Brexit Discussion Thread VI

An Claidheamh

Prince William wrote: »

When are those clowns in the D4 bubble going to realize that the British don't do politics like us paddies ?

You mean logically and devoid of futile and damaging jingoism?

The Tans ought to consider it.

Sam Russell

Given it is 45 years since the EU took over trade deal negotiating, there cannot be a single Civil Servant who has any experience of them. As for MPs, I think only Ken Clarke and Denis Skinner were MPs before the UK joined the EEC (now the EU), so there cannot be much experience at Govrnment lvel either.

And given David Davis's exoerience s Brexit Secretary, (and Raab's), I think two short planks would have performed better.

Jizique

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It really isn't, it negotiated all of the UK's trade deals before the EU decided that all negotiation should be in its own hands. This centalisation of agencies is one of the ways in which EU member states have been losing sovereignty.

However, the UK can reassemble a team of experienced negotiators by advertising attractive positions, the negotiators do not have an exclusive attachment to their own country.

Foreigners negotiating trade deals for England?

An Claidheamh

sandbelter wrote: »

Nope, they'll simply tell the Irish to collect their company taxes.

It's for the Irish to make Ireland work.

It would be for the Irish to dish the dirt on how NI was a 3rd world British colony and only had equal rights embedded in the late 90s through forcing and threatening the British.

Doubt, the establishment parties would do that though.

In my view, it is the same as West and East Germany.

Most Europeans would appreciate that.

Calina

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Because we cannot negotiate trade details until we know on what basis we are negotiating. If, for example, the EU and UK decided to be in a customs union then all negotiations with other countries would have to start again. Nevertheless, the UK has recruited some negotiators although they have not been used in the talks so far. Up to now, May and Oily Robbins have controlled the UK negotiations and they are both Remainers and incompetent.

Clueless. The issue is that the UK won’t pay top flight trade negotiators enough money.

Strazdas

I saw that Pete North guy on Sky News the other day and he said while he as a Leaver could understand the merits of the sovereignty line, the "trade" argument being put forward by Rees-Mogg, Redwood and IDS is a pack of lies. He says it was just tacked onto the whole Brexit debate during the referendum campaign and never was part of the original idea behind leaving the EU.

People are being openly lied to about the "benefits" of trade once out of the Single Market.

wiggle16

Bit cynical wrote: »

But, of course, at the same time it is not the UK's job to look after the Irish economy.

Absolutely. But i'm sure you can agree it's frustrating watching a bad decision being made for bad reasons by people who have chosen not to inform themselves about the consequences, when it will have a direct and very real effect on us.

Infini

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

It really isn't, it negotiated all of the UK's trade deals before the EU decided that all negotiation should be in its own hands. This centalisation of agencies is one of the ways in which EU member states have been losing sovereignty.

I would counter that the states are hardly losing soviergnty this way more accurately theyre POOLING soviergnty and this has made the EU into the key setter of standards for thrse deals. Also any negotiated deal has to be passed by all 37 various parliments (remember how CETA i think it was nearly got derailed in wallonia was it?) to enter into force. That means theres oversight on these things at national level so these things have to be able pass there Hardly a loss of soviergnty.

This is also whats been lost on Brexiteers the whole point is to pool the various agencys into the EU not to give up control but to have these things located all in one olace for coordination. Its alot easier having one agency looking over these areas than 37 of them as well as the fact that it costs far less too.

Strazdas

Infini wrote: »

I would counter that the states are hardly losing soviergnty this way more accurately theyre POOLING soviergnty and this has made the EU into the key setter of standards for thrse deals. Also any negotiated deal has to be passed by all 37 various parliments (remember how CETA i think it was nearly got derailed in wallonia was it?) to enter into force. That means theres oversight on these things at national level so these things have to be able pass there Hardly a loss of soviergnty.

This is also whats been lost on Brexiteers the whole point is to pool the various agencys into the EU not to give up control but to have these things located all in one olace for coordination. Its alot easier having one agency looking over these areas than 37 of them as well as the fact that it costs far less too.

Brexiteers are clinging to a 1930s or early 1950s version of trade. There were no economic blocs or single markets or mutual recognition of rules and regulation for trade back then.

They are trying to return to an era when the EEC / EFTA didn't even exist, but it's a lost cause, as the rest of Europe is trading this way and the UK wants to be some sort of pirate state hovering on the outside and refusing to follow their rules.

road_high

Infini wrote: »

I would counter that the states are hardly losing soviergnty this way more accurately theyre POOLING soviergnty and this has made the EU into the key setter of standards for thrse deals. Also any negotiated deal has to be passed by all 37 various parliments (remember how CETA i think it was nearly got derailed in wallonia was it?) to enter into force. That means theres oversight on these things at national level so these things have to be able pass there Hardly a loss of soviergnty.

This is also whats been lost on Brexiteers the whole point is to pool the various agencys into the EU not to give up control but to have these things located all in one olace for coordination. Its alot easier having one agency looking over these areas than 37 of them as well as the fact that it costs far less too.

Another thing not being much considered in the mayhem related to your point is the amount of new government bureaucracy the UK is creating by “taking back control” - they’re going to have add a whole new layer of public servants for things whither-to pooled with the EU. Which will surely be an added strain on public finances and loss of competitiveness for the UK economy

Strazdas

road_high wrote: »

Another thing not being much considered in the mayhem related to your point is the amount of new government bureaucracy the UK is creating by “taking back control” - they’re going to have add a whole new layer of public servants for things whither-to pooled with the EU. Which will surely be an added strain on public finances and loss of competitiveness for the UK economy

And these were the crowd complaining about money being wasted on too many bureaucrats in the EU. As you say, the UK will have to hire swarms of new civil servants to try and handle the disaster that is Brexit - the whole point of the Single Market is to cut down on bureaucrats and paperwork.

Capt'n Midnight

road_high wrote: »

Not really “taking back control” though is it?!
I’d sssumed the EU trade deals were so bad that re negotiation would be a must no 1 priority of brexiters...but it seems putting a Uk sticker over the EU ones will do !

I can't wait to see the look on their faces when they realise that other countries can cherry pick too.

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

Brexiteers are clinging to a 1930s or early 1950s version of trade. There were no economic blocs or single markets or mutual recognition of rules and regulation for trade back then.

They are trying to return to an era when the EEC / EFTA didn't even exist, but it's a lost cause, as the rest of Europe is trading this way and the UK wants to be some sort of pirate state hovering on the outside and refusing to follow their rules.

Wut ?

In the 1930's the UK had a quarter of the worlds population tied up in the Empire. A captive audience when it came to trade deals.

In the 1950's everyone in Europe was broke and there was rationing so trade volumes were down a tad.

The 1950's a lot of Brexiteer's seem so fond of is the Heartbeat version. Not what really happened.



I love The Ladykillers classic Ealing comedy. But it is a metaphor for the UK now as much as it was then. You can just see Boris or JRM as the Major. You can see how fear of the "unassimilated" foreigner was manipulated for the vote.

The fable of The Ladykillers is a comic and ironic joke about the condition of postwar England. After the war, the country was going through a kind of quiet, typically British but nevertheless historically fundamental revolution. Though few people were prepared to face up to it, the great days of the Empire were gone for ever. British society was shattered with the same kind of conflicts appearing in many other countries: an impoverished and disillusioned upper class, a brutalised working class, juvenile delinquency among the mods and rockers, an influx of foreign and potentially criminal elements, and a collapse of "intellectual" leadership. All of these threatened the stability of the national character.

Though at no time did Bill Rose or I ever spell this out, look at the characters in the film. The Major (played by Cecil Parker), a conman, is a caricature of the decadent military ruling class. One Round (Danny Green) is the oafish representative of the British masses. Harry (Peter Sellers) is the spiv, the worthless younger generation. Louis (Herbert Lorn) is the dangerously unassimilated foreigner. They are a composite cartoon of Britain's corruption. The tiny figure of Mrs Wilberforce (Wilberforce was the name of the 19th-century idealist who called for the abolition of slavery) is plainly a much diminished Britannia. Her house is in a cul-de-sac. Shabby and cluttered with memories of the days when Britain's navy ruled the world and captains gallantly stayed on the bridge as their ship went down, her house is structurally unsound. Dwarfed by the grim landscape of railway yards and screaming express trains, it is Edwardian England, an anachronism in the contemporary world.

Bill Rose's sentimental hope for the country that he and I saw through fond but sceptical eyes was that it might still, against all logic, survive its enemies. A theme, a message of sorts, one that I felt very attached to. But one that it took quite some time for me to consciously recognise and appreciate.

Strazdas

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wut ?

In the 1930's the UK had a quarter of the worlds population tied up in the Empire. A captive audience when it came to trade deals.

In the 1950's everyone in Europe was broke and there was rationing so trade volumes were down a tad.

The 1950's a lot of Brexiteer's seem so fond of is the Heartbeat version. Not what really happened.



I love The Ladykillers classic Ealing comedy. But it is a metaphor for the UK now as much as it was then. You can just see Boris or JRM as the Major. You can see how fear of the "unassimilated" foreigner was manipulated for the vote.

Britain "won" the war in that it wasn't invaded and was on the winning side but the opinion of most historians and economists is that it came out of WW2 as a big loser. The country virtually bankrupted itself with the war effort and the Empire began to quickly disintegrate.

road_high

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I can't wait to see the look on their faces when they realise that other countries can cherry pick too.

And they won’t be as polite and patient as the EU countries have been the past few years either! UK had massive goodwill and understanding as most in the EU wanted to preserve the relationships as far as possible but that meant the uk putting aside certain red lines- which they’ve been unwilling to do.
They turned that goodwill into exasperation and annoyance now.

Imreoir2

Infini wrote: »

I would counter that the states are hardly losing soviergnty this way more accurately theyre POOLING soviergnty and this has made the EU into the key setter of standards for thrse deals.

It depends on how you view soviergnty aswell, if you view it as having control of your own affairs and the ability to influence the events that impact on your country, then membership of the EU has enhanced the soviergnty of small nations like Ireland.

road_high

Strazdas wrote: »

And these were the crowd complaining about money being wasted on too many bureaucrats in the EU. As you say, the UK will have to hire swarms of new civil servants to try and handle the disaster that is Brexit - the whole point of the Single Market is to cut down on bureaucrats and paperwork.

Take the European Medicines Agency- a very good organization which has been uk based will have to be replicated in the uk for the uk only- at surely a massive cost, that kind of technical expertise and capacity doesn’t come cheap. Same for a whole plethora of other common policies. The whole thing is insanity for a medium sized nation.

ancapailldorcha

road_high wrote: »

Take the European Medicines Agency- a very good organization which has been uk based will have to be replicated in the uk for the uk only- at surely a massive cost, that kind of technical expertise and capacity doesn’t come cheap. Same for a whole plethora of other common policies. The whole thing is insanity for a medium sized nation.

Alternatively, they could just sign up to the relevant EU legislation on the subject but that would be anathema to Brexiteers.

road_high

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Alternatively, they could just sign up to the relevant EU legislation on the subject but that would be anathema to Brexiteers.

We all know the line by heart by now- “that would mean taking rules from Brussels blah de blah...”!
Of course it’s the practical obvious solution but far worse than Eu membership as you’ve no influence on said rules!

Capt'n Midnight

Strazdas wrote: »

Britain "won" the war in that it wasn't invaded and was on the winning side but the opinion of most historians and economists is that it came out of WW2 as a big loser. The country virtually bankrupted itself with the war effort and the Empire began to quickly disintegrate.

Finland and the Soviet Union were the other two countries whose capitals weren't conquered during the the war in Europe. A

Everyone in Europe lost WWII.


And it also needs to be pointed out that the US forced the UK off the gold standard which doubled the cost of paying back that loan overnight.

This after all the UK did during the war, and handing over the crown jewels of technology like radar and how to build an atomic bomb. The former won the war early.

Today the US won't be so generous. Look at how the EU-US trade talks over aluminium and steel vs cars is going. Expect the EU to pay slightly more attention to the German car exporters needs than to country that's leaving in two months. Also expect the German car exporters to be more focused on the US than the UK.

Capt'n Midnight

ThePanjandrum wrote: »

Actually, a Scottish person has more of a say than an English person as they are overrepresented in the UK parliament. The only reason that you can claim that they do not have a say is because the Referendum was held on a UK wide basis and the majority of the UK voters decided to leave the EU.

True only in the sense that the Scottish Tories produced a miraculous comeback from the point of extinction to get a third of the seats the SNP have. However, they are the real reason May is in power.

But what exactly has Davidson and Co. achieved for Scotland other than follow the English party line ? And given that how will they do in a GE ?

Igotadose

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And it also needs to be pointed out that the US forced the UK off the gold standard which doubled the cost of paying back that loan overnight.

This after all the UK did during the war, and handing over the crown jewels of technology like radar and how to build an atomic bomb. The former won the war early.

These are interesting points, and worth another thread. In my opinion, as the US was entering a post-WWII recession, the USG made the calculated choice to collect from the UK, but give the rebuilding Europe a ride, as the UK would not look to the Soviets for assistance. A cold thing to do, but it was done.

I don't think the UK gave the US the atomic bomb. I think it was a joint effort and the scientists that had moved to the UK for safety (Szilard?) moved on, but the US footed the bill on the atomic bomb. I've seen numbers estimated like $1bn US in 1945 dollars, probably hundreds-of-billions in todays dollars. Only the US could afford that at the time.

The US and UK were allies, sharing radar secrets was the right thing to do, nor do I expect any reciprocity was part of that agreement. Not sure how much it meant ending the war early. That's a discussion for outside this thread.

Reason I bring this up is I've heard other older UK citizens whine about how the US collected from the UK but not, say, Germany. I say, so what. If the UK had instead gotten assistance from the USSR, what do you think the Soviets would have wanted in payment for their assistance? The UK couldn't afford to rebuild itself, got a loan, and then had to repay and are envious other loan recipients got a better deal. Such is capitalism. And it's whataboutery when it comes to Brexit, though I'm not denying that emotions are a big part of what's driving the Leave side.

Capt'n Midnight

Igotadose wrote: »

I don't think the UK gave the US the atomic bomb. I think it was a joint effort and the scientists that had moved to the UK for safety (Szilard?) moved on, but the US footed the bill on the atomic bomb. I've seen numbers estimated like $1bn US in 1945 dollars, probably hundreds-of-billions in todays dollars. Only the US could afford that at the time.

The US and UK were allies, sharing radar secrets was the right thing to do, nor do I expect any reciprocity was part of that agreement. Not sure how much it meant ending the war early. That's a discussion for outside this thread..

The point is the US owed the UK a lot more then than now, but still shafted them.

There never was a special relationship.

And Trump is going full "America First"




In more detail :
The UK could have kept all the scientists and early research on the bomb and built it in Canada.

UK centimetre radar transmitters were rugged and a thousand times more powerful than the best US ones made of glass, in addition to detecting aircraft they allowed bombers to locate targets near water in all weather and at night. The proximity fuse took out out the Luftwaffe over Allied territory and Japanese troops in the pacific.

The jet engine didn't become important until after the war, but could have made the UK a fortune when the US rearmed for the cold war.

bilston

BBC reporting a car bomb in Derry tonight. Thankfully no injuries and I'm not saying it's because of Brexit. But it gives an indication of what could happen if a hard border is enforced on this island.

Laois_Man

bilston wrote: »

BBC reporting a car bomb in Derry tonight. Thankfully no injuries and I'm not saying it's because of Brexit. But it gives an indication of what could happen if a hard border is enforced on this island.

I think it's more than probable its purpose was to send a message about a hard border

Atlantic Dawn

With car bombs timing is everything.

CptMackey

bilston wrote: »

BBC reporting a car bomb in Derry tonight. Thankfully no injuries and I'm not saying it's because of Brexit. But it gives an indication of what could happen if a hard border is enforced on this island.

Just seen this. The peace isn't final yet in the north. It's why brexit is so dangerous

Folkstonian

Strazdas wrote: »

Britain "won" the war in that it wasn't invaded and was on the winning side but the opinion of most historians and economists is that it came out of WW2 as a big loser. The country virtually bankrupted itself with the war effort and the Empire began to quickly disintegrate.

Which historians, out of interest, believe that Britain came out of the Second World War as a big loser?

Britain paid a huge price in men and money, but there was no easy way to defend itself from Nazi Germany. That’s not the same as losing.

Sam Russell

Folkstonian wrote: »

Which historians, out of interest, believe that Britain came out of the Second World War as a big loser?

Britain paid a huge price in men and money, but there was no easy way to defend itself from Nazi Germany. That’s not the same as losing.

I think that is called a Pyrrhic Victory.

'Another victory like that and we are done for!'

The UK lost their computer industry, the aircraft industry, their nuclear industry and their empire. They became the US poodle because they believed that they had a 'special relationship' that meant they did as they were told.

And they complain of lost sovreignty.

NIMAN

Hard to blame this on Brexit.

Its just a bunch of scumbags with deluded notions and too much time on their hands.