SIGN UP

The Folly Of Self Harm As A Negotiating Strategy

Avatar Image
rich47 | 08:30 Sun 26th May 2019 | News
58 Answers
It is accepted by most economists that a "no deal" brexit would cause untold damage to the UK.
How can it be a sensible tactic to say to your opposition "unless you agree with me I shall cut off my own head"? Please do not give any of the English Prime Ministerial candidates who espouse this approach your vote. Sorry, I forgot that no one has a vote unless they are a member of the tory party. Democracy??? ....humbug!!!!

Answers

1 to 20 of 58rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by rich47. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Because no-one actually knows what, if indeed any, damage will be caused by this action.

The perceived wisdom of the Remainers is that the UK would find itself cast into the void, with no trading partners whatsoever, as revenge is taken on us for our folly.

The reality is, we are far more valuable to the EU as a trading partner than it is to us, and we will find that it's trading machinations will rapidly fall into line to enable trading to continue, a short period of adjustment notwithstanding, which would have occurred under any change, including any 'deal' cobbled together by faceless civil servants.

Leaving with no deal is a sanction that may not be needed, but its genuine threat is what's needed to shift the EU into accepting that we are going to leave, with their co-operation, or without it.
Tere's optimism, Andy. You've used "EU" and "rapidly" in the same sentence.
I've no idea if most economists agree but it is highly questionable to think there would be "untold damage" whatever that means. We would still trade and we did so perfectly well before being in the EEC so no reason to panic. We would take a hit, as all change has it's cost, but this ludicrous, "unless you agree with me I shall cut off my own head" comparison is clearly just more "project fear" nonsense. If you want to ask that question direct it at the EU whose elite uncaring refused to negotiate any sort of sensible separation and has yet to start on any future trade relationship.

And as for claiming that no one has a vote unless they are a member of the Tory party, well you should be embarrassed to have even thought it. Unless you have tried to relate it to choosing a party leader, in which case that is an issue for that party alone.
^^This.(AH)
As to your other 'point' about democracy. Who do you think should pick the leader of the Conservative Party? Labour, an EU committee, Kim Jong-un.
Do enlighten us, oh wise one.
So far all the doom mongers forecasts have come to nothing, and there is no reason to believe that it won't continue so.
Because “sensible tactics” in a broader sense, are not the current fashion.
As far as the Tory leadership election goes tho a prospective leader knows he or she is probably going to have to wave their proBrexit credentials in front of the 100,000 members of that party who will decide, for a time at least, the UK’s next prime minister.
Madness I agree though.
No No Deal Brexit politician is willing to be straight with the electorate.
I had wanted the initial vote to result in Remain but I think we have to implement the resultant Leave decision. If no-one can come up with an acceptabe leave deal it has to be 'no deal'. Whilst there would be a short term hit I don't believe it would ruin us. We survived pretty well, maybe thrived, before we joined the EU, and other non-EU countries seem to do pretty well. Going back to the EU cap in hand saying we want to stay would mean we would forever have little or no clout to get any changes we want in future- we would be pretty powerless
So many politicians who should know better have talked down the consequences of leaving the EU without a deal, this scenario has been accepted by too many people as acceptable.
The consequences would be dire, not least for the integrity of the UK as well as the car industry and agriculture, security, not to mention the fact it would seriously damage our relations with our closest neighbours.
And the violation of some terms of the Good Friday Agreement would not go unnoticed in the US Congress, which one day might have to vote on a UK-US trade deal.
All for what?
Sovereignty and energy sapping lightbulbs.
//Sorry, I forgot that no one has a vote unless they are a member of the tory party.//

the forthcoming vote is the selection of a new leader for the conservative party and as such, only party members have a vote.

