Brexit discussion thread II

Capt'n Midnight · 01-10-2017 10:30AM

Nody wrote: »

And here is how the businesses will respond.

You see the businesses don't give a damn about the game and who wins or losses; they need a deal or they are out of there and the Tories can stand around crying how unfair it is all they want. That is why EU has the upper hand over UK in the negotiations; no deal they get more companies coming over, deal and they get less interruption in existing export. However for UK it's no deal and the businesses leave, deal and only some of the business leaves.

Many call centres and web hosting sites already divert operations to offshore hubs when they don't have the capacity in the UK.

Lots of service jobs are in sectors with minimal investment in capital. The buildings are leased. They can walk away next time it's up for renewal.

At the other extreme are the likes of Intel who have massive capital investment but, they have to reinvest hugely every few years as technology moves on. So they don't need to spend much extra to change countries as they will have to build a completely new production line anyway. Yes having a skilled workforce helps , but so does a free flowing supply chain.

It's only the middle that is tied to the UK, older industries where technology doesn't change much. But they are the ones that may be at risk from global competition. Heavy industry.

Samaris · 01-10-2017 10:45AM

Those heavy industries, would they be the sort that Trump is focussed on having back up and running in the US?

Capt'n Midnight · 01-10-2017 11:07AM

Samaris wrote: »

Those heavy industries, would they be the sort that Trump is focussed on having back up and running in the US?

Isn't Trump the guy who's happy about slapping a 220% tariff on products from their closest neighbour that they have a free trade deal with ?

Sam Russell · 01-10-2017 11:09AM

Samaris wrote: »

Those heavy industries, would they be the sort that Trump is focussed on having back up and running in the US?

Are they not the industries closed by Margaret Thatcher - ship building, coal, steel, and car building.

Cars are now assembled by foreign owned companies. Steel is owned by Tata, an Indian owned company. Ship building is only carried out for the British Government for their very expensive aircraft carriers.

So what's left?

Tropheus · 01-10-2017 11:15AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

May was pretty unconvincing on Andrew Marr just now. Deflection and distraction throughout.

Nothing new there.

steddyeddy · 01-10-2017 11:19AM

May is useless but what's the alternative? Mogg or Johnson? Two men who couldn't be more out of touch with how life works in the real world.

Nody · 01-10-2017 11:38AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

May is useless but what's the alternative? Mogg or Johnson? Two men who couldn't be more out of touch with how life works in the real world.

I can't recall who said it in regards to the leadership battle but it's not the candidates we know today that will sweep it but one of the 50:1 candidates and I tend to agree. You've exactly pointed out why that has to be the case; none of the current "short list" candidates are up to scrap; they need someone new at the top with a new vision or they will face a harsh response at the next election.

Sam Russell · 01-10-2017 11:39AM

Nody wrote: »

I can't recall who said it in regards to the leadership battle but it's not the candidates we know today that will sweep it but one of the 50:1 candidates and I tend to agree. You've exactly pointed out why that has to be the case; none of the current "short list" candidates are up to scrap; they need someone new at the top with a new vision or they will face a harsh response at the next election.

You mean like Corbyn? Labour have revitalised behind him.

Professor Moriarty · 01-10-2017 11:41AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

May is useless but what's the alternative? Mogg or Johnson? Two men who couldn't be more out of touch with how life works in the real world.

I'd be delighted if either became leader of the Tories.

solodeogloria · 01-10-2017 11:54AM

prinzeugen wrote: »

I think May is playing a clever game.

She is attempting to negotiate, offering to pay part of "the bill" etc.

But the EU? No, No, No.

What I can see happening is the UK will walk without any agreement and it wont be the UK's fault.

It will be the fault of the EU.

When it happens the UK government can turn round and say "we tried but they were not interested".

Good morning!

I don't think it's clever but simply the inevitability of dealing with an unreasonable party.

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises but the EU are insisting that unless the UK 100% agree with their position on three issues that the EU will not move forward.

It's when you reach that point that you see that you're dealing with an unreasonable party.

