Brexit discussion thread II

As much as I hate the FPTP system that the UK has, the idea of AV was absolutely savaged in their 2011 referendum.

The UK electorate had a chance to move towards a more representative system and they utterly and definitively rejected that chance.

It was an enormous victory for the No camp. 68 - 32. The UK did not want to change their 'leads to strong governments' system at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

Professor Moriarty

Deleted User wrote: »

As much as I hate the FPTP system that the UK has, the idea of AV was absolutely savaged in their 2011 referendum.

The UK electorate had a chance to move towards a more representative system and they utterly and definitively rejected that chance.

It was an enormous victory for the No camp. 68 - 32. The UK did not want to change their 'leads to strong governments' system at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011

No doubt the Tory press saw that idea off.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No doubt the Tory press saw that idea off.

An awful awful lot of crossover between NoToAV and Vote Leave.

All Out War is worth reading for some of the colour https://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Out-War-Britains-Political/dp/0008215154

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

As much as I hate the FPTP system that the UK has, the idea of AV was absolutely savaged in their 2011 referendum.

It was badly explained.

They should have said from the very start that it would have no effect on the result except in marginals and even then only in certain cases.

Instead most of the discussion was on how it would change the result. Result was to scare the electorate.


More mixed messages and we end up with Brexit.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It was badly explained.

They should have said from the very start that it would have no effect on the result except in marginals and even then only in certain cases.

Instead most of the discussion was on how it would change the result. Result was to scare the electorate.


More mixed messages and we end up with Brexit.

Though broadly in agreement, at what stage do we stop making excuses for the UK electorate?

Water John

Yes, the same as the US, you make your choices. Each citizen takes responsibility for their own vote.

steddyeddy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Here's one that never gets old.

Back before they joined the EU the UK were overfishing in Icelandic waters, so next thing you know there's another Cod War. All of which the UK lost.

The UK on paper had by far the biggest navy. But didn't have the same public opinion pressure as in Iceland. Iceland threatened to close down a US airbase. And that's how Iceland got it's 200 mile fishing limit.

The UK public are very split on Brexit. On the EU side the UK is seen as having burnt any goodwill, recent elections have all been pro EU and much stronger mandates than back in Blighty.

The only advantage the UK might have is EU voter apathy , Brexit isn't a hot news topic on the continent, but that apathy may translate into anger if they get a deal at the expense of EU workers.

What made them think they could fish in Icelandic waters?

Water John

History. They usually did what they liked on the seas, in the great tradition of Francis Drake.

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

What made them think they could fish in Icelandic waters?

More importantly what was their cod doing in Icelandic waters ?


It's an example of how Gunboat Diplomacy just won't work anymore. UK military force won't win trade deals.

The EU is gradually becoming more ethical. The UK has had dodgy arms deals before, but in future could face EU sanctions if outside. Sweden, France, Germany , Italy and Spain also sell lots of arms and so hobbling the competition won't hurt.

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Though broadly in agreement, at what stage do we stop making excuses for the UK electorate?

Jeremy Corbyn wants a soft Bexit so won't be much help from there.


One alternative would be to scare them straight, EU could hint that the UK would be getting a trade war instead of just no deal. (If the UK sign up for GMO and US food standards and US data sharing and US monopolies and US liberalisation of Stock Market rules then it could be Shields UP and Good Luck because EU law blocks a lot of that stuff already)


Then again scaring the UK electorate is how they ended up with Brexit so probably won't work.

joeysoap

steddyeddy wrote: »

What made them think they could fish in Icelandic waters?

Think they always did ( might is right stuff) but the Icelanders realised that it was their livelihood that was threatened, I can renember Icelandic gunboats (that's all they were) cutting the lines of the British trawlers and the trawler skippers saying how dangerous that was ( I have no doubt it was dangerous). The uk sent in the Royal Navy to protect the trawlers but even so the smaller Icelandic vessels were able to get in close and continue cutting the lines. To be fair to the RN they never at any stage threatened to do a Belgrano on the Icelandic gun boats. Maybe Denmark or the other Scandi countries had something to do with that. I think the Labour Party were in power, maybe if the Tories were in power they would have been more beligorant.

I am enjoying following this thread, but there's a lot of speculation on it too, really until we know how the talks are progressing it's all just that , speculation, and whether it's soft or hard we just don't know at this stage.

But what we do know is that certain elements of the British 'establishment' resents relinquishing control of what they see as their absolute right to mere civil servants, especially if they have no influence over them. To that end they were successful in persuading a majority of UK voters to side with them.

