nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Brexit discussion thread IV

J Mysterio

Mod Note: Continuation of previous thread (https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057816858)

Tories 'deserve to lose' if they carry on feuding over public spending and Brexit, admits Theresa May’s former policy chief

Leaving the EU has become 'an alley street-cat fight between rival gangs', George Freeman says

“I think if we lose our reputation for economic competence, if we can't show that we are managing the public finances properly, if we treat Brexit like an anti-business moment, contemptuous of the concerns of business, and if we don't show that we have a distinctive conservative approach to supporting enterprise, risk, hard work, savings, and we go down the road of big tax rises, big spending spree, anti-business, I fear we will lose and we'll deserve to,” Mr Freeman said.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The UK has appointed a Minister for Food Supplies in case of a hard Brexit.

No, really.

James O'Brien had a good line a while back>

"Brexit will be great, your passport will be blue, and so will your ration book".

Sam Russell

Spook_ie wrote: »

Think the "So few" quote is meant to encompass the whole RAF which had actually a motley collection of nationalities flying, including Poles, Canadians, Free French, South Africans etc.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-British_personnel_in_the_RAF_during_the_Battle_of_Britain

But let's not allow history to get between a good sound bite and present day, yes indeed how quickly do people forget.

Indeed.

Igotadose

Fascinating piece on politico.eu, on how Labour is actually gung-ho for Brexit, as they expect they'll be in Government and be able to engineer a dramatic shift to the left in the UK. Nationalizing industry, raising taxes on the wealthy (a 'double the property tax on a 2d home' idea is one thing they've mooted), dismantling the nuclear deterrent.

Wouldn't this, in the long term, be both tragic and hilarious, the Tory's actually causing their own demise and a remaking of their country in a way that's absolutely anathema to them. Love the article's title: "Cuba on the Thames." IMO, if this happens, it really WILL be Cuba - poverty, corruption, marginalization.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-jeremy-corbyn-labour-cuba-on-the-thames/

Leroy42

Can't a large portion of what Labour want be achieved regardless of being in the EU?

Nationalisation is mooted as the panacea, but of course when it was nationalised it was a mess. It is not private or public that is the problem, it is the focus on the company. There needs to be far more focus on delivering what the customer wants, not the shareholders or workers.

So I don't understand this constant cry for nationalisation, as if A) it wasn't tried before and

it would necessarily make anything better.

But we have nationalised bus and railways here. How does Ireland do that yet according to Labour the UK can only do so if they leave the EU? Is it can you can nationalise if private, but public can remain so?

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

Can't a large portion of what Labour want be achieved regardless of being in the EU?

Nationalisation is mooted as the panacea, but of course when it was nationalised it was a mess. It is not private or public that is the problem, it is the focus on the company. There needs to be far more focus on delivering what the customer wants, not the shareholders or workers.

So I don't understand this constant cry for nationalisation, as if A) it wasn't tried before and it would necessarily make anything better.

But we have nationalised bus and railways here. How does Ireland do that yet according to Labour the UK can only do so if they leave the EU? Is it can you can nationalise if private, but public can remain so?

They have nationalised Railtrack or whatever they now call the rail infrastructure. Railtrack also control much of the railway companies, such as procurement and routing.

The Post Office is one target, as is water. Post Office was sold off cheap, which was a scandal. Water is not efficient and results in high costs but poor service.

Imreoir2

Igotadose wrote: »

Fascinating piece on politico.eu, on how Labour is actually gung-ho for Brexit, as they expect they'll be in Government and be able to engineer a dramatic shift to the left in the UK. Nationalizing industry, raising taxes on the wealthy (a 'double the property tax on a 2d home' idea is one thing they've mooted), dismantling the nuclear deterrent.

Wouldn't this, in the long term, be both tragic and hilarious, the Tory's actually causing their own demise and a remaking of their country in a way that's absolutely anathema to them. Love the article's title: "Cuba on the Thames." IMO, if this happens, it really WILL be Cuba - poverty, corruption, marginalization.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-jeremy-corbyn-labour-cuba-on-the-thames/

The problem with the idea of course is that while Labour will have the power when in government to enact their agenda, when the Tories get back into power, they will have no impediment to rolling back all of the changes Labour makes and forcing through their right wing agenda.

Charles Babbage

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

That video is excellent. I'd have been cynical about RTÉ's ability to explain something like Brexit so succinctly or concisely, nevermind on a children's show but here we are.

Its a pity British voters did not see this in 2016.

Can't a large portion of what Labour want be achieved regardless of being in the EU?

The Guardian did a good article some months ago which showed that almost everything in the Labour manifesto had actually been implemented in another European country while remaining in the EU.

Enzokk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Can't a large portion of what Labour want be achieved regardless of being in the EU?

Nationalisation is mooted as the panacea, but of course when it was nationalised it was a mess. It is not private or public that is the problem, it is the focus on the company. There needs to be far more focus on delivering what the customer wants, not the shareholders or workers.

So I don't understand this constant cry for nationalisation, as if A) it wasn't tried before and it would necessarily make anything better.

But we have nationalised bus and railways here. How does Ireland do that yet according to Labour the UK can only do so if they leave the EU? Is it can you can nationalise if private, but public can remain so?

I am not going to pretend to know why nationalised utilities/services didn't work in the UK. I am wondering whether it was a case of one party that wanted it to work and another that is happy to sell it off, that cannot be good to ensure the services or utilities are run in the best way possible. That is one of the charges being laid against the Tories and the NHS, they are deliberately letting its standards drop to make the decision to nationalise it easier especially if it is bleeding money and not providing an efficient service.

In any case we can look at examples of nationalised or government owned companies in other EU nations that are not only working efficiently and well but able to bid for contracts in other EU countries due to this. Why can't the UK be like this rather than letting private companies run their services and make profits for other EU countries instead of being owned by their own government and instead of profits being the target it rather be about providing reliable and affordable services.

Imreoir2

Leroy42 wrote: »

Can't a large portion of what Labour want be achieved regardless of being in the EU?

Nationalisation is mooted as the panacea, but of course when it was nationalised it was a mess. It is not private or public that is the problem, it is the focus on the company. There needs to be far more focus on delivering what the customer wants, not the shareholders or workers.

So I don't understand this constant cry for nationalisation, as if A) it wasn't tried before and it would necessarily make anything better.

But we have nationalised bus and railways here. How does Ireland do that yet according to Labour the UK can only do so if they leave the EU? Is it can you can nationalise if private, but public can remain so?

It's a bit of a grey area. There is EU law that requires competition in the market place and prevents the state form distorting the free market too much. There are exceptions, as there always is in EU law, that means that there can be state owned monopolies and state enforced distortion in areas such as vital national infastructure and so on. There are arguements on both sides, Labour could probably get away with doing most of what they wanted if they were careful. Ultimatly it would be open to being challenged before the ECJ and the outcome would depend on the courts ruleing on however Labour implement their policy. It would depend a lot on there being a reasonable need for the state to act, and that state action can be justified within the regulations, as such it does not prevent them from acting, but does limit their potential for action and forces them to implement their policies in certain ways to allow them to be justified under the rules.

Enzokk

Igotadose wrote: »

Fascinating piece on politico.eu, on how Labour is actually gung-ho for Brexit, as they expect they'll be in Government and be able to engineer a dramatic shift to the left in the UK. Nationalizing industry, raising taxes on the wealthy (a 'double the property tax on a 2d home' idea is one thing they've mooted), dismantling the nuclear deterrent.

Wouldn't this, in the long term, be both tragic and hilarious, the Tory's actually causing their own demise and a remaking of their country in a way that's absolutely anathema to them. Love the article's title: "Cuba on the Thames." IMO, if this happens, it really WILL be Cuba - poverty, corruption, marginalization.

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-jeremy-corbyn-labour-cuba-on-the-thames/

Labour is an interesting study. The voters that got Corbyn in power and kept him in power is actually more likely to want to stay in the EU. This is somewhat in contrast to what Corbyn wants. I do think however he would be more practical if he was in charge regarding the EU if he was confronted with the reality of the world and how it works. I don't think he will be as hardheaded as Theresa May and will stick with red lines that cannot be achieved without ruining the country. Then again I have been surprised by the stupidity of politicians in the past few years so who knows.

oscarBravo

https://www.anothereurope.org/lets-be-clear-nationalisation-is-not-against-eu-law/

There are many forms of “nationalisation” that would never be touched by the TFEU (such as taking utilities into municipal control, as has happened in Germany). Furthermore, EU law wouldn’t prohibit the sort of nationalisation proposed by Mr Corbyn.

An Ciarraioch

Barnier declines to run for Commission President - personally, I think he'd have been an ideal candidate, but presumably the rumours about Macron joining ALDE put paid to his chances in the EPP.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1045657682802348033

J Mysterio

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Barnier declines to run for Commission President - personally, I think he'd have been an ideal candidate, but presumably the rumours about Macron joining ALDE put paid to his chances in the EPP.

https://mobile.twitter.com/MichelBarnier/status/1045657682802348033

Id imagine he has had enough excitement over the last two years (and what is still to come). I could see him retiring when this is all done with.
Buy a little chateau, drink wine, eat cheese and write his memoirs.

flutered

Sam Russell wrote: »

Spook_ie wrote: »

Think technically they would have been refugees.

Well, whatever their status, there were not a lot of them - just a few.
'Never has so much been owed by so many to to so few'

How quickly do they forget.

the uk is a rather self centered nation

Sam Russell

flutered wrote: »

the uk is a rather self centered nation

I would use the term 'self obsessed'.

LeinsterDub

https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1045721892370436097

Jaw dropping levels of stupid.

bilston

flutered wrote: »

Sam Russell wrote: »

Spook_ie wrote: »

Think technically they would have been refugees.

Well, whatever their status, there were not a lot of them - just a few.
'Never has so much been owed by so many to to so few'

How quickly do they forget.

the uk is a rather self centered nation

Aren't most (maybe all) countries?

An Ciarraioch

UK and a Changing EU estimate that actual UK exports to both EU and non-EU countries are approximately 10% lower than the projected levels before the vote - rather surprising that the ROTW markets would be affected:

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/estimating-the-trade-effects-of-the-brexit-announcement-shock/

Capt'n Midnight

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

UK and a Changing EU estimate that actual UK exports to both EU and non-EU countries are approximately 10% lower than the projected levels before the vote - rather surprising that the ROTW markets would be affected:

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/estimating-the-trade-effects-of-the-brexit-announcement-shock/

there is no evidence at all of Commonwealth consumers turning to UK exports. :eek:

Sterling dropped after the vote so shouldn't there have been a boost because of that ? No - UK started pricing its exports much more cheaply (in terms of dollars), but found few extra buyers

This debunks most of the Brexiteers fantasies about making up for lost EU trade.

Sand

I think we can all enjoy the sight of the Empire 2.0 fantasists running slap bang into the wall of reality. They're largely dislikeable as people, and wholly incompetent as politicians. Its fairly clear at this point their vision will fail. Before year end, the UK will collapse and accept the EU's terms like any vanquished opponent, or they'll stubbornly go out with no-deal, and then collapse and accept the EU's terms like any vanquished opponent.

The sad reality is it will fall on a jobsworth like May to actually endure the necessary humilitations. BoJo, JRM, Gove, Davis and their backers will all be out of power and in full denial, trumpeting about betrayals and so on. I believe the Empire 2.0 Tories high jacked a genuine rejection of globalism by 52% of the UK vote. Instead of attempting to represent that, the Tories instead salivated about using disaster capitalism to impose even more globalism, with the UK becoming a Singapore-On-Thames, with a anarcho-capitalist approach to trade, regulation and society. In their own way, the supposed Conservatives are incredibly radical. They don't wish to conserve the UK: they wish to entirely re-engineer it.

In the midst of all the schadenfreude of their clear failure I hope the lesson is not taken that the UK, having been appropriately chastised, must then return to the centrist/neoliberal politics of the past 20-30 years. The politics of Blair, Brown and Cameron caused Brexit and they cant be returned to. Whatever the ultimate outcome, the turmoil in the UK was not caused by Brexit. The turmoil in the UK will continue past March 2019, whatever the outcome of the talks with the EU.

All Seeing Eye

Interesting listening to the English journalist Liam Halligan today on Eamon Dunphys podcast. One of his main points was that if the British get a free trade deal with the US there will be a new improved trading channel opened up between two of our main trading partners sort of bypassing us and maybe taking trade from us too. Ireland will be stuck in a free trade zone with countries such as Lithuania which doesn’t really make much sense.

Enzokk

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Interesting listening to the English journalist Liam Halligan today on Eamon Dunphys podcast. One of his main points was that if the British get a free trade deal with the US there will be a new improved trading channel opened up between two of our main trading partners sort of bypassing us and maybe taking trade from us too. Ireland will be stuck in a free trade zone with countries such as Lithuania which doesn’t really make much sense.

Swings and roundabouts, right? We could lose trade with the US but we could pick up trade that countries used to do with the UK but will decide to forego to instead trade with the EU. We will also not be stuck with Lithuania but 26 other countries that have multiple trade agreements with other countries around the world. Not sure if it is your opinion or Liam Halligan who feels the need to mention Lithuania but I guess its supposed to be some sort of insult to us and Lithuania.

Just looking at the past few days of political activity from the USA I am not sure if you want to be hoping to be tied to them for anything. Trump has repeatedly stated he will screw over any other country to get better terms for the US. The UK is not some special snowflake and they will be crushed by the current administration when it comes to a deal. My guess is if there is no deal the agreement to allow flights to continue between the US and UK would be their first real dose of reality of what it will be like to deal with Trumps America.

Havockk

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Interesting listening to the English journalist Liam Halligan today on Eamon Dunphys podcast. One of his main points was that if the British get a free trade deal with the US there will be a new improved trading channel opened up between two of our main trading partners sort of bypassing us and maybe taking trade from us too. Ireland will be stuck in a free trade zone with countries such as Lithuania which doesn’t really make much sense.

Is it impossible to find US products on Irish shelves?

Logic has lost all meaning this past few years.

The Rape of Lucretia

listermint wrote: »

It's already scrapped she has said it herself. He's just a headline grabbing idiot

Surely not ?
I though talks continuing beyond last December were conditional on the agreement that included the backstop. If she reneged on it, then surely talks come to a halt.

The Rape of Lucretia

listermint wrote: »

It's already scrapped she has said it herself. He's just a headline grabbing idiot

Surely not ?
I though talks continuing beyond last December were conditional on the agreement that included the backstop. If she reneged on it, then surely talks come to a halt.

An Ciarraioch

Enzokk wrote: »

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

Interesting listening to the English journalist Liam Halligan today on Eamon Dunphys podcast. One of his main points was that if the British get a free trade deal with the US there will be a new improved trading channel opened up between two of our main trading partners sort of bypassing us and maybe taking trade from us too. Ireland will be stuck in a free trade zone with countries such as Lithuania which doesn’t really make much sense.

Swings and roundabouts, right? We could lose trade with the US but we could pick up trade that countries used to do with the UK but will decide to forego to instead trade with the EU. We will also not be stuck with Lithuania but 26 other countries that have multiple trade agreements with other countries around the world. Not sure if it is your opinion or Liam Halligan who feels the need to mention Lithuania but I guess its supposed to be some sort of insult to us and Lithuania.

Just looking at the past few days of political activity from the USA I am not sure if you want to be hoping to be tied to them for anything. Trump has repeatedly stated he will screw over any other country to get better terms for the US. The UK is not some special snowflake and they will be crushed by the current administration when it comes to a deal. My guess is if there is no deal the agreement to allow flights to continue between the US and UK would be their first real dose of reality of what it will be like to deal with Trumps America.

Not to mention his debate with Dan O'Brien on Seán O'Rourke this week - archive audio was resurrected where Halligan suggested that the UK and Ireland could do a bilateral trade deal, and his singular argument now was that an FTA would solve the Border issue.

As for exports, this year our trade with EU members and non-EU members grew by exactly the same rate, namely 10%, so participation in the Customs Union isn't harming our global competitiveness:

https://cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/gei/goodsexportsandimportsjuly2018/

mayo.mick

All Seeing Eye

Havockk wrote: »

Is it impossible to find US products on Irish shelves?

Logic has lost all meaning this past few years.

The point the English journalist Liam Halligan was trying to make is that eventually over time we could lose US investment which won’t be good for our economic health. Also when you think about it we have cultural and trade links with Britain as they are right beside us when compared to every other country in Europe.

All Seeing Eye

Enzokk wrote: »

Swings and roundabouts, right? We could lose trade with the US but we could pick up trade that countries used to do with the UK but will decide to forego to instead trade with the EU. We will also not be stuck with Lithuania but 26 other countries that have multiple trade agreements with other countries around the world. Not sure if it is your opinion or Liam Halligan who feels the need to mention Lithuania but I guess its supposed to be some sort of insult to us and Lithuania.

Just looking at the past few days of political activity from the USA I am not sure if you want to be hoping to be tied to them for anything. Trump has repeatedly stated he will screw over any other country to get better terms for the US. The UK is not some special snowflake and they will be crushed by the current administration when it comes to a deal. My guess is if there is no deal the agreement to allow flights to continue between the US and UK would be their first real dose of reality of what it will be like to deal with Trumps America.

Halligan specifically mentioned Lithuania. I’m assuming his point is that they are at the far side of Europe compared to Britain being next door.

FrancieBrady

All Seeing Eye wrote: »

The point the English journalist Liam Halligan was trying to make is that eventually over time we could lose US investment which won’t be good for our economic health. Also when you think about it we have cultural and trade links with Britain as they are right beside us when compared to every other country in Europe.

Halligan is great on the 'ifs' and 'maybes'

Signs are that 'if' the UK gets a deal with the US 'maybe' they will get shafted in it because they are desperate to get one.