Brexit Discussion Thread VI

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wut ?

In the 1930's the UK had a quarter of the worlds population tied up in the Empire. A captive audience when it came to trade deals.

In the 1950's everyone in Europe was broke and there was rationing so trade volumes were down a tad.

The 1950's a lot of Brexiteer's seem so fond of is the Heartbeat version. Not what really happened.

I love The Ladykillers classic Ealing comedy. But it is a metaphor for the UK now as much as it was then. You can just see Boris or JRM as the Major. You can see how fear of the "unassimilated" foreigner was manipulated for the vote.

Britain "won" the war in that it wasn't invaded and was on the winning side but the opinion of most historians and economists is that it came out of WW2 as a big loser. The country virtually bankrupted itself with the war effort and the Empire began to quickly disintegrate.

Strazdas wrote: »

Brexiteers are clinging to a 1930s or early 1950s version of trade. There were no economic blocs or single markets or mutual recognition of rules and regulation for trade back then.

They are trying to return to an era when the EEC / EFTA didn't even exist, but it's a lost cause, as the rest of Europe is trading this way and the UK wants to be some sort of pirate state hovering on the outside and refusing to follow their rules.

Wut ?

In the 1930's the UK had a quarter of the worlds population tied up in the Empire. A captive audience when it came to trade deals.

In the 1950's everyone in Europe was broke and there was rationing so trade volumes were down a tad.

The 1950's a lot of Brexiteer's seem so fond of is the Heartbeat version. Not what really happened.

I love The Ladykillers classic Ealing comedy. But it is a metaphor for the UK now as much as it was then. You can just see Boris or JRM as the Major. You can see how fear of the "unassimilated" foreigner was manipulated for the vote.

The fable of The Ladykillers is a comic and ironic joke about the condition of postwar England. After the war, the country was going through a kind of quiet, typically British but nevertheless historically fundamental revolution. Though few people were prepared to face up to it, the great days of the Empire were gone for ever. British society was shattered with the same kind of conflicts appearing in many other countries: an impoverished and disillusioned upper class, a brutalised working class, juvenile delinquency among the mods and rockers, an influx of foreign and potentially criminal elements, and a collapse of "intellectual" leadership. All of these threatened the stability of the national character.

Though at no time did Bill Rose or I ever spell this out, look at the characters in the film. The Major (played by Cecil Parker), a conman, is a caricature of the decadent military ruling class. One Round (Danny Green) is the oafish representative of the British masses. Harry (Peter Sellers) is the spiv, the worthless younger generation. Louis (Herbert Lorn) is the dangerously unassimilated foreigner. They are a composite cartoon of Britain's corruption. The tiny figure of Mrs Wilberforce (Wilberforce was the name of the 19th-century idealist who called for the abolition of slavery) is plainly a much diminished Britannia. Her house is in a cul-de-sac. Shabby and cluttered with memories of the days when Britain's navy ruled the world and captains gallantly stayed on the bridge as their ship went down, her house is structurally unsound. Dwarfed by the grim landscape of railway yards and screaming express trains, it is Edwardian England, an anachronism in the contemporary world.

Bill Rose's sentimental hope for the country that he and I saw through fond but sceptical eyes was that it might still, against all logic, survive its enemies. A theme, a message of sorts, one that I felt very attached to. But one that it took quite some time for me to consciously recognise and appreciate.

road_high wrote: »

Not really “taking back control” though is it?!
I’d sssumed the EU trade deals were so bad that re negotiation would be a must no 1 priority of brexiters...but it seems putting a Uk sticker over the EU ones will do !

I can't wait to see the look on their faces when they realise that other countries can cherry pick too.

road_high wrote: »

Another thing not being much considered in the mayhem related to your point is the amount of new government bureaucracy the UK is creating by “taking back control” - they’re going to have add a whole new layer of public servants for things whither-to pooled with the EU. Which will surely be an added strain on public finances and loss of competitiveness for the UK economy

And these were the crowd complaining about money being wasted on too many bureaucrats in the EU. As you say, the UK will have to hire swarms of new civil servants to try and handle the disaster that is Brexit - the whole point of the Single Market is to cut down on bureaucrats and paperwork.

Infini wrote: »

I would counter that the states are hardly losing soviergnty this way more accurately theyre POOLING soviergnty and this has made the EU into the key setter of standards for thrse deals. Also any negotiated deal has to be passed by all 37 various parliments (remember how CETA i think it was nearly got derailed in wallonia was it?) to enter into force. That means theres oversight on these things at national level so these things have to be able pass there Hardly a loss of soviergnty.

This is also whats been lost on Brexiteers the whole point is to pool the various agencys into the EU not to give up control but to have these things located all in one olace for coordination. Its alot easier having one agency looking over these areas than 37 of them as well as the fact that it costs far less too.

Another thing not being much considered in the mayhem related to your point is the amount of new government bureaucracy the UK is creating by “taking back control” - they’re going to have add a whole new layer of public servants for things whither-to pooled with the EU. Which will surely be an added strain on public finances and loss of competitiveness for the UK economy

Infini wrote: »

I would counter that the states are hardly losing soviergnty this way more accurately theyre POOLING soviergnty and this has made the EU into the key setter of standards for thrse deals. Also any negotiated deal has to be passed by all 37 various parliments (remember how CETA i think it was nearly got derailed in wallonia was it?) to enter into force. That means theres oversight on these things at national level so these things have to be able pass there Hardly a loss of soviergnty.

This is also whats been lost on Brexiteers the whole point is to pool the various agencys into the EU not to give up control but to have these things located all in one olace for coordination. Its alot easier having one agency looking over these areas than 37 of them as well as the fact that it costs far less too.

Brexiteers are clinging to a 1930s or early 1950s version of trade. There were no economic blocs or single markets or mutual recognition of rules and regulation for trade back then.

They are trying to return to an era when the EEC / EFTA didn't even exist, but it's a lost cause, as the rest of Europe is trading this way and the UK wants to be some sort of pirate state hovering on the outside and refusing to follow their rules.

Infini

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It really isn't, it negotiated all of the UK's trade deals before the EU decided that all negotiation should be in its own hands. This centalisation of agencies is one of the ways in which EU member states have been losing sovereignty.

I would counter that the states are hardly losing soviergnty this way more accurately theyre POOLING soviergnty and this has made the EU into the key setter of standards for thrse deals. Also any negotiated deal has to be passed by all 37 various parliments (remember how CETA i think it was nearly got derailed in wallonia was it?) to enter into force. That means theres oversight on these things at national level so these things have to be able pass there Hardly a loss of soviergnty.

This is also whats been lost on Brexiteers the whole point is to pool the various agencys into the EU not to give up control but to have these things located all in one olace for coordination. Its alot easier having one agency looking over these areas than 37 of them as well as the fact that it costs far less too.

wiggle16

Bit cynical wrote: »

But, of course, at the same time it is not the UK's job to look after the Irish economy.

Absolutely. But i'm sure you can agree it's frustrating watching a bad decision being made for bad reasons by people who have chosen not to inform themselves about the consequences, when it will have a direct and very real effect on us.

I saw that Pete North guy on Sky News the other day and he said while he as a Leaver could understand the merits of the sovereignty line, the "trade" argument being put forward by Rees-Mogg, Redwood and IDS is a pack of lies. He says it was just tacked onto the whole Brexit debate during the referendum campaign and never was part of the original idea behind leaving the EU.

People are being openly lied to about the "benefits" of trade once out of the Single Market.

Calina

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.

Clueless. The issue is that the UK won’t pay top flight trade negotiators enough money.

An Claidheamh

sandbelter wrote: »

Nope, they'll simply tell the Irish to collect their company taxes.

It's for the Irish to make Ireland work.

It would be for the Irish to dish the dirt on how NI was a 3rd world British colony and only had equal rights embedded in the late 90s through forcing and threatening the British.

Doubt, the establishment parties would do that though.

In my view, it is the same as West and East Germany.

Most Europeans would appreciate that.

Jizique

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It really isn't, it negotiated all of the UK's trade deals before the EU decided that all negotiation should be in its own hands. This centalisation of agencies is one of the ways in which EU member states have been losing sovereignty.

However, the UK can reassemble a team of experienced negotiators by advertising attractive positions, the negotiators do not have an exclusive attachment to their own country.

Foreigners negotiating trade deals for England?

Sam Russell

Given it is 45 years since the EU took over trade deal negotiating, there cannot be a single Civil Servant who has any experience of them. As for MPs, I think only Ken Clarke and Denis Skinner were MPs before the UK joined the EEC (now the EU), so there cannot be much experience at Govrnment lvel either.

And given David Davis's exoerience s Brexit Secretary, (and Raab's), I think two short planks would have performed better.

An Claidheamh

Prince William wrote: »

When are those clowns in the D4 bubble going to realize that the British don't do politics like us paddies ?

You mean logically and devoid of futile and damaging jingoism?

The Tans ought to consider it.

LeinsterDub

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.

What exactly do you think better negotiators would achieve? Given the red lines are set by the PM or are you suggesting different red lines too?

Necro wrote: »

So who do you want negotiating your deals?

Throwing money at a team of 'highly experienced negotiators' is really just passing the buck... I mean what are MPs elected to do then, pontificate and talk extreme nonsense in the HoC?

Trade deals are as much about political alliances and relationships as they are about economic negotiations- just see Trump and Nafta for evidence of this- you can have all the high paid faceless negotiators you want but if the political capital isn’t there in the first place, they’re very difficult...I see very little evidence of that to date, just a little vague and faintly warm lip service from the US or Australia.

Necro

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.

So who do you want negotiating your deals?

Corbyn? Rees Mogg? Johnson?

The Brexiteer crowd aren't exactly shrewd negotiators themselves, as proven by a raft of failed Brexit Secretaries.

Throwing money at a team of 'highly experienced negotiators' is really just passing the buck... I mean what are MPs elected to do then, pontificate and talk extreme nonsense in the HoC?

PeadarCo

ThePanjandrum wrote:

Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.

Is not that the trade negotiationers are incompetent. The issue is that it will be years before a trade agreement is signed between the UK and EU. Remember we haven't got to the negotiation of a long term trade deal. This stage is the easy bit. So the problem that you have identified will remain in the medium term.

A Dub in Glasgo

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.

The UK cannot negotiate trade deals as they are still an EU member

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

So explain why haven't they done so in last 2 years? EU negotiators have been running circles around UK ones
Your proclamation has been shown to be false by reality

Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The EU trade deals are an average. There's 28 countries so some deals will suit the UK , others won't.

The UK just won't have the time to do haggle through 70 deals so they may just have to accept the terms of the deals the EU negotiated that may have suited France or Poland or Italy more than it suited them.

If only because that's the only way they'll the have resources to negotiate deals with the countries that think the existing EU deal favoured the UK too much. Like everyone who exports meat to the continent and expects their tariff free quota to shrink.

Not really “taking back control” though is it?!
I’d sssumed the EU trade deals were so bad that re negotiation would be a must no 1 priority of brexiters...but it seems putting a Uk sticker over the EU ones will do !

wiggle16 wrote: »

Scotland has been shown definitively now that they do not have a voice in the UK.

Actually, a Scottish person has more of a say than an English person as they are overrepresented in the UK parliament. The only reason that you can claim that they do not have a say is because the Referendum was held on a UK wide basis and the majority of the UK voters decided to leave the EU.

road_high wrote: »

Sounds like the Ukraine just want to continue on as per EU agreement already there- does that say it all about the folly of Brexit and it’s sheer pointlessness

The EU trade deals are an average. There's 28 countries so some deals will suit the UK , others won't.

The UK just won't have the time to do haggle through 70 deals so they may just have to accept the terms of the deals the EU negotiated that may have suited France or Poland or Italy more than it suited them.

If only because that's the only way they'll the have resources to negotiate deals with the countries that think the existing EU deal favoured the UK too much. Like everyone who exports meat to the continent and expects their tariff free quota to shrink.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The civil service is completely new to negotiating trade deals.

It really isn't, it negotiated all of the UK's trade deals before the EU decided that all negotiation should be in its own hands. This centalisation of agencies is one of the ways in which EU member states have been losing sovereignty.

However, the UK can reassemble a team of experienced negotiators by advertising attractive positions, the negotiators do not have an exclusive attachment to their own country.

Tell me how wrote: »

That will be some debate and vote if she moves to repeal A50.
Some of the speeches will be fairly no holds barred at that stage

She couldn't try it too early, if she did then many of her MPs together with the DUP would vote against it - as would Labour because then Corbyn would go for another vote of no confidence which she could well lose. If she left it late then she would face a split in the Conservatives with many of the local association members joining the new party.

road_high wrote: »

David McWilliams was talking lately about re unification and his point is that Irish GDP has been rising pretty fast as the economy expands further, the relative burden of the NI subsidy is getting smaller and smaller relative to us thus we’d be more easily able to absorb it. Plus there would be an eventual economic dividend as NI itself is definitely not performing to its full potential under London.

The only significant difference to the economy on either side of the border is whether Dublin or Westminster / Stornmount made the decisions.

Right now the economic differences are close to those between East and West Germany. Population ratios are similar too.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I can't say where I got this from but DoIT's current objective is trying to mitigate as much damage as possible. The issue won't be signing new trade deals, it's going to be trying to preserve as much of the current deals as possible as other countries will be angling for renegotiations given that the EU negotiated them on its members' behalf.

Even the Ukraine is looking for a renegotiation:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-and-ukraine-welcome-progress-on-trade-relationship

Sounds like the Ukraine just want to continue on as per EU agreement already there- does that say it all about the folly of Brexit and it’s sheer pointlessness

Donald Trump wrote: »

Tourism is already largely marketed or coordinated via All-Ireland bodies is it not?

It is and in fairness NI tourism is starting to become a thing. I read somewhere recently that the Giants Causeway is one of the most visited attractions on the island of Ireland.