Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Based on recent media reports, (fake news ?) Mrs May was giving the Windrush (and associated) people (ie most immigrants) a hard time when she was Home Secretary. I also have it on good authority that the PM is convinced that the Brexit result was more about immigration than anything else. Of course, this might or might not be true.

On this basis, she might also believe that delivering Brexit - in any shape or form - will reduce immigration and thus secure her position as PM until retirement.

However, IMHO the UK population is inconsistent. According to the media, we condem the Gov for giving the Windrush people a hard time and we want them all to stay, but on the other according to my source and the referendum, we want Brexit in order to limit immigration.

When people are inconsistent, trouble usually follows.

Two things.  One, while it may or may not be true that immigration was the main issue in the referendum, I do think it's true that if immigration had played no role  at all, Brexit would not have come out on top.

But that makes the second thing even more crucial - it's less important that the populace is inconsistent on immigration.  What matters far more is that many politicians and successive governments, especially pro-Brexit politicians and recent Tory governments, have been inconsistent on immigration.  They say they'll lower immigration because they think that's what voters want to hear & will find persuasive, but they have very little intention of ever doing so.  Because they know that at the national level economically the country needs immigration, even if on a local level it might look to Joe Bloggs that it does not.  Hence the oft repeated 'aspirations' (not policies, we're now told!) about tend of thousands, while the numbers change much less than you'd expect if you took the claims seriously.  There's also the fact that immigration was used in the EU referendum as a dog whistle call to racists - the referendum could only directly comment (if at all) on immigration from the EU.  Whereas a lot of those concerned about immigration are more concerned about non-EU immigration.  Yet immigration, especially from Muslim countries such as Turkey, was played up no end in the campaigning.  Even though immigration from Turkey wouldn't have been affected by the Brexit result either way.  This resulted in a sense among some (don't forget that small margins shifting would change the overall result) that Brexit should lead to less immigration overall when in fact it does little to affect immigration from non-EU countries.  Hence the UKIP lurch even further to the right, increased attacks on Muslims (e.g. as evinced by the Tell Mama report) and so on.

It doesn't matter that many millions of people voted on other grounds than these - with such a close result, if over 95% of people voted on other issues, this issue could still be said to have made the crucial difference to the result.

Until politicians stop using immigration as a cynical dog whistle issue to gain votes without actually caring very much about it, this kind of thing will keep happening.  Or worse.

Don Atkinson posted:

Based on recent media reports, (fake news ?) Mrs May was giving the Windrush (and associated) people (ie most immigrants) a hard time when she was Home Secretary. I also have it on good authority that the PM is convinced that the Brexit result was more about immigration than anything else. Of course, this might or might not be true.

On this basis, she might also believe that delivering Brexit - in any shape or form - will show that she is trying to reduce immigration and thus secure her position as PM until retirement.

However, IMHO the UK population is inconsistent. According to the media, we condem the Gov for giving the Windrush people a hard time and we want them all to stay, but on the other according to my source and the referendum, we want Brexit in order to limit immigration.

When people are inconsistent, trouble usually follows.

I should have included the words in bold, to try to make my point clearer.

Dave***t posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Based on recent media reports, (fake news ?) Mrs May was giving the Windrush (and associated) people (ie most immigrants) a hard time when she was Home Secretary. I also have it on good authority that the PM is convinced that the Brexit result was more about immigration than anything else. Of course, this might or might not be true.

On this basis, she might also believe that delivering Brexit - in any shape or form - will reduce immigration and thus secure her position as PM until retirement.

However, IMHO the UK population is inconsistent. According to the media, we condem the Gov for giving the Windrush people a hard time and we want them all to stay, but on the other according to my source and the referendum, we want Brexit in order to limit immigration.

When people are inconsistent, trouble usually follows.

Two things.  One, while it may or may not be true that immigration was the main issue in the referendum, I do think it's true that if immigration had played no role  at all, Brexit would not have come out on top.

