Brexit discussion thread III

Professor Moriarty · 23-04-2018 03:36PM

MBSnr wrote: »

From Digital Spy forums

Rolls-Royce mulls European move as Brexit deal worries grow
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/04/23/rolls-royce-mulls-european-move-brexit-deal-worries-grow/

From the article:

"...as the EU aviation authority will hold the right to certify they are safe to fly in the event of a hard Brexit."

This is an example of what Pascal Lamy (former Head of WTO and ex-Eu Trade Commisioner) is emphasising repeatedly. It's not the tariffs that will catch Britain, it's the regulations.

Leroy42 · 23-04-2018 03:41PM

ambro25 wrote: »

The UK economy was never going to fall off a cliff in June 2016, no more than it will fall off a cliff come April 2019 come-what-may (and that includes an accidental hard Brexit).

But the U.K. economy began to suffer the proverbial death of a thousand cuts on June 2016.

Decisions to shelve investment, withdrawn projects, delocalised R&D, slowed recruitment, restriction of tenders, erosion of personal/commercial goodwill overseas...it’s a long, long list of pernicious and mostly indirect variables, all with their own little weight within the whole that comprises the UK’s socio-economic drive/momentum.

Their cumulative effect will not be felt at street level for a good year or two yet, but kid yourself not, they are all under way, have been awhile now.

And that effect will still be felt, even if the U.K. was to somehow reverse Brexit before this time next year. Again, it’s an issue of momentum, gathered from lost opportunities over a non-trivial period of time.

Granted, yet unemployment is down, wages are going up.

There was talk of massive recession if Brexit was voted for, this never happened and two years later (whilst I entirely agree that the markets are banking on a soft Brexit) people on the street are not seeing the doomsday that was portrayed.

Given that, and the fact that many seemed to regard experts as worth nothing (helped in no small part by few of the experts seeing the crash in 2008) to be taken seriously, it is any wonder that the UK as a whole continues on this view that Brexit is a best a small effect and certainly a risk worth paying.

Professor Moriarty · 23-04-2018 03:46PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Granted, yet unemployment is down, wages are going up.

There was talk of massive recession if Brexit was voted for, this never happened and two years later (whilst I entirely agree that the markets are banking on a soft Brexit) people on the street are not seeing the doomsday that was portrayed.

Given that, and the fact that many seemed to regard experts as worth nothing (helped in no small part by few of the experts seeing the crash in 2008) to be taken seriously, it is any wonder that the UK as a whole continues on this view that Brexit is a best a small effect and certainly a risk worth paying.

I think public opinion really doesn't have a say. What might stop a hard Brexit is the influence of big business warning against it explicitly and implicitly in the form of being big donors to the Tory party.

Zubeneschamali · 23-04-2018 03:48PM

Financial Times: Hiring tumbles at UK fund houses as Brexit plans kick in

Fund managers have cut the rate at which they are hiring in London by as much as half since the UK voted to leave the EU in June 2016.

Nody · 23-04-2018 03:50PM

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

From the article:

"...as the EU aviation authority will hold the right to certify they are safe to fly in the event of a hard Brexit."

This is an example of what Pascal Lamy (former Head of WTO and ex-Eu Trade Commisioner) is emphasising repeatedly. It's not the tariffs that will catch Britain, it's the regulations.

And the challenge for them will be that ALL UK certifications done to date will be worthless on 30th and need to be redone by a EU based agency. This applies across the board from chemicals to cars etc. as well which means several companies are already moving the certification out from UK this year already to ensure their certification is valid after Brexit.

On a separate note some fun comments on the article:

This shows how much power we have given away and lost so much independence. There should be a UK aviation safety authority, time we set one up and maybe set up a commonwealth aviation authority.

You got one m8; the problem is they can't certify it for EU any more...

