Brexit discussion thread III

Leroy42

listermint wrote: »

Im sorry, but where is this sudden news of the EU giving the UK a great deal, or any deal for that matter.

it goes against all current events.

It is looking ahead at the possible outcomes. It is clear that giving a great deal to the UK is the most beneficial outcome for both sides, in a vacuum.

The problem arises because it won't exist in a vacuum and as such the EU, just as the UK government seem beholden to the "the people voted for it", as constrained by the need to keep the union relevant and worthwhile.

Even without any terrorist attacks etc, if the UK surges ahead in the next few years, whilst EU stagnates or worse, there will be plenty of people asking what the value of being in the EU is since the economic argument appears lost.

So in reality, despite what both sides say in public, this is not a negotiation betweens friends looking for mutually beneficial outcomes, this is a divorce where one side will win and the other will lose. It is not a punishment (as it is dressed up in the UK media) merely the EU looking to protect itself from what will be a very important competitor.

The UK seem to not be admitting to this fact

Tell me how

listermint wrote:

Im sorry, but where is this sudden news of the EU giving the UK a great deal, or any deal for that matter.

it goes against all current events.

The UK has 80M wealthy people who buy lots. Even outside the EU, they'll still be very close and that's a very big market to ignore.

Stop thinking about just current events and think about the possible realities down the line.

Best case for the EU is the UK suffers greatly and begs to be-enter but that's at least 10 years away and if things go well for them in the meantime it might not happen.

Anthracite

Tell me how wrote: »

The UK has 80M wealthy people who buy lots.

80 million people?

Tell me how

Anthracite wrote: »

80 million people?

My bad. 65.64M. The point holds.

Nody

Tell me how wrote: »

The UK has 80M wealthy people who buy lots. Even outside the EU, they'll still be very close and that's a very big market to ignore.

Does not appear to stop USA pulling out of NAFTA and dump the Mexican and Canadian markets from a trade deal. You can still trade without a FTA after all.

However what I expect is EU will draft the agreement along the lines of Canada since UK will fail to write a deal. The FTA will be around goods and removing tariffs but here's the part UK don't appear to get; the issue for trade is not tariffs (with a few exceptions ala India's whisky tariffs etc.) but the paper work behind it. And that will hit all UK business no matter what FTA is written basically. UK does not have right to be certified for fresh produce &T livestock for 6 months, they don't have an authority capable of checking air planes for certification, they don't have a medical board etc. All these paper work related stuff means it will require recertification in EU based countries and add random checks at borders that did not exist before. Even at 2% check that's causing delays and 2% is optimistic.

That is what will cause real hardship for UK companies exporting to EU while UK can try to implement the same back they are so far behind the ball on hiring, staffing etc. it's simply not going to happen for many years yet.

Best case for the EU is the UK suffers greatly and begs to be-enter but that's at least 10 years away and if things go well for them in the meantime it might not happen.

How exactly do you envision things "going well for them"? The economy is already confirmed to be over 350 million a week behind compared to the Brexit vote failing so that has already eaten up the EU cost 1.5 times. Then once they leave they leave the biggest FTA organization reaching the most countries with the widest set of FTA world wide and start from scratch. And then there's the WTO trade dispute to be resolved which will block FTAs as well and the use of WTO terms. What country exactly are they going to trade with that EU has been holding them back from trading with? India? Plenty of trade but for a FTA India have been very clear on requirements for more visas which is a no go for Tories. China? China don't do FTA but bilateral deals and they already had one with EU in the first place; China would love to get more opportunity to dump their steel and other country sponsored products on the UK market however but don't expect them to allow UK to do the same. And if UK complaints well it's China vs. UK so good luck with that trade dispute.

ancapailldorcha

Tell me how wrote: »

My bad. 65.64M. The point holds.

They're not all wealthy either. Far from it. The UK is quite unequal (though not unusual by OECD standards) in terms of wealth distribution:





Source.

listermint

Tell me how wrote: »

The UK has 80M wealthy people who buy lots. Even outside the EU, they'll still be very close and that's a very big market to ignore.

Stop thinking about just current events and think about the possible realities down the line.

Best case for the EU is the UK suffers greatly and begs to be-enter but that's at least 10 years away and if things go well for them in the meantime it might not happen.

Sorry but your as bad as some of the Tories in these future predictions and as pointed out the UK does not have 80Million people and not all of them are adults (buying power) or wealthy as asserted to by you.

If they were then frankly this vote may never have happened they would all be happy as larry.

But no there is alot of unemployed people and soon to be alot more.

Enzokk

Tell me how wrote: »

I agree with the expectation of Brexit working, eventually, in some form. The UK is too big a market not to.

Aside from the losses which the EU are going to suffer, they will like have a continuous murmuring during national elections of other countries joining the UK outside the EU.

It remains to be seen how awkward the EU will try to make it continually for the UK so that the scenario is less appealing to others.

Think of a situation where there's another financial crash but now the UK don't care about bailing out Greece or Ireland or wherever, that's the EU problem and so they do it. There's some form of a terrorist attack soon after in a place like France just before national elections. Meanwhile, the UK is doing quite well at that point. This disturbingly perfect storm (but not entirely unlikely) could sweep Le Pen in who would likely start pushing to leave.

That's when Brussels would be getting very nervous.

So what do you think the EU should do in this scenario that you mention? If it is bad for the EU if the UK is seen as a success outside of the EU, surely it should follow that the EU should propose a deal that will not allow the UK to flourish or take no deal which will be worse.

But then you mention that it is in the EU's interest to have a close relationship with the UK as they have 80M wealthy people to trade with and it would serve no-one to have if the UK isn't given a good deal. Those seem to me to be 2 conflicting arguments. So what are you trying to say?

Leroy42 wrote: »

But Tmh brings up a very valid point and one that is at the root of the problem for the EU and something the UK doesn't seem to have taken into account.

The latest murmerings from Norway being the example. In a ideal world, EU would give the best possible deal to the UK in order to minimise the negative effects and keep everything ticking along.

The issue, raised by Norway and alluded to in a slightly different aspect by Tmh, is that the deal won't exist in a bubble and will have consequences on other parties. If the UK, for example, gets a great deal then wouldn't Ireland look to leave the EU in the future?

So the EU have their hands tied to a large extent. Just as the UK seem to value sovereignty over financial costs, the EU must see it in the same light. The future of the union is surely worth more than any negative effect of a no deal with the UK.

The EU has already warned the UK that any deal will have to take into consideration any other third country deals the EU has already. So it really seems that firstly what has been shouted down as project fear is anything but, and that the deal the UK can get is already there, they just have to choose it. There will, or more accurately there cannot be a bespoke deal for the UK as a third country as current third country deals with the EU will make this almost impossible because it will cause more problems than it solves for the EU.

Tell me how

Nody wrote: »

How exactly do you envision things "going well for them"? The economy is already confirmed to be over 350 million a week behind compared to the Brexit vote failing so that has already eaten up the EU cost 1.5 times. Then once they leave they leave the biggest FTA organization reaching the most countries with the widest set of FTA world wide and start from scratch. And then there's the WTO trade dispute to be resolved which will block FTAs as well and the use of WTO terms. What country exactly are they going to trade with that EU has been holding them back from trading with? India? Plenty of trade but for a FTA India have been very clear on requirements for more visas which is a no go for Tories. China? China don't do FTA but bilateral deals and they already had one with EU in the first place; China would love to get more opportunity to dump their steel and other country sponsored products on the UK market however but don't expect them to allow UK to do the same. And if UK complaints well it's China vs. UK so good luck with that trade dispute.

I'm not suggesting they have done the right thing, I'm suggesting that the wheel is always turning and someone will find a reason to deal with them because of the market they have. I'm not suggesting that they will be better off than they are now but that they will likely be sufficiently functioning for anti-EU advocates in other countries to view them as a success.

Remember in 2008 when we said in Ireland, we'd never recover and we would never make the same mistake again? Less than 10 years it took.

Tell me how

I seem to have been interpreted as viewing the UK having done the right thing in leaving the EU. I absolutely do not, (see previous posts on this thread) but I do not believe that it will end there and stay this way.

I think to expect that this is guaranteed to have an eternal negative impact on the UK is not a cast iron approach.

On the balance, I think it will be more difficult than good for them but it won't take much for leave advocates in other countries to say they did the right thing. If for no other reason than to continue to bad mouth the EU wherever they can.

If this is absolutely not the case, then it could be argued that Brexit is a good thing for the EU once they overcome the shortfall in payments and because ultimately the UK would probably try to come back in. This is the scenario I would like to happen but I'm not sure it will so easily.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

It is looking ahead at the possible outcomes. It is clear that giving a great deal to the UK is the most beneficial outcome for both sides, in a vacuum.

The problem arises because it won't exist in a vacuum and as such the EU, just as the UK government seem beholden to the "the people voted for it", as constrained by the need to keep the union relevant and worthwhile.

Even without any terrorist attacks etc, if the UK surges ahead in the next few years, whilst EU stagnates or worse, there will be plenty of people asking what the value of being in the EU is since the economic argument appears lost.

So in reality, despite what both sides say in public, this is not a negotiation betweens friends looking for mutually beneficial outcomes, this is a divorce where one side will win and the other will lose. It is not a punishment (as it is dressed up in the UK media) merely the EU looking to protect itself from what will be a very important competitor.

The UK seem to not be admitting to this fact

And I think this is a thin line the eu needs to tread as well.

Juncker and Barnier want to protect the eu, but at what cost? effectively penalising the uk by not giving a mutually beneficial deal could have local knock on effects to companies or countries that rely on the UK for trade.

the eu commissioners will still get paid no matter what level of trade they do with the UK, but if a company has to close, or lay off staff because of a reduction in business, it could lead to local anti eu feeling, which is more or less what caused Brexit in the first place.

Ultimately, people don't care about the "Greater good", they care about what is in their pay packet at the end of the month and what they can do with it.

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

And I think this is a thin line the eu needs to tread as well.

Juncker and Barnier want to protect the eu, but at what cost? effectively penalising the uk by not giving a mutually beneficial deal could have local knock on effects to companies or countries that rely on the UK for trade.

the eu commissioners will still get paid no matter what level of trade they do with the UK, but if a company has to close, or lay off staff because of a reduction in business, it could lead to local anti eu feeling, which is more or less what caused Brexit in the first place.

Ultimately, people don't care about the "Greater good", they care about what is in their pay packet at the end of the month and what they can do with it.

Odd that you lay none of this blame at the door of the Tories.

Your entire post is directed at the EU.


odd !?!?

Nody

Tell me how wrote: »

I seem to have been interpreted as viewing the UK having done the right thing in leaving the EU. I absolutely do not, (see previous posts on this thread) but I do not believe that it will end there and stay this way.

Nothing ever does.

I think to expect that this is guaranteed to have an eternal negative impact on the UK is not a cast iron approach.

Nothing is negative forever but the simple fact is UK lacks the skill, the market and the weight to get the deals they had in EU. 30 years ago I'd argue they could probably recover; today I'd argue they will be behind the curve short of EU folding in on itself completely (which for trade I don't expect to happen simply because all countries want to export even if they don't want to necessary import).

On the balance, I think it will be more difficult than good for them but it won't take much for leave advocates in other countries to say they did the right thing. If for no other reason than to continue to bad mouth the EU wherever they can.

I'd agree if the pain would be over in a few years but the ugly truth is the Brexit pain will go over at least a decade if not more. There's the initial chaos on day 1 and the months coming after that, then there's the wrong queue for non EU passports, then there's the slow down of investments which once again take the full decade to play out with fewer jobs, more automation etc. while the cheap labour market will turn black and lower quality imports are likely to increase (pushed as a requirement by USA or China for any deal will be to lower standards). Add in London diminishing as financial center (not disappear but gradually lose business as it becomes a world wide bidding war for EU rather than London having a exclusive edge) with less taxes coming in to fund projects and programs in the rest of UK. All of it to me points towards a gradual lowering of living standards (already started with inflation exceeding salary increases) which feeds into it's own negative cycle for UK as a country (less buying power means less local works, more automation to cut costs etc.). Now some will point to UK over all as a success no matter what; same way as alt righters (i.e. reclassified racists) points towards Hungary as a golden example on how a state should be run (as a corrupt dictatorship) but I think the overall news will not be there to support a wider population swing on the subject. And god forbid there's another severe bank crash; that could really be a ball kicker for UK due to their oversized finance centre in relation to the rest of the economy.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

And I think this is a thin line the eu needs to tread as well.

Juncker and Barnier want to protect the eu, but at what cost? effectively penalising the uk by not giving a mutually beneficial deal could have local knock on effects to companies or countries that rely on the UK for trade.

the eu commissioners will still get paid no matter what level of trade they do with the UK, but if a company has to close, or lay off staff because of a reduction in business, it could lead to local anti eu feeling, which is more or less what caused Brexit in the first place.

Ultimately, people don't care about the "Greater good", they care about what is in their pay packet at the end of the month and what they can do with it.

But that is precisely the point. Should the EU value the overall project higher than individual companies or even countries? The UK seem to value sovereignty higher than trade so why should the EU be any different.

As you say, Barnier will be paid either way, his only goal is the protection of the EU, not the protection of some factory on the NI border for example.

My reading of the UK media and politicians is they view their values are really important and worth fighting for but that the EU should simply give up theirs.

ambro25

Nody wrote: »

<...> And god forbid there's another severe bank crash; that could really be a ball kicker for UK due to their oversized finance centre in relation to the rest of the economy.

After about a decade here in the provincial UK (uninterrupted, but my history in UK goes further in aggregate), I'm in general agreement with your expectations about what will realistically happen in the UK (and I've quite literally put my money where my opinion is, and bet the farm on it, with winding up our life project in the UK, to reboot on the Continent in a month's time or so).

But I just wanted to highlight in context, that the next (cyclical) financial correction is forecast to happen very soon (one of the very many factors which I considered in my decision, and not given that much weight...but some, still).

I made the same decision in Dublin in late 2007 (wherein that factor was given considerably more weight, admittedly), we were fully relocated into the UK by mid-2008...#just sayin :cool:

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Odd that you lay none of this blame at the door of the Tories.

Your entire post is directed at the EU.


odd !?!?

What have the Tories got to do with the eu’s position?

It’s odd that you should say that to be honest.

Zubeneschamali

Aegir wrote: »

What have the Tories got to do with the eu’s position?

So far, nothing. They don't even seem to be on the same planet as the EU.

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

What have the Tories got to do with the eu’s position?

It’s odd that you should say that to be honest.

Your post indicated you are putting the EU to blame at the potential job losses coming to small businesses all over the place.

So i am asking why you have portioned none of that blame to the Tories ?

BonnieSituation

ambro25 wrote: »

After about a decade here in the provincial UK (uninterrupted, but my history in UK goes further in aggregate), I'm in general agreement with your expectations about what will realistically happen in the UK (and I've quite literally put my money where my opinion is, and bet the farm on it, with winding up our life project in the UK, to reboot on the Continent in a month's time or so).

But I just wanted to highlight in context, that the next (cyclical) financial correction is forecast to happen very soon (one of the very many factors which I considered in my decision, and not given that much weight...but some, still).

I made the same decision in Dublin in late 2007 (wherein that factor was given considerably more weight, admittedly), we were fully relocated into the UK by mid-2008...#just sayin :cool:

I got a job with the government in 2008 just before the arse fell out of my job and the economy. Orders had been drying up for a few months previous and service contracts weren't being renewed as regular. There was something coming so I went safe.

Then I decided 4 years ago to do an about turn and go back to university and get a cast-iron degree.

And then it's off to Denmark with me come June.

Nody

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I got a job with the government in 2008 just before the arse fell out of my job and the economy. Orders had been drying up for a few months previous and service contracts weren't being renewed as regular. There was something coming so I went safe.

Then I decided 4 years ago to do an about turn and go back to university and get a cast-iron degree.

And then it's off to Denmark with me come June.

Denmark is lovely as soon as you get used to everyone speaking like their mouth is full of porridge; also got a very strong and good social network more countries should consider (thought possibly slightly shorter times between jobs at those pay rates) to retrain people for new jobs.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

Your post indicated you are putting the EU to blame at the potential job losses coming to small businesses all over the place.

So i am asking why you have portioned none of that blame to the Tories ?

blame for what, on the eu having to tread a thin line?

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

blame for what, on the eu having to tread a thin line?

I think you fully understood the question i was asking but have chosen on a path of ignoring what was put to you. Thats fine. Just let it be known that you have not apportioned any blame on the Tories for them harming english businesses.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

blame for what, on the eu having to tread a thin line?

You claimed that the the EU not giving a good deal to the Uk would potentially cost jobs.

But let's be honest, this all hangs on the UK. The EU didn't want any of this.

Whatever happens, the only country to hold responsible is the UK. The fact that the EU won't give them want is just an outcome of that decision.

Why is Brexit not classed as the UK penalising the EU? Why is the EU standing up for what it holds as important somehow classed as punishment?

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

But that is precisely the point. Should the EU value the overall project higher than individual companies or even countries? The UK seem to value sovereignty higher than trade so why should the EU be any different.

what is the overall project?

if you are unemployed and unable to provide a decent standard of living for your family, do you care about the overall project?

Should someone in Wolfsburg who is unemployed and poor because their company moved to Wroclaw, be happy because someone in Wroclaw is now better off?

listermint

listermint wrote: »

I think you fully understood the question i was asking but have chosen on a path of ignoring what was put to you. Thats fine. Just let it be known that you have not apportioned any blame on the Tories for them harming english businesses.

10/10 for being determined to bring the Tories in to this. Bravo.

local discontent is what caused Brexit, be that fishing rights, lower wages or whatever.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

10/10 for being determined to bring the Tories in to this. Bravo.

local discontent is what caused Brexit, be that fishing rights, lower wages or whatever.

Internal Tory politics are at the core of Brexit.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

what is the overall project?

if you are unemployed and unable to provide a decent standard of living for your family, do you care about the overall project?

Should someone in Wolfsburg who is unemployed and poor because their company moved to Wroclaw, be happy because someone in Wroclaw is now better off?

So you think the EU can come up with a plan that makes sure not one person if affected by Brexit? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

The exact same argument can be leveled at the UK government. This stanch they have taken, no deal etc, is putting potentially thousands of jobs in the UK at risk

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

You claimed that the the EU not giving a good deal to the Uk would potentially cost jobs.

it could, of course.

Leroy42 wrote: »

But let's be honest, this all hangs on the UK. The EU didn't want any of this.

true, but it has happened and now it is up to the politicians to earn their money and deal with it.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Why is Brexit not classed as the UK penalising the EU? Why is the EU standing up for what it holds as important somehow classed as punishment?

so you decided not to respond to my points, but to go off on a tangent. Who cares who is penalising who. if the eu decide to penalise the UK for political reasons (which is entirely in their power and lets face it, there are plenty on this forum calling for that to happen) then it will have a negative effect on the eu as well as the UK. Yes?

listermint

Aegir wrote: »

10/10 for being determined to bring the Tories in to this. Bravo.

local discontent is what caused Brexit, be that fishing rights, lower wages or whatever.

As indicated to in post above. The Tories bear the sole responsibility for the vote. Literally the sole responsibility.


if it wasnt for some tiny portion of tory insiders chipping away for a few years this thread would not exist.

Leroy42

Leroy42 wrote: »

So you think the EU can come up with a plan that makes sure not one person if affected by Brexit? That seems to be what you are suggesting.

The exact same argument can be leveled at the UK government. This stanch they have taken, no deal etc, is putting potentially thousands of jobs in the UK at risk

the UK doesn't have a "Project" to protect though, does it.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

10/10 for being determined to bring the Tories in to this. Bravo.

local discontent is what caused Brexit, be that fishing rights, lower wages or whatever.

You do realise that the Tories are in government in the UK? That the minister in charge of negotiations is a Tory and that May, as PM, will have final signoff and is herself a Tory?

And that the negotiation position has been entirely drawn by the government, including the red lines?

ancapailldorcha

Aegir wrote: »

the UK doesn't have a "Project" to protect though, does it.

It has its own economy and the welfare of its citizens though. The fact is that the current predicament is entirely the fault of the Conservative party and those who voted for it and/or Brexit.

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

the UK doesn't have a "Project" to protect though, does it.

Ah ok, I see the confusion. The "project" is the EU.

So the "Project" in terms of the UK is the UK.

Professor Moriarty

Aegir wrote: »

the UK doesn't have a "Project" to protect though, does it.

It very much does. The GFA and Scottish independence are both threats to the UK project in the context of Brexit. .

Aegir

Aegir wrote: »

And I think this is a thin line the eu needs to tread as well.

Juncker and Barnier want to protect the eu, but at what cost? effectively penalising the uk by not giving a mutually beneficial deal could have local knock on effects to companies or countries that rely on the UK for trade.

the eu commissioners will still get paid no matter what level of trade they do with the UK, but if a company has to close, or lay off staff because of a reduction in business, it could lead to local anti eu feeling, which is more or less what caused Brexit in the first place.

Ultimately, people don't care about the "Greater good", they care about what is in their pay packet at the end of the month and what they can do with it.

You suppose though that this disgruntled former exporter to the UK will blame the EU though more than the UK.

The EU's position is very transparent and any negative consequences are very predictable.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It has its own economy and the welfare of its citizens though. The fact is that the current predicament is entirely the fault of the Conservative party and those who voted for it and/or Brexit.

yes, you're right. Apologies.

Tories are horrible and the worst possible specimens on human life. Labour are absolutely amazing and are only surpassed by the EU who are wonderful and can do no wrong.

Did I miss anything?

Leroy42

Aegir wrote: »

yes, you're right. Apologies.

Tories are horrible and the worst possible specimens on human life. Labour are absolutely amazing and are only surpassed by the EU who are wonderful and can do no wrong.

Did I miss anything?

Yeah, you missed the entire point

johnnyskeleton

Aegir wrote: »

yes, you're right. Apologies.

Tories are horrible and the worst possible specimens on human life. Labour are absolutely amazing and are only surpassed by the EU who are wonderful and can do no wrong.

Did I miss anything?

Mod note:

Can we tone down the rhetoric please?

CelticRambler

Britain's illogical negotating stance (regardless of whether it's attributed to Tory, Labour or UKIP agitation) is neatly summed up in this Guardian opinion piece:

it is jarring for EU leaders to hear Britain ask for special deals when its membership package was the most bespoke of the lot: outside the euro; outside the Schengen border-free zone; treaty opt-outs on social protection and criminal justice; a budget rebate. Those concessions were won from a seat in the room. Once on the outside, the question is not what new favours are available, but how much it costs to restore old privileges.

To a large extent, they already had their cake and were eating it; but now they think they can ask the EU to supply them with the recipe and ingredients they need to bake an identical one themselves, and somehow think that that's going to be cheaper and better than what they've enjoyed over the last four decades.

Chips Lovell

Aegir will be serving a short ban. Let's leave it there folks

Enzokk

Guy Verhoftadt pointed out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives for claiming two initiatives from the EU as their own.


https://twitter.com/guyverhofstadt/status/953197273659428864

ambro25

CelticRambler wrote: »

<...>

it is jarring for EU leaders to hear Britain ask for special deals when its membership package was the most bespoke of the lot: outside the euro; outside the Schengen border-free zone; treaty opt-outs on social protection and criminal justice; a budget rebate . <...>

To a large extent, they already had their cake and were eating it; but now they think they can ask the EU to supply them with the recipe and ingredients they need to bake an identical one themselves, and somehow think that that's going to be cheaper and better than what they've enjoyed over the last four decades.

Ever since I started debating the matter online and IRL in February 2016 (nearly 2 years ago now :eek:), not once have I ever met or seen a debating opponent on the Brexit side, ready and willing to even countenance that perspective, after it was presented to them.

So I very much doubt the author's perspective here will gain much traction, even in these somewhat-more-enlightened post-phase 1 times. It'd require a level of awareness and objectivity (even if still ideologically biased against continued membership) that simply does not seem to exist on the Brexit side of the debate. At all.

Water John

Well, the Brexir Ref was interpreted by May, after the vote, to mean, leaving the customs union and the single market.

All other twists and blaming, is false.

ancapailldorcha

Donald Tusk has said that the UK would still be welcome to stay in the EU (Source):

The UK would be welcome to stay in the EU if it changed its mind about Brexit, Donald Tusk has suggested.

The European Council President told MEPs that the UK would leave the bloc unless it had a "change of heart".

"We haven't had a change of heart. Our hearts are still open for you."

The comments were welcomed by Labour and Lib Dem MPs who want a referendum on the final Brexit deal but Leave Means Leave said the EU had to "accept the UK is a democracy".

Water John

The citizens of the UK need to have a long hard look at their choices. Vote for what you want, and not just because you have the hump.

Capt'n Midnight

Water John wrote: »

The citizens of the UK need to have a long hard look at their choices. Vote for what you want, and not just because you have the hump.

Since Corby has ruled out any meaningful* vote they won't get a chance unless there are some sea changes over there.

*A choice between rubber stamping what the Tories get and Sweet FA isn't meaningful.


And the UK is splitting into Haves and Have-nots. The former will be able to afford real wine and German cars, the latter will have to make do with antibiotic laced chlorinated chicken. All the news about personal debt in the UK and lack of real wage growth doesn't isn't cheery.

Capt'n Midnight

Re earlier comments about Japanese car companies,
the new EU-Japan trade deal means that Japanese owned UK car factories will lose a lot of their competitive advantages, unless May raids the magic money tree.

Car production cycles take several years so until then it's easiest to keep the existing lines in operation because of economies of scale and built up knowledge. When a completely new model is introduced, especially with the industry moving to hybrids, all the production lines are back to square one.

So it'll be a while before we see the full effect of Brexit.


PS. Since large retailers can buy up to two years in advance , the costs of Sterling's fall are still feeding through the system.

Peregrinus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Since Corby has ruled out any meaningful* vote they won't get a chance unless there are some sea changes over there.

*A choice between rubber stamping what the Tories get and Sweet FA isn't meaningful.

I'm not following you here. \

Corbyn has ruled out a second referendum on whatever Brexit deal the Tories manage to negotiate. His view is that it will be a matter for Parliament to ratify that deal, or not.

I agree that this amounts to a choice between Brexit on the negotiated terms or no-deal Brexit, which is a pretty appalling choice.

But you seem to be suggesting that it's Corbyn's fault, or at any rate Corbyn's responisiblity, that the choice will be limited in this way. I can't agree.

There's academic debate as to whether the UK could unilaterally revoke its Art 50 notice and just carry on as EU members. But, regardless of what view you take in that debate, I don't know anybody who argues that the UK can take this decision, but only if they take it by referendum. If the UK can do this, then Parliament can do it on the UK's behalf. If, on the other hand, the UK can't do this, then holding a second referendum won't change matters, so this is not a choice which could be offered to the people in a referendum.

Schorpio

I'll put it out there - I don't think there is any point in a second referendum. At least, not now. I think the result would be more of less the same.

The fact it, a lot of poorer and older members of society voted to Leave. Whilst the effects of Brexit are being felt (losing the EMA, EBA, etc.), they aren't directly being felt by any of the key demographics who voted Leave. And I don't think any such effects will be felt until the UK actually leaves. By which point a referendum would be have to start the process of joining the Union, rather than remaining inside.

Added to that - the older Leave generation hasn't 'died off' significantly, and the Tories are STILL maintaining their anti-EU stance (everything good that happens was us, anything bad was the EU).

Also, I can't believe May didn't get more backlash over claiming that the Tories abolished the card transaction fees.

Leroy42

Schorpio wrote: »

I'll put it out there - I don't think there is any point in a second referendum. At least, not now. I think the result would be more of less the same.

The fact it, a lot of poorer and older members of society voted to Leave. Whilst the effects of Brexit are being felt (losing the EMA, EBA, etc.), they aren't directly being felt by any of the key demographics who voted Leave. And I don't think any such effects will be felt until the UK actually leaves. By which point a referendum would be have to start the process of joining the Union, rather than remaining inside.

Added to that - the older Leave generation hasn't 'died off' significantly, and the Tories are STILL maintaining their anti-EU stance (everything good that happens was us, anything bad was the EU).

Completely agree, and even if remain did win it wouldn't be accepted by leave as it is so close to the original (unless it was like 80% or something, which it won't be close to).

There really is little option but to let Brexit happen, that is what democracy is after all. And that is where I agree with the Labour stance (although that seems too grand a phrase for what seems, at best, a muddle).

But taking Corbyn latest announcement at face value, the only real argument now is what sort of Brexit. What does Brexit mean (apart from Brexit!).

You are right in saying that the effects (either positive or negative) haven't been really felt at this stage and it will require more than a few years so that to come about. IMO, when the tories start to take away workers rights, when the jobs start to be noticed that have leaked away (I think some leavers think that because 1m jobs are not lost on day 1 then all is good), when the issues with the NHS continue to get worse, when even after immigration reduces the services are still cack, only then will people start to realise that many of the issues that they blamed the EU for were actually the fault of their own government.