What a great Brexit comment

Hopes for a second referendum on Brexit are receding, as more and more Tories show their true colours and fall in line behind Boris Johnson and his controversial deal. They have passed through all the stages of grief to arrive at acceptance of a Brexit that they know will make Britain poorer and weaker. One of their leading lights, the former home secretary Amber Rudd, explicitly acknowledged that the deal would “hurt the economy” – but she said “it’s the right thing to do because we had a referendum”.

Pursuing an economically devastating Brexit is a choice, not a necessity. The referendum was a mandate to change the political basis of our relationship with Europe, not to terminate all our economic cooperation altogether, as envisaged in the new withdrawal agreement. The proposal would give Britain the same economic relationship with the EU as distant countries such as Mexico or Canada. That’s why the extremist interpretation of the 2016 referendum that was begun by Theresa May and accelerated by Johnson can and must be resisted. If that cannot be achieved by a second referendum – even the most ardent campaigners now accept they don’t have the numbers – then it is vital that politicians return to the arena of compromise.

The people don’t want it – that’s what not having the numbers means – therefore the people must have it by another means.

Where are the lampposts when you need them?

46 comments on “What a great Brexit comment

  1. Falling behind a deal you cant get anyway is neither use nor ornament–much like Cudd herself.

    The EU will offer an extnsn by which BoJo will fuck himself for a fool if he accepts. The HoTraitors haver NO intention of EVER passing this deal. Most of them know they are out next GE so they should care. Bojo won’t have the balls to confiscate their pensions and give them something to really worry about. Gives them time for a VONC and disheartens Brexiteers.

    CCA is now his only way out–but that fucks his deal. WTO exit is all that could get.

  2. Remember Thatcher’s Britain? That’s where this Brexit deal would take us

    If only.

    The left has never trusted the British people and the referendum result confirmed their suspicions, they won’t take that risk again. Hence no GE until the people have been cowed in to believing there’s no pointing voting again. That way they’ll be able to claim democratic mandates on an ever reducing electoral vote.

  3. The referendum was a mandate to change the political basis of our relationship with Europe, not to terminate all our economic cooperation altogether

    I don’t remember seeing that on the ballot paper. It’s amazing all the stuff that apparently fitted onto this small sheet of paper, yet I can only remember a short question, along the lines of “should we leave the European Union?”

    And what exactly is “Economic co-operation”?

  4. It’s wonderful how one can hanker after economic prosperity while simultaneously seeking to organise the economic landscape so as to remove the incentives for those inclined to bring it about.

  5. That no deal equals economic Armageddon seems to be a very lazy and wrong headed assumption. And also largely unchallenged. “Shy” tories and the “silent” majority are terms often bandied about. What would be the appropriate moniker for quiet economists?

  6. BNID- yes odd isn’t it.

    “Without a second referendum we face a decade of deregulation, and a repeat of the 1980s assault on working people”

    Does Tom truly think brexit equals deregulation and an end to beer and sandwiches and discontented winters and 4 day weeks.
    I think the propaganda meisters (within his circles not the public at large) have framed it that way. Jeremy certainly didnae think that for the last 30 plus years. And anyway Boris ain’t going to go that way even if he does win a thumping majority.

  7. If it’s bad for the economy, for people getting richer, why did people vote for it?

    I subscribe to the wisdom of crowds stuff here. Every plasterer, programmer, nurse, housewife, civil servant and retired person is doing a rough calculation of whether option 1 or option 2 is better for them, family, community, country when they vote. That’s a gigantic mulltiple node supercomputer making a decision. Some of those people saw Brexit as being worse, some better.

    They, collectively, have far more understanding of how things are than people doing financial models. For example, the models assume uniform gravity, which was once fairly true. People sold beef and coal to nearby countries. When you’re talking parking meters, hand-made brogues, whisky and Aston Martins, distance doesn’t matter much. A few planners lack the wisdom that someone working in Dyson see.

  8. I do not understand how you do not understand this …
    For a start the latest U Gov Poll to the question ” In hindsight was the Uk right to leave ” majority say no (21.10 U Gov) 47/41. Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union, or leave the European Union? (Asked after the referendum) Survation 3% lead remain 21.10
    The its a matter of who was voting , we know it was the old but look at the political landscape now the Conservative Party are the Nationalist loony tunes
    In elections between 1950 and 2010, the Conservatives averaged 8% behind Labour among the young 9% ahead with the old . In 2017 they were 35 % behind among 18 to 24-year-olds and 36 points ahead among over-65s and behind amongst everyone under 47.
    More importantly in this context the continuity of trading relations and the outright increase in prosperity was not only a claim ( albeit a lie) it was one of the main planks of the Leave campaign . Ignoring that aspect of the offer has nothing to do with the referendum and fcs look, what they have done to N Ireland !!!!

    The referendum was not decisive , nowhere near enough to commit to the country to hardship and a diminished future ( You might contracts it with the National project to reunite Germany , achieved peacefully thanks to the deep links between France and Germany fostered by the EU
    In any case this is not playground football you cannot take the ball home . After the first referendum a campaign to reverse it started immediately , the same is true now . The only difference is that it has an immediate majority
    UKIP Brexit and the far Nationalist right repress net about 20% of thso country and they are getting what they want , Brexit at any cost
    Much of the leave vote would be perfectly happy with a far less damaging tear in the fabric of our lives .

    There will be an on going and bitter political cost for this outrage I promise you that

  9. then it is vital that politicians return to the arena of compromise.

    Or “it is vital that politicians do what I want, which is stop Brexit anyway”.

  10. Newmania

    You avoided the question on the other thread as to “if us, then why not Canada/USA, NZ/Aus”.

    If what you say about the economics was in any way credible, other countries would surely have pursued economic and political union through merger in the same way? Why would they not do that? Following your logic, these countries must have lost a load of extra GDP/capita by not doing so? Hence, what is so different in their circumstances, and despite the obvious advantages in their case (compatibility of language, values, legal systems, etc)?

  11. I wish the broadcasters would ask those agitating for a 2nd referendum why we should believe them if it goes against them? It should be the first question and a good interviewer could kill off the 2nd referendum in one interview, but I suppose they’re in on it.

  12. BiND

    Second question:

    Why should we be expected to respect the result of a second referendum – if it did vote for Remain – if you are not prepared to respect the result of the first one.

  13. “…Remember Thatcher’s Britain? That’s where this Brexit deal would take us….”

    The author was 7 when Thatcher left office.

    I should imagine his ten years at McKinsey & Co constituted morte of an assault on “the working class” than anything the Tories enacted.

  14. Disagree Tim that the people don’t want it, my experience with the people I know (mostly blue collar working class) is that they don’t give a toss about exactly how we leave, as long as we leave.

    However remoaners cooked their own goose (ditto the DUP) by trying to ultimately revoke brexit via a people’s vote.

    In fact when we do leave, that’s what I’m really looking forward to : the realisation by remoaners that it’s the antics of Miller, Supreme Court, Labour, Lib Dems, Rebel Alliance etc. that caused us to ultimately end up with a hard brexit

  15. PF
    I am not quite sure what you mean are you saying there should be no EU because there is no Australia / New-Zealand equivalent ?
    ok Each country has advantages and disadvantages , these are in economic terms comparative advantages advantages of access history and so on. One of the UK`s is its proximity to the worlds largest most complex and integrated market
    It has many disadvantages like a lack of building space relatively few raw materials a poor educational system and the scars of an early industrialisation and post industrial areas in decline

    On the day New Zealand throws away all its sheep , we should throw away our market and suppliers
    I really don`t think its all that complicated

  16. Why should we be expected to respect the result of a second referendum – if it did vote for Remain – if you are not prepared to respect the result of the first one.

    I do not recall any respect for the result of the first one in 1975. Despite an overwhelming majority it was immediately attacked by a bitter and determined group of right wingers called “The Referendum Party” financed (I as ever ) by some deluded money bags and by the hard left.
    The relentless campaign , usually bent on inflaming ethnic insecurity has been bellowing form the media non stop for decades
    Tony Benn and Enoch Powell are laughing now in whatever hell they play mahjong together , Corbyn waved it through yesterday so you Trot chums are still with you
    No-one expects anything, a second referendum would only be the start of building a strong anti Fascist pro business Liberal coalition intent on making lives better not worse.
    I have to say though that a wafer thin majority is fine to stay as you are .To turn the country upside down steal our money blight our children`s lives and make us ashamed of our own country needs super majority ,a real act of the people .

  17. Disagree Tim that the people don’t want it

    I think Tim was summarising the argument from the grauniadista twat.

  18. In fact when we do leave, that’s what I’m really looking forward to : the realisation by remoaners that it’s the antics of Miller, Supreme Court, Labour, Lib Dems, Rebel Alliance etc. that caused us to ultimately end up with a hard brexit

    Bull shit absolute bollocks !!! The reason we have got a hard Brexit was because the only reason it happened at all was the anti immigrant campaign so shutting the border was not optional . That closed down Norway options and being in the single market
    You have forgotten that there was a quiet period of negotiation prior to the May Deal in which the EU were sounded out on letting us have our cake and eat it and as remain had predicted the Leave promise turned out to be a lie
    The hard Brexit unveiled at the Tory Conference by May was only presented as a Policy choice, in fact it was the only choice and as a consequence of being the weak small supplicant it was even worse than I imagined
    Now it is even worse again
    The point is to present this as an objective , it never was , it is the only way to save the political narrative

  19. As far as I can see, all the dire extrapolations of a post Brexit economy seem to be based on either an economic status quo in the legacy EU of that the EU meets its own economic targets. In fact the EU countries are spectacularly failing to meet their economic targets. There’s every indication the EU’s heading for a recession & might even spiral down into full Japanisation. And economic contraction implies a sharp downturn in trade. So the numbers suggested for a post-Brexit economic shortfall are purest fantasy. The economic numbers could be similar, leave or remain. Or The EU could pull a Remain UK down the same sink-hole & they’d be worse.Heaven knows what the effect of another full blown crisis with the Euro could be. Most of the economic tools to save it were used up last time around.
    Maybe our European economic expert Newmonia could predict where he expects the EU economy to be in a decade.

  20. “I do not recall any respect for the result of the first one in 1975.”

    That was about an EEC membership of 9 countries.

    The people clearly didn’t know what they voting for when you look at the 28 member EU today.

    So that vote doesn’t count.

    Come back in 40 years’ time and we’ll give you a third vote

  21. Newmania

    I am not quite sure what you mean are you saying there should be no EU because there is no Australia / New-Zealand equivalent ?

    Thanks for the response, but I wasn’t really saying that there shouldn’t be an EU (although it’s a fair proposition politically given all the differences). I was referring to why it was that we, absolutely at our economic peril otherwise, needed to be a full economic and political member.

    I don’t accept that the UK has a whole set of different circumstances that make it imperative that we join a bloc on our doorstep, both economically and politically, when one can’t make the argument for Canada joining the USA – not even a sea between them (unlike NZ) and a one very large land border, and across which a huge amount of trade currently takes place. Same language, legal systems, basic values and lots more.

    The argument earlier was about loss of GDP. Presumably Canadian equivalents of yourself should every year be making the same argument for Canada to join the USA, otherwise the loss of GDP by not doing so would be substantial and why would they all want to be poorer?

    The points you make about the UK (essentially lacking stuff at all levels) appear somewhat negative and “declinist”, perhaps more akin to the leftist tradition? Indeed, reading your response, it might be impossible to believe that such a country could have achieved what it has in the past?

  22. Newmania

    Out of curiosity, if free movement of Labour within the EU is so wonderful for the UK, why isn’t free movement of Labour from the whole world even more wonderful for the UK?

    Do you think every person from anywhere in the world should have the right to move to the UK and live and work here? If you don’t it can only be because you are a racist

  23. Newmania

    I do not recall any respect for the result of the first one in 1975. Despite an overwhelming majority it was immediately attacked by a bitter and determined group of right wingers called “The Referendum Party” financed (I as ever ) by some deluded money bags and by the hard left.

    The relentless campaign , usually bent on inflaming ethnic insecurity has been bellowing form the media non stop for decades

    I’ve no problem with another referendum, say in two or three decades from now (it was a once in a generation vote, if you recall), if that’s what people want? And yes, in the meantime they can be as bitter and twisted as they like, financed by some deluded money bags like Soros..

    The point is that the earlier referendum was delivered and implemented. That’s surely the difference – we’re still waiting?

  24. PF It seems to me I have answered you question in at least two ways . History and geography give different countries different choices basically –

    Andrew I am not be any means dewy eyed about immigration or Freedom of movement but you have to deal with facts
    1 FOM help the the UK remain a European Hub for academic scientific finance creative media and ..pretty much every industry with a future
    2 It does pay for services providing real bonus to the exchequer
    3 It actually assists social coherence due to the excellent English and cultural closeness of those that stay , their children are white English if you like
    4 It helps counter act the drag our ageing population creates on growth
    5 It creates greater GDP which even if it is mostly to the benefit of the those who come in still allows us to borrow as a Nation and finance services

    and it is a ticket into the words greatest and most advanced market .
    Some of this is true of an illiterate arranged marriage bride form the Hindus valley but not all of it by a long long way
    I understand why people don`t like immigration very well , I understand the Brexit voters sick of being ignored .I don`t want them ignored ,
    I do want a clear and fair decision about European Freedom of movement to be made Not a free pass for Africa to live here which I would loathe as much as you

  25. Newmania

    May’s brexit, in practice was soft, its the push back against that by all factions – remoaners included – that has forced us to where we are

    If Parliament had had no say, May would have not had to appease the ERG or the DUP and we would have ended up with effectively staying in the single market IMO – also the DUP wouldn’t have found itself in the shitty mess it is now

    And Labour voted against remaining in the EEA last YEAR, if they hadn’t that would have likely passed – so not just a result of Tories and ERG

  26. And Labour voted against remaining in the EEA last YEAR, if they hadn’t that would have likely passed

    Passed when ? When has this been on offer , do you mean in the indicative votes. I don`t follow but if you are telling me that lifetime time Trot anti capitalist and Europe hating arsehole Jeremy Corbyn and his unspeakable cronies are on your side … that aint news !
    Funnily enough when there have been surveys this is the sort of Brexit the least people hate , so it is not true that everyone who voted for it didn`t care who they hurt so long as they got rid of Johny Foreigner
    Many were quite ready to compromise
    It has never been offered by the Conservative Party

  27. Facepaint–are you acting out some bullshit fantasy that the more bollocks you write the more chance your remain gang have? Magickal thinking Roscoe. And bad for your health.

    Letting yourself become aware of how much evil bullshit you are full of is sapping your morale. Showing yourself the evidence hourly of what a scumbag you have allowed yourself to exist as is melting your never-very-robust circuits.

  28. Newmania

    Not in the indicative votes, it was an amendment mid 2018 that Labour whipped against – probably because Corbyn has his own fantasy brexit that does include EU rules on state aid

    Labour also whipped against the EFTA options in the indicative votes

    And while I may be a brexiteer, my own preference was that we remain in the EEA, the antics in Parliament and elsewhere that have derailed that have irked me greatly – still hopefully I’ll get the satisfaction of brexit getting over the line and watching the remoaners realize their shitty attempts at reversing brexit have fucked-up a soft brexit – well worth it

  29. This was during the shenanigans about the meaningful, vote I think, but no such deal has ever been discussed with the EU it has never been Government Policy and such an outcome is inconceivable without the EU requiring FOM and much else, none of which had a prayer of getting past the ERG and associated Fascists racists and loons
    Not only that but such an outcome would have negated the who purpose of Conservative Policy which is to render the existence of the Brexit Party / UKIP superfluous and cling to power.
    Soft Brexit has not been on offer since the Conservative Party conference and May ruled it out.
    The blame for this disaster lies with the people like you and if you have fucked up by stupidly thinking we could have our cake and eat it then you are a bigger cunt than you look and that implies cuntines on a vast scale lard arse

  30. @Newmania

    It wasn’t/isn’t FOM that helps but FOTRKOM (freedom of the right kind of movement).

