Brexit discussion thread II

Lemming · 27-08-2017 03:26PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

I thought Fred lived in South Dublin. Please explain why you think Britain needs Brexit?

It's quite simple really; the referendum vote has - to put it bluntly - broken something in England's* national consciousness. Whether it's broken 'something' or simply allowed jingoism bubble to the surface in greater volume is irrelevant; the Brexit religion is being driven primarily by English nationalism's attempts to reassert itself and/or figure out its standing in the world. Even if Brexit is halted tomorrow with all sins forgiven, the Brexit narrative would linger and fester. In medical parlance, the cancer has reached the patients brain and is now terminal. In order for Brexit to die, Brexit has to be allowed happen, and for the people to see just how great an idea it really is, and for whom.

* When I say "England" or "English", I mean just that.

First Up · 27-08-2017 03:37PM

Lemming wrote:

In order for Brexit to die, Brexit has to be allowed happen, and for the people to see just how great an idea it really is, and for whom.

I have some sympathy for what you say but blood-letting makes a mess and it was dropped as a medical practice some time ago.

I'd prefer to see the blood spilled over the floor of Westminster than all over the British economy. A Tory implosion, a (Corbynless) Labour/SD revival, an election and a return to sanity would be preferable in my book.

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 03:49PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It is remarkable that when the Labour party makes a massive climb down that nobody calls Jeremy Corbyn the U-turn king.

Actually the Labour position isn't that remarkable at present. Calling for temporary membership of the single market and customs union and with a transition before new customs arrangements, immigration arrangements and trade arrangements come into force is quite sensible and isn't a million miles away from what the Tories are asking for.

I think a good order of implementing Brexit is to slowly pull out of the customs union and arrange new customs arrangements then after building up trade terms pull out of the single market and end free movement.

I would be still seeking controls on low skilled labour after 2019. Immigration isn't my hottest issue. Control over trade terms is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good evening S. I apologise if I have been dismissive of your position. Your posts are well written and clear. However, there's some things I don't get with your position.

You said you voted remain, yet clearly your beliefs are aligned with the leave side. You said immigration isn't your hottest issue, implying it is an issue. You also seem to think that all of the negotiating teams ideas are viable and their aims are realistic. You clearly believe Brexit is a good thing. Then why did you vote remain?

solodeogloria · 27-08-2017 03:56PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good evening S. I apologise if I have been dismissive of your position. Your posts are well written and clear. However, there's some things I don't get with your position.

You said you voted remain, yet clearly your beliefs are aligned with the leave side. You said immigration isn't your hottest issue, implying it is an issue. You also seem to think that all of the negotiating teams ideas are viable and their aims are realistic. You clearly believe Brexit is a good thing. Then why did you vote remain?

Good afternoon!

I don't know why you ask this as if I haven't answered this already on this thread. I have and many times. I voted remain because I voted for the status quo. I also believed the projections from the Treasury and the IMF which were wrong. I think I started off by arguing that the UK should leave to respect the referendum. I've now settled on the conclusion that the UK is better off outside the EU.

I think I was wrong about Brexit. I think there are definitely opportunities outside of the EU if Brexit is carried out carefully. That's key. Brexit is only a good thing in the right circumstances.

As for immigration controls, I think these should only be sought for low skilled labour. There were clear concerns about this in the referendum and I think it needs to be dealt with.

I think we'll see something between what the EU are seeking and what Britain are seeking. I don't believe the no deal scenario is likely at all.

The thing I find more bizarre is why people think the UK cannot succeed outside of the EU. I see plenty of opportunities when I put my mind to it. The idea that you need the EU to be a successful free-trading Western nation is obviously not true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 03:58PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I don't know why you ask this as if I haven't answered this already on this thread. I have and many times. I voted remain because I voted for the status quo. I also believed the projections from the Treasury and the IMF which were wrong. I think I started off by arguing that the UK should leave to respect the referendum. I've now settled on the conclusion that the UK is better off outside the EU.