But that makes the second thing even more crucial - it's less important that the populace is inconsistent on immigration.  What matters far more is that many politicians and successive governments, especially pro-Brexit politicians and recent Tory governments, have been inconsistent on immigration.  They say they'll lower immigration because they think that's what voters want to hear & will find persuasive, but they have very little intention of ever doing so.  Because they know that at the national level economically the country needs immigration, even if on a local level it might look to Joe Bloggs that it does not.  Hence the oft repeated 'aspirations' (not policies, we're now told!) about tend of thousands, while the numbers change much less than you'd expect if you took the claims seriously.  There's also the fact that immigration was used in the EU referendum as a dog whistle call to racists - the referendum could only directly comment (if at all) on immigration from the EU.  Whereas a lot of those concerned about immigration are more concerned about non-EU immigration.  Yet immigration, especially from Muslim countries such as Turkey, was played up no end in the campaigning.  Even though immigration from Turkey wouldn't have been affected by the Brexit result either way.  This resulted in a sense among some (don't forget that small margins shifting would change the overall result) that Brexit should lead to less immigration overall when in fact it does little to affect immigration from non-EU countries.  Hence the UKIP lurch even further to the right, increased attacks on Muslims (e.g. as evinced by the Tell Mama report) and so on.

It doesn't matter that many millions of people voted on other grounds than these - with such a close result, if over 95% of people voted on other issues, this issue could still be said to have made the crucial difference to the result.

Until politicians stop using immigration as a cynical dog whistle issue to gain votes without actually caring very much about it, this kind of thing will keep happening.  Or worse.

Hi Dave,

A very nice summary.

Yes. I think most of us now know (and some of us have always known) that Brexit involves many, many issues, one of which is EU migration. The "inside information" is that "Mrs May" (not you, not me, not Uncle Tom Cobbly....) "Mrs May" believes that Brexit Voters, voted for Brexit with immigration top of their list of concerns.

Of course she could well be wrong in her belief.

The Governor of the Bank of England thinks a No Deal Brexit is looking like a real possibility. Other sources have expressed similar points of view.

If the Government is faced with a stark "No Deal" situation from the EU - not a "Bad Deal", just a stark, but clear "No Deal", what sort of "Meaningful" vote would Parliament get ?

Don Atkinson posted:

The Governor of the Bank of England thinks a No Deal Brexit is looking like a real possibility. Other sources have expressed similar points of view.

If the Government is faced with a stark "No Deal" situation from the EU - not a "Bad Deal", just a stark, but clear "No Deal", what sort of "Meaningful" vote would Parliament get ?

Do you like WTO, or do you not like WTO? However, the answer would always be the same: You are getting WTO, like it or not.  

Resurrection posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The Governor of the Bank of England thinks a No Deal Brexit is looking like a real possibility. Other sources have expressed similar points of view.

If the Government is faced with a stark "No Deal" situation from the EU - not a "Bad Deal", just a stark, but clear "No Deal", what sort of "Meaningful" vote would Parliament get ?

Do you like WTO, or do you not like WTO? However, the answer would always be the same: You are getting WTO, like it or not.  

And I'm sure everyone in the country will be absolutely delighted with the 3% drop in their standard of living!

Don Atkinson posted:

The Governor of the Bank of England thinks a No Deal Brexit is looking like a real possibility. Other sources have expressed similar points of view.

If the Government is faced with a stark "No Deal" situation from the EU - not a "Bad Deal", just a stark, but clear "No Deal", what sort of "Meaningful" vote would Parliament get ?

Unless negotiations become entrenched into two irreconcilable positions with bad feelings on both sides, I suspect the result will be an agreement to extend the Article 50 period to allow both parties to do further work to agree a negotiated exit.  After all it is in the interests of both sides to have a negotiated exit.  An extension of Article 50 would likely irritate Rees-Mogg and his colleagues but the majority of MPs on both sides of the House would I think vote for a pragmatic extension rather than fractious chaos.

MDS posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

The Governor of the Bank of England thinks a No Deal Brexit is looking like a real possibility. Other sources have expressed similar points of view.

If the Government is faced with a stark "No Deal" situation from the EU - not a "Bad Deal", just a stark, but clear "No Deal", what sort of "Meaningful" vote would Parliament get ?

Unless negotiations become entrenched into two irreconcilable positions with bad feelings on both sides, I suspect the result will be an agreement to extend the Article 50 period to allow both parties to do further work to agree a negotiated exit.  After all it is in the interests of both sides to have a negotiated exit.  An extension of Article 50 would likely irritate Rees-Mogg and his colleagues but the majority of MPs on both sides of the House would I think vote for a pragmatic extension rather than fractious chaos.

MDS - Thanks very much for the view from Planet Remainia. Extending Art 50 would just be another pathetic attempt to get the U.K. to see the ‘error’ of its ways and beg to be allowed to stay in the great Kleptocracy at any price. At least that is what it appears to me that Treason Mayniac is up to making her grubby way round Europe doing what she does best which is appeasing.

in Theresa May you probably have the most EUrophile Remainer you could possibly hope to have. Unfortunately for yourselves she is the worst Home Secretary and Prime MInister we have ever had. She would have been better spending her holidays tripping through the corn fields, but tripping would have been the operative word if she’d done that. 

WTO and out, MDS.

I was at a meeting this morning where some senior Gov’t officials were expressing serious concern for the consequence of a hard Brexit, in the direst terms.

One issue is that goods that without a customs agreement trucks carrying goods at places like Calais will take an estimated 45 minutes to process - 15 times as long as the average time of 3 minutes now, which if true will seriously slow goods in both directions,, effectively reducing throughput significantly, creating shortages and pushing up prices sharply, especially affecting food imports.

But even more of a concern is an anticipated risk that if Brexit is perceived by EU countries, or their citizens, as also having a negative effect on them, they could decide to completely block the ports out of a desire to hurt the UK out of spite or retaliation, regardless of additional pain to themselves in so doing. (‘They’ in this context not necessarily meaning anything officially sanctioned.)

Given the modern supply culture of ‘just in time’ and hence minimal stock or storage space for stock in the supply chain, even with just slowed trade there is considered to be a very real risk of food shortages immediately after Brexit, exacerbated by associated panic buying, with real potential for riots and lawlessness if the worst scenarios come to pass.

And its not just food - among essentials, apparently most petroleum cones via the EU these days, also at least some gas supplies.

For the optimists among us, hopefully the UK Gov will seek genuinely to seek the best for Britain and the British people at large and so simply not allow hard Brexit. As for the pessimists, time to hole up, stock up, and prepare to sit it out - for which investing in solar power sufficient to power your hifi may be the only way to ensure solace.

Innocent Bystander, this is now about 1 1/2 years after Brexit intent of separation papers were filed and y'all sound as feckless a group as it can be?  Classic dominant submissive power struggle with Britain obviously the weaker partner.  Oh, they are so bad for us and abuse us but we need to stay suckled to the breast of the EU for our own good.  We'll die if we don't!  Oh, woe is us, why are we sleepwalking out of Europe?  Boo hoo hoo.

Seriously, you all need to start planning to succeed rather than spend these years planning to fail?

Spoken like a true hard brexiteer, Florestan.  What you suggest is that we should treat a worst case scenario as a fait accompli when it is in fact far from accompli, and may well not even happen.  The principal thing that will stop it happening is if people refuse to assume it's going to happen and resist it.  To put it in the kind of emotive terms often used around Brexit, the same attitude you espouse would have had us learning German and stockpiling Kartoffelsalat in 1939.

The ridiculous and self-contradictory caricature of attitudes towards Brexit here I will grant though, especially to an outsider, because the quality of public debate is so low - it's an irreconcilable set of mutual loathings the Tory party has sicked on to the country as a whole.

Florestan posted:

Innocent Bystander, this is now about 1 1/2 years after Brexit intent of separation papers were filed and y'all sound as feckless a group as it can be?  Classic dominant submissive power struggle with Britain obviously the weaker partner.  Oh, they are so bad for us and abuse us but we need to stay suckled to the breast of the EU for our own good.  We'll die if we don't!  Oh, woe is us, why are we sleepwalking out of Europe?  Boo hoo hoo.

Seriously, you all need to start planning to succeed rather than spend these years planning to fail?

On an individual basis, those of us that can plan, can do what we can to make the best of whichever way it goes. But that is not what my post was about.

The UK is a representative democracy, and the public have to let their elective representatives get on with the job and do it. That does not mean people cannot or should not voice their views when they think what is being done is wrong, nor does it mean that the elected representatives should carry on regardless without lifting their heads to see if they are doing things right. This particular matter is fundamentally complicated because the original referendum two years ago a) did not address any aspect of the terms of exit from the EU, while b) the information as to what Brexit would ‘mean’ was largely speculative, full of inaccuracies and media hype, and far from a complete, so other than no longer being a member no-one had any idea of what leaving actually entailed, or how it would affect them, their families and their country. Even the very basic claim that the UK would immediately benefit from the saved cost of its annual membership fee was incorrect as there are financial commitments that the country entered into that will contnue for a long time.

As a consequence the UK is in a very difficult position, having committed to something with noidea of the outcome, then with politicians warring over the process while, it seems, having more interest in their own futures than that of the country and people they serve.

So the process is for people to engage in whatever way they can to try to get politicians to genuinely do what is right, which is what triggers all the discussion and argument - and my post was simply flagging up a view that I had not considered, in case also new to others.

My own view, as expressed many times in this forum, is that given the circumstances of the original referendum outlined above (which incidently had only a small majority of a low turnout in favour), coupled with the realities of what Brexit actually means only now becoming ckear, and in awareness this is an action that has far-reaching consequences, the only wise and sensible thing for the UK government to do is to have a confirmatory referendum that says this is what Brexit means (with full disclosure) - please confirm whether or not you, the people, want to proceed. And then act on the outcome of that.

Dave***T, no, I am just speaking some common sense which isn't so common these days.

My sense of the situation is that the majority of people in Britain want this.  The Naim forum tends to be overly populated with elite dissenters and doesn't represent what is really going on.  The decent, hard working people who want this don't follow poles, read the 'fake news' press headlines or hang around the elites to understand how to think or know which way is forward.

The other problem you have is your government.  Cowards, who are just keeping their heads down in order not to offend anyone so they can get re-elected.  Now, 1 1/2 years on you have all the academic professional pundits and ditherers coming out of the woodwork claiming to be so smart.

Best advice I have for you all to not destroy your country further is to get unified on the objective of leaving, roll up your sleeves and get to work on this.

All the people here complaining and crying about this will surely be the first ones to blame those who voted to leave the EU when your country inevitably fails but some of the blame must fall back on these smart devisive elites.  They didn't get their way so now all they do is obstruct and pull harder the other way.  Nothing will or can succeed in a house divided.

Florestan posted:

 

My sense of the situation is that the majority of people in Britain want this.Your sense is probably incorrect. The referrendum was pretty well even, and since then, I perceive a slight shift in the overall population towards remaining. But certainly there is no overwhelming majority either way IMHO.

The other problem you have is your government.  Cowards, who are just keeping their heads down in order not to offend anyone so they can get re-elected. Quite a few people will agree with this sentiment. 

I can't really follow what you are trying to say in the other parts of your post, so i've deleted them from my response.

Florestan posted:

 

My sense of the situation is that the majority of people in Britain want this.  

 

Where do you get that from?

in the vote two years ago there was a very small majority who voted for it, we have no idea how they feel now that infinitely more is known about the consequences - two years ago tgere was no talk of hard Brexit, no customs arrangements, border with Ireland, etc etc, so any number, on either side, may now think differently.

that is why I say there should indeed now be a poll to confirm before the deed is finally done, and there is no argument as to why that should not be done.

Don, so I am incorrect based on your perception?  Somehow can't follow your logic.  Last time I checked, the referendum ended in the people voting to leave?

"Pretty even?"  What does that even mean?  Close usually only counts when playing horse shoes or around hand grenades.

This is the classic loser sentiment you have.

Last I checked, a majority still happens to be 50% + 1.  You may not like this outcome but this has nothing to do with me or my observations. 

If it were the other way around, would you and your likeminded sleepwalkers give the time of day to anyone saying it was too close and we should have a second referendum?  

No, I didn't think so...The people have spoken, you will say, after all.

What Britain needs is some real leadership to move you all forward.

Don Atkinson posted:

Florestan posted:

 

My sense of the situation is that the majority of people in Britain want this.Your sense is probably incorrect. The referrendum was pretty well even, and since then, I perceive a slight shift in the overall population towards remaining. But certainly there is no overwhelming majority either way IMHO.

The other problem you have is your government.  Cowards, who are just keeping their heads down in order not to offend anyone so they can get re-elected. Quite a few people will agree with this sentiment. 

I can't really follow what you are trying to say in the other parts of your post, so i've deleted them from my response.

Not really wishing to rejoin this topic, as I had plenty of posts early on, pre-referendum, but I feel bound to question the notion that there has been a shift towards remaining .............. based on what, exactly?

Surely not the UK media's continual reporting of opinions, rather than facts?

As for the Government's handling of negotiations, it may well be true that they can be criticised over the apparent slow progress thus far, but I would suggest that the main reason for this lies with the EU and their intransigence, "pour encourager les autres".

Florestan posted:

Don, so I am incorrect That's correct  based on your perception? Somehow can't follow your logic.  Last time I checked, the referendum ended in the people voting to leave? Your words implied an overwhelming majority. The vote was marginal.

"Pretty even?"  What does that even mean? See above.  Close usually only counts when playing horse shoes or around hand grenades.Sure, but your words implied virtually all of us want to leave and with a hard Brexit to boot !

This is the classic loser sentiment -Boll*cks. A majority happens to be 50% + 1.Not in the sense that you intended in your post above.  You may not like this outcome but this has nothing to do with me or my observations.Well there you go. You have no understanding whatsoever of the situation. There's a LOT more to the situation than simply LEAVE.

If it were the other way around, would you and your likeminded sleepwalkers give the time of day to anyone saying it was too close and we should have a second referendum?  Stop the drivel.

No, I didn't think so...The people have spoken after all. Drivel.

What Britain needs is some real leadership Quite agree with you on that  to move you all forward. Drivel

"Pooh?" said Piglet.

"Yes, Piglet?" replied Pooh.

"Is everything going to be OK?"

"In what way, Piglet?" asked Pooh.

Piglet rubbed his nose in a nervous sort of way.

"You know, with Brexit. And rationing. And 729 international treaties to re-negotiate from scratch just to get back to here.  And," Piglet ran out of breath then made a small choking noise and swallowed. "And all that?" he finished and looked over at Pooh with a hopeful look.

Pooh Bear rubbed his nose too, but didn't find it quite as comforting it seemed to be for Piglet.

"Well, Piglet." Pooh said and then stopped to think some more, for this was a Very Big Thing for a Bear of Very Little Brain to consider. "Well, Piglet," he finally continued, "It all sounds like a very silly idea to me."

Pooh and Piglet looked out over the Hundred Acre Wood and contemplated the matter. Quietly, Piglet slipped his paw into Pooh's.

"We're totally f**ked, aren't we?" the Piglet managed in a hoarse whisper.

"Oh, yes." replied Pooh, patting his paw. "Completely f**ked." 

Florestan posted:

Don, so I am incorrect based on your perception?  Somehow can't follow your logic.  Last time I checked, the referendum ended in the people voting to leave?

"Pretty even?"  What does that even mean?  Close usually only counts when playing horse shoes or around hand grenades.

This is the classic loser sentiment you have.

Last I checked, a majority still happens to be 50% + 1.  You may not like this outcome but this has nothing to do with me or my observations. 

If it were the other way around, would you and your likeminded sleepwalkers give the time of day to anyone saying it was too close and we should have a second referendum?  

No, I didn't think so...The people have spoken, you will say, after all.

What Britain needs is some real leadership to move you all forward.

Yes but a lot voted on the immigration issues. Nothing will change on that front at present. So we're they conned by Boris,Nigel etc. Who were so suprised they won they had no policies 

From IB who has unique and privileged knowledge from Government officials...

'...there is considered to be a very real risk of food shortages immediately after Brexit, exacerbated by associated panic buying, with real potential for riots and lawlessness if the worst scenarios come to pass.'

and even better...

'.time to hole up, stock up, and prepare to sit it out.'

Ladies and Gents we have a new phenomenon..the Brexit Preppa.

And to think it wasn't that long ago we were brave enough and sufficiently stoic to face down the tyranny of European Facism. And not too long before that we were confident enough to oversee and a global trading empire.

Ray

Florestan posted:

Don, so I am incorrect based on your perception?  Somehow can't follow your logic.  Last time I checked, the referendum ended in the people voting to leave?

"Pretty even?"  What does that even mean?  Close usually only counts when playing horse shoes or around hand grenades.

This is the classic loser sentiment you have.

Last I checked, a majority still happens to be 50% + 1.  You may not like this outcome but this has nothing to do with me or my observations. 

If it were the other way around, would you and your likeminded sleepwalkers give the time of day to anyone saying it was too close and we should have a second referendum?  

No, I didn't think so...The people have spoken, you will say, after all.

What Britain needs is some real leadership to move you all forward.

Someone like the orange moron perhaps?

Not really, just the hoards of I’ll informed folk who voted Brexit landing us all in this mess. I really do worry for my children - most Brexiteers I know are retired and are on healthy public sector pensions (GPs in the main) - their response - I’ve got nothing to worry about. Selfish or what?????

Don, I realize you believe what you say so badly but intellectually, using the word "drivel" after everything doesn't typically work for winning in a sensible conversation.

Overwhelming majority vs. pretty even.  This is just talk of those who tend to like to get their own way all the time.  You don't get your way so becoming a bully and putting down your opposition is the only way to go.

You aren't seriously suggesting that if Britain voted to remain (with a similar margin reversed ie. 'pretty even') you would be here fighting tooth and nail for a second referendum?  Your responses of bollocks and drivel suggest that you would not be.

Somewhat hypocritical, don't you think?

The only conclusion then is that you are all fighting and acting this way because you are sore losers.

Seems only reasonable that someone here sticks their neck out and says what none of you can get yourselves to accept.

Get unified and you will have a better outcome than most of you being resistors only to confirm later that it could never work.  Somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy.

thebigfredc posted:

From IB who has unique and privileged knowledge from Government officials...

'...there is considered to be a very real risk of food shortages immediately after Brexit, exacerbated by associated panic buying, with real potential for riots and lawlessness if the worst scenarios come to pass.'

and even better...

'.time to hole up, stock up, and prepare to sit it out.'

Ladies and Gents we have a new phenomenon..the Brexit Preppa.

And to think it wasn't that long ago we faced down the tyranny of European Facism.

Ray

Please do not quote out of context, as you certainly have with the “time to hole up...” Twas, as it said, for the pessimistec. I.e. who believe that it does mean the end of the world as we know it and that there is no hope of it being anything else, and - I hoped clearly, but evidently not to clearly enough for all - intended more as a suitably lighthearted and far from serious round-off