Capt'n Midnight

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Jeremy Corbyn wants a soft Bexit so won't be much help from there.


One alternative would be to scare them straight, EU could hint that the UK would be getting a trade war instead of just no deal. (If the UK sign up for GMO and US food standards and US data sharing and US monopolies and US liberalisation of Stock Market rules then it could be Shields UP and Good Luck because EU law blocks a lot of that stuff already)


Then again scaring the UK electorate is how they ended up with Brexit so probably won't work.

Not by many people's definition of the idea.

I invite you to compare and contrast his position with Theresa May's for instance.

oppenheimer1

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

True but the nature of FPTP caused the referendum.

I disagree. A PR-STV system would mean there would be a significant UKIP presence in Parliament.

Capt'n Midnight

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I disagree. A PR-STV system would mean there would be a significant UKIP presence in Parliament.

Look how that's worked here with the small parties like SF PBP

"it's better to have them in the tent píssing out than outside the tent píssing in"

you get a more representative group, and less exclusion.



Then again UKIP were slaughtered in the local elections because the Tories took their thunder so meh

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

Not by many people's definition of the idea.

I invite you to compare and contrast his position with Theresa May's for instance.

OK , softer

At least he'd keep the EU human rights or stuff workers like.

May is throwing out the baby with the bathwater in order to - well what exactly ? - without the ECJ a home secretary would find it easier to deport people. But her record at that job makes it look like she might have been looking for an easy out rather than doing it within the existing framework , but it would take more work.

Peregrinus

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I disagree. A PR-STV system would mean there would be a significant UKIP presence in Parliament.

Assuming people would have voted the same way under a different electoral system, of course.

But let that pass. Assuming people had voted the same way under a proportional system, while there would have been a significant UKIP presence in Parliament after the 2015 election it would have been outweighed by the Lib Dem/SNP/Green presence. The Tories and UKIP together would not have had a majority, so a referendum would not have been a given.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

In other words you cannot explain what the issues with the policy areas you named are.

The UK pooled sovereignty in the last 43 years. So clearly they felt it was in their interest and economically it appears to have been in their interest.

So what has changed?

Good morning!

No - rather I will clarify my position if you ask a loaded question. If you have misunderstood my objection then I will clarify it.

Let's look at the section of the previous post.

Calina wrote: »

You have said every area should be scaled back. Explain what you mean by that and why it would be a benefit to the member states. Particularly for trade and fishing. Germany is doing fine on trade. Maybe government policy plays a role again?

Presumably this is of importance for every member state and not just the UK.

I'm not referring to every member state. I'm referring to the UK and it's interests. For many other countries the trade off in control is worth it. I think this is true for Ireland even though I find it distasteful.

For those​ claiming that the EU doesn't take a lot of control from member states, you just have to see trade policy where countries cannot form their own trade deals, or fishing policy where you cannot control who enters your waters (by the by this is one of the reasons the Conservatives took seats in north east Scotland in the election), to immigration policy where you can't determine who can enter your borders.

You miss the point though. My objection is high level. It isn't so much individual policy of the European Union but the principle that this much control should be handed over to them.

As for the UK and 43 years, the level of control handed over has increased over that time. The world has also changed during that time. There are big economic growth regions outside of the EU and a majority of Britain's exports to to these countries. The freedom to be able to find a trading arrangement with the United States and China to expand trade there would be huge.

It's easy to put your fingers in your ears and to pretend that Britain doesn't have a strong hand in the negotiations or that there aren't huge opportunities with the new flexibility that Britain will have.

However, Brexit does need to be handled carefully and a new relationship with the EU is key in that. If that is achieved and if new deals are struck then Britain will be better off outside the EU.

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

As I've said before, and you've ignored, people voted to leave for many reasons, some based on barefaced lies, some because they felt they were competing for lower-paid jobs, some as a protest against the establishment. There were multifarious reasons why people voted leave.

If you took the time to read my posts - you would have noticed that not only did I reply to it several pages ago but I also brought your attention to it at the weekend.

To the other poster - there's not much to reply to your post about the referendum. It certainly wasn't narrow (1 million votes difference isn't narrow) and there were some porkies on both sides. Overall I think both sides set out their stall quite well.

tl;dr - the people gave a result, time to stop moaning and get on with it.

Let's be fair shall we?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

For those​ claiming that the EU doesn't take a lot of control from member states, you just have to see trade policy where countries cannot form their own trade deals, or fishing policy where you cannot control who enters your waters (by the by this is one of the reasons the Conservatives took seats in north east Scotland in the election), to immigration policy where you can't determine who can enter your borders.

Fishing is a miniscule portion of the UK economy, especially compared to finance, science, technology, IT, etc... Is it really worth putting these in jeopardy so that a few fishermen can fish various species of fish to extinction? Will their contribution via taxes outweigh the loss of any companies that leave?

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for the UK and 43 years, the level of control handed over has increased over that time. The world has also changed during that time. There are big economic growth regions outside of the EU and a majority of Britain's exports to to these countries. The freedom to be able to find a trading arrangement with the United States and China to expand trade there would be huge.

And the EU never prevented tapping into these regions. Britain sends more to individual EU countries than to the likes of India, China, Indonesia, etc. It's only when you take EVERY other country on Earth outside the EU27 that trade with the EU becomes a slight minority.

solodeogloria wrote: »

It's easy to put your fingers in your ears and to pretend that Britain doesn't have a strong hand in the negotiations or that there aren't huge opportunities with the new flexibility that Britain will have.

Because this is what the evidence indicates which is more convincing that your sneering comments and accusations of lying which are directed at anyone who disagrees with you.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fishing is a miniscule portion of the UK economy, especially compared to finance, science, technology, IT, etc... Is it really worth putting these in jeopardy so that a few fishermen can fish various species of fish to extinction? Will their contribution via taxes outweigh the loss of any companies that leave?

My point is that the control that the EU has over member states is huge and it is very far reaching. You can read TFEU and see all of the areas that the EU has competence over it the areas of "shared" competence where the EU allows a member state to act only where it hasn't done so.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And the EU never prevented tapping into these regions. Britain sends more to individual EU countries than to the likes of India, China, Indonesia, etc. It's only when you take EVERY other country on Earth outside the EU27 that trade with the EU becomes a slight minority.

The EU prevents signing free trade agreements. That's important. It restricts trade policy.

Your point is slightly disingenuous. Firstly the EU isn't a single country. Secondly the EU has a trade surplus with the UK. Thirdly the UK trades more with the rest of the world. It exports nearly half as much to the US and China than it does to the EU.

Therefore it is a good idea to find a way to open more trade opportunities with these countries and many others.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Because this is what the evidence indicates which is more convincing that your sneering comments and accusations of lying which are directed at anyone who disagrees with you.

I've presented huge opportunities to you, particularly in terms of trade. I think Britain is making the right move here.

To say that I've not argued for opportunities and explained that free trade deals could be hugely beneficial isn't being honest. It's also not honest to claim that I've not shown that the UK has a huge hand in negotiations when it comes to City access. I've quoted several people including the chief negotiator to say that the EU will need access to the City after Brexit.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Jim2007

solodeogloria wrote: »

The world has also changed during that time. There are big economic growth regions outside of the EU and a majority of Britain's exports to to these countries. The freedom to be able to find a trading arrangement with the United States and China to expand trade there would be huge.

The thing is though that all of the member states are in the same position, yet the UK is the only major EU economy to consistently produce a trade deficit for the past 25 years... UK industry currently has preferential access to a major market and the same access to other markets as the rest of the EU, yet they fail to deliver, why is that????

It is all very well to blame the EU, but if the rest are delivering and you are not, then it does not ring true....

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is that the control that the EU has over member states is huge and it is very far reaching. You can read TFEU and see all of the areas that the EU has competence over it the areas of "shared" competence where the EU allows a member state to act only where it hasn't done so.

I find the term "Control" in this context slightly misleading. The EU has a single market which is supposed to work equally for each member state. This involves standards, regulations, etc.... If it were truly in control, member states would not be allowed to leave as the UK is currently doing.

solodeogloria wrote: »

The EU prevents signing free trade agreements. That's important. It restricts trade policy.

Your point is slightly disingenuous. Firstly the EU isn't a single country. Secondly the EU has a trade surplus with the UK. Thirdly the UK trades more with the rest of the world. It exports nearly half as much to the US and China than it does to the EU.

Therefore it is a good idea to find a way to open more trade opportunities with these countries and many others.

Of course it is a good idea but it would have been better to use the EU machinery to accomplish this rather than go it alone with a dearth of trade expertise which is currently posing a problem for the British along with the huge prize that is the single market which currently benefits from 53 trade deals including ones with Canada and Japan. One with the US would be in force but political pressure has scuppered that. Given that Liam Fox has made so little progress that he's had to play the victim card with the BBC, it seems that replicating the 53 trade deals the EU had along with trying to get one with the EU itself will take a long, long time indeed.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've presented huge opportunities to you, particularly in terms of trade. I think Britain is making the right move here.

