Brexit discussion thread II

murphaph

WTO terms is much more of a disaster for the service oriented UK economy than the EU27. The UK needs a deal.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

I wouldn't say "more" I would say "different". Canada exports more goods therefore it is going to seek a deal which is primarily for goods. Britain is different. But it is a similar sort of deal albeit more weighted on services than goods.

As for time. I personally don't mind a transition period. It is better to take time to get the best deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

But this would be a first, certainly for the EU. So you think this new kind of FTA that includes services would take less time or more time to thrash out than CETA, which is a "classic" goods based FTA? Be realistic.

johnnyskeleton

Jim2007 wrote: »

As usual you are totally wrong. But this is absolutely typical of your behaviour - a complete lack of knowledge on the topic and a refusal to even do some basic research.



And now this kind of nonsense. At this point you are embarrassing yourself and I for one have no intention of taking you seriously for here on out.

Mod note:

If you disagree with someone, you can point out where they are wrong. If the argument is becoming circular, please report the post.

If you only want to call the other poster wrong without explaining why, please refrain from posting.

Water John

Mods a whole lot of posters are making valid points as to the difficulty with Brexit and negotiating same. The timelines of other such negotiations is pointed out. but the pro Brexiteer posters poo poo it away, as twaddle.
It just keeps bouncing back without a rational reality.

eire4

Fratton Fred wrote: »

barely and only a recent occurance

But still true contrary to what you posted above. The fact that over time the net contributions that Ireland received from the EU have grown smaller to the point where we are now a net contributor I think is a good example of the positive effect the EU can have on a countries economic health over time.

Fratton Fred

Enzokk wrote: »

Why do those in charge then keep repeating a phrase if they have idea what it means though? You just open yourself up to being shown as a hypocrite or at worst incompetent if the press decides that it is so.

I can't recall hearing bit since the election, or probably more accurately, since Theresa May sacked her main advisors at the insistence of her cabinet.

Enzokk wrote: »

So we know what a no deal means, but is a bad deal just below WTO terms? Halfway between EU membership and WTO terms? Its this kind of rhetoric that I think angers the electorate. They vote for those in power and then they just sprout nonsense there doesn't seem to be any progress. Just ask David Cameron this when he went to negotiate power back from the EU, without defining what powers he wanted to get back.

Yes, I agree. It's a statement that has no real substance, because it's just saying a ****ty stick is worse than a very very ****ty stick.

Fratton Fred

Jim2007 wrote: »

Once again your lack of knowledge...

As Commission President Junkers gets to decide who the grown ups are.... Michel Barnier was appointed with Junkers approval.

Claiming another poster lacks understanding adds nothing to your post and just adds to any animosity. It ain't big and it ain't clever, so to speak.

I know how the negotiating team is officially selected, but do you really believe he selected the team all by himself, or do you think the eu council decided?

Fratton Fred

eire4 wrote: »

But still true contrary to what you posted above. The fact that over time the net contributions that Ireland received from the EU have grown smaller to the point where we are now a net contributor I think is a good example of the positive effect the EU can have on a countries economic health over time.

Yes, I agree.

But, when you drive around Ireland, the positives of being in the eu are very obvious. You have to look a lot harder in the UK to find these.

Enzokk

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I can't recall hearing bit since the election, or probably more accurately, since Theresa May sacked her main advisors at the insistence of her cabinet.

I guess the problem is that she has said it but never really backtracked on her statement. This goes for everyone else that has repeated it as well.

DaniilKharms

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, I agree.

But, when you drive around Ireland, the positives of being in the eu are very obvious. You have to look a lot harder in the UK to find these.

Well... unless you like in Wales or Scotland or NI.

Sam Russell

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, I agree.

But, when you drive around Ireland, the positives of being in the eu are very obvious. You have to look a lot harder in the UK to find these.

The result of the Wales EU referendum was held in an EU provided building.

Most projects funded by the EU are not publicly acknowledged by big signs, but by little hidden ones out of sight.

Most of the regional aid was done in poor regions, like Scotland and NI (who voted to remain), and other places that voted to leave like Wales, Cornwall, North East England, Northwest England - places that got lots of help. Agriculture was a big winner from the EU as well. Of course it was the big farmers who got the big bucks.

