Brexit View

[red devil]

As you were...http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-36bn-divorce-bill-divorce-bill-theresa-may-michel-barnier-a7879186.html

[Jenny1]

I think such briefings and counter-briefings just reinforce the picture that there's no consistent, sustainable approach being adopted. As suggested above, plenty of hard-Brexiters are happy with that. An incoherent strategy is just another route to 'No Deal'.

[red devil]

Going back to the ?36b figure, it's actually quite low compared to other figures being bandied about, the common one being E60b, so not sure why the Gov would be worried enough about it to call an election.

Anyway, what I would like to understand more is the role of the Commons votes on all these issues. When it comes to the crunch and they have to vote on the final deal, what is the alternative if it's rejected? Is it a case of accept this deal or we walk away with no deal?...

[JoeLeg]

As I understand it, yes, pretty much. It's one of the reasons the whole process is so flawed; Rees-Mogg, Redwood, Fox and all the other ultra-hard Brexiters will be perfectly happy to lose the vote and have no deal.

[Alan Medic]

Today's story in the Telegraph didn't get there by accident.

I think a lot can happen before the Commons gets as far as a vote on Brexit. What if there was a vote of no confidence in the government? Another election?

I still think there is life in the anti Brexit dog though I'm more hopeful than optimistic.

[JoeLeg]

The problem May has is that there's enough votes in both the hardcore Leave and Remain factions in the Commons to scupper the plans if they move too far in either direction, so everything has got try and appeal to both sides.

Unless a lot of compromise is reached and both sides are willing to find a way through then it's going to be very difficult.

[Alan Medic]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-philip-hammond-david-davis-brexit-split-a7830286.html

This suggests anything can happen which is basically where most of are at in not having a clue what will happen.

[JoeLeg]

Yeah, sounds about right.

[keano77]

JoeLeg Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The problem May has is that there's enough votes

> in both the hardcore Leave and Remain factions in

> the Commons to scupper the plans if they move too

> far in either direction, so everything has got try

> and appeal to both sides.

>

> Unless a lot of compromise is reached and both

> sides are willing to find a way through then it's

> going to be very difficult.

I agree. Both Brexiters and Remainers want what's best for the country. It seems very simple to me - money is the crux of the matter. Britain leaves, who'll cover the shortfall? France? Good luck with that. Germany? Sorry, we're propping up this whole shaky edifice. Why do you think money (divorce settlement) is so important to the EU at this early stage of the negotiations?

Simple, Britain will pay it's debts. Britain will also pay a bit more but you will not see 1 cent until we get a trade deal with you that is satisfactory for our parliament to vote for.

What's problematic with that?

(Edited to add: has Vince Cable lost it?)

[JohnL]

Like the Lannisters the UK always pays it's debts. Hear that Rees-Mogg

But the EU are setting the rules here and we agreed to the process last month did we not - and that means settling the bill BEFORE a trade deal - Davis agreed (actually rolled over) on this after saying he'd fight and fight.

Edit- Of course we can agree to 36m and not pay it until an agreed date

[JohnL]

Vince Cable was responding to

"His strongly worded attack came after a YouGov poll suggested 61% of leave voters would consider significant damage to the British economy to be a price worth paying for leaving the EU."

[Alan Medic]

And that quote just goes to show how irrational a large percentage of leavers are and how seriously divided the country is.

[JoeLeg]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I agree. Both Brexiters and Remainers want what's

> best for the country. It seems very simple to me -

> money is the crux of the matter. Britain leaves,

> who'll cover the shortfall? France? Good luck with

> that. Germany? Sorry, we're propping up this whole

> shaky edifice. Why do you think money (divorce

> settlement) is so important to the EU at this

> early stage of the negotiations?

>

> Simple, Britain will pay it's debts. Britain will

> also pay a bit more but you will not see 1 cent

> until we get a trade deal with you that is

> satisfactory for our parliament to vote for.

>

> What's problematic with that?

Nothing is problematic with that. It seems an eminently sensible solution. The debate seems to be over the order in which we resolve this - I fear too many people in this land think we are in a position to play hardball over this, and that we can insist on negotiating both together when the EU wants to resolve the money first. We can't. Everyone wants a trade deal, so let's do as you say, agree the money and move on to the bit where we all make money and have jobs in the future.

>

> (Edited to add: has Vince Cable lost it?)

No, I don't think he has. Let's be fair, the younger generation feel like a lot of older people who will be dead soon have made a decision that they will not suffer the consequences of if it goes wrong. They have pensions, property, and don't have to worry about getting a job, a career, a mortgage, paying for a family and so on. Younger people see the anti-immigration angle of the vote as anathema to the their view of a closer, more integrated world.

The young believe hey have been told to sit down, shut up and do what their elders and betters tell them. And those same elders and betters will not be around when the world changes. It's an understandable point of view, and please note that I'm not saying who is right and who is wrong, simply that the elder generation needs to understand better how their actions have come across. If they think they're right, they need to do a better job of explaining to the under 30's why they've just done them a favour, because right now it looks very much like they just wanted to go back to the England of their childhood, and for that they have no one to blame but themselves.

As for Vince? Well, the LibDems are the only party portraying themselves as truly anti-Brexit and need every vote they can get - seems like a pretty sensible position for a politician in his place to take.

[Alan Medic]

keano77 Wrote:

>

> I agree. Both Brexiters and Remainers want what's

> best for the country.

I'm not sure about that. Have a read of this:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-leave-voters-happy-for-relatives-to-lose-jobs-over-brexit-2017-8?utm_content=buffer8b460&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer&r=US&IR=T

[keano77]

Yes Alan, I've read it thanks. I suppose it depends on what is meant by damage.

It strikes me that the older people mentioned in the statistics are more optimistic, not fearing short term unemployment for family members on the basis things will be better in the long term. They've known the ups and downs of economic cycles in ways the younger workers have not experienced and survived to tell the tale.

Many of you will remember a certain Maggie Thatcher who, inspired by ideas on monetarism, market forces and a smaller state, closed and let many important industries die natural deaths in the 70s/80s. Regardless of your views on old 'milk snatcher' it is undeniable that the country was better off in subsequent years and there is an element of 'get on your bike' to find the opportunities available post-Brexit.

Having said that, I suspect the period of Thatcherism unleashed forces that have festered (communities decimated etc for the grater good) that played a large part in the vote to leave.

[red devil]

Survived? Do you me a favour, there's no comparison when it comes to opportunities and starting out in life.

Babyboomers, the generation that never had it so good. The first generation to benefit from the State's ethos of 'from the cradle to the grave', with free and easy access to health care and enhanced educational opportunities, when going to University/higher education was for the many not just the privileged few. The post-war social housing boom, and if you wanted to buy your own home it was affordable. Where a job for life meant just that, when paying into a pension was worthwhile.

Try telling the decimated communities that is was for the greater good of the nation, and there's you accusing Remainers of living in a 'Metropolitan elite bubble'...oh the irony.

Haven't you noticed, people are literally 'getting on their bike' for work, they're called Deliveroo riders, welcome to zero hours and the gig economy, another thing the Babyboomers have never had to deal with. Nowadays many people are prepared to get on low-cost flights too and work in Europe, but for how long?

Yes there's been economic ups and downs, but I'd like to see these 'jihadi Brexiteers' trying to start-out in life again now, saddled with debt, generation rent. A decade of cuts and austerity and another one looming...

[keano77]

Steady on red devil.

When I first came to London I rented dodgy bedsits which cost a fortune relatively. Two gas rings. Shared loo down the landing. Racing to get the Evening News and Standard at 5pm to flick through the jobs section then down to smelly phone kiosks with a fist full of coins to try and arrange interviews. No discounted bus and tube travel in those days.

Now my son, like most students, is at university in self-contained student accommodation with en-suite, an iPhone in his pocket, travel pass and an allowance - all paid for by parents.