To say that I've not argued for opportunities and explained that free trade deals could be hugely beneficial isn't being honest.

Why do you provide a link to these posts then, if they exist of course.

Calina

Solo needs to identify what those deals are likely to be. The UK is leaving the EU so that will be a material dis improvement in that direction. A FTA will not jave as much liberty and access as single matket membership.

They will be junior trading party with a massively protectionist US which wants lower food standards and to slice up the NHS. That is the two biggest ones. Also vulnerable to dumping for China.

What trade deal opportunities? I sometimes think the UK wants to turn the Commonwealth into a trading block with the UK in charge but I can't see the other Commonwealth countries buying that too much either.

Capt'n Midnight

UK has a strong position.
Brexit: UK 'overwhelmingly reliant' on EU vets and abattoir workers

The Lords EU Environment Committee said 90% of veterinary surgeons and 75% of abattoir workers were EU nationals and retaining them after Brexit was vital.

And that's before any extra conditions if the UK doesn't get a great deal, the best deal ever.

Rise in personal loans dangerous, Bank of England official says

Outstanding car loans, credit card balance transfers and personal loans have increased by 10% over the past year, the Bank's financial stability director Alex Brazier said.

In contrast household incomes have risen by just 1.5%, he said.

Scary news. People on lower incomes in the UK are getting squeezed.

Welcome to the new Britain.

Essex nursery 'closes because of universal free hours scheme'

Jackie says: "The Early Years sector is very good at trying to patch up and make do... but for as long as we all try to do that, the more the government doesn't have to do anything.

"It's great for parents, but my staff who are earning an average of £8.50 an hour are subsidising parents who are earning up to £200,000 a year.

"And when you think about that, it just brings it all home."

But there is money for a new train line in London and HS2. But Regional schemes have been shelved. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40708531 Those two schemes will cost over £80 Bn , ten years EU membership, but of course the UK won't be entitled to any structural funds.
HS2 is for the rich. All across the EU the trend is for long distance journeys by the likes of Ryanair Cattle Class to be cheaper than rail. Rail is for people with money and or business laptops.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Last post for today. I was going to call it earlier but I got a free coffee and pastry from Pret on the way to work which cheered me up

Also post 1,000 let's see how much more I'll do

Jim2007 wrote: »

The thing is though that all of the member states are in the same position, yet the UK is the only major EU economy to consistently produce a trade deficit for the past 25 years... UK industry currently has preferential access to a major market and the same access to other markets as the rest of the EU, yet they fail to deliver, why is that????

It is all very well to blame the EU, but if the rest are delivering and you are not, then it does not ring true....

Firstly - I'd like to drop the tone and say I'm not blaming the EU. It's not their fault that it doesn't suit Britain to be a member or that they want to go in a different direction.

Secondly - it isn't true to say that the UK hasn't been delivering because it happens to trade a lot in services. A lot of manufacturers trade more with the rest of the world than with the EU anyway. This is why JCB and Dyson were pro-Brexit.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I find the term "Control" in this context slightly misleading. The EU has a single market which is supposed to work equally for each member state. This involves standards, regulations, etc.... If it were truly in control, member states would not be allowed to leave as the UK is currently doing.

If the European Union has primary authority in areas X, Y and Z it means that it has control over X, Y and Z. That's hardly misleading.

The UK wants this control. The conditions of single market membership are too much. That's a good reason to leave it.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course it is a good idea but it would have been better to use the EU machinery to accomplish this rather than go it alone with a dearth of trade expertise which is currently posing a problem for the British along with the huge prize that is the single market which currently benefits from 53 trade deals including ones with Canada and Japan. One with the US would be in force but political pressure has scuppered that. Given that Liam Fox has made so little progress that he's had to play the victim card with the BBC, it seems that replicating the 53 trade deals the EU had along with trying to get one with the EU itself will take a long, long time indeed.

I don't see what additional benefits the EU adds apart from scale. As a major world economy and as a market of 60 million the UK has a lot of clout on its own. Negotiations should be quicker because you don't have to consider the particular needs of 27 other countries when negotiating.

Also it's worth bearing in mind that there's only so much progress that Liam Fox can make given that the European Union forbids negotiations. I'm thankful that there are initial discussions happening with Washington and I'm also thankful for the number of countries that want an agreement with the UK. Hopefully initial conversations can continue but it isn't honest to say firstly that it is Liam Fox's fault that the EU prohibit comprehensive trade talks and that he has made little progress as a result, or secondly to claim that we know how much progress has been made.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Why do you provide a link to these posts then, if they exist of course.