I think I was wrong about Brexit. I think there are definitely opportunities outside of the EU if Brexit is carried out carefully. That's key. Brexit is only a good thing in the right circumstances.

As for immigration controls, I think these should only be sought for low skilled labour. There were clear concerns about this in the referendum and I think it needs to be dealt with.

I think we'll see something between what the EU are seeking and what Britain are seeking. I don't believe the no deal scenario is likely at all.

The thing I find more bizarre is why people think the UK cannot succeed outside of the EU. I see plenty of opportunities when I put my mind to it. The idea that you need the EU to be a successful free-trading Western nation is obviously not true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thanks for your answer. The bit in bold is true since we have an example of what Britain looked like outside of the EU. it wasn't pretty and the country was close to bankruptcy.

solodeogloria · 27-08-2017 04:01PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thanks for your answer. The bit in bold is true since we have an example of what Britain looked like outside of the EU. it wasn't pretty and the country was close to bankruptcy.

Good afternoon!

I've answered this point already. You need to consider who was in Government at the time and the backdrop to that crisis.

You also need to consider the role of Margaret Thatcher in reforming the UK economy.

Claiming that the EEC rescued Britain is simplistic. Even if it did the EEC in the 1970's and the EU today are very different things. The world today is also very different to the world in the 1970's. The EU's place in the world is different today economically speaking than it was in the 1970's.

Repeating the same old points again and again and again and again do not make them more convincing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 04:10PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've answered this point already. You need to consider who was in Government at the time and the backdrop to that crisis.

You also need to consider the role of Margaret Thatcher in reforming the UK economy.

Claiming that the EEC rescued Britain is simplistic. Even if it did the EEC in the 1970's and the EU today are very different things. The world today is also very different to the world in the 1970's. The EU's place in the world is different today economically speaking than it was in the 1970's.

Repeating the same old points again and again and again and again do not make them more convincing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I don't think it can all be put down to Thatcher. It's simplistic to say so. The UK economy joined a big single market and grew in correlation with that single market. If Britain is so strong without the single market surely they don't need a trade deal. They could just fall back on WTO rules. Also I'm having a hard time believing you don't believe the treasury department but believe predictions made by Brexiters.

By the way Britain's economy is already showing signs of serious slowdown as Reuters details:

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s economy is beginning to feel the Brexit pinch, or perhaps given the strong performance of the rest of the world economy, it should be punch.

After a prolonged period of relatively benign economic numbers following last year’s vote to leave the European Union, there are now signs of a potentially serious slow down.

They stretch from retrenching households to hesitant businesses, from a widening trade deficit to lacklustre manufacturing. They also come just as the EU and Britain return to the negotiating table, the latter with a handful of new post-Brexit position papers.

Since mid-August, London has been releasing official papers on issues such as trade, customs, the European Court of Justice, and what the province of Northern Ireland’s future border with EU member Ireland will look like.

The performance of Britain’s pound over that period suggests few people were impressed enough with them -- or with the likelihood they will come to pass -- to overcome the economic signs.

solodeogloria · 27-08-2017 04:21PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think it can all be put down to Thatcher. It's simplistic to say so. The UK economy joined a big single market and grew in correlation with that single market. If Britain is so strong without the single market surely they don't need a trade deal. They could just fall back on WTO rules. Also I'm having a hard time believing you don't believe the treasury department but believe predictions made by Brexiters.

By the way Britain's economy is already showing signs of serious slowdown as Reuters details:

Good evening!

Again - you're misconstruing my position. The best outcome for the UK is that a trade deal is agreed that covers most of the 44% of EU exports that happens today alongside new trading arrangements to expand UK trade for the rest of the world 56%.

I don't know why you insist on caricaturing my position. The Treasury and the IMF said there would be a recession in 2017. They were wrong. The UK Government is doing much better than this in 2017. Yes, growth has slowed. I'm not under any pretence, there is a lot of work to be done.

