The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[tzijlstra 11]

Actually it is. They're required to have 20% renewables, as are we. I did post the EU renewable energy directive. Did you read it? You can get away with only reading the first page.

 

And what is the government target?

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 10:17 ----------

 

Nice avoidance and yes it is, its not possible to have soft brexit without paying into the EU, allowing free movement and adhering to all their regulation, therefor its not possible for anyone that voted leave to believe they were voting for anything other than a full brexit.

 

I didn't avoid it, I made it pretty clear in my return question that what you expect to be the outcome of a hard Brexit is not as clear as you make it out to be.

[I1L2T3 10]

Nice avoidance and yes it is, its not possible to have soft brexit without paying into the EU, allowing free movement and adhering to all their regulation, therefor its not possible for anyone that voted leave to believe they were voting for anything other than a full brexit.

 

Yes it is possible. It's totally possible.

 

If only 600,000 of the people who voted leave had understood these points and had voted remain instead it would have been a 50/50 tie.

 

Then there are the people who voted as a general protest without understanding what the EU is.

 

Then there are the people who instantly regretted their decision.

 

Then there are the people who have changed their minds since, as recent polling seems to suggest.

 

This country is split 50/50 I reckon. There is no significant majority for either side of leave/remain.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 10:18 ----------

 

an interesting view of what a section of one of our major trading partners thinks

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/05/trade-uk-india-suffer-double-hit-theresa-may-visit-brexit-sterling

 

it's a good job liam fox is looking for countries who our exporters have never heard of

 

Liam Fox is redundant and he knows it. There are no deals to make. We are staying in the customs union for the forseeable.

[pmurtdlanod1 10]

Avoidance of what?

 

Also - is that in the same way that everybody apparently was aware that the 350 million lie was a lie?

 

Only the remainers ever thought the 350 million was a promise, anyone else with common sense or who understands English read it as a suggestion?

[Petminder 10]

Yes it is possible. It's totally possible.

 

If only 600,000 of the people who voted leave had understood these points and had voted remain instead it would have been a 50/50 tie.

 

Then there are the people who voted as a general protest without understanding what the EU is.

 

Then there are the people who instantly regretted their decision.

 

Then there are the people who have changed their minds since, as recent polling seems to suggest.

 

This country is split 50/50 I reckon. There is no significant majority for either side of leave/remain.

 

---------- Post added 05-11-2016 at 10:18 ----------

 

 

Liam Fox is redundant and he knows it. There are no deals to make. We are staying in the customs union for the forseeable.

 

If only 600,000 of the remain voters had understood that the EU could not and would not reform and had voted leave instead it would have been a larger gap between remain and leave.

 

Then there are the people who voted remain as a general protest against the conservatives without understanding the consequences.

 

Then there are the people who instantly regretted their remain decision.

 

Then there are the remain voters who have changed their minds since voting.

 

The one thing people wouldn't have contemplated when they voted leave is the anger from the in side, and the uncertainty that is being generated by the remoaners resistance to change.

[I1L2T3 10]

If only 600,000 of the remain voters had understood that the EU could not and would not reform and had voted leave instead it would have been a larger gap between remain and leave.

 

Then there are the people who voted remain as a general protest against the conservatives without understanding the consequences.

 

Then there are the people who instantly regretted their remain decision.

 

Then there are the remain voters who have changed their minds since voting.

 

The one thing people wouldn't have contemplated when they voted leave is the anger from the in side, and the uncertainty that is being generated by the remoaners resistance to change.

 

The current polls are suggesting a slight majority for remain. It was always close. If we voted again it would be close.

 

The point is that there is no massive groundswell for leaving, and that a lot of people have serious concerns.

 

Forcing hard Brexit on us without democratic oversight would be wrong.

 

To understand how wrong it would be consider if remain had polled the most votes in June, and a PM had then interpreted that as a green light for 'hard remain' and adoption of Schengen, commitment to joining the Euro etc... Brexiters would be up in arms telling us how undemocratic that was.

[unbeliever 10]

And what is the government target?

 

 

That's a different point. We go through this again and again. It goes like this.

 

You: The CO2 reduction target is international, not EU.

Me: I know that. I accept the CO2 target, but not the renewables target.

You: The EU does not dictate how we meet the CO2 target.

Me: Yes it does, amongst other things it requires us to use 20% renewables.

You: The UK government has set a higher renewables target than the EU requires.

Me: Yes it has but not much higher and the difference is too small to argue over.

 

 

I'll just summarise my position for clarity.

CO2 reduction targets are fine. Renewables targets are bad. The Uk government can see the light at any time and drop its renewables target in favour of alternative solutions to the CO2 issue. The EU will not in my view no matter what happens.

The (completely fatal) problem with renewables is intermittency. Intermittency is countered with fossil backup. It could theoretically be countered with storage but storage too expensive and will remain so until well beyond 2030. The requirement for and use of backup makes renewables environmentally damaging and hyper-expensive.

The better options are nuclear and CCS. These are also expensive but as they do not require backup they'll always be cheaper and more effective in reaching our CO2 targets than renewables.

Edited November 5, 2016 by unbeliever

[Petminder 10]

The current polls are suggesting a slight majority for remain. It was always close. If we voted again it would be close.

 

The point is that there is no massive groundswell for leaving, and that a lot of people have serious concerns.

 

Forcing hard Brexit on us without democratic oversight would be wrong.

 

To understand how wrong it would be consider if remain had polled the most votes in June, and a PM had then interpreted that as a green light for 'hard remain' and adoption of Schengen, commitment to joining the Euro etc... Brexiters would be up in arms telling us how undemocratic that was.

 

The polls were showing a remain win before the vote, we all know that polls can't be trusted. Then there are the remoaners that when asked by the pollsters say they voted leave so that they can now say they have changed their minds.

 

The majority voted for hard brexit, there is no escaping that fact, the in camp said a vote to leave was a vote to leave the single market, the out camp said we would repatriate all the money we send, bring back all law making to the UK and control immigration, non of which will be possible with the soft brexit cleggy wants.

Edited November 5, 2016 by Petminder

[andyofborg 11]

Only the remainers ever thought the 350 million was a promise, anyone else with common sense or who understands English read it as a suggestion?

 

we knew it was a lie, we were just aghast that the leavers would use it because we knew some, definitely not all, people would either believe it or at least expect some significant increase in funding for the NHS

[unbeliever 10]

The current polls are suggesting a slight majority for remain. It was always close. If we voted again it would be close.

 

The point is that there is no massive groundswell for leaving, and that a lot of people have serious concerns.

 

Forcing hard Brexit on us without democratic oversight would be wrong.

 

To understand how wrong it would be consider if remain had polled the most votes in June, and a PM had then interpreted that as a green light for 'hard remain' and adoption of Schengen, commitment to joining the Euro etc... Brexiters would be up in arms telling us how undemocratic that was.

 

 

 

Once again. The PM himself and many other from both sides were absolutely explicit that we would be leaving the customs union and the EU internal market.

 

Who could possible have spoken with more authority than the head of government, what government policy would be in the event of a leave vote?

What more do you need? Should it have been carved on the moon?

Edited November 5, 2016 by unbeliever

[pmurtdlanod1 10]

we knew it was a lie, we were just aghast that the leavers would use it because we knew some, definitely not all, people would either believe it or at least expect some significant increase in funding for the NHS

 

thats utter rubbish, remainers have used it as stick to beat the leave campaign and a pretty weak stick at that, anyone can read that as a suggestion?? well unless you are really thick:roll:

[Petminder 10]

we knew it was a lie, we were just aghast that the leavers would use it because we knew some, definitely not all, people would either believe it or at least expect some significant increase in funding for the NHS

Its the remainers that were conned into believing a vote to remain was a vote to reform the EU, and we all know that was a lie, how many people voted to remain because they feared losing £4K a year, or feared a house price crash, or feared WWW3.

[andyofborg 11]

The one thing people wouldn't have contemplated when they voted leave is the anger from the in side, and the uncertainty that is being generated by the remoaners resistance to change.

 

i'm on the in side and i'm not angry, I don't think many are.

 

the only people generating uncertainty is the government because they aren't displaying any sign of having a plan. that is leaving a void and that void is being filled by all sorts of rabble from both sides.

 

it's quite understandable there isn't any sign of a plan since the furore over nissan shows that the harder sorts of brexit are going to cause significant damage to the economy, both ours and the EU's and the softer sorts of brexit are unacceptable to the shouty folk.

 

all the original vote and subsequent polls shows that the country is split 50-50 on the issue and remains so. i doubt anyone can put together a plan which pleases everyone so it makes sense to go for the plan which causes little damage to the economy.

 

i'm confident we can put together a deal which offers barrier free(ish) trade with the EU and keeps us in some of the cross EU projects like horizon2020 and that will mean we have to contribute some dosh but overall it would be worth it.

 

we could, of course, abandon a deal with the EU and focus on free trade deals with other countries but one of the few sensible things which have come from Trump's campaign is the focus on the loss of jobs from the US to other economies. In many ways, what else comes with the EU puts a floor (perhaps a wobbly one but none the less a floor) under this effect. These trade deals we sign are likely to cause the same effect but with no floor. Liam Fox and his chums do not offer salvation to the brexit voter.