Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Headshot

I see it's civil war in the Labour party. Corbyn allies attacking Tom Watson. More anti-Semitism arising.

It's amazing how one man and is cohorts are destroying a party from with in. The labour party is very broken, it really reflects politics as a whole in the UK though.

Any other opposition party would be so far head in the polls due to the Tories destroying their own country but it's not happening, it really says alot.

When the next General Elections happen, it will be the end of Corbyn as he wont get near the PM position.

Unfortunately for Labour, the lasting affects of Corbynism will be long and will take years to recover from

Kermit.de.frog

Labour need a Blair if they are ever to be taken seriously. They have to occupy the sensible side of the middle ground to be in gov't.

Not possible with Corbyn.

Zubeneschamali

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Labour need a Blair if they are ever to be taken seriously.

Ha ha! And people are deriding Boris as Trumps poodle!


At least Trump hasn't killed hundreds of thousands of innocents yet in an unprovoked war of aggression, unlike Dubya and his lapdog Blair.

Spanish Eyes

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Labour need a Blair if they are ever to be taken seriously. They have to occupy the sensible side of the middle ground to be in gov't.

Not possible with Corbyn.

I do realise that Blair is persona non grata now, but he did something for Labour, got them elected for years! But we know all about the invasion of Iraq now and so on. So he was rightly kicked out.

The middle ground is usually where it works IMO.

Labour is dead with all the Momentum and Anti Semitism issues, they are stuffed and will not see power anytime soon. Voters would hold their noses and vote Tory to keep him out, and I include moderate Labour voters in that.

Tories are worse, they are going to elect an idiot for PM.

I think gains may go to Greens and LibDems. They are the only kind of middle ground left really for astute voters right at the minute.

But that requires a GE. We shall see. I don't see Brexit Party doing anything to frighten anyone now. The voters will gravitate back to the recognised parties. See gains for LDs though.

Joe_ Public

spacecoyote wrote: »

https://twitter.com/OFOCBrexit/status/1149760225098063872

Boris being caught with his pants down on the details of Gatt 24.

I'd think if you're making your argument around it, you should have actually read more than just the one paragraph that suits the point you're trying to make

It would be hilarious if the consequences weren't so grim. What they are basically saying is, on 1 Nov, they'll get together with the EU and they'll scribble a primitive agreement together (a "one-pager") saying they're intending to work towards a FTA and then, ta da, present that to the WTO as evidence to get the tariff free G24 allowance.

That is what the EU has been dealing with for the past 3 years, a bunch of fools going into rooms with serious negotiators who have actually read the small print and know the detail. They're being laughed out of it all over Europe and now Trump is joining in too. A total basket case, could nearly be terminal at this stage!

mickoneill31

InTheShadows wrote: »

Genuine question, what's scary about it?

For me it's how he tries to bully Neil by pretending he's an expert "get the detail right" and then in the next sentence it's apparent he didn't really know the detail. If 5c isn't done then 5b doesn't matter. But he'd rely solely on 5b.

As well as that he's talking about leaving on no deal and then continuing with the existing agreements. I'm no trade expert but I'd imagine the EU might have some questions about the withdrawal agreement. He should know this. Either he doesn't and he's an idiot or he does and he will say anything to get the job. Which is the less scary scenario?

And finally, this is the quality of the most likely PM of the UK. If this is the best the UK can come up with then the UK is shagged and we're in for a rough time.

Spanish Eyes

The next incumbent for PM is either stupid or grandiose or a bluffer.

Have the UK ever had to deal with International Agreements where they may have to compromise up to now?

I doubt it. And they will get a baptism of fire I think. Unless the EU caves in and agrees to everything the UK wants.

Joe_ Public

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I do realise that Blair is persona non grata now, but he did something for Labour, got them elected for years! But we know all about the invasion of Iraq now and so on. So he was rightly kicked out.

The middle ground is usually where it works IMO.

Labour is dead with all the Momentum and Anti Semitism issues, they are stuffed and will not see power anytime soon. Voters would hold their noses and vote Tory to keep him out, and I include moderate Labour voters in that.

Tories are worse, they are going to elect an idiot for PM.

I think gains may go to Greens and LibDems. They are the only kind of middle ground left really for astute voters right at the minute.

But that requires a GE. We shall see. I don't see Brexit Party doing anything to frighten anyone now. The voters will gravitate back to the recognised parties. See gains for LDs though.

