Brexit discussion thread II

Water John

Well the politicians abdicated their responsibility in the matter to the people by way of referendum, even though we all know it had to be a Westminister political decision. Well they can do that again. The shape of what faces the UK will be a lot different than what most people imagined the last time they voted.
It will be a savage, hard and bloody campaign. But only the weak would shy away from it.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

You want access to the single market without the regulations and you want to be totally out of the EU........

Sorry S. I tried but I don't believe you find that position credible unless you're parodying the Brexit negotiating team.

I'll just debate against Brexit in general as I don't think your posts make sense.

Good evening!

So what argument have you presented so far? I can't see anything.

I don't think it's massively fruitful to respond to one liners.

Jim2007 wrote: »

The problem is that they have no acceptable mechanism for changing their mind - the political parties own the decision and that makes it a big U turn issue! If I look at Ireland and Switzerland (the two I know), the people own the decision and it is not seen as a failing or victory for a political party. That makes it easier to renegotiate, to reconsider and vote again.

You mean when politicians sell the people short and say 'wrong answer'.

That isn't what I want for the UK as it isn't genuine democracy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Water John

Solo, the All Ireland Hurling Final was on. We all have priorities in life.
But I do think Davis telling us the EU was frightened of Brexit, was a funny joke.

Nody

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

If the Sunday times is to be believed, they are reporting that May has secretly agreed to a €50bn exit fee.

This kind of kite flying is interesting had to be said.

The more I think of it the more I think this was a very much intentional leak from the government. The story will go like this; first of all fuel the rage about EU etc. to overshadow the lack of progress made but come October and the Conservative party convention the story line shared by David will look something like this:

"When we started negotiation they wanted us to pay over £80 billion"
*Crowd boos*
"I know, I know; we went through every line and pushed them back with our lawyers and got it down to £60 billion"
*Crowd boos*
"I know, I know; we then pointed out the value of trade with UK, their need for us and got it down to £50 billion"
*Crowd boos*
"I know, I know; but we'd not settle for that as the pluck British spirit continued we kept hammering them until we got it down to £35 billion with £20 only after 3 years on multiple conditions related to trade meaning if we don't get the trade we want they don't get paid!"
*Crowd cheers*

By leaking the £50 billion now any number below it will simply look better by comparison.

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

So what argument have you presented so far? I can't see anything.

I don't think it's massively fruitful to respond to one liners.



You mean when politicians sell the people short and say 'wrong answer'.

That isn't what I want for the UK as it isn't genuine democracy.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

I've provided arguements against Brexit. Your position has changed several times. You (possibly without knowing it) described a hard Brexit, soft Brexit and full access to the single market without being in the single market.

My arguements against Brexit are economical. E.G Brexit hasn't happened yet but the implications have reduced the British economy to the worst performing economy in the world.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

I've provided arguements against Brexit. Your position has changed several times. You (possibly without knowing it) described a hard Brexit, soft Brexit and full access to the single market without being in the single market.

My arguements against Brexit are economical. E.G Brexit hasn't happened yet but the implications have reduced the British economy to the worst performing economy in the world.

Good evening!

Didn't you read what I said about the worst performing? It isn't the worst in the world. It is the worst within the G7. Naturally. It's because of temporary uncertainty.

This isn't an argument against Brexit. It is an argument against uncertainty which everyone remainer or Brexiteer alike wants to get sorted.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sand

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Didn't you read what I said about the worst performing? It isn't the worst in the world. It is the worst within the G7. Naturally. It's because of temporary uncertainty.

This isn't an argument against Brexit. It is an argument against uncertainty which everyone remainer or Brexiteer alike wants to get sorted.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The longer the uncertainty goes on, and the greater the economic pressure that results, the greater the advantage to the EU in the negotiations. So its bemusing why the UK are so unprepared and so slow to address the phase 1 issues. It is in their interest to solve these issues quickly. But they seem too incompetent to do so, or too unwilling to recognise that Brexit means the UK will no longer be able to access the benefits of EU membership.

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Didn't you read what I said about the worst performing? It isn't the worst in the world. It is the worst within the G7. Naturally. It's because of temporary uncertainty.

This isn't an argument against Brexit. It is an argument against uncertainty which everyone remainer or Brexiteer alike wants to get sorted.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Worst in G7
Worst in EU 28 too.

And 2nd worst in the G20 only ahead of South Africa where trade, catering and accommodation industry are down because of political instability.




Russia was 0.5%


The uncertainty is that the UK could still remain and so the full effects of exiting the EU have not been felt yet.

Capt'n Midnight

Remember too the UK economy is under performing despite the competitive advantage of the fall in Sterling and it's real impact on labour costs and the continued benefits of EU trade deals with most of the planet.

murphaph

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good evening!

Didn't you read what I said about the worst performing? It isn't the worst in the world. It is the worst within the G7. Naturally. It's because of temporary uncertainty.

This isn't an argument against Brexit. It is an argument against uncertainty which everyone remainer or Brexiteer alike wants to get sorted.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Sorry that's rubbish. If the outcome of Brexit was likely to be positive then uncertainty surrounding the status quo or a positive change would not cause the UK economy to slow. It's slowing because that is not the choice. The choice is between staying in and leaving SM and CU. Leaving will deal a killer blow to the economy.

The analogy is the seriously ill person. There is uncertainty as to whether they will die or recover. The uncertainty is unpleasant but only because one of the outcomes is really unpleasant and one hopes for the other one.

Think about it for a moment. The UK economy was powering ahead until recently. Now it's the worst performing in the G7. It's because business and investors fear leaving the single market and customs union. No other reason. Investment decisions are on hold. They aren't waiting to hear that it's hard Brexit before resuming their investments!

ancapailldorcha

The thing to bear in mind when people talk about a weak pound boosting exports is that that same weak pound must be used to purchase components where they are not readily available domestically. Car components are moved across the EU quite regularly so Nissan in Sunderland will find various things getting more expensive the long this goes on. These costs will inevitably be borne by the consumer who may opt for cheaper cars assembled on the continent. Sure, cheaper financial services might boost the economy but that's going to be very little use to anyone who works in what remains of the UK's manufacturing sector.

solodeogloria

Good evening!

Last post for today.

murphaph wrote: »

Sorry that's rubbish. If the outcome of Brexit was likely to be positive then uncertainty surrounding the status quo or a positive change would not cause the UK economy to slow. It's slowing because that is not the choice. The choice is between staying in and leaving SM and CU. Leaving will deal a killer blow to the economy.

The analogy is the seriously ill person. There is uncertainty as to whether they will die or recover. The uncertainty is unpleasant but only because one of the outcomes is really unpleasant and one hopes for the other one.

Think about it for a moment. The UK economy was powering ahead until recently. Now it's the worst performing in the G7. It's because business and investors fear leaving the single market and customs union. No other reason. Investment decisions are on hold. They aren't waiting to hear that it's hard Brexit before resuming their investments!

I still hold that it is only the slowest in the G7 due to the uncertainty that Brexit has brought. When terms are established and clear this uncertainty will dissipate.

You've presented another false dichotomy. Again, there is no reason why a third country trade deal can't be struck. There is precedent for it within the European Union. We knew the negotiations would be difficult, but with the right transition, and with the right end goal I am sure that the British economy will do well.

There is no point saying a free trade arrangement isn't an option when it has clear precedent.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Capt'n Midnight

solodeogloria wrote: »

I still hold that it is only the slowest in the G7 due to the uncertainty that Brexit has brought. When terms are established and clear this uncertainty will dissipate.

Slowest in EU28
Slowest in G20 except for South Africa which has unrest.

Uncertainty won't be the only thing dissipating.

Like I posted before there is no certainty the UK could get a CETA deal as they don't export as may raw materials or petroleum products or other stuff the EU needs. Even if they did it won't apply to everything and can take up to 8 YEARS for full reduction of tariffs.


For high tech companies 8 years is a long time, many would refurbish their plant on those timescales so there is very little point in toughing it out in the UK. It could be cheaper to build a new plant in the EU and then the following one back in the UK if Brexit works out.

steddyeddy

The Brexit negotiating team seems to be sick of the uneducated assumptions coming from Brexiters. Barnier says that the UK "needs to be educated about the consequences of leaving the EU". I hope he does because UK politicians have done little to educate the public.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-41140564

Lemming

They'll all be educated soon enough one way or another.

Water John

I'm fine with LB having an evolving strategy. It's the unbending branch, (Tories) that snaps in the wind.

oppenheimer1

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The thing to bear in mind when people talk about a weak pound boosting exports is that that same weak pound must be used to purchase components where they are not readily available domestically. Car components are moved across the EU quite regularly so Nissan in Sunderland will find various things getting more expensive the long this goes on. These costs will inevitably be borne by the consumer who may opt for cheaper cars assembled on the continent. Sure, cheaper financial services might boost the economy but that's going to be very little use to anyone who works in what remains of the UK's manufacturing sector.

Which leads us to an interesting observation. The UK has seen a sharp depreciation in the value of the pound but only a very modest increase in exports and only a very small change in the current account deficit. The muted response to the fall in Sterling goes against the classic expectation but can be understood in the context of modern supply chains.

RDM_83 again

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Worst in G7
Worst in EU 28 too.

And 2nd worst in the G20 only ahead of South Africa where trade, catering and accommodation industry are down because of political instability.




Russia was 0.5%


The uncertainty is that the UK could still remain and so the full effects of exiting the EU have not been felt yet.

I am fairly certain this has been pointed out on this thread already but using Q1 for the UK (and also USA) will show deceptively worse performance than other countries as they tend to have a slow Q1, particularly if your comparing it against Q4 which normally shows high activity.

Peregrinus

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I am fairly certain this has been pointed out on this thread already but using Q1 for the UK (and also USA) will show deceptively worse performance than other countries as they tend to have a slow Q1, particularly if your comparing it against Q4 which normally shows high activity.

Is this more true for the UK than for other economies?

I can only hope that the European side realised early on how ridiculous this was going to get and they prepared for it and will mitigate the impact on Ireland. Because the UK are really, really terrible at this.

RDM_83 again

Peregrinus wrote: »

Is this more true for the UK than for other economies?

I can't find a source for this at the minute but AFAIK its to do with Christmas in UK and USA which results in good Q4's and bad Q1's where as other countries are a bit less commercial about Xmass.
Take a look at the Quarterly performance last year for the UK and you will see a similar pattern.
I do think the UK is going to be hit quite hard economically by Brexit but the idea that seems popular on this thread that its an economic basket doesn't appear to be true (last page you have people thanking a post that says its the worst performer in the world :rolleyes: ).

Incidentally the idea that the UK last year performing much better than post Brexit predictions isn't a refutation of these experts as the measures to prevent those results occuring has some merit.
However and this is the important thing, this also applies to the Eurozone countries as well the ECB has been extending Quantative Easing till 2019 AFAIK.
Yes mainland Europe is showing growth but the southern countries aren't exactly economically healthy, people aren't talking about the Italian banks much these days but that huge problem hasn't gone away and in my opinion the silence on it is a deliberate policy.

listermint

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I can't find a source for this at the minute but AFAIK its to do with Christmas in UK and USA which results in good Q4's and bad Q1's where as other countries are a bit less commercial about Xmass.
Take a look at the Quarterly performance last year for the UK and you will see a similar pattern.
I do think the UK is going to be hit quite hard economically by Brexit but the idea that seems popular on this thread that its an economic basket doesn't appear to be true (last page you have people thanking a post that says its the worst performer in the world :rolleyes: ).

Incidentally the idea that the UK last year performing much better than post Brexit predictions isn't a refutation of these experts as the measures to prevent those results occuring has some merit.
However and this is the important thing, this also applies to the Eurozone countries as well the ECB has been extending Quantative Easing till 2019 AFAIK.
Yes mainland Europe is showing growth but the southern countries aren't exactly economically healthy, people aren't talking about the Italian banks much these days but that huge problem hasn't gone away and in my opinion the silence on it is a deliberate policy.

This is counter to what the IMF have said though.

Explain


https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/23/imf-the-rest-of-the-world-is-picking-up-the-economic-slack-as-us-looks-weaker.html

A weaker-than-expected first quarter also spurred the IMF to cut its forecast for U.K. growth for this year to 1.7 percent from 2.0 percent, while leaving its 2018 forecast at 1.5 percent.
But slowdowns in the U.S. and U.K. were expected to be offset by increased forecasts for many euro area countries, including Germany, France, Italy and Spain, where first quarter growth largely beat expectations, the IMF said.

Peregrinus

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I do think the UK is going to be hit quite hard economically by Brexit but the idea that seems popular on this thread that its an economic basket doesn't appear to be true (last page you have people thanking a post that says its the worst performer in the world :rolleyes: ).

I agree. The notion that Brexit will reduce the UK to a primitive community of hunter-gatherers is not really correct.

But I do think that, in any given set of global economic circumstances, the UK would probably be better off remaining with the Union that it would having left it.

We'll never actually know this for sure, since regardless of whether Brexit proceeds or not all we will ever be able to do is compare what actually unfolds with a speculative might-have-been if history had unfolded the other way. And we tend to construct our might-have-beens in a way that comfort us and validate our beliefs. It's all just handwaving about the UK being "nimble" it its negotiation of trade deals.

Still, most of the economic arguments for Brexit that I have seen seem to me either extremely vague and to rely on a fair degree of wishful thinking, or when laid out in detail simply don't stack up.

For example, the UK currently enjoys a high degree of trade freedom through its participation in the single market and in the Union's network of trade deals with third countries. Between them, this covers about 60% of the UK's international trade; the remaining 40% is conducted on WTO terms. They lose all this through Brexit and have to rebuild their own network of free trade agreements starting from scratch, but the degree of freedom they can achieve is limited by their own red lines - no single market, no customs union, no supranational courts with jurisdiction in the UK. It seems impossible, starting from this point and subjecting themselves to these constraints, that they can ever get back to the high-water-mark of trade freedom that they currently have. But I haven't seen a serious discussion from the Brexit side that joins these dots, and confronts the issue that they raise.

Thomas__

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

ambro25 wrote: »

The EU has done the classic schoolboy error of giving some pocket money here and some marbles there by way of ransom for too long: the EU EEC should have put the brakes on the UK's exceptionalism from day one, steadfastly so, rather than give the UK a rebate here, an opt-out there, and exceptions everywhere, time and again every time the UK asked.

Unsurprisingly, the UK has grown a "political philosophy" of entitlement after a while. After the UK asked for one exception too far with Brexit (particularly, all that the UK "wants" on the back thereof), these negotiations are its long-overdue "political philosophy" re-adjustment: the bullied is the bigger kid by far, and not afraid to land a punch or ten anymore.

Long may it continue.

Excellent post. However, the above is ultimately the issue in a nutshell. The EU tried to appease the UK with a rebate and other concessions. David Cameron tried to appease Tory paleosceptics with a referendum to prevent them from defecting to UKIP. Both appeasement policies failed because trying to appease fanatics by granting them concessions only serves to embolden them.

The risk of the EU playing hardball with the UK was the perceived loss of Sovereignty. With Brexit and the failure of the far right to dismantle the EU (ultimately what this was all about) means that the EU now has free reign to act in the interests of 27 with the kid gloves well and truly off. I hope it does so because the border issue in Ireland is of paramount importance and entirely of the British public's making.

demfad wrote: »

I don't think you understand how it works.

With respect, this is more reflective of yourself. If the populace wants to swallow a pile of easy answers offered by fanatics, idiots and lunatics and votes in that manner then it only has itself to blame.

That´s fair enough. Still, there´s more to it than just the points raised in your post. I also take into account the failures of the establishment and sometimes real arrogance combined with a sense of refusal to listen to the public and their concerns. By arrogance I mean the attitude of the establishment to consider the wide populace as being "too stupid" to understand the complexities which goes hand in hand with the fact that the world has become more complicated indeed and the elits are either too lazy or incapable of explaining it to the people and making suggestions about how to solve problems in a way that is straight to the point and which is understandable for everybody. The others are keen and cunny enough to exploit that for their own political purposes and Brexit is just one example for various issues.

Just to point this out but I agree with you anyway.

Samaris

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Yes mainland Europe is showing growth but the southern countries aren't exactly economically healthy, people aren't talking about the Italian banks much these days but that huge problem hasn't gone away and in my opinion the silence on it is a deliberate policy.

To be honest though, Italian people are probably talking about. Likely the Greeks and citizens of another couple of countries. We're mostly talking about what's going on in the Anglophone world, unless something really crazy and noticeable happens.

We've generally got all on with the news from Britain, America and Ireland, bits of political news from Germany and France and the odd rumblings from the rest of the world (or as the Express which is really having fun with this headline would put it WORLD WAR III!!)

It's not necessarily deliberate, more likely that people are just paying more attention to things that aren't foreign banking systems.

Capt'n Midnight

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I am fairly certain this has been pointed out on this thread already but using Q1 for the UK (and also USA) will show deceptively worse performance than other countries as they tend to have a slow Q1, particularly if your comparing it against Q4 which normally shows high activity.

The diamond on the graph shows last year.

So while the US is similar to this time last year the UK has dropped.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

We'll never actually know this for sure, since regardless of whether Brexit proceeds or not all we will ever be able to do is compare what actually unfolds with a speculative might-have-been if history had unfolded the other way.

We have 44 years of UK vs. EU average growth and vs. specific countries like Germany growth.

In 20 years, we will be able to point at the inflection in Britain's growth graph where it drops away from EU growth, and measure how far behind it is.

But it will be far too late to ever make up the lost years, even by rejoining the EU.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We have 44 years of UK vs. EU average growth and vs. specific countries like Germany growth.

In 20 years, we will be able to point at the inflection in Britain's growth graph where it drops away from EU growth, and measure how far behind it is.

Yes, perhaps. But, even if so, we won't be able to say that it dropped away and fell behind because of Brexit, or that it wouldn't have dropped behind but for Brexit. Other factors will also be at work in the intervening 20 years.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, perhaps. But, even if so, we won't be able to say that it dropped away and fell behind because of Brexit, or that it wouldn't have dropped behind but for Brexit.

Economics is not an exact science in many areas, but trade, tariffs, non-tariff barriers to trade are very well studied and understood. That's why there is a global push to deals like NAFTA, TTIP, TTP - we know that freer trade enables growth (overall - where the growth happens and in what sector is what drives the long negotiations).

So we know in advance that if Brexit leads to tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade for the UK, it will slow growth.

So when growth slows when tariffs and other barriers appear, it will be a very difficult position to defend to say this is a coincidence.

Peregrinus

Oh, sure. It won't be a coincidence. Brexit will be damaging to the UK economically. There's no question in my mind about that.

My point is that we won't be able to prove that the damage is attributable to Brexit. Those who have a psychological commitment to Brexit, who want to believe that it has been good for Britain, will be able to tell themselves that Britain's underperformance is not attributable to Brexit, but to other factors (first among them being the malice of Eurocrats who have "punished" the UK by denying it this, that or the other). And while we may be satisfied that they are wrong, it won't be possible to demonstrate that they are wrong.

Akrasia

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, perhaps. But, even if so, we won't be able to say that it dropped away and fell behind because of Brexit, or that it wouldn't have dropped behind but for Brexit. Other factors will also be at work in the intervening 20 years.

We mightn't be able to say that the economy worsened because of brexit, but we will be able to say that the claims of the pro-brexit side that the british economy will boom outside of the EU were totally wrong.

The pro-brexit side say that Britain is being held back economically by the EU.

If the UK unemployment rate is higher in 5 years time, and if the UK GDP growth is lower than the EU average, then it is pretty comprehensive evidence that Brexit was a failure. They promised improvements, not declines.

donaghs

steddyeddy wrote: »

It's amazing they barely teach this stuff at school. This has come back to bite them.

Actually, they do teach this stuff in schools in the UK. Post-colonial guilt has become a big thing in the UK.

That's a clear difference between the Japanese view of history, where mass rape and murder in Nanking can be reinterpreted as "a few bad apples" and native women offering their services as "comfort women".
In the last 15 years in France and Russia, there has been official government effort to try and portray their colonial past in a more positive light.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/15/highereducation.artsandhumanities
This wouldn't be acceptable in modern Britain.

wes

donaghs wrote: »

Actually, they do teach this stuff in schools in the UK. Post-colonial guilt has become a big thing in the UK.

That's a clear difference between the Japanese view of history, where mass rape and murder in Nanking can be reinterpreted as "a few bad apples" and native women offering their services as "comfort women".
In the last 15 years in France and Russia, there has been official government effort to try and portray their colonial past in a more positive light.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/15/highereducation.artsandhumanities
This wouldn't be acceptable in modern Britain.

What are you on about? The Brits actively engaged in wiping there colonial crimes from history. See Operation Legacy. The Brits are no different than the rest of them.

steddyeddy

donaghs wrote: »

Actually, they do teach this stuff in schools in the UK. Post-colonial guilt has become a big thing in the UK.

That's a clear difference between the Japanese view of history, where mass rape and murder in Nanking can be reinterpreted as "a few bad apples" and native women offering their services as "comfort women".
In the last 15 years in France and Russia, there has been official government effort to try and portray their colonial past in a more positive light.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/15/highereducation.artsandhumanities
This wouldn't be acceptable in modern Britain.

Could you provide some links to that affect? I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I work in England and the ignorance regarding colonial history in Ireland/India is evident. I work with guys from Oxford in Cambridge who were taught that the partition of Ireland and India was a good thing. Only now on the 70th anniversary of Indian partition are they questioning the morality involved. Nor do they seem to have a clue about Irish colonial history such as the famine, penal laws and discrimination against Catholics. If there's colonial guilt I'd love to see it.

I know plenty of people who studied A level history who said they didn't study colonial history.

solodeogloria

steddyeddy wrote: »

Could you provide some links to that affect? I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I work in England and the ignorance regarding colonial history in Ireland/India is evident. I work with guys from Oxford in Cambridge who were taught that the partition of Ireland and India was a good thing. Only now on the 70th anniversary of Indian partition are they questioning the morality involved. Nor do they seem to have a clue about Irish colonial history such as the famine, penal laws and discrimination against Catholics. If there's colonial guilt I'd love to see it.

I know plenty of people who studied A level history who said they didn't study colonial history.

Good morning!

It's worth pointing out that the Penal Laws affected the whole United Kingdom and were also discriminatory towards non-conformists such as Presbyterians or Puritans. These discriminatory laws weren't primarily targeted at Ireland but rather to ensure that all subjects in the United Kingdom were united under the national faith of the monarch.

This was obviously wrong but it's important to explain this. Partition of countries is obviously more grey than black or white. The partition of Ireland was a result of not wishing to discriminate against northern Protestants (including the Presbyterians who would have been discriminated against previously) who wished to be a part of the United Kingdom.

The partition of India was also to address religious divisions and tensions respect to Islam and Hinduism primarily.

I can see the argument as to why partition was a good thing. I think this isn't ignorance but rather a difference of opinion (I think missing this distinction explains much of your posting style on this thread for the record).

We probably should take this in the history forum

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

steddyeddy

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

It's worth pointing out that the Penal Laws affected the whole United Kingdom and were also discriminatory towards non-conformists such as Presbyterians or Puritans. These discriminatory laws weren't primarily targeted at Ireland but rather to ensure that all subjects in the United Kingdom were united under the national faith of the monarch.

This was obviously wrong but it's important to explain this. Partition of countries is obviously more grey than black or white. The partition of Ireland was a result of not wishing to discriminate against northern Protestants (including the Presbyterians who would have been discriminated against previously) who wished to be a part of the United Kingdom.

The partition of India was also to address religious divisions and tensions respect to Islam and Hinduism primarily.

I can see the argument as to why partition was a good thing. I think this isn't ignorance but rather a difference of opinion (I think missing this distinction explains much of your posting style on this thread for the record).

We probably should take this in the history forum

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Ah not quite. My mistake calling the Penal laws as such. I should have referred to them as popery laws.

It is true that restrictions (like the Clarendon Code) imposed on Catholics in England, Scotland and Wales also applied to Catholics in Ireland. But Irish Catholics were subject to an additional, comprehensive system of penal laws that reduced them to helotry and illiteracy in their own land. The Irish penal laws were inaugurated in the late 17th century and not finally removed until 1829 (though the worst of them had been repealed by the mid-1790s).

Laws like the Clarendon Code (which mainly barred Catholics from public office) were only the beginning of it where Ireland was concerned. In England, Wales, and Scotland the vast majority of the people adhered to the established churches. The penal laws affected only a minority, and their purpose was to ensure that that minority (perceived as potentially seditious) was excluded from power.

In Ireland, on the other hand, where close to 90 percent of the population was Catholic, the point of the penal laws was to render the majority so powerless in every respect—economically and culturally as well as politically—that they could never threaten the ruling elite.

Consequently, the penal laws that applied in Ireland from the 1690s onward were much more comprehensive than their equivalents in the other two kingdoms. They had the effect, over a few generations, of reducing the Irish Catholics to poverty and illiteracy. They also provided incentives for Catholics to convert to Protestantism. Some of the key provisions included:

Catholics could not purchase land (and most of them had been dispossessed of their holdings in the aftermath of the Cromwellian and Williamite wars of the 17th century). Further, Catholics could not lease land for a period of more than 31 years.
Catholics were required to practice gavelkind, a system of inheritance whereby a deceased person's land is divided equally among all male heirs. Therefore, Catholics’ leased landholdings became successively smaller and poorer with each passing generation (leading Catholic peasants to become dependent on potato monoculture, which had catastrophic effects in the 1840s).
Protestants, on the other hand, practiced primogeniture so that holdings remained intact over time. But if one son of a Catholic family converted to Anglicanism, he inherited all the family land and his brothers got nothing.
Even if sons of a Catholic family were inclined to (illegally) forgo their inheritance so that one son could inherit and keep the land intact, there were few other options available. Many occupations, including the professions and the officer ranks of the army were closed to Catholics.
Catholics were severely restricted in their access to education. At the primary or secondary levels, Catholic schoolmasters or clerics were banned from teaching. (This gave rise to the hedge schools, illegal schools in the fields or hedgerows taught by itinerant schoolmasters.) Catholics were of course barred from Trinity College, the country’s only university. Many Catholic families, if they could afford it, sent sons abroad (usually to France or Spain) to be educated. But … you guessed it, that became illegal too.
The Irish cavalry had performed well in the wars of the 17th century. Well, that was not going to happen again: no Catholic was allowed to own a horse worth more than £5. Besides, Catholics were not permitted to own or bear arms.
There were also severe restrictions on the practice of the Catholic religion, which became essentially a furtive, private affair.
Dissenters (which, in the Irish context, largely meant Presbyterians) were subject to some restrictions, mainly with respect to participating in politics and in the public practice of their faith. But the full panoply of the penal laws applied only to the Catholics in Ireland.

The specifically Irish penal laws were enacted by the Irish Parliament, an institution for which only members of the established (Anglican) Church of Ireland could vote and in which only members of that Church could sit—a minority within a minority (known as the “Ascendancy”). These men looked with fear and a certain horror at the ragged Catholic masses. As they saw it, the Papists were down and it was the Ascendancy’s job to keep them down.

The Dublin Parliament did not have the last word, however. Its acts had to be ratified by the Parliament in London. That was a good thing, because some measures that made it out of College Green proved too strong for the MPs at Westminster—one striking example being the law passed in Dublin requiring that any Catholic priests found in Ireland be castrated.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Take the talk of the Penal laws and colonialism to the history forum please.

ancapailldorcha

Post deleted. Stay on topic please.

steddyeddy

Apologies A. I'll get back on topic.

steddyeddy

Right I'm posing a question. Is it possible that the negotiating team is deliberately stalling negotiations so that they don't get a deal and they tell the British public that Brexit isn't viable? Just a thought. If not on the negotiating team's initiative May could have sent the worst possible team to ensure Brexit doesn't look like a good idea.

Harika

Peregrinus wrote: »

My point is that we won't be able to prove that the damage is attributable to Brexit. Those who have a psychological commitment to Brexit, who want to believe that it has been good for Britain, will be able to tell themselves that Britain's underperformance is not attributable to Brexit, but to other factors (first among them being the malice of Eurocrats who have "punished" the UK by denying it this, that or the other). And while we may be satisfied that they are wrong, it won't be possible to demonstrate that they are wrong.

It will depend on the leadership after May, as I don't think she will be able to form the british new economy after Brexit to make the best out of the new situation, so expect her head to roll soon.
A discurs, Germany is said to be so strong because of the cage of the EU holding everyone around them back. While in reality, until 2005, Germany was seen as the sick man of europe. Then the socialist party implemented the agenda 2010 what led to massive changes in the employment market for them what lead to their raise to leaders of the EU. Now you have voices that Germany is held back by the EU and also that it is thriving because of it. In reality, like with Brexit, only in decades we will be able to verify the real impact, if ever! as political changes will dominate the outcome over the next years.
Germany faces the problem of their dependence on the automobile industry, that is on the backfoot against newcomers in the market like Tesla. Ask yourself, whom do you trust more to solve the issues for the next decade for their country better, Merkel or May?
The polls indicate at the moment that the British tend to steer away from Brexit, but not strong enough to make the political parties re-evaluate their strategy or tactics. Something to watch over in the next months as more and more details of the actual Brexit becomes clear.

Harika

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right I'm posing a question. Is it possible that the negotiating team is deliberately stalling negotiations so that they don't get a deal and they tell the British public that Brexit isn't viable? Just a thought. If not on the negotiating team's initiative May could have sent the worst possible team to ensure Brexit doesn't look like a good idea.

That would be self sacrifice of May and her team, what would be a fine move of them, but overall I think they want to stay in power as long as possible. IMO pulling the plug on Brexit, means re-election and Corbyn in power.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

Those who have a psychological commitment to Brexit, who want to believe that it has been good for Britain, will be able to tell themselves that Britain's underperformance is not attributable to Brexit, but to other factors (first among them being the malice of Eurocrats who have "punished" the UK by denying it this, that or the other).

Well, yes, in the sense that we can't "prove" the Earth is round to a flat-earther.

But I think there are a lot of people who believed Brexit spin (having been exposed to it for their whole lives) who will recognize a recession, a drop in income, inflation, the pound at parity with the Euro, a brain drain, rising unemployment and the other likely consequences, and it will be easy to show them that these were predicted ("project fear") before Brexit, and happened as a result of Brexit.

There are seemingly also many who voted Remain, but are now going along with Brexit as they think there is no alternative. These will be even easier to convince that it was a huge error.

Zubeneschamali

steddyeddy wrote: »

Is it possible that the negotiating team is deliberately stalling negotiations so that they don't get a deal and they tell the British public that Brexit isn't viable?

No.

But it is possible that they decided on a hard brexit early on, and the negotiations are just a show intended to shift the blame onto the EU.

Sending hard Brexiteer David Davis to negotiate with the EU (or, apparently, just to argue with them) may have been a signal that this was the situation.

https://twitter.com/mrdavidwhitley/status/903562507780050944

oppenheimer1

steddyeddy wrote: »

Right I'm posing a question. Is it possible that the negotiating team is deliberately stalling negotiations so that they don't get a deal and they tell the British public that Brexit isn't viable? Just a thought. If not on the negotiating team's initiative May could have sent the worst possible team to ensure Brexit doesn't look like a good idea.

No, what's going on here is that the leadership of the conservative party are playing up to their members ahead of the party conference in order to quell discontent ahead of it. Much of what we are hearing is for that audience only. The idea that there's a larger strategy behind the hard language in order to generate the worst possible deal and then a backlash against would be suicidal given the British electorate propensity to vote against its self interest.

We have to remember that the party membership was much more pro Brexit then the parliamentary party. In this context, we will see a hardening of rhetoric for the next month, and then a row back/slippage on it.

The other kite flying that's going on via leaks, I'd like it to the pre budget bull**** that goes on here. Talk of the like of 5c on diesel when they implement only 1c and the response is "well it could have been worse". Present it as €30bn up front with €20bn depending on programmed it choose to participate in, will go down much better.

That said whatever the figure, it will be so large the ordinary person will not be able to comprehend its size. 10bn, 50bn, 100bn all of them will elicit the same emotional response from the common individual.

Chips Lovell

I think the reason the Brexit negotiations have been such a disaster so far for the British is that the government has been more focused on maintaining Tory unity than on the negotiations themselves.

The position papers issued (which appear bizarre and self-contradictory to other Europeans) are probably more directed at an internal audience than anyone else, designed to reassure one wing that yes, they really are exiting, and the other, that no, we won't lose many of the benefits that came with EU membership.

Sooner or later, they'll have to bite the bullet and take a realistic position, but the minute that happens, those divisions will crystalise.

Water John

I think the above two posts, have it about right. The Tories are far too divided internally, to have a sneaky cohesive strategy, up their sleeves. Basically, since the election, they are playing, survival.

Fratton Fred

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think the reason the Brexit negotiations have been such a disaster so far for the British is that the government has been more focused on maintaining Tory unity than on the negotiations themselves.

The position papers issued (which appear bizarre and self-contradictory to other Europeans) are probably more directed at an internal audience than anyone else, designed to reassure one wing that yes, they really are exiting, and the other, that no, we won't lose many of the benefits that came with EU membership.

Sooner or later, they'll have to bite the bullet and take a realistic position, but the minute that happens, those divisions will crystalise.

The two sides of the negotiation are coming from different perspectives as well.

To relate it to the oft mentioned party unity that is hindering the British side, the eu side has no other considerations other than party unity (the party in this case, being the eu.)

When the deadline gets closer, we will also see more frustration creep in from other parties, such as individual country premiers, or industry groups who need practical, not political, resolutions. At this point, I would expect the talks to move up a notch, rather than the general show boating we have seen so far.

Chips Lovell

It's possible alright we'll see divisions on the EU side too. I guess we'll find out over the next year and a half.

blanch152

Fratton Fred wrote: »

The two sides of the negotiation are coming from different perspectives as well.

To relate it to the oft mentioned party unity that is hindering the British side, the eu side has no other considerations other than party unity (the party in this case, being the eu.)

When the deadline gets closer, we will also see more frustration creep in from other parties, such as individual country premiers, or industry groups who need practical, not political, resolutions. At this point, I would expect the talks to move up a notch, rather than the general show boating we have seen so far.

Unlike the UK, there is one thing the EU are united on - the UK can't get a good deal so that others might leave.

The UK keeps forgetting this.