The opportunities however are very bright if the UK handles this correctly.

I don't believe the apocalypse stories. There will be a centre position formed after the initial and inevitable argy bargy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 04:27PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Again - you're misconstruing my position. The best outcome for the UK is that a trade deal is agreed that covers most of the 44% of EU exports that happens today alongside new trading arrangements to expand UK trade for the rest of the world 56%.

Can you explain how staying in the single market doesn't satisfy these conditions?

First Up · 27-08-2017 04:32PM

steddyeddy wrote:

Can you explain how staying in the single market doesn't satisfy these conditions?

Why do you bother?

Jim2007 · 27-08-2017 04:35PM

First Up wrote: »

Not quite. It could be revoked but only if all 27 members agree -and they could each set conditions.

Under which provision of the treaties is this allowed??? I'm not aware of a single provision of the treaties that even remotely suggest that A50 can be revoked.

Jim2007 · 27-08-2017 04:43PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Repeatedly citing a metric that excludes Britain's biggest trade output namely services is silly.

We have been discussing trade agreements. And of course not even one example of what will turn those figures around after BREXIT.

solodeogloria wrote: »

48% is wrong. It was 44% in 2016,

48% as of Feb 2017!

First Up · 27-08-2017 05:45PM

Jim2007 wrote: »

Under which provision of the treaties is this allowed??? I'm not aware of a single provision of the treaties that even remotely suggest that A50 can be revoked.

The European Parliament has reportedly laid the ground for such a move, but it wouldn't be straightforward.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-50-can-be-revoked-2017-3

jm08 · 27-08-2017 06:05PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

Secondly - why do you think Britain has less chance of securing a FTA then Iceland does? You completely ignored this point.

Iceland has something that China wants - seafood. Otherwise, China has little competition from Iceland and so it suits them as well.

You need to look at what China imports to see how easy a FTA will be. The main thing I think they need is food, and the UK isn't a big food exporter. Scottish Whiskey & Salmon might be in demand as well and possibly education (but the UK is blowing that one as all the academics are leaving the UK). Tourism would be big (so easy entry visas!).

Lemming · 27-08-2017 06:07PM

First Up wrote: »

I have some sympathy for what you say but blood-letting makes a mess and it was dropped as a medical practice some time ago.

I'd prefer to see the blood spilled over the floor of Westminster than all over the British economy. A Tory implosion, a (Corbynless) Labour/SD revival, an election and a return to sanity would be preferable in my book.

You and me both, but we are where we are and it is what it is at this juncture.

First Up · 27-08-2017 06:19PM

Lemming wrote:

You and me both, but we are where we are and it is what it is at this juncture.

If they leave, they leave and we will all pick at the bones while getting on with it. But Brexit is going to be very ugly and there are people in the UK I care about. I'd take a few years of political chaos and social friction over the vision of the country that the likes of Farage have in mind.

Jim2007 · 27-08-2017 06:51PM

First Up wrote: »

The European Parliament has reportedly laid the ground for such a move, but it wouldn't be straightforward.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution-article-50-can-be-revoked-2017-3

The EU parliament has no authority to change a treaty and no amount of resolutions can change that. Any EU citizen (suggest UKIP member) could take a case requiring that A50 be completed.

Capt'n Midnight · 27-08-2017 07:10PM

jm08 wrote: »

Iceland has something that China wants - seafood. Otherwise, China has little competition from Iceland and so it suits them as well.

You need to look at what China imports to see how easy a FTA will be. The main thing I think they need is food, and the UK isn't a big food exporter. Scottish Whiskey & Salmon might be in demand as well and possibly education (but the UK is blowing that one as all the academics are leaving the UK). Tourism would be big (so easy entry visas!).

I've already posted that the UK has already bent the knee to China , using its EU influence to allow steel dumping.

BTW thanks to lots of cheap energy 70% of Iceland's electricity is used to smelt Aluminium. And the North East passage is open these days. And China is a nett exporter of aluminium, so conflict of interest there.