I agree with a lot of this, particularly about the BP, have said it for a while now, i dont think they will do as well as a lot of commentators are suggesting at the moment. Wait for an election campaign and the likes of Widdlecombe going around spouting her inane, offensive drivel and that will drive the moderates away. Farage has very noticeably steered clear of any policy direction so far and he knows from all his UKIP experience that his true policies hold little electoral appeal with the wider electorate. That, i believe, is a problem for him.

Blair did make Labour electable, much more than he ever believed himself, but i'd ask at what cost to the movement's soul? And i'm not just talking about Iraq. Labour without that leftist input - without the militant part, that is - isnt all that far removed from a conservative set-up from what i can see. Not even certain what it is that drew Blair to Labour in the first instance, though i'd imagine a certain amount of simple opportunism or expediency was involved. Personally, i think Brown would have left a better legacy.

O'Neill

Sorry don’t agree, whatever problem labour are currently having, going back to what they were ie status quo should not be on the agenda.

By and large Corbyn’s ideas are very popular imo. His manifesto is just basic social democracy.

Aidric

mickoneill31 wrote: »

For me it's how he tries to bully Neil by pretending he's an expert "get the detail right" and then in the next sentence it's apparent he didn't really know the detail. If 5c isn't done then 5b doesn't matter. But he'd rely solely on 5b.

As well as that he's talking about leaving on no deal and then continuing with the existing agreements. I'm no trade expert but I'd imagine the EU might have some questions about the withdrawal agreement. He should know this. Either he doesn't and he's an idiot or he does and he will say anything to get the job. Which is the less scary scenario?

And finally, this is the quality of the most likely PM of the UK. If this is the best the UK can come up with then the UK is shagged and we're in for a rough time.

Neil picked him apart easily with the facts. When presented with the facts Johnson tried to bait Neil by calling him choleric on more than one occasion. To his credit Neil ignored his baiting and stuck to the facts.

Johnson is a chancer with no grasp of detail.

Stop moaning ffs

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Labour need a Blair if they are ever to be taken seriously. They have to occupy the sensible side of the middle ground to be in gov't.

Not possible with Corbyn.

Easily the only sensible thing you’ve ever posted. Well done.

Spanish Eyes

Joe_ Public wrote: »

I agree with a lot of this, particularly about the BP, have said it for a while now, i dont think they will do as well as a lot of commentators are suggesting at the moment. Wait for an election campaign and the likes of Widdlecombe going around spouting her inane, offensive drivel and that will drive the moderates away. Farage has very noticeably steered clear of any policy direction so far and he knows from all his UKIP experience that his true policies hold little electoral appeal with the wider electorate. That, i believe, is a problem for him.

Blair did make Labour electable, much more than he ever believed himself, but i'd ask at what cost to the movement's soul? And i'm not just talking about Iraq. Labour without that leftist input - without the militant part, that is - isnt all that far removed from a conservative set-up from what i can see. Not even certain what it is that drew Blair to Labour in the first instance, though i'd imagine a certain amount of simple opportunism or expediency was involved. Personally, i think Brown would have left a better legacy.

Labour's biggest loss was the untimely death of John Smith. In my opinion obviously.

But we are where we are now.

Joe_ Public

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Labour's biggest loss was the untimely death of John Smith. In my opinion obviously.

But we are where we are now.

+1

First Up

Spanish Eyes wrote:

Labour's biggest loss was the untimely death of John Smith. In my opinion obviously.

They might have recovered from that - and even from Blair's disastrous decisions on Iraq - if they had chosen the right Miliband.

Spanish Eyes

Labour under Corbyn and Momentum and anti Semitisim and all the rest of it is fkd

But if they want to self destruct who am I to object. They should know this already.

The middle ground will find traction for many Imo. Pity they don't know who that is.

FartyBlartFast

First Up wrote: »

Spanish Eyes wrote:

Labour's biggest loss was the untimely death of John Smith. In my opinion obviously.

They might have recovered from that - and even from Blair's disastrous decisions on Iraq - if they had chosen the right Miliband.

That one always confused me, right down to the surface level fickle stuff that these parties need to consider when choosing leaders. One looks a bit like McNulty from The Wire, but instead they went with the unk own cousin from Wallace and Gromit.