    Every single person we need who benefits our economy, not one person who doesn’t.

  31. Newmania

    “PF It seems to me I have answered you question in at least two ways . History and geography give different countries different choices basically”

    Ah, OK.. Which, with the rest of your comment relating to our apparent relative weaknesses (and despite other countries succeeding perfectly well in similar circumstances without the need to give up their nationhood) sort of risks reading like “Because we’re shit”.

    And hence, perhaps not surprising that it gets so little traction on here. I bet it would get loads of upticks at the Guardian..:)

  32. Andrew C

    “FOTRKOM”

    +1

    Similar levels GDP/capita is often a good start. Which mostly deals with Western Europe and the Anglosphere (if reciprocated). And then something as simple as a deminimis flat rate foreigners’ tax could easily stifle any excessive inward migration that risked suppressing wages at the lower end. And happily reciprocated, some of our tourists give us a bad enough name as it is.

    Visas could easily deal with countries that fell outside of that / skills & roles that were in need.

  33. Can’t believe Newmania is still trotting out surveys and polls to support remain, let’s not forget they all said remain was going to win the first time so not sure why they should be seen as more reliable now.
    Part of the problem is that a lot of people may have been happy with trade arrangements but the EU has been and continues to use that as the basis for political growth, not our fault if we don’t like the political bit and the only way to get rid if it involves cutting the trade bit.

  34. @Andrew C
    “I do not recall any respect for the result of the first one in 1975.”
    That was about an EEC membership of 9 countries.

    And those who warned us in 1975 that EEC membership was just the first step on the road to a federal Europe – most notably Benn and Powell – were derided, in rather similar terms to those still being used by Newmania and his Remainiac fellow travellers. But events have proved them correct.

  35. They were correct indeed may God Bless Powell and Satan Benn.

    I hear some whisper that that cunt Miller is trying to set up some tactical voting website to help remain shite. Anybody got any more info out there?

  36. @Chris Miller October 23, 2019 at 6:13 pm

    And those who warned us in 1975 that EEC membership was just the first step on the road to a federal Europe – most notably Benn and Powell – were derided, in rather similar terms to those still being used by Newmania and his Remainiac fellow travellers. But events have proved them correct.

    +1

    1975 EEC referendum
    All we hear about leaving is Fear, Fear, Fear

    .
    The Brexit Party clashes with pro-EU MEPs in European Parliament

    Re Verhof rant – what about UK in EU? Have they all been guaranteed “settled status”? Not heard they have..

    As for lazy who don’t apply – deported? You’re ‘aving a laugh; we don’t deport illegal immigrant rapists and murderers if they own a cat -Yuman rights init

    Now FO back to your EU Empire bunker.

  37. The referendum was a mandate to change the political basis of our relationship with Europe, not to terminate all our economic cooperation altogether, as envisaged in the new withdrawal agreement.

    The referendum was a mandate to Leave EU inc customs union, single market, ecj etc – Cameron & Gov’t told us so

    The new Surrender agreement/treaty does none of this and leaves us taxed & regulated by EU

    Aus, USA, NZ, China are not in EU, have no EU Deal and are not economically devastated

    Johnson’s Surrender Treaty is BRINO

    UK must have a clean break Brexit with no deal.

    .
    Farage’s only ambition is to get us out of this stinking deal By Melanie Phillips
    Melanie Phillips is a journalist at The Times

    …This “Deal” would mean the UK committing itself to a ‘level playing field’ – in other words, no deviation – on employment legislation, social protection, environmental law, state aid and even taxation. So the terms of the Johnson deal would prevent the UK from becoming more competitive than the EU.

    The Johnson deal would would deliver Brexit in name only, leaving the UK still shackled to the EU – unable to do trade deals with the rest of the world free of EU regulations, unable to control its own defence or foreign policy and with laws that are passed by the Westminster parliament still subject, in some circumstances at least, to the European Court of Justice.

    Those who support the Johnson deal are either faux-Brexiteers who want the UK to leave but in terms that bind it to the EU in perpetuity, or don’t much care if it is thus bound because they believe idiotically that the UK can be a little bit in and bound by the EU as well as being out and an independent sovereign nation. Such people didn’t have a big problem with the May deal either, for those reasons.


    Or the Johnson deal supporters [Mr Ecks?] are Brexiteers who have been so spooked by the Remainer coup against the people that they believe the choice they face is between the Johnson deal and no Brexit. And in their emotional and panicky exhaustion, they are all too susceptible to the Johnson spin that he is such an supremely Brexity prime minister that he will die in a ditch to get Brexit done in a heroic stand against the Remainer parliament that is intent upon kicking the British people in the teeth

    The situation now is this. Brexit has been frustrated for three years by a Remainer parliament determined to stop it and which, aided by an unconstitutionally partisan Speaker and unconstitutionally activist judges, has been tearing up the constitutional rule book to do so (see here for Professor Vernon Bogdanor’s opinion that the Letwin amendment which wrecked Saturday’s ‘meaningful vote’ is unconstitutional).

    Now the Remainer parliament has further delayed consideration of Johnson’s deal – which doesn’t deliver Brexit, although he says it does – on the basis that it might be a Trojan horse for a no-deal Brexit, which is in fact the only way Brexit can truly be delivered….

    .
    Bruges Group The Revised Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration: a briefing note

    Executive Summary

    The Treaty permanently restricts our military independence, demands payment of an unspecified sum, prevents independent arbitration, grants EU officials immunity from UK laws, leaves us with EIB contingent liabilities running into tens if not hundreds of billions and will impose punitive laws on the UK during a transition which is likely to be extended until mid 2022 (just a few months before the next General Election).

    The Political Declaration is such that a future FTA with the EU is made unpalatable because it will restrict our foreign policy and military independence as well as policies in trade, tax, fishing, environment, social and employment, competition and state aid. Free movement is replaced with vague notions of “mobility” and “non discrimination”.

    Johnson’s Surrender Treaty is BRINO

    UK must have a clean break Brexit with no deal.

  38. I notice from the link that the Guardian is now parading its role on ‘climate emergency’, an example of the belief that merely by stating something it becomes ‘a fact’. The same is true of the terrors of ‘crashing out without a deal’. It too is stated as an obviously accepted fact, with almost zero objective analysis, yet much if not all of the argument against Brexit is framed around this dubious economics. The fact that the FT or the Economist, who are both in an excellent position to actually analyse the economics, singularly fail to do so and instead deliver political polemics is a disgrace in my view, but then again their owners are globalists – which of course is the real story. Martin Wolf has totally lost it recently for example, going from a first rate economist to a third rate political hack.

    As eny ful no and as the very title of this blog embodies, the real advantage of free trade is to the consumer and their access to cheaper and or better quality goods, it is not (necessarily if at all) down to the profits of exporters. If the UK imposes zero tariffs on most imports (it has already declared it would so on 80% or more) then that would be good for UK consumers, especially poor ones as the biggest external tariffs imposed by the customers union are on food and clothing. For example, thanks to the CU, Germany makes more money re-exporting ground coffee (much of it to the UK) than the whole of Africa makes exporting coffee beans. German and Belgian coffee ‘producers’ along with Italian and Spanish citrus fruit farmers and of course multiple other successful EU lobby groups would be the losers. So far from voting to be poorer, most people voted to be better off. The other losers of course are the recipients of the difference between the two numbers on the side of the ‘bus of lies’. The EU recycle 10bn or so a year of UK taxpayers money into sinecures for the UK establishment. I can see their self interest even if they can’t. Indeed, given the option, I would iactively vote for them to be poorer.
    The Treasury scenarios on the ‘disaster’ of Brexit were, I understand, based upon the idea that the UK would instead impose high tariffs on everything. I have not seen anywhere an exercise using the same model but inputting the assumption that the tariffs would actually be what the UK government has actually said they would be. Anyone else?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.