I mentioned that China and the US are markets of £100bn to the UK in my last post. I mentioned that there are opportunities to expand this with a free trade agreement.

That's an opportunity. Unless you're claiming that it isn't an opportunity?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thomas__

Calina wrote: »

Solo needs to identify what those deals are likely to be. The UK is leaving the EU so that will be a material dis improvement in that direction. A FTA will not jave as much liberty and access as single matket membership.  

They will be junior trading party with a massively protectionist US which wants lower food standards and to slice up the NHS. That is the two biggest ones. Also vulnerable to dumping for China.

What trade deal opportunities? I sometimes think the UK wants to turn the Commonwealth into a trading block with the UK in charge but I can't see the other Commonwealth countries buying that too much either.

Me too, as I see it as well that this is the core of the whole idea and it doesn´t work. Maybe because in not less Commonwealth member states, the recollections (or memories) from former colonial times are still there. Even Australia which is one of the economical strong member states prefers the EU over the UK in trading deals.

Peregrinus

solodeogloria wrote: »

Your point is slightly disingenuous. Firstly the EU isn't a single country. Secondly the EU has a trade surplus with the UK. Thirdly the UK trades more with the rest of the world. It exports nearly half as much to the US and China than it does to the EU.

It's irrelevant that the EU isn't a single country. If we're considering the effects of Brexit, trade with all EU and EFTA countries is affected by leaving the Single Market, and I don't see on what basis you would argue that the effect is any way changed by number of countries involved.

While it's true that the EU has a trade surplus with the UK, I don't see that that matters greatly. Both UK exports to the EU and UK imports from the EU are beneficial to the UK; otherwise the UK wouldn't engage in the transactions involved.

As for your third claim, it's flat-out false. UK exports to China in 2015 were £16.7 bn in 2015. To the US, £96.4 bn. To the EU, £230 bn. To the single market (EU + EFTA), £257 bn.

Almost exactly half of UK exports go to the single market. A further 7-9% or so happen under Free Trade Agreements between the EU and third countries - that would rise to 10-12% if the UK is still a member of the EU when the Canada FTA is applied.

The notion that the UK can improve its terms of trade by shredding the free trade arrangements that apply to 60% or more of its exports and starting again from scratch seems wildly improbable, and I have yet to read a coherent explanation of the claim that this could happen.

solodeogloria

Good morning!

Some quick clarifications!

1) £100bn is "nearly half" of £230bn. That's not false and it isn't fair to say that is false.
2) your post makes an assumption that the UK isn't looking for a transition period. It is.
3) the number of countries involved is important because the UK has different exposures to different member states.
4) A trade surplus does matter because the EU makes a net gain from UK trade. That's obvious.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus

What is false is that the UK "trades more with the rest of the world". As noted, 50% of the UK's exports are to the single market (and, for the record, rather more than 50% of its imports are from the single market). When you add in trade with the rest of the world conducted under EU-third country FTAs the signficance of EU membership, and therefore of Brexit, to the UK's trade is even greater.

I don't assume there will be no transition period; the transition period doesn't affect the figures. The fact that the UK may have an extra 2-4 years to come to terms with the effect of leaving the single market doesn't change the effect of leaving the single market.

The number of countries involved is not important. The UK's current arrangement for trading with the EU is a uniform arrangement which applies equally to the whole of the EU. That will also be true of any replacement arrangement that the UK may seek to negotiate, or succeed in negotiating. Given that, analysing the UK's EU trade as between France, Germany, Italy, etc is about as relevant as analysing its US trade as between New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, etc. The UK is never going to have a separate free trade agreement with Massachussetts, and it's never going to have a separate free trade agreeement with France.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

2) your post makes an assumption that the UK isn't looking for a transition period. It is.

How interesting.

How long a transition period are they looking for? How much of their current EU contribution will they continue to pay during this transition?

How long will the Government last after May and Fox give answers to these questions?

Professor Moriarty

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Some quick clarifications!

1) £100bn is "nearly half" of £230bn. That's not false and it isn't fair to say that is false.
2) your post makes an assumption that the UK isn't looking for a transition period. It is.
3) the number of countries involved is important because the UK has different exposures to different member states.
4) A trade surplus does matter because the EU makes a net gain from UK trade. That's obvious.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

They will get a transition period if it suits the EU and as for as long as it suits the EU. Yet another in the long list of reasons why the UK will take what it gets.