Brexit Referendum Superthread

Thomas_...

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why is the Government frightened of a vote in the HofC? It cannot be because they might lose, is it?

If they did lose it, it would cause a general election on Brexit, I assume.

It might very well turn out that there are many things which have not been considered on the leave side during the campaign and to cheat parliament on her rights is the most wrong thing to do in a democracy for it damages the reputation of the government itself.
I see this court case as having the populists promises put to the test.

Thomas_...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37634338

SNP's Nicola Sturgeon announces new independence referendum bill

A consultation gets under way next week on plans for a second Scottish independence referendum, the SNP's Nicola Sturgeon has confirmed.
She told the party's Glasgow conference that an Independence Referendum Bill would be published next week.
It marks the first step to holding a second vote.
...

Ms Sturgeon told delegates that Scotland had the right to seek something better if there were prospects of an unstable future as part of the UK.

She said: "I am determined that Scotland will have the ability to reconsider the question of independence and to do so before the UK leaves the EU - if that is necessary to protect our country's interests.
"So, I can confirm today that the Independence Referendum Bill will be published for consultation next week."
...

As eye-catching announcements to open a conference go, Nicola Sturgeon's about independence legislation is hard to top.
But there are still a lot of hurdles to clear before Scotland could potentially go back to the polls.
SNP brass are clear that this is still draft legislation - calling attention to the "distinction" between the consultation due to start next week and MSPs actually voting on a bill.
There is some precedent for the legislative process ahead, in the Referendum Bill which triggered the 2014 contest. But that had the approval of Westminster, and it's quite possible - probable even - that Indyref2 would need a similar green light.
That remains a long way down the road, if it happens at all; this move doesn't change things enormously in the first instance, at least from a constitutional standpoint.
...

Ms Sturgeon insisted that the Prime Minister Theresa May needed to respect the 62% who voted to remain in the EU.
She also confirmed that SNP MPs would oppose Brexit legislation when it comes before the House of Commons in 2017.

"That bill will repeal the legislation that enacted our EU membership. Scotland didn't vote for that and so neither will our MPs.
"But we will also work to persuade others - Labour, Liberals and moderate Tories - to join us in a coalition against a hard Brexit: not just for Scotland, but for the whole UK.
...

That will surely put even more pressure on the UK govt in addition to the court case regarding triggering Art. 50 without referring it to a vote in the Commons.

Walter2016

I'm surprised there hasn't been any polls done recently on whether people have a different view now that they see its not a walk in the park.

I'll also guess taht as we go into 2017 more people will change their views - where I work we deal with about a dozen UK companies. They all have publisehed their UK price lists for 2017 and every one of them have increased prices from 5% to over 15% due to raw material cost increases or that the product i a USA product they distribute.

Add to a 10p petrol price rise, holidays to benidorm costing 20% more and suddenly people wake up to what s happening.

As Bill Bailey said - a few thickos in working class areas took the hump with "foreigners" taking jobs that they never applied for or would think of doing in the first place and that one day they'll wake up and say "oh F$%k"

Lemming

Thomas_... wrote: »

It might very well turn out that there are many things which have not been considered on the leave side during the campaign and ... .

Bold emphasis mine. That's some fine understatement thing you've got going on there Thomas ... :pac:

Thomas_...

Lemming wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

It might very well turn out that there are many things which have not been considered on the leave side during the campaign and ... .

Bold emphasis mine. That's some fine understatement thing you've got going on there Thomas ... :pac:

Well, I'm no judge to be that sure but I won't be surprised when it turns out bad for the Brexiteers and all those who voted with and for them. Mrs May should know better and say so, but what to expect from a Tory leader who is now tasting being the woman in No. 10. She was Home Secretary before and has a long standing political record as an MP, so why is she just pleasing the People by further deluding them instead to speak the truth and above all, respect parliament?

That woman cannot be trusted.

djpbarry

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'll tell you what's stupid: using an economic term and ascribing its literal translation to it.

I suppose you think Austrian economics refers to the economic policy of Austria, and that tiger economies are about the trade in big cats.

Unsophisticated manufacturing, in economics, does not mean something isn't complicated, overall. It means that a large section of the workforce don't have advanced skills, that a lot of the workforce don't have much academic training.

Nobody with even an ounce of intelligence considers typical food production to be sophisticated.

Yes, I do know what the terms “Austrian economics” and “tiger economies” refer to, thanks. But no, I was not aware that “unsophisticated manufacturing” was a textbook economic term. I’m obviously one member of the workforce without advanced skills or academic training that you refer to.

But anyway, to get back to my original point, pandering to the fact that a large chunk of the UK workforce does not have advanced skills or training, as you put it, strikes me as a terrible idea and is in no way sustainable. In fact, we’re not even talking about “advanced training” here – far too many people in the UK lack even the most basic training, something that successive governments have seemed completely unwilling to even acknowledge, let alone address.

I’m not really seeing how we’re going to find tens of thousands of jobs in “food production” for these people? Are we talking about agriculture here? Because apart from the fact that modern farming is a skilled profession, it is obviously highly automated and employs relatively few people. So I would have thought there is relatively limited scope for expansion in the sector.

Or are we talking about food processing? Again, this is already highly automated and requires relatively few low skilled workers – I’m not really seeing where the jobs are going to appear.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

erm... wrong again.

No, I’m not. If you spent a little less time attempting to belittle posters who haven’t read the same economics textbook as you and a little more time engaging with what they’re actually posting, it might help the discussion flow a little better.

Zubeneschamali

djpbarry wrote: »

I was not aware that “unsophisticated manufacturing” was a textbook economic term.

Google Ngram suggests the phrase showed up in 1965, and peaked in 1980.

K-9

I don't know, wouldn't unsophisticated manufacturing jobs be relatively low paid anyway? Exactly one of the big gripes with Brexit and indeed Trump in the US.

Alas the days of the 50's to 70's and well paid manual labour jobs are over.

djpbarry

djpbarry wrote: »

But anyway, to get back to my original point, pandering to the fact that a large chunk of the UK workforce does not have advanced skills or training, as you put it, strikes me as a terrible idea and is in no way sustainable.

What do you mean 'pandering' to it?

I've been down this road already and explained it umpteen times. I am not suggesting that workers are reassigned or blocked from sophisticated industry. Quite the opposite. The UK's priority must always be the export of sophisticated goods and services.

I am simply suggesting that if British-EU trade barriers remain in place, the growth in export of sophisticated goods and services is unlikely to continue, and may even diminish in the medium term. If so, corporate investment will be directed to the sector with the next-lowest opportunity cost, which is manufacturing of less sophisticated goods and services, which may by then be competitive on account of the trade barriers that are already in place, and may increase.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know, wouldn't unsophisticated manufacturing jobs be relatively low paid anyway?

They pay better than the dole.

Again, they're not a panacea. They're not the first priority. They can potentially offset job losses, existing unemployment, and the rising costs of inelastic imports due to trade barriers.

Should I put that in my sig or something??

K-9

So the solution to too many low paid, lowly skilled jobs is more low paid, lowly skilled jobs. Go on ahead!

Seriously I agree but this is a thread about Brexit and that solution is no good for most people who voted to leave.

Clearlier

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

They pay better than the dole.

Again, they're not a panacea. They're not the first priority. They can potentially offset job losses, existing unemployment, and the rising costs of inelastic imports due to trade barriers.

Should I put that in my sig or something??

You can if you want you'll still be wrong if you think that the UK needs to rebalance it's economy to produce more 'unsophisticated' goods.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Of course I think economic growth is a good thing, and once again, I cannot fathom why you are imputing such an outrageously stupid opinion to me in the alternative.

Well, your proposition that the UK economy should be rebalanced to produce more unsophisticated goods might have something to do with it.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I can accept someone disagreeing with anything I say, but with respect, you seem to think I'm either anti-EU (I'm not), in favour of protectionism (I'm not), in favour of Britain withdrawing from the world (I'm not) that I don't understand basic concepts of economic theory (not true), and now, that I may be opposed to economic growth (really, what?). All of these opinions have been based on your jumping to conclusions and misinterpreting what I am saying.

I think mostly it's that you don't understand the implications of what you're saying. The UK has a productivity problem and it's not caused by unemployment which is at an historically low level notwithstanding the pockets of the country that have extremely low levels of employment and high levels of deprivation. I'm totally and utterly in favour of targeting these areas for increasing employment but primarily for social rather than economic reasons.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

But being pro-computers doesn't make one anti-corner-shop. Corner shops have their place. Lets return to your reference to the Law of Comparative Advantage, which would tell us that when the opportunities for growth in highly efficient sectors diminish, one assigns workers and investment down the line to less efficient sectors with increasing opportunity costs, such as the production of unsophisticated products, and eventually, corner shops.

In a nutshell, the potential growth in high-tech industry post-Brexit is probably weak, meaning that one seeks to assign workers to the next-most efficient sector. And with increasing British cost-competitiveness due to trade barriers, that's probably something like food processing.

The great thing about innovative, high tech sophisticated products is that they're generally not that easily and quickly replicated. Also, the purchasers tend not to be particularly price sensitive because there's a lack of competition and when the competition does come you have an advantage because of the knowledge base that you've built. Thus trade barriers are least relevant to 'sophisticated' industries than to 'unsophisticated' industries where price plays a much larger role in purchasing decisions.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You must remember that Britain should always seek to increase its market share in world manufacturing of high-tech products. That's not in dispute. But with unemployment rates of up to 30% in Northern England and Scottish cities, we have to be realistic about the likelihood of new investment in these regions. And it happens to neatly dovetail with the question of relatively price-inelastic imports.

As I said earlier UK unemployment rates are at historically low levels. Yes, areas of high unemployment should be targeted but primarily for social rather than economic reasons.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Ok, perhaps I'm being pessimistic about the unemployed. But tell me this, are you saying you're optimistic about any growth in investment in sophisticated British industry after Brexit is concluded? Because I'm not. Most people in this thread are not.

That's why I think the UK should try to mitigate (not solve) the crisis by developing the next-best thing, which is probably the manufacturing of less sophisticated goods. They won't get rich from it. They might get some stability.

I'm not optimistic at all about what will happen to Britain's economy post-Brexit. I think that while a lot still depends on what kind of a deal the UK manages to negotiate (I expect it to be largely in favour of the EU) there's no way that it doesn't take a hit. The way to mitigate that though is by moving up the value chain not down. Whether the UK has the political nous to do this is another question altogether and I'm not massively optimistic given everything that May has said since she came into office but that doesn't mean it isn't the best way. That said May has a long history of saying one thing and doing another - it's my main source of hope at the moment!

R P McMurphy

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know, wouldn't unsophisticated manufacturing jobs be relatively low paid anyway? Exactly one of the big gripes with Brexit and indeed Trump in the US.

Alas the days of the 50's to 70's and well paid manual labour jobs are over.

I thought they were well back on fashion in Ireland already. Labourers on sites back getting handsomely remunerated

KingBrian2

What's this I hear that the UK is not going to be consulting parliament on the decision of the British people. Was not the whole point to bring democracy back to Westminster. This is what it is about so. Let the MP's not the MEP's make up their mind.

Sam Russell

KingBrian2 wrote: »

What's this I hear that the UK is not going to be consulting parliament on the decision of the British people. Was not the whole point to bring democracy back to Westminster. This is what it is about so. Let the MP's not the MEP's make up their mind.

May cannot have that - they might vote NO.

Donald Tusk

Our esteemed President Mr Tusk with a beautiful thought experiment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37650077?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

Donald Tusk wrote:

To all who believe in it, I propose a simple experiment. Buy a cake, eat it, and see if it is still there on the plate.

flogthebog

Deleted User wrote: »

Our esteemed President Mr Tusk with a beautiful thought experiment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37650077?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

What interests me about Tusks viewpoint is that the EU hold the control. A hard Brexit is going to be hard for the EU also. And while Tusk states what he states the reality is that if the EU mess with the UK it will only damage itself.

Financial markets these days control things (it is what it is, I cant say that I understand them). Financial markets and uncertainty are not the best bedfellows. So if the financial markets are challenged then I suggest we will see a softening of viewpoints.

Business is business. Being rational I suspect will win the day. But then they are politicians :-)

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Our esteemed President Mr Tusk with a beautiful thought experiment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37650077?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_politics&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central

More to the point; Tusk's cake condiment situation looks a bit suspect to me:

"The brutal truth is that Brexit will be a loss for all of us. There will be no cakes on the table. For anyone. There will be only salt and vinegar."

Eh?

oscarBravo

A lot of people seem to be subscribing to the view that the EU has as much to lose as the UK from brexit, and as such has as much to gain from compromise as the UK does.

This strikes me as the acme of wishful thinking. If the EU compromises in the way that these people seem to think it must, they will allow free trade without free movement: that the UK is so utterly the centre of the known universe that the founding principles of the EU don't apply to it.

That's a bit like suggesting that the common market is so important to the UK that they'll cheerfully sacrifice the monarchy, the pound sterling and the English language in order to retain it.

We're talking about the pillars on which the Union is built. If the EU compromises on its founding principles, there is no Union. Does anyone seriously think that the EU is weighing up a trade deal with Britain against its very existence, and is somehow undecided on the matter? Because that's just ridiculous.

flogthebog

oscarBravo wrote: »

A lot of people seem to be subscribing to the view that the EU has as much to lose as the UK from brexit, and as such has as much to gain from compromise as the UK does.

This strikes me as the acme of wishful thinking. If the EU compromises in the way that these people seem to think it must, they will allow free trade without free movement: that the UK is so utterly the centre of the known universe that the founding principles of the EU don't apply to it.

That's a bit like suggesting that the common market is so important to the UK that they'll cheerfully sacrifice the monarchy, the pound sterling and the English language in order to retain it.

We're talking about the pillars on which the Union is built. If the EU compromises on its founding principles, there is no Union. Does anyone seriously think that the EU is weighing up a trade deal with Britain against its very existence, and is somehow undecided on the matter? Because that's just ridiculous.

I think you miss the point I made which is 'uncertainty'. Financial markets (gambling as I would refer to it) depends on certainty. A so called 'hard brexit' damages certainty, damages trade and damages the EU as much as it damages the UK. So nobody wins from such a situation

Clearlier

flogthebog wrote: »

I think you miss the point I made which is 'uncertainty'. Financial markets (gambling as I would refer to it) depends on certainty. A so called 'hard brexit' damages certainty, damages trade and damages the EU as much as it damages the UK. So nobody wins from such a situation

It depends on how you measure the damage but if you look at it proportionally about 44% of the UK's exports went to EU countries and about 8% of EU countries exports went to the UK.

If the EU negotiates as a single bloc as it normally does then it holds the whip hand in any negotiations. Yes, the EU will want to avoid uncertainty but it's the UK that has more to lose and it's the UK that wants to change.

We also shouldn't underestimate the EU's willingness to shoot itself in the foot economically in order to sustain its principles. The Greek situation is economically stupid but politically unavoidable. Negotiations with the UK could well follow the same route if the UK isn't careful and considering who's in charge I wouldn't be holding my breath about great care being taken.

flogthebog

Clearlier wrote: »

It depends on how you measure the damage but if you look at it proportionally about 44% of the UK's exports went to EU countries and about 8% of EU countries exports went to the UK..

Maybe you might agree that that currency rather than imports/exports is more important. And those be the gamblers. We have seen so many Irish firms fold on a currency issue. Its not that their company isn't a good company. The financial markets decide for them

Clearlier

flogthebog wrote: »

Maybe you might agree that that currency rather than imports/exports is more important. And those be the gamblers. We have seen so many Irish firms fold on a currency issue. Its not that their company isn't a good company. The financial markets decide for them

I actually don't understand what point you're making here?

flogthebog

Clearlier wrote: »

I actually don't understand what point you're making here?

watched a nationwide program (and yes I am open to influence) where a mushroom farmer simply could not justify their business as the eur/pound margins tightened. what really wrecks my head is these muffins who say currency is this way or that way destroy businesses and communities.

Peregrinus

flogthebog wrote: »

watched a nationwide program (and yes I am open to influence) where a mushroom farmer simply could not justify their business as the eur/pound margins tightened. what really wrecks my head is these muffins who say currency is this way or that way destroy businesses and communities.

Nobody "says currency is this way or that way". People simply seek to buy currency or to sell it, and the market price moves in response.

Right now, nobody wants to buy sterling, and lots of people want to sell it. Hence, the price falls. As it falls, more people should want to buy sterling (in order to buy now-cheaper goods and services produced in the UK) and eventually it should stop falling, and stabilise. But this depends on the UK economy producing goods and services that people outside the UK wish to buy.

Nody

Peregrinus wrote: »

Right now, nobody wants to buy sterling, and lots of people want to sell it. Hence, the price falls. As it falls, more people should want to buy sterling (in order to buy now-cheaper goods and services produced in the UK) and eventually it should stop falling, and stabilise. But this depends on the UK economy producing goods and services that people outside the UK wish to buy.

The cheaper goods only apply if they use UK produced material or add a significant margin in the transformation; the moment they need to import it the GBP value is irrelevant as seen with the Unilever issue and Tesco for example. And that's going to be the real stickler for UK; they don't produce most of the raw materials required which means weaker pound has no noticeable effect on their export prices for a third party currency country.

Peregrinus

Nody wrote: »

The cheaper goods only apply if they use UK produced material; the moment they need to import it as seen with the Unilever issue and Tesco for example. And that's going to be the real stickler for UK; they don't produce most of the raw materials required which means weaker pound has no noticeable effect on their export prices for a third party currency country.

Yes, of course. Which means that the UK companies will enjoy the greatest advantage when selling things where the main cost is labour, since they pay for all their labour in sterling, and/or raw materials which are sourced wihin the UK, since those can be bought in sterling.

Obviously, the falling pound means inflation, which puts upward pressure on wages, so nobody escapes all the consequences of devalation. But there will still be people in the UK for whom devaluation is, on balance, a net advantage. And most of those people will be the exporters of services, and the exporters of goods substantially produced within the UK.

Zubeneschamali

flogthebog wrote: »

What interests me about Tusks viewpoint is that the EU hold the control. A hard Brexit is going to be hard for the EU also. And while Tusk states what he states the reality is that if the EU mess with the UK it will only damage itself.

The UK is leaving the EU. The EU has no control over that, it is allowed under the Lisbon treaty, but Tusk is advising them not to. He is telling them they may change their minds when the see the deal on the table after Article 50.

So of course he is going to say it will be a bad deal for the UK - he doesn't want them to take it, he wants them not to leave at all.

Unspoken is the fact that the EU will have an eye to the next wavering country - if the UK get a sweet deal, why shouldn't we?

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Unspoken is the fact that the EU will have an eye to the next wavering country - if the UK get a sweet deal, why shouldn't we?

This is basically it. As between the EU and the UK, both suffer more than they need to if there is a "hard" Brexit - the UK just walks, no special replacement deal, tariffs impose, border controls go up, etc, etc.

But Tusk's point is that the EU has to think about more than just its relationship with the UK; it has to think about 27 other countries. If there's a perception that the UK can basically cherry-pick the aspects of the relationship with the EU that it would like - well, we'd all like some of that, wouldn't we? So a soft Brexit can only be on terms that the EU is happy to give to other countries as well.

And there's the problem. The soft Brexit that is acceptable to the EU (e.g. EEA membership on terms similar to those already enjoyed by Norway or Switzerland) is probably nothing like the soft Brexit that might be acceptable to Brexiters (under which the UK gets free movement of goods, services and capital without having to afford free movement of people, comply with single market regulatory laws or contribute to the EU budget). Tusk's reading is that there is no form of soft Brexit which would be acceptable both to the EU and to the UK, and therefore it's hard Brexit or nothing.

alastair

Tusk's reading is more likely to be that the choices are a hard brexit, no brexit, or the inevitable compromise of a soft brexit that fails to deliver all the demands of the brexiteers, because there was no consensus amongst the 'out' voters as to what that actually entailed. May will talk tough, probably beyond the point where the obvious EEA arrangement is accepted. Tusk will accommodate the fiction of a black and white choice so the compromise looks like a victory of sorts for the UK.


The weakest link in this whole negotiation are the Brexiteers. It's on their backs that the concessions will be made, while they're soft soaped with well chosen words.