Like I said, fickle. But the media presentation of Ed vs David Cameron said all it needed to on this front, and it turned PMQs into a regular session of David Cameron picking on the smaller kid with the high pitched, nasally voice. That in itself did a huge amount of damage to them, in my opinion, and that's before we even go into policy etc.

Joe_ Public

The GWH for Labour might be Starmer, i think. I hate the idea that he might be a classic Blairite - i hate that that is still a term over a decade after his departure - but he's steered a good line on brexit, insisting behind the scenes that the party stays shackled to its CU position and i suspect he could be a good bridge between left and right of the party and not just someone who'll steer a rigid centre path for electoral purposes.

InTheShadows

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Labour need a Blair if they are ever to be taken seriously. They have to occupy the sensible side of the middle ground to be in gov't.

Not possible with Corbyn.

So now war criminals are "sensible". Jesus wept.

declanflynn

We were foolish to depend on one market for most of our beef exports so Brexit will fix that problem

prawnsambo

InTheShadows wrote: »

So now war criminals are "sensible". Jesus wept.

Way to misrepresent what he was saying.

listermint

I do enjoy the whole 'blairite' dilemma that folks have when the gas path is during that government the UK enjoyed its greatest economic successes and it's people enjoyed all of the trappings that went with it. Crime down, social assistance up. Jobs up. Investment up. Economic activity flying, the whole UK had a feel good factor during that era.


And yet being part of that government is seen as a bad thing.


....

Lackadaisical

Well, like every government there's good and bad. They made a very bad decision around the Iraq war and jumping into bed with GW Bush, but in their early days they presided over one of the better times in modern British history that saw a lot of social stability and progress.

The biggest thing from an Irish perspective was that New Labour had a majority and drive to solve Northern Ireland and Mo Mowlam in particular was absolutely key to that.

Over simplification of politics in England into tribes is a huge part of what's causing this mess. I'm loathed to write anyone off as a Blairite or a Corbynite or anything else that acts as short hand for "the other tribe we don't like"

Patser

InTheShadows wrote: »

Genuine question, what's scary about it?

What's scary is that:

A man who has built a following through a personal charisma, that has built into a recognisable cult, through work as a journalist (whereby he often misrepresented facts or simply lied), or lesser scrutinised roles like Mayor of London, or even roles he became a byword for ridicule before resigning (Foreign Secretary):

Is now poised to become Prime Minister of the UK at an incredibly divisive and crucial time, where clear planning and decisive leadership is needed, based entirely on his ability to say positive things about how everything will be ok regardless of a plan.

TL:dr THIS IS NOT BEN AND F.IN HOLLY

No memes please.

sandbelter

[QUOTE=Professor Moriarty;[/QUOTE] and [QUOTE=Zubeneschamali.[/QUOTE]

Having read the report in its entirety I think the Press reporting has actually missed the point about job losses and simply gone for sensationalist headline (sigh).

Its important to note this report simply looks at the trade/FDI impact of Brexit in isolation and the following assumption are made:

• They use the NEISR model of a -5.5% hit to the UK economy;
• They assume no inflation/debt impact on the financial markets of Brexit;
• They assume Ireland's share of Europe FDI will rise to 8.3% (5.6% currently), but this simply seems to be Third party FDI (I can't find a corresponding adjustment for UK now being 3rd party)
• Government mitigating policies are assumed but not quantified (so the 22,000 jobs forecast to be created by to accelerating the second runway at Dublin are not included)
• Substitution effects are not included (so the potential for Ireland to substitute the 100,000 of UK beef sold into EU not included nor is an ability to find additional markets for 165,000 tonnes...which of course assumes the UK doesn't eat beef anymore, and given Brazil went from circa 50,000 tonnes of beef exports to China in 2015 to circa 365,000, it is not unreasonable to assume open an flexible economy won't do this).

Thus I would regard the forecast job losses as sterile and quarantined. The economy may adjust very effectively to Brexit, but it does highlight two things:

• Without a customs border with the UK the substitution effect won't work.
• Whilst the inflation/interest rate assumption for Ireland are reasonable they mirror assumptions for the UK's NEISR model which may not....The UK has: Budget deficit (-2%), Chronic Current Account deficits; highly indebted consumers with wealth tied to the property market, largely deindustrialized, 85% debt to GDP ratio, and persistently above EU average inflation rate. A sterling exchange rate and interest rate and inflation charges are very likely.