When I see bleeding heart millennials on telly saying their lives are ruined when they haven't even started it makes me laugh. The baby boomers you so snobbily dismiss have dressed our snowflakes in designer clothes, paid for extra-curricular activities, school trips, treated them to foreign holidays, bought them the latest technical gizmos, funded their proms as they 'graduate' from secondary education, the 'gap yar', and college rent and living expenses. And if there's any money left from what the baby boomers scrimped and saved after Old age care fees the millennials will inherit that and probably squander it on fast cars or exotic holidays.

Yes University fees are a big worry but blame Clegg and Vince Cable for that. If people were silly enough to vote for the Lib Dems don't come crying to me.

So get a grip red devil

😀

[JoeLeg]

Keano mate, not all millenials, not all by a long shot, are in the position you describe. You've done well enough to give your son all that? Congratulations. But don't go assuming they're all in the same boat as our son.

They ain't.

Now a lot of the problems faced by them stem from a culture of instant gratification and the idea that we can have whatever we want without having to work too hard for it, that we'll never have to graft and save to get anywhere. Cheap credit and celebrity culture have (in my view) done more to ruin opportunities than politicians ever did. But it's also true that there were some certainties the baby boomer generation could count on that aren't there any more. The gig economy and zero hours contracts are good examples of that; the idea that you have to intern in some other way work for free before anyone will take a chance on you. Now that isn't such a bad thing - there's a lot of it in my industry and it works very well for all concerned - but it's coupled with a job market that makes it difficult if not impossible to make money to support yourself while you do that.

You say the son is on an allowance from you; will you be cutting that off st some point and encouraging him to get a job while he studies?

These are just some of the problems to be faced in a post-Brexit Britain. In theory there should be more jobs around for people, but will they takd them? Will they do them properly

ETA - why do you think the LibDems are solely to blame for tuition fees?! Whatever party was in was going to raise them. That was coming regardless.

[JoeLeg]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Yes Alan, I've read it thanks. I suppose it

> depends on what is meant by damage.

>

> It strikes me that the older people mentioned in

> the statistics are more optimistic, not fearing

> short term unemployment for family members on the

> basis things will be better in the long term.

Which means nothing to people who lose their jobs. Getting another job is not the same to people these days. Those who have voted believing that come from a time when finding other employment was easier (mid-80's notwithstanding). I suspect there is a difference of opinion over the amount of risk involved. Those older folk are not the ones who will have to find other jobs.

> They've known the ups and downs of economic cycles

> in ways the younger workers have not experienced

> and survived to tell the tale.

Again, this comes across to younger people as sanctimonious lecturing about 'how things used to be'. While it may be accurate, the older generation is doing a terrible job of explaining it to the younger generation.

>

> Many of you will remember a certain Maggie

> Thatcher who, inspired by ideas on monetarism,

> market forces and a smaller state, closed and let

> many important industries die natural deaths in

> the 70s/80s. Regardless of your views on old 'milk

> snatcher' it is undeniable that the country was

> better off in subsequent years and there is an

> element of 'get on your bike' to find the

> opportunities available post-Brexit.

>

And now that we are in this situation I dearly hope that happens. If not then we will know who to blame.

> Having said that, I suspect the period of

> Thatcherism unleashed forces that have festered

> (communities decimated etc for the grater good)

> that played a large part in the vote to leave.

While I'd love to blame Thatcher for everything (and she certainly started it) subsequent governments have done nothing to arrest the decline. The unfortunate truth is that many of those Leave voters are expecting a quicker change on their fortunes than is likely. They also don't expect to have to do much work for it, assuming that the UK of the future will just be better somehow. I suppose, given how the govt is being reticent on its vision of a post-Brexit UK, this is understandable. But somehow I suspect it to be unrealistic.

[rendelharris]

keano77 Wrote:

> Many of you will remember a certain Maggie

> Thatcher who, inspired by ideas on monetarism,

> market forces and a smaller state, closed and let

> many important industries die natural deaths in

> the 70s/80s. Regardless of your views on old 'milk

> snatcher' it is undeniable that the country was

> better off in subsequent years and there is an

> element of 'get on your bike' to find the

> opportunities available post-Brexit.

OK I'll bite: under Thatcher unemployment rose to record levels, manufacturing declined from over 20% of GDP to below 10%, public spending was cut by 15%, the pay gap between men and women increased, interest rates rose to a record 17% and there were a record number of home repossessions, industrial action levels were higher in the early 80s than in the winter of discontent, and the number of people living in poverty as measured by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (below 60% of median income) rose from 13.4% to 22.2% on her watch. So I think we have a different definition of the word "undeniable."

[keano77]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> keano77 Wrote:

>

> > Many of you will remember a certain Maggie

> > Thatcher who, inspired by ideas on monetarism,

> > market forces and a smaller state, closed and

> let

> > many important industries die natural deaths in

> > the 70s/80s. Regardless of your views on old

> 'milk

> > snatcher' it is undeniable that the country was

> > better off in subsequent years and there is an

> > element of 'get on your bike' to find the

> > opportunities available post-Brexit.

>

> OK I'll bite: under Thatcher unemployment rose to

> record levels, manufacturing declined from over

> 20% of GDP to below 10%, public spending was cut

> by 15%, the pay gap between men and women

> increased, interest rates rose to a record 17% and

> there were a record number of home repossessions,

> industrial action levels were higher in the early

> 80s than in the winter of discontent, and the

> number of people living in poverty as measured by

> the Institute for Fiscal Studies (below 60% of

> median income) rose from 13.4% to 22.2% on her

> watch. So I think we have a different definition

> of the word "undeniable."

I agree with all that rendel. I said in subsequent years. Most economists agree that the clear out and relaxing of restrictions on businesses (and crushing of union power) paved the way for the economic boom of the 90s and beyond. (That's of course if we believe so called experts any more).

[keano77]

All good points JoeLeg.

The last thing young people want to hear is some monty python-esque we lived in a cardboard box description of the bad old days.

[rendelharris]

The apparent post-Thatcher prosperity didn't last long, did it? Lawson's North Sea oil fuelled giveaway budgets of tax cuts and interest rate suppression created an illusion of prosperity which came crashing down in the 1991 recession. The economy of the 90s recovered off the back of worldwide and particularly US prosperity, fuelled in large part by the dotcom bubble, which again crashed into recession in the second half of the decade. Thatcher's deregulation of the financial industry was directly responsible for the credit crunch recession in the 00s. Not exactly a record of unalloyed, or indeed undeniable, prosperity.

[keano77]

rendelharris Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The apparent post-Thatcher prosperity didn't last

> long, did it? Lawson's North Sea oil fuelled

> giveaway budgets of tax cuts and interest rate

> suppression created an illusion of prosperity

> which came crashing down in the 1991 recession.

> The economy of the 90s recovered off the back of

> worldwide and particularly US prosperity, fuelled

> in large part by the dotcom bubble, which again

> crashed into recession in the second half of the

> decade. Thatcher's deregulation of the financial

> industry was directly responsible for the credit

> crunch recession in the 00s. Not exactly a record

> of unalloyed, or indeed undeniable, prosperity.

Which I suppose substantiates my point above to Alan Medic's link. The oldies have seen all these prophesies of 'economic disaster' before, have taken a hit, got on with it and bounced back. One more little hiccough like Brexit is just something to take it your stride.

[JoeLeg]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> All good points JoeLeg.

>

> The last thing young people want to hear is some

> monty python-esque we lived in a cardboard box

> description of the bad old days.

If you're being genuine here (and I assume you are), would you agree that youth - which often responds well to enthusiastic messages of optimism and 'we can do it' (as witness the success of Corby , Obama and even Trump) - would benefit from a positive campaign explaining just what you're talking about, and asking them to recognise the opportunities that you feel lie before them?

Right now they believe they've had their future stolen from them by a bunch of older folk who want to go back to the 50's. If the country is somehow to unite then making people believe they do indeed will have a future is part of that. I'm increasingly despondent at the amount of "stop moaning it'll be alright" that I hear from Brexit voters. I wish we weren't here but here we are and now I'd like to see some concrete thoughts about how we can all benefit. I'm not hearing much of anything past the same demands for blind faith that I got during the campaign.