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris · 01-10-2017 12:00PM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Isn't Trump the guy who's happy about slapping a 220% tariff on products from their closest neighbour that they have a free trade deal with ?

Sam Russell wrote: »

Are they not the industries closed by Margaret Thatcher - ship building, coal, steel, and car building.

Cars are now assembled by foreign owned companies. Steel is owned by Tata, an Indian owned company. Ship building is only carried out for the British Government for their very expensive aircraft carriers.

So what's left?

I dunno, are they? That's what I'm asking

I'll take that as a yes though, in which case, that does indicate that the UK is somewhat screwed in terms of competition. They were rather relying on the US being in solidarity with their political goals and giving them nice deals in recognition of that. However, since Trump has the loyalty and foresight of an oyster in a hurricane...yeah, May should have seen this coming.

I think she did, tbh. She was being very, very cautious in not criticizing Trump when it was possible to get around it by being quiet. Don't think it worked, although it would probably have just happened sooner if she had.

Nate--IRL-- · 01-10-2017 12:05PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

So be it.

Nate

Water John · 01-10-2017 12:07PM

All eyes on the nuances and conniving in Manchester, for the week.

Boris and Mogg will be looking as to have they got any real traction.
Sadly it seems the Conservatives have no heavy thinker, in their midst. Some one may pop up during the week.

Nody · 01-10-2017 12:12PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

You mean like Corbyn? Labour have revitalised behind him.

Yes but I think they need to go through the Brexit and crash out badly from the fall out from the electorate for that to happen to ensure the hard wing Brexiteers can be properly neutered and ignored going forward.

steddyeddy · 01-10-2017 12:15PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think it's clever but simply the inevitability of dealing with an unreasonable party.

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises but the EU are insisting that unless the UK 100% agree with their position on three issues that the EU will not move forward.

It's when you reach that point that you see that you're dealing with an unreasonable party.

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You asked why I don't think you believe your posts.

One good example is that you list things like:

"The UK have made a lot of comprimises"

Then change your mind when prompted to name some by other posters.

murphaph · 01-10-2017 12:21PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think it's clever but simply the inevitability of dealing with an unreasonable party.

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises but the EU are insisting that unless the UK 100% agree with their position on three issues that the EU will not move forward.

It's when you reach that point that you see that you're dealing with an unreasonable party.

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Oh just go then. On Brexit day when you can't get a flight out of the UK don't say you weren't warned. By then Ireland will have battened down the hatches as much as possible, with assistance from our EU partners. We'll have to see how we ride this nonsense out. I expect relocation agents will be the only ones doing a good trade in the UK at that stage.

flatty · 01-10-2017 12:25PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Nody wrote: »

I can't recall who said it in regards to the leadership battle but it's not the candidates we know today that will sweep it but one of the 50:1 candidates and I tend to agree. You've exactly pointed out why that has to be the case; none of the current "short list" candidates are up to scrap; they need someone new at the top with a new vision or they will face a harsh response at the next election.

You mean like Corbyn? Labour have revitalised behind him.

They haven't really. Their main vote winner was the scrapping of tuition fees, and it's easily mimicked. The tories are in disarray, there are enough voters opposed to brexit, that anyone other than the tories would do, and the lib dems have managed, somehow, to become so irrelevant, mainly through their leadership choices, that a swathe of the country held their noses and voted Labour in the likely vain hope that might avert a tory driven brexit.
If a centre party formed the non hard left labour, and non hard right tory, with a mandate of a revote on brexit now that the ramifications are slightly more exposed, if they had a credible leader (David miliband perhaps, or Ken Clarke or Vince Cable even), they would have a huge broad based support.
It would need big names from the centre of both parties to sign up, and lots of them, but I think they could take power and hold it, and avert needless recession for this generation at least.

solodeogloria · 01-10-2017 12:30PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

You asked why I don't think you believe your posts.

One good example is that you list things like:

"The UK have made a lot of comprimises"

Then change your mind when prompted to name some by other posters.

Good afternoon!

If we want to have a good discussion we need to read posts and we need to stop lying about other posters.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I've seen a lot of reasonable compromises proposed by the British government. I've seen movement on all three issues from Davis. For example continuing contributions for transition, joint arbitration, rights for EU nationals to seek recourse through the Supreme Court if the agreement rights are reneged upon, customs partnership in the border, free travel for EU citizens into the UK. I could probably even list more.

We need to be honest.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy · 01-10-2017 12:35PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If we want to have a good discussion we need to read posts and we need to stop lying about other posters.

We need to be honest.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I don't think you understand what comprimise means. These were offers made by Davis, not comprimise based on the EU's position.

Water John · 01-10-2017 12:36PM

May not need a new political party, just those who don't support Brexit to tell the respective whips, go jump.
For once do your job as an MP and vote with your beliefs and conscience.

Inquitus · 01-10-2017 12:49PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If we want to have a good discussion we need to read posts and we need to stop lying about other posters.

We need to be honest.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Everything you say is utterly dishonest, the UK hasn't compromised one jot on the key areas, and unless they do, nothing is going to come of this charade. The Tory cabinet are at each others throats, they can't even agree between them what a Brexit should look like, how can the EU negotiate with them in good faith when their position changes on a weekly basis.

The Rape of Lucretia · 01-10-2017 12:52PM

Water John wrote: »

May not need a new political party, just those who don't support Brexit to tell the respective whips, go jump.
For once do your job as an MP and vote with your beliefs and conscience.

There is an absence of democratic honesty in that though. The referendum wasa democratic vote - spin, lies, jongoism, etc notwithstanding.
MPs must go with it.

The chance to vote as you say was at the last general election - any MP or candidate would have to say they were going to vote against Brexit in all forms tell the whips to go whistle if elected.

They cannot do so now without another election and stating their position.

If all did so - and a Brexit-reversal majority was elected, then backing out would have some legitimacy.

Calina · 01-10-2017 12:54PM

Contributions during transition is not a compromise. If transition means norhing changes then it is the bare minimum to be expected The EU does not have to agree to transition.

When the UK deals with its Home Office ignoring its own courts, the UK court system might be adequate. But the govt had to be dragged screaming into giving parliament a vote on Article 50 AND the budget allocation to NI courtesy of the DUP deal which puts Britain very possibly in breach of the GFA. Given the latest investigation on illegal deportations of EU citizens, and the contempt of court fun with the Home Office in a refugee case you can conclude that the power of the UK courts is somewhat limited.

Details on the customs partnership: provide them. Last I heard was they were vaporware with fantasies about drones. Please update me on that.

The UK hardly provides free travel for its own citizens. I assume you mean visa free.

I sat in a talk in Brussels yesterday with young British people. The fact that they turned up suggests they still hope desperately that Brexit won't happen. I fear their hope is misplaced. When I read posts like yours, solo, I particularly fear their hope is misplaced.

steddyeddy · 01-10-2017 01:04PM

Inquitus wrote: »

Everything you say is utterly dishonest, the UK hasn't compromised one jot on the key areas, and unless they do nothing is going to come of this charade. The Tory cabinet are at each others throats, they can't even agree between them what a Brexit should look like, how can the EU negotiate with them in good faith when their position changes on a weekly basis.

Indeed. Empty platitudes with complete dishonesty. A belief in ideology rather than facts.

Samaris · 01-10-2017 01:17PM

Can anyone actually enumerate the compromises that the UK has offered? Solo, you seem to know the most about them, what compromises are there and how do they differ from initial positions (as others have asked too).

It's a straight-forward question based entirely on your claims, so it should be fairly easy to answer.

swampgas · 01-10-2017 01:32PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

I don't think it's clever but simply the inevitability of dealing with an unreasonable party.

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises but the EU are insisting that unless the UK 100% agree with their position on three issues that the EU will not move forward.

It's when you reach that point that you see that you're dealing with an unreasonable party.

If Britain leaves with no deal it will be simply because the EU have been unreasonable. I don't see any point in continuing these discussions unless the EU are willing to come to a middle ground on all three of these issues and a prospective deal.

Try replacing "EU" with "EU-27" in your post above and see if it gets across where I think Brexit thinking is going wrong. Yes, the EU-27 are presenting a single negotiating team, but this doesn't mean that this is anything like a bilateral discussion as might happen between two countries.

The EU is a complex arrangement between 28 (soon to be 27) different countries. This arrangement is far too important to the EU-27 to have it ripped asunder and re-engineered to placate a UK government that doesn't really know what it wants beyond a cake-and-eat it approach that would give it a much better deal than any other of the EU-27 countries.

If the UK want out, fine, but complaining that the EU-27 won't re-model the EU to suit their preferred model is disrespectful towards the other 27 sovereign states and their own democratically elected governments.

The EU isn't all about the UK. Maybe the self-obsessed UK need to understand that?

The Rape of Lucretia · 01-10-2017 01:34PM

Samaris wrote: »

Can anyone actually enumerate the compromises that the UK has offered? Solo, you seem to know the most about them, what compromises are there and how do they differ from initial positions (as others have asked too).

It's a straight-forward question based entirely on your claims, so it should be fairly easy to answer.

So easy that there is a strong reluctance.

Specifically the compromises should relate to the divorce, not the future relationship. But ones on any topic, even if the details of the divorce havnt been agreed and so one on the future relationship are premature, would be welcome.

The bottom line is there havnt been any. The UK is still trying to come to terms with the politics of the road they have set out on - one for which they were completely unprepared - and so are incapable of knowing how the separation should be settled, much less, their position on the future relationship, and by consequence what they could compromise on.

Oh, other than chimeric nonsense like cherry picking, having the cake and eating it, being in the EU predominantly but being able to keep the English lower classes happy by saying they are not in it, etc. Otherwise known as imaginative and creative solutions. Fantasy in other words, while the UK comes to terms with the reality that what they set out to do is simply impossible - but are too traumatised to acknowledge at the moment.

It truly is the extraordinary political fûk up of our times.

The Rape of Lucretia · 01-10-2017 01:43PM

swampgas wrote: »

If the UK want out, fine, but complaining that the EU-27 won't re-model the EU to suit their preferred model is disrespectful towards the other 27 sovereign states and their own democratically elected governments.

The EU isn't all about the UK. Maybe the self-obsessed UK need to understand that?

Indeed. But it doesnt. The Brexit black cloud hanging over it is truly colouring their view of everything and is an imminent calamity for them. But that the EU does not have the same cloud over it, is really not understood. Brexit is one of many issues the EU is dealing with. And, whatever the details of Brexit, will pretty much carry on as before. Which is not the case for the UK. The self-obsession is understandable - it has not faced such a crisis since June 1940. The tragedy is, this time it is totally self inflicted, so interest in helping them out is minimal.
The UK does not appreciate that Brexit news is not headline news on a daily basis in Europe. It is minor article update stuff, buried within the papers, that most people arent really following at all. Ireland, as the country that truly is vulnerable to the resulting turbulence, and being a bit of a UK press follower anyway, is the only one following the tragic show.

mickoneill31 · 01-10-2017 01:56PM

Samaris wrote: »

Can anyone actually enumerate the compromises that the UK has offered? Solo, you seem to know the most about them, what compromises are there and how do they differ from initial positions (as others have asked too).

It's a straight-forward question based entirely on your claims, so it should be fairly easy to answer.

+1 to that. Looking forward to the next post from Solo where he/she answers the question with an answer, rather than

a) going off on a tangent
or
b) saying "I've said it frequent times on this post and won't type it again".

The quote was

solodeogloria wrote: »

The UK have made a lot of very reasonable compromises

So we should get a list of at least 4 or 5 I'd say.

steddyeddy · 01-10-2017 01:59PM

The EU commision is investigating the UK over treatment of EU citizens, including deportation and detention.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/sep/30/brussels-uk-deported-eu-citizens?CMP=fb_gu

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments