[Discussion] Brexit means Brexit

Discuss the political fallout and other issues around Britain's exit, Brexit for short, from the EU.

For the sake of clarity, I'm including the full text of Article 50.

Article 50 wrote:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Sure fiscal multipliers and debt-to-gdp ratios can be gamed but they remain useful as they are not completely fabricated. And as long as they are calculated the same way year-to-year it does allow you to compare years even if it is not absolute truth.

The reason we know the UK is (possibly) extended beyond it's means is because the the private debt-to-gdp ratio is about 250% atm, rather than a more sane 60-120%.

Malor wrote:

Government borrowing is one of the few ways in which parents are allowed to put their children, and grandchildren, in debt. It needs to be treated very, very carefully.

Well... The problem is not so much government borrowing as it is the fact that the aggregate deficit (public and private) is not closing appreciably. Borrowing is the way that money enters the economy, someone has to borrow and if the government doesn't then private people or enterprises are compelled to do so.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...

The issue we have in the UK is that the government debt to GDP ratio of 85% and the shrinking government deficit hides the fact that the private debt to GDP ratio is so massive (approx 240%). The problem here is that people with personal debt reduce their economic activity and the reduction in demand shrinks the economy. Government debt on the other hand is much better placed to be used productively, bonds are issued at more favourable rates than many, many private loans and the government will ideally spend it's money on projects with positive fiscal multipliers (where the economic growth will settle the government debts).

We're living beyond our means because private debt seldom has a positive fiscal multiplier.

(which is not to say Government debt always has a positive multiplier as Greece amply demonstrates)

tl;dr: the problem is a lack of gov't borrowing.

Borrowing is the way that money enters the economy,

This is why debt as money is not a good idea. It's not fundamentally stable.

will ideally spend it's money on projects with positive fiscal multipliers

But, in actual practice, they spend it where it will buy them votes. When that's just out of current-year revenue, it's not that big a deal. But when you're putting your kids in hock to buy votes today, that's pretty damn despicable.

That is a huge deficit number for a nation of only ~60 million people.

Pre organised Pro-Brexit Demonstration invites thousands to attend. (do you really need a demonstration since you won? I feel like these people are the worst of the worst sore winners.)

15,000 people were invited, 2,000 promised to show.

100 turn up.

so much for "giving the 52% maximum exposure to make their voices heard"
Can we END this f*cking charade already please.

do you really need a demonstration since you won?

You're not being real fair there, though. On the one hand, you're criticizing them for having a demonstration when they won, and then you're criticizing them for not showing up to a rally that you yourself believe they didn't need to have.

Maybe they agreed with you that a rally was silly?

We'll see.

There's a bigger rally with grimer wormtongue Nigel Firage showing his ugly mug planned for the 4th December I think. I'll be curious to see how many of these deluded, ignorant, suicidal fools, show for that, too.

I admit, I have a hard time forming coherent, non-angry sentences whenever I think of these morons and just how much damage they've done and will continue to do.

Few things in this world shake my faith in humanity quite as much as the fact that Nigel Farage apparently now has some degree of political social capital

Good to see the Lib Dems overturning a 23,000 vote majority to win in Richmond Park. The Tories have only a 5 seat hold on power now. One of those is the speaker of the house. Supreme Court decision next week if Brexit can be triggered by royal prerogative shall put the cat among the pidgens. Expect a 11-0 decision against the government.

I would be more impressed were it to have happened in a region that voted to leave rather than remain, but still...one less tory seat is always welcome.

Doubly welcome as he was a racist asshole and he deserved to be kicked in to touch.

Genuinely curious, DanB. If you had a choice right now would you vote Labour or Lib Dem? I know you are closer to Corbyn's worldview but would you see the Lib Dems as the more tactical vote? It is fair to say that many did something similar in the by-election?

I'm in the same constituency as Dan (Winchester), and it's a two horse race here between the Tories and the Lib Dems (Steve Brine won for the Tories in 2015, 30k vs. 14k for the LIb Dems, and 5k and 4k for Labour and UKIP). If you're not voting Tory, then there's still no point voting anything other than Lib Dem here.

For me, in a hypothetical situation where it was a three horse race, Corbyn's pro Brexit stance would lose me his vote. (I'm very anti-Brexit). I don't really buy Farron as credible PM material, but Corbyn I think is less so.

I guess my most plausible way out in an election right now would be some kind of coalition that didn't involve the Tories, probably involving Labour, Lib Dems, and the SNP (though whether they'd agree to that without another Independence Referendum I don't know)

Axon wrote:

Genuinely curious, DanB. If you had a choice right now would you vote Labour or Lib Dem? I know you are closer to Corbyn's worldview but would you see the Lib Dems as the more tactical vote? It is fair to say that many did something similar in the by-election?

Frankly I'd rather not have to vote for either of them these days but in general I'm perfectly happy to vote for anyone who has a solid chance of kicking a Tory out of their seat.

Everything the Tory party has done to this country since 1979 has been poison and economically incompetent, they are literally the enemy.

wrt the Lib Dems specifically they are a bunch of two faced asses who would sell their own grandmothers for the slightest sniff of power, the collation government with the Tories amply demonstrates they'll happily discard all their, so called, principles to be in government. I truly hope they never get a chance to form a government in the UK ever again.

Do they still call the political districts "ridings"? Always liked that term...

Robear wrote:

Do they still call the political districts "ridings"? Always liked that term...

With one or two notable exceptions (i.e. the yorkshire and lincolnshire ridings), riding hasn't been the term for a political district in the UK for the best part of 200 years.

Blackadder, Season 3, Episode 1. Dish and Dishonesty. You can thank me later, Robear.

Axon wrote:

Blackadder, Season 3, Episode 1. Dish and Dishonesty. You can thank me later, Robear.

And the Rubber button?

I always liked the ones with the Prince. And I don't know why I thought that term was *not* antiquated. It does seem closely related to horses as a main means of transport, but there's a lot of antiquated usages in the US, so...

Riding is an English loan word coming from the Scandinavian word "trithing" meaning 'one third of' and does not apparently have anything to do with horses (which was news to me too)

DanB wrote:

And the Rubber button?

DanB wrote:

Riding is an English loan word coming from the Scandinavian word "trithing" meaning 'one third of' and does not apparently have anything to do with horses (which was news to me too)

Dammit!

DanB wrote:

wrt the Lib Dems specifically they are a bunch of two faced asses who would sell their own grandmothers for the slightest sniff of power, the collation government with the Tories amply demonstrates they'll happily discard all their, so called, principles to be in government. I truly hope they never get a chance to form a government in the UK ever again.

As I was saying...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lib-dem-lea...

The Concise OED Etymology dictionary is now available on IOS, so I was able to figure out that the "thirds" referred to in the term "riding" are thirds of Yorkshire. Apparently the countryside around Jorvik was divided into three holdings.

And there you have it. Much more fun than politics.

Robear wrote:

Do they still call the political districts "ridings"? Always liked that term...

FWIW, Canada still calls them ridings.

But... The Vikings only had a few houses in Canada, not a huge regional trading center...

History and language are weird. I keep saying that to people, and I keep surprising myself with how weird they are.

DanB wrote:
DanB wrote:

wrt the Lib Dems specifically they are a bunch of two faced asses who would sell their own grandmothers for the slightest sniff of power, the collation government with the Tories amply demonstrates they'll happily discard all their, so called, principles to be in government. I truly hope they never get a chance to form a government in the UK ever again.

As I was saying...

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/lib-dem-lea...

As somebody who votes for a small party in my juristiction, realistically he can never rule it out. I understand your frustrations with the Lib Dems but Clegg gambled far too much on voting reform and failed to understand how junior members of coalitions have to function. He should have held out for complete support of voting reform to bring in proper proportional representation or nothing.

On going into power, I'd agree with Farron. I don't have a huge amount of time for politicians who want power on their terms and their terms alone. If you truly believe in your policies you do your damnest to try and get them through and vice versa. Far better chance of doing either if you are in government. At least this viewpoint is far more common in other European states who have proportional representation.

The Tories played Clegg like a banjo. One would hope Farron has learned lessons.

Nigel Farage. Ultimate working class hero.

Nigel Farage has said he is relieved to no longer be Ukip leader because it had meant “having to deal with low-grade people every day”, in an interview where he said his £85,000-a-year salary had left him “poor” compared with his City banker friends.
“I don’t have to spend my life dealing with people I would never have a drink with, who I would never employ and who use me as a vehicle for their own self-promotion.

From one of the comments. Neatly sums it up:

"The metropolitan elites look down on the working classes, treating them as low grade." - Dec 2015.

"I'm glad I no longer have to deal with low grade people every day" - Dec 2016.