Iceland exports fish to the EU along with aluminium and now pharma.

First Up · 27-08-2017 07:11PM

Jim2007 wrote:

The EU parliament has no authority to change a treaty and no amount of resolutions can change that. Any EU citizen (suggest UKIP member) could take a case requiring that A50 be completed.

The UK would need to go through its own steps but if they asked to revoke A50, it would be the EP that would approve the process, subject to the agreement of all 27 members.

It has never happened so we would be in uncharted water but the EU makes its laws and can amend them.

Lemming · 27-08-2017 07:19PM

First Up wrote: »

If they leave, they leave and we will all pick at the bones while getting on with it. But Brexit is going to be very ugly and there are people in the UK I care about. I'd take a few years of political chaos and social friction over the vision of the country that the likes of Farage have in mind.

It is going to be incredibly ugly any which way it pans out now because of where the UK's "leaders" braying donkeys have led the union. Back out and there'll be political & social chaos; proceed and there'll be political, social, and economic chaos on a scale not imagined - not even in the sh1ttest days of the sh1ttest years of 1980s Britain. The union - and indeed England - has quite literally been torn in two with little hope of reconciliation. All those people pinning their hopes on Labour to halt the madness - specifically Corbyn's Labour - are going to be bitterly angry which will only add fuel to the political chaos.

First Up · 27-08-2017 07:44PM

Lemming wrote:

All those people pinning their hopes on Labour to halt the madness - specifically Corbyn's Labour - are going to be bitterly angry which will only add fuel to the political chaos.

I'm not pinning any hopes on Corbyn or Labour. I don't think there is anything much to be hopeful about. But there is almost certainly going to be chaos and who knows how that will end up.

solodeogloria · 27-08-2017 07:51PM

Good evening!

steddyeddy wrote: »

Can you explain how staying in the single market doesn't satisfy these conditions?

It could potentially if the UK left the customs union. Norway has the right to carry out it's own free trade agreements. That's a great advantage.

The reason why the Norwegian option is off the table is because it doesn't allow the UK to begin to control immigration. I agree that the UK can't cherry pick what it likes from single market membership which is why I think being outside with a third party free trade deal is better.

First Up wrote: »

Why do you bother?

It's hard being one of the few people providing genuine balance on this thread.

There's really no need to be so rude. We don't have to agree and you don't have to reply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

First Up · 27-08-2017 07:55PM

solodeogloria wrote:

There's really no need to be so rude. We don't have to agree and you don't have to reply.

I wasn't talking to you.

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 07:58PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

It could potentially if the UK left the customs union. Norway has the right to carry out it's own free trade agreements. That's a great advantage.

The reason why the Norwegian option is off the table is because it doesn't allow the UK to begin to control immigration. I agree that the UK can't cherry pick what it likes from single market membership which is why I think being outside with a third party free trade deal is better.

It's hard being one of the few people providing genuine balance on this thread.

There's really no need to be so rude. We don't have to agree and you don't have to reply.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

No, you missunderstand. If the best deal for the UK involves getting the most they can from the single market then why not stay in the single market.

Also who has indicated they might trade with the UK?

Nody · 27-08-2017 08:00PM

Lemming wrote: »

It is going to be incredibly ugly any which way it pans out now because of where the UK's "leaders" braying donkeys have led the union. Back out and there'll be political & social chaos; proceed and there'll be political, social, and economic chaos on a scale not imagined - not even in the sh1ttest days of the sh1ttest years of 1980s Britain. The union - and indeed England - has quite literally been torn in two with little hope of reconciliation. All those people pinning their hopes on Labour to halt the madness - specifically Corbyn's Labour - are going to be bitterly angry which will only add fuel to the political chaos.

I can see where you're coming from but I'll play you a slightly different scenario which I think is more likely.

Hard brexit happens in some form, trade deal with EU will be negotiated after with a spin on how it's all EU's fault really. Keep in mind all the newspapers are spinning this story how EU were really a bunch of country oafs who refused the reasonable and even at times noble offers and sacrifices of UK. But don't worry; UK's leadership team has delivered on their promise and they will sort this out in a jiffy just wait and see. Election comes around and still no trade deals on the table but promises Tory we're due to close them any day now and it will allow honey and milk to run down the streets while yet another leadership struggle is ongoing in the party. Now during these years food prices have gone up due to more imports are required as the UK farmers can't get the numbers of short term unskilled labour required to harvest, energy costs are up etc. and salaries are not growing with inflation. Any bad news from EU are seized up on as proof of why leaving EU was the right thing to do; I expect Bulgaria, Poland and Slovakia may be examples here of fines for not following the rules etc.

Corbyn takes the election on the promise of green forests and a new improved social economy with a raised minimum wage, increased decentralisation and more money to everyone (somehow). Of course Corbyn fails to unite his party's wings and the polices promised are not delivered or have the intended effect. The new minimum wage due to inflation, lower hours and business not doing to hot simply leads to more people unemployed or working less hours overall. The decentralisation has lead to the different regional parliaments all wanting to go in their own direction all stoking their local version of nationalism for why they are right and should get more money.

Overall by 2024 the economy has stagnated, the previous economical powerhouse of London providing the cash to the rest of UK keeps providing less and less tax money as banks move out function by function in a drip drop effect. There's been multiple articles series about the NHS "brain drain" of students moving to Dubai, Australia etc. (but not EU or only as a side note) but the real loss is from the non NHS companies. Not only can they not recruit all the skilled people they need they had a huge brain drain which they can't replace with UK or non UK staff leading to more outsourcing of work to India and the like. The manufacturing business has taken a hit from the FTA with China and USA where USA has run out most of the mid/lower end farming out of business due to being allowed to use lower than UK standards to produce leaving only the more exclusive stuff around. China on the other hand has taken on a lot of the manufacturing jobs and doing inroads on services. There are regular complaints about China's state funded companies dumping prices and having unfair competition but UK government don't dare to raise a real WTO dispute and settle for diplomat complaints etc. which China promises to fix (but never do). People complain about the poor quality compared to the old days but in the end the buyers vote with their feet for the cheapest product anyway as they feel the pinch. The election sees Tories winning the power again with the support of a new support party.

In short I don't see a social chaos erupting as much as a slow decay of living standards, food standards etc. The working and middle class will not rise in uproar but will be lead around the nose by the press with faux uproars about this or that to distract them from the morass that UK is finding themselves in. I'd predict it taking at least 4 or 5 elections before a major (i.e. top two) party would even suggest considering rejoining EU again and that party is unlikely to win while the press runs a long campaign of "how bad it is in EU" during the election cycle while during these years those who can and have the will are actively leaving the country for greener pastures delivering a significant brain drain on the economy and people who works as firebrands to change things around. To stop the people feeling and economy from feeling to much pain the government will constantly increase their borrowing until the point IMF will have to get involved. Think Argentina more than Venezuela basically.

solodeogloria · 27-08-2017 08:11PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

No, you missunderstand. If the best deal for the UK involves getting the most they can from the single market then why not stay in the single market.

Also who has indicated they might trade with the UK?

Hi,

My opinion is still that being outside after a transition is better. There's a lot of potential answers to what's the best trade deal for the UK. The best one in my mind would be one that gives the maximum amount of control with the maximum amount of trade.

Given that single market membership doesn't allow for addressing one of the major issues in the referendum it seems politically unacceptable. If the EU were willing to allow for controls on low skilled labour I would consider it but I would be accused of asking for pick and mix membership of the single market. Note that I don't support controls on skilled labour apart from a show of qualifications and agreed salary.

As discussed already leaving the customs union after a transition again is the only option that allows the UK to agree trade deals with other countries. So that has to be out also.

