|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Still not clear Scotland would get in. Italy and Spain have vested interests in stopping that from happening as far as I can tell. The only thing they have going for them is that it would highlight that the EU is willing to really really screw over anybody that leaves.
|
On November 18 2018 07:01 Velr wrote:
Now, after/during this shitshow, probably. Back then? I doubt it.
As far as I'm aware of the arguments put forward at that time, staying in the EU through staying in the union was one of the main arguments of the no camp. Which is entirely obsolet now.
Albeit how important the EU is for the Scottish economy is not known to me.
|
lol this man. How does he suggest going about getting such a deal for the UK? This is what was wrong with the referendum. People spouting this bullshit as if it would be the easiest thing in the world to negotiate a deal with the EU that keeps all the good points but gets rid of all the bad parts (from an UK pov). And then people believing that.
People have been saying it's impossible for 2 years or so, pro Brexit people keep saying that's not true, it's totally possible and now that they see May's deal instead of admitting that maybe it's not as easy as they thought it's the fault of whoever negotiated it, or it's a case of EU bullying rather than it being an impossible thing to ask for in the first place.
srsly, how do you go about tweeting stuff like that without having any constructive advice on how to improve it.
|
On November 18 2018 07:45 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2018 07:01 Velr wrote:
Now, after/during this shitshow, probably. Back then? I doubt it. As far as I'm aware of the arguments put forward at that time, staying in the EU through staying in the union was one of the main arguments of the no camp. Which is entirely obsolet now. Albeit how important the EU is for the Scottish economy is not known to me.
It's important but not nearly as important as England. In the same way leaving the EU is bad for the UK economically, leaving the UK will be bad for Scotland.
|
Its easy to say this Brexit deal won't pass parliament but I wonder if it is what will actually happen. Whether the deal is good or not is not even really the question being asked.
What matters is if the deal is preferable to a complete reset of relations and trade under the WTO.
I can certainly seeing it scrape barely through under loud protesting from the very people voting in favor just because the alternative is worse.
|
On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless).
Its not that dramatic I think,though it might look like that to young people. Britain will leave eu (if at all) and after that anything can happen. They could rejoin in 5 years or in 10 years. Europe wont cut ties with Britain permanently,europe is not stupid. Things will find their way,trade will go on and expats will still travel back and forth. People will get used to it.
Its not a cliff that Britain will jump of. After Britain leaves bank of England will lower interest rates I think,the last big economy to implement quantitative easing. Pound will drop a bit,maybe parity with euro or even slightly lower and englands economy will be fine. For long term I think great Britain needs immigration or enter a japan scenario with a long period of no real growth.
Just out of curiousity,how will brexit effect you personally. Is there anything significant that will change,anything concrete besides "the economy will be a mess and we will all be off much worse"
|
Britain already did QE and interest rate at the moment is 0.75%. a drop in the pound will be inflationary as well so I'm not sure if they can even lower interest rates.
|
On November 19 2018 21:54 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Its not that dramatic I think,though it might look like that to young people. Britain will leave eu (if at all) and after that anything can happen. They could rejoin in 5 years or in 10 years. Europe wont cut ties with Britain permanently,europe is not stupid. Things will find their way,trade will go on and expats will still travel back and forth. People will get used to it. Its not a cliff that Britain will jump of. After Britain leaves bank of England will lower interest rates I think,the last big economy to implement quantitative easing. Pound will drop a bit,maybe parity with euro or even slightly lower and englands economy will be fine. For long term I think great Britain needs immigration or enter a japan scenario with a long period of no real growth. Just out of curiousity,how will brexit effect you personally. Is there anything significant that will change,anything concrete besides "the economy will be a mess and we will all be off much worse"
Asking for concrete consequences when there's zero concrete elements to Brexit is on a hiding to nothing. Brexit has already affected the business I work for and could theoretical cause the entire chain to shut down, putting me out of a job. So there's that.
|
On November 19 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2018 21:54 pmh wrote:On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Its not that dramatic I think,though it might look like that to young people. Britain will leave eu (if at all) and after that anything can happen. They could rejoin in 5 years or in 10 years. Europe wont cut ties with Britain permanently,europe is not stupid. Things will find their way,trade will go on and expats will still travel back and forth. People will get used to it. Its not a cliff that Britain will jump of. After Britain leaves bank of England will lower interest rates I think,the last big economy to implement quantitative easing. Pound will drop a bit,maybe parity with euro or even slightly lower and englands economy will be fine. For long term I think great Britain needs immigration or enter a japan scenario with a long period of no real growth. Just out of curiousity,how will brexit effect you personally. Is there anything significant that will change,anything concrete besides "the economy will be a mess and we will all be off much worse" Asking for concrete consequences when there's zero concrete elements to Brexit is on a hiding to nothing. Brexit has already affected the business I work for and could theoretical cause the entire chain to shut down, putting me out of a job. So there's that.
I'm interested to know more about this. How has Brexit impacted your company already when it hasn't gone into effect yet? Is it just the uncertainty alone that's enough to impact your bottom line?
|
On November 20 2018 00:39 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On November 19 2018 21:54 pmh wrote:On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Its not that dramatic I think,though it might look like that to young people. Britain will leave eu (if at all) and after that anything can happen. They could rejoin in 5 years or in 10 years. Europe wont cut ties with Britain permanently,europe is not stupid. Things will find their way,trade will go on and expats will still travel back and forth. People will get used to it. Its not a cliff that Britain will jump of. After Britain leaves bank of England will lower interest rates I think,the last big economy to implement quantitative easing. Pound will drop a bit,maybe parity with euro or even slightly lower and englands economy will be fine. For long term I think great Britain needs immigration or enter a japan scenario with a long period of no real growth. Just out of curiousity,how will brexit effect you personally. Is there anything significant that will change,anything concrete besides "the economy will be a mess and we will all be off much worse" Asking for concrete consequences when there's zero concrete elements to Brexit is on a hiding to nothing. Brexit has already affected the business I work for and could theoretical cause the entire chain to shut down, putting me out of a job. So there's that. I'm interested to know more about this. How has Brexit impacted your company already when it hasn't gone into effect yet? Is it just the uncertainty alone that's enough to impact your bottom line?
My job isn't effected since I don't live in the UK but we have had a person looking into how transports will work in the different scenarios for months now. We have suppliers in the UK and sell products there.
|
No matter what happens,brexit will be blamed for a lot of things to come I think.
My friend is from England and she is extremely worried about the brexit,she absolutely hates the idea and is worried it will effect the options of her visiting me and vice versa,while I think the only difference will be slightly slower customs service when travelling. When peoples job is at stake (and I can see that for some sectors/companys to a small extend) then I can understand why they worry,but it also seems to be that there is a lot of fear for the unknown while in reality not all that much will change? Transport companys will have to change some things,but its not impossible I think. There was trade before the eu and all,its not like eu will go into a trade war with England.
When is the vote suppose to happen,i thought it would be today but it seems like a rather complicated issue where they first have to decide in which way and how the vote will be held? Apearently there are ways that would be good for may (give her a decent change to get enough support) but there are also ways in which may has virtually no chance of getting the deal passed. So first will come discussion and possibly a vote on how to vote?
|
Well if the ERG cant organise a coup it seems the DUP might be trying to force one, they abstained on the budget votes which they are supposed to support.
|
Zurich15361 Posts
On November 20 2018 00:39 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On November 19 2018 21:54 pmh wrote:On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Its not that dramatic I think,though it might look like that to young people. Britain will leave eu (if at all) and after that anything can happen. They could rejoin in 5 years or in 10 years. Europe wont cut ties with Britain permanently,europe is not stupid. Things will find their way,trade will go on and expats will still travel back and forth. People will get used to it. Its not a cliff that Britain will jump of. After Britain leaves bank of England will lower interest rates I think,the last big economy to implement quantitative easing. Pound will drop a bit,maybe parity with euro or even slightly lower and englands economy will be fine. For long term I think great Britain needs immigration or enter a japan scenario with a long period of no real growth. Just out of curiousity,how will brexit effect you personally. Is there anything significant that will change,anything concrete besides "the economy will be a mess and we will all be off much worse" Asking for concrete consequences when there's zero concrete elements to Brexit is on a hiding to nothing. Brexit has already affected the business I work for and could theoretical cause the entire chain to shut down, putting me out of a job. So there's that. I'm interested to know more about this. How has Brexit impacted your company already when it hasn't gone into effect yet? Is it just the uncertainty alone that's enough to impact your bottom line?
That's absolutely the case all over the place. My company lost a UK project that the client cancelled because the uncertainty with Brexit is too high to invest any money in UK right now.
|
On November 20 2018 00:39 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On November 19 2018 21:54 pmh wrote:On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Its not that dramatic I think,though it might look like that to young people. Britain will leave eu (if at all) and after that anything can happen. They could rejoin in 5 years or in 10 years. Europe wont cut ties with Britain permanently,europe is not stupid. Things will find their way,trade will go on and expats will still travel back and forth. People will get used to it. Its not a cliff that Britain will jump of. After Britain leaves bank of England will lower interest rates I think,the last big economy to implement quantitative easing. Pound will drop a bit,maybe parity with euro or even slightly lower and englands economy will be fine. For long term I think great Britain needs immigration or enter a japan scenario with a long period of no real growth. Just out of curiousity,how will brexit effect you personally. Is there anything significant that will change,anything concrete besides "the economy will be a mess and we will all be off much worse" Asking for concrete consequences when there's zero concrete elements to Brexit is on a hiding to nothing. Brexit has already affected the business I work for and could theoretical cause the entire chain to shut down, putting me out of a job. So there's that. I'm interested to know more about this. How has Brexit impacted your company already when it hasn't gone into effect yet? Is it just the uncertainty alone that's enough to impact your bottom line?
I'm not high enough to know the super specifics, but I do speak to the tippity top guys so I have it from their mouths at least.
Basically, I work in a games shop. 90% of actual game discs are made in Poland, I'm told, and other European countries, as are most other gaming peripherals and the like. As an indepedent company we buy most of our games-related stock from european suppliers, who are themselves scaling back on the stock they reserve for the UK period because they simply don't know how easy or expensive it'll be to ship their stock to the UK, since the margins in the industry are exceptionally tight once you're past the publisher level, to the point that even a slight raise in customs charges due to Brexit, or a day of impounding, or whatever, would make it borderline non-profitable. Since these suppliers have a fairly tight profit margin, it makes increasingly less sense for them to do business with us, and several have simply stopped shipping to the UK to focus on EU buyers only until the market settles down. If something happens to make the prices for import rise (very likely according to our main buyer) we'll definitely not get that lost business back, and be left with a much reduced pool of people to shop around with, and those would be charging higher prices anyway.
In turn that would make it no longer profitable for us to buy from them, because we'd have to sell the products at a price that the market won't support. At the same time, Sony and Microsoft sell their products directly, but they offer non-competitive rates to independents because we aren't able to buy in bulk, meaning we'd have to sell their stuff at a higher price than GAME does, because we can't get them to drop the price we buy it for as we simply don't have enough outlets to justify buying 600 PS4 Controllers at once (and don't have enough cash in the bank to risk not getting it back in quick order).
In the short term this has made it difficult for us to source a lot of basic products like controllers, and we flat out miss most game launches because again we can't buy 600 copies of a game to get it from the publishers at a price that would allow us to sell it at retail price (take Red Dead Redemption 2: Take Two were selling it at £49,99; as in, it would cost us that to buy a copy to sell to you the customer, but if you bought it in bulk you could get them down to £39.99)..
In the past that didn't matter because we just bought it from those EU suppliers at reasonable rates and were still able to match market pricing. Now we currently have to rely on good luck from those suppliers we have, or find online deals that undercut the market price significantly.
|
Northern Ireland22212 Posts
On November 20 2018 00:39 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On November 19 2018 21:54 pmh wrote:On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Its not that dramatic I think,though it might look like that to young people. Britain will leave eu (if at all) and after that anything can happen. They could rejoin in 5 years or in 10 years. Europe wont cut ties with Britain permanently,europe is not stupid. Things will find their way,trade will go on and expats will still travel back and forth. People will get used to it. Its not a cliff that Britain will jump of. After Britain leaves bank of England will lower interest rates I think,the last big economy to implement quantitative easing. Pound will drop a bit,maybe parity with euro or even slightly lower and englands economy will be fine. For long term I think great Britain needs immigration or enter a japan scenario with a long period of no real growth. Just out of curiousity,how will brexit effect you personally. Is there anything significant that will change,anything concrete besides "the economy will be a mess and we will all be off much worse" Asking for concrete consequences when there's zero concrete elements to Brexit is on a hiding to nothing. Brexit has already affected the business I work for and could theoretical cause the entire chain to shut down, putting me out of a job. So there's that. I'm interested to know more about this. How has Brexit impacted your company already when it hasn't gone into effect yet? Is it just the uncertainty alone that's enough to impact your bottom line?
haven't seen any loss of business from our european customers, but we buy a decent amount in dollar, and the weak pound hurts.
|
On November 20 2018 18:39 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2018 00:39 Excludos wrote:On November 19 2018 23:29 iamthedave wrote:On November 19 2018 21:54 pmh wrote:On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Its not that dramatic I think,though it might look like that to young people. Britain will leave eu (if at all) and after that anything can happen. They could rejoin in 5 years or in 10 years. Europe wont cut ties with Britain permanently,europe is not stupid. Things will find their way,trade will go on and expats will still travel back and forth. People will get used to it. Its not a cliff that Britain will jump of. After Britain leaves bank of England will lower interest rates I think,the last big economy to implement quantitative easing. Pound will drop a bit,maybe parity with euro or even slightly lower and englands economy will be fine. For long term I think great Britain needs immigration or enter a japan scenario with a long period of no real growth. Just out of curiousity,how will brexit effect you personally. Is there anything significant that will change,anything concrete besides "the economy will be a mess and we will all be off much worse" Asking for concrete consequences when there's zero concrete elements to Brexit is on a hiding to nothing. Brexit has already affected the business I work for and could theoretical cause the entire chain to shut down, putting me out of a job. So there's that. I'm interested to know more about this. How has Brexit impacted your company already when it hasn't gone into effect yet? Is it just the uncertainty alone that's enough to impact your bottom line? That's absolutely the case all over the place. My company lost a UK project that the client cancelled because the uncertainty with Brexit is too high to invest any money in UK right now.
Uncertainty is almost a bigger problem that the outcome of Brexit. It is the same problem with the tariffs in the US. It is impossible to make long term plans when the rules of the game are constantly changing.
|
This is huge for UK politics and goes far beyond current concerns about Brexit.
The tories are accused of basically giving up on being the party in power by accepting Labour amendments, because they don't trust the DUP to vote with them on the finance bill. This means Labour are able to add anything they want to the bill and the tories have a decision to make on whether or not to allow it.
The confidence and supply arrangement that has kept the tories in power is falling apart. You'll see later this week that Labour will try adding tax hikes for the rich to the finance bill and that will be the real test of whether or not the tories are still in power.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/foreign-affairs/brexit/news/100012/conservatives-accused-giving-governing-after-accepting
The Conservatives have been accused of "giving up governing" after accepting a number of Labour amendments to the Budget in the face of a fresh DUP rebellion.
In a fresh blow to Theresa May, the Government refused to push the changes to a vote after the DUP signalled they would not support them as part of their protest against the Prime Minister's Brexit deal.
That effectively removed the Prime Minister's working majority, meaning they faced almost-certain defeat.
Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell said the move proved that the Government was "falling apart in front of us".
MPs had been expecting to vote on a string of Labour amendments to the Finance Bill on tax evasion, gaming duty and Fixed Odds Betting Terminals.
But after accepting that they were set to lose the votes, ministers indicated that they would be accepting the amendments.
John McDonnell said: "It’s absolutely staggering that the Government has accepted all Labour amendments to the Finance Bill because it couldn’t rely upon the DUP’s support.
"The Tories are in office but not in power. We’re watching a government falling apart in front of us."
One Labour source told PoliticsHome: "The Government have given up governing."
The latest blow to the fragile voting pact between the Conservatives and DUP came just 24 hours after the Government narrowly avoided defeat in a key Finance Bill vote.
The Northern Irish party are angry at the draft Brexit withdrawal agreement, which they claim effectively creates a new border between the province and the rest of the UK.
In a statement tonight, DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds called on the Prime Minister to renegotiate the deal.
|
I don't understand how this happens. Doesn't it basically give labour a fantastic platform to launch them into the next elections (whenever they are?). If this actually gets through, and Labour can tag all their own favorite amendments to the bill and have it pass, then May is done for, right? Even if the "coup" amongst conservatives to oust her failed, she'd be in charge of a highly unstable minority government and have to rally support from political opponents for every tiny little thing. And when the deal comes up for vote, the whole precarious arrangement crashes and burns, because no way a minority government has the power to push that through.
|
On November 21 2018 20:17 Acrofales wrote:
I don't understand how this happens. Doesn't it basically give labour a fantastic platform to launch them into the next elections (whenever they are?). If this actually gets through, and Labour can tag all their own favorite amendments to the bill and have it pass, then May is done for, right? Even if the "coup" amongst conservatives to oust her failed, she'd be in charge of a highly unstable minority government and have to rally support from political opponents for every tiny little thing. And when the deal comes up for vote, the whole precarious arrangement crashes and burns, because no way a minority government has the power to push that through.
Effectively you're right. The DUP has much more power over the government than someone like Boris Johnson right now, they can bring the whole thing down.
However, I think this will only be temporary, because a tory government is much better for the DUP than a Labour one, but its an incredibly stern warning shot, basically.
I expect May to pull this back from the brink, she always seems to find a way somehow.
|
On November 21 2018 20:24 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2018 20:17 Acrofales wrote:
I don't understand how this happens. Doesn't it basically give labour a fantastic platform to launch them into the next elections (whenever they are?). If this actually gets through, and Labour can tag all their own favorite amendments to the bill and have it pass, then May is done for, right? Even if the "coup" amongst conservatives to oust her failed, she'd be in charge of a highly unstable minority government and have to rally support from political opponents for every tiny little thing. And when the deal comes up for vote, the whole precarious arrangement crashes and burns, because no way a minority government has the power to push that through. Effectively you're right. The DUP has much more power over the government than someone like Boris Johnson right now, they can bring the whole thing down. However, I think this will only be temporary, because a tory government is much better for the DUP than a Labour one, but its an incredibly stern warning shot, basically. I expect May to pull this back from the brink, she always seems to find a way somehow.
It's amazing what competence and experience can accomplish when surrounded by incompetent ideologues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
