Brexit discussion thread II

Calina

steddyeddy wrote: »

The next potential Tory leader is Jacob Reece Mog. That says it all really.

I see comments today that the expected battle is between Jacob, yes, on the one side, and Boris Johnson on the other. This rather reinforces to me the idea that the Tories are completely out of touch.

They need a John Major, urgently. What they have is a Philip Hammond. It really is rather worrying.

Panrich

LeinsterDub wrote: »

In what way is it sensible. They'll leave the EU therefore having no say in how the laws are made but they'll also be tightly bound to the EU so they'll have to follow all the EU laws. Now don't get me wrong leaving the EU also makes very little sense but at least with the hardest of hard Brexit they'll be free of the EU and more than likely free to enjoy their economic collapse

The labour new position sees them now open to a permanent retention of single market and customs union membership. That would be a game changer for the border and the knock effects of existing trade within the EU. Negotiations become a lot simpler and co-operations less complicated.

steddyeddy

KPMG conducted a study on the effects of Brexit on the skilled workforce:

"A survey of 2,000 EU workers in Britain by KPMG, the professional services firm, found that 55% of those with PhDs and 49% of those with postgraduate degrees were either planning to go or were actively considering it."

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2017/aug/27/million-skilled-eu-workers-planning-to-leave-uk-brexit

LeinsterDub

Panrich wrote: »

The labour new position sees them now open to a permanent retention of single market and customs union membership. That would be a game changer for the border and the knock effects of existing trade within the EU. Negotiations become a lot simpler and co-operations less complicated.

I acknowledge that but my point is that in a referendum to "take back control" this outcome would actually give up control.

Alan_P

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Repeatedly citing a metric that excludes Britain's biggest trade output namely services is silly.

48% is wrong. It was 44% in 2016 and decreasing each year. My point is if Britain gets a good trade deal that covers as much of this 44% as possible and new trade deals with other countries such as America and China to expand trade then there's every reason why Brexit can be a success.

I've got no reason to predict the apocalypse right now.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I have college friends all over Europe, we had a big reunion a few days ago. What they are telling me is that the UK's biggest enemy is sheer indifference. There is concern about Ireland, but the general perception is that the UK is gone and it's now a matter of lawyers and diplomats. If Barnier can't sort it noone cares really.
This is a very important matter to the UK press, and to the UK. The rest of Europe is assuming it leaves on hardest terms, and doesn't care really.

The EU extends a long way these days.

ELM327

Anyway, other than as a propaganda basis or "public view" basis, a UK referendum holds no legal status. They are subjects in a monarchy and not citizens of a republic so there was no requirement to go through with article 50 at all.

Nate--IRL--

ELM327 wrote: »

Anyway, other than as a propaganda basis or "public view" basis, a UK referendum holds no legal status. They are subjects in a monarchy and not citizens of a republic so there was no requirement to go through with article 50 at all.

This is known - however it is political suicide to ignore it.

Nate

ELM327

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

This is known - however it is political suicide to ignore it.

Nate

Even though, when they triggered article 50, over 50% of the 3 countries and 6 counties were Remainers (due to old age deaths of the leave group)

oscarBravo

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Such blind devotion to anti-defeatism is a dangerous mindset.

It's an inevitable consequence of the opposition-for-opposition's-sake that the UK's Parliament (and those, like ours, modeled on it) engenders.

If a government pursues a policy that the opposition disagrees with, the opposition will (reasonably) say that the government is wrong. If the government sees the error of its ways and changes course, the opposition will berate the government for flip-flopping or U-turning. There's really very little difference in outcome for the government in pursuing a wrong-headed policy or retreating from it, so the logical course of action is full steam ahead.

The press are guilty of this also. As long as changing your mind is portrayed as a punishable error, there will always be pressure to double down on mistaken policies.

Samaris

Calina wrote: »

I see comments today that the expected battle is between Jacob, yes, on the one side, and Boris Johnson on the other. This rather reinforces to me the idea that the Tories are completely out of touch.

They need a John Major, urgently. What they have is a Philip Hammond. It really is rather worrying.

Hammond at least seems to be more in touch with reality than most of them and so far, I'm grudgingly approving of the few steps he's made that I've heard of. He was the one urgently pointing out that they need a transitional period because they are not going to be ready versus the airy pie in the sky of most of the rest of them. He's not got enough support in the cacophony of snarled cogs that is the British government to do much else than squeak in alarm though.

I don't know much to anything about Jacob Reese-Mogg (bar that his name is splendidly British), but Boris Johnson should not be allowed to run an ice-cream stand.

ArmaniJeanss

ELM327 wrote: »

Anyway, other than as a propaganda basis or "public view" basis, a UK referendum holds no legal status. They are subjects in a monarchy and not citizens of a republic so there was no requirement to go through with article 50 at all.

ELM327 wrote: »

Even though, when they triggered article 50, over 50% of the 3 countries and 6 counties were Remainers (due to old age deaths of the leave group)

With respect you are looking for ways/reasons that UK politicians could have ignored the vote, not invoked A50, had a second ref, stayed in the EU etc.
You actually have to look at it from the pov of politicians for whom the most important question is 'what affects our chances of being elected to office?'.
Suggesting ignoring or actually ignoring the referendum would have led to (imo) wipeout for either of the big2 parties.

****
This move by Labour is interesting - they have finally put some clear explainable policy difference between the two parties on this issue and have moved into some middle ground options before the Tories could claim it. Which kind of forces the Tories to maintain their current stance or else be seen to be following the opposition lead. Maybe JC is a better politician than I thought (I had him down as just an excellent campaigner).

ELM327

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

With respect you are looking for ways/reasons that UK politicians could have ignored the vote, not invoked A50, had a second ref, stayed in the EU etc.
You actually have to look at it from the pov of politicians for whom the most important question is 'what affects our chances of being elected to office?'.
Suggesting ignoring or actually ignoring the referendum would have led to (imo) wipeout for either of the big2 parties.

****
.

Yes, it could have lead to wipeout, or it could have had the opposite approach. I think there should have been more of a discussion than just a straight triggering of A50. I understand that politics is a 4-5 year cycle of maintaining the gravytrain and ensuring re-election for the next 4-5 year term. But if it was argued in the national interest with more than 50% in favor of remain, it would have been interesting to see someone step up and stop the triggering of A50, and instead try some negotiation with A50 as a threat. As it is, now it is worthless. The EU don't care about britain, and in fact want to make them a basket case now so that others like France/Spain don't try to exit. It is vital for the single market that britain are not perceived to gain an advantage from brexit. If they do, then the single market will (IMO) collapse.


PS I feel he need to say I'm not british so it doesn't directly affect me.

Zubeneschamali

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I acknowledge that but my point is that in a referendum to "take back control" this outcome would actually give up control.

But "take back control" was not what the referendum asked:

"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

There was nothing in there about control, the single market or customs union, just two options:



Remain a member of the European Union
Leave the European Union

The Tories are not choosing Hard Brexit because they have to, they are doing it because it kills the threat from UKIP and the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party to the leadership.

solodeogloria

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

With respect you are looking for ways/reasons that UK politicians could have ignored the vote, not invoked A50, had a second ref, stayed in the EU etc.
You actually have to look at it from the pov of politicians for whom the most important question is 'what affects our chances of being elected to office?'.
Suggesting ignoring or actually ignoring the referendum would have led to (imo) wipeout for either of the big2 parties.

****
This move by Labour is interesting - they have finally put some clear explainable policy difference between the two parties on this issue and have moved into some middle ground options before the Tories could claim it. Which kind of forces the Tories to maintain their current stance or else be seen to be following the opposition lead. Maybe JC is a better politician than I thought (I had him down as just an excellent campaigner).

Good afternoon!

It is remarkable that when the Labour party makes a massive climb down that nobody calls Jeremy Corbyn the U-turn king.

Actually the Labour position isn't that remarkable at present. Calling for temporary membership of the single market and customs union and with a transition before new customs arrangements, immigration arrangements and trade arrangements come into force is quite sensible and isn't a million miles away from what the Tories are asking for.

I think a good order of implementing Brexit is to slowly pull out of the customs union and arrange new customs arrangements then after building up trade terms pull out of the single market and end free movement.

I would be still seeking controls on low skilled labour after 2019. Immigration isn't my hottest issue. Control over trade terms is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peter Flynt

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It is remarkable that when the Labour party makes a massive climb down that nobody calls Jeremy Corbyn the U-turn king.

Actually the Labour position isn't that remarkable at present. Calling for temporary membership of the single market and customs union and with a transition before new customs arrangements, immigration arrangements and trade arrangements come into force is quite sensible and isn't a million miles away from what the Tories are asking for.

I think a good order of implementing Brexit is to slowly pull out of the customs union and arrange new customs arrangements then after building up trade terms pull out of the single market and end free movement.

I would be still seeking controls on low skilled labour after 2019. Immigration isn't my hottest issue. Control over trade terms is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

UK will not be controlling the EU over trade terms.
Post brexit they'll have no control over those terms whatsoever.

Quit deluding yourself.

solodeogloria

Peter Flynt wrote: »

UK will not be controlling the EU over trade terms.
Post brexit they'll have no control over those terms whatsoever.

Quit deluding yourself.

Good afternoon!

You need to read my posts properly before deciding that I'm deluding myself. I never said anything about the UK controlling the EU.

What I said is after the UK leaves the customs union it will be possible to sign trade deals and take control of it's trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Calina

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It is remarkable that when the Labour party makes a massive climb down that nobody calls Jeremy Corbyn the U-turn king.

Actually the Labour position isn't that remarkable at present. Calling for temporary membership of the single market and customs union and with a transition before new customs arrangements, immigration arrangements and trade arrangements come into force is quite sensible and isn't a million miles away from what the Tories are asking for.

I think a good order of implementing Brexit is to slowly pull out of the customs union and arrange new customs arrangements then after building up trade terms pull out of the single market and end free movement.

I would be still seeking controls on low skilled labour after 2019. Immigration isn't my hottest issue. Control over trade terms is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

TBF, it seems to me that the Tories do not yet have a unified position on anything relating to Brexit. You can see this in the arguments over transitional arrangements which Fox does not want and which Hammond wants.

Davis has also suggested he wants to leave the customs union and set up a new customs union. He wants out of the single market.

In certain respect Starmer's position is very much a million miles away from what the Tories are looking for.

If control on immigration wasn't your hottest thing, you wouldn't even make the comment regarding controls after 2019. But the UK's problem is going to be both low skilled and high skilled labour. The NHS is short 5000 doctors and a good chunk of other care personnel are EU based. The number of nurses applying has dropped and there are considerations that seasonal fruitpicking staff didn't come in the same numbers this year.

I'm also really a bit meh about people yammering on about trade. Germany is subject the same rules as the UK and it is trading a lot more manufacturing than the UK is. The problems are not, in my view, the EU or membership of the EU. The problems are UK government policy and general laziness in the UK. Being outside the EU is not going to fix the problems.

Peter Flynt

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

You need to read my posts properly before deciding that I'm deluding myself. I never said anything about the UK controlling the EU.

What I said is after the UK leaves the customs union it will be possible to sign trade deals and take control of it's trade policy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

UK will not be taking control of its trade policy post brexit as UK will be a sitting duck for larger economies like EU, China, India, US etc. . .

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

TBF, it seems to me that the Tories do not yet have a unified position on anything relating to Brexit. You can see this in the arguments over transitional arrangements which Fox does not want and which Hammond wants.

Davis has also suggested he wants to leave the customs union and set up a new customs union. He wants out of the single market.

In certain respect Starmer's position is very much a million miles away from what the Tories are looking for.

If control on immigration wasn't your hottest thing, you wouldn't even make the comment regarding controls after 2019. But the UK's problem is going to be both low skilled and high skilled labour. The NHS is short 5000 doctors and a good chunk of other care personnel are EU based. The number of nurses applying has dropped and there are considerations that seasonal fruitpicking staff didn't come in the same numbers this year.

I'm also really a bit meh about people yammering on about trade. Germany is subject the same rules as the UK and it is trading a lot more manufacturing than the UK is. The problems are not, in my view, the EU or membership of the EU. The problems are UK government policy and general laziness in the UK. Being outside the EU is not going to fix the problems.

Good afternoon!

Hammond and Fox have agreed to move forward with a common approach. You're right to say that Hammond's approach lost out in Cabinet however. If the EU pushes back however it's worth revisiting temporary membership of both the customs union and the single market in the transition period.

The reason why I think low skilled migration should be addressed is because it was a concern raised in the referendum. Brexit is an opportunity to address those concerns. I do have a desire to deal with that concern with low key controls. It's not my number one issue.

As for your point about manufacturing it again ignores the fact that Britain is broadly speaking a service based economy. I've replied do this point a lot of times at this stage. It is obviously important for a country which does the majority of its trade outside of the EU to see how to harness and grow that trade through free trade agreements. This is still a valid argument.

Being outside the EU will give Britain the opportunity to improve it's trade terms with major trade partners. Obviously it's important for the UK to get the most favourable deal with the EU but it isn't either or.

Peter Flynt wrote: »

UK will not be taking control of its trade policy post brexit as UK will be a sitting duck for larger economies like EU, China, India, US etc. . .

I can't work with one liners. Please present actual arguments with reasoned workings.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

Jim2007 wrote: »

But stop is not an option, no matter how many common law jurists say it is. Any action seeking the enforcement of A50 will be heard by a large majority of civil law jurists and I have yet to hear of a senior civil law jurist expressing the opinion that it can be withdrawn. In civil law the stumbling block is that there is no provisions what so ever in the treaties to allow for it's withdrawal. Civil law is not judge made as in common law.

In which case they would need to reapply for membership and this time round there would be very little support among the 27 for all the opt out nonsense again.

I'm sorry but I think pausing to consider Britain's future is an option if you're British. The facts are an internal Tory power play resulted in a political game whereby the elites, Boris and David had a contest to decide who could convince the public to follow them. Boris lied and misrepresented the facts. He was joined in the extremely right wing press and together they made a scapegoat out of the EU, immigrants and anything not British.

The same EU that resulted in a reversal of Britain's financial fortunes following it's 1973 visit from the IMF and declining imperial wealth. So yes, this is absolute madness and a second referendum at least is warranted.

Peter Flynt

solodeogloria wrote: »

I can't work with one liners. Please present actual arguments with reasoned workings.

It's very simple.

UK will be operating from a position of extreme weakness when trade terms are discussed with another entity post Brexit.

With the European Union, 45% of UK exports go to the EU (7% in the reverse direction). In some service industries literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in the UK are at risk because of brexit. No membership of the customs union will add significnt costs to UK businesses, significant delays at ports, leading to huge job losses. UK deficit will grow as a result and become a much poorer country.

Brexit probably won't happen because the UK cannot afford it and even if it does happen the UK will become significantly poorer as a result.

Brexit is like the UK operating in the world's largest supermarket (the EU) with other major economies before saying "Sod this. . I'm gonna open my own corner shop across the road. Everyone's welcome for trade deals".

Realising the vulnerable position the UK is in they'll be screwed by others whilst having zero say of the largest market which the UK operates in, the EU.

This is very simple and logical to understand.
No one owes the UK a living.

And there will be no deal offered to the UK which is better than what they've got now, which is membership of the EU.

Lemming

The more and more I read commentary by solo and see some of the "interesting" ... errr ... "thoughts" ... written on newspaper articles the more and more I am convinced that Britain needs Brexit, although for very, very, very different reasons to what the leave cheerleaders think. And I say this as someone who has made a life in the UK, and with commiserations to Fred and others in the North who will be the collateral damage from Britain's need for Brexit.

I voted Remain, and I still believe that remaining is the only credible, sane choice. But we are well past credible or sane. And so Britain needs to leave.

solodeogloria

Peter Flynt wrote: »

It's very simple.

UK will be operating from a position of extreme weakness when trade terms are discussed with another entity post Brexit.

With the European Union, 45% of UK exports go to the EU (7% in the reverse direction). In some service industries literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in the UK are at risk because of brexit. No membership of the customs union will add significnt costs to UK businesses, significant delays at ports, leading to huge job losses. UK deficit will grow as a result and become a much poorer country.

Brexit probably won't happen because the UK cannot afford it and even if it does happen the UK will become significantly poorer as a result.

Brexit is like the UK operating in the world's largest supermarket (the EU) with other major economies before saying "Sod this. . I'm gonna open my open corner shop across the road. Everyone's welcome for trade deals".

Realising the vulnerable position the UK is in they'll be screwed by others whilst having zero say of the largest market which the UK operates in, the EU.

This is very simple and logical to understand.
No one owes the UK a living.

And there will be no deal offered to the UK which is better than what they've got now, which is membership of the EU.

Good afternoon!

If you've read the thread this far you'll see that I have responded to this point already.

It depends on how you slice the figures. Yes, it is true that if you take the EU alone that the percentage of exports are higher. But if you look at it another way the UK is in a trade deficit with the wider European Union. It's in the interests of both parties to do a good deal and I'm sure they will do.

The choice isn't an either or choice. This is the fallacy that a lot of hard remainers are presenting. For a good Brexit, there needs to be a good trade deal with the UK that preserves as much trade access as possible (I'm conceding that there will be some lost) whilst also opening up to the rest of the world.

A transition period is important. This will give the UK the buffer to build up a trade competence, and to construct customs controls on motorways such as the M20 towards Dover and the Channel Tunnel, and near ports. It will also give the UK more time to negotiate good customs arrangements with the EU. A good transition period would probably have two phases. One for arranging customs and dropping out of the customs union and another for moving outside of the single market.

Again, there's no reason why any of this isn't possible.

I still don't see a good argument as to why the UK shouldn't seek the freedom to get good trade terms with the 56% of trade it does outside of the EU and harness the benefits of that with free trade deals. It's a no brainer to me.

Lemming wrote: »

The more and more I read commentary by solo and see some of the "interesting" ... errr ... "thoughts" ... written on newspaper articles the more and more I am convinced that Britain needs Brexit, although for very, very, very different reasons to what the leave cheerleaders think. And I say this as someone who has made a life in the UK, and with commiserations to Fred and others in the North who will be the collateral damage from Britain's need for Brexit.

I thought Fred lived in South Dublin. Please explain why you think Britain needs Brexit?

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peter Flynt

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

If you've read the thread this far you'll see that I have responded to this point already.

It depends on how you slice the figures. Yes, it is true that if you take the EU alone that the percentage of exports are higher. But if you look at it another way the UK is in a trade deficit with the wider European Union. It's in the interests of both parties to do a good deal and I'm sure they will do.

The choice isn't an either or choice. This is the fallacy that a lot of hard remainers are presenting. For a good Brexit, there needs to be a good trade deal with the UK that preserves as much trade access as possible (I'm conceding that there will be some lost) whilst also opening up to the rest of the world.

A transition period is important. This will give the UK the buffer to build up a trade competence, and to construct customs controls on motorways such as the M20 towards Dover and the Channel Tunnel, and near ports. It will also give the UK more time to negotiate good customs arrangements with the EU. A good transition period would probably have two phases. One for arranging customs and dropping out of the customs union and another for moving outside of the single market.

Again, there's no reason why any of this isn't possible.

I still don't see a good argument as to why the UK shouldn't seek the freedom to get good trade terms with the 56% of trade it does outside of the EU and harness the benefits of that with free trade deals. It's a no brainer to me.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

You don't know what you're talking about.

You're completely deluded.

Much thanks,
Peter.

Samaris

Britain are starting from a position of weakness, having pulled out of the customs union. Britain are aware that this is extremely dangerous for them, so are attempting to convince the EU to let them stay while they organise future trade deals. This is not useful to the EU who really need Britain to sort itself out and bugger off asap so we can heal over the gap. Britain remaining, getting all the benefits of the customs union and refusing to take any of the other rules or responsibilities around it is not workable and not fair to other countries in the union. I realise this doesn't matter too much to Britain at the moment, as there seems to be a lack of even comprehending that other countries may have their own wishes and issues and it's not, in fact, all about Britain and getting the best thing possible for Britain only.

Britain will then be negotiating trade deals with other, far larger, economies at greater distances, i.e. China. China do not need Britain and have gotten along fine without them and with trade with the EU bloc. Britain, however, need other large trading partners and don't have a great number to choose from. Therefore, there is a power imbalance between Britain and China that is squarely on the side of China. Therefore, do not expect a wonderful, independant-Britain-affirming trade deal with China.

Regarding America, May is relying on Trump's pro-Britain stance. Why people think that Mister America First! is going to agree to a trade deal advantageous to Britain over America is completely beyond explanation, bar just maybe an attempt to annoy the EU. He is just petty enough for that, but I suspect money will win out over even petty digs.

Australia is possible, and I assume Britain would not need a great deal of coaxing to expand trade with Australia, given the history there. But it is a long way away and I am not sure what of British products Australia are in desperate need for, especially compared to trade with closer countries. Still, it's a possibility.

The odds are in favour of Britain having to negotiate these deals either under the table against EU policy or negotiate them above-board after ties have been cut with the EU. In that case, either they will have to be doing them very quietly and risk governments changing (and won't be able to do them with countries already in the EU), or they have to take the risk that they'll be trying to do them all at once from a position of having none, which will snarl up Britain's own manufacturing. The very fact of overwork/too many desperately needed at once and Britain's own position with its manufacturing and not having somewhere to export goods to will put Britain as decided underdogs in most to all of these agreements because they need it desperately and quickly and the other country, for the most part, does not. Other countries will also be very aware that the government they are negotiating with is weak. Even if May's lot get chucked out, the next party will also be weak as the immediate and unavoidable shocks happen in the aftermath of actually leaving. There will be some and they will be unpopular, even if it is just teething trouble.

Ireland will need to do it ASAP. France may feel it important to get to work on it quickly too, but both of those must wait until after Britain's left as these deals are with the European bloc, not the individual countries. Still, these countries may be most eager to get something hammered out, plus perhaps Germany. Ireland might roll over on giving a good deal, but France and Germany are unlikely to give a deal that benefits Britain more than the EU.

Trump's America (if he's still there in 2019) will be very eager indeed to work something out, oh yes, and will probably agree to doing it under the table early. But once Britain's out and negotiating alone, don't expect Trump's America to be nice to Britain. Britain is not America, just more foreigners to be gulled out of cash. Desperate foreigners wanting a trade deal? Trump's administration loves to hear that.

No, I don't envy Britain's negotiation power.

solodeogloria

Samaris wrote: »

Britain are starting from a position of weakness, having pulled out of the customs union. Britain are aware that this is extremely dangerous for them, so are attempting to convince the EU to let them stay while they organise future trade deals. This is not useful to the EU who really need Britain to sort itself out and bugger off asap so we can heal over the gap. Britain remaining, getting all the benefits of the customs union and refusing to take any of the other rules or responsibilities around it is not workable and not fair to other countries in the union. I realise this doesn't matter too much to Britain at the moment, as there seems to be a lack of even comprehending that other countries may have their own wishes and issues and it's not, in fact, all about Britain and getting the best thing possible for Britain only.

Britain will then be negotiating trade deals with other, far larger, economies at greater distances, i.e. China. China do not need Britain and have gotten along fine without them and with trade with the EU bloc. Britain, however, need other large trading partners and don't have a great number to choose from. Therefore, there is a power imbalance between Britain and China that is squarely on the side of China. Therefore, do not expect a wonderful, independant-Britain-affirming trade deal with China.

Regarding America, May is relying on Trump's pro-Britain stance. Why people think that Mister America First! is going to agree to a trade deal advantageous to Britain over America is completely beyond explanation, bar just maybe an attempt to annoy the EU. He is just petty enough for that, but I suspect money will win out over even petty digs.

Australia is possible, and I assume Britain would not need a great deal of coaxing to expand trade with Australia, given the history there. But it is a long way away and I am not sure what of British products Australia are in desperate need for, especially compared to trade with closer countries. Still, it's a possibility.

The odds are in favour of Britain having to negotiate these deals either under the table against EU policy or negotiate them above-board after ties have been cut with the EU. In that case, either they will have to be doing them very quietly and risk governments changing (and won't be able to do them with countries already in the EU), or they have to take the risk that they'll be trying to do them all at once from a position of having none, which will snarl up Britain's own manufacturing. The very fact of overwork/too many desperately needed at once and Britain's own position with its manufacturing and not having somewhere to export goods to will put Britain as decided underdogs in most to all of these agreements because they need it desperately and quickly and the other country, for the most part, does not. Other countries will also be very aware that the government they are negotiating with is weak. Even if May's lot get chucked out, the next party will also be weak as the immediate and unavoidable shocks happen in the aftermath of actually leaving. There will be some and they will be unpopular, even if it is just teething trouble.

Ireland will need to do it ASAP. France may feel it important to get to work on it quickly too, but both of those must wait until after Britain's left. Trump's America (if he's still there in 2019) will be very eager indeed to work something out, oh yes, and will probably agree to doing it under the table early. But once Britain's out and negotiating alone, don't expect Trump's America to be nice to Britain. Britain is not America, just more foreigners to be gulled out of cash.

No, I don't envy Britain's negotiation power.

Good afternoon!

I don't think the UK are starting out from a position of weakness. There's a lot that the UK has to offer that the EU need and vice versa.

I think the UK are being sensible in the interests of both parties by putting forward transitional terms. Transitional arrangements are helpful to the EU, because trade with the EU is significant (despite what some on this thread would claim). Access to financial markets in London is crucial (despite what some on this thread would admit). I've made these arguments several times already, and there's little point repeating them much more.

Also, on the "China doesn't need Britain" argument. It's a fallacy. Let me tell you why. Of course China doesn't need Britain, but this doesn't mean that new opportunities for the Chinese to trade with Britain aren't desirable. They obviously are. Projects such as Hinkley Point C in Somerset show how much the Chinese would like to build a trading relationship. I think some of the naysaying about the UK's desirability as a trading partner is a bit silly. It is obvious as to why you'd want to open up a trading relationship with one of the world's biggest economies. If China is interested in signing a free trade deal with Iceland of course it will be interested in signing one with the UK.

I don't think it's just the UK relying on Trump. There is clear precedent for the US signing free trade deals with other countries. It's logic to suggest that if you're trading £80bn with the United States already, that a progressive trade deal will open this out. It's just nonsense for the hardcore Europhiles on this thread to present America as a kind of boogeyman with evil intent. The Americans will ask for much less than the EU demands of member states. It won't ask the UK to submit to American law in order to trade with them and they certainly won't be asking for free movement.

The whole point of a good transition is to ensure that the shocks that you speak of are alleviated heavily to the point that they won't happen.

If you lift your head up and look outside of the scope of the EU, there's a world to trade with. I'm hugely supportive of Britain taking that step forward. The talk of Britain not being able to do it is project fear round two and I really don't buy it. The case for progressive trading arrangements with other countries is really strong.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

America in general has always been open to trade deals, but Trump's America is out for what it can get. Obviously, countries will want to benefit themselves to the maximum with deals, but in normal times, a roughly equally beneficial outcome is desirable. These are not normal times. You only have to listen to President Art of the Deal to know that. Admittedly, he's a poor negotiator personally, but this should be fairly easy sauce for his people (assuming his people are still around by 2019, but it's a god knows who if it's someone else, so may as well stick with him. May is treating him with kidgloves on the strength of it).

You're correct in that there will be less regulations for American goods, because American regs are generally a lot more lax than the European ones that the UK has incorporated into their own systems. I'm not sure how much you'll enjoy their lack of regs in terms of foodstuffs though.

The China thing isn't really a fallacy. I'm not saying that China WILL NOT make a deal with Britain, just that China are in a far stronger position than Britain in doing so. China have survived just fine without the trade deals (bar what is indirectly through the EU at the moment), and can well afford to wait Britain out in terms of making deals to get the best possible Chinese deal. Why would you expect them to try to boost Britain along? If this was a small country in the Middle East saying that it was separating from other Arab countries because they can now trade with America and Britain, I suspect a lot of British would be sniggering and commenting that they might not want their goods and why should Britain by their holy saviour instead of taking what it can get out of it, especially when the country is abandoning all their current trade deals to do it. Or one American state that isn't California, maybe.

Maybe you truly do not feel that Britain is starting from a weak position, but the fact that Britain has to beg for transitional arrangements that benefit themselves more than the EU absolutely puts them in a weaker position. The one that needs the deals to survive versus the ones that won't object to another country to sell to is the one in the weaker bargaining position.

Also, why on earth should I not prefer the EU's side in this? I am, in fact, a European. My country is part of the EU bloc. Ireland is being negatively impacted by Britain's decision (not that it cares). No, I don't particularly want the EU to damage itself to bend over backwards for the UK's demanding this that and the other after the last eighteen months of bitching about the EU, the utter lack of regard for any damage that this does to all of their neighbours and trading partners bar "how can this help US?" and all the rest of it. If that makes me a Europhile, sure, I'm a Europhile. I don't particularly believe in punishing the UK harshly for it, but damn right I don't see why the other twenty-seven countries should prolong the pain to make things easier for a country whose loudly proclaimed best hopes is the collapse of the EU. "We may suffer, but we don't care so long as everyone else suffers. Er, can you please suffer a bit, this is getting a bit painful for us..." Articles like the one in the Telegraph hoping like hell that Ireland will want to jump off the cliff too are kinda depressingly desperate. No, in general, we don't.

But even there, it's not so much "Lift your head from the EU and look around", it's more really guys, you're geographically attached to EU territory, they are your physically closest potential trading partners, anything else than what you had before is going to be harder, more painful and more awkward to work through. Not impossible, just holy good grief, Britain's really relying on the goodwill of a world with little good will in it right now.

Samaris

Oh, the financial markets is a fair point, although there's been a fair amount of attrition. Still, if the UK doesn't completely screw itself, inertia will probably keep a thriving financial market in London.

Unfortunately for the rest of the country, the money made in London rather tends to stay in London. I don't know how that will be sorted out, unless they tax the hell out of it to redistribute to the rest of the country(countries), which may be necessary.

Capt'n Midnight

Calina wrote: »

Sensible is on a continuum in this case and this buys Labour time to lose Corbyn and get a reverse in the pro-Brexit nonsense. They should never have waved Article 50 through the way they did.

A lot can change in four years.

Yeah, Big Ben should be fixed by then if there aren't any delay.

But the UK doesn't have 4 years.

579 days and 9 hours to get a deal or extension agreed.

And the people in power have shown that they will do anything to stay in power so don't expect an election either unless there is a sea change. And Labour aren't proposing one.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

If you lift your head up and look outside of the scope of the EU, there's a world to trade with. I'm hugely supportive of Britain taking that step forward. The talk of Britain not being able to do it is project fear round two and I really don't buy it. The case for progressive trading arrangements with other countries is really strong.

Except Britain was already doing the majority of its trade with countries outside the EU though it was only a slight majority of just over 10%. You cite Hinkley C despite the fact that this was going ahead despite being in the EU so why you're using this example isn't terribly clear. If the EU was hindering Britain's trade with the wider world then that 44% figure would be a lot higher. Britain was in the perfect position to have its cake and eat it but instead voted to sunder that. Now, the country is in an either/or situation. Any time someone raises this concern, someone like yourself comes out with some canard like "Project fear round 2" because there simply is no argument to justify this mess.

I work in Science and I've staked my life here so I would dearly love to see some sort of economic positive instead of the usual nebulous talk of vague deals which may or may not happen.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

My point is if Britain gets a good trade deal that covers as much of this 44% as possible and new trade deals with other countries such as America and China to expand trade then there's every reason why Brexit can be a success.

Trade deals with China is it ?

Opium Wars are yesterday compared to 1590 and China plays the long game.

Let me drag this one out yet again. Just to remind you exactly how UK deals with China go these days.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/12/sajid-javid-uk-blocked-higher-eu-steel-tariffs-fearing-shoe-price-rises

The UK blocked tougher EU trade rules to help the steel industry partly because it could have raised the price of shoes for British shoppers, Sajid Javid has said.

The business secretary argued the UK opposed scrapping the so-called lesser duty rule as it would have “cost British shoppers dear”, including an extra £130m a year on the price of footwear – the equivalent of about £4.80 for each household.

The UK screwed over lots of EU steel jobs to save a fiver a year on cheap Chinese shoes. With the UK veto gone expect the EU to be a bit more active on dumping from China.

And expect China to dump more into the UK, and the EU to impose more customs checks on stuff arriving from the UK as a result.


But hey , slightly cheaper Chinese shoes for the UK Steelworkers.

Capt'n Midnight

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

This move by Labour is interesting - they have finally put some clear explainable policy difference between the two parties on this issue and have moved into some middle ground options before the Tories could claim it.

I can't see any difference.

Both want a transition period before the Hard Brexit, neither have proposed how to earn that transition by meeting the EU half way.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

You've ignored my point in respect to China entirely.

It's twofold and very simple.

Firstly - China are already seeking better inroads into the British economy and have been for several years.

Secondly - why do you think Britain has less chance of securing a FTA then Iceland does? You completely ignored this point.

Thirdly - as for the money staying in London point again I disagree with you. London is a contributor to the regions through taxation.

Again it depends on how you understand London. Do you include the home counties in that definition. There's even some people commuting from the south coast on my team. Obviously the income that they are receiving is having a knock on impact on the local economy where they live.

I definitely agree that there needs to be a lot done to build up productivity along from Liverpool to Hull. That conurbation particularly including Manchester and Leeds is incredibly promising. There's some great places to live straddling along the Peak District with equal access to both cities. Doncaster and Sheffield are also key. Spending on upgrading the M62 with the same consideration as the M25 and committing to High Speed 3 as well as HS2 and Crossrail is crucial. It's encouraging to see the growth of financial services in Bristol and Edinburgh.

Brexit has to work for the whole country. It is key to the UK's future. I'm hugely passionate about decentralisation. The UK certainly has it's problems with centralisation but it can say with confidence that there are varied and balanced labour markets outside of London. Ireland is far worse in this regard. Career opportunities are severely limited outside of Dublin. Manchester or any of the towns straddling it or Leeds is actually an area I'd consider strongly when I get fed up of London.

The UK is genuinely a great country to live and work in. That's probably why I'm rooting for it to do well. I don't have the same feeling in respect to the EU.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except Britain was already doing the majority of its trade with countries outside the EU though it was only a slight majority of just over 10%. You cite Hinkley C despite the fact that this was going ahead despite being in the EU so why you're using this example isn't terribly clear. If the EU was hindering Britain's trade with the wider world then that 44% figure would be a lot higher. Britain was in the perfect position to have its cake and eat it but instead voted to sunder that. Now, the country is in an either/or situation. Any time someone raises this concern, someone like yourself comes out with some canard like "Project fear round 2" because there simply is no argument to justify this mess.

I work in Science and I've staked my life here so I would dearly love to see some sort of economic positive instead of the usual nebulous talk of vague deals which may or may not happen.

You're missing my point again.

If China is investing in this way now, the opportunities will be better when trade terms are less restrictive. Harnessing and expanding non-EU trade will allow for easier trade flows between the UK and China meaning more of the same.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except Britain was already doing the majority of its trade with countries outside the EU though it was only a slight majority of just over 10%. You cite Hinkley C despite the fact that this was going ahead despite being in the EU so why you're using this example isn't terribly clear. If the EU was hindering Britain's trade with the wider world then that 44% figure would be a lot higher. Britain was in the perfect position to have its cake and eat it but instead voted to sunder that. Now, the country is in an either/or situation. Any time someone raises this concern, someone like yourself comes out with some canard like "Project fear round 2" because there simply is no argument to justify this mess.

I work in Science and I've staked my life here so I would dearly love to see some sort of economic positive instead of the usual nebulous talk of vague deals which may or may not happen.

You're missing my point again.

If China is investing in this way now, the opportunities will be better when trade terms are less restrictive. Harnessing and expanding non-EU trade will allow for easier trade flows between the UK and China meaning more of the same.

Edit: The benefits of a liberal trade policy are obvious. I've not seen any argument for continuing to chain Britain's trade policy.

America is the obvious option. It and China together are about half of the entire exports to the EU. It's a no brainer. Expand both these markets with liberal trade terms and substantial increases in trade are on the cards.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Samaris

Yees, I don't know if people are really considering what "end regulations" actually means. I think some of the European ones, notably on GM foods, are a bit harsh, but some are desperately needed.

First Up

ancapailldorcha wrote:

I work in Science and I've staked my life here so I would dearly love to see some sort of economic positive instead of the usual nebulous talk of vague deals which may or may not happen.

I'm curious to know what the Brexiteers think a trade "deal" actually means. The role of government is just to agree the terms under which trade is conducted and you can't make those any easier than a free trade agreement, which is what will shortly be in force between China and the EU.

So what sort of "deal" do they think the UK can get that is better? Are they dumb enough to think that a "deal" will oblige Chinese companies to buy from the UK?

China takes less than 4% of UK exports - a tenth of what UK companies sell into the Single Market. Do the Brexit fantasists seriously believe there is untapped potential in China that will magically become accessible to UK companies?

The delusion is jaw dropping.

Samaris

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

You've ignored my point in respect to China entirely.

It's twofold and very simple.

Firstly - China are already seeking better inroads into the British economy and have been for several years.

Secondly - why do you think Britain has less chance of securing a FTA then Iceland does? You completely ignored this point.

I missed the Iceland reference, gimme a sec.

I didn't ignore your China point, I think you rather misunderstood mine. Yes, Britain will probably get a trade deal with China. China will be absolutely grand with having one, but will not need it the same way that Britain, negotiating hither and yon with a stockpile of goods, will need it. That is where Britain is at a disadvantage.

Iceland would appear to be much more of a two countries negotiating with each other, both with their own strong trade markets. There is less NEED there.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Thirdly - as for the money staying in London point again I disagree with you. London is a contributor to the regions through taxation.

Again it depends on how you understand London. Do you include the home counties in that definition. There's even some people commuting from the south coast on my team. Obviously the income that they are receiving is having a knock on impact on the local economy where they live.

On the local economies, sure, but there's a lot of resentment between London and most of the rest of the country in terms of complaining about exactly what I just said - that money made in London tends to stay in London. More accurately, the south-east, sure, I'll grant that, but thems the visuals and it's not an unfair bit of aggro for the north and midlands. Some of this is inevitable, but if it's the financial sector being relied on as one of the UKs definite solvant sectors to keep the country afloat while they sort out everything else, it's going to lead to even more resentment. Doesn't help that London voted predominantly to stay, so that will probably remain a niggling issue when it comes to intranational resentment.

solodeogloria wrote: »

I definitely agree that there needs to be a lot done to build up productivity along from Liverpool to Hull. That conurbation particularly including Manchester and Leeds is incredibly promising. There's some great places to live straddling along the Peak District with equal access to both cities. Doncaster and Sheffield are also key. Spending on upgrading the M62 with the same consideration as the M25 and committing to High Speed 3 as well as HS2 and Crossrail is crucial. It's encouraging to see the growth of financial services in Bristol and Edinburgh.

Quite, and it's in Britain's best interests to make some serious movement on that. Unfortunately, the leadership is caught up in Brexit is Everything right now. Hopefully they will make some moves on that before it's crunch time because massive investment in underdeveloped parts of the country requires money to do it, and prior to this, the EU has generally helped out.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Brexit has to work for the whole country. It is key to the UK's future. I'm hugely passionate about decentralisation. The UK certainly has it's problems with centralisation but it can say with confidence that there are varied and balanced labour markets outside of London. Ireland is far worse in this regard. Career opportunities are severely limited outside of Dublin. Manchester or any of the cities straddling it or Leeds is actually an area I'd consider strongly when I get fed up of London.

The UK is genuinely a great country to live and work in. That's probably why I'm rooting for it to do well. I don't have the same feeling in respect to the EU.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I agree with your first couple of points, and Dublin is a fairly similar situation to London - if you can hold up Manchester and Leeds as examples, I can hold up Cork and Limerick. Both countries have similar issues with over-centralisation, both have some exceptions. Ireland probably is a bit worse off due to having less potential large population cities.

I lived in England for a few years. I'm half-English myself. I loved England while I was there. I am sorry to see Britain do this to itself, and I am glad I left when I did before it was made clear that I was an unwelcome outsider for not having been born there (there were hints at times, but mostly it was joshing. It seems to have gotten a lot more serious now). But just because I am sorry for and disappointed in Britain for doing this now of all times, when we really needed a sane large power to not act the complete dilly, does not mean that I don't think it is an extremely damaging direction it's taking and the talk around it from "Britain" (i.e. primarily news reports and what the politicians are saying) has been shameful in its selfish Little England outlook.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Projects such as Hinkley Point C in Somerset show how much the Chinese would like to build a trading relationship.

The UK used to be a leader in nuclear.

It's now an importer of technology and capital and will have problems getting nuclear materials and foreign workers since leaving the the ECJ also means leaving Euratom. And EDF has been hovering on bankruptcy for a long time.

Moorside is similar.


And besides what is the UK offering in this deal other than the right to fleece the consumer ?


It's the reverse of the relationship they used to have with the rest of the Empire. But good luck getting a Little englander to appreciate that.

ancapailldorcha

solodeogloria wrote: »

If China is investing in this way now, the opportunities will be better when trade terms are less restrictive. Harnessing and expanding non-EU trade will allow for easier trade flows between the UK and China meaning more of the same.

Except that the Hinkley C deal is a pretty bad deal for consumers. Good if you're a Brexiteer who needs to show off some sort of sign that things are progressing somewhat, bad if you're anyone else.

From The Guardian:

The Guardian wrote:

Much has also been said about Hinkley C’s “nuclear strike price” - the price the government has guaranteed EDF per unit of electricity produced.

To secure French and Chinese investment, the last coalition government agreed in 2013 to pay £92.5 per megawatt hour (Mwh) of electricity – rising in line with inflation– for the first 35 years of the plant’s life. Critics say this now looks like a bad deal following the collapse in the wholesale price of energy in the last three years. Currently, £92.50 per Mwh is more than twice the cost of wholesale electricity.

These guarantees could end up costing UK consumers up to £30bn, according to the National Audit Office – five times the original 2013 estimate.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Edit: The benefits of a liberal trade policy are obvious. I've not seen any argument for continuing to chain Britain's trade policy.

America is the obvious option. It and China together are about half of the entire exports to the EU. It's a no brainer. Expand both these markets with liberal trade terms and substantial increases in trade are on the cards.

Except that the government will be under pressure to make progress which increases the likelihood of these deals being bad for UK consumers such as the Hinkley C deal above. Factor in that Trump's campaign was explicitly anti-free trade and pro-Protectionism and things don't look promising on this front.

solodeogloria

Good afternoon!

Samaris wrote: »

I missed the Iceland reference, gimme a sec.

I didn't ignore your China point, I think you rather misunderstood mine. Yes, Britain will probably get a trade deal with China. China will be absolutely grand with having one, but will not need it the same way that Britain, negotiating hither and yon with a stockpile of goods, will need it. That is where Britain is at a disadvantage.

For the record, I don't think Britain absolutely "needs" it either. It would be beneficial to both countries.

I don't quite understand the double think in respect to this. For the pro-EU side of this argument it seems like every other prospect of a free trade deal is sinister while anything to do with the EU is all benevolent. The argument is much more nuanced than this.

Some posters were nearly insisting that America would be a kind of great Satan if the UK was going to do trade with it. This is just irrational paranoia.

Samaris wrote: »

Iceland would appear to be much more of a two countries negotiating with each other, both with their own strong trade markets. There is less NEED there.

I'm sorry, this is just a joke. There's no way that Iceland could be a stronger prospect for trade than Britain which is both in the G7 and the G20. There is also no way that Iceland has more to offer than the UK. The idea that the UK would get a worse deal than Iceland is absurd.

Samaris wrote: »

On the local economies, sure, but there's a lot of resentment between London and most of the rest of the country in terms of complaining about exactly what I just said - that money made in London tends to stay in London. More accurately, the south-east, sure, I'll grant that, but thems the visuals and it's not an unfair bit of aggro for the north and midlands. Some of this is inevitable, but if it's the financial sector being relied on as one of the UKs definite solvant sectors to keep the country afloat while they sort out everything else, it's going to lead to even more resentment. Doesn't help that London voted predominantly to stay, so that will probably remain a niggling issue when it comes to intranational resentment.

I'm one of the strongest advocates of decentralisation in Britain. You're preaching to the choir. For the record, I think incentivising financial services to disperse through other cities is also a good idea. Barclays Capital being based in Salford is a great example, the same with Bank of America Merill Lynch in Chester and JP Morgan in Glasgow and in Bournemouth.

Birmingham in addition to Manchester and Leeds are looking very attractive for people who are priced out of London. MediaCity UK is a huge success in Manchester and the Government are trying to encourage Channel 4 to move to the East Midlands or Wales.

Samaris wrote: »

Quite, and it's in Britain's best interests to make some serious movement on that. Unfortunately, the leadership is caught up in Brexit is Everything right now. Hopefully they will make some moves on that before it's crunch time because massive investment in underdeveloped parts of the country requires money to do it, and prior to this, the EU has generally helped out.

The (British taxpayers) money the EU gives (back) to Britain is relatively small (£4.5bn). It won't cover as much as you expect and the UK Government have invested and are investing further in the north in particular. I agree that it needs to do more.

Samaris wrote: »

I agree with your first couple of points, and Dublin is a fairly similar situation to London - if you can hold up Manchester and Leeds as examples, I can hold up Cork and Limerick. Both countries have similar issues with over-centralisation, both have some exceptions. Ireland probably is a bit worse off due to having less potential large population cities.

I lived in England for a few years. I'm half-English myself. I loved England while I was there. I am sorry to see Britain do this to itself, and I am glad I left when I did before it was made clear that I was an unwelcome outsider for not having been born there (there were hints at times, but mostly it was joshing. It seems to have gotten a lot more serious now). But just because I am sorry for and disappointed in Britain for doing this now of all times, when we really needed a sane large power to not act the complete dilly, does not mean that I don't think it is an extremely damaging direction it's taking and the talk around it from "Britain" (i.e. primarily news reports and what the politicians are saying) has been shameful in its selfish Little England outlook.

The Dublin problem is worse. A quarter of Britain's population don't live in the greater London area. There are sizeable job markets in other cities. This isn't true of Cork, Galway or Limerick.

The proof is if you go and search for jobs in my field on Linkedin, you'll find hundreds in that stretch between Liverpool and Hull, but if you look in Galway or Cork you'll find a handful at most. Many of the jobs in the northern section of England would also pay pretty well comparative to what I'm even earning now in London. I reckon if I moved to nearly any major town in the UK with a population over 100,000 it wouldn't be long before I found a job. I'm not sure the same would be true outside of Dublin in Ireland.

I also don't feel like an outsider, I have great friends, I have a good job and a good working relationship, and I have a good church to be stuck in with.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I don't think the UK are starting out from a position of weakness. There's a lot that the UK has to offer that the EU need

Like what ?

The UK is a nett importer of many things not just food and workers.
But apart from food and workers the exports match the imports so not much of a nett change for the EU.

Rolls Royce contracts are negotiated year ahead and they are sitting on a huge pile of cash.

German car makers accepted they'd make less profit in the UK market a long time ago and accepted that they wouldn't be able to anything about the politics. UK car industry is now offering lots of scrappage deals as spending has dropped at the lower end of the market.

Lemming

solodeogloria wrote: »

I thought Fred lived in South Dublin. Please explain why you think Britain needs Brexit?

It's quite simple really; the referendum vote has - to put it bluntly - broken something in England's* national consciousness. Whether it's broken 'something' or simply allowed jingoism bubble to the surface in greater volume is irrelevant; the Brexit religion is being driven primarily by English nationalism's attempts to reassert itself and/or figure out its standing in the world. Even if Brexit is halted tomorrow with all sins forgiven, the Brexit narrative would linger and fester. In medical parlance, the cancer has reached the patients brain and is now terminal. In order for Brexit to die, Brexit has to be allowed happen, and for the people to see just how great an idea it really is, and for whom.


* When I say "England" or "English", I mean just that.

First Up

Lemming wrote:

In order for Brexit to die, Brexit has to be allowed happen, and for the people to see just how great an idea it really is, and for whom.

I have some sympathy for what you say but blood-letting makes a mess and it was dropped as a medical practice some time ago.

I'd prefer to see the blood spilled over the floor of Westminster than all over the British economy. A Tory implosion, a (Corbynless) Labour/SD revival, an election and a return to sanity would be preferable in my book.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

It is remarkable that when the Labour party makes a massive climb down that nobody calls Jeremy Corbyn the U-turn king.

Actually the Labour position isn't that remarkable at present. Calling for temporary membership of the single market and customs union and with a transition before new customs arrangements, immigration arrangements and trade arrangements come into force is quite sensible and isn't a million miles away from what the Tories are asking for.

I think a good order of implementing Brexit is to slowly pull out of the customs union and arrange new customs arrangements then after building up trade terms pull out of the single market and end free movement.

I would be still seeking controls on low skilled labour after 2019. Immigration isn't my hottest issue. Control over trade terms is.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Good evening S. I apologise if I have been dismissive of your position. Your posts are well written and clear. However, there's some things I don't get with your position.

You said you voted remain, yet clearly your beliefs are aligned with the leave side. You said immigration isn't your hottest issue, implying it is an issue. You also seem to think that all of the negotiating teams ideas are viable and their aims are realistic. You clearly believe Brexit is a good thing. Then why did you vote remain?

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good evening S. I apologise if I have been dismissive of your position. Your posts are well written and clear. However, there's some things I don't get with your position.

You said you voted remain, yet clearly your beliefs are aligned with the leave side. You said immigration isn't your hottest issue, implying it is an issue. You also seem to think that all of the negotiating teams ideas are viable and their aims are realistic. You clearly believe Brexit is a good thing. Then why did you vote remain?

Good afternoon!

I don't know why you ask this as if I haven't answered this already on this thread. I have and many times. I voted remain because I voted for the status quo. I also believed the projections from the Treasury and the IMF which were wrong. I think I started off by arguing that the UK should leave to respect the referendum. I've now settled on the conclusion that the UK is better off outside the EU.

I think I was wrong about Brexit. I think there are definitely opportunities outside of the EU if Brexit is carried out carefully. That's key. Brexit is only a good thing in the right circumstances.

As for immigration controls, I think these should only be sought for low skilled labour. There were clear concerns about this in the referendum and I think it needs to be dealt with.

I think we'll see something between what the EU are seeking and what Britain are seeking. I don't believe the no deal scenario is likely at all.

The thing I find more bizarre is why people think the UK cannot succeed outside of the EU. I see plenty of opportunities when I put my mind to it. The idea that you need the EU to be a successful free-trading Western nation is obviously not true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I don't know why you ask this as if I haven't answered this already on this thread. I have and many times. I voted remain because I voted for the status quo. I also believed the projections from the Treasury and the IMF which were wrong. I think I started off by arguing that the UK should leave to respect the referendum. I've now settled on the conclusion that the UK is better off outside the EU.

I think I was wrong about Brexit. I think there are definitely opportunities outside of the EU if Brexit is carried out carefully. That's key. Brexit is only a good thing in the right circumstances.

As for immigration controls, I think these should only be sought for low skilled labour. There were clear concerns about this in the referendum and I think it needs to be dealt with.

I think we'll see something between what the EU are seeking and what Britain are seeking. I don't believe the no deal scenario is likely at all.

The thing I find more bizarre is why people think the UK cannot succeed outside of the EU. I see plenty of opportunities when I put my mind to it. The idea that you need the EU to be a successful free-trading Western nation is obviously not true.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Thanks for your answer. The bit in bold is true since we have an example of what Britain looked like outside of the EU. it wasn't pretty and the country was close to bankruptcy.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thanks for your answer. The bit in bold is true since we have an example of what Britain looked like outside of the EU. it wasn't pretty and the country was close to bankruptcy.

Good afternoon!

I've answered this point already. You need to consider who was in Government at the time and the backdrop to that crisis.

You also need to consider the role of Margaret Thatcher in reforming the UK economy.

Claiming that the EEC rescued Britain is simplistic. Even if it did the EEC in the 1970's and the EU today are very different things. The world today is also very different to the world in the 1970's. The EU's place in the world is different today economically speaking than it was in the 1970's.

Repeating the same old points again and again and again and again do not make them more convincing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good afternoon!

I've answered this point already. You need to consider who was in Government at the time and the backdrop to that crisis.

You also need to consider the role of Margaret Thatcher in reforming the UK economy.

Claiming that the EEC rescued Britain is simplistic. Even if it did the EEC in the 1970's and the EU today are very different things. The world today is also very different to the world in the 1970's. The EU's place in the world is different today economically speaking than it was in the 1970's.

Repeating the same old points again and again and again and again do not make them more convincing.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I don't think it can all be put down to Thatcher. It's simplistic to say so. The UK economy joined a big single market and grew in correlation with that single market. If Britain is so strong without the single market surely they don't need a trade deal. They could just fall back on WTO rules. Also I'm having a hard time believing you don't believe the treasury department but believe predictions made by Brexiters.

By the way Britain's economy is already showing signs of serious slowdown as Reuters details:

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s economy is beginning to feel the Brexit pinch, or perhaps given the strong performance of the rest of the world economy, it should be punch.

After a prolonged period of relatively benign economic numbers following last year’s vote to leave the European Union, there are now signs of a potentially serious slow down.

They stretch from retrenching households to hesitant businesses, from a widening trade deficit to lacklustre manufacturing. They also come just as the EU and Britain return to the negotiating table, the latter with a handful of new post-Brexit position papers.

Since mid-August, London has been releasing official papers on issues such as trade, customs, the European Court of Justice, and what the province of Northern Ireland’s future border with EU member Ireland will look like.

The performance of Britain’s pound over that period suggests few people were impressed enough with them -- or with the likelihood they will come to pass -- to overcome the economic signs.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

I don't think it can all be put down to Thatcher. It's simplistic to say so. The UK economy joined a big single market and grew in correlation with that single market. If Britain is so strong without the single market surely they don't need a trade deal. They could just fall back on WTO rules. Also I'm having a hard time believing you don't believe the treasury department but believe predictions made by Brexiters.

By the way Britain's economy is already showing signs of serious slowdown as Reuters details:

Good evening!

Again - you're misconstruing my position. The best outcome for the UK is that a trade deal is agreed that covers most of the 44% of EU exports that happens today alongside new trading arrangements to expand UK trade for the rest of the world 56%.

I don't know why you insist on caricaturing my position. The Treasury and the IMF said there would be a recession in 2017. They were wrong. The UK Government is doing much better than this in 2017. Yes, growth has slowed. I'm not under any pretence, there is a lot of work to be done.

The opportunities however are very bright if the UK handles this correctly.

I don't believe the apocalypse stories. There will be a centre position formed after the initial and inevitable argy bargy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Again - you're misconstruing my position. The best outcome for the UK is that a trade deal is agreed that covers most of the 44% of EU exports that happens today alongside new trading arrangements to expand UK trade for the rest of the world 56%.

Can you explain how staying in the single market doesn't satisfy these conditions?

First Up

steddyeddy wrote:

Can you explain how staying in the single market doesn't satisfy these conditions?

Why do you bother?