Brexit discussion thread XIV (Please read OP before posting)

BlitzKrieg

Any lexiteers crawl out of the woodwork yet to claim that the railway becoming (mostly) state owned again is a Brexit victory?

Capt'n Midnight

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Any lexiteers crawl out of the woodwork yet to claim that the railway becoming (mostly) state owned again is a Brexit victory?

Except most of the UK railways were already state owned and run.

Mostly by EU states.

joeysoap

Aid corbyn suggested it there’d be uproar.

BonnieSituation

Igotadose wrote: »

Is there a site tracking the 'current state' of Brexit? Besides the banging on about the NI Protocol, I can't imagine things are going well for fishermen, food industry, hauliers.

Nothing on independent or bbc... like there's a news blackout about Brexit with all the attention directed to the headbangers in NI. NI's actually a small problem for Brexit imo. Losing big chunks of the City's business will matter much more.

SNIP.

With the recent Poots pronouncements that the Irish Govt should do their bidding and Frost complaining about the deal he negotiated, it still blows my mind that they're getting away with it?

They launched "Great British Railways" today which tries to re-amalgamate the back-office of what was BR before privatisation, and not a peep. Remember when Corbyn had the temerity to suggest re-nationalisation of the Railways in 2015?

The UK is in this weird unreality phase that I can't quite get my head around.

Peregrinus

Igotadose wrote: »

Is there a site tracking the 'current state' of Brexit? Besides the banging on about the NI Protocol, I can't imagine things are going well for fishermen, food industry, hauliers.

Nothing on independent or bbc... like there's a news blackout about Brexit with all the attention directed to the headbangers in NI. NI's actually a small problem for Brexit imo. Losing big chunks of the City's business will matter much more.

There’s this site, maintained by Prof. Gerhard Schnyder of Loughborough University, in which he comments in weekly posts on Brexit-related developments that have appeared in the media. He makes no secret of the fact that he thinks Brexit is a bad idea being badly implemented, and some might think that this colours the view he expresses on Brexity stories in the media. Others might think that it is reading the stories that leads to the conclusion that Brexit is bad. You can make your own mind up.

There are a couple of similar sites run by other commentators; they tend to mix fact and opinion in the same way, so if you don't like the opinion they are that bit easier to dismiss.

More relevantly, perhaps, this site gives immediate reactions to recent developments. There’s little or not attempt to tell a long-term story or offer an overall analysis, or measure the cumulative effect. A long term picture may be inferred from the pattern of individual and specific comments, but that’s not quite the same thing. So this may not be what you’re looking for.

Then there’s this, from the Centre for European Reform. This ignores individual developments and tries to build an overall picture of the economic impact (but only the economic impact) of Brexit using a technique known as “synthetic modelling”. It works like this:

1. Using published data, you build a picture of the UK and its economic situation - population, demographics, education levels, training and skills, productivity, resources, industrial sector, services sector, agricultural sector, etc.

2. Then you look at similar data for other developed economies - their population, demographics, education, productivity, economic sectors, etc. Using a weighted average of data from comparable advanced economies you build a “synthetic” UK that has similar economic characteristics to the real UK. For example, your synthetic UK might be made of 28% Germany, 11% Luxembourg, 10% Iceland, 2% Greece, etc. The siginficance of these countries is not that Germany resembles the UK or Luxembourg does, but that, taken together in these proportions, they represent an economy that closely mirrors the UK economy.

3. You test your model by taking, say, 20 years’ worth of historic economic data for the UK - GDP, balance of trade trade, etc for the period 1995-2015. Using your weighted average system, you calculate the same data for the same period for your synthetic UK. If your synthetic model is a good one, the two sets of data should track one another very closely.

4. Then you compare your real and synthetic UKs forwards from 2016, as official data is published. The idea here is that any divergence in economic performance between real and synthetic UK must be explained by different experiences that real and synthetic UK are having. The pandemic is going to affect the performance of both real UK and synthetic UK, for example, but it should affect them both in the same way, since the pandemic is something that his happening both to real UK and to (the real-world components of) synthetic UK.

5. But Brexit is happening to real UK and not to synthetic UK. So - unless something even more startling than Brexit happens to the UK and the UK alone, which so far hasn’t happened - any divergence between the economic performance of real UK and of synthetic UK is likely to be accounted for by the impact of Brexit.

6. Note that the technique will detect an economically beneficial Brexit or an economically disadvantageous one; it’s an entirely neutral technique. And it wasn’t invented for this particular application; it’s a technique that academic economists and analysts have been using for a long time.

There’s a number of projects under way to measure the impact of Brexit using synthetic modelling; the CER’s is only one. Every month or so the CER publishes an update, taking account of the latest official data to be published in the real UK and the countries which are components of the synthetic UK. Recent updates have focussed on the impact of Brexit on trade, but over time they have looked at a variety of different measures - e.g. GDP growth. Unsurprisingly, the economic effect of Brexit has been uniformly negative, no matter what factor you measure, and the same has been true of Brexit synthetic modelling exercises conducted by other economists and other institutions. If there’s a synthetic modelling exercise that suggests that Brexit has had any positive economic impact, I haven’t seen it.

Leroy42

I think that fact that 5 years after the ref, years after Johnson came to power promising to deliver Brexit, 5 months after the deal was reached, and 4 months after IDS chaired a committee to examine the potential benefits

That after all that, Frost announced that they are seeking external expertise to help them identify any benefits.

You can have as many websites as you like. That is a damming verdict on Brexit.

dogbert27

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think that fact that 5 years after the ref, years after Johnson came to power promising to deliver Brexit, 5 months after the deal was reached, and 4 months after IDS chaired a committee to examine the potential benefits

That aftervall that Frost announced that they are seeking External expertise to help them identify any benefits.

You can have as many websites as you like. That is a damming verdict on Brexit.

This is what Starmer should be jumping all over to show this current governments incompetence but we hear nothing.

beerguts

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9602463/Britain-offer-Australia-trade-deal-15-year-transition-period.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

If this report is true regarding the UK trade negotiations I am dumbfounded. This will have huge impact on certain agricultural sectors for them and it looks like they have bought in fully into the Patrick Minford ideology regarding their trade strategy.
The only plus I got from reading the comments section is that even the rabid tories are turning against this government and are even starting to question brexit

Nody

Remember how the Japan deal was heavily tilted in favor of Japan?

Yea, history repeats itself...

A July 2020 study of the prospective deal said a “full tariff liberalisation” deal would cause British exports to Australia to rise 7.3 per cent, but spark an 83.2 per cent rise in Australian exports to the UK.

It also concedes that “Australia has a strong comparative advantage” in meat production, and that in the long run might be able to sell its products “at a lower cost than domestic producers”. Workers in British agriculture might be “reallocated” to expanding sectors.

While it concludes that most of the UK would benefit from such a trade deal — national GDP might rise by 0.02 per cent — Northern Ireland would be left up to 0.25 per cent worse off because of its big farming sector.

dogbert27

Based on the evidence so far then it could be true that countries will be queuing up to do trade deals due to how incompetent this UK government is in negotiations!! :pac:

Professor Moriarty

Nody wrote: »

Remember how the Japan deal was heavily tilted in favor of Japan?

Yea, history repeats itself...

What stands out is how this magnificent and much-touted wonder deal will actually add 0.02 per cent to GDP - or "might" add. I wonder how that figure compares to a drop in GDP due to Brexit.

Leroy42

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

What stands out is how this magnificent and much-touted wonder deal will actually add 0.02 per cent to GDP - or "might" add. I wonder how that figure compares to a drop in GDP due to Brexit.

But that is the same mistake remainers made in relation to the ref itself.

The numbers don't actually matter. It is the symbolism of it. This is the 1st new trade deal (as opposed to a rollover of the existing EU deal) and thus, just it's very existence is proof that Brexit works.

Part of the 'rationale' for Brexit was being able to do their own trade deals. And this will deliver on that promise. What the deal actually means isn't really important since nobody really understood what being part of the EU meant and thus they are not likely to care what a trade deal, 15 years down the line, will mean.

Its a win, a poke in the eye of the slow, bureaucratic EU that still has no deal with OZ. UK is back on the world stage.

That is all that matters. A few farmers may have to sell up, but sure they are no loss anyway and they were probably going to retire at some stage.

I told ya

Igotadose wrote: »

Is there a site tracking the 'current state' of Brexit? Besides the banging on about the NI Protocol, I can't imagine things are going well for fishermen, food industry, hauliers.

Nothing on independent or bbc... like there's a news blackout about Brexit with all the attention directed to the headbangers in NI. NI's actually a small problem for Brexit imo. Losing big chunks of the City's business will matter much more.

Try this one.

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/the-davis-downside-dossier/

ancapailldorcha

Leroy42 wrote: »

But that is the same mistake remainers made in relation to the ref itself.

The numbers don't actually matter. It is the symbolism of it. This is the 1st new trade deal (as opposed to a rollover of the existing EU deal) and thus, just it's very existence is proof that Brexit works.

Part of the 'rationale' for Brexit was being able to do their own trade deals. And this will deliver on that promise. What the deal actually means isn't really important since nobody really understood what being part of the EU meant and thus they are not likely to care what a trade deal, 15 years down the line, will mean.

Its a win, a poke in the eye of the slow, bureaucratic EU that still has no deal with OZ. UK is back on the world stage.

That is all that matters. A few farmers may have to sell up, but sure they are no loss anyway and they were probably going to retire at some stage.

Exactly. Brexit was a war fought on fantasy and perception, not reality. Remainers fought based on the latter and lost for that reason. The general attitude here seems to be that terrible things are fine until they happen to me.

You see the same with the fishing industry. They were happy to sail up the Thames and campaign for Brexit not caring what it would do to anyone else. The second it affected them detrimentally, they drove to London and petulantly dropped their catches there.

MBSnr

I told ya wrote: »

Try this one.

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/the-davis-downside-dossier/

and this guy who is now in the 500 plus posts with the 'benefits'...

Here's number 1.

https://twitter.com/rdanielkelemen/status/1348964732104007680

Capt'n Midnight

I told ya wrote: »

Try this one.

https://yorkshirebylines.co.uk/the-davis-downside-dossier/

LOL at https://www.ft.com/content/625d1913-9242-4d97-9d0b-9cd6925c4e0e?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a#myft:notification:instant-email:content

officials disclosed on Sunday that recent post-Brexit trade agreements with 23 different countries included clauses that specifically prohibit manufacturers in freeport-type zones from benefiting from the deals.

Easiest trade deals ever. Unless the other countries are up to speed on what trade deals are about.

So far it's rollover of EN deals and conditions at best.
Except not all countries have rolled over, and matching any new EU deals means matching deals done without the UK's input.


How many deals have the UK done where they have better terms than the EU has ? excluding deals were there's a buy-in the background like aid to southern African countries.

Nody

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

How many deals have the UK done where they have better terms than the EU has ? excluding deals were there's a buy-in the background like aid to southern African countries.

1; the Japan deal has 5 items with better deal than EU (though EU has the right as per the FTA to get the same deal if they want); of course UK has not exported said items to Japan for at least 3 years...

Strazdas

beerguts wrote: »

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9602463/Britain-offer-Australia-trade-deal-15-year-transition-period.html?ito=native_share_article-masthead

If this report is true regarding the UK trade negotiations I am dumbfounded. This will have huge impact on certain agricultural sectors for them and it looks like they have bought in fully into the Patrick Minford ideology regarding their trade strategy.
The only plus I got from reading the comments section is that even the rabid tories are turning against this government and are even starting to question brexit

It's even rumoured that the long term Brexiteer idea might be to completely get rid of agriculture in Britain and to "rewild" the countryside (and the plebs get to eat cheap imported processed food).

BlitzKrieg

I did see a brexiteer argue for 'labgrown' being the primary food export of the UK. That the UK will embrace GMO research to an unseen scale and grow enough food to feed itself and export entirely in labs

Leroy42

But even that doesn't make any sense. Why would you grow it in a lab in the UK and then export it, when you could simply grow it a lab in whatever market you want?

So after the initial benefit, the actual advantages would soon be lost to the actual markets. There are of course certain products that need particular areas (Irish Beef etc) but Lab grown meet doesn't strike me as one of them

Strazdas

I'd say people must be looking on in amazement at Brexit Britain at the moment and wondering what on earth they are up to. The idea that they would wipe out their agriculture industry on a whim in order to sign "free trade deals" with the likes of Australia, when they had a ready made single market on their doorstep.

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

1; the Japan deal has 5 items with better deal than EU (though EU has the right as per the FTA to get the same deal if they want); of course UK has not exported said items to Japan for at least 3 years...

But if the EU can get the same deal anytime how are the Brexiteers going to continue to paint it as a win ?

IIRC for selling Blue Cheese to Japan the old EU quota still applies. The UK gets to use any surplus quota the EU haven't filled. The value to the UK could be as much as one entry level McLaren car or zero if the EU fill the market first.

CelticRambler

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I did see a brexiteer argue for 'labgrown' being the primary food export of the UK. That the UK will embrace GMO research to an unseen scale and grow enough food to feed itself and export entirely in labs

That'd be an interesting argument to have with a real life Brexiter, to see how they join the dots - because it's full of holes. For the UK to embrace GMO, they'd have to do a hell of a lot of catching up with the US, while the US continues to push the boundaries of the definition of "food".

GMO in itself isn't all that great - you can only use the "M" part to address problems caused by the environment in which the "O" is being produced, and that requires a functional agricultural sector, preferably on an industrial scale. Britain simply doesn't have the climate and landscape to take advantage of GMO in any world-changing way ... or to put it another way, anything Britain can do, China, India, Brazil, Nigeria and the US can do better.

And, as hinted at in another post, the driving force behind "lab grown" food is the ability to produce it close to the source of consumption. This can be extended to the "factory" production of fruit and veg in towns and cities - minimal food miles, considerably less wastage, and no seasonality.

Even if you try to make the case for revenue coming back to the UK from overseas subsidiaries, this is going to run up against the efforts of the US and the EU to take their cut of that in the country of production/consumption. Britain might well opt out of an eventual global agreement on this point ... but they'll be told to opt in again if they want access to the markets concerned.

All-in-all, this kind of suggestion is symbolic and symptomatic of the Brexit mindset: think of an idea and run with it, but don't ever try to evaluate it against realistic parameters.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

All-in-all, this kind of suggestion is symbolic and symptomatic of the Brexit mindset: think of an idea and run with it, but don't ever try to evaluate it against realistic parameters.

I thought they were going for global Britain - leader in technology with all these high tech companies fostered by the £billions of seed funding from Cummins and his mates ideas.

I do not see factory grown chemical food being anything above bottom feeding. People will not like it.

BlitzKrieg

Leroy42 wrote: »

But even that doesn't make any sense. Why would you grow it in a lab in the UK and then export it, when you could simply grow it a lab in whatever market you want?

So after the initial benefit, the actual advantages would soon be lost to the actual markets. There are of course certain products that need particular areas (Irish Beef etc) but Lab grown meet doesn't strike me as one of them

you can follow his posting here on reddit and see if he adds anything more to it

https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/ngz46j/what_are_the_positive_sides_of_brexit/gyv30ki/

All he stated was 'lab meat' is the future.

Capt'n Midnight

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

you can follow his posting here on reddit and see if he adds anything more to it

https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/ngz46j/what_are_the_positive_sides_of_brexit/gyv30ki/

All he stated was 'lab meat' is the future.

And fusion power is 10 years away. Just like it's been since they announced it was 'too cheap to meter' back in 1954...

The people that used to make the BBC home computer were sold off a long time ago. One Brexit myth is to be able to invest in such technologies. Given their track record it's unlikely. Which is a shame since the CPU Acorn designed is used by most of the world's population everyday in mobile phones. Hindsight is a precise science. Unless the plan is to siphon funds off to the chumocacy.


Like other Brexit technologies lab meat doesn't exist or foreigners are better at it or UK would be under cut on costs. Yes it's technically possible. But not remotely economic or sustainable yet.

And there's still the issue that all the products so far depend on animal extracts to feed the cells. It's like using fossil fuel inputs to produce a smaller quantity of 'bio-diesel'. ie. greenwashing.

Igotadose

Speaking of Brexit and Meat, British farmers are pushing back on the no-tariff deal being mooted with Australia. Supposedly the value of the deal is about 500 million pounds (.02% of the UK GDP.)

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/britain-beefs-with-australian-farmers-as-boris-johnson-backs-trade-deal-20210520-p57tnz.html

CelticRambler

They didn't listen to the fishermen, why would they listen to the farmers?

As it happens, though, I don't think British beef farmers have anything to worry about on this particular point. Australian beef production is on the slide, after years of drought have made it impossible to farm like before. They're struggling to maintain their existing markets (mostly Asian) so wouldn't really have anything spare with which to flood the UK. If anyone's going to slaughter them, it'll be us! :pac:

joeysoap

The boss of Iceland was on QT on Thursday. Says he can't see it. Costs of transport and carbon footprint would make it just as expensive as other beef/lamb.

Sam Russell

joeysoap wrote: »

The boss of Iceland was on QT on Thursday. Says he can't see it. Costs of transport and carbon footprint would make it just as expensive as other beef/lamb.

Would Australian beef not be frozen to travel that far?

It would at least need specialist transport.