Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[The Minsky Moment]

You act as if facts have prevented anything since 2015.

Of course not, but they are ignored at one's peril. Britain unfortunately has spent the last two years being savagely smacked about in the face by the facts.  And it ain't anywhere near over.

[Zanza]

Corporate taxation was never an EU competency anyway. Why didn't the Tories cut it years ago, Brexit or no Brexit? Considering Britain's fiscal situation... how do they finance that plus all the things they promised (more money for NHS...)?

Low regulation just means the EU will put up non-tariff barriers to frustrate this attempt at undercutting.
And it is at least questionable whether neo-liberal free trading really motivated the Brexit voters. This will hardly protect them from the downsides of globalization, which is probably what they hoped for.

And one of the big success factors of Singapore is its rather open and liberal immigration policy, an anathema to May personally and lots of the Brexit voters. But this openness is key to 'Global Britain'.

[Richard Hakluyt]

So they basically want to turn themselves into Ireland.
But the key part of that strategy is to be a low tax, low national regulation BASE to supply to entire Euro market duty-free. 

If Singapore had 65 million people and was located just off the coast of France, it wouldn't be Singapore.  It would in the EU.

I agree that the large population makes such specialisation far less attractive. To make or keep 66m wealthy the best route would be to have a full-spectrum economy and be part of a large free-trade bloc.............oh..........

[Zanza]

I used to live in Singapore (about 9 years ago) and unsurprisingly between the villas and luxury condos there are lots of poor people that keep the engine churning and live in huge social housing projects. Not everybody is a banker with a Ferrari in Singapore.

[crazy canuck]

You act as if facts have prevented anything since 2015.

Of course not, but they are ignored at one's peril. Britain unfortunately has spent the last two years being savagely smacked about in the face by the facts.  And it ain't anywhere near over.

Perhaps a good time to recall that immediately after the Brexit vote, people in the UK searched google to figure out what it was they voted for.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/worldpolitics/what-were-googles-most-frequent-searches-after-brexit/

[Tamas]

Oh, and what I recall from the morning after the vote is the "shit, what have I done" look on Boris. I don't understand why people don't drag that out more often. Farage was echstatic while Boris walked around trying to hide he had just crapped his pants.

But I guess, who cares at this stage.


It looks like after Corbyn's speech today everyone started to cozy up to him as future PM. Also I think we will end up with a temporary "coalition" of the Rees-Mogg ilk and the Labour party, who will vote down whatever shambles of a deal May gets, and will crash out. Elections will commence, Corbyn will win, and will try to push through his social engineering project while the country will be reeling from the effect of a no-deal exit. Going to be a marvelous few years.

Only way to avoid that is if May agrees to a Norway scenario. She is dead meat both ways, but that way Corbyn cannot convince his MPs to vote against the deal, thus we avoid the most chaotic scenario. Sure, Britain would shed all her remaining influence in Europe but that's also pretty much a done deal at this stage I think.

[Richard Hakluyt]

There is a big shift required for Labour to get a majority. The next government will probably have to be a coalition of some sort.

[Josquius]

There is a big shift required for Labour to get a majority. The next government will probably have to be a coalition of some sort.

Which is the best thing possible really. Keeps labour from doing anything too daft and forces them to oppose brexit whilst allowing some of their stuff to still get over the line and potentially avoid pushing useful idiots into going over to the Tories.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, one lives in hope 

[Barrister]

There is a big shift required for Labour to get a majority. The next government will probably have to be a coalition of some sort.

Which is the best thing possible really. Keeps labour from doing anything too daft and forces them to oppose brexit whilst allowing some of their stuff to still get over the line and potentially avoid pushing useful idiots into going over to the Tories.

Jeremy Corbyn as PM is probably the worst possible outcome you could have - even with a minority.

[Josquius]

There is a big shift required for Labour to get a majority. The next government will probably have to be a coalition of some sort.

Which is the best thing possible really. Keeps labour from doing anything too daft and forces them to oppose brexit whilst allowing some of their stuff to still get over the line and potentially avoid pushing useful idiots into going over to the Tories.

Jeremy Corbyn as PM is probably the worst possible outcome you could have - even with a minority.

Why?
He could wake up one day and decide its the right time to get rid of trident... It wouldn't pass in parliament.
Nor would anything else too out there.

Even with a super unlikely Labour majority Corbyn wouldn't be that bad as he has shown himself willing to follow the Labour consensus rather than push his own far left views.

Corbyn wouldn't be my first choice at all. But I'll take him over May, Mogg or the like any day.

[Barrister]

There is a big shift required for Labour to get a majority. The next government will probably have to be a coalition of some sort.

Which is the best thing possible really. Keeps labour from doing anything too daft and forces them to oppose brexit whilst allowing some of their stuff to still get over the line and potentially avoid pushing useful idiots into going over to the Tories.

Jeremy Corbyn as PM is probably the worst possible outcome you could have - even with a minority.

Why?
He could wake up one day and decide its the right time to get rid of trident... It wouldn't pass in parliament.
Nor would anything else too out there.

Even with a super unlikely Labour majority Corbyn wouldn't be that bad as he has shown himself willing to follow the Labour consensus rather than push his own far left views.

Corbyn wouldn't be my first choice at all. But I'll take him over May, Mogg or the like any day.

You would have elected a Russian agent as Prime Minister.  It'd be just as bad as Trump.  As Prime Minister he'd still have full control over Britain's foreign policy.

Please note I didn't say a Labour government would be the worst possible option - this is specific to Corbyn.

[Zanza]

A no-deal Brexit would be better for the UK than any Canada-style free trade agreement allowed by the EU, Theresa May has argued [...]

May also robustly defended her aim for continued alignment with EU standards in areas such as livestock and agriculture, saying the UK would want to maintain these anyway, and that they should not be a barrier to outside trading plans.

"If having those EU regulations stopped good trade deals, how come the EU has done trade deals with countries around the rest of the world?" May said, a comment likely to raise some eyebrows among some strongly pro-Brexit Tory MPs.

Wait, how does that fit with her "smart regulation" from her other speech? Is she claiming EU regulations are smart after all?

[crazy canuck]

A no-deal Brexit would be better for the UK than any Canada-style free trade agreement allowed by the EU, Theresa May has argued [...]

May also robustly defended her aim for continued alignment with EU standards in areas such as livestock and agriculture, saying the UK would want to maintain these anyway, and that they should not be a barrier to outside trading plans.

"If having those EU regulations stopped good trade deals, how come the EU has done trade deals with countries around the rest of the world?" May said, a comment likely to raise some eyebrows among some strongly pro-Brexit Tory MPs.

Wait, how does that fit with her "smart regulation" from her other speech? Is she claiming EU regulations are smart after all?

May says no deal is better than having a trade deal.  Now that is logic worthy of an American president.

[Zanza]

The government has appointed a minister to oversee the protection of food supplies through the Brexit process amid rising concerns about the effect of a no-deal departure from the European Union.

How can a government in one of the richest, most globalized and most democratic countries in the world follow a policy where it becomes prudent to appoint a food supply minister? Lunacy.