in UK government, the head of state invites the party leader who commands a majority (or the best chance of a majority) to form a government. when Mrs May resigns, the conservative party will still be in power and will still have a majority and even if their agreement with the DUP breaks down, will still have that largest single vote bloc. thus mrs May's successor as party leader will be invited to step up. If it becomes clear that the new party leader will not be able to command majority support (maybe if he/she is despised by a large section of their own party), the head of state may look to the opposition to form a government. there are precedents in history for this; nevertheless it's an unlikely scenario because Mr Corbyn has even less of a positive margin. only if there's a G/E would the public get to choose a new PM but because of the fixed term parliament scenario it won't happen as it would need parliament to vote for their own dissolution.
if you are prepared to use the nuclear option and the opposition believe you are then it is unlikely that you'll have to. It's called brinkmanship. Up to now the VBQ have tipped our hand so the opposition have no need to budge.
// We would still trade and we did so perfectly well before being in the EEC ... //

I don't get this argument. The world was a very different place 40 years ago; never mind the fact that the premise is somewhat twisted. The motivation for joining the EEC in the first place was that we were not trading "perfectly well" at all, and that the UK's economy was lagging behind its competitors, in Europe and elsewhere. If the best argument for Brexit is that it takes us back to a time pre-EEC then you seriously need a better argument.

Meanwhile, AH's post is also rubbish. Firstly, it misrepresents the Remainer argument. We'd clearly still trade in a No Deal scenario, but we would do so under very unfavourable circumstances, which all countries if they can seek to avoid by arranging trade deals. If that happens then trade continues but becomes far more expensive, both to UK businesses and to UK customers. Nobody sensible can want this to happen. Yes, it hurts the EU too, but the "reality is" very much not what you claim. Around half our trade is with the EU; on the other hand, about 10% of their trade is with us. Maybe in absolute terms they stand to lose more than us from trade disruptions, but proportionately the UK takes a far greater hit, and in this case that's what matters. We can't try to bully the EU, or use No Deal as a sanction or threat. At best it's a Samson act, but that's still not exactly something we can plausibly carry out.

AH's post, therefore, is full of the same sort of twisted logic that's got us into this mess in the first place.
Also, TTT is already engaging in the sort of revisionist history that I guess is going to drive the argument for the next few months. We've already tried brinkmanship. It failed -- because the brink is scarier to us than it is to the EU.
oh easy one
one doesnt have to a crazytory to see

that the hard brexiters dont think there will be untold damage ...

and yes the next Prime Minister will be chosen by a few hudred thousand over-70s
I agree with that and I am one !
/// Sorry, I forgot that no one has a vote unless they are a member of the tory party. Democracy??? ....humbug!!!! ///

The whole UK, no matter what party they belonged to, have already had a vote and the majority voted 'LEAVE' with no mention of a deal at all.
Leaving the European Union requires coming to some form of alternative arrangement with our nearest neighbours, both economically and politically. Anyone who thought that just straight up leaving was ever seriously possible was either mistaken or deluded.
jim we did not try brinkmanship, we declared that we would not leave with no deal, neutering any chance of a sensible deal from the outset.
/// Anyone who thought that just straight up leaving was ever seriously possible was either mistaken or deluded. ///

Well that is just what will happen in the increasing likelihood of leaving with no deal.
jim: "We'd clearly still trade in a No Deal scenario, but we would do so under very unfavourable circumstances" - yeah for about 5 minutes, a deal would quickly emerge, it's in everyone's interest. No deal is just a device to release us. Sensible deals would quickly emerge.
Well if someone said to me that they were contemplating self-harm or suicide then I would certainly sit them down and discuss what was troubling them !
I wouldn't turn my back and refuse to talk about their problems.
Take a look at the last few years in the UK we have ---austerity, high street stores closing in droves, pubs and restaurants closing, food banks, jobs uncertainty, social care problems and on and on and on. That's whilst we are still in the EU !
We need a strong willed leader to go back to the EU and get them to agree to further negotiations and get us out of this Brexit mess.

1 to 20 of 58rss feed

1 2 3 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

The Folly Of Self Harm As A Negotiating Strategy

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.