheem]

We were talking about the terms we are likely to get back in on though. As it stands all UK would have to do to put them in a position that would make them vulnerable to a Greece type scenario is agree to a couple of clauses in yon offending article of the Maastricht treaty that they are currently exempt from. As I understand it, the EU have always been pissed off that we are in the position we are in. Given the standard of debate on this issue and the extent to which VoteRemain diehards are desperate that we stay in, i'd be surprised if anyone even noticed these shitter terms, far less kick up a stink about them. So who would decide that we Brexit in that case? Not a hard decision from our point of view but would Be a hard one to fight- most Remain voters do not, like many on urban, even accept the EU is really shit.

All hypothetical of course!

Yes, if the UK were to leave and then want to rejoin down the line, we might risk not being able to negotiate the Euro and Shengen opt outs and the CAP rebate we have at the moment. It's one more reason not to leave. I don't see where the "Greece type scenario" comes into it though, and I don't think it's likely that no-one would notice.

 

[Kaka Tim]

Hasn't stopped you banging on about the hypothetical effects of a hard brexit here.

1.Hard brexit is a likely scenario.
2. the overwhelming consensus from just about everyone than other johnson and rees mogg is that the effect of hard brexit will be extremely negative across a of whole range of areas - not just the economy but also the fuck up and chaos of things things like residency status and n.ireland.
3. The EU dictating harsh terms for the - hypothetical - scenario of the UK remaining is not backed by any evidence other than your own conjecture - and it could be equally argued that they will do no such thing because they want the UK to reject brexit not force them out.

 

[HoratioCuthbert]

Funnily enough the overwhelming consensus amongst the "everyone" you speak of is that Neoliberalism is the dogs bollocks. Correlation or causation? Economic Science Experts.

 

[Yossarian]

I don't want a second ref btw. It's not a popular position on here but I didn't want the first one

Yep, at least we've demonstrated to other countries that if they are going to vote on exiting the European Union, it's better to have some clue about what exiting might involve first.

 

[mojo pixy]

What do you think capital flight is except by an attempt by capital to punish labour.

I always enjoy and usually agree with your posts but I think this is going a bit too far. Capital and Labour are abstract nouns, abstract nouns can't punish or even really do anything.

Capital in any case is represented by companies, business, enterprises. The punishment of labour(ers) may (may) even be an actual motive for some decision makers, but the real motive for capital flight is saving money / increasing profits / mitigating losses. In terms of the underlying attitudes of the actual people who make policy decisions like where to base their business, I guess (in fact I assume) there IS a degree of class enmity and snobbery, but such decisions will be made by groups. Boards, meetings of real people. I find it extremely difficult to believe that the directors of whatever bank is deciding to move their HQ and create 3000 redundancies are sitting together saying, ''How can we punish those naughty proles?'' They're looking at balance sheets and projected losses / profits, and that's all. The bottom line is the bottom line.

I think bringing in emotive concepts like punishing labour doesn't help with credibility any more than predictions of war, famine and nasty old pestilence &c help those arguing that this whole exercise with this government in charge is a colossal mistake.

 

[pocketscience]

1.Hard brexit is a likely scenario.
2. the overwhelming consensus from just about everyone than other johnson and rees mogg is that the effect of hard brexit will be extremely negative across a of whole range of areas - not just the economy but also the fuck up and chaos of things things like residency status and n.ireland.
3. The EU dictating harsh terms for the - hypothetical - scenario of the UK remaining is not backed by any evidence other than your own conjecture - and it could be equally argued that they will do no such thing because they want the UK to reject brexit not force them out.

Personally, I think that there would be less chance of a - hypothetical - hard brexit than there would of the Eu dictating harsh terms for the - hypothetical - scenario of the UK remaining.

This very thread is based on a (your) hypothetical condition, with loads of added doom and gloom about another hypothetical condition that could, maybe, at a very long stretch - facilitate the original hypothetical condition...
I know it's your thread & I'm cool with you stacking these assumptions but at least do it in a balanced/ objective manner. You started out like you were setting the case out for placing a bet with the bookies on the second ref, but your recent posts have just been repetitive doom mongering.

Just to be clear - an acrimonious hard brexit will also fuck the Eu on a huge, huge scale.All those nasty things you said could happen to the UK could also happen to the Eu.
Do you really think the Eu wants to risk those things happening, just to hang on to a couple of petty-minded principles that the vast majority of honest decent european citizens don't even give a shit about?

 

[mojo pixy]

I think (and I accept I may be wrong, it's a belief) that most European governments don't want the UK to leave. Certainly I think most actual EU citizens don't want the UK to leave the EU. The EU itself doesn't want the UK to leave - in part because it's pretty incontrovertible evidence the project is failing, then again in part because of the capital the UK contributes (so much that we get all kinds of special treatment already)

EtA: I meant to say I think this is really the reason for harsh terms. They think if it's made hard enough for us to leave, we'll change our collective mind, or something. Not to punish us.

Anyway, whatever. I'm enjoying the thread a lot.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We kind of need to move on from that though, we've had it. Don't the circular arguments hurt people's heads? I guess not, two minutes on twitter proves that.

Move on from what? I don't think there will be any moving on from the basic point that those who advocated leave in the referendum are not now being held accountable for their positions. That's a huge failure in democratic accountability, and it is ongoing.