That is the hand outs, but free trade was a definite help to the UK economy which benefited most people. Before the EU, the British economy was a basket case. Britain was described as the 'sick man of Europe'. Balance of payments and poor productivity were a constant problem in the 60s and 70s, causing devaluations in 1948, 1967, floating the pound in 1978, and crashing out on the snake in 1992.

Not a good history. However, they should do better in the future with taking back control.

Capt'n Midnight

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The eu has stated that it won't accept brass plate companies, are you suggesting the UK does?

LOL

How many tax havens are crown dependencies ?

And without the UK's veto most will probably get added to the EU Blacklist in the wake of the Panama Papers.

steddyeddy

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, I agree.

But, when you drive around Ireland, the positives of being in the eu are very obvious. You have to look a lot harder in the UK to find these.

Completely disagree. Those who have even the smallest knowledge of history will know that the UK was nearly bankrupt prior to joining the single market.

Charles Babbage

murphaph wrote: »

WTO terms is much more of a disaster for the service oriented UK economy than the EU27. The UK needs a deal.

You would imagine that a variety of business interests are saying that, repeatedly and increasingly loudly, to conservative MPs. Let's hope they are listened to.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Completely disagree. Those who have even the smallest knowledge of history will know that the UK was nearly bankrupt prior to joining the single market.

Unfortunately, a lot of UK voters haven't the smallest knowledge of history and any media they come into contact with will only give them a distorted view.

Fratton Fred

steddyeddy wrote: »

Completely disagree. Those who have even the smallest knowledge of history will know that the UK was nearly bankrupt prior to joining the single market.

Yes, indeed.

Proof of ever it were needed as to why socialism simply doesn't work.

Fratton Fred

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

LOL

How many tax havens are crown dependencies ?

And without the UK's veto most will probably get added to the EU Blacklist in the wake of the Panama Papers.

I would have thought the eu would sort out its own tax havens first.

Of course, now Ireland will have to face the eu on its own.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/tax-harmonisation-is-back-on-eu-s-agenda-but-ireland-is-alone-1.2841042

FrancieBrady

Liam Fox clueless on the Sunday Politics, can you really be unaware of what your Foreign Secretary said?
Labour shadow not inspiring confidence either.

DaniilKharms

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Yes, indeed.

Proof of ever it were needed as to why socialism simply doesn't work.

Lol.

Many things caused Britain to have to be bailed out by the IMF, but socialism isn't one of them.

Government spending and socialism are not synonymous.

Fratton Fred

DaniilKharms wrote: »

Lol.

Many things caused Britain to have to be bailed out by the IMF, but socialism isn't one of them.

Government spending and socialism are not synonymous.

OK, so it wasn't the three day week forced on the UK by the miners strike then?

I look forward to the Corbynistas who have just been talking about the British not knowing their history, explaining this one to me.

The UK's recovery owed more to Margaret Thatcher than it did the eu, but hey, I'm sure history can be rewritten and twisted to suit certain agendas, it's what certain posters on here are good at.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

OK, so it wasn't the three day week forced on the UK by the miners strike then?

That happened after the UK's accession to the EEC.

More to the point, the way you frame the question presupposes that the miners' strike was the fault of socialism. In any enterprise, a strike could the the responisibility of the trade unions, or it could be the responsibility of the management, or (in the real world) responsibility may often be shared. Starting out by assuming that it must be the responsibility of "socialists" is very convenient if your trying to bolster a belief that "socialism simply doesn't work", but it's not a very persuasive argument from the point of view of someone who doesn't start out by assuming the conclusion.

solodeogloria

Sam Russell wrote: »

The result of the Wales EU referendum was held in an EU provided building.

Most projects funded by the EU are not publicly acknowledged by big signs, but by little hidden ones out of sight.

Good morning,

Yes and no. At the end of the day if Britain didn't send the amount of money it does to Brussels this shortfall could be spent itself on British priorities or handed directly to the devolved governments in Cardiff, Holyrood and Stormont.

This is where the Leave campaign were correct to say that the money that they give to the EU as a gross is money they lose control of. The UK doesn't need the EU to redistribute their own money for them. As a net contributor to the EU it is entirely a moot point to talk of EU funding. It is British money being distributed by the EU.

The UK doesn't need a technocratic entity to decide how it's own money should be spent.

Edit:

Lemming wrote: »

Fred, the answer is in front of you. No deal IS a bad deal.

As a point of note, no deal would be the most undesirable of bad deals possible.

I disagree. A highly punitive deal could be worse than no deal. The European Union has the​ choice of agreeing a mutually beneficial deal or a highly punitive one.

If it is the latter then WTO terms could well be better.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

That happened after the UK's accession to the EEC.

as did the IMF bail out. But I'm not the one claiming that people should learn their history and thank the eu for saving he UK's economy.

Peregrinus wrote: »

More to the point, the way you frame the question presupposes that the miners' strike was the fault of socialism. In any enterprise, a strike could the the responisibility of the trade unions, or it could be the responsibility of the management, or (in the real world) responsibility may often be shared. Starting out by assuming that it must be the responsibility of "socialists" is very convenient if your trying to bolster a belief that "socialism simply doesn't work", but it's not a very persuasive argument from the point of view of someone who doesn't start out by assuming the conclusion.

Trade unions, their greed and the beliefs of their socialist leaders were very much responsible for the three day week. You wrap it up in statements like "that isn't true socialism" etc, but to the majority of Brits, that is what socialism means. Being held to ransom by trade unions.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

as did the IMF bail out. But I'm not the one claiming that people should learn their history and thank the eu for saving he UK's economy.



Trade unions, their greed and the beliefs of their socialist leaders were very much responsible for the three day week. You wrap it up in statements like "that isn't true socialism" etc, but to the majority of Brits, that is what socialism means. Being held to ransom by trade unions.

Again, Fred, you're being a bit selective. Perhaps a majority of Brits would also link socialism to, say, the introduction of the National Health Service?

Enzokk

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK doesn't need a technocratic entity to decide how it's own money should be spent.

Edit:

I disagree. A highly punitive deal could be worse than no deal. The European Union has the​ choice of agreeing a mutually beneficial deal or a highly punitive one.

If it is the latter then WTO terms could well be better.

The UK record isn't great when you look at deprived areas in need of funding though. Maybe they need a outside body to spend their money as sometimes politicians don't do the right thing?

What in your opinion is a highly punitive deal? As I understand it the worst deal is WTO terms, right? So a bad deal will be better than WTO terms, right? Or am I missing something here?

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Again, Fred, you're being a bit selective. Perhaps a majority of Brits would also link socialism to, say, the introduction of the National Health Service?

Maybe, maybe not.

The reality though, is that Jeremy Corbyn reminds too many people of the brand of socialism the UK had in the 70s and 80s. That's why he is just not electable to a lot of people over the age of 45.

Peregrinus

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Maybe, maybe not.

The reality though, is that Jeremy Corbyn reminds too many people of the brand of socialism the UK had in the 70s and 80s. That's why he is just not electable to a lot of people over the age of 45.

Anyone who was politically aware at the time of the three-day week is now at least in their 60s. I know the over-60s vote a higher rate than other age cohorts but, still, they're a minority (and a declining minority) of the electorate.

I think the "Corbyn is unelectable" media narrative (that, oddly enough, we are being subjected to rather less of nowadays) is not based on parallels between Corbyn/Corbynite policies and the events of the 1960s/early 70s, but on parallels between Corbyn on the one hand and Michael Foot and the fairly hapless Labour Party of the late 80s/early 90s. That's a time that a much larger proportion of voters will remember, and it's a time that will loom large in the collective mind of the cohort of the well-paid white men in their 50s who determine the editorial policy of, and right the opinion pieces in, the mainstream British media. But, even so, to a signifant cohort of the voters it's ancient history, just as much as the three-day week. The signficant political events that a clear majority will remember are the Blair victory of '97, the Iraq War, the GFC.

As the last election has just shown, the "Corbyn is unelectable" narrative did not capture the public imagination in quite the way that was glibly assumed. If we look at this coldly, in the light of the evidence, Corbyn is eminently electable. Labour under Corbyn got 40% of the vote in the recent election; this is Labour's highest score since 2001; Labour has won elections with a lower percentage than that in the past. If the Tories are returned to office at the next election, it will be the fourth election in a row where that has happened, a feat they have not achieved since 1992 (and that, I think, is the only time any party has ever achieved it). The odds are against any incumbent government winning a fourth successive election. Be honest; do the Tories look to you, right now, like a party shaping up to pull off such a feat? Obviously a lot can happen in the next five years, but a lot of what will happen, in terms of the reality of Brexit versus the Brexiter rhetoric, is unlikely to make it easier for the government to retain power.

As of right now, a fourth Tory government looks a lot more like wishful thinking
than cold, hard analysis.

Fratton Fred

Peregrinus wrote: »

Anyone who was politically aware at the time of the three-day week is now at least in their 60s. I know the over-60s vote a higher rate than other age cohorts but, still, they're a minority (and a declining minority) of the electorate.

I think the "Corbyn is unelectable" media narrative (that, oddly enough, we are being subjected to rather less of nowadays) is not based on parallels between Corbyn/Corbynite policies and the events of the 1960s/early 70s, but on parallels between Corbyn on the one hand and Michael Foot and the fairly hapless Labour Party of the late 80s/early 90s. That's a time that a much larger proportion of voters will remember, and it's a time that will loom large in the collective mind of the cohort of the well-paid white men in their 50s who determine the editorial policy of, and right the opinion pieces in, the mainstream British media. But, even so, to a signifant cohort of the voters it's ancient history, just as much as the three-day week. The signficant political events that a clear majority will remember are the Blair victory of '97, the Iraq War, the GFC.

As the last election has just shown, the "Corbyn is unelectable" narrative did not capture the public imagination in quite the way that was glibly assumed. If we look at this coldly, in the light of the evidence, Corbyn is eminently electable. Labour under Corbyn got 40% of the vote in the recent election; this is Labour's highest score since 2001; Labour has won elections with a lower percentage than that in the past. If the Tories are returned to office at the next election, it will be the fourth election in a row where that has happened, a feat they have not achieved since 1992 (and that, I think, is the only time any party has ever achieved it). The odds are against any incumbent government winning a fourth successive election. Be honest; do the Tories look to you, right now, like a party shaping up to pull off such a feat? Obviously a lot can happen in the next five years, but a lot of what will happen, in terms of the reality of Brexit versus the Brexiter rhetoric, is unlikely to make it easier for the government to retain power.

As of right now, a fourth Tory government looks a lot more like wishful thinking
than cold, hard analysis.

I can remember very well playing board games with my parents by candle light, because the power was turned off at specific times during the day and night. I may not have been politically aware, but it doesn't take much to link early experiences and the politics behind those experiences.

I can also remember very very well not being able to move a photo copier without an electrician (because it has a plug and only electricians were allowed to unplug things) two labourers (becasue the weight of a photo copier demanded that two labourers were used, despite the thing being on wheels) and a shop steward to make sure the electrician didn't lift or push anything and the labourers didn't unplug anything.

That is why the UK economy was a basket case and productivity was ridiculously low. That wasn't changed by the eu, that was changed by Thatcher breaking the iron grip the unions had on the country.

Peregrinus

With due respect to your experience, Fred, I think the proportion of the electorate whose attitude to the current Labour leadership is determined by their memory of childhood board games is probably fairly small. We've just seen a Corbyn-led Labour party win 40% of the vote in a general election, which is unquestionably a degree of support with which elections can be won, and have been in the past, so I think the evidence tends to favour my view of the matter.

Zubeneschamali

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Bad deal is not a defined term, is it, so it can mean anything.

Well, no - we are talking about possible deals here, and there is a range. At one end, the UK give up on Brexit and stay in the EU, nothing changes. At the other end, the UK exits with no deal and reverts to WTO terms and basic rules for visas and immigration.

Any possible deal will be somewhere in between the two - there is no "bad deal" that is in the possible range that is worse than no deal.

solodeogloria

Enzokk wrote: »

The UK record isn't great when you look at deprived areas in need of funding though. Maybe they need a outside body to spend their money as sometimes politicians don't do the right thing?

What in your opinion is a highly punitive deal? As I understand it the worst deal is WTO terms, right? So a bad deal will be better than WTO terms, right? Or am I missing something here?

Good evening!

I don't think Britain does any worse than a lot of other European states. I don't believe that the EU is needed to make effective spending decisions that can and should be made locally.

A highly restrictive deal in terms of trading arrangements with a large payout to the European Union and continued oversight of the ECJ would be a very bad deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria