/ Brexit™ is going well...

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
HardenClimber - on 13 Sep 2017
The Conservative Party hasn't split...

A few minor consequences in these areas though...

Primacy of Parliament
Democracy
Rule of Law
Economy
Society
Higher Education
Manufacturing
Services Sector
Research
Global Influence
More Bureaucracy
Security


And to come...
Independence from external pressure
Trade
Environment
Ease of Travel
Northern Ireland
Farming
pebbles - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

still at least we'll be rid of those unaccountable beaurocrats in brussels eh? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-withdrawal-bill-passes-theresa-may-power...
Big Ger - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

Oh well, at least we'll never be short of new threads....
Rob Exile Ward on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

Unfortunately although he's had over a year's notice David Davis hasn't in fact done his homework and has asked if he can hand it in late:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41246573

'Sorry sir, I forgot to take my homework with me so can I have an extension please ... and another ... and another....'

WTF is he consulting with? And what about? He has no idea of what he has got into, and perhaps for the first time in his life he's in a situation where a cheeky grin and a glib phrase aren't enough, and he has been found utterly wanting. 'Thick as mince, lazy as a toad and vain as Narcissus...'
stevieb - on 13 Sep 2017
Big Ger - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

Unemployment in the UK fell by 75,000 in the three months to July, official figures show, bringing the jobless rate down to 4.3%.
tony on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to stevieb:

Yeah, with Liam Fox in charge of trade deals, what could possibly go wrong?

Has anything actually been agreed yet?
Bogwalloper - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Unemployment in the UK fell by 75,000 in the three months to July, official figures show, bringing the jobless rate down to 4.3%.

So if things were on the up and looking so good why did the populace need to give the government a bloody nose? Almost full employment with no pay rise since 2008?

W
Tyler - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Who is he consulting with? And what about? He has no idea of what he has got into, and perhaps for the first time in his life he's in a situation where a cheeky grin and a glib phrase aren't enough, and he has been found utterly wanting. 'Thick as mince, lazy as a toad and vain as Narcissus

Presumably, as there have been no snarky comments from him about the delay, the request for week's postponement has come form the UK side?
Big Ger - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> So if things were on the up and looking so good why did the populace need to give the government a bloody nose?

Mainly due to May being particularly stupid and calling an election so soon after the local ones, an election that nobody wanted or needed.

See here; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6-IQAdFU3w

Oh, and because Corbyn claimed, (and has now retracted, ) that he'lll see off Uni fees.

stevieb - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to tony:

> Yeah, with Liam Fox in charge of trade deals, what could possibly go wrong?

> Has anything actually been agreed yet?

To be fair to Liam Fox, I don't think he's allowed to complete any trade deals until we fall out of the single market/custom union.
Also we shouldn't judge him on how quickly the deals are done. I think on the day we leave, there will be 100 countries happy to do a really fast deal with us, and every single one of them will be a bad deal for the UK.
Tyler - on 13 Sep 2017

> Also we shouldn't judge him on how quickly the deals are done. I think on the day we leave, there will be 100 countries happy to do a really fast deal with us, and every single one of them will be a bad deal for the UK.

And my guess is he would sign every single one of them as, ironically, when it comes to trade deals any deal will be viewed as better than no deal.
tony on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to stevieb:

Fair points. My question about whether anything had been agreed was actually about the Brexit talks, rather than Liam Fox's trade deals. As far as I can tell, we're still discussing the same things as were being discussed in the first round of negotiations after A50 was enacted - citizen's right, the Irish border question and the divorce bill.
So in 6 months, nothing has moved.
stevieb - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> And my guess is he would sign every single one of them as, ironically, when it comes to trade deals any deal will be viewed as better than no deal.

Yes, that's my worry too. He will be under massive political pressure to do a deal with USA or China (India or Japan at a push) before the next general election.
paddymct - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Yes it did and wages fell by 0.4% in real terms due to inflation hitting 2.9%.

Cherry picking facts and figures to mislead I see, nice to see the Tory mentality is filtering down to the general public.

By any chance do you have a Samsung phone and you got those figures from an Upday notification?
Si_G - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

What confuses me is that coastal communities voted Brexit over fishing rights, and expect us to walk away with a better deal that we had within the EU.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist.
Lusk - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Oh well, at least we'll never be short of new threads....



> Unemployment in the UK fell by 75,000 in the three months to July, official figures show, bringing the jobless rate down to 4.3%.

This %age figure is all well good, which our mutual friend, Rom, likes quoting it now and again, but the fact remains that there are still around one and half MILLION people out of work, and that'll be the heavily massaged figure.
Appalling! Have you ever been unemployed and been subjected to the degradation of signing on?
This 5% appears to be a perfectably acceptable figure these days, no it isn't, just to remind you One & half MILLION people.
I remember the days when unemployment went over the million mark, total outrage at the time.
tony on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Lusk:

In economic terms, 4-5% unemployment is considered to be full employment, to take account of movement between jobs, so I think that's less of an issue than the fact that so many people in employment are poorly paid self-employed workers with few or no rights or protections in the workplace, and that our economy is becoming increasingly reliant on poorly paid workers in many major sectors, particularly health and social care, and hospitality industries.
The idea that the economy is in a good place is complete tosh.
Shani - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Oh, and because Corbyn claimed, (and has now retracted, ) that he'lll see off Uni fees.

What proportion of the electorate are students (or parents of students) who would be thusly persuaded to change their voting intentions on the strength of this single policy?
wercat on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Lusk:

not to mention the large numbers of "invisible" 55 pluses thrown out and struggling as "self employed" as they have no other prospects
Tyler - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Lusk:

4.3% is a perfectly acceptable unemployment rate, what it hides though is the quality/terms of many of the jobs the remaining 95.7% have to do.
Mick Ward - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> 4.3% is a perfectly acceptable unemployment rate...

Not so acceptable perhaps if you're one of the 4.3%.


> ...what it hides though is the quality/terms of many of the jobs the remaining 95.7% have to do.

Agree.

Mick

Shani - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> 4.3% is a perfectly acceptable unemployment rate, what it hides though is the quality/terms of many of the jobs the remaining 95.7% have to do.

Yep - unstable employment, zero hours contracts and in work poverty (Of the 13.5 million people in poverty 55% are in working families - http://bit.ly/2h1LOEo ), trap many people and limit their economic activity, and thus the long term growth prospects of the country.
Tyler - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Mick Ward:

> Not so acceptable perhaps if you're one of the 4.3%.

Assuming you are unemployed against your will, it is assumed that there will always be about 2% of people between jobs through choice. Given that for years we've been talking about automation removing jobs and increasing leisure time whether lower unemployment rates are even possible anymore
summo on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to paddymct:

> Yes it did and wages fell by 0.4% in real terms due to inflation hitting 2.9%.
> Cherry picking facts and figures to mislead I see, nice to see the Tory mentality is filtering down to the general public.
> By any chance do you have a Samsung phone and you got those figures from an Upday notification?

I think he is old school and uses an abbotcus when calculating politics related figures. So an error margin is acceptable.
summo on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Yep - unstable employment, zero hours contracts and in work poverty (Of the 13.5 million people in poverty 55% are in working families - http://bit.ly/2h1LOEo ), trap many people and limit their economic activity, and thus the long term growth prospects of the country.

And as the other thread showed many UKc users have no issue adding to it, shopping on Amazon, selecting rapid delivery. Those late night packers and pickers, the truck driver, then a local person in a van who is supposedly self employed, but really just on a zero hour contract by another name.

baron - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:
I love the word poverty, it's so much more powerful and emotional compared to poor.
The link you provided makes an interesting read.
MKH - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

If employment rates are so high, then why is this damning statistic appearing in the press today?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/homelessness-uk-rough-sleepers-up-135-per-cent-tories...

Is this "employment" at such a high as even people who have no consistent or stable work are counted (see zero hours contracts, and the struggling self employed).

summo on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to MKH:

Perhaps it's a combination of factors, massive personal borrowing before 2007/8, 100% mortgages, poor affordability checks... then after 2008.. slow growth etc.. people fall off their fixed rate mortgages and suddenly their outgoings increase.. to suggest it wouldn't have happened under Labour is impossible, no one knows.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

Real masterstroke leaving the EU when its economy is doing so well:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-08/europe-sheds-its-brexit-baggage-and-aims-for-a-bo...

The EU is going to get new trade deals with Australia and New Zealand long before the UK, the Euro is at a high against the dollar while the pound is in the crap and EU business confidence is way up. For all the UK press wittering on continually about the Euro falling apart a hedge fund set up to bet on that outcome just went out of business.

The EU is feeling pretty happy and my guess is it is set to do even better without us because placating the Tory/Brexit bollocks has been holding it back for years from doing the additional integration it needs to do to become efficient.
baron - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Bet they're ecstatic about losing one of their few net contributors.
Shani - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:
> Perhaps it's a combination of factors, massive personal borrowing before 2007/8, 100% mortgages, poor affordability checks... then after 2008.. slow growth etc.. people fall off their fixed rate mortgages and suddenly their outgoings increase.. to suggest it wouldn't have happened under Labour is impossible, no one knows.

Bedroom tax? Tax-credit 2-child limit? Disability benefit cuts? Housing benefit limit to the over-21s?
These are all plausible mechanisms leading or contributing to homelessness.

We also need to look at that welfare directed at the relative wealthy, including first-time buyers incentives and the housing bubble in general.
Post edited at 12:21
Tyler - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to baron:
> Bet they're ecstatic about losing one of their few net contributors.

It'll be a bitter pill to swallow but that's the shame of this, both they and us will be worse off but many Brexiters seem to be of the opinion that a weak/bankrupt EU is a good result for the UK.
Post edited at 12:25
Shani - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to baron:

> Bet they're ecstatic about losing one of their few net contributors.

Well if the costs of trade-friction (customs etc...) are greater that our contribution (regardless of whether it was a net contribution or otherwise), then who will be the real losers?
summo on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:

I never said there werent other factors. But the culture of saving a bit of money for a rainy day, maybe not borrowing at your limit etc.. was left behind in the OOs and the government of the day pretty much encouraged it. An economy built on debt, without the growth to back it up. The bubble was going to burst eventually and will again soon.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

> to suggest it wouldn't have happened under Labour is impossible, no one knows.

I look forward you to applying this logic to everything that happened under the last Labour government. Only fair, right?
baron - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:
If it was just about the economics then obviously us.
But there's more to Brexit than money even if some of those reasons defy logic.
Post edited at 12:28
wercat on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/nigel-farage-rally-germany-far-right-group-speech-afd-frauke-petry-beatrix-von-storch-a7935316.html

Very nice, but isn't this going further than UK Independence, politically speaking.


can I hold him Personally Accountable if the Brexit future doesn't belong to me?
Post edited at 13:01
fred99 - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

> I think he is old school and uses an abbotcus when calculating politics related figures. So an error margin is acceptable.

What's an abbotcus - is it a foul-mouthed cleric ?

fred99 - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to wercat:

> can I hold him Personally Accountable if the Brexit future doesn't belong to me?

I'm holding the 52% of those who voted leave ALL personally responsible.
Shani - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

> I never said there werent other factors. But the culture of saving a bit of money for a rainy day, maybe not borrowing at your limit etc.. was left behind in the OOs and the government of the day pretty much encouraged it. An economy built on debt, without the growth to back it up. The bubble was going to burst eventually and will again soon.

Are you saying government debt is bad?
Mick Ward - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> Given that for years we've been talking about automation removing jobs and increasing leisure time whether lower unemployment rates are even possible anymore

Can't understand this. Perhaps you mean:

> Given that for years we've been talking about automation removing jobs and increasing leisure time, [it remains to be seen] whether lower unemployment rates are even possible anymore.

Am not so sure 'we' (!?) have just been talking about automation removing jobs... I seem to remember swathes of jobs being lost from the early 1980s onwards. Certainly a great many prople found their 'leisure' time greatly enhanced. Trouble was it was 'leisure' (and accompanying penury) they didn't want.

As ever, I'm sure we'll end up agreeing to disagree.

Mick


summo on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> I look forward you to applying this logic to everything that happened under the last Labour government. Only fair, right?

Obviously it would be hard to blame john major for Tony Blair's actions. Anything they didn't like, they did have 3 full terms with a house of commons majority to reverse. Say banking legislation... ?
Martin W on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Lusk:

> I remember the days when unemployment went over the million mark, total outrage at the time.

Remember this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Isn%27t_Working

The inset graph is interesting: between 1979 (when the unemployment rate was actually on a downward trend) and 1984 the unemployment rate doubled. Remind me who was in charge then?

(It might also remind you of another, more recent party-political fiction...something about economic and fiscal responsibility...)
cragtaff - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to baron:

Absolutely right, the doom merchants completely fail to realise that the EU needs a UK that is strong economically, otherwise we have nothing to spend in Europe, and without the UK buying German, French and Italian goods they will be as good as bankrupt. Imagine a UK unable to buy BMW, Mercedes, VW, Peugeot, Citroen etc, their motor industry would be in a hell of a state, and that is just one sector of goods we buy in huge amounts.

Mr Junckers needs to be very careful what he wishes for, we are one of the very biggest consumer markets available to the EU, they need our custom or they don't survive, despite all the doom and threats by them they cannot afford to see us driven to poverty. I do fully understand how Mr Junckers has to sound off for his own home audience though, and take it all with a big pinch of salt.
Ramblin dave - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:

> Absolutely right, the doom merchants completely fail to realise that the EU needs a UK that is strong economically, otherwise we have nothing to spend in Europe, and without the UK buying German, French and Italian goods they will be as good as bankrupt. Imagine a UK unable to buy BMW, Mercedes, VW, Peugeot, Citroen etc, their motor industry would be in a hell of a state, and that is just one sector of goods we buy in huge amounts.

Yes, I've noticed how keen they seem to be to bend over backwards to give us everything that we want.
baron - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:
Mr J appears to off into his own fantasy world with his State of the Union speech.
Apparently the EU has the wind in its sails now that Brexit, migration and the Greek financial crises are behind it
Even ignoring his rosy view of the world he doesn't do the Brexit negotiations any favours with his ' Britons will soon regret leaving the EU' proclamation - the least he could do is to allow us to make a mess of the negotiations without him interfering!
MonkeyPuzzle - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:

> Absolutely right, the doom merchants completely fail to realise that the EU needs a UK that is strong economically, otherwise we have nothing to spend in Europe, and without the UK buying German, French and Italian goods they will be as good as bankrupt. Imagine a UK unable to buy BMW, Mercedes, VW, Peugeot, Citroen etc, their motor industry would be in a hell of a state, and that is just one sector of goods we buy in huge amounts.

Don't forget cuckoo clocks. How do they go again?
Shani - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

Theresa May is about to become the most powerful Prime Minister of all time.
Tyler - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Mick Ward:
> Can't understand this. Perhaps you mean:

> Am not so sure 'we' (!?) have just been talking about automation removing jobs... I seem to remember swathes of jobs being lost from the early 1980s onwards. Certainly a great many prople found their 'leisure' time greatly enhanced. Trouble was it was 'leisure' (and accompanying penury) they didn't want.

> As ever, I'm sure we'll end up agreeing to disagree.

> Mick

I did mean something like that (assuming you meant a great many people;)). The point I was making is that figures (percentages) we have traditionally used to describe 'acceptable' levels of unemployment don't necessarily make sense in an increasingly automated world. It ought to mean that we all enjoy shorter working weeks and earlier retirement, which is happening to an extent, but that just makes predicting the new normal for unemployment even more problematic. Unfortunately I expect shorter working hours will not be evenly distributed throughout the working population, at least not until we can train people to do the remaining jobs.
Post edited at 18:03
Jim C - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Unemployment in the UK fell by 75,000 in the three months to July, official figures show, bringing the jobless rate down to 4.3%.

You forgot to add ' despite Brexit'
( you can't say anything positive without adding that, it's the law;)
Post edited at 18:19
Mick Ward - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Tyler:

Would tend to agree with all of this. As with many people, I have a concern that capitalism (which by its very nature is amoral) has got out of hand. We seem to be drifting towards a society dangerously polarised between rich and poor. Re this concern, as with much else, the present government scarcely inspires confidence (and that's putting it mildly!)

Mick
pasbury on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> Unfortunately although he's had over a year's notice David Davis hasn't in fact done his homework and has asked if he can hand it in late:


> 'Sorry sir, I forgot to take my homework with me so can I have an extension please ... and another ... and another....'

Nigel Farage ate it.
Bogwalloper - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

Love this thread. Basically everyone is arguing about the level of shitness the country is currently in. Shit, really shit or dire shit!

W
pec on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:

> What proportion of the electorate are students (or parents of students) who would be thusly persuaded to change their voting intentions on the strength of this single policy? >

In some wards students make up a sizeable proportion of the electorate and their votes did swing quite a few seats.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40212721

Big Ger - on 13 Sep 2017
In reply to MKH:

> If employment rates are so high, then why is this damning statistic appearing in the press today?


Nothing to do with the mass immigration of the last few years obvs.

cb294 - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:

Short reply: I want some of the drugs you must be taking. Are they UK made?

Longer version: This has been done to death in multiple other threads. You are correct that continued EU membership of the UK, single market membership of the UK, or even some form of cooperation if the UK decides to leave the single market after the inevitable transition period all would have been desirable / continue to be desirable from an EU perspective, especially with the economy in mind.
However, both from political principles and economic expedience, stability ad integrity of the common market, and the prevention of cherry picking rank much higher. The UK negotiators seem to delude themselves that a prosecco and BMW boycott will buy them concessions. Nothing could be further from the truth.

CB
john arran - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:

Imagine the very real possibility of no deal.

Would it hit the EU prosperity hard? Yes
Would the EU adapt and recover over 5-15 years to a similar level? Almost certainly, yes
What would the medium-long term impact be? Small, almost certainly negative

Would it hit the UK prosperity hard? Yes
Would the UK adapt and recover over 5-15 years to a similar level? Almost certainly, no
What would the medium-long term impact be? Very significant, potentially huge, almost certainly negative

I doubt you'll find many knowledgeable people that disagree with that in general terms. The (small but real) chance of it turning out differently are similar to the chance of climate change turning out not to have been affected by humans. Everyone knows the truth - but some seem intent on not seeing it. You can pretend you might be holding a royal flush for only so long, before it becomes obvious you only have a pair of eights.
baron - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to john arran:
Mervyn King, who may or may not know a thing about the UK economy doesn't share your gloomy outlook.
He does, however, say that the UK should, as well as negotiating with the EU, be preparing for a no deal WTO Brexit.
While there's no mention of the 'no deal'preparations from the government I'm sure, given their excellent track record so far, that said preparations are well underway.
john arran - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to baron:

> While there's no mention of the 'no deal'preparations from the government I'm sure, given their excellent track record so far, that said preparations are well underway.

Have a like for brightening my day with humour!

baron - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to john arran:
We aim to please.
john arran - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to baron:

Also, I just quickly googled to find out Mervyn King's thoughts on a no-deal outcome, after your implication that he might think positively about that (which of course would be surprising). I might have missed something, but all I could find was reference to that option having to sound credible, as a backdrop to EU talks. Nothing at all on how it might be a good option in practice. Seems like more of the same royal flush bluffing from what I could find. If they don't know how bad our hand really is, they'll play theirs differently.

Pretty sad that things are so quickly reduced to dog-eat-dog mentality. Whatever happened to working together for mutual benefit; Seems like that's been pretty successful overall these last 40 years?
baron - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to john arran:

Mervyn King was on either Sky news or BBC 24 news yesterday.
Sorry I can't remember which one.
And yes it's a pity that being amicable seems to have gone out of the window.
pasbury on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

iPhone X: $999 or £999. The pound is doing really well.
Lion Bakes on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

It is a divorce and each partner is trying to get the best deal for themselves and bad thungs are said regardless of the truth. It will setlle and thungs will get better once the divorce is through.

Lusk - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to pasbury:

> iPhone X: $999 or £999.

Just shows you're being shafted by Apple to the tune of about £200, taking sales tax into account.
pasbury on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to Lion Bakes:

> It is a divorce and each partner is trying to get the best deal for themselves and bad thungs are said regardless of the truth. It will setlle and thungs will get better once the divorce is through.

I see us as Charlie Sheen in this scenario.
pasbury on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to Lusk:

OK nothing whatsoever to do with the 20% devaluation of sterling then.
baron - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to pasbury:
Nothing.
Could be EU tariffs on imported goods though.
Ian W - on 14 Sep 2017
cragtaff - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to john arran:

that is a fantastic crystal ball you have there! Not every economist, industrialist or politician supports the remain view, or their negative defeatist attitude.

Are the knowledgeable people you refer to just those who agree with your point of view?

I happen to have faith in a Britain outside the EU.
Shani - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:

> I happen to have faith in a Britain outside the EU.

On the basis of what exactly? Where does your faith come from? The fact that we once had an empire? Should Italy Itexit because of the Romans?

Faith is a very weak driver in the tough world of science, tehcnology and trade.
BnB - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:
> On the basis of what exactly? Where does your faith come from? The fact that we once had an empire? Should Italy Itexit because of the Romans?

> Faith is a very weak driver in the tough world of science, tehcnology and trade.

Nobody's arguing that faith is a secret weapon. You're twisting his words and thereby diminishing your argument. I imagine he expects us to trade in vastly greater proportion with India, China, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, not to mention the USA. Many of those being countries with a deep history of cooperation with the UK.

Not to mention the possibility that we might actually retain preferential trading links with the EU.

Of course no one knows for sure, which makes all this doom rather tiresome.
Post edited at 18:41
cragtaff - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:

I am afraid that an argument based on such silliness as this has no merit whatsoever.

I have faith in the tenacity of the British people, their entrepreneurial talent and determination to succeed, I remember that there was a Britain long before the EU and it was a successful, progressive country. The negativism of your arguments and those of your ilk do the UK no favours at all, you want to throw in the towel and surrender to your European masters, fearing that we cannot survive without them

Thank heavens the UK didn't depend on the likes of you during two world wars!

Rob Exile Ward on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:

What shame that there wasn't an EU before WW II because then it might have been averted.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:

It wasn't always cooperation...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

its true though, no one knows how it will turn out. We aren't coming at them from a position of strength though, and that is a concern.


Andy Hardy on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:

Just what does being out of the EU allow us to do, that we can't in?

(Apart from spending a decade or two negotiating trade deals, which are UK only)
pasbury on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:

> I am afraid that an argument based on such silliness as this has no merit whatsoever.

No, far better to argue based on 'faith' isn't it.

> I have faith in the tenacity of the British people, their entrepreneurial talent and determination to succeed, I remember that there was a Britain long before the EU and it was a successful, progressive country. The negativism of your arguments and those of your ilk do the UK no favours at all, you want to throw in the towel and surrender to your European masters, fearing that we cannot survive without them

The world has changed a lot since then. And I think you need to read some history books if you are referring to early 1970's Britain as successful and progressive!

> Thank heavens the UK didn't depend on the likes of you during two world wars!

Bizarre thing to say - I'm sure that ww2 was fought on shrewd calculation and graft rather than faith if that's what you're alluding to.
summo on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Just what does being out of the EU allow us to do, that we can't in?

Sort out cap properly, control the UKs rather extensive fisheries, stop funding the monthly farce of Strasbourg, an end to the EU' s attempt to standardise absolutely everything... although depending on the trade deal some standardisation will be unavoidable for eu sales, perhaps make other countries challenge the status quo more even if they don't plan to exit. Once one leaves, it gives hope to others.

summo on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

> What shame that there wasn't an EU before WW II because then it might have been averted.

