Brexit discussion thread III

Sam Russell

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, it was actually 64% of Labour voters voted remain. Which means that 35% of voters could have been swayed by a determined and passionate Corbyn. Given that 51.9% of voters voted for Brexit, it is very likely that an enthusiastic Corbyn would have persuaded enough of that 35% (and perhaps non-Labour voters who were undecided) to vote Remain.

In the Scottish Indy vote, Labour (from England) rocked up in Scotland favouring the Stronger Together campaign on the basis that they would lose 40 Labour seats in the Westminster Parliament. In the event, they lost all but one in the subsequent election.

Maybe Labour are now playing the short game instead of the National Interest game. In other words Party before Nation. Oh! who else plays that game?

MBSnr

Skedaddle wrote: »

I think one thing that's very interesting is that Scotland and Northern Ireland don't really consume the same print media as England. They've their own papers and localised versions of the tabloids. I sometimes wonder if that's fed into the big difference in attitudes?

Yes pretty much the above in my view. The thing I recall was when living in Southern England back in the late 80s (I was only a teenager at the time so my interest in news was limited) was that the EU was a thing that existed but overall no one paid much heed to it. Sure there was always the general casual racism about Johnny Foreigner, the Irish issues and the things they get up to but the EU as such was never blamed for anything as I recall.

Then in 1994 there was the quality law for bananas (AKA bendy banana law). This became a thing reported in nearly all the media as the big bad EU imposing on our 'British' rights to have bendy bananas by making them all straight. It was mostly twisted facts but it seems they noticed that EU bashing sold papers and probably suited the Gov at the time to have this general feeling....

I'm not saying that was the caterlyst for England's anti EU rhetoric but that banana law stuck in peoples heads and anything EU related since has been seen as interfering, fuelled and pushed on by the print media.

Peregrinus

MBSnr wrote: »

. . . .Then in 1994 there was the quality law for bananas (AKA bendy banana law). This became a thing reported in nearly all the media as the big bad EU imposing on our 'British' rights to have bendy bananas by making them all straight. It was mostly twisted facts but it seems they noticed that EU bashing sold papers and probably suited the Gov at the time to have this general feeling....

I'm not saying that was the caterlyst for England's anti EU rhetoric but that banana law stuck in peoples heads and anything EU related since has been seen
as interfering, fuelled and pushed on by the print media.

And, to this day, most people in the UK have a completely false idea of what the bendy banany regulations say or do.

MrPudding

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, it was actually 64% of Labour voters voted remain. Which means that 35% of voters could have been swayed by a determined and passionate Corbyn. Given that 51.9% of voters voted for Brexit, it is very likely that an enthusiastic Corbyn would have persuaded enough of that 35% (and perhaps non-Labour voters who were undecided) to vote Remain.

OK, i did some number crunching... Using the number of voters in the last election (where labour increased it vote) 12,874,985 voted labour. So 35% of that would be 4.5m, give or take. Leave got roughly 1.3m more votes than remain, so Corbyn would have need to convince just under 25% of the Labour voters that voted leave to vote remain instead. Whilst that is perhaps possible, it is a big ask.

Almost 9.5m Tory voters voted leave, some 69%, surely Cameron should have been able to convince a mere 10% of them to vote remain...?

Don't get me wrong, I think Corbyn did a p1ss poor job, but i think it is unfair to lay this mess at his feet. I would suggest that it would have been exceedingly difficult for him, or anyone, to convince 1.5m of the 4.5m Labour voters that voted leave to vote remain. They are the very core of those that feel they have been left behind.

MrP

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, i did some number crunching... Using the number of voters in the last election (where labour increased it vote) 12,874,985 voted labour. So 35% of that would be 4.5m, give or take. Leave got roughly 1.3m more votes than remain, so Corbyn would have need to convince just under 25% of the Labour voters that voted leave to vote remain instead. Whilst that is perhaps possible, it is a big ask.

Almost 9.5m Tory voters voted leave, some 69%, surely Cameron should have been able to convince a mere 10% of them to vote remain...?

I think the point is that Cameron did try, and the 31% of Tory voters who voted Remain reflects his effort (i.e. it would have been less than 31% if he had not tried). Whereas Corbyn didn't try. If Corbyn's efforts could have changed the mind of a little over one in ten Labour voters, then the outcome of the referendum would have been different.

Could Corbyn have done that? Given how popular he is in the party, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that he could.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the point is that Cameron did try, and the 31% of Tory voters who voted Remain reflects his effort (i.e. it would have been less than 31% if he had not tried). Whereas Corbyn didn't try. If Corbyn's efforts could have changed the mind of a little over one in ten Labour voters, then the outcome of the referendum would have been different.

Could Corbyn have done that? Given how popular he is in the party, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that he could.

Fair point on Cameron, but I still think this is being unfair to Corbyn. Look at where most of the 4.5m Labour leave voters were. I would suggest that convincing 35% of that 4.5m would have be nigh on impossible.

Saying that all he had to do was convince 1 in 10 labour voters, whilst correct, belittles the magnitude of the job. Yes, 1 in 10 of all labour voters, but also 35% of leave voters, most of whom are in heavily leave areas and tick all the boxes for those likely to vote leave. They are a really, really hard demographic to shift.

Also, I based my sums on the figure from the last election, i think the numbers at referendum time were likely smaller, so the number of labour leave voter would have been less, and the percentage that needed to be convinced correspondingly higher.

I am no Corbyn apologist, and as I have already said, i think he did an awful job, but I am not so convinced it is something he could have pulled off.

MrP

CrabRevolution

I find it difficult to understand the "left behind", "the EU took our steel /shipyard /mining jobs" motivation behind some brexit voters.

Everything I've seen in a brexiteers fantasy future has involved huge globalisation and free trade with economies like India and China. Are these not the very things which have caused the decline in much of Western industry?

Do they honestly believe that leaving the EU will bring these jobs back?

Leroy42

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand the "left behind", "the EU took our steel /shipyard /mining jobs" motivation behind some brexit voters.

Everything I've seen in a brexiteers fantasy future has involved huge globalisation and free trade with economies like India and China. Are these not the very things which have caused the decline in much of Western industry?

Do they honestly believe that leaving the EU will bring these jobs back?

No, but when you have lost everything that you know and understand, wanting change is not an uncommon desire. Especially when there are plenty of people telling you that it can be fixed, that they have an answer.

For many, globalisation has simply lead to a downward shift for many, whilst the few seem to be getting richer and richer. Bezos is apparently now worth $105bn, all because he was able to get rid of local shops (of course that is a gross simplification but it makes the point).

So if the current system seems to be working against your interest then it makes sense to change.

The problem being, as you pointed out, is that the change they voted for has ever chance of making the problem worse.

MrPudding

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand the "left behind", "the EU took our steel /shipyard /mining jobs" motivation behind some brexit voters.

Everything I've seen in a brexiteers fantasy future has involved huge globalisation and free trade with economies like India and China. Are these not the very things which have caused the decline in much of Western industry?

Do they honestly believe that leaving the EU will bring these jobs back?

Ha. I don't get it either. The leave campaign's own economist said voting leave would mean the end of UK manufacturing. They still voted leave.

I think they were just so completely disengaged. The Today programme did a really interesting segment in the run up to the last election. They took a group of leave voters and a group of remain voters (separately) and asked them series of questions. This was a week or two before the election. The question that got me the most was along the line of "if you hear the phrase "strong and stable" what does that mean to you?" At that stage I had heard that phrase so much that is someone had said it to me in real life I would probably have reached for them. Every one of the remain voters had heard it and not a single one of the leave voters new what it meant. That was insane to me, it was everywhere. That a person could have gotten to within days of an election and not heard that phrase indicates a mind blowing level disengagement.

Professor Moriarty

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand the "left behind", "the EU took our steel /shipyard /mining jobs" motivation behind some brexit voters.

Everything I've seen in a brexiteers fantasy future has involved huge globalisation and free trade with economies like India and China. Are these not the very things which have caused the decline in much of Western industry?

Do they honestly believe that leaving the EU will bring these jobs back?

Yes, these jobs will come back when a post-Brexit Tory government slashes and burns its way through the minimum wage, social welfare, Health & Safety, employment legislation etc. Then the great unwashed will have all the jobs they want. MBGA.

ArmaniJeanss

The Remain campaign didn't exactly seek Labour/Corbyns help, not in the same way they engaged with Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour in Indeyref1.

David Cameron pretty much thought he could get Remain over the line without having to share the kudos with other parties in the UK.

The perception of Corbyn back in Spring 2016 was very negative (weird looking sandal wearing incompetent has-been and general figure of fun who'll only be leader for a few months) so putting him front and centre of the campaign wouldn't have been seen as a good idea.

Skedaddle

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand the "left behind", "the EU took our steel /shipyard /mining jobs" motivation behind some brexit voters.

Everything I've seen in a brexiteers fantasy future has involved huge globalisation and free trade with economies like India and China. Are these not the very things which have caused the decline in much of Western industry?

Do they honestly believe that leaving the EU will bring these jobs back?

Sadly, yes. They do believe that leaving the EU will bring those jobs back, not understanding that they've voted for policies where the Tories plan to throw them to the wolves of the global free market without any EU internal market to back them up.

Much like Trump's promises in the US, they're being sold even more aggressively hardline Laissez-faire capitalism somehow being respun as good for the little guy.

I mean if you look at the things the Tories are banging on about as the 'evils of the EU'.

Most of the 'red tape' they are on about is basically employment rights legislation, environmental protection legislation and product safety legislation.

Also many of the things they tend to pick up, entirely out of context, and spin as 'crazy rules from Brussels' are simply market harmonisation rules that are intended to remove internal barriers around things like product specifications, descriptions and ensure that people can trade easily across the whole bloc.

I mean what exactly is the UK trying to do? Get the freedom to have lead in paint, sell dangerous electrical products, pollute the environment, work 100+ hour weeks and have minimal human rights law? Is that really what they want?! I honestly don't think that's what your average UK voter was aiming for..

The UK isn't going to be able to just trade without adopting EU or other intentional trade standards be they via just adhering to EU standards anyway (As many countries do), adopting standards for access to the US market (similar problem), or adopting standards from various global organisations.

The Tory objective seems to be to remain with full access to the European market, ignoring all the rules and minimum standards and just engage in wholesale economic dumping into the European market, operating as a tax and regulatory haven effectively. That's just not going to happen.

From what I can see of Brexit, it's quite simply an orgy of nationalism and jingoism and nobody's prepared to listen to reason or logic on the Brexit side. It's just frenzied headline after frenzied headline in the tabloids, like as if they're trying to prevoke a virtual war almost. It really is bizarre, especially if you flick through the pages of the Express or similar outlets like that.

So, I think ultimately what's going to happen is the whole fantasy will come crashing into a harsh economic reality of what Brexit really means.

The question is when that does happen, and I do think you're looking at the UK probably facing into a prolonged recession or even depression, will the British electorate then turn on the Tories, or will they just continue to blame "Johnnie Foreigner" and the EU and turn into some kind of bitter, twisted right wing mess?

Leroy42

But that fails to take into account the notion that foreigners from other EU states are coming over to the UK to take the jobs or at the least to keep the wages low.

I recall a number of years ago dealing with a meat processing plant in Ireland. The Irish workers saw it as a career, they bought houses, children went to the local schools, played in the local clubs. Then you had EU workers who came in and worked, very hard with lots of overtime etc, but for only a few years before heading home (of course some of them stayed).

The Irish workers were judged by the management as not pulling their weight, when in the workers eyes they were looking for the long term, ie not burning out. So naturally management wanted the short term EU workers, to come in a maximise productivity. They had no long term concerns.

But what does that do to the real life of the town? They effectively became of holding town for the plant, with no roots being put down.

This is what is happening to large parts of the UK. Now, on top of that is the industrialisation of work, but that has been wrapped up (the same as in the US) as the fault of globalisation rather than computerisation. Add those together and you start to understand why people voted they way they did. Doesn't mean it was right, but having been told for years that EU would deliver prosperity for everyone, and then to find that everyone does not include you or your friends and family, then whilst it may be irrational to think that it would make a difference one can understand the logic.

IMO, the UK and also the EU have done appallingly at helping those at the lower end. We can't all be investment bankers or computer experts. There has to be room made for the people with lack of skills (I don't mean that a derogatory manner, just that some people don't get trained up due to lack of investment/education etc). We have outsourced all those jobs to China etc, leaving a massive cohort of the population being told they are surplus to requirements.

Successive UK governments have hidden their agenda behind a blame of the EU, when of course the UK could have done far more to alleviate the effects. Like a less London centred plan. Better investment in education. But it was easier to simply blame the EU for the ills. When the public has been fed the line that the EU is evil and out to get the UK is it any wonder that people decided that the EU was evil and out to get the UK.

Of course the major fault line lies with the fact that the very people selling this idea are the same people that are working to reduce their rights and allowances, taking away funds from the local playground or library.

Tell me how

Skedaddle wrote: »

From what I can see of Brexit, it's quite simply an orgy of nationalism and jingoism and nobody's prepared to listen to reason or logic on the Brexit side. It's just frenzied headline after frenzied headline in the tabloids, like as if they're trying to prevoke a virtual war almost. It really is bizarre, especially if you flick through the pages of the Express or similar outlets like that.

So, I think ultimately what's going to happen is the whole fantasy will come crashing into a harsh economic reality of what Brexit really means.

The question is when that does happen, and I do think you're looking at the UK probably facing into a prolonged recession or even depression, will the British electorate then turn on the Tories, or will they just continue to blame "Johnnie Foreigner" and the EU and turn into some kind of bitter, twisted right wing mess?

If you come from a position that Brexit has to happen because the electorate voted for it (and forgot about the reasons they had for voting for it for a second) then I think they could make it work. They are a large population with a lot going for them in terms of resources and funds.

Making it work though would have meant acknowledging from day one after the vote how difficult it was going to be and would need a very strong PM, ministers, and negotiators to communicate that message.

The situation they have now seems close to no win, if things are difficult, it's because of the EU or, (when the government changes) the May government, and negotiators will be blamed. Whatever is in their future, I see a lot of complaining and "here's what they should have done" from the silent experts such as Gove, Johnson and Farage.

Skedaddle

The problem though with the argument above is that the whole thrust of the Tory policy will be about making the UK more competitive not less.
What you're describing is more like the French eurosceptic argument at political level, which is that the EU has brought too much deregulation and too much market openness.

The British political argument is that the EU is hampering them from their free market destiny. I don't think that's something that the UK electorate necessarily agree with. They just both want to exit the EU, but I think that's where you're going to get the future clash of cultures.

The Tory vision is for 'Singapore-on-Thames' basically. It's often very narrow, and very much about turning the country into some kind of tax haven.

Within the EU, the British Government has also usually been the major force for free-market policies and neoliberal type economics.

I see the EU moving towards a more social-democratic type model while the UK, assuming that it doesn't swing way left with Corbyn, is currently on a path towards some version of US style neoliberalism.

What the Tories think they have a mandate for may ultimately turn out to be something very different to what the electorate think they voted for.

When you look at things that were brought up during the Brexit campaign, they included a lot of fiscally expansionary issues like more funding for the NHS. Those things weren't on the agenda AT ALL at the Tory party.

I just think there's a risk that this could end up a bit like Ireland in the 1920s (without the violence) where people campaigned for independence for a whole variety of reasons and somehow ended up living in a country that was exclusively run by one faction - the religious conservatives and cultural nationalists, for years. I wonder if the UK could now end up sliding into a sort of GW Bush version of the USA-lite model.

It would be VERY dangerous to think that Brexit would give the UK Government carte blanche for Thatcherism on steroids.

I also think it would be very dangerous for the EU to assume that it has carte blanche to go ahead with further deep integration. There are various countries that could end up falling out with it very badly, if that's what it does.

Zubeneschamali

CrabRevolution wrote: »

Do they honestly believe that leaving the EU will bring these jobs back?

I still think a large number just voted Leave as a protest, to tell Westminster they were peed off. They did not think Leave could win, so it was a safe protest vote (they thought).

Now that the vote has happened, there is a big streak in the English character that says "Oh well, fair enough, you win, thems the rules, have to follow through, where do I queue to Brexit?", instead of the Irish "Well, that result was stupid, let's vote again".

Skedaddle

If you think about it, the European Union for most of us, unless we actually have some direct involvement with it or have studied politics, economics or something similar, normally is just something that sits in the background.
We take most of what it does for granted or are blissfully unaware of it.

I don't think the average British voter, and even the average British political leader, fully understood what the EU actually is and does. It's fairly obviously the case as they're crashing into reality after reality as they discover that that the decision has pretty profound practical and economic implications and has unravelled all sorts of other issues that they didn't think about e.g. Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, global trade, relations with the WTO, aviation, banking, you name it...

The referendum that was presented gave you a "Leave" or "Remain" question to what is actually a very complicated and intricately linked set of institutions and none of the implications of doing so were really fleshed out at all.

It looks to me like it's too late as they're not going to re-run it under any circumstances.

Also the outcome of this can't really be predicted as the EU is pretty much unprecedented as a concept and nobody's ever really done this kind of complex unravelling of economic connections before between healthy economies that were in a friendly intertwined relationship. There are very few examples other than countries splitting into parts, and those are rare and not really comparable to this either.

So fundamentally, we have no idea how this is going to turn out and most of the predictions are fairly meaningless.

The biggest issue I'm seeing is the UK has created serious uncertainty by entering this situation without any real plan and is just flying by the seat of its pants. That can only really go for so long before it starts to frighten investors.

Professor Moriarty

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No, it was actually 64% of Labour voters voted remain. Which means that 35% of voters could have been swayed by a determined and passionate Corbyn. Given that 51.9% of voters voted for Brexit, it is very likely that an enthusiastic Corbyn would have persuaded enough of that 35% (and perhaps non-Labour voters who were undecided) to vote Remain.

It was 64% of people who voted labor at the previous election I believe. Labour had already lost a lot of votes to UKIP.

Rjd2

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The Remain campaign didn't exactly seek Labour/Corbyns help, not in the same way they engaged with Gordon Brown and Scottish Labour in Indeyref1.

David Cameron pretty much thought he could get Remain over the line without having to share the kudos with other parties in the UK.

The perception of Corbyn back in Spring 2016 was very negative (weird looking sandal wearing incompetent has-been and general figure of fun who'll only be leader for a few months) so putting him front and centre of the campaign wouldn't have been seen as a good idea.

He went on holiday in the weeks before the vote and hasn't done much to placate the majority of Labour voters who are remain. John Mc Donnell his number 2 also very similar.

Its amusing really, both he and May didn't exactly bust a gut in the run up to Brexit, but its 2018 and they not those who campaigned strongly either way for leave/remain are leading there respective parties.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

It was 64% of people who voted labor at the previous election I believe. Labour had already lost a lot of votes to UKIP.

No, they got 30% at the 2015 GE. In June 2016, they were averaging 31% in the polls so they had actually increased their vote share.

Sand

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand the "left behind", "the EU took our steel /shipyard /mining jobs" motivation behind some brexit voters.

Everything I've seen in a brexiteers fantasy future has involved huge globalisation and free trade with economies like India and China. Are these not the very things which have caused the decline in much of Western industry?

Do they honestly believe that leaving the EU will bring these jobs back?

Tory 19th century free trade fetishists certainly are not the same as the Brexit voters or their motivations, so I wouldn't confuse them. May's government is essentially a high-jacking of the referendum result, not a continuation of it.

Voters who prioritised economic concerns overwhelmingly voted Remain. Voters who prioritised non-economic concerns overwhelmingly voted Leave. Essentially, Leave voters were not motivated by economic policy, or even economic outcomes. The 'left behind' wasn't motivated to come out and vote to determine which flavour of third way globalism would be in government. Nobody was offering to bring those jobs back - the message was train up and move to London.

They were motivated to finally come out and vote to change the system which had disenfranchised them and to which they felt no loyalty and had no stake in. To force the UK out of the EU and force change to the system under which they are governed. Whatever you think about Brexit, the fallout will break open the UK system.

That's why the 'take back control' message was so powerful. It was a non-economic message that offered people some agency over their lives. There is a good summary of the various polling here.

The synopsis:

Taking all this evidence into account it seems that the Brexit vote was a protest vote against both the impact of globalisation and social liberalism. The two are connected by immigration, and of course the one certainty of the Brexit debate was that free movement prevented controls on EU migration.

This discounts the attraction of the NHS lie, but it largely seems to be the case: Brexit support remains stubbornly high (40%+) in polling regardless of the obvious economic costs of Brexit and the clear disowning of the NHS lie. But net migration to the UK (both EU and non-EU origin) has fallen drastically in the 12 months following Brexit. If economic tradeoffs were the priority support would have collapsed to single digits by now.

LeinsterDub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Doesn't mean it was right, but having been told for years that EU would deliver prosperity for everyone

Compared to before entering the EU, the EU has delivered prosperity for everyone. The poor are less poor now than ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:Absolute_poverty_rates_(After_Housing_Costs)_in_the_UK,_1997-2014.png

Now don't get me wrong no one would opt to be poor but the EU in part has ensured that there never has been be a better time to be poor.

ambro25

Skedaddle wrote: »

If you think about it, the European Union for most of us, unless we actually have some direct involvement with it or have studied politics, economics or something similar, normally is just something that sits in the background.
We take most of what it does for granted or are blissfully unaware of it.

Not a criticism, but I doubt that 3.something millions non-Brits in the UK and 1.something million Brits in the EU27 take what the EU does for granted.

It's inconsequential because their views were not considered, nor expressed, in the referendum, and have received less than lip service by the UK government since.

But, I thought -prompted by your post- a worthy reminder/context-setter was in order.

Because it's a non-trivial body of people (notwithstanding it's continual ignorance by most in the UK).

Skedaddle wrote: »

Also the outcome of this can't really be predicted as the EU is pretty much unprecedented as a concept and nobody's ever really done this kind of complex unravelling of economic connections before between healthy economies that were in a friendly intertwined relationship. There are very few examples other than countries splitting into parts, and those are rare and not really comparable to this either.

So fundamentally, we have no idea how this is going to turn out and most of the predictions are fairly meaningless.

Whilst I fully agree with the sentiment and general gist of your comment above, and whilst I agree that the outcome (as in, the actual one come March 2019) "can't really be predicted" (until much further along in the negotiations/ratification process come October 2018), I disagree that "fundamentally, we have no idea how this is going to turn out and most of the predictions are fairly meaningless": there is plenty enough certainty to be had about at least one outcome (the no deal one, not to name it), due to the monochromatic character of the provisions in the treaties, statutes and other legal texts involved.

For sure, there would still be plenty of uncertainty about how the UK and the EU would attempt to mitigate the situation in practice, respectively and jointly.

But the certainty about the day 1 effects of the no deal outcome (for anyone who cares to consider and enumerate them, as a compiling effort: I've done the IP ones on here aplenty, others have done aviation, still others have done pharma, etc.) is plenty clear, and has long been.

In that context, investors have already long been frightened. But they are part of the economic, rational side of the matter, which is still heavily discounted by the enduring ideologically-motivated side. It's only a gut feel (borne from working in the UK with investment-led, innovating companies for years to date), but I'd say the point of ever-diminishing returns in that particular context, was passed late in the summer of 2017.

EDIT: and as if on cue,

UK companies working in fields from development to aviation and haulage are being warned that the EU will shut down their ability to operate across Europe and block funding streams from Brussels in the event of a “no deal” Brexit.

In a stark reminder of the high stakes in the negotiations, the European commission has drawn up a series of documents in which it seeks to communicate directly with UK businesses and charities about the damaging consequences of failure to reach an agreement on the terms of withdrawal.

Across a wide range of sectors, the EU makes clear that unless a deal is agreed by October, in time for ratification by the European parliament and the House of Commons before the UK leaves the bloc in March 2019, the status quo will come to an abrupt end. <...>

Professor Moriarty

This headline and first paragraph from the Telegraph:

"Brexiteers to give Michel Barnier hamper of English wine and cheddar in show of UK's strengths

A delegation of Brexit supporters will present the EU's chief negotiator with a hamper of English sparkling wine, cheddar cheese and Shakespeare plays at a meeting in Brussels today, as they warn him against under-estimating Britain's global influence."


It's like satire from Private Eye.

CrabRevolution

I'm sure a Frenchman will appreciate how globally iconic British cheese and wine are....

Skedaddle

It's a bit of a stupid gift, more so the wine aspect as it's just a "look we can make mediocre wine in a few narrow areas of the South of England"
Why not send Scottish Whiskies or London Gin or something that's actually a good example of British drinks?!

Britain has some fine cheeses, but wine is not one of its "strengths" anymore than pasta is.

It would be like sending a bad stout to Ireland.

It actually sends a message or "we don't want your stinking wine and we'll grow our own glasshouse oranges too!"

Leroy42

But the real story is that Hammond and Davies are going directly to Germany as they know they are getting nowhere with the EU. They are trying to break up the EU as they are finding that regardless of the size of the UK it is nothing compared to the combined EU and as such they have little real power.

It is akin to accepting defeat in terms of the stated promise of Brexit being easy. So what are the options for Germany. Agree to help the UK and cause a potential massive divide within the EU, and the likely breakaway of further countries, or sit tight and keep with the project.

Skedaddle

I would quite seriously doubt the Germans will play ball with the UK on this.
German products sell based on quality and premium. A few percent tariffs just means that they'll pay more for them in the UK, but they'll still buy them.

I'm even doubtful that Irish agri exports will be that badly impacted. The UK consumers are extremely cautious about provenance of food and I would have my doubts they would be rushing to chow down on Brazilian beef and American chicken. They're already freaked out about chlorine washed chicken and it's not even remotely near the market yet!

Also, despite all their notions, they can't actually feed themselves and never have been able to. The only way it would be possible would end up with WWII like rationing. So, they're just going to end up paying more for the same food - tariffs, weaker currency and so on.

I think most people are aware of the UK's long history of attempting to 'divide and conquer'. They're likely to meet a brick wall.

ambro25

Skedaddle wrote: »

I would quite seriously doubt the Germans will play ball with the UK on this.
German products sell based on quality and premium. A few percent tariffs just means that they'll pay more for them in the UK, but they'll still buy them.

Agreed.

But not on the basis of German product quality and best-in-class positioning (which, as you quite correctly note, Brits will still buy in droves regardless, as it just won't do to turn up at board meetings or the golf club in a Nissan).

More to preserve the integrity of the SM, as consistently and jointly stated by German manufacturers of <everything German, from premium cars to lathes and every finished and semi-finished product and component in-between>, very plainly and clearly ever since the referendum result.

Because they are very aware indeed that this:

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the real story is that Hammond and Davies are going directly to Germany as they know they are getting nowhere with the EU. They are trying to break up the EU as they are finding that regardless of the size of the UK it is nothing compared to the combined EU and as such they have little real power.

has been the Brexiters' plan along, and likely still will be right up to the 23rd hour of the last day.

Whereby maintaining communal unity (involving a deaf ear to the UK's continual attempts to divide-and-conquer) is the main way of preventing this:

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is akin to accepting defeat in terms of the stated promise of Brexit being easy. So what are the options for Germany. Agree to help the UK and cause a potential massive divide within the EU, and the likely breakaway of further countries, or sit tight and keep with the project.

Pragmatically, after the EU, these days Asia -and China in particular- is next most important to the Germans. And to the French, per Macron's visit this week: he gifted the Chinese a prized gelding, which fully accords with some Chinese (millennial) culture and folklore.

Cameron gifted Xi a signed football shirt :pac:

Professor Moriarty

Leroy42 wrote: »

But the real story is that Hammond and Davies are going directly to Germany as they know they are getting nowhere with the EU. They are trying to break up the EU as they are finding that regardless of the size of the UK it is nothing compared to the combined EU and as such they have little real power.

It is akin to accepting defeat in terms of the stated promise of Brexit being easy. So what are the options for Germany. Agree to help the UK and cause a potential massive divide within the EU, and the likely breakaway of further countries, or sit tight and keep with the project.

Exactly. Divide and conquer (in their own minds). They really are beginning to squirm now. The shriller the headlines in the Telegraph, Sun, Express and Mail, the more the Tories are feeling the pressure.

Skedaddle

I think they could also be totally overestimating the warmth that's felt for this face of UK across the entire EU (including Ireland.)
A lot of people really don't like the Tory-style aspect of British politics. It's smarmy, it's often jingoistic, smug, superior, unpleasant and so on.

Think about it: They've spent years mocking, jibing, name calling, making very thinly veiled threats of undermining etc etc etc and now they expect everyone to fall for "oh we want to be your friend..."

You can say that countries don't have friends and only have interests. I honestly don't think that's true. There's a solidarity there between a lot of the EU members and it goes way beyond just simple economics. I don't think the aspect of the British establishment that we are currently are dealing with ever really felt part of that.

I mean, what exactly will an EU member get for doing some backroom deal with the UK? Access to a mid-size market that they'd probably have access regardless? Step on the toes of countries that are really their committed partners? It really makes very little sense.

Sure, they might get some support from maybe Poland and Hungary on modern euroscepticism, but wait .. they want to deport all the Poles and Hungarians.

They forget a lot that they're negotiating with humans, who have memories, who don't like being mocked and vilified in the press and so on.

Zubeneschamali

Skedaddle wrote: »

I mean, what exactly will an EU member get for doing some backroom deal with the UK?

Suspended.

Professor Moriarty

Skedaddle wrote: »

I think they could also be totally overestimating the warmth that's felt for this face of UK across the entire EU (including Ireland.)
A lot of people really don't like the Tory-style aspect of British politics. It's smarmy, it's often jingoistic, smug, superior, unpleasant and so on.

Think about it: They've spent years mocking, jibing, name calling, making very thinly veiled threats of undermining etc etc etc and now they expect everyone to fall for "oh we want to be your friend..."

You can say that countries don't have friends and only have interests. I honestly don't think that's true. There's a solidarity there between a lot of the EU members and it goes way beyond just simple economics. I don't think the aspect of the British establishment that we are currently are dealing with ever really felt part of that.

I mean, what exactly will an EU member get for doing some backroom deal with the UK? Access to a mid-size market that they'd probably have access regardless? Step on the toes of countries that are really their committed partners? It really makes very little sense.

Sure, they might get some support from maybe Poland and Hungary on modern euroscepticism, but wait .. they want to deport all the Poles and Hungarians.

They forget a lot that they're negotiating with humans, who have memories, who don't like being mocked and vilified in the press and so on.

Exactly. Your post really captures the difference between Anglophobia and a weary resentment of Little Englander smugness.

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

Agreed.

But not on the basis of German product quality and best-in-class positioning (which, as you quite correctly note, Brits will still buy in droves regardless, as it just won't do to turn up at board meetings or the golf club in a Nissan).

More to preserve the integrity of the SM, as consistently and jointly stated by German manufacturers of <everything German, from premium cars to lathes and every finished and semi-finished product and component in-between>, very plainly and clearly ever since the referendum result.

The very real issue that people eschew discussing in favour of the above is the shock imposed by non-tariff barriers like regulations and supply chains. If Nissan can't make its cars as efficiently because the port at Dover isn't currently set up for customs checks for the vast swathes of traffic traversing it on a daily basis then Nissan's customers are in for very long waits indeed. If you're looking to spend £30,000 on a Volkswagen then I'd say upping that to £33,000 (The current WTO tariff is 10%) is going to make all of no difference.

ambro25 wrote: »

Because they are very aware indeed that this has been the Brexiters' plan along, and likely still will be right up to the 23rd hour of the last day.

Whereby maintaining communal unity (involving a deaf ear to the UK's continual attempts to divide-and-conquer) is the main way of preventing this.

And yet this is a conclusion that is still very, very far away from the minds of the British public. So far that I find it genuinely frightening. How many people even know who Steve Baker is? Do they know he wants to destroy the EU? Do they know he is a on the Brexit negotiating team?

I am impressed I must say that the EU has unified the way that it has. Attempts at divide and conquer have failed dramatically and almost hilariously to the point of parody. The idea that Frau Merkel secretly runs Europe is as daft as it is widespread. A Eurosceptic friend I have posted a remark on Facebook recently about the EU patting the heads of Irish diplomats with such encouragements one might issue to a dog but said diplomats managed to get the Northern Irish question into the core of the negotiations. They've done quite well and fair play to them for that.

ambro25 wrote: »

Pragmatically, after the EU, these days Asia -and China in particular- is next most important to the Germans. And to the French, per Macron's visit this week: he gifted the Chinese a prized gelding, which fully accords with some Chinese (millennial) culture and folklore.

Cameron gifted Xi a signed football shirt :pac:

Of course but noticing this (Thanks for the story about Macron by the way. I appreciate it.) means tearing your eyes away from the land of milk and honey narrative peddled tabloids owned by tax dodging, non-domiciled Europhobic oligarchs who've been reaping the rewards of divide and conquer for many decades now.

This is really basic common knowledge and there's no way discussion of some sort haven't been going on between EU representatives and their contemporaries in India, China, etc trying to hammer out the rough boundaries and bones a potential trade deal might adorn.

A poster here once said that Brexit needs to happen for the public to realise their mistake but I'm not so sure. These newspapers and outlets have been peddling the same lies and spin for a long, long time and so far the response has only been "Please sir, can I have some more." The EU will ALWAYS be the villain. It represents something that the privileged elite of the UK utterly despise; solidarity, cooperation and unity hence the divide and conquer narratives they peddle so effectively.

GalwayMark

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Exactly. Divide and conquer (in their own minds). They really are beginning to squirm now. The shriller the headlines in the Telegraph, Sun, Express and Mail, the more the Tories are feeling the pressure.

I'm more terrified of some Putin-British alliance emerging if the 'hard brexit' occurs. That would be a huge gift to Republicans in the North.

Professor Moriarty

GalwayMark wrote: »

I'm more terrified of some Putin-British alliance emerging if the 'hard brexit' occurs. That would be a huge gift to Republicans in the North.

I think if it all ends badly, then Britain will become a vassal state of the USA.

Skedaddle

GalwayMark wrote: »

I'm more terrified of some Putin-British alliance emerging if the 'hard brexit' occurs. That would be a huge gift to Republicans in the North.

That isn't really very likely, considering you could be looking at the UK having to deal with an America that may well have purged Putin's influence from its system quite aggressively by then and it may well have flipped from Trumpism directly to Democratic Party politics and potentially could even have someone like Oprah Winfrey as president.

They would also absolutely infuriate NATO members in Europe if they did something like that and would end up extremely isolated.

If the UK were to have any kind of Putin-British alliance, I think that would really be the end of the UK as a serious country.

A lot could change by 2020 and I think the biggest change is likely to be that Trump will have long since unravelled by then.

ancapailldorcha

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think if it all ends badly, then Britain will become a vassal state of the USA.

This might sound daft but I'd say the British right wouldn't oppose some form of this at all. I'd say they'd be all for it. It would tick all the right boxes. Special relationship? Check. Closer transatlantic ties? Check. No unrestricted mass immigrationTM? Check. The way some Tories heap effusive praise upon the US and its current incumbent head of state suggests they'd be happy switching Brussels for Washington.

GalwayMark

Skedaddle wrote: »

That isn't really very likely, considering you could be looking at the UK having to deal with an America that may well have purged Putin's influence from its system quite aggressively by then and it may well have flipped from Trumpism directly to Democratic Party politics and potentially could even have someone like Oprah Winfrey as president.

They would also absolutely infuriate NATO members in Europe if they did something like that and would end up extremely isolated.

If the UK were to have any kind of Putin-British alliance, I think that would really be the end of the UK as a serious country.

A lot could change by 2020 and I think the biggest change is likely to be that Trump will have long since unravelled by then.

I wouldn't be too sure. Yeah Trump will have disappeared by then but most Irish people and even Republicans should be aware that a member of the Unionist Fascist party whose leader believed Catholics should be liquidated is one of Putins biggest fans and lobbyists known as David Burnside plus the amount of ties between the Leave Campaign and the Kremlin is enough to cause alarm since the brits in the negotiations have proven themselves to be untrustworthy as many EU countries apart from Austria,Sweden,Finland, Malta and Cyprus are members of both groups.

Cyprus is known for huge Russian money laundering plus also hosts British army bases for Middle Eastern Deployments so there's plenty of motivation that Moscow has to isolate Britain hugely considering its religious, cultural and historic ties via Greece. There's material on Open Democracy connecting prominent leave donors to 1990s Russia that led to Putins reign in the first place.

Professor Moriarty

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This might sound daft but I'd say the British right wouldn't oppose some form of this at all. I'd say they'd be all for it. It would tick all the right boxes. Special relationship? Check. Closer transatlantic ties? Check. No unrestricted mass immigrationTM? Check. The way some Tories heap effusive praise upon the US and its current incumbent head of state suggests they'd be happy switching Brussels for Washington.

I think there's no doubt. There is a large and powerful Anglophile WASP cohort in the USA that is fascinated by (and identifies with) Britishness, the monarchy, etc. A prime example is how the vast majority of heroes and heroines in American movies is either American or British (and white, of course). This is ideal fodder for the Tory elite in Britain.

GalwayMark

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I think there's no doubt. There is a large and powerful Anglophile WASP cohort in the USA that is fascinated by (and identifies with) Britishness, the monarchy, etc. A prime example is how the vast majority of heroes and heroines in American movies is either American or British (and white, of course). This is ideal fodder for the Tory elite in Britain.

There's also the Irish American caucas and lobby which not as powerful like it once used to be, is still influential even if not the same as the distant or recent past plus now it's White Americans the Old WASPs have really died out so yeah actually the ruling class is way more diverse than people realise and the amount of Jewish names would tell a very different story to even the beginning of the last century.

Skedaddle

There's an Irish American lobby that can coalesce around a narrow range of Irish focused issues at times. What would be a huge mistake is to definite it as being Republican or Democratic in outlook. You've both left wing Irish Americans and you've also got a huge amount of them who fall into the Trump realm everyone from Bannon to Kellyanne Fitzpatrick-Conway.

You can basically go all the way from the Kennedy style Irish Americans who tend to be popular in Ireland right through to the very heart of Trump's cabinet today.

It's not a group that I would really think you could put into a single political stance. They're just all connected to this island.

It would be a huge miscalculation to assume that Irish American politics is either in-line with 21st century Irish politics or that there is any single lobby. They're just Americans who have Irish connections.

GalwayMark

Yeah true Irish Americans are split 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans and most that live in Flyover Country wouldn't give a fig about Ireland but there was a piece in the Irish Times before the brexit phase 1 deadline from both parties representatives each with Irish ancestry saying the peace process may not be a leading concern in foreign policy but it still had the attention of some capitol hill lawmakers albeit not the same as during the Troubles.

Skedaddle

Well, I think there's an assumption that the Peace Process in Northern Ireland's done and dusted at this stage and that it's all fine. A lot of US legislators in reality would necessarily understand the full mechanics of it, even if they supported it.

I would say there's very little realisation that Brexit has anything to do with it and I base that opinion on knowing quite a few Irish-American Democrats who'd have been very supportive of it over the years.

ambro25

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The very real issue that people eschew discussing in favour of the above is the shock imposed by non-tariff barriers like regulations and supply chains. If Nissan can't make its cars as efficiently because the port at Dover isn't currently set up for customs checks for the vast swathes of traffic traversing it on a daily basis then Nissan's customers are in for very long waits indeed. If you're looking to spend £30,000 on a Volkswagen then I'd say upping that to £33,000 (The current WTO tariff is 10%) is going to make all of no difference.

Well, if that helps precipitate the popping of the PCP bubble in the UK, I'm all for it tbh.

Because even without looking for links, but just going by the evidence of my own commuting eyes and anecdotes from friends and relations, it must be growing to ridiculously-epic proportions of the UK user base.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course but noticing this (Thanks for the story about Macron by the way. I appreciate it.) means tearing your eyes away from the land of milk and honey narrative peddled tabloids owned by tax dodging, non-domiciled Europhobic oligarchs who've been reaping the rewards of divide and conquer for many decades now.

I daresay a sizeable portion of the 48% must have little problem with doing that.

The issue after the referendum was always getting enough amongst the 52% to get to that stage.

As that remains an ongoing (and still very uphill) issue currently (confirmation bias be damned and all that), it's likely too late to avoid Brexit as such. But it may not be so for the next generation, enough of which will grow to understand "what their elders did for them" thanks to t'Internet gradually diminishing the relevance and influence of tabloids...

...of course, that will still leave the arduous question of editorial accountability and ethics on social networks. Everything in its own time, I suppose.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A poster here once said that Brexit needs to happen for the public to realise their mistake but I'm not so sure. These newspapers and outlets have been peddling the same lies and spin for a long, long time and so far the response has only been "Please sir, can I have some more." The EU will ALWAYS be the villain. It represents something that the privileged elite of the UK utterly despise; solidarity, cooperation and unity hence the divide and conquer narratives they peddle so effectively.

Several did, and I'm one of them, as you may recall.

But then, I believe in that remedial approach/point of view, because I (still) harbour faith in the capacity of enough of the (Brexit-voting) British public to cop on sometime down the line, and that public is absolutely not "the privileged elite of the UK utterly despising solidarity, cooperation and unity": just a bit hard of understanding. They just need educating, not ridiculing or deriding

Lemming

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

A poster here once said that Brexit needs to happen for the public to realise their mistake but I'm not so sure. These newspapers and outlets have been peddling the same lies and spin for a long, long time and so far the response has only been "Please sir, can I have some more." The EU will ALWAYS be the villain. It represents something that the privileged elite of the UK utterly despise; solidarity, cooperation and unity hence the divide and conquer narratives they peddle so effectively.

ambro25 wrote: »

Several did, and I'm one of them, as you may recall.

But then, I believe in that remedial approach/point of view, because I (still) harbour faith in the capacity of enough of the (Brexit-voting) British public to cop on sometime down the line, and that public is absolutely not "the privileged elite of the UK utterly despising solidarity, cooperation and unity": just a bit hard of understanding. They just need educating, not ridiculing or deriding

I stand over my medical analogy of UK being a Brain cancer patient and Brexit being the cancer; at this stage the only way to halt the cancer is to kill the patient.

At this point i have near-zero faith that Brexit will not come to pass. In the unlikely event that it is halted, the well has been so thoroughly poisoned that no good will come of halting Brexit either. The UK's "political class" along with its populace as a whole have shown themselves unwilling to listen and understand the seriousness of the predicament in which they alone have placed themselves so the only way forward now is to let them figure out which way is "up" for themselves.

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

Pragmatically, after the EU, these days Asia -and China in particular- is next most important to the Germans. And to the French, per Macron's visit this week: he gifted the Chinese a prized gelding, which fully accords with some Chinese (millennial) culture and folklore.

Cameron gifted Xi a signed football shirt :pac:

so when Macron said the gelding represented French excellence, was he refering to it's lack of balls? :pac:

ancapailldorcha

ambro25 wrote: »

I daresay a sizeable portion of the 48% must have little problem with doing that.

True but I wasn't describing them. Though for fairness' sake, the Mail on Sunday did support remain.

ambro25 wrote: »

But then, I believe in that remedial approach/point of view, because I (still) harbour faith in the capacity of enough of the (Brexit-voting) British public to cop on sometime down the line, and that public is absolutely not "the privileged elite of the UK utterly despising solidarity, cooperation and unity": just a bit hard of understanding. They just need educating, not ridiculing or deriding

But people tried making the economic case for Brexit. It was the only thing BSiE tried to do, flawed as it was. The economic case clearly favoured remain and yet any study or academic was dismissed as a "loony, leftie elite". That was it. Not nearly enough attempt was made by too many people to educate themselves. Instead, they clung to soundbytes and echo chambers.

ambro25

ambro25 wrote: »

Well, if that helps precipitate the popping of the PCP bubble in the UK, I'm all for it tbh.

Because even without looking for links, but just going by the evidence of my own commuting eyes and anecdotes from friends and relations, it must be growing to ridiculously-epic proportions of the UK user base.

What bubble exactly? And what will it popping achieve?
PCP seems fine to me. It gets more cars on the market for the second hand market etc. If demand falls for PCP then they do less PCP, big whoop.

ambro25

Aegir wrote: »

so when Macron said the gelding represented French excellence, was he refering to it's lack of balls? :pac:

At a guess, probably more to the demonstration of diplomatic skill involved with the selection of the gift according to the host's culture and history, and its importing into China on time...to be contrasted with that of Cameron returning a Made in China (or Indonesia, fair is fair) bit of sportswear scribbled on by semi-talented ball-kickers :pac: