Brexit: The Last Stand (No name calling)

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

depending on your definition of morals.

what has this got to do with Brexit?

Morals: Particular values concerning what is right and what is wrong.

When Britain leaves the EU, it will be disengaging from a wide variety of agreements such as free movement of people, health and safety legislation, consumer rights etc. It will then have to make decisions on these and other matters. Many of those decisions will have moral implications.

catbear

I think the UK leaving will be actually great for British society, they will see that their nations failings aren't the other 27 members fault.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Morals: Particular values concerning what is right and what is wrong.

When Britain leaves the EU, it will be disengaging from a wide variety of agreements such as free movement of people, health and safety legislation, consumer rights etc. It will then have to make decisions on these and other matters. Many of those decisions will have moral implications.

who sets those values? not that long ago, having sex with someone of the same gender or out of wedlock was considered immoral.

health and safety legislation, consumer rights etc are all written in to English law. leaving the eu does not mean disengaging from them.

It wont have free movement of people, but in what way is that immoral? if it is immoral, then surely free movement of people should apply to everyone the world over, not just eu citizens.

you seem to think the eu is the only game in town. There are 200 countries on this planet, only 27 of them are members of the eu.

Junkyard Tom

catbear wrote: »

I think the UK leaving will be actually great for British society, they will see that their nations failings aren't the other 27 members fault.

The voters who held the EU responsible for Britain's problems before Brexit will continue to hold it responsible if Brexit harms the British economy and when/if the Tories fail to counter any economic downturn.

steddyeddy

catbear wrote: »

I think the UK leaving will be actually great for British society, they will see that their nations failings aren't the other 27 members fault.

I think so too. I also think a lot of what made them a superpower was to do with their empire. Their economy, like Ireland's is varied enough to survive leaving the EU.

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

who sets those values? not that long ago, having sex with someone of the same gender or out of wedlock was considered immoral.

health and safety legislation, consumer rights etc are all written in to English law. leaving the eu does not mean disengaging from them.

It wont have free movement of people, but in what way is that immoral? if it is immoral, then surely free movement of people should apply to everyone the world over, not just eu citizens.

you seem to think the eu is the only game in town. There are 200 countries on this planet, only 27 of them are members of the eu.

"who sets those values? not that long ago, having sex with someone of the same gender or out of wedlock was considered immoral."

Indeed but society's moral outlook changed. For the better in my opinion. Usually, in a democracy, the electorate sets those values by electing people whose morals they agree with.


"health and safety legislation, consumer rights etc are all written in to English law. leaving the eu does not mean disengaging from them."

Britain will have much greater choice in retaining them or changing them. That choice will have moral implications.


"It wont have free movement of people, but in what way is that immoral? if it is immoral, then surely free movement of people should apply to everyone the world over, not just eu citizens."

I never said it was immoral.


"you seem to think the eu is the only game in town."

Your assumption is wrong.


"There are 200 countries on this planet, only 27 of them are members of the eu"

There are 28 members of the EU.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"who sets those values? not that long ago, having sex with someone of the same gender or out of wedlock was considered immoral."

Indeed but society's moral outlook changed. For the better in my opinion. Usually, in a democracy, the electorate sets those values by electing people whose morals they agree with.

so the electorate then, not the eu.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"health and safety legislation, consumer rights etc are all written in to English law. leaving the eu does not mean disengaging from them."

Britain will have much greater choice in retaining them or changing them. That choice will have moral implications.

seriously? do you think Britain is not capable of making decisions regarding Health and Safety and consumer rights without the eu telling them what to do?

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

"It wont have free movement of people, but in what way is that immoral? if it is immoral, then surely free movement of people should apply to everyone the world over, not just eu citizens."

I never said it was immoral.

then why do you keep on about it?

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

so the electorate then, not the eu.




seriously? do you think Britain is not capable of making decisions regarding Health and Safety and consumer rights without the eu telling them what to do?




then why do you keep on about it?

"so the electorate then, not the eu.

Its not a binary position. Those they elect may choose to adopt positions from the EU.



"seriously? do you think Britain is not capable of making decisions regarding Health and Safety and consumer rights without the eu telling them what to do?"

I don't know. I'll probably find out in a few years. When they make their choices, morals will be implicit in their choices.


"then why do you keep on about it"

I don't. I have no idea why you would suggest otherwise. I simply said that choices about free movement of people, amongst other issues, will have moral implications for Britain.

Professor Moriarty

steddyeddy wrote: »

I think so too. I also think a lot of what made them a superpower was to do with their empire. Their economy, like Ireland's is varied enough to survive leaving the EU.

True but our economy would have different strengths and weaknesses. For instance, financial services and car manufacturing are important to Britain. Brexit may impact very negatively on both of those activities.

Fratton Fred

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

True but our economy would have different strengths and weaknesses. For instance, financial services and car manufacturing are important to Britain. Brexit may impact very negatively on both of those activities.

put simply, the UK will be worse off outside the eu. Ireland would be ****ed.

MrPudding

Fratton Fred wrote: »

seriously? do you think Britain is not capable of making decisions regarding Health and Safety and consumer rights without the eu telling them what to do?

Well, you would think they are capable of doing it, in that they have the capacity, but whether they will do it is something else...

The UK had workers, consumers and health and safety risks for hundreds of years before the EU came along, but for some reason much of the (positive) legislation relating to workers, consumers and health and safety only came into being as a result of directives or regulations from the EU. Strange that.

So yes, Britain is capable of making decisions regarding health and safety, consumer and worker's rights, after all, parliament is sovereign, but there is a very big question over whether we would have the same rights if the EU didn't force them to do it.

MrP

Professor Moriarty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

put simply, the UK will be worse off outside the eu. Ireland would be ****ed.

Agreed. Britain has a good chance of recovering in the medium term as it has strong historical links to the commonwealth and can exploit its relationships with the US. We'd be back to the fifties and in thrall to Britain again.

Fratton Fred

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, you would think they are capable of doing it, in that they have the capacity, but whether they will do it is something else...

The UK had workers, consumers and health and safety risks for hundreds of years before the EU came along, but for some reason much of the (positive) legislation relating to workers, consumers and health and safety only came into being as a result of directives or regulations from the EU. Strange that.

So yes, Britain is capable of making decisions regarding health and safety, consumer and worker's rights, after all, parliament is sovereign, but there is a very big question over whether we would have the same rights if the EU didn't force them to do it.

MrP

https://sm.britsafe.org/health-and-safety-timeline

Capt'n Midnight

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If I sell you a set of kitchen knives for carving up your turkey and you decide to murder your family the blame rests with you, not me.

Similarly if country A sells military equipment intended for defence to country B, then country A cannot be morally held accountable for country B's actions when they use the equipment outside its intended purposes.

The primary use of a kitchen knife is unrelated to killing humans. Defence can be done by treaties too. Look at Kuwait. But defence can be used to bully others because they can't retaliate, look at how freaked out the Russians were about Reagan's Star Wars program because it would have allowed the US to strike first.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The the next thing is to work through UN sanctions. Not unilateral sanctions which only hurt the economy of the seller nation.

Time to get back on topic.

I'm sure the Mediterranean EU countries affected by the current refugee crisis have their opinions on the UK's involvement. To get any concessions on Brexit the UK needs to keep places like Malta happy.

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

Well, you would think they are capable of doing it, in that they have the capacity, but whether they will do it is something else...

The UK had workers, consumers and health and safety risks for hundreds of years before the EU came along, but for some reason much of the (positive) legislation relating to workers, consumers and health and safety only came into being as a result of directives or regulations from the EU. Strange that.

So yes, Britain is capable of making decisions regarding health and safety, consumer and worker's rights, after all, parliament is sovereign, but there is a very big question over whether we would have the same rights if the EU didn't force them to do it.

MrP

The point about EU regulation of health and safety, consumer’s rights etc is that, in a single market, all producers should be held to the same standards, all consumers should enjoy the same rights, all workers should have the same protections, etc, etc. That way no producer enjoys an unfair advantage in being allowed to produce more cheaply that others.

And the point about this is to prevent a “race to the bottom”, in which countries attempt to compete with one another in the sale of goods through lowering production costs by reducing standards.

So, yeah, it could be that if Brexit causes economic stress in the UK (and there’s practically unanimous agreement that it will, I think it’s fair to say) this will increase the incentive for the UK to relax standards in order to make business more competitive. Essentially this would pass the economic costs of Brexit (or a part of them) on to workers and consumers in the form of lower wages, lousier products and/or higher accident and injury rates rather than in the form of higher prices.

And you could argue that there’s a certain crude justice in that, since those workers and consumers, or a majority of them, voted for Brexit. Who better to bear the downside risks?

But by the same reasoning, this argues against UK-produced goods being given unrestricted access to the single market. EU voters didn’t vote to expel the UK; why should any cost arising be passed back to them? If the UK lowers, or is free to lower, its safety, etc, standards, expect EU producers and trade unions to point out that it is unfair to expose them to competition from goods produced by people who don’t have to respect the standards that they do.

fritzelly

Peregrinus wrote: »

The point about EU regulation of health and safety, consumer’s rights etc is that, in a single market, all producers should be held to the same standards, all consumers should enjoy the same rights, all workers should have the same protections, etc, etc. That way no producer enjoys an unfair advantage in being allowed to produce more cheaply that others.

And the point about this is to prevent a “race to the bottom”, in which countries attempt to compete with one another in the sale of goods through lowering production costs by reducing standards.

So, yeah, it could be that if Brexit causes economic stress in the UK (and there’s practically unanimous agreement that it will, I think it’s fair to say) this will increase the incentive for the UK to relax standards in order to make business more competitive. Essentially this would pass the economic costs of Brexit (or a part of them) on to workers and consumers in the form of lower wages, lousier products and/or higher accident and injury rates rather than in the form of higher prices.

And you could argue that there’s a certain crude justice in that, since those workers and consumers, or a majority of them, voted for Brexit. Who better to bear the downside risks?

But by the same reasoning, this argues against UK-produced goods being given unrestricted access to the single market. EU voters didn’t vote to expel the UK; why should any cost arising be passed back to them? If the UK lowers, or is free to lower, its safety, etc, standards, expect EU producers and trade unions to point out that it is unfair to expose them to competition from goods produced by people who don’t have to respect the standards that they do.

By the same token you can say the EU has increased the cost of living such that it has increased the cost of commodities
Take for example Czech Republic, Hungary etc - where the EU directives have increased costs all round in a foolish single mindedness that all countries in the EU should cost the same for all goods (edit should have minimum pricing) regardless of wages paid

Peregrinus

fritzelly wrote: »

By the same token you can say the EU has increased the cost of living such that it has increased the cost of commodities
Take for example Czech Republic, Hungary etc - where the EU directives have increased costs all round in a foolish single mindedness that all countries in the EU should cost the same for all goods (edit should have minimum pricing) regardless of wages paid

There's no requirement that "all countries should cost the same for all goods" and, in fact, they don't. Even the imposition of, e.g., uniform health and safety standards doesn't mean uniform costs being imposed, since the cost of complying with the standards will vary from place to place. If local wages are lower in Bulgaria than in Denmark, then the cost of employing the services of an inspector will be lower in Bulgaria than in Denmark.

The single market is generally seen as tending to reduce prices, since it increases competitive pressures. In the past employers could package goods differently for, say, Portugal and Denmark, and sell the same goods at different prices in the two markets. This is now all but impossible, since Danish consumers (and retailers, and wholesalers) are free to source their supplies from Portugal with no costs, formalities or other barriers. And of course with the euro there are no foreign exchange issues to impose costs or complicate price comparisons.

Things that still cost different amounts are things that can't be easily traded. Personal services, for example - the cost of getting a haircut depends largely on (a) commercial rents, and (b) wages for hairdressers. Virtually nobody travels from Dublin to Athens (or even from Dublin to Cork) to get a haircut, so Dublin haidressers aren't really exposed to competitive pressures by people comparing the cost of a haircut in Dublin and in Athens. But, through the wonderful magic that is the internet today, people can easily compare the price of lots of other products, and it's going to be very difficult for business to sell a CD, say, or a television for twice the price in Ireland that they charge in France.

fritzelly

They want single pricing on digital goods now, what next?

You say if you're in Portugal then you can buy in Denmark, loss of revenue to Portugal for goods that would have been bought there while increasing Denmarks coffers - how is that a good thing for either country?

A country joins the EU (for example Poland) - everyone can now leave that country and go and work where they want (for higher wages/better living), lack of workers in that country forces employers to pay higher wages to get staff ergo their 'produce' costs increase to the end consumer. All the while that country is getting billions in funding to make it an equal to the rest of Europe for another 6 years

darkpagandeath

fritzelly wrote: »

They want single pricing on digital goods now, what next?

You say if you're in Portugal then you can buy in Denmark, loss of revenue to Portugal for goods that would have been bought there while increasing Denmarks coffers - how is that a good thing for either country?

A country joins the EU (for example Poland) - everyone can now leave that country and go and work where they want (for higher wages/better living), lack of workers in that country forces employers to pay higher wages to get staff ergo their 'produce' costs increase to the end consumer. All the while that country is getting billions in funding to make it an equal to the rest of Europe for another 6 years

You can go buy Irish alcohol in parts of the EU way cheaper than you can here ... Free market Rar.

Peregrinus

fritzelly wrote: »

They want single pricing on digital goods now, what next?

You say if you're in Portugal then you can buy in Denmark, loss of revenue to Portugal for goods that would have been bought there while increasing Denmarks coffers - how is that a good thing for either country?

Well, it's a good thing for the Portuguese consumer, obviously, if he gets cheaper prices by buying in Denmark. (And, if he doesn't, why would he buy in Denmark?) And it's a good think for the Danish importer/retailer, since he makes more sales.

It's also a good thing for whoever benefits from the extra expenditure that the Portuguese consumer can make, since he has saved a certain amount on his Danish purchase. Maybe he's 10 euros to the good and he'll now spend that on, I don't know, a pastry, a couple of coffees. Good for Portuguese cafe operators.

But the bottom line is that you go smoothly from complaining in post #3647 that the EU has increased the cost of living to complaining in post #3649 that by introducing competition the EU is reducing revenues for everyone. You can believe one of these things or the other, but you can't possibly believe both.

fritzelly wrote: »

A country joins the EU (for example Poland) - everyone can now leave that country and go and work where they want (for higher wages/better living), lack of workers in that country forces employers to pay higher wages to get staff ergo their 'produce' costs increase to the end consumer. All the while that country is getting billions in funding to make it an equal to the rest of Europe for another 6 years

A rise in real wages is generally seen as a good thing, fritzelly, since it results in a more equal distribution of wealth in society. If your policy is to keep real wages down in order to keep goods cheap there are more effective measures you can take for that than leaving the EU. You can regulate wages, ban overtime rates, impose a sharply progressive income tax, reduce or eliminate social welfare for the unemployed; these will all be much more effective measures to acheive your policy goal.

But, basically, your policy is one of impoverishing workers in order to ensure a plentiful supply of cheap labour for industry. Put in those terms, it's not a policy calculated to secure wide support among voters.

Radiosonde

Peregrinus wrote: »

he has saved a certain amount on his Danish purchase. Maybe he's 10 euros to the good and he'll now spend that on, I don't know, a pastry, a couple of coffees.

That's all well and good, but why would he buy another pastry when he's just bought a Danish?

Peregrinus

Because just one is never enough.

steddyeddy

Wilbur Ross, the man charged by the US to strike a trade deal with the UK, has talked about using Brexit to steal UK trade. The UK is f-ed .

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/use-brexit-to-steal-uk-trade-says-trump-aide-22rkpmfr7

Donald Trump’s trade chief has urged Britain’s rivals to exploit the “God-given opportunity” of Brexit to steal business from the UK.

Wilbur Ross, the billionaire incoming commerce secretary, has the task of striking a free trade deal with Britain. His comments will increase fears that the US will seek to take advantage of British isolation after its departure from the European Union.

catbear

There's a thread on reddit worth a look. As expected sitting down to xmas dinner and taking stock of the year of brexit was never going to be a smooth inter-generational affair.
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/5kkcqz/theyre_breeding_foreigners_in_leeds_what_nonsense/

Phony war is ending. The panic is starting to creep up as they enter the "oh crap this is really happening" phase next week.

I think Brexit can happen just out of sheer bullheadedness and instead of the hard or soft expectations, I think they could potentially crash out entirely.

They've made us in the EU such a bogey man over the decades that they will not be able to handle not being able to dictate their exit terms. Too much pride.

Nate--IRL--

catbear wrote: »

I think Brexit can happen just out of sheer bullheadedness and instead of the hard or soft expectations, I think they could potentially crash out entirely.

Soft Brexit does not exist. Article 50 will see the UK leave fully - it does not have provision for anything else. They will be negotiating any future relationship with the EU in separate talks, but once A50 concludes they have severed all ties to the EU, completely.

Nate

catbear

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Soft Brexit does not exist. Article 50 will see the UK leave fully - it does not have provision for anything else. They will be negotiating any future relationship with the EU in separate talks, but once A50 concludes they have severed all ties to the EU, completely.

Nate

Read my line again nate, I said hard or soft expectations.

Anyway it's going to be fire crackers for the next three months.

Nate--IRL--

catbear wrote: »

Read my line again nate, I said hard or soft expectations.

Anyway it's going to be fire crackers for the next three months.

Apologies - missed that. I agree however, it is going to an entertaining 3 months

Nate

bnt

I'm of the view that there will be both negatives and positives to Brexit, and tend to ignore media that goes to either extreme.

One interesting (to me) thing that's come to light is the situation with Albania and the chance that they would join the Eurozone. The country is an economic basket case, riddled with organised crime, corruption and drug trafficking, but so far economic migration has mostly been to countries accessible by sea, particularly Greece. Some Albanians are being trafficked in to the UK illegally or are claiming asylum, which is an odd thing to claim if your country could be joining the Eurozone in a few years anyway.

I saw UK articles before the vote that basically claimed that many thousands of Albanians will head straight to the UK, France and Germany in particular as soon as the borders are opened, and that was used to advocate Brexit. However, in November, the German Bundestag has voted to veto any negotiations for Albania to join the Eurozone until 2018 at the earliest. So, post-Brexit, the Germans are also having second thoughts about extending the Eurozone without additionl safeguards.

Grayson

The guardian do a funny round up of the year in british politics.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/28/year-in-politics-digested-brexit-westminster

January – April
George Osborne So how are the EU negotiations going, Dave?

David Cameron Absolutely tip-top. The first part of the negotiations have been negotiated. There will be some further negotiations in February that may or may not be negotiated and, if they aren’t, the negotiations will be concluded at some unspecified later date. But I can promise you that whether I manage to renegotiate the one tricky bit of my negotiations or not, the negotiations will have been successful.

Osborne Are you sure we’re going to win this referendum?

Cameron Have you seen the idiots we’re up against? Michael Gove, Chris Grayling, Nigel Farage, IDS ... We can’t fail.

Osborne What about Boris?

Cameron He’s 100% behind me.

Boris Johnson Actually, I’m having trouble with my conscience.

Cameron Don’t be silly. You haven’t got one.

Johnson Thing is, Dave, I was playing tennis over the weekend and Govey pointed out I’d never become prime minister if I backed remain as then I’d always be behind Osbo in the pecking order. But if I lead the leave campaign to a close second, then I’d be first in line when you step down in 2019. You are still going in 2019, aren’t you?

Cameron So having spent the last six months telling everyone Britain would be better off staying in the EU, you’re now saying you’ve changed your mind.

Johnson That’s being a little harsh. But, basically, yes.

Ken Livingstone Hitler.

Grayson

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/dec/29/uk-in-2030-older-more-unequal-and-blighted-by-brexit-report-predicts

Britain faces a decade of disruption after Brexit with low growth, stagnating incomes for the poor and the public finances at breaking point, according to a bleak analysis by a leading thinktank.

The report, Britain in the 2020s, by the Institute of Public Policy Research, says Brexit will “profoundly reshape the UK … painful trade-offs are almost certain. Growth is expected to be lower, investment rates worse, and the public finances weaker as a result of Brexit.”

The analysis, which draws on data from the OECD, the ONS and numerous economists and researchers, forecasts a 30% increase in the number of over-65s in the population by 2030, and a doubling of the number of over-85s. It predicts that the proportion of the population that is non-white will climb to more than one in five within 12 years.

The world of work will be revolutionised with millions of jobs in retail and manufacturing disappearing as a result of automation and the internet, the report says. Income inequality will become more entrenched, as will the wealth gap between London and the rest of the country.

By 2030 households will on average be £1,700 worse off per year than they would have been if Britain had stayed in the EU, with a persistently falling currency driving up prices and hitting the living standards of poorer people the hardest, according to the report.

Another report saying how bad Brexit will be.