Well it didn't help in the Balkans, the U.N. had to take over as eu action was failing to achieve anything. Or the eu's current migrant solution, that's working well? Or the big bribe to Turkey that helped lots?
pasbury on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Nobody's arguing that faith is a secret weapon. You're twisting his words and thereby diminishing your argument. I imagine he expects us to trade in vastly greater proportion with India, China, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, not to mention the USA. Many of those being countries with a deep history of cooperation with the UK.

i thought we already did?

Andy Hardy on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

Everything on your list would be more effectively achieved by remaining in and persuading our neighbours and partners that we should do those things. However we as a nation and to eternal shame send gurning spunkflutes like Farage to represent us in Europe.
Wainers44 - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

All this banter is wonderfully outward facing and well done for that!!!

It will all look after itself in the end I am sure. Johnny Foreigner will come to his senses, good old Blighty will strike a good deal and all this fluff and bother will be forgotten.


The bit that worries me though, is when we come to divvy up all this surplus dosh that we don't now pay to the EU, and there is loads of it apparently, who will benefit?

It's like we should be working out now who the deprived areas with higher unemployment and lower investment are and helping them out? Cornwall, Wales, The Highlands, etc?

Lucky that political short-termism, London centric self interest and corrupt Tory cash and jobs for the boys type thinking can't influence the share out isn't it!!
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to Wainers44:

shame you can only give one 'like'...



pasbury on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:
>> Nobody's arguing that faith is a secret weapon. You're twisting his words and thereby diminishing your argument. I imagine he expects us to trade in vastly greater proportion with India, China, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, not to mention the USA. Many of those being countries with a deep history of cooperation with the UK.

>i thought we already did?

In fact inspired by this idea I'm going to Tescxit- I'm going to chop up my clubcard and take a dump in the salad isle so I have the 'opportunity' to shop at Waitrose 50 miles away.
Post edited at 20:57
summo on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Everything on your list would be more effectively achieved by remaining in and persuading our neighbours and partners that we should do those things.

Meaningful cap reform, next to impossible.
Fisheries, you think other nations would agree to fish UK waters less?
Strasbourg, the eu refused to upset the French by closing it..

The eu doesn't grasp reform. Listen to Juncker this week. Ever closer etc..
BnB - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> its true though, no one knows how it will turn out. We aren't coming at them from a position of strength though, and that is a concern.

It's more balanced than people imagine. While it's clearly the case that the EU has gained the upper hand in the way the negotiation is structured (divorce bill before trade deal) , the risks to Europe of a "bad" deal for the UK are significant. There's clearly a point where we would have few reasons not to simply duck out of sustaining the EU with a "divorce settlement" for which there is no contractual basis today, and which, if eventually agreed, would still be contingent on the trade half of the deal being struck to both parties' satisfaction. Worse still, without a fair deal, what would there then be to stop us adopting an aggressive low tax trading infrastructure on their doorstep?

I'm not advocating those measures, I'm simply pointing out that this is the EU's nightmare scenario.

no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:

Maybe; it just worries me that we are very much the smaller player in this negotiation, with more to lose if there is no deal. The exhortations to show a bit of blitz spirit from some contributors look disconnected from the reality of trying to find a solution to striking trade deals with countries which we may have historic connections to, but which in the end are out to get the best deal they can, not to do us a favour. I hope I'm wrong, but the way it's unraveling looks like we're in line to get repeatedly hit with the shitty end of the stick.

But there's still over a year to go; maybe the master plan will all become clear in time.
john arran - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:

> that is a fantastic crystal ball you have there! Not every economist, industrialist or politician supports the remain view, or their negative defeatist attitude.

> Are the knowledgeable people you refer to just those who agree with your point of view?

> I happen to have faith in a Britain outside the EU.

Ok then, show me one person who can put up a credible argument for a no-deal Brexit being anything other than extremely damaging.

Otherwise, it would appear that your faith, at least in the case of a no-deal eventuality, may be unfounded.
BnB - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

I agree a bit more meat needs to sit on the bones of British pluck but it's a fallacy to assume the smaller party has more to lose. It's our contribution that's at stake and they want us to keep paying in, not the other way round. Not to mention that we could quite quickly become an economic irritant of the worst order. Isn't it safer for the EU to play nice once the politicians of all sides have finished grandstanding in the ragtops?
BnB - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Ok then, show me one person who can put up a credible argument for a no-deal Brexit being anything other than extremely damaging.

James Dyson made that case in the national press today. I didn't agree with everything he said but he knows considerably more about international trade than I do (and I know a thing or two). Look it up to save my digits from cramp.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/09/14/sir-james-dyson-make-clean-brea...
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:

For sure. But they have to have someone to play nice with.

I just can't see them moving of the principles that:

- they didn't ask for this, so they shouldn't lose out on commitments made up to this point

- free market access goes hand in hand with free movement, if that's what the rules are for everyone else

The government has done nothing to prepare the public for having to accept any sort of compromise on these areas, but without us moving position I don't see how a deal gets done.

And there is clearly an ideological aspect to the EU side, and I think we are wrong to assume they are bluffing when they tell us that this will take priority over the economic aspects.

It all looks a pretty toxic mix, with a bomb set to go off underneath it all unless unlikely compromises are made.



Shani - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to cragtaff:

> I am afraid that an argument based on such silliness as this has no merit whatsoever.

> I have faith in the tenacity of the British people, their entrepreneurial talent and determination to succeed, I remember that there was a Britain long before the EU and it was a successful, progressive country. The negativism of your arguments and those of your ilk do the UK no favours at all, you want to throw in the towel and surrender to your European masters, fearing that we cannot survive without them

> Thank heavens the UK didn't depend on the likes of you during two world wars!

What an irony that your first sentence is the perfect reponse to your last sentence.
Shani - on 14 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:

> I imagine he expects us to trade in vastly greater proportion with India, China, Japan, Korea, Indonesia, not to mention the USA. Many of those being countries with a deep history of cooperation with the UK. Not to mention the possibility that we might actually retain preferential trading links with the EU.

Fox, Gove and Davis have been at this for a year. What deal(s) have they secured thus far?

I suspect a deal with the US may well be exploitative given the ego of current WH incumbent. The response of China and India in particular, may well have an element of retribution; 'our' reputation amongst the middle classes of both are particularly nuanced - way beyond what the rose tinted amongst us would have us believe.
BnB - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:
> Fox, Gove and Davis have been at this for a year. What deal(s) have they secured thus far?

> I suspect a deal with the US may well be exploitative given the ego of current WH incumbent. The response of China and India in particular, may well have an element of retribution; 'our' reputation amongst the middle classes of both are particularly nuanced - way beyond what the rose tinted amongst us would have us believe.

Surely you can see the the irony in your first sentence? We can't do any deals today because we're in the EU!!

By the way, Gove hasn't been in the government until the recent poll and Davis' job is to negotiate with the EU. Fox is an idiot on which I'm sure we agree.

I don't disagree that other trading partners will try to get the most advantageous arrangements but how would you expect them to operate in other circumstances? Exactly the same of course.
Post edited at 07:50
john arran - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:

Well done for finding one. Now what was that popular phrase about the exception proving the rule? ;-)
cb294 - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

> The eu doesn't grasp reform. Listen to Juncker this week. Ever closer etc..

No, you don´t grasp the EU, which is not merely a free trade zone. "Ever closer" is the whole point. It even says so on the tin, i.e. in the preamble to its founding treaties and the Solemn Declaration of 1981.

In practise, things will go more slowly than pushed by Juncker, as national governments are reluctant to give up power, but probably the pace will pick up a bit without the UK, who were happy to subvert the process from within despite signing up for it in the first place. For the same reason, I am all for kicking out Poland and Hungary, who are happy take the EU money but do not accept its values.


CB
summo on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to cb294:
> No, you don´t grasp the EU, which is not merely a free trade zone. "Ever closer" is the whole point. It even says so on the tin, i.e. in the preamble to its founding treaties and the Solemn Declaration of 1981.

The UK had a vote 1975 and it was packaged very much as a trade agreement. Even if it might have been buried in the small print.

Perhaps I do 'get it', but don't actually think it will work? Or rather I do think it could work, but to move 28 nations; with differing languages, culture, societies, history, currencies, government structures... will take a century or two. Not the eu ideal of trying to force it through in 1 or 2 generations. The whole plan is full of holes already look at migration, the Euro, the piggs nations, debt... and that's before they force it even closer.

> I am all for kicking out Poland and Hungary, who are happy take the EU money but do not accept its values.

I agree, but it won't, as that would be an admission that the plan is flawed. Just like countries that should never have joined the euro. They push on regardless. The commissioners with their big wages, expenses and pensions won't suffer in the long run if or when it fails.
Post edited at 08:06
BnB - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to pasbury:
> i thought we already did?

It's this kind of depressing lack of comprehension more than a year after the vote that has me, a Remainer, representing the views of the other side. To be fair, not only did I have to bring myself up to speed but I could easily criticise the poor standard of debate coming from the Brexit camp that prompts me to make its case.

We trade with China, US, India, Japan etc but we don't enjoy trade free from customs or tariff regulations nor the free movement of capital (and labour, a future sticking point to be sure). The markets of these nations already dwarf the EU and are expected, in the case of India and China, to form the centre of the economic globe within our lifetimes.

Leaving the EU and making an early deal with these rapidly expanding partners is potentially a master stroke, albeit one fraught with difficulties.

I share much of the gloom at abandoning our EU membership, but I can see the opportunity, as you might expect an entrepreneur to do. Yes, its depressing to tear up our friendship, but wilfully ignoring the case for the other side reduces arguments to re-moans.
Post edited at 08:14
pec on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> - free market access goes hand in hand with free movement, if that's what the rules are for everyone else >

Didn't Canada just strike a free trade deal with the eu, no freedom of movement in that one though.

> The government has done nothing to prepare the public for having to accept any sort of compromise on these areas, but without us moving position I don't see how a deal gets done. >

Its job in this regard would of course be considerably easier if they weren't constantly having to fight a battle with the militant remainers hellbent on preventing Brexit.

> And there is clearly an ideological aspect to the EU side, and I think we are wrong to assume they are bluffing when they tell us that this will take priority over the economic aspects. >

But when Brexiteers say its not just about the money (the sovereignty argument) they are dismissed by the remainers as swivel eyed loons. So it ok for the EU to put principal ahead of cash but not the UK?




pec on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Imagine the very real possibility of no deal.

> Would it hit the EU prosperity hard? Yes

> Would the EU adapt and recover over 5-15 years to a similar level? Almost certainly, yes

> What would the medium-long term impact be? Small, almost certainly negative

> Would it hit the UK prosperity hard? Yes

> Would the UK adapt and recover over 5-15 years to a similar level? Almost certainly, no

> What would the medium-long term impact be? Very significant, potentially huge, almost certainly negative

> I doubt you'll find many knowledgeable people that disagree with that in general terms. >

Which "knowledgeable" people would that be? Your faith in economic "experts" is touching but totally unfounded. Try this for example
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/14e323ee-e602-11e3-aeef-00144feabdc0.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true

"The second conclusion was that the predictive record of economists was terrible. Loungani wrote: “The record of failure to predict recessions is virtually unblemished.”

"There were 77 countries under consideration, and 49 of them were in recession in 2009. Economists – as reflected in the averages published in a report called Consensus Forecasts – had not called a single one of these recessions by April 2008."

"Predictions from multinational organisations such as the IMF and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have remained very similar to the private sector consensus – similarly bad, that is."

Your scenario above is pure speculation, indeed I would suggest its what many militant remainers might subconsciously wish to happen so they can be proved to have been right all along. But whatever, your guess, my guess, an economists guess and that bloke reading the racing post in the local workingman's club's guess, they're all about as likely as each other. Final quote from the link:

"The obvious conclusion is that forecasts should not be taken seriously. There is not a lot of point asking an economist to tell you what will happen to the economy next year – nobody knows."


no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to pec:
> Didn't Canada just strike a free trade deal with the eu, no freedom of movement in that one though.

its not been a member of the EU prior to that point though. i'm not saying i agree with them, but i am saying they appear to mean it, and a strategy that assumes that they'll move on this is a risky one.

> Its job in this regard would of course be considerably easier if they weren't constantly having to fight a battle with the militant remainers hellbent on preventing Brexit.

everyone must fall into line behind the Great Leader and her vision. i didnt realise that's the sort of freedom we were aspiring to.

> But when Brexiteers say its not just about the money (the sovereignty argument) they are dismissed by the remainers as swivel eyed loons. So it ok for the EU to put principal ahead of cash but not the UK?

of course its fine for the UK to. i never said it wasn't. you must be thinking of soomeone else...
Post edited at 10:27
Andy Hardy on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

> Meaningful cap reform, next to impossible.

> Fisheries, you think other nations would agree to fish UK waters less?

> Strasbourg, the eu refused to upset the French by closing it..

> The eu doesn't grasp reform. Listen to Juncker this week. Ever closer etc..

As I said we would need to persuade the other members that those outcomes were desirable and in their interests as well as ours. We would have to be represented by people who are the benefits of EU membership not by the likes of Farage and Hanan who are there solely to disrupt annoy and provoke the very people we should have been working with. In short we should have been fully engaged with the Eu.
Shani - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:

> It's this kind of depressing lack of comprehension more than a year after the vote that has me, a Remainer, representing the views of the other side. To be fair, not only did I have to bring myself up to speed but I could easily criticise the poor standard of debate coming from the Brexit camp that prompts me to make its case.

> Leaving the EU and making an early deal with these rapidly expanding partners is potentially a master stroke, albeit one fraught with difficulties.

> I share much of the gloom at abandoning our EU membership, but I can see the opportunity, as you might expect an entrepreneur to do. Yes, its depressing to tear up our friendship, but wilfully ignoring the case for the other side reduces arguments to re-moans.

Nobody in government seems to have worked out the opportunity cost of leaving the EU. This is the first thing they should have done in preparation for leaving. We have a real risk of losing 'jewel in the crown' agencies regarding science/medicine/research, financial services, loss of scientific collaboration, the costs of setting up customs (on both sides of the Channel), tax etc...

If some of these things had been worked out in a forecast, THEN I would have more confidence in BREXIT. This is basic planning and preparation and would help direct our negotiations. This would be a situation in which I could 'get on board' with Brexit.

Instead we have bluster form our BREXIT team (Fox - 'this negotiation will be easy', Davis - 'we will have a preliminary draft in six months'), and a future premised on 'faith' by BREXITEERS. But again, no one seems to have performed any kind of impact analysis or assessment.

This is a shocking gamble, evidenced by Davis' grasping at 'anything' to prove BREXIT 'works'. Anything negative is immediately attributed to Remoaner negativity. But it is hard to express how incompetent I feel Davis et. al are - they are making it up as they go along; they have no plan and there is no bar. It is hard to express how scary I think the Henry VIII clause is. It is hard to know what our future is without an impact assessment. It is no way to run a country or decide its future.
tony on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:

> This is a shocking gamble, evidenced by Davis' grasping at 'anything' to prove BREXIT 'works'. Anything negative is immediately attributed to Remoaner negativity. But it is hard to express how incompetent I feel Davis et. al are - they are making it up as they go along; they have no plan and there is no bar. It is hard to express how scary I think the Henry VIII clause is. It is hard to know what our future is without an impact assessment. It is no way to run a country or decide its future.

I think one of things that summed up the ineptitude of the Government was the way it took a year after the referendum before the Migration Advisory Committee was asked to work on a report on the likely impacts of the loss of freedom of movement on the UK economy, with a reporting date just a few months before the March 2019 deadline. And then to cap it all, Number 10 appears to have draft immigration policy which has no reference to the work of the MAC. As you say, making it up as they go along.
cb294 - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:
That is as may be, but then I would argue that the misunderstanding started already back then. The EU may have started in practise as a free trade zone, as this was easiest to implement, but the overall aim was always political in nature and way more ambitious.

