Brexit discussion thread III

Seth Brundle

CelticRambler wrote: »

Here in France, lots of rural areas are losing their local services (schools, shops, doctors) because of a declining population of natives. The response of many councils is to invite foreigners into the area and give them all the support they can - free French lessons, free accommodation, free professional premises, etc. When we arrived with four children in tow, we were welcomed with open arms, mainly because we boosted the school numbers by 10% and guaranteed its survival as a two-teacher establishment for another few years.

Despite the supposed close ties between Ireland and Britain, I never felt as welcome there as I have here.

Off topic but your post reminded me of the movie The African Doctor
https://www.netflix.com/title/80123740

Leroy42

I wonder what size of the public do the publications like the Express represent.

It is rabidly Anti-EU and pro-brexit. But more than that, everything is painted as either EU punishing the UK or the EU shattering by the threat of Brexit.

ambro25

CelticRambler wrote: »

Here in France, lots of rural areas are losing their local services (schools, shops, doctors) because of a declining population of natives. The response of many councils is to invite foreigners into the area and give them all the support they can - free French lessons, free accommodation, free professional premises, etc. When we arrived with four children in tow, we were welcomed with open arms, mainly because we boosted the school numbers by 10% and guaranteed its survival as a two-teacher establishment for another few years.

Despite the supposed close ties between Ireland and Britain, I never felt as welcome there as I have here.

Pretty similar here with free (intensive) Luxembourgish classes and a fair bit of handholding with the (heavy) admin/legals, besides everything and everybody speaking/writing (websites, forms, etc.) in any of French, German, English, Lux and either Italian or Portuguese (that’s more down to historical reasons than anything else, tbh-the Lux have, and all are taught at school and speak/write, 3 to begin with).

Watching how my daughter has embraced her new school here (École Internationale, Lux curriculum but English stream, free) gives a lot of meaning to your post.

Within a week of arriving and starting school, she had local, American, Scot, French, Malay, Kenyan, Afghani, Iranian, Thai <...> school friends, and dialogues in EN & FR daily, whilst she has started DE & LU learning. The extent to which this is helping to broaden her mind, is wondrous. And she’s happy, in a way she hadn’t been, back at her Notts school, for a long time.

For my part, there’s 47 of us in the business - and 22 different nationalities, not all of them EU. Std office language is English, most also speak French fluently (including EU accession states ‘imports’ after a year or so), and a Lux colleague periodically gives us Lux lessons in-house, with 50% support from the State.

Far from the furreiner-bashing of the past couple years in the U.K., here you really get this feeling -right when you arrive- that both the gvt and the natives have fully copped on, and fully onboarded, the fact that multiculturalism -particularly importing the best & brightest and keeping them- is what gives the local economy its growth and resilience.

Zubeneschamali

ambro25 wrote: »

Far from the furreiner-bashing of the past couple years in the U.K.

Good to hear that your move has worked out well so far!

Leroy42

I think, in fairness to the UK, that smaller countries find it easier to embrace integration etc.

Ireland, for example, has been controlled by other parties for nearly its entire existence. We do not have hang up about control and standing alone that a country with the history of the English do. We can accept that if we weren't part of the EU we would need to part of something, be that the Commonwealth, a US/UK alliance or whatever, and within that we would have little power.

For example, I don't think anybody would have any difficultly if we moved to the US$ tomorrow (from a emotional POV I mean). Compare that to the UK connection to their pound.

So the EU actually works out pretty well for us (and we have worked hard to help that).

Countries like the UK only see them having to give things up. If you take the POV that they are more than capable of doing fine on their own, that they don't need others, then you can understand why it would grate to have to give up just to help other countries.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think, in fairness to the UK, that smaller countries find it easier to embrace integration etc.

Ireland, for example, has been controlled by other parties for nearly its entire existence. We do not have hang up about control and standing alone that a country with the history of the English do. We can accept that if we weren't part of the EU we would need to part of something, be that the Commonwealth, a US/UK alliance or whatever, and within that we would have little power.

For example, I don't think anybody would have any difficultly if we moved to the US$ tomorrow (from a emotional POV I mean). Compare that to the UK connection to their pound.

So the EU actually works out pretty well for us (and we have worked hard to help that).

Countries like the UK only see them having to give things up. If you take the POV that they are more than capable of doing fine on their own, that they don't need others, then you can understand why it would grate to have to give up just to help other countries.

I note you use 'the English' and I suspect that the Scots have a different attitude.

Brexit has much greater support in England - possible based around such ideas.

Leroy42

Sam Russell wrote: »

I note you use 'the English' and I suspect that the Scots have a different attitude.

Brexit has much greater support in England - possible based around such ideas.

Maybe, but they aligned themselves to the UK and that is what democracy is.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wonder what size of the public do the publications like the Express represent.

It is rabidly Anti-EU and pro-brexit. But more than that, everything is painted as either EU punishing the UK or the EU shattering by the threat of Brexit.

Many millions by the look of things. Hard to put a figure on it but it looks like there are 10-15m Daily Express type Brexiteers in the UK, given that support for it hasn't collapsed in the opinion polls.

demfad

Strazdas wrote: »

Many millions by the look of things. Hard to put a figure on it but it looks like there are 10-15m Daily Express type Brexiteers in the UK, given that support for it hasn't collapsed in the opinion polls.

I think the UK will pay for keeping the imperial exceptionalism going in society and media. These are ingrained deeply held beliefs that people have about Britains 'true greatness' etc.

The success of Brexit was partly in manoevering the perception of the EU and EU Britain to be the anthitesis of it's 'great' past. The natioanlists etc. who believe this will not change now, or at least not in time.
The next phase of Brexit is the suppression of information about it's true nature and consequences. And it is the Gov, Opposition, and media (especially BBC) who are doing this. Brexit is anything but an expression of democracy.

Econ_

Leroy42 wrote: »

I wonder what size of the public do the publications like the Express represent.

It is rabidly Anti-EU and pro-brexit. But more than that, everything is painted as either EU punishing the UK or the EU shattering by the threat of Brexit.

Interestingly, the Mirror bought them out recently.

It remains to be seen whether they change tact or continue with the current model of hoovering up clicks from idiots.

Nody

US has published its list of things they want removed to make trade flow better (surprisingly removing Trump was not listed at point 1) and it's basically the list of things US will ask UK to remove post Brexit to get a FTA and it has some of the usual suspects in there...

The USTR’s biggest concern is the increasing importance to US trade policy of testing, labelling and certification requirements and “sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures”.

“The United States remains concerned about a number of measures the EU maintains ostensibly for the purposes of food safety and protecting human, animal, or plant life or health,” the USTR said.

These measures “unnecessarily restrict trade without furthering their safety objectives because they are not based on scientific principles, maintained with sufficient scientific evidence, or applied only to the extent necessary”.

USTR rails against the burden of EU food labelling as well as restrictions on cosmetics and pesticides.

It bemoans the fact that accreditation bodies for product standards must be public and nonprofit, when private American firms could do the job.

The document also confirms that the US will effectively push to allow American-produced Cornish pasties or Cumberland sausages by scrapping EU rules around the geographical origins of certain foods.

Yes; because American firms have shown themselves as the shining light of ensuring policies and standards are met...

Capt'n Midnight

Nody wrote: »

US has published its list of things they want removed

#TakeBackControl :pac:

The "Great British Sausage"

The document also confirms that the US will effectively push to allow American-produced Cornish pasties or Cumberland sausages by scrapping EU rules around the geographical origins of certain foods.

Sand

Econ_ wrote: »

Your post makes for a nice essay but it unfortunately doesn't refute the point that leave voters were deceived or misinformed.

Look at this study done by the Guardian/ICM (5000 Brits were surveyed)

On the question 'What impact do you think Brexit will have on your personal finances?' - 64% of all participants said they think it will either have no effect or it will boost their personal finances.

Do you think those people are misinformed? And if not, why not?

Well, I'd make three minor points and a fourth which is the main one:

1. Only 15% think it will have a positive effect for them as individuals. That's fairly steady across all sub groups too. This is not evidence of widespread naivety. I could equally say 85% of those polled think Brexit will have at best a neutral effect on their finances.
2. Brexit has not happened so its too early to say what the actual effects will be overall, let alone for the 5000 individuals polled.
3. You've not proven the 5000 Brits are representative of the Leave vote. The 64% of participants are not limited to Leave voters. Its an overall sample of British people who are remarkably complacent. Remain voters could be equally as complacent or misinformed about the effect on them and their finances. Certainly *more* people reject a second referendum than voted Remain so Remain voters cant be that worried.

4. Most importantly of all, everything stated above, including your post is irrelevant to the reasons people voted for Brexit. A boost to an individuals own finances simply was not amongst the stated reasons Leave voters chose Brexit. So attempting to correct them on economic rationales is irrelevant. It was not their rationale. Right or wrong, economic outcomes was not a priority for them. Sovereignty, control and rejecting a sense of powerlessness was.

The sense of powerlessness is what needs to be addressed. Not continuing the error of the Remain campaign in *only* talking about the economy. It failed before the referendum, its unclear why it will succeed now.

blanch152

Sand wrote: »

Well, I'd make three minor points and a fourth which is the main one:

1. Only 15% think it will have a positive effect for them as individuals. That's fairly steady across all sub groups too. This is not evidence of widespread naivety. I could equally say 85% of those polled think Brexit will have at best a neutral effect on their finances.
2. Brexit has not happened so its too early to say what the actual effects will be overall, let alone for the 5000 individuals polled.
3. You've not proven the 5000 Brits are representative of the Leave vote. The 64% of participants are not limited to Leave voters. Its an overall sample of British people who are remarkably complacent. Remain voters could be equally as complacent or misinformed about the effect on them and their finances. Certainly *more* people reject a second referendum than voted Remain so Remain voters cant be that worried.

4. Most importantly of all, everything stated above, including your post is irrelevant to the reasons people voted for Brexit. A boost to an individuals own finances simply was not amongst the stated reasons Leave voters chose Brexit. So attempting to correct them on economic rationales is irrelevant. It was not their rationale. Right or wrong, economic outcomes was not a priority for them. Sovereignty, control and rejecting a sense of powerlessness was.

The sense of powerlessness is what needs to be addressed. Not continuing the error of the Remain campaign in *only* talking about the economy. It failed before the referendum, its unclear why it will succeed now.

Some good points in there. Brexit voters believe that the UK can reassume world leadership once free from the EU straitjacket. This has much more than economic dimensions, it also has political and cultural dimensions.

Where the Remain campaign failed, and is continuing to fail, is in persuading the UK that leading the world means belonging to the EU.

Sand

blanch152 wrote: »

Some good points in there. Brexit voters believe that the UK can reassume world leadership once free from the EU straitjacket. This has much more than economic dimensions, it also has political and cultural dimensions.

Where the Remain campaign failed, and is continuing to fail, is in persuading the UK that leading the world means belonging to the EU.

Yes, though the Remain campaign is a product of the deeper issues, which seem to be as much the relationship between England and the UK, as the UK and Europe. Brexit is almost entirely an English driven issue.

I'd also hesitate to conflate Brexit voters, and the Brexiteers (Fox, Davis, BoJo, etc) who have seized control of the Brexit agenda. Brexit voters want their country (basically England) back. The Brexiteers who are directing events want some sort of fantastical free trading, globalist, 19th century Empire 2.0 outcome which even they struggle to articulate. The two dreams are wholly opposed. But its the Brexiteers who will get their way. Brexit if anything illustrates the powerlessness that contributed to it.

This is why I think Brexit wont solve the underlying dynamic that caused it. They voted for a revolution against globalism, and instead they will get more globalism. There will be more eruptions of rage against the UK ruling classes for as long as they refuse to represent those they claim to rule. To address the sense of powerlessness, the politicians have to start listening.

And this is not a party issue. Remember Brown vs. Duffy? Brexit has been many, many years in the making.

Strazdas

Sand wrote: »

Yes, though the Remain campaign is a product of the deeper issues, which seem to be as much the relationship between England and the UK, as the UK and Europe. Brexit is almost entirely an English driven issue.

I'd also hesitate to conflate Brexit voters, and the Brexiteers (Fox, Davis, BoJo, etc) who have seized control of the Brexit agenda. Brexit voters want their country (basically England) back. The Brexiteers who are directing events want some sort of fantastical free trading, globalist, 19th century Empire 2.0 outcome which even they struggle to articulate. The two dreams are wholly opposed. But its the Brexiteers who will get their way. Brexit if anything illustrates the powerlessness that contributed to it.

This is why I think Brexit wont solve the underlying dynamic that caused it. They voted for a revolution against globalism, and instead they will get more globalism. There will be more eruptions of rage against the UK ruling classes for as long as they refuse to represent those they claim to rule. To address the sense of powerlessness, the politicians have to start listening.

Brexit is full of contradictions. Britain wants to be some sort of global trading superpower and yet opt out of international trading standards and regulations and instead put hard borders around the country. None of it makes the slightest bit of sense.

LeinsterDub

“The one thing that would provoke loyalist paramilitaries is the present Irish government saying silly things about the border and the constitutional issue. If it looks as though the constitutional arrangements of the agreement, based on the principle of consent, are going to be superseded by so-called ‘special EU status’ then that is going to weaken the union and undermine the very agreement that Dublin says it wants to uphold.”

David says the border we don't want hardened, weren't consulted with about before the vote, was ignored during the vote and is constantly being downplayed by the British and has been back stopped by them will be our fault.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/06/david-trimble-ireland-risks-provoking-paramilitaries-over-post-brexit-border

flutered

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do understand the desire for the voters to see something done about immigration, and the issues that have developed because of it.

I don't think that leaving the EU is the correct way to channel that though.

However, I do think that it will have the desired effect. Already we can see that immigration has been effected, certainly the UK, anecdotally, would appear to less welcoming than before. In addition, if the economic predictions come to pass then the downturn in the economy will see less people looking to come to the UK.

So from a singular "reduce immigration" POV, leaving the EU may well be considered the right thing to do.

IMO, the cost to achieve that is simply too high and there were plenty of other ways to deal with it. In particular, the very people that championed immigration (big business etc) are still in charge and I don't see how they will simply accept that in stead of paying some Romanian the minimum wage for picking fruit they are now going to have to offer living wage and benefits to UK citizens. So I foresee either the jobs moving abroad or other forms of immigration to cover (replace the Romanians with Indians for example).

as regards immigration, i have read elsewhere that there are now more more vacencys in the nhs that there are members of the armed forces

flutered

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do understand the desire for the voters to see something done about immigration, and the issues that have developed because of it.

I don't think that leaving the EU is the correct way to channel that though.

However, I do think that it will have the desired effect. Already we can see that immigration has been effected, certainly the UK, anecdotally, would appear to less welcoming than before. In addition, if the economic predictions come to pass then the downturn in the economy will see less people looking to come to the UK.

So from a singular "reduce immigration" POV, leaving the EU may well be considered the right thing to do.

IMO, the cost to achieve that is simply too high and there were plenty of other ways to deal with it. In particular, the very people that championed immigration (big business etc) are still in charge and I don't see how they will simply accept that in stead of paying some Romanian the minimum wage for picking fruit they are now going to have to offer living wage and benefits to UK citizens. So I foresee either the jobs moving abroad or other forms of immigration to cover (replace the Romanians with Indians for example).

re replacing romanians whit indians, the uk vetoed a trade deal between india and the eu, india now says that it will take 30 years to broker a deal between it and the uk, also the no1 on the indians agenda is immigration to the uk

ancapailldorcha

Strazdas wrote: »

Brexit is full of contradictions. Britain wants to be some sort of global trading superpower and yet opt out of international trading standards and regulations and instead put hard borders around the country. None of it makes the slightest bit of sense.

Of course it is but this is the result of trying to chart the course of a country the size of the UK about to leave the world's largest trading bloc with less than a 2-year deadline.

Normally in a referendum, it's made clear what happens if either side wins. The SSM referendum in Ireland is an excellent example. Campaigners do their thing, voters go to the ballot box and the government implements the result. Simples.

Or not. In 2015/2016, one side stuck to rigidly churning out analyses and spreadsheets, helpless against the claims of bias and fake news from the other side. Said other side went on to paint a lovely picture whereby job killing regulations that nobody can specify will be gone, the NHS will be richer and wonderful trade deals with India, the US and the commonwealth will grow the economy while Volkswagen make the EU submit to all the UK's demands all the while those foreigners will be coming in in much fewer numbers if at all.

I found this link depicting unused Remain campaign material from the Independent. This stood out:



The rest are overwhelmingly negative.

What took me a while to learn is that subverting or cancelling Brexit will not actually solve anything. People in the UK outside the wealthy southeast have little to gain by remaining. Most of the places with high levels of immigration voted to stay with Birmingham being a notable exception. That said, there is a clear gulf not just between left and right but between cosmopolitans and nationalists, haves and have-nots, those with secure, closed shop jobs and those who work in call centres.

I was home last week and happened to catch a programme on ITV set in Teesside. The people interviewed by Robert Peston were mostly Leave voters and still were. The Remain campaign contained little in the way of positive messages. The picture above could have been a part of a much stronger campaign but that was not to be.

Now it appears that the Conservatives intend to foist more globalisation on the British people which will not benefit the poorer parts of the country at all. The gulf at the heart of British society is only widening and as Labour and the Conservatives continue to indulge their fringes at the expense of their liberal centrists while the Liberal Democrats remain tainted by their decision to go into coalition with the latter in 2010, it looks set to only expand with no solution in sight.

Memnoch

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Now it appears that the Conservatives intend to foist more globalisation on the British people which will not benefit the poorer parts of the country at all. The gulf at the heart of British society is only widening and as Labour and the Conservatives continue to indulge their fringes at the expense of their liberal centrists while the Liberal Democrats remain tainted by their decision to go into coalition with the latter in 2010, it looks set to only expand with no solution in sight.

Which centrists? The ones who completely deregulated the financial sector? Or the ones who imposed austerity after the crash?

The gulf in British society isn't a political gulf, at least that is not the cause of the problem, and nor really, the solution to it. You really think that voting in the 'centrists,' is going to change anything for the people who voted to leave that you are talking about in your post?

This whole notion of centrist is nonsense anyway. Centrist by whose definition? How is voting for politicians, only interested in enriching themselves, and who are bought and sold by international megacorporations going to heal the gulf in British society?

The gulf you speak of is inequality. And until you deal with the real causes of that, things will continue to get worse not better.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

O

What took me a while to learn is that subverting or cancelling Brexit will not actually solve anything. People in the UK outside the wealthy southeast have little to gain by remaining. Most of the places with high levels of immigration voted to stay with Birmingham being a notable exception. That said, there is a clear gulf not just between left and right but between cosmopolitans and nationalists, haves and have-nots, those with secure, closed shop jobs and those who work in call centres.

....I was home last week and happened to catch a programme on ITV set in Teesside. The people interviewed by Robert Peston were mostly Leave voters and still were.

I am astonished you are making this claim: These people will actually be hardest hit by Brexit: Teeside will see a 12% (highly conservatve) hit from hard Brexit. Nissan will certainly go. Any workers protections will go.

The remain side are putting valid information out there. The media don't want to know.

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

I am astonished you are making this claim: These people will actually be hardest hit by Brexit: Teeside will see a 12% (highly conservatve) hit from hard Brexit. Nissan will certainly go. Any workers protections will go.

The remain side are putting valid information out there. The media don't want to know.

You misunderstand my point. If you're on a zero-hours, minimum wage, no pension job in Teesside, your life isn't going to improve by staying in the EU. It'll almost certainly get worse outside it but it won't improve inside it.

demfad

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You misunderstand my point. If you're on a zero-hours, minimum wage, no pension job in Teesside, your life isn't going to improve by staying in the EU. It'll almost certainly get worse outside it but it won't improve inside it.

It will improve in the EU if the standards of governance improves in the UK.
It could also improve if EU work law carried more weight in EU countries.
Or if the EU left owned the inevitable imminent global warming world economics as they must, then global trade and financial globalisation would be more quickly deflated. Local trade and global services will be paramount. The UK in EU has potential in this new phase.

Even if their life doesn't improve they have 12.5% to gain from the only alternative. Gain and loss is relative.

If Brexit does not happen: then there will be a new era in UKs involvement without doubt. This can only be good.

ancapailldorcha

demfad wrote: »

It will improve in the EU if the standards of governance improves in the UK.

A big if, wouldn't you say? We've had senior members of the Tory party tour the country in a big red bus with a whopping great lie on the side while dismissing any studies which contradicted their agenda.

demfad wrote: »

It could also improve if EU work law carried more weight in EU countries.

Which would mean a lessening of national sovereignty. Not an idea I'd be pushing if I were a senior Eurocrat I have to say.

demfad wrote: »

Or if the EU left owned the inevitable imminent global warming world economics as they must, then global trade and financial globalisation would be more quickly deflated. Local trade and global services will be paramount. The UK in EU has potential in this new phase.

Even if their life doesn't improve they have 12.5% to gain from the only alternative. Gain and loss is relative.

If Brexit does not happen: then there will be a new era in UKs involvement without doubt. This can only be good.

Had potential. They had potential. If it ever existed, it's gone now. Where are you getting 12.5% from?

Sand

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The Remain campaign contained little in the way of positive messages. The picture above could have been a part of a much stronger campaign but that was not to be.

I'm not sure that image is even that positive. It's still a transactional relationship, encouraging the UK to see a positive relationship as being one where the UK exploits the rest of Europe.

I think a positive message regarding the EU would have focused on the UK's connection to Europe. 'Europe is our home' or similar. I'm not a marketing guru, but defusing the nationalist aspect of Brexit involves accepting people want to return to the stability, which could be represented more by the UK as a European state.

Even British nationalists define themselves by feeling superior to the French and the Germans. They couldn't give a damn about the Kenyans or the Nepalese. Even in their nationalistic tendencies, the British define themselves within Europe, not the world. A positive message focusing on the UK as a traditionally European country could have portrayed itself as a the return to the good old days that Brexit voters were misty eyed for.

As it is, Brexit has increased the pressures on the UK to become a mere economic zone which is open to business for the entire world. That this rejection of globalism was so alien to Tories and Labour alike demonstrates how great the chasm between the British peoples and their political classes has become.

Capt'n Midnight

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You misunderstand my point. If you're on a zero-hours, minimum wage, no pension job in Teesside, your life isn't going to improve by staying in the EU. It'll almost certainly get worse outside it but it won't improve inside it.

Better the devil you know.

The bit that continues to amaze me is that those voters believe that Westminster would treat them better.

It's like they've never heard of any of the workers rights that come from the EU, starting with the Working Time Directive.

blanch152

LeinsterDub wrote: »

David says the border we don't want hardened, weren't consulted with about before the vote, was ignored during the vote and is constantly being downplayed by the British and has been back stopped by them will be our fault.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/06/david-trimble-ireland-risks-provoking-paramilitaries-over-post-brexit-border

A Northern Ireland vote on a deal would solve that, but the problem for nationalists is that an Irish Sea border would be worse for Northern Ireland than a hard border on this island.

Capt'n Midnight

flutered wrote: »

as regards immigration, i have read elsewhere that there are now more more vacencys in the nhs that there are members of the armed forces

Just watching Patrick Kielty's program

25,000 troops in NI and the border was still porous. And that's about a third of the current army.


The only reason they haven't dumped NI is that Scotland and it's oil and energy might follow suit.

LeinsterDub

blanch152 wrote: »

A Northern Ireland vote on a deal would solve that, but the problem for nationalists is that an Irish Sea border would be worse for Northern Ireland than a hard border on this island.

Why would a Irish Sea border be worse than a hard border? Do you in terms of economics?

And of course if you give the Northern Irish a vote the Scots followed by the Welsh and London will want one too.

Capt'n Midnight

blanch152 wrote: »

A Northern Ireland vote on a deal would solve that, but the problem for nationalists is that an Irish Sea border would be worse for Northern Ireland than a hard border on this island.

Would it ?

Apply the Matra "trade not aid" to NI. NI isn't paying it's way and is reliant on handouts. With inward investment, eventually, it might pay it's way. Without investment to build it up it will just muddle along.

Remember just how much "UK" stuff is actually made in factories elsewhere in the EU. If NI was rich , or rather if there were a lot more middle class like in south east England then the 10-20% extra costs of Brexit on imports wouldn't be a biggie.

BonnieSituation

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Just watching Patrick Kielty's program

25,000 troops in NI and the border was still porous. And that's about a third of the current army.


The only reason they haven't dumped NI is that Scotland and it's oil and energy might follow suit.

And that little old "Principle of Consent"...

blanch152

Sand wrote: »

I'm not sure that image is even that positive. It's still a transactional relationship, encouraging the UK to see a positive relationship as being one where the UK exploits the rest of Europe.

I think a positive message regarding the EU would have focused on the UK's connection to Europe. 'Europe is our home' or similar. I'm not a marketing guru, but defusing the nationalist aspect of Brexit involves accepting people want to return to the stability, which could be represented more by the UK as a European state.

Even British nationalists define themselves by feeling superior to the French and the Germans. They couldn't give a damn about the Kenyans or the Nepalese. Even in their nationalistic tendencies, the British define themselves within Europe, not the world. A positive message focusing on the UK as a traditionally European country could have portrayed itself as a the return to the good old days that Brexit voters were misty eyed for.

As it is, Brexit has increased the pressures on the UK to become a mere economic zone which is open to business for the entire world. That this rejection of globalism was so alien to Tories and Labour alike demonstrates how great the chasm between the British peoples and their political classes has become.

Excellent post, setting out some of the reasons why people voted for Brexit. Sometimes we forget that Breixt is the result of a democratic vote. Yes, we in Ireland believe it was a stupid vote, but we do need to understand why it happened if we are ever to have a chance of creating the circumstances where it can be revisited.

Rejection of globalism is a theme of Brexit even though that means a cost to individuals.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Better the devil you know.

The bit that continues to amaze me is that those voters believe that Westminster would treat them better.

It's like they've never heard of any of the workers rights that come from the EU, starting with the Working Time Directive.

Incredibly, yes, many Brexit workers believe they would be better outside the EU.

blanch152

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why would a Irish Sea border be worse than a hard border? Do you in terms of economics?

And of course if you give the Northern Irish a vote the Scots followed by the Welsh and London will want one too.

This has been done to death on these threads, bit suffice to say that trade with the UK mainland is more important to Northern Ireland than trade with the rest of this island.

LeinsterDub

blanch152 wrote: »

This has been done to death on these threads, bit suffice to say that trade with the UK mainland is more important to Northern Ireland than trade with the rest of this island.

Why would that be an issue for nationalists?

If brexit has shown us anything it's that strong emotional arguments can trump economics and if that logic is going to hold true anywhere in the world surely the North would be it.

Charles Babbage

blanch152 wrote: »

This has been done to death on these threads, bit suffice to say that trade with the UK mainland is more important to Northern Ireland than trade with the rest of this island.

The value of trade is not an accurate guide to the effect of paperwork on transactions. More important is: the nature of the products, their timeliness, the bulk of the order, the number of orders made for the same product, the number of orders from the same company, the price sensitivity of the products, the nature of government regulation of the products, the mode of transport used, the origin of the materials in the product, the variety in the products over time.

Consequently, your repetition of the above is a mere distraction.

ancapailldorcha

Sand wrote: »

I'm not sure that image is even that positive. It's still a transactional relationship, encouraging the UK to see a positive relationship as being one where the UK exploits the rest of Europe.

I think a positive message regarding the EU would have focused on the UK's connection to Europe. 'Europe is our home' or similar. I'm not a marketing guru, but defusing the nationalist aspect of Brexit involves accepting people want to return to the stability, which could be represented more by the UK as a European state.

Even British nationalists define themselves by feeling superior to the French and the Germans. They couldn't give a damn about the Kenyans or the Nepalese. Even in their nationalistic tendencies, the British define themselves within Europe, not the world. A positive message focusing on the UK as a traditionally European country could have portrayed itself as a the return to the good old days that Brexit voters were misty eyed for.

As it is, Brexit has increased the pressures on the UK to become a mere economic zone which is open to business for the entire world. That this rejection of globalism was so alien to Tories and Labour alike demonstrates how great the chasm between the British peoples and their political classes has become.

I see what you mean. However, relative to the rest of the material and much of the BSiE campaign, it is positive in that it embraces the idea of the UK leading the EU. If they hadn't been so restrained, I think material based on things like the single market being a Thatcherite idea might have swayed some of the Tory centre. Possibly not though given previous governments' lack of innovation regarding Europe.

I recall prominent leavers saying multiple times that the UK wasn't leaving the continent and taking care to specify that they were talking about the EU. The spiel about German car manufacturers went hand-in-hand with this narrative.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Better the devil you know.

The bit that continues to amaze me is that those voters believe that Westminster would treat them better.

It's like they've never heard of any of the workers rights that come from the EU, starting with the Working Time Directive.

Of course. However, the only time I've seen the EU flag here to indicate that a project received EU funding has been at scientific conferences. Most people here have no idea that the EU even does anything for them outside safeguarding and building the single market.

There's no way workers' rights are going to improve post-Brexit. It was George Osborne and the Conservatives who led the charge for protecting bankers' bonuses, preventing the 48-hour working week cap and protecting Europe from Chinese steel dumping.

As Sand says, the British public are about to get more globalisation not less.

EdgeCase

I have lived in England and I have had long discussions with perfectly sane, reasonable and sensible English people about Brexit and to be quite honest, I don't think there's any prospect of Brexit being halted. Even if it were, there would be a Brexit 2.0 and the instability would just continue for decades.

For as long as I can remember, they've been fed a false narrative about the EU. They imagine monsters in Brussels and some kind of gargantuan administration, even though the entire EU is probably not much bigger than the UK's Home Office. They ignore facts and claim that the EU is entirely undemocratic - no question of the European Parliament being discussed, or the fact that it's still largely an intergovernmental organisation.

However, facts don't really seem to matter or carry any weight in this debate, they believe what they believe and there's no convincing them otherwise, as it fits all of their cultural biases about Europe and all things foreign. There's really no point in trying to discuss this form an Irish point of view, they don't see the world the same way and never will.

I really think we just need to accept them for what they are - a rather arrogant former empire that thinks its better than everyone else and the world owes it a living. They're not interested in being part of the EU and all we can really do is attempt to somehow work with that on a neighbourly basis and ensure that we're not played for fools or pushed into a position that undermines the Irish or broader EU economies. They're not going to change, and to be honest, forcing the entire EU to change to suit them isn't really an acceptable solution as politically, the neoliberal leanings of the Tories are totally incompatibly with much of Europe's centrist, social democratic kind of tendencies. One could argue that the pushes towards a far more neoliberal Europe (which were driven in a huge part by the UK) have already caused major political problems across the continent.

Also, don't fall for fake friendliness. The Tories couldn't give a toss about Ireland, as long as it's safely out of the way and doesn't impede their glorious Brexit. They would be quite happy to cleave us out of the EU, but you can be sure that in the event that happened, we would be back to being a British-dependent backwater again being bounced along.

Let's not kid ourselves, we're dealing with an ex who we divorced a long time ago and who always treated us as a possession, not a partner.

Charles Babbage

EdgeCase wrote: »

Let's not kid ourselves, we're dealing with an ex who we divorced a long time ago and who always treated us as a possession, not a partner.

An ex who is still living in one room of the house.

Strazdas

EdgeCase wrote: »

I have lived in England and I have had long discussions with perfectly sane, reasonable and sensible English people about Brexit and to be quite honest, I don't think there's any prospect of Brexit being halted. Even if it were, there would be a Brexit 2.0 and the instability would just continue for decades.

Yes, I think Brexit will go ahead as there are too many people on board the Brexit train for it not to.

It should be interesting though to see what happens to British Euroscepticism in the coming years. They have completely defined themselves by their opposition to membership of the EU and all of a sudden they will be outside the union, with no more scapegoats to blame for their own failings.

Nate--IRL--

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, I think Brexit will go ahead as there are too many people on board the Brexit train for it not to.

It should be interesting though to see what happens to British Euroscepticism in the coming years. They have completely defined themselves by their opposition to membership of the EU and all of a sudden they will be outside the union, with no more scapegoats to blame for their own failings.

The EU will still get the blame.

Nate

flatty

They will die off. This isn't a flippant comment any more than looking at the demographic for a border poll, before I get shouted at in bold print.
They will leave the country in a very bad way, not that they'll care.

EdgeCase

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

The EU will still get the blame.

Nate

Of course it will, it'll be "It's so unfair" "they're bullying us by not granting us the exact same rights we had when we were a member, only without any of the reciprocal arrangements or responsibilities."

First Up

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

Strazdas wrote: »

Yes, I think Brexit will go ahead as there are too many people on board the Brexit train for it not to.

It should be interesting though to see what happens to British Euroscepticism in the coming years. They have completely defined themselves by their opposition to membership of the EU and all of a sudden they will be outside the union, with no more scapegoats to blame for their own failings.

The EU will still get the blame.

Nate

You think anyone in the EU will care?

Nate--IRL--

First Up wrote: »

You think anyone in the EU will care?

Not at all. The point was that the EU will remain as useful "baddie" for the UK establishment.

Nate

flutered

from yesterdays independant.co.uk, a deleated vid of farage thanking particular folk
http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/breitbart-video-nigel-farage-1-5466536

First Up

Nate--IRL-- wrote: »

First Up wrote: »

You think anyone in the EU will care?

Not at all. The point was that the EU will remain as useful "baddie" for the UK establishment.

Nate

To which they will be welcome.

Peregrinus

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The value of trade is not an accurate guide to the effect of paperwork on transactions. More important is: the nature of the products, their timeliness, the bulk of the order, the number of orders made for the same product, the number of orders from the same company, the price sensitivity of the products, the nature of government regulation of the products, the mode of transport used, the origin of the materials in the product, the variety in the products over time.

Consequently, your repetition of the above is a mere distraction.

It may be that the nature of NI's trade with GB is that it will be less affected by border-control-type non-tariff barriers resulting from a sea border than NI's trade with the Republic would be affected by the barriers resulting from a land border. In fact, I think this is probably correct.

But, still, NI's trade with GB is much, much bigger than its trade with the Republic. If a land border would impose, say, an average of 10% additional costs on trade with the Republic while a sea border would impose only 3% additional costs on trade with GB, the latter would still be more damaging to Northern Ireland, at least in purely monetary terms, since the GB trade is about four times bigger than the RoI trade.

Of course, it's not as simple as that. The RoI trade and the GB trade don't exist in separate self-contained bubbles and, whichever border is imposed, the ripples are going to spread through the NI economy and affect businesses that don't themselves trade across that border. You'd need some very careful modelling to work out which strategy is best to minimise the adverse economic impact of Brexit on NI.

Sam Russell

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may be that the nature of NI's trade with GB is that it will be less affected by border-control-type non-tariff barriers resulting from a sea border than NI's trade with the Republic would be affected by the barriers resulting from a land border. In fact, I think this is probably correct.

But, still, NI's trade with GB is much, much bigger than its trade with the Republic. If a land border would impose, say, an average of 10% additional costs on trade with the Republic while a sea border would impose only 3% additional costs on trade with GB, the latter would still be more damaging to Northern Ireland, at least in purely monetary terms, since the GB trade is about four times bigger than the RoI trade.

Of course, it's not as simple as that. The RoI trade and the GB trade don't exist in separate self-contained bubbles and, whichever border is imposed, the ripples are going to spread through the NI economy and affect businesses that don't themselves trade across that border. You'd need some very careful modelling to work out which strategy is best to minimise the adverse economic impact of Brexit on NI.

There are already some controls over trade between NI and GB, mostly to do with agriculture. This has all come about because of BSE and foot and mouth (of the agriculture type rather than political).

If there was a hard border between Ireland and NI, then a lot of trade would just not happen. Milk, pigs, and lamb would just not cross the border if there was any paperwork involved. We might be back to Daisy the cow 'emigrating' and becoming Gertrude the cow, but legal crossings would be rendered useless.

How Aldi and Lidl would operate, with their single all island distribution, will have to be seen. However Tesco and M&S could well leave Ireland if there was a hard border as they are not doing particularly well as it is.

The figures for NI trade both with GB and Ireland are not easy to determine as they are not reported in a way that is transparent. However, it is apparent that there is less trade S-N that the N-S trade. Why this is is difficult to determine, but it appears to be the case. Perhaps a sea border might redress this imbalance.

EdgeCase

I've had these discussions. They won't continue with all island distribution - they'll integrate the NI market with Scotland.

Some stores may also just shutter their operations in NI if the market is too small to service that way. It depends on how the costs work out.

It's a tiny market and these are going to be business, not political decision.

This changes a lot of economies of scale for some businesses.

Donegal is also at risk of issues in that regard as it potentially becomes much more isolated