Now on the transition. I personally would be willing to accept membership of both for a transition. Why? I think it's because (as good as the Government's proposals are) they will be deemed unacceptable in Brussels.

A gradual get out plan which would drop customs union membership after 2 years and single market membership after 4 years after agreeing trade terms with the EU and done third countries would seem reasonable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy · 27-08-2017 08:17PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Hi,

My opinion is still that being outside after a transition is better. There's a lot of potential answers to what's the best trade deal for the UK. The best one in my mind would be one that gives the maximum amount of control with the maximum amount of trade.

Given that single market membership doesn't allow for addressing one of the major issues in the referendum it seems politically unacceptable. If the EU were willing to allow for controls on low skilled labour I would consider it but I would be accused of asking for pick and mix membership of the single market. Note that I don't support controls on skilled labour apart from a show of qualifications and agreed salary.

As discussed already leaving the customs union after a transition again is the only option that allows the UK to agree trade deals with other countries. So that has to be out also.

Now on the transition. I personally would be willing to accept membership of both for a transition. Why? I think it's because (as good as the Government's proposals are) they will be deemed unacceptable in Brussels.

A gradual get out plan which would drop customs union membership after 2 years and single market membership after 4 years after agreeing trade terms with the EU and done third countries would seem reasonable.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Do you understand the connection between trading partners and proximity? For instance do you think trading partners are better closer or far away?

solodeogloria · 27-08-2017 08:24PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Do you understand the connection between trading partners and proximity? For instance do you think trading partners are better closer or far away?

Good evening!

Last post for today. I agree to a degree but only a degree. Proximity is important but it's less important in the world now as it was decades ago.

Britain's trade with the wider world has been increasing. As far as single countries go America is huge. Here's what the Office of National Statistics think:

Trade relationships are usually stronger between neighbouring countries, and with countries with large economies. China and the US are large economies and are important UK trading partners even accounting for their distance from us.

However, distance is important. The value of the UK’s trading relationship with Ireland is higher than the value of UK trade with Italy or Spain. Ireland is the UK’s neighbour, even though the total size of its economy is much smaller than Italy’s or Spain’s.

It's a bit of proximity and large economies. With 56% of trade outside the EU I think the UK needs a model to allow it to better grow trade with those economies. Also proximity matters more with physical goods but not so much with services.

It also depends on the company. For example JCB do much more trade outside the EU. So much so the company owner was pro-Brexit. There are other companies that are hugely dependent on EU trade.

We need to hammer out a solution that addresses both. This is a no brainer to me.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John · 27-08-2017 08:25PM

One issue not considered in the analysis of the medium term, is the attrition of the Grim Reaper on the older citizens, the vast majority of whom voted for Brexit.

The younger voter who voted largely to remain will get angrier as the UK economy stagnates and reverses. Any one willing to play a longer game, can see the majority will be in favour of staying/rejoining the EU.
How long will it take for that to come about, 5-10 years?

First Up · 27-08-2017 09:27PM

Nody wrote:

In short I don't see a social chaos erupting as much as a slow decay of living standards, food standards etc. The working and middle class will not rise in uproar but will be lead around the nose by the press with faux uproars about this or that to distract them from the morass that UK is finding themselves in.

Slow decay and decline is certain but how it plays out politically and socially is guesswork.

UK industry will suffer and jobs will be lost. Living costs will rise but property will probably be cheaper as the market depresses and sterling falls. That will suit the Arabs and Russians but won't do much for the locals.

The nonsense about new trade deals will be exposed quickly enough but that's over the head of your average joe.

The most likely early developments will be political as I don't see either the Tories or Labour coming through intact. The Brexiteers won't be happy when the negotiators come back with their heads under their arms and the Labour left will have to be seen to respond to the impact on the working man (who will be working less.)

We'll see new party leaders emerge; I just hope some of them aren't populist opportunists. The UK is desperately short of people up to the job but it sort of serves them right; you got the politicians you elect - and deserve.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments