Second and Third Thoughts
Economy 2.5% smaller than it would have been if UK had voted remain, says thinktank
Source: Brexit costing Britain £500m a week and rising, says report
No doubt Brexitters will continue to spout bullshit about the will of the people and the uselessness of experts.
As the possibility of a no-deal Brexit scenario increases, and the government publishes its “no-deal preparedness” notices, it is worth taking stock of the sheer variety of problems that would arise with a no-deal Brexit.
Source: Costly, Chaotic and Catastrophic: What happens with a no-deal Brexit? | Richard Corbett
Bloody scary. No doubt, Leavers will scream “Project Fear” again.
Brexit supporters are organised and disciplined in their constantly repeated sound-bites. Almost every day you can hear the mantra “Take back control of our money, borders, laws and trade”. Constant repetition of this line is aimed at it becoming a commonplace, something that is accepted without discussion. Yet the assertion is false.
…
As with many of the mantras of the Brexit ultras, their simplistic phrases belie the complicated truth. In international relations, contrary to their assertions, the UK cannot just make demands and expect the EU, or indeed the rest of the world, to give us exactly what we want. Any form of international agreement requires some nominal loss of sovereignty and compromise, but this is balanced with mutual benefits and agreed routes for appeal if either party breaks the rules.
To describe marriage as ‘losing control’ of your right to be single would be seen by most people to be silly. Agreeing a mortgage so that you can live in a home is not ‘losing control’ of your money. Respectfully taking off your shoes when visiting a friend’s house is not ‘losing control’ of your right to own footwear.
Framing cooperation as a loss of control is a populist rhetorical device that is starting to be exposed as such, as the government is finally having to face the hard reality of what Brexit really means – and how much we, as a country, actually stand to lose if we leave the EU.
Source: LOSING control of our money, borders, laws and trade – Richard Corbett
Sadly, despite what anti-European campaigners have over-promised, Brexit means less transparency, less influence and less effective decision making on bilateral and multilateral agreements. It doesn’t increase our sovereignty, it decreases it. Theresa May’s oft repeated insistence that she will not provide a running commentary on negotiations significantly reduces the sovereignty of our Parliament. That democratically elected MPs are being denied the opportunity to hold the government to account over these negotiations is not just the thin end of the wedge. It is a poor precedent for less effective negotiations and a less democratic process which will inevitably lead to lower quality agreements that we cannot be sure will be enforced equitably.
So, why would Britain want to put a put a ‘brake’ on the numbers of citizens from the rest of the EU coming here, resulting in a drastic reduction in the huge benefits they bring to our country?
I asked the same question during last year’s referendum campaign on the James O’Brien LBC radio phone-in programme.
Mr James O’B responded:
“You leave me only with xenophobia and mild racism as the only motivation for the ‘Leave’ campaign…”
Is that right? Some Britons would prefer to forego the benefits that migrants bring to Britain because… they don’t like foreigners?
If so, that’s a high price the country will have to pay for the disease known as xenophobia.
http://jondanzig.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/eu-migrants-give-more-than-they-take.html
EUReferedum states in its overall aims for a post-Brexit Britain that: “Within the United Kingdom, our vision is for a government respectful of its people who will take on greater participation and control of their affairs at local and national level. Our vision fosters the responsibility of a sovereign people as the core of true democracy.”
On its current trajectory, Brexit is not going to deliver any of those noble outcomes, unless of course, you happen to be a foreign billionaire with significant interests in the game.
This article in the FT, The six tribes of Brexit revealed, is behind a paywall. It describes the results of an Ipsos MORI poll of 4,000 voters carried out during 2016. It distinguishes six groups of people: three Leaver and three Remainer. Like all analyses of this type, not everyone fits neatly into one of the groups and not everyone in each group is exactly the same.
In my summary, I have just picked out the key characteristics of each group as bullet points, but remember labels like “older” and “left school at 16” mean “more likely to be older” and “more likely to have left school at 16 than the national average”.
This is me.
oddrops 