In any case, your democratically elected government signed up to all subsequent treaties. You can of course decide you don't want to be part of that project anymore, but to claim that this was foisted upon you in some nondemocratic manner would be dishonest. Anyway, the mood in the major European countries has become quite a bit more pro-European since Brexit.

CB
edit: Forgot to address your last point. Yes, progress is frustratingly slow, and the solution will probably be a Europe of multiple speeds, with a nucleus of committed Eurozone countries and various groups of associated countries that are more loosely associated. Not ideal, but probably inevitable.
Post edited at 10:22
jkarran - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:
> ...the risks to Europe of a "bad" deal for the UK are significant. There's clearly a point where we would have few reasons not to simply duck out of sustaining the EU with a "divorce settlement" for which there is no contractual basis today, and which, if eventually agreed, would still be contingent on the trade half of the deal being struck to both parties' satisfaction. Worse still, withtut a fair deal, what would there then be to stop us adopting an aggressive low tax trading infrastructure on their doorstep?

What is there to stop us doing that with a 'good' settlement? Good of course in this case meaning 'not really that shit' since we've just ripped up the genuinely good deal.

> I'm not advocating those measures, I'm simply pointing out that this is the EU's nightmare scenario.

Not really, what companies relocating here from EU27 gain from tax cuts they will lose to border delays, staffing restrictions, additional compliance costs, tariffs, soaring staff training and healthcare expenses as UK public services are slashed to facilitate the low tax regime. Doesn't sound like a nightmare for the EU27 but for the average brexit voter and their children it's catastrophic.

Still, low taxes and a big 'up yours' to Brussels eh, totally worth it!
jk
Post edited at 10:29
summo on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> As I said we would need to persuade the other members that those outcomes were desirable and in their interests as well as ours. We would have to be represented by people who are the benefits of EU membership not by the likes of Farage and Hanan who are there solely to disrupt annoy and provoke the very people we should have been working with. In short we should have been fully engaged with the Eu.

The other net contributors hold the power and sway in the UK. France won't agree to close Strasbourg, other nations including France do very well out of cap and fisheries, why would they vote to change it?

Fully engaged, you mean committ to the euro etc.. the fully package?
summo on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to cb294:

> In any case, your democratically elected government signed up to all subsequent treaties. You can of course decide you don't want to be part of that project anymore, but to claim that this was foisted upon you in some nondemocratic manner would be dishonest. Anyway, the mood in the major European countries has become quite a bit more pro-European since Brexit.

I certainly didn't vote for Labour when Blair and Brown were signing the UK up to everything and it wasn't really put to the electorate either. The public fell for the great messiah.

I wouldn't say people are more pro eu in Sweden, it's going the other way. Border checks were reintroduced to locate the migrants and refugees on entry, bridge to Copenhagen etc... it wasn't as if Sweden has a harsh migrant policy compared eastern Europe, but the eu forced Sweden to stop as it breached schengen agreements. Many people are fed up as the rest of the eu isn't doing their bit, housing, schools and finances are becoming stretched. They don't blame the refugees but the eu.

There is a big bun fight over here about the some what disgraced minority socialist party in power and the anti eu right wingers are looking to gain ground.

summo on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Still, low taxes and a big 'up yours' to Brussels eh, totally worth it!

Worked for Luxembourg when juncker was President, drawing in all those big international companies.
cb294 - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

But the elected government / parliament has the authority to act in your name, that is the whole point of representative democracy. If you want to deny the government to enter into treaties, pending ratification by parliament, what would be left?

In any case, I agree that the situation in Sweden, with the sheer numbers of refugees they took in is a bit exceptional, but in Germany the overall mood has become more pro-European despite the probable gains of the nationalists forecast for the upcoming elections. Refugees are not that big an issue, and while the border controls in Bavaria are probably necessary for the moment (same as with the belt bridge), people in the border area with Austria realize how nice it was without the controls and want that state back.

CB
stevieb - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:

There is this constant argument that we have a chance for free trade agreements with India, China etc. and clearly these are growing markets, and will overtake the EU in the next century.
But why would we want free trade agreements with countries with lower environmental standards, lower workers rights and health and safety standards and lower wages? There is no way we could compete in basic manufacturing, and any competition would result in falling wages and standards. We would be relying on a small high end manufacturing sector or hoping that these countries would be prime customers for our sophisticated service industry.
Surely its better to be a finance, telecoms and IT specialist in developed markets?
jkarran - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

Depends what you mean by worked for Luxembourg. An office full of shiny MegaCorp PLC brass name plates employing a handful of lawyers and accountants to make sure the aforementioned MegaCorps pay the bare minimum of the already low taxes owed isn't going to impress the man on the street who now can't afford housing or services where he grew up.
jk
Post edited at 10:41
elsewhere on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:
Dyson and even UK opinion is barely relevant to the EU member states who will agree or veto any deal.

We need to be reading the foreign opinion (or at least the English versions) for relevancy beyond our borders.

I'm pretty sure this was in the FT but here it is not behind a paywall, it's worth a read.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/philip-stephens-merkel-s-message-to-theresa-may-brexit-means-brex...

Brexit is the biggest and most urgent issue for the UK. For the EU member states it's a minor issue low on the agenda compared to domestic politics and elections. They feel they're negotiating from a position of strength with the balance of power tipping their way as the deadline approaches.
summo on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to cb294:

> But the elected government / parliament has the authority to act in your name, that is the whole point of representative democracy. If you want to deny the government to enter into treaties, pending ratification by parliament, what would be left?

Yes. You could say the same about the current government, but the remainers don't see it that way. Labour and the Tories both ran on a Brexit manifesto.

> , people in the border area with Austria realize how nice it was without the controls and want that state back.

Same here for those commute across daily for work.

But the authorities wanted to locate the refugees etc.. as many would turn up in towns hundreds of miles north because they had friends and family there, but those local areas couldn't cope with any more. Swedes are by their nature pretty quiet and calm, but trouble is slowly brewing. If the UK gets even a modest deal, I think swexit will become more likely long term as there is no desire here or in Denmark to give up the knona either and if the eu wants ever closer union they'd rather exit with a deal like Norway.

summo on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Depends what you mean by worked for Luxembourg. An office full of shiny MegaCorp PLC brass name plates employing a handful of lawyers and accountants to make sure the aforementioned MegaCorps pay the bare minimum of the already low taxes owed isn't going to impress the man on the street who now can't afford housing or services where he grew up.

By worked: they get the tax revenue. Just like Ireland is now. If it's a new hq then it's a tax revenue increase from a new contributor to the pot.



Ian W - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

> By worked: they get the tax revenue. Just like Ireland is now. If it's a new hq then it's a tax revenue increase from a new contributor to the pot.

Which will be handy to replace all those relocating to EU countries in order to be able to still trade properly in the EU (banks etc). And if the corporation tax rate is lowered to attract new corporations, we'd better make sure it happens in order to replace the lost tax revenue from those already incorporated here that will have reduced tax liabilities..........

This tax haven idea is really an example of training really hard in order to ensure you win the race to the bottom.




Andy Hardy on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

> The other net contributors hold the power and sway in the UK. France won't agree to close Strasbourg, other nations including France do very well out of cap and fisheries, why would they vote to change it?
Why not base the whole thing at Strasbourg and close the office at Brussels? Moving periodically is obviously bananas, a solution can surely be found.
Ditto for the other issues: our problem is that we have not been leading on EU reform, we've been hijacked by Eurosceptics.

> Fully engaged, you mean committ to the euro etc.. the fully package?

No. I mean work with Europe, not against.
Mick Ward - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Nobody in government seems to have worked out the opportunity cost of leaving the EU. This is the first thing they should have done in preparation for leaving.

I'd argue that's the first thing they should have done, period. Long, long before we played spin the bottle...

Mick
Ramblin dave - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

> France won't agree to close Strasbourg

I always find it weird how the all-powerful Commission can apparently ride roughshod over the interests of member states in their endless drive for Ever Closer Union, but somehow can't stop France vetoing any changes to the daft Strasbourg routine.
Yanis Nayu - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

Are your hands ever dry 10 seconds after placing them in a Dyson hand dryer? No, of course not. That's what his opinion is worth.
Shani - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to Mick Ward:
> I'd argue that's the first thing they should have done, period. Long, long before we played spin the bottle...

> Mick

Ha ha! Brilliant analogy!

Davis' ignorance has been monumental. His assertions about darting to Berlin rather than Brussels to strike bespoke trade deals 'immediately after Brexit' (and anticipating a similar bespoke approach with France and Italy who would want to protect trade in food and wine), were things of fantasy. He was gloriously ignorant of the fact that negotiations would have to include 27 other countries.

His bullshit is strong (14 July 2016):

"So be under no doubt: we can do deals with our trading partners, and we can do them quickly. I would expect the new Prime Minister on September 9th to immediately trigger a large round of global trade deals with all our most favoured trade partners. I would expect that the negotiation phase of most of them to be concluded within between 12 and 24 months.

So within two years, before the negotiation with the EU is likely to be complete, and therefore before anything material has changed, we can negotiate a free trade area massively larger than the EU. Trade deals with the US and China alone will give us a trade area almost twice the size of the EU, and of course we will also be seeking deals with Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, the UAE, Indonesia – and many others." http://bit.ly/2fb74eh


Interesting how his failures - the INCREASING failures, are the fault of people who said that BREXIT was more complicated than Gove, Farage, Johnson, Davis and Fox were claiming it to be....
Post edited at 12:28
summo on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Why not base the whole thing at Strasbourg and close the office at Brussels?

What about all the locally employed staff in Brussels, far more than Strasbourg. Strasbourg is a bribe to France as they don't have the hqs or depts. that went to germany, Netherlands, Luxembourg etc..

So why just bin the farce of moving, save on building costs, travel, hotels, lost time. Can you imagine a private company having a hq that moved to another country for 1 week every month?

summo on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> I always find it weird how the all-powerful Commission can apparently ride roughshod over the interests of member states in their endless drive for Ever Closer Union, but somehow can't stop France vetoing any changes to the daft Strasbourg routine.

Because the eu doesn't do austerity, but it's happy to force it others, wouldn't even dream of even freezing its own budget. So it doesn't need to worry about closing things down, just add 5% to the annual budget and bill the member nations. Can't risk upsetting France. That's why they are so desperate to make the UK pay a settlement, plug that gap in the budget for a couple of years.
Doug on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

Sure I read recently that the parliament building in Brussels is suffering from various problems & will need to be closed for extensive repairs. If that happens I guess the parliament will be based just in Strasbourg, at least for a while.
Andy Hardy on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to summo:

No arguments in favour from me. I was just pointing out one possible solution. Of course the real problem is that countries do insist on keeping their individual vetos...
Bob Hughes - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to stevieb:

> There is this constant argument that we have a chance for free trade agreements with India, China etc. and clearly these are growing markets, and will overtake the EU in the next century.

> But why would we want free trade agreements with countries with lower environmental standards, lower workers rights and health and safety standards and lower wages? There is no way we could compete in basic manufacturing, and any competition would result in falling wages and standards. We would be relying on a small high end manufacturing sector or hoping that these countries would be prime customers for our sophisticated service industry.

> Surely its better to be a finance, telecoms and IT specialist in developed markets?

Actually I think it would be easier to strike a free trade agreement with China, India etc than the US as our economies are complementary. They want to sell us garments, electronics, steel and whatever; we want to sell them Financial services, creative industries and technology.

With the US we want to sell them financial services and they want to sell us financial services. Tricky.

The problem with the US, China and India as trading partners is that they're miles away and in different time zones.
no_more_scotch_eggs - on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to Bob Hughes:

Also, some of the things they are likely to require (relaxation on visa regulations for example in the case of India) have the potential to prove contentious to the UK side.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-39103078
pasbury on 15 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:
> It's this kind of depressing lack of comprehension more than a year after the vote that has me, a Remainer, representing the views of the other side. To be fair, not only did I have to bring myself up to speed but I could easily criticise the poor standard of debate coming from the Brexit camp that prompts me to make its case.

> We trade with China, US, India, Japan etc but we don't enjoy trade free from customs or tariff regulations nor the free movement of capital (and labour, a future sticking point to be sure). The markets of these nations already dwarf the EU and are expected, in the case of India and China, to form the centre of the economic globe within our lifetimes.

Do you think all these nations are free from the risk if economic bubbles, political unrest or worse? We do already trade with theses nations primarily as an importer. Exporting is what they do. Yes there is an appetite for British flavour goods but it's a risky thing to rely on.

> Leaving the EU and making an early deal with these rapidly expanding partners is potentially a master stroke, albeit one fraught with difficulties.

What like this one https://www.ft.com/content/572fef42-6260-11e7-91a7-502f7ee26895 ?
Post edited at 20:54
Big Ger - on 16 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

"The pound has hit its highest level against the dollar since the Brexit vote after a senior Bank of England official fuelled speculation it could raise rates in the coming months."

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41278741

Like the recent fall in unemployment, I'm sure some will contrive to make this into a bad thing...
Lusk - on 16 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

One and a half million.
Just in case it hasn't registered yet.
One and a half million.

Over half the population of Greater Manchester. You can stick your sub 5% figure where ...
Big Ger - on 16 Sep 2017
In reply to Lusk:

Just as I predicted.

Some prefer to wallow in their misery than admit things could be good.
Lusk - on 16 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Do you mean some like fooling everyone with stats which hide the truth?
I've lost count of the number of times I've heard this %age figure quoted over the media in the last few days, not ONCE has the actually number of people out of work been mentioned.

Oh, and my wife deserves at least a 10% pay rise to compensate for the effective 14% pay cut she's had in the last seven years.
RomTheBear on 16 Sep 2017
In reply to Lusk:
> Do you mean some like fooling everyone with stats which hide the truth?

> I've lost count of the number of times I've heard this %age figure quoted over the media in the last few days, not ONCE has the actually number of people out of work been mentioned.

Maybe because it's irrelevant ? One and a half million of unemployed in a country of 65+ millions, that's pretty good. Surely what matters is the ratio.

Of course a lot of the jobs are really shitty, low skill, useless and unproductive, but that's a different story.
Post edited at 01:57
RomTheBear on 16 Sep 2017
In reply to BnB:
> I agree a bit more meat needs to sit on the bones of British pluck but it's a fallacy to assume the smaller party has more to lose.

In this particular case, it is not. Size matters.

> It's our contribution that's at stake and they want us to keep paying in, not the other way round.

The UK net contribution to the EU is something like 8 billions a year.
I don't think they'll lose much sleep over it, the whole EU budget is a pretty small thing as a share of GDP anyway.

The issue really is not money, it is trust. In fact they've said so, Barnier's negotiating mandate is to agree a methodology to settle commitments and liabilities, that matters more than whatever number comes out of it at the end.

> Not to mention that we could quite quickly become an economic irritant of the worst order.

Humm.. how ?

1) There is no political majority in this country to turn the UK into a tax haven of some kind
2) most likely it would be self destructive
2) We simply couldn't afford it
3) It would wipe out entire sectors of the economy
4) This would immediately trigger overwhelming and devastating retaliation from the EU (and the rest of our trading partners...)

> Isn't it safer for the EU to play nice once the politicians of all sides have finished grandstanding in the ragtops?

The problem is, they don't really need to play nice, in fact it is probably in their best interest to not play nice.
Post edited at 02:42
Big Ger - on 16 Sep 2017
In reply to Lusk:
As I say, when unemployment numbers were high, some people complained about how high unemployment was.

When unemployment falls, some people complain about it falling due to "the wrong sorts of jobs" being created.

Some people will always try to find a negative, and wallow in their self created misery.
Post edited at 02:46
Big Ger - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to HardenClimber:

More bad news! let's all get together and moan about it!!

The UK’s manufacturing industry moved up a spot in the global league table to become the eighth largest in the world, according to the latest available data. British manufacturing is now worth $249bn (£185bn) every year, according to United Nations data collected by the EEF, a manufacturers’ lobby group. The UK leapfrogged France in the ranking, with only Germany and Italy manufacturing more in 2015 among European countries.

http://www.cityam.com/272260/british-manufacturing-now-eighth-largest-world
stevieb - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

It's great news that we've moved up to 8th, and I'm delighted that brexit had such a positive impact on the 2015 figures
MonkeyPuzzle - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to stevieb:

Hahaha!
Postmanpat on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to Lusk:

> One and a half million.

> Just in case it hasn't registered yet.

> One and a half million.

> Over half the population of Greater Manchester. You can stick your sub 5% figure where ...

You might want to google "uk, natural rate of unemployment"
Big Ger - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to stevieb:

Fair comment
john arran - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to stevieb:

That's hilarious. Or would be if it wasn't being used to mislead people. Big Ger was obviously taken in by it so it's clear the lies do work.

The actual message, contrary to the misleading one portrayed, is that manufacturing in the UK was doing well in the EU. As it's a dollar-value comparison it would be highly unlikely that the same value will have been maintained throughout the currency crash. So by that yardstick at least, it is very likely that UK manufacturing will have performed much more poorly since the referendum.
Big Ger - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to john arran:

> That's hilarious. Or would be if it wasn't being used to mislead people.

Can you tell me why you think "City AM" has an interest in misleading people?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_A.M.

> Big Ger was obviously taken in by it so it's clear the lies do work.

I'm culpable of not thoroughly reading what i had linked to, I agree..
Shani - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:


> I'm culpable of not thoroughly reading what i had linked to, I agree..

Nor understanding it....
john arran - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

I have no idea why it would want to misrepresent, but it clearly did so.
tripehound - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Nothing to do with the mass immigration of the last few years obvs.

Many of those immigrants will be highly skilled doctors nurses engineers etc that we desperately need. Others will people todo jobs like crop picking that no one else will do.
jkarran - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> "The pound has hit its highest level against the dollar since the Brexit vote after a senior Bank of England official fuelled speculation it could raise rates in the coming months."

Since the time its value collapsed you mean?

> Like the recent fall in unemployment, I'm sure some will contrive to make this into a bad thing...

Brexit logic: Raising interest rates in a country who's economy has been propped up for years by consumer borrowing will make everyone feel much better. Nope.

Fine for savers (and those who've made their money overseas) but not so good for the young over here, those in debt for their education suffering the consequences of a housing policy engineered to stoke the investments of the old and the wealthy for short term political gain. Especially so since the proposed rate rise is in response to inflation driven not by a vigorously growing economy but by a slump in the value of our currency driven by a slump in our medium-long term economic prospects which, as a net importer, has already been hitting living standards. First it's my groceries and holiday costs, now I can't wait for my mortgage payments to erode the last of my disposable income (or worse) as a consequence your jingoistic shambles.

Remind me, when does brexit stop making me worse off? Obviously I'm looking forward to the 'deregulation' of my rights as an employee and the new employee we'll be needing to handle customs declarations and I can't wait to see the back of that health and safety nonsense but before that, when does this thing stop making me poorer?
jk
Post edited at 14:45
GrahamD - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Expect to see boat loads of cheap fish anytime soon.
wercat on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

and hP Sauce to come home?
Lusk - on 19 Sep 2017
In reply to wercat:

> and hP Sauce to come home?

Now then, this is serious business!
They claim that it's exactly the same as the original Brummie gravy now that it's made in Holland, no it isn't, it's some weird gelatinous brown goop now.
Almost as bad Dog being brewed in Tadcaster and sold in 500mil bottles.
Is nothing sacred these days?
Big Ger - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to jkarran:
> Since the time its value collapsed you mean?

Only the pound collapsed? Against which currency?

Here is a chart of the pound against teh euro, over ten years.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=GBP&view=10Y

> Brexit logic: Raising interest rates in a country who's economy has been propped up for years by consumer borrowing will make everyone feel much better. Nope.

What is Brexit about the BOE raising interest rates?

GT.
Post edited at 03:05
Ridge - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

You get a better idea if you do GBP vs Euro..

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=10Y

I don't think at nearly the lowest level since the global collapse in 2008 is anything to be happy about.
Big Ger - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Ridge:

Yeah, not bad at all is it? Oh and also;

The British Pound's rally could continue in the near-term as short-positioning is flushed out of the market and a November interest rate rise is fully priced argue analysts at Deutsche Bank. Pound Sterling has made substantial gains this September as the Bank of England tells markets it believes an imminent rise in UK interest rates is appropriate. The suggestion, made by the Bank at their September meeting and subsequently reinforced by Governor Mark Carney on two occasions, has seen a notable re-evaluation of the Pound in global foreign exchange markets as a result. The Pound-to-Euro exchange rate rose stratospherically, from a pre-meeting open of 1.1114 to highs of 1.1395 24 hours later, and the Pound-to-Dollar exchange rate from 1.3211 to 1.3616.

https://www.poundsterlinglive.com/gbp-live-today/7583-deutsche-bank-gbp-to-eur-and-usd-rally
Bogwalloper - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

>

> The Pound-to-Euro exchange rate rose stratospherically, from a pre-meeting open of 1.1114 to highs of 1.1395 24 hours later,

>

I wish I was as fat as when I first thought I was fat. FFS

W

PS. 24 hours after that it was back to 1.123 Pay attention.
Big Ger - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:
> PS. 24 hours after that it was back to 1.123 Pay attention.

As it says, that was just excitement on the news of a rate hike. It also says;

> The British Pound's rally could continue in the near-term as short-positioning is flushed out of the market and a November interest rate rise is fully priced argue analysts at Deutsche Bank.

Let's hope for good news, or bad news, as per your taste
Post edited at 08:19
Bogwalloper - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

1.42 to 1.09 to 1.13 in 18 months. Fantastic news.

W
baron - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

As a trend the pound has been falling against the euro for years.
Bring back the heady days of 1.60 exchange rates.
Big Ger - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

Ah, so you're a glass half empty man, gotcha.
Bogwalloper - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

How anyone can look at Brexit and see anything in the glass at all is beyond me.

W
wercat on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

unless you're moving money in another currency here?
John2 - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to baron:

1.60? When we were in the Exchange Rate Mechanism the notional rate was something like 1.89.
jkarran - on 20 Sep 2017
In reply to Big Ger:
> Only the pound collapsed? Against which currency?

Well since I live with and and work for GBP and much of what I buy is valued in or has value tied indirectly to Euros or USD it is the GBP's value against those I'm mainly interested in. As an ordinary Joe buying food, petrol and the odd EU holiday week I'm not overly interested in the fortunes of the Argentinian Peso or AUS $.

> Here is a chart of the pound against teh euro, over ten years.
> http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=GBP&view=10Y

Yeah? Euro doing well (near best it has since the financial crash hit us harder than them a decade ago) against the pound = pound doing poorly against the Euro. Its recent collapse (start of a dramatic trend reversal if you prefer) coincides with the brexit vote result. Correlation isn't causation but in this case...

> What is Brexit about the BOE raising interest rates?

Nothing except Brexit has brought about the inflationary conditions under which it has become necessary.

My point was that assuming what people want and need is an interest rate rise to make them feel better is typical brexiteer logic, one required to control inflation (currently making us poorer) stemming not from rapid growth or pay rises but from currency devaluation (currently making us poorer) and one which will adversely impact on the borrowing fueled , mortgage limited spending power of the majority (making us poorer and slowing our sluggish consumerist economy).

You said someone will no doubt try to spin the small bump in the value of the pound fueled buy suggestions of a coming base rate rise as a bad thing. My argument is that there is no spin required, the rate rise is probably necessary but it is not going to feel like 'a good thing' for the average British worker, it will make them poorer. Of course you're more than welcome to enjoy your insulated position as a retiree with your wealth tied up in paid off property, overseas pensions and cash who's value isn't tied to the great ship Britannia your vote spectacularly torpedoed last year.
jk
Post edited at 13:00

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.