/ Economic impact

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
john arran - on 31 Oct 2017
According to https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/30/government-refuses-to-release-details-of-studies-in... (also reported elsewhere):
The Brexit department has refused to release key details about the 58 secret studies into how leaving the EU will impact the economy, saying officials need to make policy in a “safe space”.

However mild or catastrophic the expected impact is, according to the studies, logically the only advantage to be gained by withholding details is if the EU negotiators are under the impression that the impact may be less severe than it promises to be.

Clearly the EU negotiators must know that, and their expectations must surely be lowered simply on account of the UK's refusal to publish these studies.

It follows that the expected economic impact, according to the studies, is so bad that, even after effectively telling EU negotiators it's worse than they probably thought already, the UK government must still be convinced the EU's adjusted expectations remain higher than the predicted reality.

Does anybody still think that the economic impact of Brexit can be anything other than calamitous? And if so, on what basis do you arrive at that opinion?

Or is it that you're prepared to see the buying power of the pound in your pocket plummet for many years in return for other advantages of Brexit, in which case what are the advantages you see as important enough to justify it?

Apologies in advance for bringing logic into a Brexit discussion.
11
Big Ger - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

Gosh, another Brexit thread, just what we needed .
38
RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

> The Brexit department has refused to release key details about the 58 secret studies into how leaving the EU will impact the economy, saying officials need to make policy in a “safe space”.

As Davis one said: “time and time again information is withheld from the public for no good reason other than to spare the blushes of the powerful”

Dr.S at work - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

Whilst I agree with much of your analysis, I suspect this is just typical HMG - the UK always seems very secretive and reluctant to release government advice - rather than a deliberate tactic unique to this occasion.
ian caton on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

It's all about sovereignty now isn't it, the economic argument is case closed?

As a barman said to me recently:

"What the f*** is sovereignty? It isn't even a thing is it?"

Priceless.

Andy Hardy on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

Yes but, but democracy. And we're taking control. And, err straight bananas. And, hmmm unelected eurocrats telling me not to sh1t on the beach. So. There.
2
Sir Chasm - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

Don't be daft, this is all part of our brexit negotiators' grand plan. There won't be any severe consequences https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-10-23/the-harder-brexit-gets-the-more-necessary-it-seem...

And jobs will grow http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41803604

We're taking back control.
Rampikino - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> Yes but, but democracy. And we're taking control. And, err straight bananas. And, hmmm unelected eurocrats telling me not to sh1t on the beach. So. There.

Nonsense that. Urban myth about those bananas.

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1994R2257:20060217:EN:PDF
Andy Hardy on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Rampikino:

Sorry for the confusion: Under EU diktat on Emojiis (227/8799) clause (ix) para 3, I am only permitted to use "winking or smiling emojiis, sparingly, at a rate of less than 4 per week" - and I had a busy day yesterday. Honestly I can't wait until we've thrown off the shackles of the EU and we'll be free to use as many winky faces as we damn well please.
;)
Rampikino - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

Hope you're not having bendy cucumber for lunch...

(another EU regulation that should be a myth but sadly, is not).
1
Shani - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Apologies in advance for bringing logic into a Brexit discussion.

You cannot reason people out of a situtation they did not reason themselves in to.

We're Bayesian inference machines and our first guess can be way out. Repeat experience can help our judgment zero in on 'truth' but when our experiences are manipulated by right wing disaster capitalists and Russian bots, our innate/evolved territorialism/nationalist identity can be easily exploited.

There is still hope. What we need to do is draw Article 50 out until the folly of Brexit is widely evident and unquestionable to all (at the moment, any difficulty around Brexit is being put on to Remoaners & 'traitors'). Then, hopefully, we can re-engage with the World's biggest and most valuable trading bloc.
4
wercat on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

it's time to call out the Brexiteers as those who have allowed us to drift unter ifluence of a Putish Plot. Give him just what he wants
David Riley - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Shani:

I could understand the constant hysteria if people were going to lose something that mattered to them. But no, it's only about money. That's the most important thing.
4
Sir Chasm - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

What is the most important thing?
jkarran - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> I could understand the constant hysteria if people were going to lose something that mattered to them.

What... Job? Home? Functional public services? A mutually beneficial relationship with our nearest neighbours and allies bringing much needed stability to a continent long wracked by war? We can't eat 'sovereignty' and precious few of us will be in a position to profiteer from they chaos being brought down upon us by those who will.

> But no, it's only about money. That's the most important thing.

Don't be so willfully daft, it's not about money per se, it's about the things money and a stable economy underpinning that money buys.
jk
Post edited at 10:26
Timmd on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> I could understand the constant hysteria if people were going to lose something that mattered to them. But no, it's only about money. That's the most important thing.

Money affects quality of life, which translates into how much UK plc brings in, which impacts on the available services for the poor the disabled and the vulnerable (among many other things).

I thank my lucky stars that my mental health has recovered before Austerity kicked in, never mind the possibility of Brexit and it's impact on the economy. Friends of mine are trying to access mental health services and being told there's nothing available for them, where there once was.
Post edited at 10:32
David Riley - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

To me the most important thing is avoiding being an insignificant part of a superstate, which will end up corrupt and draconian, that we probably cannot leave in the future.
18
GrahamD - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> To me the most important thing is avoiding being an insignificant part of a superstate, which will end up corrupt and draconian, that we probably cannot leave in the future.

That's why every member has the power of veto. The EU is what the member states wants it to be.
Pete Pozman - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> To me the most important thing is avoiding being an insignificant part of a superstate, which will end up corrupt and draconian, that we probably cannot leave in the future.

We can't leave now. But we will. And then, think of the opportunities...
Timmd on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> To me the most important thing is avoiding being an insignificant part of a superstate, which will end up corrupt and draconian, that we probably cannot leave in the future.

Imho, the UK never would have been an insignificant part of the EU, due to the size of it's economy, which has shrunk since the vote for Brexit, the fact that Cameron had secured agreement of no further integration of the UK into the EU, and that more than 90% of the time, anything the UK has had a vote in - has gone the UK's way.

The UK has benefited from being in the EU, and wouldn't have become subsumed by it thanks to what Cameron secured agreement on. You can google what he'd got the EU to agree on.
Post edited at 11:03
1
deepsoup - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Rampikino:

> Hope you're not having bendy cucumber for lunch...

> (another EU regulation that should be a myth but sadly, is not).

I have news for you. Nine and a half years past it's sell-by date, sorry about that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/2453204/Bent-banana-and-curved-cucumber-rules-dropp...
Shani - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> I could understand the constant hysteria if people were going to lose something that mattered to them. But no, it's only about money. That's the most important thing.

This is a simplistic analysis. There are a whole host of EU regulations that underpin our society, which wealthy Brexiteer captalists call 'a brake on our economy', but which the rest of us call 'a brake on exploitation of workers and the environment by the privileged & powerful' :

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2017/10/may-slammed-for-promoting-brextremist-peer-who-wants-to-scrap...
Post edited at 11:04
1
RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> To me the most important thing is avoiding being an insignificant part of a superstate, which will end up corrupt and draconian, that we probably cannot leave in the future.

Which would never have happened against the UK’s will as long as the U.K. was part of the EU, for the simple reason that any treaty changes have to be ratified at unanimity.

The irony is that as a result of brexit the U.K. may well indeed make the EU superstate a reality, even a necessity, but on top of that, we’d have managed to relinquish all influence over it.
Post edited at 11:06
gallam1 - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

I know that this thread starts off with a discussion about the economic impact of Brexit, but that is not the whole story. This is an interesting counterpoint to the received UKC wisdom:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/10/obliged-reconsider-support-european-union/

The idea that an elected official needs to seek asylum whilst the EU stands by and does nothing, in contravention of its Articles, should give everyone pause for thought.

There is an excellent and active discussion of the economic issues, with a detailed look at the treaties and the real-world implications here:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/category/brexit
1
GrahamD - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

All rather points to the fact that the EU is just a group of its member states and not actually a super state. You can't have it both ways.
Sir Chasm - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> To me the most important thing is avoiding being an insignificant part of a superstate, which will end up corrupt and draconian, that we probably cannot leave in the future.

This is tinfoil hat territory. But let’s say you’re right, we’re now going to be just outside a corrupt and draconian superstate with absolutely no influence over it, plucky little Britain standing alone while the EU jackboot grinds down the rest of Europe. All rise for the national anthem.
RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> I know that this thread starts off with a discussion about the economic impact of Brexit, but that is not the whole story. This is an interesting counterpoint to the received UKC wisdom:


> The idea that an elected official needs to seek asylum whilst the EU stands by and does nothing, in contravention of its Articles, should give everyone pause for thought.

Can you explain where the contravention of their article is ?

Anyway, the article makes a moot point. As others pointed out the EU is not a superstate, it’s simply a bunch of democratic countries setting policy together. Given that most if not all of the EU members gouvernement are siding with the Spanish government, the careful position of the EC is not surprising.

If the Spanish state has actually violated the EU treaties, then the independentists can take a case to the ECJ. If not for the EU they would have no practical recourse whatsoever.
Post edited at 11:53
The New NickB - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

I suspect it all the fault of the BMC!
1
David Riley - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Didn't that happen already ?
GrahamD - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Can you explain where the contravention of their article is ?

It'll be there with the bent bananas and cucumbers, probably.
tom_in_edinburgh - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

I think it's even worse. May and the senior ministers are saying they haven't read the reports, just the summaries.

My guess is the reports are so bad for Brexit the lawyers/PR people advised they'd be better off not reading them so they still have the option of saying 'I don't know' or claiming the exact opposite of what the reports found without lying.
john arran - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Lots of criticism and a media-friendly toys-out-of-the-pram moment, yet I didn't see a single reference to any attempt to put right the alleged non-compliance from within, or indeed at all.
2
Tyler - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> I know that this thread starts off with a discussion about the economic impact of Brexit, but that is not the whole story. This is an interesting counterpoint to the received UKC wisdom:


I'd have been pissed off if the SNP had declared themselves independent from the UK and the EU come out in support of them over the rest of the UK.

> The idea that an elected official needs to seek asylum whilst the EU stands by and does nothing, in contravention of its Articles, should give everyone pause for thought.
What should they do? Members of the EU are sovereign states, this just gives lie to the idea that national govts are under the heel of the EU.



RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
> I think it's even worse. May and the senior ministers are saying they haven't read the reports, just the summaries.

> My guess is the reports are so bad for Brexit the lawyers/PR people advised they'd be better off not reading them so they still have the option of saying 'I don't know' or claiming the exact opposite of what the reports found without lying.

Their agenda is driven by politics, not by facts, so why bother.


Anyway I can’t think of anything in these impact assessments that somehow wouldn’t be already in the public domain or couldn’t be worked out quite easily by the EU.

The argument around secrecy being needed to preserve negotiating advantage is therefore complete bollocks. The real reason they are kept secret is because they would be politically embarassing and come at a bad time.
Post edited at 12:00
gallam1 - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
Broadly speaking, if you are in a negotiation with another party over, let's say, an apple pie and you can make the event of disagreement extremely disagreeable to the other party (for example by shooting them), you will find you end up with an agreement in which you receive all or most of the pie. This is the non-cooperative substructure of the Nash Bargaining Solution that underpins a lot of negotiated outcomes.

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargaining_problem

I would suggest that this is the reason that the UK Government does not want to reveal these documents. I have no doubt that the documents indicate that we know that a disagreement will be painful. It is also the reason why there is so much ambiguity left by the UK over the Northern Irish border question. In the event of a disagreement, and a hard Brexit, the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate.
Post edited at 12:55
2
Rampikino - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to deepsoup:

I'm aware.

But not a myth - they really did implement them, even if they dropped them later.
2
David Riley - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

>the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate.

So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes.
1
gallam1 - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

Yes, and in the case of Ireland the EU will be up against the fact that for the average person in Ireland there is a de facto united Ireland, thanks to the single market and the Good Friday Agreeement. This was the strategic goal of the Free Staters and has taken a century to achieve. No amount of bullying by the EU is going to persuade the government of Eire to build a wall along the border. Don't forget also that the British Army was tasked with protecting the border and failed.
MG - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> >the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate.

> So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes.

Let me guess: you are simultaneously horrified the EU isn’t able to force countries to prevent immigrants arriving with hard borders.
jkarran - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> It is also the reason why there is so much ambiguity left by the UK over the Northern Irish border question. In the event of a disagreement, and a hard Brexit, the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate.

In what way? In the event of the likely catastrophic breakdown in negotiations the border gets closed and passport/customs control posts implemented. How exactly does that undermine CAP or the single market? It probably will act to quickly reunify Ireland and or reignite a dormant war. Alternatively it pares Ireland off from the EU which would be an unlikely choice for them to make in light of the process the UK had just been through. Either way the decision to close/control the border does not lie exclusively in Dublin, the UK cannot achieve its stated objectives around controlled borders without implementing a border somewhere on the island of Ireland and with the DUP weilding power you can bet your ass that's not going to be at UK ports.

The ambiguity exists in large part because a viable solution doesn't.
jk
Post edited at 13:13
Flinticus - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

It would appear the Charter is only applicable when EU states are implementing EU law, i.e. no consideration in matters outside EU law. It's also separate from the ECHR.

It's not good at all what's happening in Spain but it has to be handled very carefully. Other positions could lead to a mutually destructive situation.

Breaches of the ECHR can be taken to court (not the Charter) so those assaulted can bring cases under this option.

In any case this blogger is very selective: was his support of the EU questioned during the miners strike or the assault by Italian police on peaceful protestors during the 2001 G8 summit (one protester, at least, took the authorities to the ECHR and won)?

Of course, mamy Brexiteers want to leave the ECHR. Sovereignty my FA: they need to 'restore' their ability to influence, shape and buy the laws of the UK and take back control for their own profit.
1
gallam1 - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:
Ok, so taking these points in turn:

There is no "customs control" solution to the Irish border, even if the government of Eire wanted to implement one, which they don't.

The fact that the border is effectively open will allow me to import lamb from New Zealand into Northern Ireland, transport it to Eire and then re-export it to the EU for a 40% markup. It's a smugglers dream.

Ireland will not be reunified as a consequence of this situation. That requires the permission of the UK Government.

Eire cannot easily be ejected from the EU on account of the border situation and the politics of that would look terrible.

I agree that a viable solution simply does not exist. That is why the Irish border is a valuable threat point for the UK in the negotiations with the EU.
Post edited at 13:17
jkarran - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> Ok, so taking these points in turn:

> There is no "customs control" solution to the Irish border, even if the government of Eire wanted to implement one, which they don't.

There is and it has existed in the recent past. Nobody wants it but we've fuc*ed up so we're probably going to get it. If it happens Ireland will likely receive some short term compensation from the EU to ease the pain and appease the population.

> The fact that the border is effectively open will allow me to import lamb from New Zealand into Northern Ireland, transport it to Eire and then re-export it to the EU for a 40% markup. It's a smugglers dream.

Yes so an open border simply isn't going to happen.

> Ireland will not be reunified as a consequence of this situation. That requires the permission of the UK Government.

With the demographic make up of NI today, the fruits of a decade of peace beginning to blossom and brexit's economic hardship imposed from Westminster (as it will easily be portrayed) there's a very good chance the people of NI may choose to succede in which case the Westminster government will likely be faced with fighting yet another colonial shooting war in a post colonial era or respecting their right to self determination. Will Ireland agree to take NI on with all the trouble it will inevitably bring and the economic ties currently so valuable severely frayed by the years it will take to get to that point... who knows?

> Eire cannot easily be ejected from the EU on account of the border situation and the politics of that would look terrible.

Yes it would so it'll likely be big carrot and a little bit of a very big stick on show.

> I agree that a viable solution simply does not exist. That is why the Irish border is a valuable threat point for the UK in the negotiations with the EU.

I disagree it's a fulcrum about which we have any real leverage, it's a problem to solve and one that buys us at best one ally in the EU *if* we can solve it well.
jk
RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> Broadly speaking, if you are in a negotiation with another party over, let's say, an apple pie and you can make the event of disagreement extremely disagreeable to the other party (for example by shooting them), you will find you end up with an agreement in which you receive all or most of the pie. This is the non-cooperative substructure of the Nash Bargaining Solution that underpins a lot of negotiated outcomes.


Sure, but my point here is precisely that in this case publishing or not publishing the impact assessments doesn’t change anything in the parameters of the game, for the good reason that there can’t be anything in those document that probably hasn’t been worked out by the EU or isn’t already in the public domain, and therefore it doesn’t change the perceived cost of disagreement.

So, unless the impact assessment reveals huge costs of a no deal to the U.K. that somehow the EU wouldn’t already have knowledge of (which seems very unlikely), the simple explanation for not releasing them, is that they are simply politically embarassing for the government.
Post edited at 13:49
RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> >the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate.

> So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes.

Not again their wishes. ROI is completely free to leave the single market and the EU, and have no border with NI, if that is what they wish.

On the other hand, NI is not free to stay in the EU single market and customs unions. That depends on the U.K.
Post edited at 14:30
1
andyfallsoff - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Rampikino:

We did this to death on the other thread, let's just leave it shall we?
gallam1 - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

I just had a quick look at google maps with a view to the smuggling opportunities presented by the border situation in Northern Ireland.

Can anyone beat the area around Crossmaglen?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.0556153,-6.5799118,18z/data=!3m1!1e3
Rampikino - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:


> We did this to death on the other thread, let's just leave it shall we?

Which other thread? The other Brexit thread? Which one of the hundreds?

Leave what? The Brexit discussion. I've barely posted on the whole thing in the last 18 months - less than 10 posts on Brexit from me, nearly all of them on this thread!

My point is that such things SHOULD be a myth but sadly, very sadly, they are not and money/time/effort was spent on them and has simply fed opinions of the EU over time.
3
Rob Parsons on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> Can anyone beat the area around Crossmaglen?

An infamous area during The Troubles, of course. And for the same reasons.

RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Rampikino:
> Which other thread? The other Brexit thread? Which one of the hundreds?

> Leave what? The Brexit discussion. I've barely posted on the whole thing in the last 18 months - less than 10 posts on Brexit from me, nearly all of them on this thread!

> My point is that such things SHOULD be a myth but sadly, very sadly, they are not and money/time/effort was spent on them and has simply fed opinions of the EU over time.

So basically the EU countries have agreed to not so great policies, and then later on they agreed to undo it.
Wow, shocker, that’s really terrible.
Let’s replace all this by overly complex bilateral agreements that are even more difficult to change, that’ll make things better.
Post edited at 16:11
1
gallam1 - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

There is what looks like a purpose built truck depot here too:

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@54.0554138,-6.5389612,19z/data=!3m1!1e3
1
john arran - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

I'm struggling to see how this problem will be any less thorny regardless of the nature of deal eventually struck. Unless of course it retains membership of the customs union, there will still be border issues to resolve. So how is it a bargaining advantage?

Do you really see the UK being taken seriously if it turns itself into a smuggler's paradise? And would that be in addition to a tax haven?
3
gallam1 - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:
There is an article here that explains the issue from the point of view of the French farmers:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-39946042

The point is that the UK simply has to do nothing. The size of the EU market and the size of the CAP tariffs, combined with the amazingly porous border, mean that the smuggling opportunities are pretty much unparalleled in modern history. It is hard to see how the issue will be resolved if the UK is not in the customs union.

It is a bargaining advantage in the sense that in the event of a disagreement Brexit will undermine the CAP and the single market. That is painful for the EU.
Post edited at 17:18
1
wercat on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

so bad it gets a page of its own. Horrifically rarely out of the news in those days

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles_in_Crossmaglen
1
john arran - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> It is a bargaining advantage in the sense that in the event of a disagreement Brexit will undermine the CAP and the single market. That is painful for the EU.

And in the event of agreement, presumably not including customs union, how is it any less painful?
3
RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> There is an article here that explains the issue from the point of view of the French farmers:


> The point is that the UK simply has to do nothing. The size of the EU market and the size of the CAP tariffs, combined with the amazingly porous border, mean that the smuggling opportunities are pretty much unparalleled in modern history. It is hard to see how the issue will be resolved if the UK is not in the customs union.

The only issue is to find a solution without a hard border, which is of course unachievable unless the U.K. government gets into a customs union with the EU.
Post edited at 17:34
David Riley - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

> Do you really see the UK being taken seriously if it turns itself into a smuggler's paradise?

You have that back to front. It has nothing to do with the UK.
It makes no difference to us if the EU has future problems with its borders.
But they want to negotiate our helping them with those problems. What is in it for us ?
5
Tyler - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> You have that back to front. It has nothing to do with the UK.

> It makes no difference to us if the EU has future problems with its borders.

> But they want to negotiate our helping them with those problems. What is in it for us ?

So once again we've gone from the brilliant economic advantages Brexit will bring us to "it'll be a shit show but we can at least take down some of our neighbours at the same time". But no, it's the EU who are unreasonable.
2
john arran - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> You have that back to front. It has nothing to do with the UK.

I quote gollum: "The fact that the border is effectively open will allow me to import lamb from New Zealand into Northern Ireland, transport it to Eire and then re-export it to the EU for a 40% markup. It's a smugglers dream."

So no, I don't have it the wrong way around. If you want to maintain good relations with your much larger neighbours and encourage bilateral trade and other agreements, it's pretty obvious that you shouldn't set yourself up as a smuggling hub to circumvent their import controls. I'm amazed that this isn't pretty bloody obvious to everybody.

3
RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> You have that back to front. It has nothing to do with the UK.

> It makes no difference to us if the EU has future problems with its borders.

It does, if smuggling becomes a large problem and it is obvious the U.K. is becoming some kind of smuggling hub, then the EU will have no choice but to massively increase checks and border security, and retaliate on market access, which would put U.K. businesses at a disadvantage.

Btw I think your assessment is completely overblown, there may be some smuggling going on at a local level but the U.K. is not exactly the type of economy and legal system where smuggling of goods on an industrial scale would thrive.
Post edited at 18:11
andyfallsoff - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Rampikino:
Sorry - but yes, the most recent Brexit thread, where we discussed what aspects of this were a myth, why the truth was exaggerated, what the benefits of the policy would have been in the first place...

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=672093
Post edited at 18:09
1
David Riley - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Tyler:

I don't know where you get that from. I was just answering the question about how the issue was a bargaining advantage.
2
David Riley - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

Yes you do have it wrong. EU states are responsible for policing their borders. Not the source of the goods.
3
RomTheBear on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> Yes you do have it wrong. EU states are responsible for policing their borders. Not the source of the goods.

What do you mean ? EU states do check the origin of products when they are imported from outside the EU.
Post edited at 18:16
Gordon Stainforth - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to john arran:

Just to add to the deeply gloomy truth, I now see that the UK Pound has been the worst performing currency in the world this last week (we're in the 150th position). At this bottom end of complete crap, the Zambian Kwacha is now doing quite a lot better than we are and even the Colombian Peso and the Romanian Leu are now ahead. This is going to hurt everyone very, very badly, but a lot of people just have their heads in the sand and will not listen. I don't mind Brexiteers hurting themselves very badly (having been told the huge dangers and choosing to ignore them), but I do mind them dragging us all down with them.
4
john arran - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Yes you do have it wrong. EU states are responsible for policing their borders. Not the source of the goods.

Admit it, you don't honestly believe that's the whole, or even the most important, point. Can you not just think even one step further to how relations would be affected if the UK were to let smuggling on a significant scale develop unchecked? And what effect that would have on trade and relations with our most important market?
3
jkarran - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> You have that back to front. It has nothing to do with the UK.
> It makes no difference to us if the EU has future problems with its borders.
> But they want to negotiate our helping them with those problems. What is in it for us ?

Except of course that a small trading nation recently shorn of all it's trade agreements would be utterly fecking crackers to deliberately start a trade war with its nearest neighbours and biggest export market for basically no good reason. Is this really the what brexit logic has sunk to? A ten year old could understand the cost of 'doing nothing'. It's like you're describing some childish pirate fantasy where actions don't have consequences.
Jk
1
gallam1 - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Well according to my Bloomberg terminal the pound has appreciated against the US dollar and the Euro over the last week and is roughly where it averaged between 2009 and 2011. Things can't be going too well for our larger neighbours either. The Zambian Kwacha could be the new bitcoin.
Post edited at 18:39
gallam1 - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to jkarran:
I'm not quite sure why you refer to the UK as a small trading nation. It is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, out of a total of about 195. If I was in the top 2.5% of people in the world ranked by height, would you refer to me as small?

And I have not noticed anyone advocating a trade war on this thread either. What do you have in mind?
Post edited at 19:07
2
David Riley - on 31 Oct 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

I see you misunderstood my post. I was saying that only the EU state is responsible, not the country from which smuggled goods originated.
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> I'm not quite sure why you refer to the UK as a small trading nation. It is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, out of a total of about 195. If I was in the top 2.5% of people in the world ranked by height, would you refer to me as small?

Disingenuous comparison.
The U.K. may be 6th in size, but the gap in size with the US, or the EU, or the Asian trading blocs, is huge.

You’ve got two different leagues basically, the big trading blocs, and the rest.
Post edited at 01:09
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> I see you misunderstood my post. I was saying that only the EU state is responsible, not the country from which smuggled goods originated.

Ho I see.
Typically not ( although I’d be suprised if this couldn’t be taken to WTO arbitration for financial redress), but let’s be serious for a second, nobody would want to do businesses with the U.K. if it appeared it didn’t trade fairly, we would have to fall very low really to get to that point !
Post edited at 01:17
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

I see you still don't understand. The UK would not be involved in the transaction. Do you think New Zealand should be blamed ?
Strachan on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to Rampikino:

bendy cucumber for lunch...

He's the one out of Sherlock right?

RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> I see you still don't understand. The UK would not be involved in the transaction. Do you think New Zealand should be blamed ?

No I understand perfectly well, if the goods are smuggled from the U.K. to the EU and clearly the U.K. facilitated it, the U.K. would clearly be involved and would be the object of retaliation.

It’s a bit pointless this discussion, your idea that somehow the U.K. has a future of harming the EU by becoming a smuggling hub is frankly fanciful and bizarre.
Not only it would be easily thwarted with more comprehensive border checks and security, which would harm the U.K, but it’s completely ridiculous to suggest that somehow this would be anything other than self destructing.
Post edited at 06:37
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
There are really 3 main global trading blocks- the EU, the USA and China.You can debate about which one is shrinking and which one is growing.

But it gets confusing because the USA and also the EU uses a status of " most favoured nation" to allow other countries into their block.

Also you get issues like Japan having a FTA with China. So I have a customer in Japan who imports my machines and then sells them onto China and there is 0% customs duty. Whereas if they do direct to China it is 25%.

Juts because you are outside a big tading block does not mean you are small. Japan would fit into that category.So would we, as there are plenty of countries who still want to trade with us.

The advantage with a trading block is just size in negotiations so the EU is really an offset to USA and China's negotiating muscle.

Meanwhile Russia and Brazil do their own thing.So do others like India etc.

On our own we will probabaly be viewed as like Japan, but easier to deal with.

And in the current Brexit negotiations the EU/UK could possibly agree MFN status within WTO rules..well that is my theory anyway.So harmonising duties at 0.

The issue then is VAT, now that is more complicated.I just have not got a clue what they will do about that.
Post edited at 08:53
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> It makes no difference to us if the EU has future problems with its borders.

WTF? The channel ports would grind to a halt at French customs if we don't play nicely and they get picky with paperwork and searches.

Imagine what operation stack on a regular basis would do to the reliability and costs of British exporters.
1
john arran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

> WTF? The channel ports would grind to a halt at French customs if we don't play nicely and they get picky with paperwork and searches.

Ah, but then we could reciprocate and make it really hard for the EU to export to the UK ...

and thereby shoot ourselves in the other foot, to add to the one we've already peppered with bullets.
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

There are loads of ways that freight companies can move stuff away from the ports into bonded areas etc. Commonly used at the moment.

Not that anybody will want to do that. Its in neither sides interests for this to happen, so its just needless scaremongering by the doomsayers and makes nice headlines.I would treat it as such even though I want to remain.
Sir Chasm - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> I see you still don't understand. The UK would not be involved in the transaction. Do you think New Zealand should be blamed ?

Putting to one side the fact that most foodstuffs goes Ireland-UK-mainland EU because it’s a much quicker route, so smuggling huge amounts of food from NI into Ireland would be reversing all the chains, how does the NI/Ireland border problem help the UK in our negotiations with the EU? To what do you want them to acquiesce? Do you want to stay in the EEA and the customs union?
And with food traceability of course a certain amount of blame will fall at New Zealand’s door if large amounts of their lamb turns up in the EU outside of the normal supply chain, they might not consider the hassle with the EU worth it.
Sir Chasm - on 01 Nov 2017
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> There are loads of ways that freight companies can move stuff away from the ports into bonded areas etc. Commonly used at the moment.

If the alternatives are really sufficient why do Kent Police have operation stack? Somebody should tell them!

If your goods haven't cleared customs they're not with the customer. That's a delay for the customer and cash flow problem for the exporter.

jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> I'm not quite sure why you refer to the UK as a small trading nation. It is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world, out of a total of about 195.

We have become successful within the framework we've just ditched. Time will tell how we fare alone but before we've even left the single market we're slipping down the rankings of global economies, we're being outperformed by all our peers and our currency has tanked, inward investment has collapsed, businesses are relocating. The British empire was a global force. Britain within the EU was a regional force with global influence. Brexit Britain...

And no, I'm not advocating a new empire before some wally suggests it.

> And I have not noticed anyone advocating a trade war on this thread either. What do you have in mind?

What do you think the consequence would be of Britain operating Northern Ireland as a state sanctioned smuggling hub? Do you think really the EU will just roll over and accept it or do you think there would be heavy economic pressure applied to Ireland and the UK to deal with the issue properly and promptly? Who has all the power in that relationship, insular little Britain or the EU with the world's biggest free trade zone growing behind them?
jk
jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

> If the alternatives are really sufficient why do Kent Police have operation stack? Somebody should tell them!
> If your goods haven't cleared customs they're not with the customer. That's a delay for the customer and cash flow problem for the exporter.

And a death knell for businesses moving perishable goods or reliant on just in time supply chains.
jk
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

That is because areas are not classified as bonded areas.......at the moment.

It is not difficult to do as a backstop.

When I ship stuff into the States or eslwehere outside the EU, it does not get stuck at a port or aiprort. waiting for paperwork. Its moved along in the system and shifted away elsewhere.Its all done pretty effortlessly and seamlessly these days in the developed world.

As regards cashflow, that is a different subject and will depend on methods of payment etc etc.

neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

It can still be done with a bit of thought if all else fails.
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> That is because areas are not classified as bonded areas.......at the moment.

> It is not difficult to do as a backstop.

I don't understand how coverting the m20 into a bonded warehouse would reduce delays in getting the goods into the hands of the customer or makes the customer happy to pay for something still sitting on the m20.





2
jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> ... if all else fails.

Ah, our glorious swashbuckling future
It's like a bad dream.
jk
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> It can still be done with a bit of thought if all else fails.

How?

How do you export fresh Scottish shellfish to Spain if it is stuck for a few days on the m20 or a Spanish port/airport?

gallam1 - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

I'm still not sure why you refer to the UK as a small trading nation. We are a trading nation, that is true. The description of the UK as insular, little, and small is ridiculous, as I'm sure you realise. The uncertainties surrounding Brexit are such that no-one has any firm idea how the UK economy will develop in the future. You are simply wrong to say "we're being outperformed by all our peers and our currency has tanked, inward investment has collapsed, businesses are relocating." The impression that you give is that the UK economy is suffering in a similar way to the Greek economy, or perhaps the Italian economy. This is just scaremongering and I'm really not sure why you are doing it. You may be anxious about the future, as we all are all of the time, but there is no reason to totally divorce yourself from reality.

As for the point about the UK operating Northern Ireland as a state-sanctioned smuggling hub, I cannot see anyone advocating that position. Why does the state have to sanction it? The reason that this aspect of the discussion is interesting is that the border represents a problem for the EU in the event that the UK does nothing. The private sector in Northern Ireland is more than capable of organising itself without any help from government. When you trace through the implications of a hard Brexit it is obvious that it will create a major problem for the EU along the Irish border and that is a situation that favours the UK in its negotiations with the EU.

Of course there will be pressure applied by the EU to Eire to deal with this problem. The point is that Eire have many strategic reasons to resist that pressure and may not be able to remedy the problem even if they were fully willing. There is of course one solution: a big, beautiful wall. I'm sure the irony of that is not lost on you.
1
MG - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> I'm still not sure why you refer to the UK as a small trading nation. We are a trading nation, that is true. The description of the UK as insular, little, and small is ridiculous, as I'm sure you realise.

It's small in comparison to the large trade blocs like the EU and North America and China and increasingly the Pacific region. As a nation it is quite big, but that isn't the measure that matters these days.


>You are simply wrong to say "we're being outperformed by all our peers and our currency has tanked, inward investment has collapsed, businesses are relocating.

The currency has dropped about 20% since brexit, numerous finance jobs are leaving or about to, manufacturing, farming, and many other sectors have stalled due to brexit uncertainty, our growth has been mixed but is now behind the EU, the US, let alone most Asian economies. It is not wrong to say these things, even if you find them awkward.

> When you trace through the implications of a hard Brexit it is obvious that it will create a major problem for the EU along the Irish border and that is a situation that favours the UK in its negotiations with the EU.

Honestly, get some perspective. It would be an irritating distraction for the EU, true. But not a major problem -those are things like immigration, major trade deals, Russia, climate change etc.

Sir Chasm - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> I'm still not sure why you refer to the UK as a small trading nation. We are a trading nation, that is true. The description of the UK as insular, little, and small is ridiculous, as I'm sure you realise. The uncertainties surrounding Brexit are such that no-one has any firm idea how the UK economy will develop in the future. You are simply wrong to say "we're being outperformed by all our peers and our currency has tanked, inward investment has collapsed, businesses are relocating." The impression that you give is that the UK economy is suffering in a similar way to the Greek economy, or perhaps the Italian economy. This is just scaremongering and I'm really not sure why you are doing it. You may be anxious about the future, as we all are all of the time, but there is no reason to totally divorce yourself from reality.

We are small in comparison to the EU, that isn’t putting us down it’s merely factual and you denying it shows a detachment from reality. Sterling has dropped, foreign investment has dropped, these things happen and there’s no point you pretending otherwise.

> As for the point about the UK operating Northern Ireland as a state-sanctioned smuggling hub, I cannot see anyone advocating that position. Why does the state have to sanction it? The reason that this aspect of the discussion is interesting is that the border represents a problem for the EU in the event that the UK does nothing. The private sector in Northern Ireland is more than capable of organising itself without any help from government. When you trace through the implications of a hard Brexit it is obvious that it will create a major problem for the EU along the Irish border and that is a situation that favours the UK in its negotiations with the EU.

How does it help in our negotiations? It would help if the EU were trying to kick us out and we wanted to stay, but how does it help now?

> Of course there will be pressure applied by the EU to Eire to deal with this problem. The point is that Eire have many strategic reasons to resist that pressure and may not be able to remedy the problem even if they were fully willing. There is of course one solution: a big, beautiful wall. I'm sure the irony of that is not lost on you.

How is that ironic?
john arran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> As for the point about the UK operating Northern Ireland as a state-sanctioned smuggling hub, I cannot see anyone advocating that position. Why does the state have to sanction it? The reason that this aspect of the discussion is interesting is that the border represents a problem for the EU in the event that the UK does nothing. The private sector in Northern Ireland is more than capable of organising itself without any help from government. When you trace through the implications of a hard Brexit it is obvious that it will create a major problem for the EU along the Irish border and that is a situation that favours the UK in its negotiations with the EU.

You seem determined not to recognise the fact that the potential for customs and smuggling problems across the NI border would exist regardless of the details of any EU-UK deal struck. Assuming, of course, that as a Brexiter you wouldn't be happy with customs union. In light of this, could you explain why an outcome that would exist regardless of the deal, would be a significant advantage to one side in agreeing a deal?
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

Just like other fresh food that is imported from outside the EU into the UK!!!

All that other fresh stuff which comes in here from Africa etc.
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> It’s a bit pointless this discussion, your idea that somehow the U.K. has a future of harming the EU by becoming a smuggling hub is frankly fanciful and bizarre.
> Not only it would be easily thwarted with more comprehensive border checks and security, which would harm the U.K, but it’s completely ridiculous to suggest that somehow this would be anything other than self destructing.

> It’s a bit pointless this discussion

Yes it is. Because you like to invent something that someone else has said and insist upon only addressing that, avoiding the reasonable point they have made. It seems to be a game to you. Why bother ?
In this case you are claiming I said something about the UK facilitating smuggling when actually I was saying the EU is going to need our help stopping it's own citizens smuggling.
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:
You haven't mentioned the real problems in NI of a Hard Brexit or a border problem.

The real problems are the risks to peace process or a return to terrorism and army on the streets.

Not much of a problem for 26 EU members, a problem for Ireland but a mainly confined to the UK and particularly NI.


RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
> There are really 3 main global trading blocks- the EU, the USA and China.You can debate about which one is shrinking and which one is growing.

> But it gets confusing because the USA and also the EU uses a status of " most favoured nation" to allow other countries into their block.

> Also you get issues like Japan having a FTA with China. So I have a customer in Japan who imports my machines and then sells them onto China and there is 0% customs duty. Whereas if they do direct to China it is 25%.

Clearly a loophole or exception in rules of origin and certainly not something you could rely on.

> Juts because you are outside a big tading block does not mean you are small. Japan would fit into that category.So would we, as there are plenty of countries who still want to trade with us.

> The advantage with a trading block is just size in negotiations so the EU is really an offset to USA and China's negotiating muscle.

Exactly, we can get better trading terms by being part of a bigger trading block.
On top of that, only 14% of U.K. trade takes place with countries with which the EU doesn’t have a preferential trade agreement ongoing, pre-agreed, or in negotiations.

We’d be starting all over from scratch for essentially no gain.
Tarrifs barrier is less than half the problem anyway, the main issue is non tarrifs barriers, because we have a services, knowledge based economy, that’s where our comparative advantage is.
Post edited at 11:06
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

Well just about every manufacturing busines that supplies me has big order books and that includes the fabrication sector( which is a good bellweather of what is going on generally).

And in the electronics sector there are some huge lead times I (I get reports showing these)

Granted the car sales do not look rosy.

So its diffciult to justify sweeping statements like manufacturing is suffering.
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Just like other fresh food that is imported from outside the EU into the UK!!!

You havrn't explained how you export fresh Scottish shellfish to Spain if it is stuck for a few days on the m20 or a Spanish port/airport?

You have stated it will be fine if there are no delays.

2
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
> Well just about every manufacturing busines that supplies me has big order books and that includes the fabrication sector( which is a good bellweather of what is going on generally).

> And in the electronics sector there are some huge lead times I (I get reports showing these)

> Granted the car sales do not look rosy.

> So its diffciult to justify sweeping statements like manufacturing is suffering.

Manufacturing, overall, doing OK in the U.K, according to the figures, however not doing as well as the rest of the EU, or the US, which is kind of disappointing given that the pound has fallen drastically.

To start with below average performance despite having the pound in the toilet but still full access to the single market is not particularly encouraging, given the prospect of much bigger headwinds ahead.
Post edited at 11:18
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> Yes it is. Because you like to invent something that someone else has said and insist upon only addressing that, avoiding the reasonable point they have made. It seems to be a game to you. Why bother ?

> In this case you are claiming I said something about the UK facilitating smuggling when actually I was saying the EU is going to need our help stopping it's own citizens smuggling.

Well sorry if I misunderstood, but your point was rather muddled, there is a reason why I interpreted it the same way as everybody else who replied to you did.

No, I don’t think the EU will particularly need our help in stopping smuggling, in any case, it wouldn’t be in the U.K. interest to not try to minimise it.

Overall I think you are making a rather moot and insignificant point, sorry.
Post edited at 11:16
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

I do not get hung up about certificates of origin- they are a European bit of paper - often not relevant to the rest of the world.Something us both in the Uk and the EU tend to forget.Middle east is an issue for it with Arab certifaciates of origin. Outside there- it really is useless.

The EU is a good trading block and I am in favour.

But this doomsayers view needs to be treated with a slight pinch of salt.

If you want me to get really technical on the issues I can do so- but it will bore the pants of most people.
jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> I'm still not sure why you refer to the UK as a small trading nation. We are a trading nation, that is true. The description of the UK as insular, little, and small is ridiculous, as I'm sure you realise. The uncertainties surrounding Brexit are such that no-one has any firm idea how the UK economy will develop in the future. You are simply wrong to say "we're being outperformed by all our peers and our currency has tanked, inward investment has collapsed, businesses are relocating." The impression that you give is that the UK economy is suffering in a similar way to the Greek economy, or perhaps the Italian economy. This is just scaremongering and I'm really not sure why you are doing it. You may be anxious about the future, as we all are all of the time, but there is no reason to totally divorce yourself from reality.

OECD 35 growth forecasts for 2018 https://data.oecd.org/gdp/real-gdp-forecast.htm place us third from bottom of the table, fractionally ahead of Japan and Italy. 2017 we're 6th from bottom, 2016 and prior years we're mid table. I'd describe that as outperformed by our peers and slipping alarmingly. Experts eh.

As for being small, we are clearly a minnow by comparison with the remaining EU27 when it comes to renegotiating all the trade arrangements we had. We're also tiny by comparison with the major countries and blocs we'll be seeking to build ties with and initially at least be negotiating from a position of isolation and profound need. The deals we achieve will reflect that loss of power.

The GBP has lost significant value against most major currencies in the aftermath of the referendum decision to leave. Tanked may be overstating it but it's not indicative of a widespread belief in Britain's ability to thrive outside the EU.

Our credit rating has been downgraded and the forecast remains negative.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-property-fund-investment-is-at-its-lowest-since-2008-2016-4 Divestment from British property funds. Obviously annother indicator of hopes for a glorious post brexit future.

> As for the point about the UK operating Northern Ireland as a state-sanctioned smuggling hub, I cannot see anyone advocating that position. Why does the state have to sanction it? The reason that this aspect of the discussion is interesting is that the border represents a problem for the EU in the event that the UK does nothing. The private sector in Northern Ireland is more than capable of organising itself without any help from government. When you trace through the implications of a hard Brexit it is obvious that it will create a major problem for the EU along the Irish border and that is a situation that favours the UK in its negotiations with the EU.

How else would you describe the UK and Irish state 'doing nothing' to prevent smuggling into the EU via the NI border other than 'state sanctioned' smuggling? This is exactly the nonsense that David is proposing as either a desirable outcome or a viable threat. It isn't either.

> Of course there will be pressure applied by the EU to Eire to deal with this problem. The point is that Eire have many strategic reasons to resist that pressure and may not be able to remedy the problem even if they were fully willing. There is of course one solution: a big, beautiful wall. I'm sure the irony of that is not lost on you.

Walls are hardly a 'solution' alien to Northern Ireland. Indeed the solution chosen last time the border was controlled: Fences erected, minor roads were blocked, farmtracks were ditched to prevent vehicles bypassing border checks on the few major roads left open. That's not just a dystopian future, it's recent history.
jk
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

I personally doubt there is capacity in the system for the manufacturing sector to take any any more work at the moment.Something that is overlooked by all the commentators.

The pound is upto a point irrelevant because virtaully all uk manufacturing is niche and commands a price. You sell in $ or Euros not in £. So you keep prices the same.So you make more money ( thus companies have cash- which is what is being reported). If you do not already export then moving into exporting is not easy so it will be a few years before that switch happens.

Must stop being sucked into these discussions.
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> No, I don’t think the EU will particularly need our help in stopping smuggling
> Overall I think you are making a rather moot and insignificant point, sorry.


I don't agree with you.
gallam1 explained it very well and comprehensively.

"In the event of a disagreement, and a hard Brexit, the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate."
1
Sir Chasm - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> I don't agree with you.

> gallam1 explained it very well and comprehensively.

> "In the event of a disagreement, and a hard Brexit, the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate."

And how does that help our negotiations? What do you want from the eu?
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> I don't agree with you.

> gallam1 explained it very well and comprehensively.

> "In the event of a disagreement, and a hard Brexit, the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate."

Another completely different point from the one you were making.
Anyways, I don’t really see how the Irish border would fatally undermine the protection needed for the CAP and the single market to operate. Most of what we export to the EU doesn’t go through NI, and anyway, it’s a pretty easy border to secure if you compare that to much larger borders in Eastern Europe.
He makes an equally fanciful point to yours.
Post edited at 11:48
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
> I personally doubt there is capacity in the system for the manufacturing sector to take any any more work at the moment.Something that is overlooked by all the commentators.

Not overlooked, many have pointed out that a tight labour market makes it harder to ramp up production.

> The pound is upto a point irrelevant because virtaully all uk manufacturing is niche and commands a price. You sell in $ or Euros not in £. So you keep prices the same.So you make more money ( thus companies have cash- which is what is being reported). If you do not already export then moving into exporting is not easy so it will be a few years before that switch happens.

True. So what you are saying is, lowering the pound has had the effect of increasing profits, but this temporary pretty much guaranteed to disappear as inflation feeds into input prices and labour costs, and for company that don’t export, they are over-exposed to the U.K. consumer market which is also lagging due to a fall in real wages, and will also slow as interest rates inevitably rise to contain inflation.

You’re painting a much worse picture than mine overall, it seems.

> Must stop being sucked into these discussions.
Post edited at 12:13
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
> I do not get hung up about certificates of origin- they are a European bit of paper - often not relevant to the rest of the world.Something us both in the Uk and the EU tend to forget.Middle east is an issue for it with Arab certifaciates of origin. Outside there- it really is useless.

Well, not so sure about that, small businesses may be able to afford not always complying with all the rules, and go through ugh the net, but I assume the big ones are pretty strict on compliance.


> The EU is a good trading block and I am in favour.

> But this doomsayers view needs to be treated with a slight pinch of salt.

And yet the “doomsayers” seem to have got most of the predictions right so far, albeit one year too early.

I have little doubt that the economic assessment for the impact of various forms of brexit on trade are pretty solid, not only they all converge, but the models used are pretty robust.

Much of the uncertainty lies in the type of brexit we get. Ultimately we could be still in the single market and customs union, in which case, the U.K. economy would power through as usual.
I’m simply basing my assessment on an outcome with no single market membership and no customs union, as this is clearly the intention of the government. To be clear, I’m not saying this is necessarily what will happen, I’m simply taking this as an hypothetical starting point.

> If you want me to get really technical on the issues I can do so- but it will bore the pants of most people.

Please do, always happy to learn more.
Post edited at 12:11
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Another completely different point from the one you were making.

It was replying to the statement you had just made.

> No, I don’t think the EU will particularly need our help in stopping smuggling

gallam1 explained it very well and comprehensively.
"In the event of a disagreement, and a hard Brexit, the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate."

But I think you are playing your game again. Why ?
1
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> It was replying to the statement you had just made.

> gallam1 explained it very well and comprehensively.

> "In the event of a disagreement, and a hard Brexit, the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate."

That is not an explanation, it’s just a claim.

> But I think you are playing your game again. Why ?

What game ? Trying to understand what you’re trying to say, but it seems to be changing every time... you’re muddling things and sidestepping and make no sense.

What is your argument, what’s the justification behind it, and can you give an example supporting your case ?
Post edited at 12:20
1
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Your game is what you have just done again.
I said gallam1 explained it very well and comprehensively.
The quote was his claim, obviously not the comprehensive explanation I was referring to.
You had read that, and knew what I was saying, but still replied as you did.
What is the point ?
3
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

That depends on if you are an exporter or not. If you are 100% dependent on the uk market then I would agree the picture is not rosy.Otherwise its healthy.

The big issue is really what is the global economy doing? And that is going well, so we will get dragged along in it's wake
jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

Rom's point is that it isn't 'explained well', its just a fanciful set of unsubstantiated claims which willfully overlook the inevitable negative consequences for Britain and Ireland of the proposed actions. Those claims apparently happen to chime with your world view. To others they look absurd.
jk
Post edited at 12:40
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

Small businesses comply with the rules as you are still subject to them when crossing a border.Do not kid yourself that we can get round them!

I would sit down and talk through them- it is quicker than explaining than typing in a short time frame.
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

What proposed actions are you talking about ?
Have I proposed any actions ?
jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

You proposed Britain doing or threatening to do absolutely nothing to resolve the border issue we've created in Ireland in order to drive a wedge between Ireland and the EU. That is of course assuming I've not fundamentally misunderstood what you meant by:

> So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes.

You appear to think this (in)action or the threat of it would somehow be advantageous to us. I don't.
jk
john arran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> The pound is upto a point irrelevant because virtaully all uk manufacturing is niche and commands a price. You sell in $ or Euros not in £. So you keep prices the same.So you make more money ( thus companies have cash- which is what is being reported). If you do not already export then moving into exporting is not easy so it will be a few years before that switch happens.

But surely the crash in Sterling value since the referendum has allowed UK manufacturers to drop their dollar or euro prices and retain their profit margins. And thus generate more business, at least in the short-term while we're still in the EU. I'm wondering whether EU-based buyers will be so keen to enter long-term deals with UK manufacturers if the goods they're now buying tarif-free and on favourable exchange rate terms will be subject to import taxes once Brexit is completed?

So not exactly irrelevant?
1
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> You proposed Britain doing or threatening to do absolutely nothing to resolve the border issue we've created in Ireland in order to drive a wedge between Ireland and the EU. That is of course assuming I've not fundamentally misunderstood what you meant by:
"So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes."

How does my sentence imply all that to you ?
It's a statement, not a proposal.

We have not created the border issue. We want free trade across that border. The EU demand it closed, to maintain their protectionist market. I only pointed out that this will be a very big problem for the EU, and you start going on about pirates.
2
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> In the event of a disagreement, and a hard Brexit, the Irish border will fatally undermine the protection needed for the single market and the CAP to operate.

So exports from Birmingham go to Stranraer for the Belfast ferry, over the border to Dublin for the ferry to Holyhead, the driver can then wave at Birmingham as he goes past on the way to Dover for the ferry to Calais.

And this is supposed to undermine the single market?

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Birmingham/Belfast/Dublin,+Ireland/Calais,+France/
Post edited at 13:44
1
gallam1 - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

OK, just to keep things simple, suppose that I am a farmer in Eire with an existing business selling lamb to French supermarkets.

Hard Brexit happens and Eire refuse to have a hard border, for whatever reason (and there are many).

I am then in the happy position of being able to import lamb from New Zealand into Northern Ireland, drive it down to my farm in Eire and then export it to the French supermarkets for a profit. Indeed, I could use that profit to expand my business by undercutting the price charged by French farmers.

Don't take my word for it; just read what the French farmers have to say on the subject:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-39946042
cb294 - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> We have not created the border issue.

Are you for real? The Irish border issue was 100% created by the UK invoking Art 50. As seen from the continent, you broke it, you fix it.
Exiting the EU without this issue addressed may even be possible, but don't kid yourself that the prospect of closing that border poses any kind of threat for the EU26 (27-Ireland).
The ROI would suffer, but would most likely be simply be compensated for fulfilling its duty to protect the EU external border. In contrast, NI would be completely f*cked, generating a huge problem for the UK but not the EU.

I assume that the UK will in any case stay in some kind of Norway arrangement, paying into the single market (which, to repeat ad nauseam, is not only a free trade, customs free zone). If not, the UK will be forced to put the customs boundary at the Irish Sea. How many billions would it take to keep the DUP happy under that scenario?

CB
jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> "So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes."

> How does my sentence imply all that to you ?

It's in response to discussion of Britain refusing to resolve the Irish border issue in the event of a carastrophic breakdown in negotiations. Effectively pretending we haven't left the EU once we've left. Leave aside how absurd that sounds and how it solves nothing and how it fails to deliver the brexiteer's controlled uk border...

> We have not created the border issue. We want free trade across that border. The EU demand it closed, to maintain their protectionist market.

Well the problem didn't exist 18 months ago so I'd say by any reasonable measure we've created the issue.

> I only pointed out that this will be a very big problem for the EU, and you start going on about pirates.

It simply isn't going to be a 'huge' issue for the EU. It's a big unpleasant choice Ireland will have to face in the event of Britain fu*king up negotiations: keep the border open and porous in breach its treaty obligations to the EU and face the devastating (to them, barely noticeable to the EU) economic consequences of the fallout from that or control it at significant but manageable cost to them. It's barely a real choice.
jk
andyfallsoff - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> We have not created the border issue. We want free trade across that border. The EU demand it closed, to maintain their protectionist market. I only pointed out that this will be a very big problem for the EU, and you start going on about pirates.

I find this statement absolutely ludicrous. The EU needs to have some control of its borders because a common economic area relies on the fact that there is a distinction between goods from inside the area (assumed compliant with common rules agreed between all members) and goods from outside the area (which have to be checked for compliance, because they come from countries that haven't agreed to sign up to those common standards that facilitate free trade).

By insisting that there is an open border onto the EU we create a problem for the EU in terms of the rules that it has agreed (and that it needs in order to work).

Yes, this creates a problem for the EU, but it is of our making and we seem to be refusing to adopt the solutions (e.g. customs union) that would fix their issue.
Sir Chasm - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

And how does that help our negotiating position?
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:
So you're saying Irish crooks have so far failed to fatally undermine the single market but you think Irish crooks will be able to do it for us.

Do you think Irish crooks will be able to hide the £240Bn UK goods that UK exports to the EU? That would more than double the size of the whole Irish economy and I think the rest of the EU would notice.

What cut will the Irish crooks take for smuggling £240Bn of UK goods?

UK exports to EU £240Bn 2016
Irish GDP £220Bn 2016
Post edited at 14:02
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> It's in response to discussion of Britain refusing to resolve the Irish border issue in the event of a carastrophic breakdown in negotiations. Effectively pretending we haven't left the EU once we've left. Leave aside how absurd that sounds and how it solves nothing and how it fails to deliver the brexiteer's controlled uk border...

Ranting about what other people said previous to my statement does not make it mean anything different.
It is still just "So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes".
gallam1 - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> And how does that help our negotiating position?

As per what I said miles up the thread, and now lost in the weeds, if you and I have found an apple pie and we are negotiating about the splits, I will end up agreeing that you get most or all of the pie if you can make the disagreement very unpleasant to me (for example by shooting me, because you have a gun and I don't).

The Irish border is the gun. It's not the only gun in the discussion, but it is there nonetheless, no matter who made it.

andyfallsoff - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

That might be the case.

The issue is that this isn't a one off transaction, we have an ongoing relationship. So we could win more of this pie, but not be invited to the pie shop again, meaning less overall pie.
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> I find this statement absolutely ludicrous. The EU needs to have some control of its borders because a common economic area relies on the fact that there is a distinction between goods from inside the area (assumed compliant with common rules agreed between all members) and goods from outside the area (which have to be checked for compliance, because they come from countries that haven't agreed to sign up to those common standards that facilitate free trade).

> By insisting that there is an open border onto the EU we create a problem for the EU in terms of the rules that it has agreed (and that it needs in order to work).

> Yes, this creates a problem for the EU, but it is of our making and we seem to be refusing to adopt the solutions (e.g. customs union) that would fix their issue.

So you accept this is a problem for the EU (which is all I said), and you think we should help fix their issue.
I have not insisted there is an open border. I only pointed out that their member state would not want it.
Sir Chasm - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> As per what I said miles up the thread, and now lost in the weeds, if you and I have found an apple pie and we are negotiating about the splits, I will end up agreeing that you get most or all of the pie if you can make the disagreement very unpleasant to me (for example by shooting me, because you have a gun and I don't).

> The Irish border is the gun. It's not the only gun in the discussion, but it is there nonetheless, no matter who made it.

You don't need to talk about pies, what do you want from the eu?
jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> Ranting about what other people said previous to my statement does not make it mean anything different.
> It is still just "So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes".

Are you seriously now claiming you just tapped that out in isolation, completely devoid of context? That it wasn't in response to the odd claim that Britain doing nothing undermines the single market and even stranger, CAP? If so then please do tell, what inspired you to type it and what exactly did you mean by it?

Clearly Ireland will have to accept a hard border against it's wishes if we fail to negotiate a better arrangement with them and the broader EU. Or accept the consequences of breaching their treaty obligations which they won't do. Or leave which would be madness given the mess Britain would have to have gotten into by leaving to put them in the position where leaving looked remotely appealing. A hard border benefits nobody but while Ireland can and likely would seek some form of interim compensation from the EU for the resulting losses we'll probably be facing a renewed insurrection north of the border as a result of the economic and cultural damage. Remind me again how we play this wonderful Trump card.
jk
Post edited at 14:20
gallam1 - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:
Another thought just popped into my head on this subject. In order to take the emotion out of this discussion, consider what would happen if West Germany decided to leave the EU whilst East Germany decided to stay.

I'm not sure that the EU as a whole would be able to survive this situation. The UK and Ireland situation is analagous but on a slightly smaller scale.
Post edited at 14:18
1
jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> Another thought just popped into my head on this subject. In order to take the emotion out of this discussion, consider what would happen if West Germany decided to leave the EU whilst East Germany decided to stay.
> I'm not sure that the EU as a whole would be able to survive this situation. The UK and Ireland is analagous but on a slightly smaller scale.

In what way is it analogous?

The UK and ROI are sovereign nations, East and West Germany don't even exist anymore as distinct political entities. Are you saying The EU as is would struggle long term to survive the disintegration of the modern nation of Germany? If so, I agree but see no relevance whatsoever to the UK-Ireland situation.
jk
Sir Chasm - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> Another thought just popped into my head on this subject. In order to take the emotion out of this discussion, consider what would happen if West Germany decided to leave the EU whilst East Germany decided to stay.

> I'm not sure that the EU as a whole would be able to survive this situation. The UK and Ireland situation is analagous but on a slightly smaller scale.

There is no east and west Germany. There is Germany, one country. There is also the UK and Ireland, 2 different countries.
Stupid analogy.
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to cb294:

> Are you for real? The Irish border issue was 100% created by the UK invoking Art 50. As seen from the continent, you broke it, you fix it.

Member states are required to control their borders to maintain the protected market.
Has an adjacent country that has never joined the EU caused a border issue?
If the UK leaves the EU without any deal. Is that not similar ?
timjones - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to elsewhere:

> So exports from Birmingham go to Stranraer for the Belfast ferry, over the border to Dublin for the ferry to Holyhead, the driver can then wave at Birmingham as he goes past on the way to Dover for the ferry to Calais.

> And this is supposed to undermine the single market?


Why on earth did you choose that route?

Try https://www.google.co.uk/maps/dir/Belfast/Cork,+Ireland/Roscoff,+France

Is it clearer now?
Tyler - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-property-fund-investment-is-at-its-lowest-since-2008-2016-4 Divestment from British property funds. Obviously annother indicator of hopes for a glorious post brexit future.

Got anything more up to date? 20 months later and post referendum there's no sign of a property crash, barely a slow down
john arran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> Another thought just popped into my head on this subject. In order to take the emotion out of this discussion, consider what would happen if West Germany decided to leave the EU whilst East Germany decided to stay.

> I'm not sure that the EU as a whole would be able to survive this situation. The UK and Ireland situation is analagous but on a slightly smaller scale.

Do you mean the UK and NI situation is analogous? In which case it could turn out to be prescient. If the UK economy tanks as much as the secret reports no doubt promise, it wouldn't be at all surprising if the people of NI were minded to opt for any way out of the mess, options including independence (with a view to EU membership) and unification. It may not seem particularly likely right now, but we're not in that situation yet.

If you mean the UK and Eire, I don't see any useful analogy to be drawn.
john arran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Actually your German analogy would be much more similar to what is likely to be the case with Scotland. Currently there appears to be a small majority in favour of remaining within the UK, but as the horrors of leaving the UK gradually come to pass, who is going to bet that a new independence vote won't be held, and won't then result in a majority for separation?
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

I do not know anybody who has dropped the prices. Simply because when the £ rises it will be extremely difficult to put up your euro or dollar prices.

You might discount . But your main pricing structure stays the same.



RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> OK, just to keep things simple, suppose that I am a farmer in Eire with an existing business selling lamb to French supermarkets.

> Hard Brexit happens and Eire refuse to have a hard border, for whatever reason (and there are many).

> I am then in the happy position of being able to import lamb from New Zealand into Northern Ireland, drive it down to my farm in Eire and then export it to the French supermarkets for a profit. Indeed, I could use that profit to expand my business by undercutting the price charged by French farmers.

Sorry but this is so naive. If Ireland was to let smuggled good into the EU markets they’d be taken to court and made to pay compensation and damages.
The reality is simply that there will be a hard border between ROI and NI unless the U.K. stays in the customs unions, that is completely unavoidable.
David Riley - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

So you now agree with me.

"So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes".
> Clearly Ireland will have to accept a hard border against it's wishes if we fail to negotiate a better arrangement

jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to Tyler:

> Got anything more up to date? 20 months later and post referendum there's no sign of a property crash, barely a slow down

Presumably the issue is not simply fear of a crash but that post brexit other property markets, especially commercial property in the cities which will attract businesses, institutions and investment fleeing London will yield better returns than London property.

Nothing newer to hand but there was a story making the news a couple of weeks back about a reversal of investment flows from significantly inward to slightly outward over the past year, I'm afraid I don't recall which sector and without that my search engine turns up nothing. Perhaps you'll have more luck if you're interested.
jk
cb294 - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

If you insist on treating the border issue is a metaphorical gun, the UK are holding it against their own head.

Even it were possible to treat the resolution to this issue independently of other issues, i.e. a one off negotiation which is the only context where your proposed strategy may work, who do you think would suffer most if the Irish border became a hard customs border?

CB
jkarran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> So you now agree with me.
> "So the EU will have to try to force its member state to have a hard border against their wishes".

I never disagreed with the statement, it's the idea that that somehow constitutes a meaningful negotiating advantage for the UK once all the ramifications are considered that I find absurd.
jk
john arran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> You might discount . But your main pricing structure stays the same.

... in which devil lies the detail!

RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> That depends on if you are an exporter or not. If you are 100% dependent on the uk market then I would agree the picture is not rosy.Otherwise its healthy.

> The big issue is really what is the global economy doing? And that is going well, so we will get dragged along in it's wake

True, but don’t kind yourself in thinking that losing current and future preferential access on 86% of our trade, which we will have to renegotiate from scratch from a weaker position, won’t have a negative impact.

There is a difference between being dragged along and getting a ahead of the pack, and getting dragged along but falling gradually at the back of the pack.

IMO that’s the most likely economic outcome of brexit. No massive recession but rather, a relative decline with the EU. Pretty much as it was before we joined then.

gallam1 - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
> The reality is simply that there will be a hard border between ROI and NI unless the U.K. stays in the customs unions, that is completely unavoidable.

OK, so now we have got there (finally), can you think of any reasons (historical, economic, geographic or social), why the government of Eire might drag its feet in implementing a hard border? And would such foot-dragging have any negative implications for French farmers?
Post edited at 15:04
1
Sir Chasm - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

The French farmers will merely burn the lorries of lamb, so the implication is they will have to buy more diesel?

Any thoughts on what you want to gain from the eu by using your "gun" yet?
cb294 - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

No reasons at all, even though some idiot recently even suggested that the ROI joined the UK in leaving the common market as a possible solution to the border issue.

Won't happen, the ROI government know precisely which side their bread is buttered on, they will not jeopardize their EU market access and integration just to make Brexit more palatable for NI. Also, simply forget a few hundred tonnes of lamb, irrelevant if they can attract even only a few per cent of the London banking business to Dublin (which requires continued membership of the single market).

CB

john arran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

I'm going to ask a question again because you must have missed it upthread:

You seem determined not to recognise the fact that the potential for customs and smuggling problems across the NI border would exist regardless of the details of any EU-UK deal struck. Assuming, of course, that as a Brexiter you wouldn't be happy with customs union. In light of this, could you explain why an outcome that would exist regardless of the deal, would be a significant advantage to one side in agreeing a deal?
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> OK, so now we have got there (finally), can you think of any reasons (historical, economic, geographic or social), why the government of Eire might drag its feet in implementing a hard border?

Well there's the Irish Civil war about accepting British rule of NI, the clause that used to be in the Irish constitution until the Good Friday agreement, the Troubles, publicly stated fears of a return to terrorism, nationalist/unionist views within NI on the border but perhaps mainly the fact that republicans/loyalists think the border justifies killing people.

Otherwise not a lot but surely you must have know that some people think the border justifies killing people and both UK & Ireland want to avoid that.
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> OK, so now we have got there (finally), can you think of any reasons (historical, economic, geographic or social), why the government of Eire might drag its feet in implementing a hard border? And would such foot-dragging have any negative implications for French farmers?

I can think of better reasons why they wouldn’t be dragging their feet, firstly and foremost, it’s a country with rule of law so they’ll apply the law.

And stating the obvious here, I’m sure the Irish don’t want to see a border there, but think they want to see even less their businesses closing down and people losing jobs because they are being undercut by a criminal enterprise on the other side of the border.
You seem to think the Irish and the Europeans are thick as mud.
Post edited at 15:40
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

I do not disagree. Our growth will just amble along nothing excessive.Even when we were ahead of the game, it was nothing really spectacular anyway.

What was it Adam Smith said on business - it always carries on irrespective of politics- or something like that.

I just think that some of these "all doom and gloom stories" are just that- even though I am a remainer.
1
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
> I do not disagree. Our growth will just amble along nothing excessive.Even when we were ahead of the game, it was nothing really spectacular anyway.

> What was it Adam Smith said on business - it always carries on irrespective of politics- or something like that.

> I just think that some of these "all doom and gloom stories" are just that- even though I am a remainer.

Well, maybe you need to review the so called “doom and gloom” stories, because if you look at most of the predictions from IMF, OECD, treasury and so on, different scenarios, none of them predict catastrophic economic collapse. What they predict is a sustained medium to long term impact on growth.

You could say it doesn’t really matter, but a few percentage growth points over 5/10/20 years, and the U.K. can easily end up with significantly lower living standards than our neighbours, or significantly lower than it could have been anyway.

To be honest I’m not even worried at all about the economic consequences of brexit, I’ve got two passports and I work across countries anyway, if people want to be poorer, I don’t really give a flying f*ck any longer, they’ve looked for it, frankly.

The thing that hurts the most for me is the end of freedom of movement which I find a despicable, xenophobic, and selfish backward step, which will massively restrict the freedom and opportunities of millions of young brits, and made me feel rejected and unwanted in the country I considered my home and where I spent the majority of my life.
Post edited at 17:30
3
elsewhere on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

There is an exit strategy from Bexit ;-)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQlMAptIKF8
Shani - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

> According to www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/oct/30/government-refuses-to-release-details-of-studies-in... (also reported elsewhere):

Apparently all 58 (?) reports will be published imminently, with heavy redaction.
neilh - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

I think free movement is unfortunately yesterday’s news.

With a predicted population of 70million in a few years time us remainers have lost that argument in the majority of people’s views.
3
RomTheBear on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> I think free movement is unfortunately yesterday’s news.

Yes, and that is the sadest thing.

> With a predicted population of 70million in a few years time us remainers have lost that argument in the majority of people’s views.

Ending free movement will change absolutely f*ck all to that. At best it will reach 70mil in 2029 instead of 2027, big f*cking deal. No, all it does, is restricting massively the opportunities and freedoms of everybody.
Lusk - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

> I don’t really give a flying f*ck any longer.

Does that mean we won't have to 'listen' to you anymore?
4
john arran - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

You keep referring to yourself as a remainer but I don't remember a single one of your posts that supports that. Have you had a change of heart? Or are you trying to play devil's advocate? In any case your posts in support of Brexit are far from convincing. So what is it that's so great about the idea of finally being in blissful isolationist poverty that you feel is so attractive?
1
Andy Johnson - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

>
Apparently all 58 (?) reports will be published imminently, with heavy redaction.

Here's a what-if scenario:

The reports are published and it turns out they're really grim. Corbyn decides to use them as a pretext for withdrawing Labour's support for brexit "in the national interest", and thereby putting the boot into the Tories.

What happens? Does Corbyn get removed by the Labour brexit tendency? Does May resign or call an election or struggle on? Parliamentary vote of no confidence?

(Not saying this is likely, just interested in people's thoughts.)
Shani - on 01 Nov 2017
In reply to andyjohnson0:
Events dear boy. I think 'Sexminster' is going to shred the Tories - and to a lesser extent, Labour.

Brexit will take a back seat.
Post edited at 20:54
1
RomTheBear on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to andyjohnson0:

Nothing meaningful will be published, it will be heavily redacted, and published so late that it doesn’t really make any difference.
1
Andy Hardy on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to andyjohnson0:

How about another "what if"? What if the impact assessments had been commissioned and published (unredacted) before the bloody referendum??? We would then have known the cost and implications of "taking control"


RomTheBear on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:
> How about another "what if"? What if the impact assessments had been commissioned and published (unredacted) before the bloody referendum??? We would then have known the cost and implications of "taking control"

To be frank, there was plenty of various analysis for various sectors made by people worth their salt.

Problem is they were dismissed as conspiracy of the elite and scaremongering and anyway people don’t read the reports, they just get the sound bites, and the simplistic messages.

Plus the leave campaign was very good at producing “alternative facts” of dubious quality, but there is no way for people to make the difference, especially when you have medias like the beeb which, in the name of "equity", reports the opinion of someone who says the earth is flat with the same weight as the opinion of someone who says it's a spheroid.
Post edited at 08:12
1
Rob Parsons on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

> Events dear boy. I think 'Sexminster' is going to shred the Tories - and to a lesser extent, Labour.

> Brexit will take a back seat.

Or is it the other way around? Anybody guilty of sexual harassment (or worse) should get what's coming to them; no question about that - but maybe the current shitstorm also provides another 'good day to bury bad news'?
PaulTclimbing - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Where's Mark Carney on this one.
Shani - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to Rob Parsons:

> - but maybe the current shitstorm also provides another 'good day to bury bad news'?

There's a lot of bad news to bury!

"‘Food is rotting in the fields’ - NFU deputy president Minette Batters demands urgent action on seasonal labour shortfall"

http://www.edp24.co.uk/business/farming/food-is-rotting-in-the-fields-nfu-deputy-president-minette-b...
neilh - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Middle ground on most issues, more nuanced.I just disagree with some of you hard line remainers.And I think some of the views on Britains future trading position are just plain wrong and I am happy to say so. I think none of you really address why people voted for Brexit, because you instantly rubbish a view that you disgree with.

Economically I consider that there is a huge productivity issue and that companies have been freeriding on free movement instead of investing.

The EU is fine as a trading block.

I read a piece in the Economist a few weeks ago, and it pointed out that the middle gound in a debate is often drowned out these days and very mar=ginalised.I am in the middle gound-with a remain hat- but I can see the other side. Some of you guys cannot you are too extreme.
gallam1 - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

I think that's a fine comment and it brought to mind the following from Yeats:

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

There is not really a debate going on between Remainers and those is favour of Brexit.
john arran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

That all sounds fine, but how do you justify maintaining a middle ground stance, when as far as I can tell just about every reputable source is predicting severe economic difficulties? Maybe my media influence is skewed, in which case I would be happy to be pointed at reputable studies that show how Brexit will have a positive effect on the economy or on the lives of people in the UK.

You seem quick to dismiss Remainers as extreme, but once all the evidence points to the earth being spherical, it's no longer an extreme position to believe that evidence.
2
gallam1 - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

In this context when you say "reputable source" what you really should be looking for is an institution or individual with a proven track record of accurately analysing and forecasting complex economic phenomena.

In the case of medicine, a reputable source is someone who can show a statistically significant positive clinical effect from their suggested course of action. Before accepting any analysis of the effects or otherwise of Brexit, apply a similar test to the source holding themselves out as reputable.
2
neilh - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

As I keep saying I am in remainer- just more in the middle than the likes of ROM etc.

Sorry if you cannot accept that.
john arran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

Who said anything about being able to accept it? All I asked was for help in understanding on what information your middle-ground stance is based. I wouldn't expect that to be a difficult or awkward question to answer. I'm genuinely curious as to what evidential basis people like yourself rely upon in deciding to take a middle ground or a Brexiter ground.
RomTheBear on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
> Middle ground on most issues, more nuanced.I just disagree with some of you hard line remainers.And I think some of the views on Britains future trading position are just plain wrong and I am happy to say so. I think none of you really address why people voted for Brexit, because you instantly rubbish a view that you disgree with.

> Economically I consider that there is a huge productivity issue and that companies have been freeriding on free movement instead of investing.

You see that's exactly why your supposedly "nuanced" position can't be taken seriously. You just make things up.

A quick look around the EU and you'll find plenty of other countries that have managed very well to have high productivity and investment, and they have freedom of movement as well.

If anything, the available evidence suggests that the influx of EU workers correlates with increased productivity.

https://niesr.ac.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Migration%20productivity%20final.pdf
Post edited at 10:53
1
john arran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Sounds to me like you're trying to dismiss the overwhelming weight of expert opinion on the grounds that no single commentator has been accurate all or most of the time. There are people and institutions with far more knowledge and insight than you or I, and if overwhelmingly they agree, then who am I, or you, to dismiss their collective wisdom so lightly, just because doing so may suit a narrative we might like to be true?
3
neilh - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

My middle ground stance is based on the my simple observations of exporting around the world and seeing what other countries are doing.I just do not recognise alot of the comments from posters who clearly do not do this on a day to day basis.So for example when people day it will be bedlam at the ports- i just think - no- there are ways round it based on what other countries do.
neilh - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:

But I am not sure they have had the same level of immigration ( either from free movement or otherwise) into their own countries.So it could equally be viewed that they have had to get more efficient at doing things by boosting productivity.I am not going to read a 71 page report!
john arran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

Thank you. In your example, do you then stop to consider what benefits the people of the UK, or indeed you, are gaining in order to merit the inconvenience of having to find such 'ways round it'?
john arran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Just in case you missed it a second time:
I'm going to ask a question again because you must have missed it upthread:

You seem determined not to recognise the fact that the potential for customs and smuggling problems across the NI border would exist regardless of the details of any EU-UK deal struck. Assuming, of course, that as a Brexiter you wouldn't be happy with customs union. In light of this, could you explain why an outcome that would exist regardless of the deal, would be a significant advantage to one side in agreeing a deal?
gallam1 - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:
There was a very popular expert opinion in the middle ages that bleeding people with leeches was a good and successful remedy for a number of illnesses. Accepting the opinion of others without evidence of a successful track record is a form of deference that I cannot afford working in the private sector.

Bringing the conversation back to climbing for a moment, would you accept my opinion about the grade of Adam Ondra's latest astounding sports climbing achievement on the basis that I appear to be an expert in climbing with more than 30 years experience? Obviously not, because I have no demonstrated track record in sports climbing at that level.

It is very easy to be swayed by labels and institutions in these matters. Those labels and institutions are wrapping paper, nothing more. Concentrate on the track records to see if the institution you are listening to has any credibility, and keep in mind the fact that the entire medical establishment was once at one in recommending leeches for bacterial infections.

As to your comment about the Irish border, you appear to be very keen to apply the label "Brexiter" to me. Quite why you are so keen to do this I really don't understand. This is not a football match, and I am not a fanatic supporter of either side. I am interested in a reasoned discussion of the issues however.
Post edited at 11:20
6
neilh - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Clearly yes - and that is why I am a remainer- but at the same time I can see that there is a hell of alot of spin from both sides which may not stack up if push comes to shove so to speak....

I am also not faced with your situation - living in France if I am correct ..and not knowing what the f..k is going on.
RomTheBear on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
> But I am not sure they have had the same level of immigration ( either from free movement or otherwise) into their own countries.So it could equally be viewed that they have had to get more efficient at doing things by boosting productivity.I am not going to read a 71 page report!

Maybe this maybe that... Essentially you have no clue as to whether your claim is true, it's not much more than a hunch. And that's the issue.
Maybe, if you had reviewed the evidence, you'd come to a different conclusion.

FYI, productivity growth was strong and steady up to the financial crisis, which, as you know happened well after the British gov opened the immigration floodgate by deciding to be the only country with no transition to free movement from the A10 countries.
Post edited at 11:58
john arran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

Laudable intention, but does that leave any reputable voices at all? In which case, which ones do you use on which to base your opinions? Or are your opinions based only on poorly-informed personal observation? Citing examples where the weight of expert opinion in the past has been proved to be wrong, and ignoring the enormous number of examples in which expert opinion has been correct, certainly demonstrates that relying on experts for guidance is not infallible, but does nothing whatsoever to propose a more convincing or reliable basis for your decision-making.

Oh, and by the way:

"LEECH THERAPY
Ancient Indian, Greek and Egyptian texts indicate that these segmented worms have been used to treat everything from flatulence to joint pain for nearly 3,000 years. The medieval practice of bloodletting was perhaps the most infamous use of the vampire-like worm. Doctors believed an imbalance of blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile was the cause of most ailments. Leeches were applied to patients believed to have an excess of blood. While the medical community no longer accepts the widespread use of bloodletting, research has shown proteins in leech saliva can help treat cardiovascular problems, cancer, metastasis, and infectious diseases."
https://www.popsci.com/article/technology/5-old-timey-medical-treatments-actually-work#page-4

;-)
Dave Garnett - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> In the case of medicine, a reputable source is someone who can show a statistically significant positive clinical effect from their suggested course of action.

But to perform statistically valid clinical trials you need a body of data from previous similar cases. Brexit is more like the first case of a previously unknown disease. The appropriate response is precautionary principle of assuming the worst.
1
john arran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> I am also not faced with your situation - living in France if I am correct ..and not knowing what the f..k is going on.

Oh, I could move back to the UK any time. But then I may well be just as fcuked there ... along with almost everyone else in the UK, since nobody yet seems to have offered any credible reasoning as to why the huge number of expert predictions of economic hardship are not to be believed.
1
David Riley - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Dave Garnett just did.
1
jkarran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
> Middle ground on most issues, more nuanced.I just disagree with some of you hard line remainers.And I think some of the views on Britains future trading position are just plain wrong and I am happy to say so. I think none of you really address why people voted for Brexit, because you instantly rubbish a view that you disgree with.

I 'dismiss' why many voted for brexit because having talked to far too many of them for my own sanity pre-referendum very very few of them could actually provide me with a reason that made any sense and didn't boil down to 'because my newspaper tells me to' or 'because I don't like all these foreigners but I'm not a racist' or because 'I remember the Empire from when I was young and everything was better then'. So dismiss is the wrong word, I hear but cannot take seriously the views of many who simply had not and in many cases were unwilling to consider the likely knock on consequences of their one dimensional decision. Does that make me a terrible snob? I don't really care if it does.

I'm sure some have good reasons but even the most articulate brexiteers on here are constantly having to revise and narrow their justification for the vote as the predicted glory fails to materialise. Forgive me if I fail to respect that approach.

> Economically I consider that there is a huge productivity issue and that companies have been freeriding on free movement instead of investing.

An economic downturn and lurch to the right in which deregulated labour becomes cheaper and easier to hire/fire is unlikely to fix that though! Successive government's have shown no interest to date in controlling the influx of immigrant labour despite tough talk, tough talk and an economy that ticks along is all that is needed to stay in power. A nasty recession might cull a few zombie companies but then what would that do to unemployment numbers which will need constant massaging if the government gravy train is to stay on the rails so even that dubious benefit is in some doubt.

Today we hear the reality of actually cutting migrant labour, not through government policy but by creating an environment where latent xenophobia has found a loud and angry voice. It looks like a looming crisis in nursing that will be fixed how? Probably not through real investment in skills and training but by further raids on the nursing schools of the Philippines and others rather than Spain. Brexit doesn't fix any of this, it just makes it worse by creating an environment in which sensible planning and real leadership is secondary to desperate firefighting.

By all means consider and dismiss me as an extremist but personally I think I'm just being realistic.
jk
Post edited at 11:44
1
john arran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Dave Garnett just did.

You'll have to explain that one to me. Dave suggested that, when direct experience is lacking, a pessimistic, cautious approach is justified. That's exactly what most expert commentators are indicating: we're in uncharted territory and the outlook is extremely poor, so a cautious approach - that of not believing any positive projection without very good reason to do so - is justified.
gallam1 - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

There is something faintly unsettling about realising that there are no experts in this domain. I may personally agree with Dave Garnett about the precautionary principle but I also have to accept that I live in a democracy.

I am far from being anti-expert by the way. I have great respect for chess grandmasters for example.
4
summo on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> There was a very popular expert opinion in the middle ages that bleeding people with leeches was a good and successful remedy for a number of illnesses.

There is evidence to suggest that leeches and other such creatures are quite good at cleaning open wounds and improving healing times. More research is required. So there was some method in the madness, that was just taken to nth degree.

john arran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

While you're here, I have something else to ask you - again:

Just in case you missed it a second time:
I'm going to ask a question again because you must have missed it upthread:

You seem determined not to recognise the fact that the potential for customs and smuggling problems across the NI border would exist regardless of the details of any EU-UK deal struck. Assuming, of course, that as a Brexiter you wouldn't be happy with customs union. In light of this, could you explain why an outcome that would exist regardless of the deal, would be a significant advantage to one side in agreeing a deal?
jkarran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:
> It is very easy to be swayed by labels and institutions in these matters. Those labels and institutions are wrapping paper, nothing more. Concentrate on the track records to see if the institution you are listening to has any credibility, and keep in mind the fact that the entire medical establishment was once at one in recommending leeches for bacterial infections.

I wasn't expecting that when I googled 'leeches for infections', an odd seeming phrase, perhaps I should have: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3422960/Leeches-infections-mercury-syphilis-honey-smeared-... is that by any chance the reputable institution you place your trust in?

Leeches are still used today with care in evidence based medicine so while every historical use was probably not necessary or effective it's worth considering the possibility they were as effective 500 years ago as they are today in treating certain conditions.

> As to your comment about the Irish border, you appear to be very keen to apply the label "Brexiter" to me. Quite why you are so keen to do this I really don't understand. This is not a football match, and I am not a fanatic supporter of either side. I am interested in a reasoned discussion of the issues however.

Ok. Simple question: do you think the UK is making the right or the wrong choice by leaving the European Union? For the record I think we're making an historic mistake.
jk
Post edited at 11:59
1
Dave Garnett - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> I may personally agree with Dave Garnett about the precautionary principle but I also have to accept that I live in a democracy.

I'm generally opposed to physically restraining children, especially ones I don't know, but I'd make an exception where one was about to step out in front of a bus.

gallam1 - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

I have nothing against leeches and have no interest in the Daily Mail. You really do appear to be determined to entirely miss the point I was making.

I am glad that you have great conviction on the question of Brexit. You presumably then won't mind me making a cheeky bid for all of your UK-based assets at 50% below current market prices? I will pay in any currency of your choosing. If your conviction of a disaster does not extend to a 50% discount, well, name your price and let's talk.
6
jkarran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:
I don't mind at all but I'll pass thank you (unless you're interested in a pair of old jetskis on a rusty trailer, £450 to you). If it comes to it and the Britain I love truly is lost then I'll be leaving at a time of my choosing not yours and my assets will be worth what they're worth. For now I still have hope.

I see you didn't answer my question. Leaving: right or wrong?

Make your point clearer if people keep missing it.
jk
Post edited at 12:17
gallam1 - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

So are you prepared to back your convictions with your capital? I could easily arrange for you to have a bet on a falling UK stock market, or perhaps you think the pound will fall below parity with the Euro?

By the way, I'm certainly not saying that I won't listen to your opinion just because you will not back it. I am interested to read other peoples opinions on this matter. It is however quite easy to have an extreme opinion when nothing is personally at stake.
1
RomTheBear on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:


> By the way, I'm certainly not saying that I won't listen to your opinion just because you will not back it. I am interested to read other peoples opinions on this matter. It is however quite easy to have an extreme opinion when nothing is personally at stake.

You should heed your own advice.
jkarran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to gallam1:

> So are you prepared to back your convictions with your capital? I could easily arrange for you to have a bet on a falling UK stock market, or perhaps you think the pound will fall below parity with the Euro?

I'm perfectly capable of managing my own money thank you very much but if it makes you feel big and clever to have me refuse you then please do enjoy your moment.

> By the way, I'm certainly not saying that I won't listen to your opinion just because you will not back it. I am interested to read other peoples opinions on this matter. It is however quite easy to have an extreme opinion when nothing is personally at stake.

I have a hell of a lot at stake in the future, as do most.

You didn't answer my question. Leaving: right or wrong? It's not difficult, even if you're wavering you could just say so.
jk
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Are you planning on those two jetskis getting you across the channel? ;-)
Toby_W on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Bound to be, if they're imported they'll no doubt go up in value by about a 1000% and that should be enough to purchase a ticket on the ferry ;-)

Cheers

Toby
neilh - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Lurch to the right? I suspect that if there was an election now, labour would walk in.
neilh - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:


I get together once a month with a small group of business people ( split 50/50 men/women including 1 hijab wearing Muslim womn).Also 1 person who was a UKIP candiate. The discussions on this economic hardship have been wide and varied.The group is split 50/50 on remain and Brexit.To date the conclusion is that nobodies business is suffering. Time will tell.
jkarran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
> Lurch to the right? I suspect that if there was an election now, labour would walk in.

Perhaps though I'm much less sure than you. With even a fractionally more likable leader at the helm and the swivel-eyed loons put into check I suspect the conservatives would win back a small majority unless of course Labour were willing to take a really serious stand on democratizing the brexit process while seeking a minimally disruptive Norway style exit which I'm not sure they're ready to.

I don't think there has been a lurch to the left overall, I think the confluence of brexit, dismal austerity, an astute Labour campaign and a truly terrible Conservative effort have turned the young and the socially progressive out for Labour better than in previous elections. Who knows if that's repeatable. Can the Tories really throw two winnable elections in a row? I also think British politics is polarising significantly as the young fail to reap the benefits their parents enjoyed and continue to enjoy.
jk
Post edited at 13:30
Ian W - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> I get together once a month with a small group of business people ( split 50/50 men/women including 1 hijab wearing Muslim womn).Also 1 person who was a UKIP candiate. The discussions on this economic hardship have been wide and varied.The group is split 50/50 on remain and Brexit.To date the conclusion is that nobodies business is suffering. Time will tell.

That'll be primarily because we haven't left yet...........
1
David Riley - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to Ian W:

Doesn't hold JK back. "the predicted glory fails to materialise."
jkarran - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Doesn't hold JK back. "the predicted glory fails to materialise."

Well when Liam Fox puts pen to paper at the stroke of midnight, brexit day to sign the promised slew of easily negotiated advantageous trade agreements forged with major partners to replace what we lose outside the single market I'll eat my hat just for you.

Oh, no... I forgot, that's not actually going to happen is it. They were forced to concede to the brexit select committee just this week that they'd been misleading the public about this and that not only was there no good news at all to report on that front, all they could offer was an absence of any news as to who might be willing to even just 'roll over' existing deals on an interim basis as an indicator of how biggly we'll be winning come the big day in 2019. It's beyond farcical!
jk
1
David Riley - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

I'll be glad when we're out and everybody calms down a bit.
4
RomTheBear on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:
Yes, beyond farcical, in a space of a year or so they have gone from

"Screw the EU, we'll sail the world in royal yacht Britannia and sign amazing trade deals around the world in no time”

To

“Actually, we’ll just beg for trying to roll over the same deals as we had before with the EU”

To

“Actually, we’ll probably won’t get that either, so better beg for a transition period with the EU and with a bit of luck we may be able to renegotiate something later, probably weaker, with other countries”


May I add even if they get the transition period they are begging for, it is still fraught with problems.
On March 2019 the U.K. will be out of the EU, even with a transitional deal, there is no guarantee that third parties will still consider the UK as part of the EU for the purpose of those treaties.
Post edited at 16:42
1
Timmd on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to Tyler:
> Got anything more up to date? 20 months later and post referendum there's no sign of a property crash, barely a slow down

There has been a slow down though, in Sheffield certainly. Interest rates are going up too, but not because the economy is (more) resilient.
Post edited at 16:47
Sir Chasm - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> I get together once a month with a small group of business people ( split 50/50 men/women including 1 hijab wearing Muslim womn).Also 1 person who was a UKIP candiate. The discussions on this economic hardship have been wide and varied.The group is split 50/50 on remain and Brexit.To date the conclusion is that nobodies business is suffering. Time will tell.

Do none of them import parts or materials from abroad?
RomTheBear on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> I'll be glad when we're out and everybody calms down a bit.

Don’t get your hopes up too much, because that’s when the real difficulties are going to start.
Currently we’re just at the stage of negotiating the withdrawal agreement, negotiating the transition will be much harder, and negotiating the future relationship as well as renegotiating the 750+ treaties we have with third parties through the EU even more.
Post edited at 16:55
1
tom_in_edinburgh - on 02 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Well when Liam Fox puts pen to paper at the stroke of midnight, brexit day

For that to happen Liam Fox would need to keep his job and the Brexiter's would need to hold their project together for more than a year. I wouldn't bet on either of those outcomes. The sex spreadsheet is going to make it much easier for May to fire him.
neilh - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

A couple.2 of them had seen no materials prices increases ( work in very competitive markets). 1 business marginal increases. others are in the service sector,so not relevant.. includes 1 who has a sprinkler system design company, she is so busy its unreal for her and her 40 employees......
jkarran - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

> For that to happen Liam Fox would need to keep his job and the Brexiter's would need to hold their project together for more than a year. I wouldn't bet on either of those outcomes. The sex spreadsheet is going to make it much easier for May to fire him.

For a variety of reasons I'm quite confident I'll not be needing a good hat recipe.

That said, the already disgraced Fox is apparently made of teflon, he should be in the tower not back in the cabinet. One can only assume he has the job so the inevitable dismal failure to deliver on undeliverable promises doesn't damage anyone else's career or derail their transition to the unelected upper house.
jk
Sir Chasm - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> A couple.2 of them had seen no materials prices increases ( work in very competitive markets). 1 business marginal increases. others are in the service sector,so not relevant.. includes 1 who has a sprinkler system design company, she is so busy its unreal for her and her 40 employees......

How can there have been no increase in the price of imported materials with the drop in sterling?
neilh - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

if your business just buys a product from overseas and is a distributor in the Uk then yes there will no doubt be an increase.For example they business next door to me imports dried fruit from a single soure in Turkey and then repacks then his costs will have risen...clear cut.

But if you are adding value by further processing and its a small part of your costs, then you may choose to absorb those costs internally.

Or the other option is that you operate in a fiercelly competitive market where there are lots of overeas suppliers ( so you have plenty of options for sourcing) so prices still stay the same.That is what happened to the 2 companies I mentioned.
Sir Chasm - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> if your business just buys a product from overseas and is a distributor in the Uk then yes there will no doubt be an increase.For example they business next door to me imports dried fruit from a single soure in Turkey and then repacks then his costs will have risen...clear cut.

So costs have risen and profits drop. Business suffering.

> But if you are adding value by further processing and its a small part of your costs, then you may choose to absorb those costs internally.

Profits drop. Business suffering.

> Or the other option is that you operate in a fiercelly competitive market where there are lots of overeas suppliers ( so you have plenty of options for sourcing) so prices still stay the same.That is what happened to the 2 companies I mentioned.

Well if you can persuade your foreign suppliers to drop their prices you were paying over the odds before.

But anyway, this rather seems to contradict your anecdote that "nobodies business is suffering".
jkarran - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Or the other option is that you operate in a fiercelly competitive market where there are lots of overeas suppliers ( so you have plenty of options for sourcing) so prices still stay the same.That is what happened to the 2 companies I mentioned.

Did that market suddenly get more competitive coincident with the drop in sterling? If not I don't understand your explanation. Surely if it was already super competitive your mates would have been getting the best available price which is still the best available price after the money you buy with loses value, you just get less for your money or spend more to get the same. I'm probably missing something obvious.
jk
neilh - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

They are certainly not shrinking and getting rid of people.Far from it-- expanding and taking on more employees.... And I was talking about the people I knew.Two of the group had just bought new premises as an example.

Please if you want to be all gloomy-- go ahead.

Sir Chasm - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> They are certainly not shrinking and getting rid of people.Far from it-- expanding and taking on more employees.... And I was talking about the people I knew.Two of the group had just bought new premises as an example.

> Please if you want to be all gloomy-- go ahead.

I'm not trying to be gloomy, I'm trying to understand your position that the fall in sterling doesn't hurt businesses who import parts of materials.
Toby_W on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:
Sprinkler systems, I wonder if that is because of the tower block fire?

Cheers

Toby

Sorry off topic.
Post edited at 12:49
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> if your business just buys a product from overseas and is a distributor in the Uk then yes there will no doubt be an increase.For example they business next door to me imports dried fruit from a single soure in Turkey and then repacks then his costs will have risen...clear cut.

So costs have risen and profits drop. Business suffering.

Turkish lira has performed worse than sterling over the same period, so costs will not have risen and profits should have gone up in this example. Not as much as they might have, granted...but still a good business, on the up, not suffering, despite Brexit.

1
Sir Chasm - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Well what Neil said was "his costs will have risen...clear cut.". Perhaps you can explain why the cost of your materials rising is good for a business.
BnB - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Did that market suddenly get more competitive coincident with the drop in sterling? If not I don't understand your explanation. Surely if it was already super competitive your mates would have been getting the best available price which is still the best available price after the money you buy with loses value, you just get less for your money or spend more to get the same. I'm probably missing something obvious.

> jk

Prices don't reflect markets so much as mirror companies' priorities. When a shock occurs new strategies emerge.

In the event of a rise in suppliers' prices owing to a currency fall, the buyer will typically re-tender the supply chain putting pressure on existing suppliers to drop their prices. The loss in profit is as likely to be at the foreign component manufacturer as it is at the UK assembly plant. Or the local supplier may get a look-in.

Meanwhile,BMW is suffering more from the fall in GBP than UK car buyers because they've chosen to absorb a high proportion of the hit. Their strategy runs counter to your assumptions.

Not saying it's all roses but you can't simply extrapolate a currency fall in the way people are trying to here.
BnB - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

> Well what Neil said was "his costs will have risen...clear cut.". Perhaps you can explain why the cost of your materials rising is good for a business.

Because the value-added in his process has fallen in (relative) cost making his product more attractive overseas.
Sir Chasm - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Because the value-added in his process has fallen in (relative) cost making his product more attractive overseas.

That's great if he's exporting.
neilh - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

You keep using this phrase of hurting businesses. Business adapts and changes all the time , so all depends on the environement/market you operate in etc etc.But to say it hurts all businesses who import just does not stand upto scrutiny.
Sir Chasm - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Because the value-added in his process has fallen in (relative) cost making his product more attractive overseas.

And it doesn't actually answer the question.
Bjartur i Sumarhus on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:

I was replying to both of you...just highlighting that the example given didn't actually work very well for the point trying to be made. I also thought it was worth mentioning that whilst sterling has fallen, it's not the only currency out there that hasn't performed, so it's never quite so clear cut.

neilh - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Clearly when this guy has bought a brand new industrial unit drives up in his latest Tesla, and is in the throws of getting planning permission to expand his newly acquired unit..then his business is not suffering!
Post edited at 13:05
1
neilh - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Toby_W:

Spot on....off topic. Phone started ringing the day after and has never stopped.
Sir Chasm - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> You keep using this phrase of hurting businesses. Business adapts and changes all the time , so all depends on the environement/market you operate in etc etc.But to say it hurts all businesses who import just does not stand upto scrutiny.

I haven't used that phrase at all, read the thread. I haven't said it hurts all business. I asked you a simple question - i.e. do any of the businesses you say aren't suffering (your word not mine) import parts or materials from abroad? And if they do import and their costs have increased how does that not lead to their business suffering (again, your phrase)?
john arran - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> Spot on....off topic. Phone started ringing the day after and has never stopped.

Not sure why it's off topic. You've said several times that your business is doing well in a post-referendum environment, giving the impression that Brexit isn't affecting business at all. Now we know why - and it looks to be a chance occurrence not even Brexit-related, quite probably even despite Brexit.
jkarran - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to BnB:

> Prices don't reflect markets so much as mirror companies' priorities. When a shock occurs new strategies emerge.
> In the event of a rise in suppliers' prices owing to a currency fall, the buyer will typically re-tender the supply chain putting pressure on existing suppliers to drop their prices. The loss in profit is as likely to be at the foreign component manufacturer as it is at the UK assembly plant.

Which I understand but it doesn't quite tally with what was said about the particular market already being super competitive, were that actually the case then there wouldn't be the required slack you suggest is available for renegotiation to be effective, it would have been taken up competing for business in the first place. If a new strategy allows them to suddenly be more competitive then I'd argue they weren't that competitive to begin with.

> Or the local supplier may get a look-in.

Yeah, good luck to the plucky British olive and almond growers ;-)

> Meanwhile,BMW is suffering more from the fall in GBP than UK car buyers because they've chosen to absorb a high proportion of the hit. Their strategy runs counter to your assumptions.

Doesn't BMW have a significant UK production plant, supply chain and staff so both costs and income in GBP? Not every business will have the scale, complexity and flexibility to make the same choices at minimal harm to themselves. Indeed BMW may not be able to justify keeping that strategy up in the long term.
jk
neilh - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:
That is not my business !

And I never claimed it was-- just somebody I know who is in that business group that I talked about.I just mentioned that this group included one person who runs a sprinkler design system company.The group includes 3 manufacturers,2 companies running nurseries, 1 running a large elderley care group,1 skate board park,2 marketing companies, a gp practise and a landscape contractor. An electic mix, just like most of the uk.

There are lots of businesses doing very well.........either with or without Brexit being a factor.
Post edited at 15:21
john arran - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

> That is not my business !

Apologies then. Details lost in a complex thread.
neilh - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Crossed wires.......
Ian W - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Doesn't BMW have a significant UK production plant, supply chain and staff so both costs and income in GBP? Not every business will have the scale, complexity and flexibility to make the same choices at minimal harm to themselves. Indeed BMW may not be able to justify keeping that strategy up in the long term.

Most of the costs are in Euro, or USD. The mini factory is an assembly plant, with many components being ourced from Europe, but many many sales being to Europe, so self-hedging. The Engine plant on Deesside similarly has both supply and sales largely in Euro, so again, minimal effect.

Toerag - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to neilh:

How well would the export sector do if the EU implemented a 20% tariff like the USA has just done on imports of Canadian timber? I can't see them all absorbing that sort of hit.

neilh - on 03 Nov 2017
In reply to Toerag:

Never mind all this bulls~~t from both sides of the remainers and the brexiteers debate....can you really see that happening with the tit for tat that would ensue.It cuts both ways .Pro quid pro neither side benefits/loses, its a draw.Way down list of important issues.

Worst case you could possibly switch to MFN ( most favoured nation status) under WTO rules on both sides...so tariff would be 0% for both the EU and the UK...neither side will want that... it looks embarrassing globally.



Big Ger - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Brits are happier since the Brexit vote despite a squeeze on real incomes from higher inflation and the weaker pound.

Average ratings of life satisfaction, feelings that the things we do in life are worthwhile and happiness increased “slightly” in the UK between the years ending in June 2016 and 2017, data on personal well-being from the UK Office for National Statistics showed on Tuesday.


https://www.ft.com/content/31c0b890-1af0-3b2b-aee0-860eee379cd0
5
DaveN - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Key things there:
the words "slightly" was the increase within the error bounds of the survey?
And
This increase has occurred whilst we are a member of the EU, we've not been fully hit by the impact of all our trade deals being ripped away and completely inadequate preparations being made.

Obviously I'm not respecting "the will of the people" here, but then neither is this government....
Bogwalloper - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

That's good news. We must have moved then up from 19th in the top 20 world's happiest countries?

W
1
Big Ger - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> That's good news. We must have moved then up from 19th in the top 20 world's happiest countries?

Would you like that half empty glass topped up?

We're never going to do well in those ratings while we are dragging people like you along with us.

10
RomTheBear on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to DaveN:

As someone else said, Brexit is not about the economy.
It’s anout a renewed exceptionalist sense of national pride and identity.
And that’s exactly why it is so irrational and dangerous.
1
andyfallsoff - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

Did you look at the chart? It's simply a continuing trend; it doesn't appear that the Brexit vote was particularly relevant in the trend.
Shani - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
Many people had no idea what they were voting for. The signal to noise ratio was too high.

A good example is Grimsby where 70% voted Brexit. Snd now "Brexit exemption sought for Grimsby seafood trade":

http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/grimsby-news/brexit-exemption-sought-grimsby-seafood-736984.a...
Post edited at 08:04
wercat on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

and if the glass is 3/4 empty and emptying more? I'm glad for your good circumstances - enjoy them
Bogwalloper - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> Would you like that half empty glass topped up?

> We're never going to do well in those ratings while we are dragging people like you along with us.

Anyone who can currently look at the situation with our government, brexit negotiations, pound Sterling, hate crime increase, division amongst the population, businesess making contingency plans etc etc etc AND still think their glass is half full is either on crack or a good pension.

W

2
andyfallsoff - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

As if the headline wasn't bonkers enough, they also quite a Tory Eurosceptic who is describing this as an opportunity arising from Brexit.

Are they completely mad?
john arran - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> As if the headline wasn't bonkers enough, they also quite a Tory Eurosceptic who is describing this as an opportunity arising from Brexit.

> Are they completely mad?

It makes perfect sense; in a similar way that crashing your car would provide a good opportunity to sell the scrap metal and make some cash.
Andy Hardy on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to Shani:

"Mr Vickers said the possibility of free trade status for northern Lincolnshire’s ports was a sign of post-Brexit optimism.

“We couldn’t do that if we wanted to at the moment,” said the Eurosceptic Tory.

“But once we get control of our own economy again, that is one of the things that could be looked at and which could be very beneficial.

“That emphasises the freedoms and opportunities that could be opening up after Brexit.”

Totally (and deliberately) NOT saying that no such special status is required if we're IN the EU, because that's one of the main benefits...
<facepalm>
1
Bob Kemp - on 08 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:
> It makes perfect sense; in a similar way that crashing your car would provide a good opportunity to sell the scrap metal and make some cash.

Shani mentioned disaster capitalism. Brexit is clearly being viewed as such by the assorted vultures that are now circling, eg. see the Legatum Institute:

"In this, the Legatum Institute seems to be paving the way for its "parent undertakings", engineering a "disruptive transition" for Brexit, then to reap the profits from chaos. Its task is assisted by useful fools and fellow travellers on the Tory right. What we have often characterised as incompetence, therefore, may be more sinister. There is money to be made out of a hard Brexit."
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86556

Big Ger - on 09 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Did you look at the chart? It's simply a continuing trend; it doesn't appear that the Brexit vote was particularly relevant in the trend.

But, if the disasters forecast by the remainers "team fear", mass-unemployment, country going bankrupt, plagues of boils for everyone, had come true then the trend would have gone off a cliff edge.

Coinsidering the political farce we've seen from May et all since then, it's a wonder that we're not all slitting our wrists, is it not?
5
Big Ger - on 09 Nov 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

> Anyone who can currently look at the situation with our government, brexit negotiations, pound Sterling, hate crime increase, division amongst the population, businesess making contingency plans etc etc etc AND still think their glass is half full is either on crack or a good pension.

Which I take it you are not?

Misery loves company, spread your depression wide if it makes you feel good about yourself....

5
andyfallsoff - on 09 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> But, if the disasters forecast by the remainers "team fear", mass-unemployment, country going bankrupt, plagues of boils for everyone, had come true then the trend would have gone off a cliff edge.

You already know the obvious response to this, right?

Meanwhile, I await news of all of the trade deals which are ready to be signed in March 19, and for the EU capitulation to all of our demands which we were promised.

> Coinsidering the political farce we've seen from May et all since then, it's a wonder that we're not all slitting our wrists, is it not?

I think about half the country are being optimistic and viewing their incompetence as a sign they might not be able to manage to follow through on leaving the EU, and hence damaging this country for a long time.
Nevis-the-cat - on 09 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> But, if the disasters forecast by the remainers "team fear", mass-unemployment, country going bankrupt, plagues of boils for everyone, had come true then the trend would have gone off a cliff edge.

> Coinsidering the political farce we've seen from May et all since then, it's a wonder that we're not all slitting our wrists, is it not?

Not so much a plague of boils.... just scratching that itchy mole and hoping it will go away.....

wercat on 09 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

We all know how much the whole world loves us - The government's "rapid progress" in getting the six British ex-servicemen released from a sympathetic friend nation shows that...
GrahamD - on 09 Nov 2017
In reply to Big Ger:

> But, if the disasters forecast by the remainers "team fear", mass-unemployment, country going bankrupt, plagues of boils for everyone, had come true then the trend would have gone off a cliff edge.

I think I must have missed all that on the side of a bus anywhere near me.
gallam1 - on 11 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Minor thread resurrection, but there is an interesting article from the Guardian on the Irish question:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/11/ireland-will-not-be-ignored-post-brexit-border-questio...

Eire are refusing to countenance a hard border. The UK Government and the DUP are refusing to consider an arrangment whereby Northern Ireland is treated separately from the rest of the UK.

This really is the irresistible force meeting an immovable object.
john yates - on 11 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

Tedious in the extreme. You should stop taking the Grauniad. Your probs best out of it living it up in France. Wierd though that Macron wants U.K. to pay for cost of Sangatte. And that despite the apocalyptic stuff from the Arranistas thousands still clamouring to come to Britain. Must be the food and the weather.
7
Sir Chasm - on 11 Nov 2017
In reply to john yates:

> Tedious in the extreme. You should stop taking the Grauniad. Your probs best out of it living it up in France. Wierd though that Macron wants U.K. to pay for cost of Sangatte. And that despite the apocalyptic stuff from the Arranistas thousands still clamouring to come to Britain. Must be the food and the weather.

I agree, the frogs should give up on Sangatte and send them all to Blighty.
Pete Pozman - on 11 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

We were never given enough information and that's just the way it's got to be.
Pete Pozman - on 11 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> To me the most important thing is avoiding being an insignificant part of a superstate, which will end up corrupt and draconian, that we probably cannot leave in the future.

How does it feel being an insignificant part of a corrupt and draconian sovereign state. I don't like being at the mercy of Michael Gove Boris Fox Priti Patel et al. It feels pretty dangerous to me and right now I feel utterly bereft of any sort of control.
3
David Riley - on 12 Nov 2017
In reply to Pete Pozman:

There is nowhere that is generally accepted as being less corrupt and draconian than where you are, and at the moment you have all the benefits of being in the EU. So maybe you should stop complaining.
4
Sir Chasm - on 12 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> There is nowhere that is generally accepted as being less corrupt and draconian than where you are, and at the moment you have all the benefits of being in the EU. So maybe you should stop complaining.

There a 10 or so countries, but you're pretty accurate for a brexiteer - not that 10th puts us in a bad spot, some room to improve, lots of room to get worse.
1
jkarran - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> There is nowhere that is generally accepted as being less corrupt and draconian than where you are, and at the moment you have all the benefits of being in the EU. So maybe you should stop complaining.

Granted it's a very particular viewpoint and published by some no-name pinko snowflake rag but... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/29/britain-is-most-corrupt-country-on-earth-says-mafia-ex...

Why should anyone stop complaining about losing the benefits of being in the EU?
jk
David Riley - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> Why should anyone stop complaining about losing the benefits of being in the EU?

He wasn't. He was complaining he was already in an EU corrupt and draconian state.
5
jkarran - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> He wasn't. He was complaining he was already in an EU corrupt and draconian state.

Weird response which doesn't answer my question. I presume you're deliberately misunderstanding the point he was making so I guess we'll just leave it at that.
jk
David Riley - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

What point did you think he was making ?
Your question was : Why should anyone stop complaining about losing the benefits of being in the EU?
I have not said anyone should stop complaining about that. So why ask me ?
2
jkarran - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

It seems to me that the point being made was that Britain will be more at risk of corruption and undemocratic abuses of power outside the EU than in, contrary to your fears but perhaps I'm wrong. The acquisition of more power over government and workers by the backers of brexit always seemed to me to be the primary driver for it but them I'm a miserable cynic.
jk
1
David Riley - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

I find it difficult to extract that meaning from :

"How does it feel being an insignificant part of a corrupt and draconian sovereign state. I don't like being at the mercy of Michael Gove Boris Fox Priti Patel et al. It feels pretty dangerous to me and right now I feel utterly bereft of any sort of control."


It seems hard to believe that anyone's prime reason for wanting to leave the EU would be power over the workers (a very old Labour concept). But public control over our own government, then yes of course. Do you not want that ?

The article you linked to suggested we are already the most corrupt country in the world and controlled by the mafia, I think.
If the UK is controlled by the mafia while in the EU. So how is that any sort of reason for not leaving the EU ?
David Riley - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Do you not concede it would be more credible that the EU could become controlled by the mafia, than the UK ?
1
jkarran - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> Do you not concede it would be more credible that the EU could become controlled by the mafia, than the UK ?

LOL. No.

Both seem unlikely but meaningful influence will be a lot cheaper in the independent UK than it is in Brussels and the levers for sale more influential.

The article I linked was bemoaning the corruption Britain's financial institutions enable, not claiming 'the mafia' runs Britain. I don't know if that's delusional, totally accurate or as seems likely somewhere in between but I thought it was an interesting riposte to your claim Britain is *the* shining beacon of probity. As others pointed out more seriously we're some way from that at present.

> It seems hard to believe that anyone's prime reason for wanting to leave the EU would be power over the workers (a very old Labour concept). But public control over our own government, then yes of course. Do you not want that ?

Yeah, very hard to believe even when it's what they (James Dyson in this case) actually say in as many words and on the record https://twitter.com/BBC_Joe_Lynam/status/929644366670462976

I'd love to have properly representative democratic government in Westminster but I have no problem at all with an additional layer essentially managing the issues that are supranational. Proportional representation, complete reform of the upper house and the monarchy achieve that, not brexit.
jk
Post edited at 12:25
1
David Riley - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:
> meaningful influence will be a lot cheaper in the independent UK than it is in Brussels and the levers for sale more influential.

Whatever does that mean, and how do you arrive at it ?
Why do you think the EU is immune to corruption ? I think it is very corrupt already ?

> it was an interesting riposte to your claim Britain is *the* shining beacon of probity. As others pointed out more seriously we're some way from that at present.

I did not claim that. I meant there was not general agreement any other country could be shown to be significantly better overall.

> Yeah, very hard to believe even when it's what they (James Dyson in this case) actually say in as many words and on the record https://twitter.com/BBC_Joe_Lynam/status/929644366670462976

I looked at the link but can't work out what you're talking about.

> I'd love to have properly representative democratic government in Westminster but I have no problem at all with an additional layer essential managing the issues that are supranational. Proportional representation, complete reform of the upper house and the monarchy achieve that, not brexit.

A different subject.
Post edited at 12:39
jkarran - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Whatever does that mean, and how do you arrive at it ?

It means funding one minister's run and the influence that buys is a lot cheaper and easier than funding 27 then leaning on them all to agree to do your bidding.

> Why do you think the EU is immune to corruption ? I think it is very corrupt already ?

I'm astonished (and I don't think it's immune to corruption).

> I did not claim that. I meant there was not general agreement any other country could be shown to be significantly better overall.

So there's nobody better, we're the best? Which is what I took you to mean.

> I looked at the link but can't work out what you're talking about.

That's embarrassing, sorry. It's about James Dyson, everyone's favorite offshoring brexiteer industrialist lobbying for deregulation of the labour market post brexit, the thing you said wasn't on the agenda and was my 'old Labour' argument.

> A different subject.

Ay, the one which you raised when you asked do I not want the public to have control of its government.
jk
David Riley - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> It means funding one minister's run and the influence that buys is a lot cheaper and easier than funding 27 then leaning on them all to agree to do your bidding.

I don't think that really makes any sense. There are a lot of ways corruption can occur in the EU without controlling the 27 EU states.

> So there's nobody better, we're the best? Which is what I took you to mean.

Do you agree with "there is not general agreement any other country could be shown to be significantly better overall." or not. If not, which country do you think people generally agree is better overall ?

> That's embarrassing, sorry. It's about James Dyson, everyone's favorite offshoring brexiteer industrialist lobbying for deregulation of the labour market post brexit, the thing you said wasn't on the agenda and was my 'old Labour' argument.

No. I said > It seems hard to believe that anyone's prime reason for wanting to leave the EU would be power over the workers
You have not shown it is, let alone that it is for a large number of people.

> Ay, the one which you raised when you asked do I not want the public to have control of its government.
You accused people of wanting voting to leave the EU because they wanted control over the UK government.
I asked if you didn't want that too. But instead of replying yes or no you said :

> I'd love to have properly representative democratic government in Westminster but I have no problem at all with an additional layer essential managing the issues that are supranational. Proportional representation, complete reform of the upper house and the monarchy achieve that, not brexit.

Proportional representation, reform of the upper house, the monarchy, and your issues or not with the EU, are different subjects to your objecting to people voting to leave the EU because they wanted control over the UK government.

jkarran - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:
> I don't think that really makes any sense. There are a lot of ways corruption can occur in the EU without controlling the 27 EU states.

We'll agree to differ then.

> Do you agree with "there is not general agreement any other country could be shown to be significantly better overall." or not. If not, which country do you think people generally agree is better overall ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2016 well we're 9 percentage points behind Denmark with roughly 10 other countries ranked between us and them by this CPI measure so yes I would say there are others doing 'significantly better overall'.

> No. I said > It seems hard to believe that anyone's prime reason for wanting to leave the EU would be power over the workers
> You have not shown it is, let alone that it is for a large number of people.

Hmm, again we'll have to agree to differ.

> You accused people of wanting voting to leave the EU because they wanted control over the UK government.

I'm guessing at what you mean slightly but I don't think I did? You might be confusing those who voted leave with those who promoted it and funded campaigns, their agendas and expectations are very different as is what each group stands to lose or gain.

> I asked if you didn't want that too. But instead of replying yes or no you said :

To be crystal clear that's a 'yes', I believe in democratic government but I don't agree brexit can or will deliver an improvement in democracy in the UK or that the EU precludes democracy as it stands or as it could be should we choose to improve it. I believe FPTP distorts our democracy to the brink of meaninglessness. I believe an upper house stuffed with unelected cronies is a national disgrace and I find the idea our government's authority derives not from the electorate behind it but in the indulgence of a monarch claiming authority from a god ludicrous. Those are the problems among others I would tackle to improve our democracy, not the EU.

> Proportional representation, reform of the upper house, the monarchy, and your issues or not with the EU, are different subjects to your objecting to people voting to leave the EU because they wanted control over the UK government.

Yes. Again the difference between voting and promoting.
jk
Post edited at 15:01
andyfallsoff - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> Do you not concede it would be more credible that the EU could become controlled by the mafia, than the UK ?

I can't believe you actually might think this is true.
1
David Riley - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#2016 well we're 9 percentage points behind Denmark with roughly 10 other countries ranked between us and them by this CPI measure so yes I would say there are others doing 'significantly better overall'.

The statement was : "there is not general agreement any other country could be shown to be significantly better overall."

This is a survey and opinion of a few "experts". I said general agreement. Do you think a thread on here would agree Denmark is the best place in the world ? Significantly better than the UK ?
That only concerns corruption. I said "better overall" and you are still disagreeing. At first it was "generally accepted as being less corrupt and draconian" But neither does draconian get addressed.
It cannot be judged that we are number 10 and Belgium is 15. It cannot be judged we are not number one.
The UK is generally agreed to be as good a place as anywhere in the world.
Why take issue with that ?

> I'm guessing at what you mean slightly but I don't think I did? You might be confusing those who voted leave with those who promoted it and funded campaigns, their agendas and expectations are very different as is what each group stands to lose or gain.

It is you who is confusing those who voted leave with those who promoted it. You are being insulting by implying that whereas Remainers are intelligent and could think for themselves, all those wanting to leave the EU are stupid pawns of evil interest groups.
1
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

> It is you who is confusing those who voted leave with those who promoted it. You are being insulting by implying that whereas Remainers are intelligent and could think for themselves, all those wanting to leave the EU are stupid pawns of evil interest groups.

There are other reasons: ignorance, xenophobia/racism, fanatical zealotry in favour of "sovereignty". But that's about it.
1
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> There are other reasons: ignorance, xenophobia/racism, fanatical zealotry in favour of "sovereignty". But that's about it.

I'll give you some help. You simply undermine the case against brexit by consistently and apparently unconsciously failing to understand it.
1
David Riley - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

Giving up and resorting to insults rather than failing to understand.
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

No, I really don't. But it hardly matters. You and your fellow nutcases won and are clearly going smash everything up whatever others do or say and whatever the consequences, steadfastly denying there is anything to be concerned over. The new trend of the right simply pretending facts they don't like don't exist is pretty terrifying, really.

Which "case" are you referring to anyway? Banks', Farage's, Redwood's, Boris's?
2
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

Those aren't insults, just facts.
jkarran - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I'll give you some help. You simply undermine the case against brexit by consistently and apparently unconsciously failing to understand it.

Remind me, which version of the brexit vision are we onto now?
Jk
Post edited at 17:23
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:
> No, I really don't. But it hardly matters. >

You are exposing the fact that you want neither know nor care about the history, the motivations or the workings of the the EU. You seem to have naively swallowed whole some romantic notion of its nature, ignorant of its many failings.

There is, as I have consistently acknowledged, a case to be made for "remain" but it is post a nuanced weighing up if the pros and cons. You, probably for emotional rather than intellectual reason, have refused to engage with these considerations. It just makes you look like a closed minded snob, which I don't think that you really are.
Post edited at 17:25
8
jkarran - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to David Riley:

I'm not confused and nor am I insulting you. It's simple fact different people want and expect different things from brexit, some it can deliver, some it can't, some it may if handled in particular ways.
Jk
Andy Hardy on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

Worth a read of the Graun today - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/13/austerity-britain-free-movement-causes-more-pa...

"In the 1980s, builders went to Germany, as dramatised in Auf Wiedersehen, Pet. In Germany today, builders come from eastern Europe. Wealthy countries in the EU are rightly expected to be generous. But when your own country has not generously shared its wealth with you, it’s hard to accept that you’re the ones expected to carry the burden in this grand new wealth-sharing concept."

This is probably the reason all those pounds spent (wherever they came from) on social media worked for leave.eu.
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> . It just makes you look like a closed minded snob, which I don't think that you really are.

After a screed of condescending arrogance you accuse me of appearing a snob!

For what it's worth, you give every impression of being a political extremist and zealot which I am increasingly convinced you actually now are. If you were really weighing things as carefully as you arrogantly assume only you can do, you would be horrified at the current situation rather than trying to justify and.minimize it, even.if you supported the idea of leaving in principle.
1
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:
> After a screed of condescending arrogance you accuse me of appearing a snob!

>
What exactly do you expect when your response to any and every argument is "xenophobia" , "racist", "ignorant" , "extremist" blah blah. It's pretty hard to argue that this reflects a nuanced consideration of the issues.

Given that your own self defined definition of "xenophobia" is "disagreeing with something argued by a foreign person" I think we know how you might come to the conclusion that somebody disagreeing with you is by definition an "extremist zealot". Anyone would think you came from Hampstead.

The difference, by the way, is that I am quite happy to acknowledge that there is a rational case for remaining. I just think it is outweighed. I don't indulge in insulting remainers for believing in "remain". I attack them for arrogantly and ignorantly refusing to countenance the concept that there is rational argument for brexit and for insulting brexiters simply for believing in brexit.
Post edited at 17:37
7
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> What exactly do you expect when your response to any and every argument is "xenophobia" , "racist", "ignorant" , "extremist" blah blah. It's pretty hard to argue that this reflects a nuanced consideration of the issues.

Except it's not my response to every argument, it's my response to the arguments being presented about Brexit. The other day you justified leaving because in your view EU politics had become "detached" from popular thought and this was undemocratic. Even accepting the premise, the idea that replacing the EU's politics with those of Bank's (Russian-supported racist), Farage (ditto), Boris (self-serving arse), Gove (anti-intellectual populist), Redwood (swivel-eyed loon), is a possible solution and that this requires "nuanced consideration" is bonkers. It's extremist, xenophobic and ignorant, which I why I call it that.


>

> Given that your own self defined definition of "xenophobia" is "disagreeing with something argued by a foreign person"

I've never said that. Don't make up quotes - it's lying.
Post edited at 17:50
2
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:
> Except it's not my response to every argument, it's my response to the arguments being presented about Brexit. The other day you justified leaving because in your view EU politics had become "detached" from popular thought and this was undemocratic.
>
FFS, obviously I was referring to your response to arguments about brexit. What did you think I was referring to, your responses to arguments about the grading of TPS?
That you think apparently think that believing in democracy means believing in the views of Farage, Boris et al shows just how much you have missed the point.

> I've never said that. Don't make up quotes - it's lying.

That, in a nutshell (hence the quotes), is what you said (to gridnorth if my memory serves correctly).

"Acting in their interests (which probably won't align entirely with the UKs) is one thing. Actively trying to harm the UK is another, and what Grid North and others assume will happen simply because they are not British. That is fear of foreigners -xenophobia.>"

Ridiculous interpretation. One might as well argue that you are a "anglophobe" because you disagree with Boris.
Post edited at 18:19
3
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> That you think apparently think that believing in democracy means believing in the views of Farage, Boris et al shows just how much you have missed the point.

I don't, obviously, in fact I regard them as proto-facist. That you clearly do find them more acceptable than perceived imperfections in the EU is one reason I regard you as an extremist and zealot.

> That, in a nutshell (hence the quotes),

No. Quotation marks imply a quote (there is a clue in the name) and you know this. As Boris discovered, making stuff up and putting it in quotes is simply dishonest. That you have to resort to this further emphasizes your extreme position and the company you keep - as I noted above the populist-right don't really care about facts; if they are inconvenient they either ignore them or just make stuff up.
1
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> I don't, obviously, in fact I regard them as proto-facist. That you clearly do find them more acceptable than perceived imperfections in the EU is one reason I regard you as an extremist and zealot.
>
Jesus wept. You are still missing the point. The vote for brexit is NOT a vote for the politics of Boris , Farage tc. It's a vote to leave the EU because of its democratic failings. What follows is up to the British people to decide and I very much doubt that they will vote for any of the above. Is that so hard to understand?

> No. Quotation marks imply a quote (there is a clue in the name) and you know this. As Boris discovered, making stuff up and putting it in quotes is simply dishonest. That you have to resort to this further emphasizes your extreme position and the company you keep - as I noted above the populist-right don't really care about facts; if they are inconvenient they either ignore them or just make stuff up.

I knew perfectly well, as I think did you, that the quotation marks were meant to summarise your mad argument. Apologies if that wasn't clear to you but it's a common use for quotation marks. Are you now prepared to admit that arguing that believing that that some prominent EU bureaucrats believe that Britain be seen to suffer for leaving the EU is not necessarily xenophobic and could be basi=ed on an interpretation of the available evidence, or is it still your argument that disagreeing with something a foreigner says or does is by definition "xenophobic"

3
john arran - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The vote for brexit is NOT a vote for the politics of Boris , Farage tc. It's a vote to leave the EU because of its democratic failings.

I disagree. Boris and Nigel were the public face of the Brexit campaign. People, by and large, vote for people rather than policies, so the deciding factors that many will have been basing their vote on will have been the fact that Boris and Nigel were supporting Leave. The fact that their real motivations may have been personal political ones rather than their espoused public arguments would have been irrelevant.

And since when have quotation marks been used to denote anything other than a direct quote?
3
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Jesus wept. You are still missing the point. The vote for brexit is NOT a vote for the politics of Boris , Farage tc.

It absolutely is. That you can't see this is what is incredible. While not yet at Trump levels, we have these people and associate media and social-media attacking judges, universities, campaigners and anyone else who dares criticize any aspect of the whole thing, not on political grounds but s "enemies of the people" or "traitors". You really think they are all going to just give up in a year's time!? If you actually cared about democracy, you would be far more concerned about this than a bogey-man version of the EU.

> I knew perfectly well, as I think did you, that the quotation marks were meant to summarise your mad argument. Apologies if that wasn't clear to you but it's a common use for quotation marks.

No it's not.

If you *really* want to re-run that thread, I suggest you post a link so I can what was actually said rather than your fabrication.
2
Graeme Alderson on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Let me get this straight then.

If what I write is "you are not a racist" then you feel that you can quote me as saying "you" "are" "a" "racist".

Hmm that's an interesting way of quoting people.
2
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:
> It absolutely is. That you can't see this is what is incredible. While not yet at Trump levels, we have these people and associate media and social-media attacking judges, universities, campaigners and anyone else who dares criticize any aspect of the whole thing, not on political grounds but s "enemies of the people" or "traitors". You really think they are all going to just give up in a year's time!? If you actually cared about democracy, you would be far more concerned about this than a bogey-man version of the EU.
>
This is an amazingly upside down analysis of the issue. Where does one start? It's probably a waste of time anyway.
Large parts of the electorate of major nations have become seriously disaffected from the governmental and electoral institutions (presumably we can agree on this?) The rise of populists is a symptom not a cause of this. Thinking that the issues behind this disaffection should be addressed (in my case by leaving the EU for a start) is not a sign of supporting the populists. It is a sign that unless confidence in government and democracy can be restored by reform then the populists will become increasingly popular.

Your solution, on the other hand, appears to be to dismiss the disaffected as morons and racists ,blame the populists for their disaffection, and promote the rule of an undemocratic EU oligarchy and a Westminster class representing the minority cosmopolitan internationalist elite. Can you not understand that this will compound the problem?

> No it's not.

> If you *really* want to re-run that thread, I suggest you post a link so I can what was actually said rather than your fabrication.

I don't but I quoted it verbatim at 18.19.

Here's another :

>
"Well I disagree. If the default belief is that "they" are deliberately trying to damage us (when in fact it is the remaining EU states trying to get a good arrangement that works for them after one of their largest members leaves suddenly and unexpectedely) then I think that is xeonophobic There is no basis for it other than an irrational fear of other.

Me: Well, if you want to invent new meanings for the word "xenophobia" so be it, but it doesn't make them correct. You might as well say that somebody is anglophobic because they think Corbyn's policies are foolish or malign for that matter because they think the same of Theresa May.....

They are not. They just think that the policies, and possibly the people, are foolish and or malign."

and another

Incidentally, this is exactly the sort of xenophobia you asked for examples of above. The idea that these nasty, shifty foreigners are ganging up on the UK is bonkers.

Me: Where did Gridnorth say or imply nasty shifty foreigners? Can you quote which of Gridnorths statements you as ascribe this to?

https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=671614&v=1#x8640623 26th Sept.

Feel free to withdraw you claim that such criticism of the EU can only be based on the view that they are "nasty shifty foreigners"
Post edited at 19:55
2
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Feel free to withdraw you claim that such criticism of the EU can only be based on the view that they are "nasty shifty foreigners"

Even when you manage to quote correctly, you still make stuff up! No where did I say "only" ( note I am using quotes correctly here to show I am using your words).

I cant see GNs post but assuming it says what I think, I stand by what I wrote there. The assumption "they" are trying to actively damage us, rather to simply get a good deal, is xenophobic in that context.
1
John2 - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

So if a con man from a foreign country tried to defraud you, would you be xenophobic to object?
2
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to John2:

> So if a con man from a foreign country tried to defraud you, would you be xenophobic to object?

No, but if I thought he was trying to defraud me simply because he was foreign I would be.
andyfallsoff - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Leaving aside your argument with MG, some of what you say here is fair - the vote to leave probably was influenced by a general feeling of disenfranchisement amongst a lot of the population.

Where I struggle is with the following:

1. You appear to assume that because your gripe with the EU is that you feel it is undemocratic, that must be the motivation of others as well - i.e. you deny above that the leave vote was motivated by people who were following the individuals above that you say don't represent your views, but isn't it hard to argue that some people will have followed these people and do subscribe to their views?

2. It is really hard to see how leaving will improve democracy in any way. Indeed, we've seen the opposite - Henry VIII clauses in the repeal bill, and the Tory govt using the need to pass Brexit legislation as a reason to give itself a majority on standing committees where it doesn't have a majority in parliament. And yet on neither point do we hear a chorus of Brexiters opposing these measures, even though they damage the parliamentary democracy we have.
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> Even when you manage to quote correctly, you still make stuff up! No where did I say "only" ( note I am using quotes correctly here to show I am using your words).

You did: "If the default belief is that "they" are deliberately trying to damage us (when in fact it is the remaining EU states trying to get a good arrangement that works for them after one of their largest members leaves suddenly and unexpectedely) then I think that is xeonophobic There is no basis for it other than an irrational fear of other."
I'll take as read that you implying that this us GN's default belief.

> I cant see GNs post but assuming it says what I think, I stand by what I wrote there. The assumption "they" are trying to actively damage us, rather to simply get a good deal, is xenophobic in that context.

It was sparked by GN's earlier comment, by way of my objection, that "Those at the top are unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats, of course there is an element of punishment by example. It's human nature or are you claiming that they are above all that?"

All this despite plenty of evidence, which you may or may not regard as proof, that this is the thinking of some key EU players.
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> No, but if I thought he was trying to defraud me simply because he was foreign I would be.

But it's you claiming that this is what GN thinks!!!!!
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> Leaving aside your argument with MG, some of what you say here is fair - the vote to leave probably was influenced by a general feeling of disenfranchisement amongst a lot of the population.

> Where I struggle is with the following:

> 1. You appear to assume that because your gripe with the EU is that you feel it is undemocratic, that must be the motivation of others as well - i.e. you deny above that the leave vote was motivated by people who were following the individuals above that you say don't represent your views, but isn't it hard to argue that some people will have followed these people and do subscribe to their views?
>
Of course I accept that other people had different motivations. Actually many of the "disaffected" probably couldn't clearly articulate their motivations. But having said that most polls suggest that "soverignty" as opposed to immigration or anything else was the main reason given.
Should people not vote Labour because some people vote Labour for some stupid reasons?

> 2. It is really hard to see how leaving will improve democracy in any way. Indeed, we've seen the opposite - Henry VIII clauses in the repeal bill, and the Tory govt using the need to pass Brexit legislation as a reason to give itself a majority on standing committees where it doesn't have a majority in parliament. And yet on neither point do we hear a chorus of Brexiters opposing these measures, even though they damage the parliamentary democracy we have.
>
It's much harder to see how deputing increasing power to a distant and unaccountable oligarchy will improve democracy. At least we can get rid our own shower. Government has to be seen as accountable. I don't see brexit as anything more than a possible enabler for meaningful domestic reform which hopefully will ultimately be provoked by the clear loss of confidence in our political class.
Post edited at 20:39
1
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> But it's you claiming that this is what GN thinks!!!!!

Err, yes, based on his posts, that was the whole point.
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> Err, yes, based on his posts, that was the whole point.

Which posts would that be?
John2 - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

No one thinks that the EU are trying to get one over on us simply because they are foreign. They are asking us to pay 60 billion euros up front without presenting a detailed list of expenses, and they are refusing to negotiate further until we have paid the bill which they have yet to justify.
3
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> 2. It is really hard to see how leaving will improve democracy in any way. Indeed, we've seen the opposite - Henry VIII clauses in the repeal bill, and the Tory govt using the need to pass Brexit legislation as a reason to give itself a majority on standing committees where it doesn't have a majority in parliament. And yet on neither point do we hear a chorus of Brexiters opposing these measures, even though they damage the parliamentary democracy we have.

It's exactly this point that makes me thing brexiteers pretty much have to be some combination of extreme, zealous, xenophobic or ignorant (or deluded). The idea that leaving the EU will improve democracy is just nonsense on every level. It will also make us poorer, which will probably drive further political disengagement and encourage populist demagogues.
3
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

I'm awaiting those posts......
andyfallsoff - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Of course I accept that other people had different motivations. Actually many of the "disaffected" probably couldn't clearly articulate their motivations. But having said that most polls suggest that "soverignty" as opposed to immigration or anything else was the main reason given.

> Should people not vote Labour because some people vote Labour for some stupid reasons?

No, but above you are trying to imply above that this is generally what the vote is for: "It's a vote to leave the EU because of its democratic failings."

This is only one reason, and given the narrow margin of the vote, if this was the only reason leave probably wouldn't have won. Immigration and a resentment of the financial contributions were also strong factors.

> It's much harder to see how deputing increasing power to a distant and unaccountable oligarchy will improve democracy.

Your use of overly emotive phrases here betray your prejudices. The EU is nothing like an oligopoly - nor is it particularly distant (it is closer than, say, the US).

> At least we can get rid our own shower. Government has to be seen as accountable. I don't see brexit as anything more than a possible enabler for meaningful domestic reform which hopefully will ultimately be provoked by the clear loss of confidence in our political class.

So why, if government has to be seen to be accountable, aren't you most strongly opposing the very things that the government is doing to try and avoid parliamentary scrutiny?

1
John2 - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:
1) That article is dated June 16th - it's out of date.

2) I quote from that article -

'The EU’s opening position takes the most expansive possible view of Britain’s obligations. In recent months the commission has significantly increased its original estimate for the Brexit bill — from €40bn net and €60bn gross to €60bn net and €86bn gross — after countries such as France and Poland demanded a tougher approach.'

'But as the EU bill has increased, the bloc’s specific demands have become more contentious.'

And why the fuck do you say, 'Again not true'? What did I say previously that was untrue?
Post edited at 20:57
5
MG - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to John2:

> y the f*ck do you say, 'Again not true'? What did I say previously that was untrue?

"They are asking us to pay 60 billion euros up front without presenting a detailed list of expenses, ..."
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> It's exactly this point that makes me thing brexiteers pretty much have to be some combination of extreme, zealous, xenophobic or ignorant (or deluded). The idea that leaving the EU will improve democracy is just nonsense on every level.

Simply repeating your usual insults doesn't count as an argument.
3
John2 - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

Where is the detailed list? Show me.
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:
> No, but above you are trying to imply above that this is generally what the vote is for: "It's a vote to leave the EU because of its democratic failings."
>
No, I'm explaining my vote but given that sovereignty is the most commonly quoted reason it would seem that others
share not dissimilar motivations.

> This is only one reason, and given the narrow margin of the vote, if this was the only reason leave probably wouldn't have won. Immigration and a resentment of the financial contributions were also strong factors.
>
No doubt. Just as there were myriad reasons for voting remain.

> Your use of overly emotive phrases here betray your prejudices. The EU is nothing like an oligopoly - nor is it particularly distant (it is closer than, say, the US).
>
I don't hide the fact that I think it is a deeply flawed institution. I regard that not as a prejudice but a a logical conclusion given its mechanisms and behaviour. I have no idea why you are comparing it to the US. I was comparing it to Westminster.

> So why, if government has to be seen to be accountable, aren't you most strongly opposing the very things that the government is doing to try and avoid parliamentary scrutiny?

I am not happy with the extent of them. If somebody could come up with a better way of effecting a speedy transition I'd support it. I guess I reluctantly regard them as a necessary evil.
Post edited at 21:23
Sir Chasm - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No, I'm explaining my vote but given that sovereignty is the most commonly quoted reason it would seem that others
share not dissimilar motivations.

That might be what you would like people's motivation to be, but that doesn't make it true
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-latest-news-leave-eu-immigration-main-reason-e...
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Sir Chasm:
> share not dissimilar motivations.

> That might be what you would like people's motivation to be, but that doesn't make it true

>

Yup, the Ashcroft and Yougov polls last year showed sovereigty as the biggest reason. You pays your money and ....

But what the Independent reports is that "Nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of those who are worried about immigration voted Leave, compared with 36 per cent of those who did not identify this as a concern, the research found, showing the discrepancy in views about immigration between Remain and Leave voters."which is entirely predicable.

It doesn't say what proportion of those who voted leave cited immigration (or another reason) as the main one for voting out. Theoretically that 73% could be 1% of brexit voters.
Post edited at 21:54
john yates - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to john arran:

There is such an arrogance on the part of the Remainers that those who voted to leave did so because they were stupid or ignorant or misled. If the remainers are right and the economy does fall off a cliff then the leavers will be no worse off, but the remainers will finally get to know what it feels like to be a leaver. The idea that people voted for Boris and Nigel and not for a policy or an issue is just another manifestation of that know-it-all arrogance. If people don't vote for policies - why have manifestos and debates. Why not just a beauty pageant?
8
andyfallsoff - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> No, I'm explaining my vote but given that sovereignty is the most commonly quoted reason it would seem that others share not dissimilar motivations.

You could make that assumption, but there are contrary results (as quoted to you by others).

> No doubt. Just as there were myriad reasons for voting remain.

> I don't hide the fact that I think it is a deeply flawed institution. I regard that not as a prejudice but a a logical conclusion given its mechanisms and behaviour.

Well to start with, attributing behaviours to 'it' isn't really logical; it's a supranational body that makes decisions based on a vote from representatives from many countries... But it really is hard to see how it can be called oligopolistic; that just isn't a correct use of the word.

> I have no idea why you are comparing it to the US. I was comparing it to Westminster.

Because the US is the major legislature whose rules we appear most likely to have to accept if we want a trade deal (assuming we don't stick with closer ties to the EU, which I would prefer)

> I am not happy with the extent of them. If somebody could come up with a better way of effecting a speedy transition I'd support it. I guess I reluctantly regard them as a necessary evil.

But that's it isn't it. Because you've decided that Brexit is something you want, approaches that directly go against your stated reasons for leaving become tolerable. Which is why it seems irrational to many.
andyfallsoff - on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to john yates:

> There is such an arrogance on the part of the Remainers that those who voted to leave did so because they were stupid or ignorant or misled.

> If the remainers are right and the economy does fall off a cliff then the leavers will be no worse off, but the remainers will finally get to know what it feels like to be a leaver.

I find it amazing that you can be so patronising as to suggest that all leavers have nothing to lose. 17m people who seemingly are so badly off that an economic crash wouldn't make any difference. Is that not somewhat insulting?

> The idea that people voted for Boris and Nigel and not for a policy or an issue is just another manifestation of that know-it-all arrogance. If people don't vote for policies - why have manifestos and debates. Why not just a beauty pageant?

But people clearly do vote for people rather than just policies - do you genuinely believe that people ignore politicians and only vote based on policies? The people don't matter at all?
Postmanpat on 13 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> You could make that assumption, but there are contrary results (as quoted to you by others).
>
Yes, although I suspect the Indie might be playing games with that.

> Well to start with, attributing behaviours to 'it' isn't really logical; it's a supranational body that makes decisions based on a vote from representatives from many countries... But it really is hard to see how it can be called oligopolistic; that just isn't a correct use of the word.
>
There are two issues here: Any institution can and does have "behaviours' whether democratic or not.

I used the word "oligarchy" not "oligopoly". It's a little emotive but given the amount of back room horse trading by a few key players I don't think it's entirely misplaced.

> Because the US is the major legislature whose rules we appear most likely to have to accept if we want a trade deal (assuming we don't stick with closer ties to the EU, which I would prefer)
>
Yes, but the EU is no longer simply a trading arrangement!! That's part of the issue. Hence the comparison is not relevant.

> But that's it isn't it. Because you've decided that Brexit is something you want, approaches that directly go against your stated reasons for leaving become tolerable. Which is why it seems irrational to many.
>
Not irrational. Realpolitik maybe.

1
andyfallsoff - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Yes, although I suspect the Indie might be playing games with that.

Because it doesn't accord with your beliefs?

> There are two issues here: Any institution can and does have "behaviours' whether democratic or not.

> I used the word "oligarchy" not "oligopoly". It's a little emotive but given the amount of back room horse trading by a few key players I don't think it's entirely misplaced.

Apologies, my mistake. Although still wrong on the facts - each country has a vote and a veto. Compare that to the backroom diplomacy our govt is now engaging in to try and warm the ground for trade deals - which is more open and democratic?

> Yes, but the EU is no longer simply a trading arrangement!! That's part of the issue. Hence the comparison is not relevant.

But it is relevant; Eurosceptics always seem to ignore the flaws in bilateral relationships between countries. The US has said that if we want a trade deal we will have to accept their rules. Why is that not an issue when accepting EU rules (which we also had a chance to influence) is?

> Not irrational. Realpolitik maybe.

Only if you define what you want as the ideological pursuit of being out of the EU no matter the consequences
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to andyfallsoff:

> Because it doesn't accord with your beliefs?
>
No, for the reasons I referred to above, and looking at the underlying report I cannot find the necessary numbers to justify their interpretation.

> Apologies, my mistake. Although still wrong on the facts - each country has a vote and a veto. Compare that to the backroom diplomacy our govt is now engaging in to try and warm the ground for trade deals - which is more open and democratic?
>
In summary, I think you see the process through rose tinted spectacles. The EU is like a kabuki play in which the superficial appearance hides what is going on behind the scenes.

> But it is relevant; Eurosceptics always seem to ignore the flaws in bilateral relationships between countries. The US has said that if we want a trade deal we will have to accept their rules. Why is that not an issue when accepting EU rules (which we also had a chance to influence) is?

Because a US trade agreement would be just that, an agreement about what can be traded with the US and how. The EU regulates and creates laws about activities within the UK.

> Only if you define what you want as the ideological pursuit of being out of the EU no matter the consequences
>
No, I accept that some one off things may have to happen to facilitate that process

1
jkarran - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It's much harder to see how deputing increasing power to a distant and unaccountable oligarchy will improve democracy. At least we can get rid our own shower. Government has to be seen as accountable. I don't see brexit as anything more than a possible enabler for meaningful domestic reform which hopefully will ultimately be provoked by the clear loss of confidence in our political class.

But we can't 'get rid of our shower'. We elect fewer of them in 2017 and still they bribe the DUP and seize more power behind the scenes to drive your wrecking ball through parliament. We significantly shift who we vote for as in 2015, 4M votes for UKIP, 1 seat, 1M Green, 1 seat, 2.5M LibDem for 8 seats now contrast with 180K to the DUP (and a billion pound bribe to prop up a moribund government) 8 seats! Democracy? It barely matters who most people vote for in Westminster and it's getting worse as a result of your choice. Against that we have the 'undemocratic' European parliament elected by PR so my vote *did* count, as did yours. Yeah, the commission are appointed by (elected) national governments but I'm ok with that despite my national government being the most incompetent shower of c***s now propped up by lunatic extremists I've yet had the misfortune to live under.

So now we are onto at least the third justification for leaving, 18 months ago you were all about cutting us loose from the decaying European albatross (now soaring away from us much revived) so we could thrive economically forging new ties to an old empire which as it turns out has moved on and never much liked us anyway. That didn't (and most forecasts suggest won't now) come to pass so instead it became all about 'sovereignty' which it turns out is illusory having ceded all control of the regulations we'll be complying with if we're to avoid ruin. Likely in practical terms our sovereignty is now actually somewhat diminished so instead it's become all about fixing our perceived democratic deficit, making the little people feel heard so as to avert fascism. Something which brexit promoted as it was with jingoism and nationalism only makes much much worse by isolating Britain again, by the egregiously fraudulent nature of the campaign and by polarising the electorate then forcing half of them to suffer consequences they desperately warned and voted against. It's even robbed parliament of any real say in the matter with the fu*king ludicrous idea their vote to accept any deal could quite reasonably be held after the deal is actually signed (what the actual fu*k!) or that their 'meaningful vote' even assuming it is held in time will be no more that rubberstamping exercise designed to share blame for the consequences of policy made by a swivel eyed minority of a failing minority government because the choice will amount to nothing more than 'kneecaps or a headshot?' and is therefore no choice at all.

In time I'm sure we'll come to accept this 'democracy' argument doesn't stand up either so what will the next justification be? It's increasingly clear there a lot of brexiteers who can't admit a mistake under any circumstances so instead the justifications become more ridiculous, more extreme, more dangerous. You with your professed consideration of all the facts, your learned weighing of finely balanced pros and cons you're able to understand where others might not should not be one of those zealots willing to support any means so long as the goal (leaving, not what leaving was promised to deliver) is achieved. As the situation changes the balance does too.
jk
Post edited at 10:42
2
Bogwalloper - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Brilliant post.

W
wercat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:
Sorry, you've lost all credibility here,

by talking sense!


great post

have a virtual ovation
Post edited at 10:42
1
Ian W - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

And breathe.

Jon Stewart - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

Excellent.
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to jkarran:

I've always regarded the democratic deficit as one of the key reasons to leave the EU and absolutely hold to my belief that the current status of the Euro and the EU, as neither a federal State with joint fiscal policy and institutions to support that, nor a loose trading confrederation, is unsustainable. It will either move toward "ever closer union" (which might result in its rupture), or suffer from repeated and increasingly severe Greek type crises.

By pretending that one has to have a single exclusive reason to vote you are simply creating a strawman. Obviously to base any argument (which you appear to be doing) on a couple of quarters of GDP numbers is not worthy of you.

Regarding the UK's own democratic deficit. Yes, I've been highly critical of it. I'm not going to repeat every point in every thread but I'll repeat what I said on 24/9 ,
"the British system is a 19th century system failing to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. Its party system and electoral system fails to provide the alternatives and the variety that voters demand. Parliamentary scrutiny is inadequate. Cabinet responsibility has been replaced by cronyism. Institutional lobbyists have supplanted the power of the voters. Power is overcentralised in Westminster and Whitehall and therefore unresponsive to local demands and requirements. The list goes on.
Falling voter registration etc are a symptom of disillusionment with the political system, and that includes the EU which has the lowest voter turnout of the lot.
I cannot accept increasing the power of a distant institution that embraces many of Westminster's faults but on a grand scale can improve things."

In terms of my "finely balanced weighting of the pros and cons", this would only be relative to screaming "racist", "ignorant", zealot" and "xenophobe" and regarding it as an argument.

As for the rest of your post: congratulations, top rant!
7
Andy Hardy on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

I've asked this before (but the thrread got archived, hence no reply) and I really would like to know how you think voting to leave will close the democratic deficit in the UK? They just seem to be 2 totally separate issues.
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> I've asked this before (but the thrread got archived, hence no reply) and I really would like to know how you think voting to leave will close the democratic deficit in the UK? They just seem to be 2 totally separate issues.

By itself it doesn't but it places the spotlight firmly on the issue and removes any temptation to "blame it on the EU".
It's an enabler but only one of many steps that need to be taken. It also, of course, removes one aspect of the democratic deficit, that with Europe.
Andy Hardy on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> By itself it doesn't but it places the spotlight firmly on the issue and removes any temptation to "blame it on the EU".

> It's an enabler but only one of many steps that need to be taken. It also, of course, removes one aspect of the democratic deficit, that with Europe.

<facepalm>

So it doesn't fix what was broke, but it could break what didn't need fixing, and that's somehow worth it? If my car needs a service, I don't set fire to my house.
1
wercat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

I'm moving to a new street. There's something wrong and if I move streets at least I'll know it wasn't my neighbours...
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:
>

> So it doesn't fix what was broke, but it could break what didn't need fixing, and that's somehow worth it? If my car needs a service, I don't set fire to my house.

It fixes the democratic deficit with the EU and enables the fixing of the domestic deficit.

If my house is on fire I start putting it out especially if the fireman refuse to.
Post edited at 12:07
3
MG - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It fixes the democratic deficit with the EU and enables the fixing of the domestic deficit.

Tilting at Windmills doesn't begin to cover this delusion about the EU being some anti-democratic monster.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41973043
Andy Hardy on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> It fixes the democratic deficit with the EU and enables the fixing of the domestic deficit.

It doesn't fix the democratic deficit with the EU, we are simply flouncing off, slamming the door like a stroppy teenager.

It doesn't "enable" the fixing of the democratic deficit within the UK, since how we vote is entirely our own affair. Westminster is never going to change to PR voluntarily - there are some Christmases the turkeys won't for.

Edited to add: What about the economy????
Post edited at 12:17
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Andy Hardy:

> It doesn't fix the democratic deficit with the EU, we are simply flouncing off, slamming the door like a stroppy teenager.

>
The EU will not address its democratic deficit so we left. It's not the preferred solution but it was the only available one.

> Edited to add: What about the economy????

I refer you to numerous previous threads.

4
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> Tilting at Windmills doesn't begin to cover this delusion about the EU being some anti-democratic monster.


Still awaiting those posts you referred to (20.33 Monday)
Matt Rees - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Bogwalloper:

Seconded. Best post I've seen in a long, long time.
GrahamD - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It fixes the democratic deficit with the EU and enables the fixing of the domestic deficit.

If there was a serious democratic deficit with the EU (which I dispute), the way to fix it is by participating in the process of reform as a significant partner, not from little britain.

Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> If there was a serious democratic deficit with the EU (which I dispute), the way to fix it is by participating in the process of reform as a significant partner, not from little britain.

The triumph of hope over expectation.
2
john arran - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The triumph of hope over expectation.

Just about sums Brexit up!

;-)
MG - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

Read the original thread - you're clearly obsessing over it. Whatever he said in it. I don't have a link and am not searching for it.
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> Read the original thread - you're clearly obsessing over it. Whatever he said in it. I don't have a link and am not searching for it.

I provided a link and some relevant posts. You are making the claim which you now cannot substantiate. Should I take that as a retraction?
1
GrahamD - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The triumph of hope over expectation.

I wouldn't expect it to be fast (again assuming the 'problems' need urgent fixing, which I don't) .

After all the 'democratic process' we will very soon 'take back control of' is hundreds of years old yet the democratic deficit is still there and there hasn't been anything stopping those reforms - certainly not the EU.
Sir Chasm - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The triumph of hope over expectation.

Is your notion that we must leave the eu in order to reform parliament a hope or an expectation?
Jon Stewart - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> The EU will not address its democratic deficit so we left. It's not the preferred solution but it was the only available one.

Can you see the irony surrounding the "democratic deficit" argument?

We made the decision in a very democratic way, which is lovely. But did you notice that firstly, the reason for calling the referendum was one of self-interest of those in power. When we had the chance of a referendum on actually making a real, significant improvement to our democracy (PR), the same people squashed it by neutering the opposition in return for some power deal we, the public, had no insight into (the PR to AV negotiation). Not so lovely.

And then, when the democratic process was in full swing during the EU referendum, what did we see? A disgusting display of dishonesty! The Boris Johnson issue (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a6HNXtdvVQ), the campaign lies, the total lack of understanding in the electorate about what the whole vote was about...if this is democracy, we need less of it, not more.

Democracy is complex. It's a popular argument to just say "democracy" and assume that the more of it the world has the better. This is the fraudulent justification the Bush and Blair foreign policy catastrophe. As a species, we need to find intelligent ways of governing ourselves so that we live in the types if societies that allow us all to lead good healthy lives. Every decision about how power should be distributed is a difficult one, and one which should be answered (like every decision) by assessing the likely outcomes in the different scenarios, not by picking a flaky principle and allowing it to ride roughshod over any semblance of pragmatism.

As a principle, "more democracy at any cost", is wrong.

And even if you're daft enough to believe in it, you can't honestly look at the recent history of our democracy and conclude that the principle has anything to do with our decision to leave the EU.
Post edited at 13:34
MG - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> I provided a link and some relevant posts. You are making the claim which you now cannot substantiate. Should I take that as a retraction?

So you did. No, you should take as me not wanting to repeat or search for a thread from two months ago. However, since it is clearly important to you, the relevant phrase is "of course there is an element of punishment by example.", in the context of the the EU.
Post edited at 13:50
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to GrahamD:

> After all the 'democratic process' we will very soon 'take back control of' is hundreds of years old yet the democratic deficit is still there and there hasn't been anything stopping those reforms - certainly not the EU.

The UK system has atrophied and is overripe for reform.

I'd agree that the UK, both the political class and the media, should have worked harder to improve the EU from within. But the problems go back to its inception as a Franco German deal based largely on French dirigiste lines. Given that we were rebuffed from membership at the time it was probably never within our power or influence to change what was set in stone.
1
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> So you did. No, you should take as me not wanting to repeat or search for a thread from two months ago. However, since it is clearly important to you, the relevant phrase is "of course there is an element of punishment by example.", in the context of the the EU.

I don't. I want to clarify whether you accept that believing that that some prominent EU bureaucrats believe that Britain needs be seen to suffer for leaving the EU is not necessarily xenophobic.
Dave Garnett - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> The triumph of hope over expectation.

Why, surely it would have been worth a try, if only we could have brought ourselves to fully engage with the EU while we were part of it.

The irony is that we are all spending so much time thinking about the EU now than when we did when it might have been useful.
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Jon Stewart:

> As a principle, "more democracy at any cost", is wrong.

>

Ah the truth is out! A couple of nights after the referendum I went to a university reunion. It was a bit like a wake. One of my soft left old mates finally exploded after a few too many "f*ck democracy. It's f*cking overrated anyway"

I agree that democracy is not simply a matter of counting votes. But you are unconsciously reflecting the underlying belief of the Junckers of this world: that the hoi polloi shouldn't be trusted with power.

"One shouldn't pursue the wrong policies just because one is afraid of not being reelected. Those who intend to govern have to take responsibility for their countries and for Europe as a whole. This means, if need be, that they have to pursue the right policies, even if many voters think they are the wrong ones" Jean Claude Juncker.

Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Dave Garnett:

> Why, surely it would have been worth a try, if only we could have brought ourselves to fully engage with the EU while we were part of it.

> The irony is that we are all spending so much time thinking about the EU now than when we did when it might have been useful.

Agreed!
MG - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> "One shouldn't pursue the wrong policies just because one is afraid of not being reelected. Those who intend to govern have to take responsibility for their countries and for Europe as a whole. This means, if need be, that they have to pursue the right policies, even if many voters think they are the wrong ones" Jean Claude Juncker.

Seems reasonable to me. That's why we don't have a delegate system but a representative system. Pursuing bad policies just to be elected would be immoral, to say the least.
MG - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> I don't. I want to clarify whether you accept that believing that that some prominent EU bureaucrats believe that Britain needs be seen to suffer for leaving the EU is not necessarily xenophobic.

Not necessarily, but assuming they are becuase they are work for the EU (or are not British) is.
Jon Stewart - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> Ah the truth is out! "f*ck democracy. It's f*cking overrated anyway"

It was never concealed - I've said it a thousand times. It isn't that I have a better alternative, democracy is without doubt the least worst option. But as such, I don't consider it such a holy grail that it might make any sense as a one-word argument.

> I agree that democracy is not simply a matter of counting votes. But you are unconsciously reflecting the underlying belief of the Junckers of this world: that the hoi polloi shouldn't be trusted with power.

Quite consciously, actually. Unlike Juncker however, I don't believe that power should be in *my* hands. I don't believe that democracy allows for competition between ideas, that arguments about the best way to govern are won and lost. The real arguments about policy have very little influence in elections - it's only a very small minority of people who are interested in them. It's a game. Who can manipulate the most swing voters to put the cross where they want it?

There's no alternative that I can see. But ways should be sought to manage the short-term, parochial, venal motivations of your average voter. We are after all, only human. Not that someone who isn't human, like Juncker is preferable!

> "One shouldn't pursue the wrong policies just because one is afraid of not being reelected. Those who intend to govern have to take responsibility for their countries and for Europe as a whole. This means, if need be, that they have to pursue the right policies, even if many voters think they are the wrong ones" Jean Claude Juncker.

Stating the obvious. For example, the only way to convince people to vote for higher taxes is to convince them that it's only other people (bad, rich people, who's vote you're not interested in) who should pay them. So, we can't raise taxes and have a decent health service. You can't cut benefits (pensions), you have to convince people that it's only other people (bad, lying disabled people) whose benefits should be cut. Democracy *does* get in the way of the right policies, because of nothing more than human nature.
jkarran - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> "One shouldn't pursue the wrong policies just because one is afraid of not being reelected. Those who intend to govern have to take responsibility for their countries and for Europe as a whole. This means, if need be, that they have to pursue the right policies, even if many voters think they are the wrong ones" Jean Claude Juncker.

Finally something we can agree upon.

We don't have x-factor style "appendix or spleen?" phone votes before doctors go into surgery do we and for good reason, I couldn't tell a gizzard from a gall bladder. My vote would be both meaningless and dangerous. Instead we exhaustively train our doctors then we ask them to apply that expertise and accept grave responsibility.

I expect bold and informed leadership from those entrusted with government. Opposition from the opposition. Not the cowed pandering to opinion that has become the norm and which now leads us to our ruin.
jk
Jon Stewart - on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> Pursuing bad policies just to be elected would be immoral, to say the least.

I know. Can you imagine it?
RomTheBear on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:

> It fixes the democratic deficit with the EU and enables the fixing of the domestic deficit.

Arguably, it makes it worse, as our relationship with the EU, instead of being handled via a democratic process through the EU institutions (as imperfect as they may be) will instead be handled through bargaining, threats, and coercion, by people in smoke filled rooms with closed doors.

Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to MG:

> Seems reasonable to me.
>

Until combined with his other views. It's a reflection the common elitist remainer view:

We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.

When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

I'm ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious ... I am for secret, dark debates"

Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”

If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’

etc etc

3
wercat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
shouldn't we have hanging back then if Juncker is so wrong about the leaders taking responsibility? MPs did not give in to a popular wish over that so why over other things?

Juncker is right, you don't trust people in the street to govern the country and make foreign policy but you do entrust them with the right to choose representatives so to do. What is wrong with that?

Or should we return to the old British way and only have democracy for a few people, as was the great UK tradition until the end of WWI, when it was suggested that returning troops should have the right to vote.
Post edited at 15:20
wercat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to RomTheBear:
and with us being represented by persons I don't trust at all
Post edited at 15:22
Postmanpat on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to wercat:

> Juncker is right, you don't trust people in the street to govern the country and make foreign policy but you do entrust them with the right to choose representatives so to do. What is wrong with that?
>
I can't imagine that even Juncker would describe the EU as a representative democracy.
RomTheBear on 14 Nov 2017
In reply to Postmanpat:
> Until combined with his other views. It's a reflection the common elitist remainer view:

> We decide on something, leave it lying around, and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back.

> When it becomes serious, you have to lie.

That’s not the EU you are describing, it’s the U.K. political system. As many have pointed out, it’s much more of an electoral dictatorship than anything else.

For decades British governments have ratified every single EU treaty without ever asking, and even decided to have no transition on free movement for the accession countries.

I don’t expect this to get better once we leave the EU. In fact it will be worse. You just have to see how the EU negotiations are being handled... In dark negotiation rooms, by a minority government from a divided party, with parliament and devolved government shut out of the process...

How can anyone argue that EU membership is worse than that is beyond me.

If anything, one “benefit” of brexit is that it lays bare the inadequacies and archaisms of the U.K. constitutional system.

> If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’

Yes, this is how the EU works, one country can block everything. When they do, compromises are made until everybody is happy, and we move forward. That’s the sensible way to go ahead.
Post edited at 17:02

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.