I think though that it will be another example of the storm in a teacup about customs processing. After the dire warnings of turning the M20 into a lorry park, it turns out that the computerised customs processing systems are not under the control of the EU or its agencies - it's all under the purview of the WTO. The EU therefore has no power to interfere with the systems themselves - it only has the power to sabotage them via bureaucratic intransigence.

I bet you that in due course we'll discover that the EU agency in question is subject to global agencies anyway, and that regulatory equivalence has the technical capacity to replace the existing arrangements. Once again though, the EU will probably try to torpedo such a move - but that's politics, it's not the collapse of operational systems requiring huge investment to replicate.

So much misinformation; so little time...

But it is views like this which is why I think a hard brexit is required to clear out the misinformation because anything less will end up in another round of Brexit votes with in the decade.

ArthurDayne · 23-04-2018 05:51PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Granted, yet unemployment is down, wages are going up.

There was talk of massive recession if Brexit was voted for, this never happened and two years later (whilst I entirely agree that the markets are banking on a soft Brexit) people on the street are not seeing the doomsday that was portrayed.

Given that, and the fact that many seemed to regard experts as worth nothing (helped in no small part by few of the experts seeing the crash in 2008) to be taken seriously, it is any wonder that the UK as a whole continues on this view that Brexit is a best a small effect and certainly a risk worth paying.

The ironic thing here of course, for those in Wales and the north of England, is that London is the product which is keeping the ship afloat. In a vote which was apparently predicated on 'sticking it' to the banks and the establishment, the Brexit vote has actually emphasised the importance of the City, and the financial industry in general. London has arguably never been more important to the UK as it is now, and conversely the regions outside London have arguably never been more irrelevant. Many decades as the heart of a global empire, and subsequent regaining of prestige as the global financial capital (thanks in no small part to its location within the EU of course), are not easy to reverse. Capitalism has wound strong roots into the soil of London and these roots will take some serious pulling.

Take London out of the equation and what are you left with? Cities such as Manchester offered a cheaper alternative to London, with an easily-reachable educated workforce -- with EU access making it a very attractive option for both foreign investment and as a place from which to grow a business. The position of the northern cities post-Brexit is now unclear. If the UK is about to undergo some epic metamorphosis from the stifling cocoon of EU membership, I am finding it difficult to see what the north of England offers versus London or, indeed, Ireland.

The concept that Brexit was about the 'little people sticking it to the big banks' is about as convincing as saying that Jacob Rees Mogg is a man of the people, or Boris Johnson is anti-establishment. The vote has more-or-less entrusted the banks with the whip-hand in Britain's economic future.

An Ciarraioch · 23-04-2018 07:11PM

David Davis finally visits the Border - will Rees-Mogg follow suit?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-43872021?__twitter_impression=true

ambro25 · 23-04-2018 07:37PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Financial Times: Hiring tumbles at UK fund houses as Brexit plans kick in

Fund managers have cut the rate at which they are hiring in London by as much as half since the UK voted to leave the EU in June 2016.

I'm reading your post and am reminded of this, a few weeks ago:

ambro25 wrote: »

<...> The local fin market specialist headhunters I’ve spoken to, joke about shifting entire offices’worth of applicants over, rather than individuals :pac:

One of those was the Ops Director (a lovely US lady, 'typically' gregarious) of a headhunting outfit called the Funds Partnership ('the search specialists for the funds industry'), located boulevard Prince Henri in Luxembourg (-city).

An Ciarraioch · 23-04-2018 07:58PM

House of Lords votes to replicate the European charter of fundamental rights in UK law:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/23/theresa-may-suffers-third-brexit-defeat-in-lords

Capt'n Midnight · 23-04-2018 09:02PM

The Bank of England is likely to raise interest rates twice this year and twice in 2019, despite a sluggish economy, says a forecasting body. Given the level of personal debt in the UK this is not good news.

However, people were still prioritising essential spending over luxuries, with the retail and casual dining sectors facing "unprecedented challenges".

One for your diary
Voters will head to the polls on 3 May for the first England-wide test of electoral opinion since last year's dramatic general election.

An Ciarraioch · 23-04-2018 09:19PM

Barnier fairly hard-hitting tonight, effectively saying the ball's in the UK court:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-3511_en.htm

Enzokk · 23-04-2018 09:42PM

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Barnier fairly hard-hitting tonight, effectively saying the ball's in the UK court:

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-18-3511_en.htm

Seems to me that there are some very interesting points raised in the speech that should cause some ructions for big companies in the UK.

But we believe that our future economic relationship should go even further. Let me mention four points.

1- First, in our future partnership we would like ambitious provisions on the movement of people, including related areas such as coordination of social security and the recognition of professional qualifications.

2- Secondly, in addition to trade, we offer a socio-economic cooperation.

For instance, we propose an air transport agreement, combined with aviation safety and security agreements.
The UK could also participate in certain EU programmes, for instance in the field of research and innovation, where participation of third countries is allowed. That said, it would be on a different financial and legal base than today.

These are points that have not been proposed raised yet so this will still need to be negotiated. So even with a free trade deal that will somehow ensure no borders and frictionless trade, there still needs to be a negotiated agreement on areas like air travel.

I also see the mention of the UK participating in EU programmes. This will not be a given, but will only be in programs where third country participation is allowed. Seems the message is clear as well, you used to pay 3.5% of the budget (very simple one of 28 sharing the cost) but in the new agreement you may pay more and have less legal rights to participate in some EU programmes.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-04-2018 10:30PM

More we-didn't-really-think-this-through.
The government is being urged to explain what arrangements it will put in place for the collection of VAT on cross-border trade after Brexit.

When the UK leaves the EU, VAT liabilities will have to be assessed by customs officials at borders unless some new arrangement is in place.
...
It warned that would pose "particular problems at the border on the island of Ireland".

About that ...

Back in January the Farmers Journal had this to say Living in a smuggler’s paradise

An auctioneer has suggested that land prices around the border could be on the rise after Brexit.

Capt'n Midnight · 24-04-2018 01:01AM

Brexit has shafted the UK's space sector, lord warns science minister

and this comment is golden

Before the EU we had the "Brain Drain". Then we were in the EU and now a lot of our researchers could go to the mainland and work on projects that we benefited from because we were in the EU. Now we're leaving the EU and it's back to the Brain Drain.

The new National Anthem needs to be a slightly modified version of the one in The Producers:

"Don't be stupid, be a smartie! Come and join the Nasty Party."

...and the little old ladies lose all their savings.

Sam Russell · 24-04-2018 08:19AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Brexit has shafted the UK's space sector, lord warns science minister

and this comment is golden

A quote from the last sentence of the above.

An ESA insider told The Register "the fact the UK is leaving shows that something is not entirely right with the EU and that the EU needs some level of reform".

Its not us, its them.

Thomas__. · 24-04-2018 09:16AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

It will be quite amusing if Charles is not confirmed as head of the commonwealth after the Queen.

He will be. "Head of the Commonwealth" is a title with no powers or functions attached. The Commonwealth as an organisation can function perfectly well without a "Head". The only point of having a "Head" is to give the British monarch a role in the Commonwealth; the title was introduced when India became a republic, and for the first time the Commonwealth included a member which did not have the British monarch as head of state. Being "Head" of the Commonwealth gives the Queen a connection to each member state which doesn't depend on her being Queen of it.

If the British monarch isn't the Head of the Commonwealth, there is literally no point at all to having a Head. So the choice isn't so much "should it be the British monarch or someone else?" but "should the Commonwealth have a head or not?"

I'd call it chairman (or chairwoman) than or president of that organisation would do as well.

Peregrinus · 24-04-2018 09:33AM

Thomas__. wrote: »

I'd call it chairman (or chairwoman) than or president of that organisation would do as well.

The Commonwealth already has a Secretary-General (currently Lady Patricia Scotland), who actually runs the organisation, and a Chair-in-Office (currently Teresa May) whose role it is to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting. The sole function of the Head, as far as I can see, is to be the "symbol of the free association of independent member nations" of the Commonwealth. And since their free association can be symbolised by, well, anything, really - a flag, say - it seems to me that this is not an office or a role; it's just a title. It may be important to or beneficial for the British monarchs to have this title, but I can't see that it makes much difference one way or another to the Commonwealtn or its member states.

Leroy42 · 24-04-2018 09:48AM

Its value lies in the same value that the royals have themselves. They don't have any actual power, but they ensure deference and thus respect and thus an acceptance by the populace that Britain still retains a role in the country.

It is purely symbolic, but even at that it is important that even symbolically Britain is still the head of the Commonwealth.

Its a passive form of control

Peregrinus · 24-04-2018 10:02AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its value lies in the same value that the royals have themselves. They don't have any actual power, but they ensure deference and thus respect and thus an acceptance by the populace that Britain still retains a role in the country.

Nonononono! The title/role was created in recognition of the fact that Britain and its monarchy doesn't have a role in most Commonwealth countries.

Up until 1950, the British monarch was also monarch in each of the Commonwealth countries. This was seen as an essential aspect of Commonwealth membership. So, when Ireland became a republic, in 1949, that was recognised as taking us outside the Commonwealth. (In practice, of course, we had ceased to participate in Commonwealth affairs years before that.)

But India wanted to become a republic, and yet remain in the Commonwealth, and the UK was keen to facilitate that, since in those days it still cherished hopes that the Commonwealth would function as a basis for military co-operation, and it valued the Indian Army. So they came up with the idea ath the British monarch need have no role in Commonwealth member countries, but would symbolise the free association between Commonwealth countries - i.e. it would have a symbolic role in a country's external relations.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is purely symbolic, but even at that it is important that even symbolically Britain is still the head of the Commonwealth.

Its a passive form of control

Well, nitpick no. 1, it's not Britain that is head of the Commonwealth; it's Elizabeth. And that's not a title which is attached to the fact that she is queen of the UK, any more than it is attached to the fact that she is Queen of, say, St. Vincent and the Grenadines. It's a role that was conferred on her personally by the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

And, nitpick no. 2, if it's a form of control at all, it doesn't control very much. The Commonwealth as an international organisation is pretty marginal. For many years now its most important function has been organising a big sports carnival where white folks who aren't American can hope to win medals.

Brexiters, to drag this discussion back to what this thread is supposed to be about, have hopes of giving the Commonwealth a new significance; turning it into a free trade block on terms that will favour the UK. of all the many delusions that Brexiters cherish, this is one of the most delusional.

Thomas__. · 24-04-2018 10:20AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

Leroy42 wrote: »

Its value lies in the same value that the royals have themselves. They don't have any actual power, but they ensure deference and thus respect and thus an acceptance by the populace that Britain still retains a role in the country.

Nonononono! The title/role was created in recognition of the fact that Britain and its monarchy doesn't have a role in most Commonwealth countries.

Up until 1950, the British monarch was also monarch in each of the Commonwealth countries. This was seen as an essential aspect of Commonwealth membership. So, when Ireland became a republic, in 1949, that was recognised as taking us outside the Commonwealth. (In practice, of course, we had ceased to participate in Commonwealth affairs years before that.)

But India wanted to become a republic, and yet remain in the Commonwealth, and the UK was keen to facilitate that, since in those days it still cherished hopes that the Commonwealth would function as a basis for military co-operation, and it valued the Indian Army. So they came up with the idea ath the British monarch need have no role in Commonwealth member countries, but would symbolise the free association between Commonwealth countries - i.e. it would have a symbolic role in a country's external relations.

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is purely symbolic, but even at that it is important that even symbolically Britain is still the head of the Commonwealth.

Its a passive form of control

Well, nitpick no. 1, it's not Britain that is head of the Commonwealth; it's Elizabeth. And that's not a title which is attached to the fact that she is queen of the UK, any more than it is attached to the fact that she is Queen of, say, St. Vincent and the Grenadines. It's a role that was conferred on her personally by the Commonwealth Heads of Government.

And, nitpick no. 2, if it's a form of control at all, it doesn't control very much. The Commonwealth as an international organisation is pretty marginal. For many years now its most important function has been organising a big sports carnival where white folks who aren't American can hope to win medals.

Brexiters, to drag this discussion back to what this thread is supposed to be about, have hopes of giving the Commonwealth a new significance; turning it into a free trade block on terms that will favour the UK. of all the many delusions that Brexiters cherish, this is one of the most delusional.

The certainly think about the economical strong CoN member states, less so about the economical weak, in their dream of an alternative single market to the EU.

Leroy42 · 24-04-2018 10:42AM

Peregrinus, you are of course correct in pretty much everything that you said. But you are dealing in the 'facts' of the matter not the spirit.

There is no 'need' for the monarchy in the UK, certainly no need for other countries to continue to have it as their head. But it provides the UK with a great diplomatic reach, far beyond what other countries have.

The commonwealth is not a useful organisation at the present time, largely because it didn't provide Britain with anything useful, certainly not anything that the EU etc could not offer. That is why, suddenly, the Commonwealth is being talked about more in the UK. It is not because the UK think any better of the organisation but rather it is something they think they can use to reduce the loss if the EU.

Having the queen, or Prince Charles as the head, lets everyone know who is at the top of the pile. While it carries no actual power, it symbolises that the UK is the dominant member of the club, that the world still centres and looks to the UK.

And getting back to Brexit, the UK nows sees the value in a club, but one where it is the head and in charge. Brexit was never about not understanding the value if being stronger together (as the IndyRef told us) it was about the UK wanting to be in charge.

Hence why the likes of Davies, JRM, IDS etc have long been going on about how easy it would all be, how much the EU needed the UK and so on. They never really wanted to leave the EU, they just want the EU to be under their control. CU and SM, I totally believe that they all see the inherent advantages of these. The only problem is that currently, other countries, and not even big countries like France and Germany, but poor countries like Greece and Poland, get say.

Thomas__. · 24-04-2018 10:50AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Peregrinus, you are of course correct in pretty much everything that you said. But you are dealing in the 'facts' of the matter not the spirit.

There is no 'need' for the monarchy in the UK, certainly no need for other countries to continue to have it as their head. But it provides the UK with a great diplomatic reach, far beyond what other countries have.

The commonwealth is not a useful organisation at the present time, largely because it didn't provide Britain with anything useful, certainly not anything that the EU etc could not offer. That is why, suddenly, the Commonwealth is being talked about more in the UK. It is not because the UK think any better of the organisation but rather it is something they think they can use to reduce the loss if the EU.

Having the queen, or Prince Charles as the head, lets everyone know who is at the top of the pile. While it carries no actual power, it symbolises that the UK is the dominant member of the club, that the world still centres and looks to the UK.

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence. I would presume that this was one of the reasons for the UK govt to apply for EEC Membership which was rejected for a couple of times by France, namely De Gaulle. The UK was offered Membership when the first steps were taken to consitute the forerunner of the EEC, but Attlee declined and the first application for Membership in the EEC was in the 1960s. The UK was nearly desperate then to get into the EEC. Finally they came into the EEC together with the Republic of Ireland in 1973. The dismantling of the BE in those decades runs parallel to the efforts the UK has taken to become a member of the EEC and it was always for economical reasons, nothing else. Hence the ambivalence of many UK govts before and since being a member.

Sam Russell · 24-04-2018 11:20AM

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence. I would presume that this was one of the reasons for the UK govt to apply for EEC Membership which was rejected for a couple of times by France, namely De Gaulle. The UK was offered Membership when the first steps were taken to consitute the forerunner of the EEC, but Attlee declined and the first application for Membership in the EEC was in the 1960s. The UK was nearly desperate then to get into the EEC. Finally they came into the EEC together with the Republic of Ireland in 1973. The dismantling of the BE in those decades runs parallel to the efforts the UK has taken to become a member of the EEC and it was always for economical reasons, nothing else. Hence the ambivalence of many UK govts before and since being a member.

I think one should realise how much WW II cost the UK and the British Empire. The Americans backed the British against the 3rd Reich, but only the supply of arms, food, etc on a strict cash basis - nothing was given away. After the war came the reckoning and the humiliation of the Bretton Woods Agreement that set up the IMF and the IBRD that passed control of the international monetary system to the Americans and the role of Sterling as a reserve currency ended - or it did following the devaluation of GBP from $4.03 to $2.80.

Because of the devaluation, British exports got less value in dollar terms and so found it difficult to repay their debts to the US. They found they did not have the funds to invest in manufacturing and that the world no longer wanted inferior products that their outdated factories were producing. The loss of India was a huge blow and left the British economy struggling, leading to another devaluation in Nov 1967 - "the pound in your pocket ... etc." despite severe currency exchange restrictions that continued until 1979.

It was joining the EEC that began to refloat the British economy, and the 'Big Bang' (of 1986) removal of many restrictive practices and other oversight restrictions applied to the City of London that lead to the rise of the CoL to become the power house it is. The membership of the EU was very important, and leaving the EU might see its demise. We will see.

The British Empire has seen the sun set, and only exists in the deluded minds of Brexiteers. The Commonwealth might also have ceased to exist in any meaningful economic sense. Australia and NZ are closely working with their neighbours. Canada has a FTA with the EU so that ship has sailed for the UK. India wants unfettered immigration into the UK so we will see how far that gets - so what is left?

Only the Crown Dependency tax havens in the Carribean and the English Channel. Perhaps Trump might off a diet of chlorinated chicken and some GMO food supplements.

24-04-2018 11:48AM

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence.

Did the common wealth ever really function like that?
The empire dictated trade terms (as brexiters believe the EU is doing now) for its own benefit.
As countries broke free one priority was to negotiate trade on their own terms.

All the other large members of the commonwealth exercise independent trade policies - they haven't been waiting around for the last fourty years waiting for the UK to comeback and take charge and to recreate a single market that never really existed.

Thomas__. · 24-04-2018 12:17PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence. I would presume that this was one of the reasons for the UK govt to apply for EEC Membership which was rejected for a couple of times by France, namely De Gaulle. The UK was offered Membership when the first steps were taken to consitute the forerunner of the EEC, but Attlee declined and the first application for Membership in the EEC was in the 1960s. The UK was nearly desperate then to get into the EEC. Finally they came into the EEC together with the Republic of Ireland in 1973. The dismantling of the BE in those decades runs parallel to the efforts the UK has taken to become a member of the EEC and it was always for economical reasons, nothing else. Hence the ambivalence of many UK govts before and since being a member.

I think one should realise how much WW II cost the UK and the British Empire. The Americans backed the British against the 3rd Reich, but only the supply of arms, food, etc on a strict cash basis - nothing was given away. After the war came the reckoning and the humiliation of the Bretton Woods Agreement that set up the IMF and the IBRD that passed control of the international monetary system to the Americans and the role of Sterling as a reserve currency ended - or it did following the devaluation of GBP from $4.03 to $2.80.

Because of the devaluation, British exports got less value in dollar terms and so found it difficult to repay their debts to the US. They found they did not have the funds to invest in manufacturing and that the world no longer wanted inferior products that their outdated factories were producing. The loss of India was a huge blow and left the British economy struggling, leading to another devaluation in Nov 1967 - "the pound in your pocket ... etc." despite severe currency exchange restrictions that continued until 1979.

It was joining the EEC that began to refloat the British economy, and the 'Big Bang' (of 1986) removal of many restrictive practices and other oversight restrictions applied to the City of London that lead to the rise of the CoL to become the power house it is. The membership of the EU was very important, and leaving the EU might see its demise. We will see.

The British Empire has seen the sun set, and only exists in the deluded minds of Brexiteers. The Commonwealth might also have ceased to exist in any meaningful economic sense. Australia and NZ are closely working with their neighbours. Canada has a FTA with the EU so that ship has sailed for the UK. India wants unfettered immigration into the UK so we will see how far that gets - so what is left?

Only the Crown Dependency tax havens in the Carribean and the English Channel. Perhaps Trump might off a diet of chlorinated chicken and some GMO food supplements.

I know about the debts of the UK after WWII but some passages in your post are still interesting to me. Thanks for that. Either way the UK has put herself on a wrong footing with Brexit and I am convinced that it won't turn out that good as the Brexiteers think.

Thomas__. · 24-04-2018 12:19PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Thomas__. wrote: »

I think that one must go back in time to the UK's pre-EEC period, when the CoN had the function of the common market for Import and Export of goods, like back in the old days of the BE when the UK was feeding herself with the imports from her colonies, just a bit different after one colony after another was released into Independence.

Did the common wealth ever really function like that?
The empire dictated trade terms (as brexiters believe the EU is doing now) for its own benefit.
As countries broke free one priority was to negotiate trade on their own terms.

All the other large members of the commonwealth exercise independent trade policies - they haven't been waiting around for the last fourty years waiting for the UK to comeback and take charge and to recreate a single market that never really existed.

The part in your post highlighted in bold is exactly what the Brexiteers have in mind in regards of new trade deals with the UK in the post-Brexit 'era'. Just nobody would queue up for that, no country with a sane leader would even consider that to get engaged with.

An Ciarraioch · 24-04-2018 12:38PM

Daniel Hannan is expertly schooled by a Norwegian on the various borders the EU shares with Norway, Switzerland and Turkey:

https://mobile.twitter.com/kirmber2/status/988492502465482757

Leroy42 · 24-04-2018 12:54PM

Now I see that the Express is running the headline that they want to get rid of the House of Lords for the cheek of voting against Brexit.

Now, I have no love of the structure, but Brexit has openly called into question Judges, the House of Lords, MP's right to voice dissent, NI part of the UK and there are probably more that I cannot recall right at the minute.

In addition, Brexit is very likely to increase the changes of Scotland looking for another ref in the near future.

For people that claim that it is all about the UK and taking back control, it seems almost like they are willing to blow the whole thing up on the altar of Brexit.

Thomas__. · 24-04-2018 01:15PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Now I see that the Express is running the headline that they want to get rid of the House of Lords for the cheek of voting against Brexit.

Now, I have no love of the structure, but Brexit has openly called into question Judges, the House of Lords, MP's right to voice dissent, NI part of the UK and there are probably more that I cannot recall right at the minute.

In addition, Brexit is very likely to increase the changes of Scotland looking for another ref in the near future.

For people that claim that it is all about the UK and taking back control, it seems almost like they are willing to blow the whole thing up on the altar of Brexit.

The Brexiteers are getting more desperate the more time is running out for them and as for Scotland, I have no doubts but are very convinced that there will be an IndyRef2 either in Autum 2018 or around the exit date of the UK in 2019 when the result of the negotiations is settled and clear. The Brexiters have then destroyed the very thing they wanted to preserve, which is the UK itself. Polls on IndyRef2 are going up and down but once the settlement is clear (I reckon with the UK exiting from the EU without a deal) it will certainly tip the balance towards independence.

J Mysterio · 24-04-2018 06:43PM

It's an absolute disgrace what is going on in Britain. The Home Office has run amok and are treating people like animals. Hostile environment indeed.

Brexit discussion thread III

Comments