BREXIT

Ricter said:
Here's a bit more to consider, take it or leave it, I liked the different perspective.

The folly of triggering Article 50

"Immediately after the Brexit vote, all the analysis I saw argued that Article 50 would not be triggered for some time. They all made a simple mistake: they were thinking rationally about what would be best for the UK. Rick has an excellent analogy that elaborates on one that I and others have used, and it really would be best if you read his blog rather than for me just to repeat it. The conclusion, which this earlier analysis I mentioned had also come to, is that triggering Article 50 without any kind of idea about what any agreement would look like puts the UK in a very weak negotiating position.

"This is why the EU were pressing for Article 50 to be triggered as soon as possible. Their real fear is that the prospect but not the actuality of the UK leaving would hang over them for years, and that was the UK’s strongest card. Before playing this card the UK could at least get a clear idea of what the EU might be prepared to offer, and possibly get some commitments that sketch the broad outlines of any deal. Once Article 50 is triggered, the UK will be far more desperate for a deal than the EU. It would only be a slight exaggeration to say it allows the EU to dictate terms. Triggering Article 50 was our best card, yet it is a card that Theresa May is determined to throw away.

"Just to emphasise the point, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether you voted to Remain or Leave. Anyone who actually wants a good deal from the EU when we leave should realise that the UK’s negotiating position becomes instantly weaker once Article 50 is triggered. I do not know whether those who have successfully pushed for triggering Article 50 so soon simply live in a deluded state where they think that the UK will be in the stronger negotiating position, or whether they are desperately afraid that if it is not done soon people will go off the whole idea of leaving. But whichever it is, it is an act of folly, whether you want to leave or not. It substantially increases the likelihood of getting a bad deal.

"As for Labour’s position, I’m afraid all I can say is you were warned. Jolyon Maugham describes Labour’s position as checkmating itself, but I strongly suspect this is a match the Labour leadership do not want to win. The fact that others in the PLP are content to go along with this does not make it any better. As I wrote at the time, all this was one very good reason for voting for Smith rather than Corbyn.

"And if Labour wants to position itself as being the party that can make a success of Brexit, that road spells doom. If MPs think they can avoid losing votes to UKIP or the Conservatives in their traditional heartlands by adopting this line (or trying to be all things to everyone and therefore in reality champion of nothing), they will lose many more votes in their new heartlands than they will save in the old. Many voters feel much more attached to Europe than they do to Labour. This is something I have argued for some time, and this poll suggests I am right. If Labour backs Brexit they will get less votes than the Liberal Democrats. As I also wrote during the Labour leadership election, Brexit changes everything.

"But I do not want to get distracted by that. The key point is that triggering Article 50 so soon does not make sense even if you voted Leave.

"So if MPs, pro or anti leaving, had any sense at all, and any independence at all, they would vote against. Yes the right wing press will scream and brand you an ‘enemy of the people’, but if have the interests of the British people as your priority rather than your short term popularity that is what you will do. You could even get voters on your side if you explain why you are doing it. This is one of those moments, like the Iraq war vote, where it is utterly obvious what should be done. We are not yet a country that is run by the Mail and the Sun, but triggering Article 50 will make it look suspiciously like we are."

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.ca/2016/11/the-folly-of-triggering-article-50.html
More...

This analysis is ridiculous.

Why should the EU give them a better deal just because there's no deadline? What extra concessions can Britain try to get by dragging this thing out? The EU is in the position right now of being able to say here's what we're offering, take it or leave it, no matter whether Britain drags it out or not.
 
d08 said:
...
I suppose of California, Oregon, Washington and Hawaii wanted to form a new country, the rest of the states would make it easy for them? Give me a break, they would probably oppose it militarily in the end.
More...

Pretty sure the President Elect and Congress (and of the states remaining in the union) the new population majority would merely wave bye bye (NYC might be upset but who cares). As part of the deal we'd collect enough funds from them first to build the great western wall so they could enjoy their new (W)estern (U)nited (S)tates (WUS) in private... and we'd thoroughly enjoy our good ole USA.
 
fhl said:
They had an referendum on leaving the EU. And you say, after the fact, that they shouldn't have taken it literally. You are a dumb fuck.
More...

Watch your mouth. Everyone in Britain knew the referendum wasn't binding. Cameron said he himself will honor the results but obviously he couldn't have spoken for everyone in the (new) government. Did you think the heads of government have the power of medieval kings? It might be the United Kingdom but things have changed, luckily.
 
fhl said:
This analysis is ridiculous.

Why should the EU give them a better deal just because there's no deadline? What extra concessions can Britain try to get by dragging this thing out? The EU is in the position right now of being able to say here's what we're offering, take it or leave it, no matter whether Britain drags it out or not.
More...

What do you think this is, 10 pages of a buy/sell contract? There are reams of regulation to sift through or do you just think they should jump in without any game plan? UK gov't already has admitted they don't have enough people to complete this mammoth task at the moment.
Your trading results must be terrible if that's how you do things.
 
d08 said:
What do you think this is, 10 pages of a buy/sell contract? There are reams of regulation to sift through or do you just think they should jump in without any game plan? UK gov't already has admitted they don't have enough people to complete this mammoth task at the moment.
Your trading results must be terrible if that's how you do things.
More...

The point of the article was that they would get a better deal by dragging it all out till later.
I don't think that's true. I don't think the EU has any incentive to be more compliant the longer it goes on.
Or didn't you even read the article and my response before you started flapping your gums?
Apparently not. Talk about detrimental to trading results.
 
fhl said:
The point of the article was that they would get a better deal by putting it all till later.
I don't think that's true. I don't think the EU has any incentive to be more compliant the longer it goes on.
Or didn't you even read the article and my response before you started flapping your gums?
Apparently not. Talk about detrimental to trading results.
More...

It makes sense to wait as they have an attempt at getting information from various EU leaders, this all takes time. And if they can sway some countries, the better. There is a reason why the EU heads are pushing for a quick exit, it's not because that's good for UK, it's because that's good for the EU.
Read what the insiders are saying about Brexit, about the real pragmatic problems, not quoting some yellow trash paper like Daily Mail whose specialty is taking beach photos of B-list stars.
 
d08 said:
Everyone in Britain knew the referendum wasn't binding. Cameron said he himself will honor the results but obviously he couldn't have spoken for everyone in the (new) government. Did you think the heads of government have the power of medieval kings? It might be the United Kingdom but things have changed, luckily.
More...

I can't believe how dumb you are. I literally can't believe it. You called it naive to expect the gov't to do what it said it was going to do after the referendum. But now, when the gov't says it will go through with Brexit sometime later, off in the future somewhere, you take it as gospel.

You are not only a hypocrite, you are an idiot.
 
d08 said:
Read what the insiders are saying about Brexit, about the real pragmatic problems, not quoting some yellow trash paper like Daily Mail whose specialty is taking beach photos of B-list stars.
More...

You mean the insiders who said the stock mkt would crash after brexit and the economy would tank? You call me naive and then you tell me to listen to those same charlatans. You're the king of naive.
 
Parliament voted on the European Union and Referendum Act of 2015, and it passed, setting in motion the Brexit vote.

"In April 2016, after the bill was passed, the government circulated an advisory leaflet: "Why the Government believes that voting to remain in the European Union is the best decision for the UK". This leaflet clearly stated: "This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide".[12]"-wikipedia


This is what the people of the UK were told by the gov't. So far, they've done nothing but talk. I'll be surprised if they ever do anything but talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top