I do have concern having had a close look at the assumptions (Masters degree in Eco speaking here), report assumes a 50%/50% loss dispersion...50% incurred in 2019 and 50% thereafter.... however applying some realism to the assumption then a 25%75% loss dispersion looks more probable.

This Brexit may not initially be as bad as feared for both Ireland and the UK, but prove more devastating to the UK with the passage of time to the trade shock and impact of a repricing of its risk profile. For Ireland the substitution effect can significantly change the Brexit impact...underscoring the need for a customs border to mitigate the long tail impact.

allthedoyles

sandbelter wrote: »

and

Having read the report in its entirety I think the Press reporting has actually missed the point about job losses and simply gone for sensationalist headline (sigh).

Its important to note this report simply looks at the trade/FDI impact of Brexit in isolation and the following assumption are made:

• They use the NEISR model of a -5.5% hit to the UK economy;
• They assume no inflation/debt impact on the financial markets of Brexit;
• They assume Ireland's share of Europe FDI will rise to 8.3% (5.6% currently), but this simply seems to be Third party FDI (I can't find a corresponding adjustment for UK now being 3rd party)
• Government mitigating policies are assumed but not quantified (so the 22,000 jobs forecast to be created by to accelerating the second runway at Dublin are not included)
• Substitution effects are not included (so the potential for Ireland to substitute the 100,000 of UK beef sold into EU not included nor is an ability to find additional markets for 165,000 tonnes...which of course assumes the UK doesn't eat beef anymore, and given Brazil went from circa 50,000 tonnes of beef exports to China in 2015 to circa 365,000, it is not unreasonable to assume open an flexible economy won't do this).

Thus I would regard the forecast job losses as sterile and quarantined. The economy may adjust very effectively to Brexit, but it does highlight two things:

• Without a customs border with the UK the substitution effect won't work.
• Whilst the inflation/interest rate assumption for Ireland are reasonable they mirror assumptions for the UK's NEISR model which may not....The UK has: Budget deficit (-2%), Chronic Current Account deficits; highly indebted consumers with wealth tied to the property market, largely deindustrialized, 85% debt to GDP ratio, and persistently above EU average inflation rate. A sterling exchange rate and interest rate and inflation charges are very likely.

I do have concern having had a close look at the assumptions (Masters degree in Eco speaking here), report assumes a 50%/50% loss dispersion...50% incurred in 2019 and 50% thereafter.... however applying some realism to the assumption then a 25%75% loss dispersion looks more probable.

This Brexit may not initially be as bad as feared for both Ireland and the UK, but prove more devastating to the UK with the passage of time to the trade shock and impact of a repricing of its risk profile. For Ireland the substitution effect can significantly change the Brexit impact...underscoring the need for a customs border to mitigate the long tail impact.

I have already sourced cheaper products in Europe . UK online platforms like Amazon will certainly lose bigtime .



Irish businessess will bypass UK

First Up

listermint wrote:

And yet being part of that government is seen as a bad thing.

No, the Blair years brought Labour to the sensible middle ground economically and he deserves credit for Northern Ireland too.

But Iraq drove thousands of Labour supporters and members to the Lib Dems. That changed the balance to pick the wrong Miliband.

Cameron committed to a Brexit referendum fully expecting to not be able to deliver it as expected he'd be in coalition with the Lib Dems. Ed Miliband put paid to that.

When Ed went, it created the opportunity to recruit thousands of new left wing members who joined just to elect Corbyn.

So you could look back at the Blair/Bush/Iraq thing as the root cause of a lot of today's mess but Labour have themselves to blame for most of it.

20silkcut

declanflynn wrote: »

We were foolish to depend on one market for most of our beef exports so Brexit will fix that problem

In fairness it is an historic market going back hundreds of years. The geographical reality of a big industrial country that needs to be fed and a relatively empty country with abundant grassland right on its doorstep it was always going to be a very convenient and natural arrangement. And always will be.
It will be a massive rupture in the economic relations between the two countries. The parallels with the economic war of the 1930’s are striking.
But we didn’t have the EU back then. And we held our resolve for 4 or 5 years at that time in much worse circumstances.
I would fear for beef farmers in this country with high current debt levels it will be a very uncertain period if no deal is persisted with for any extended time.
But it is a much different world to the 1930’s and we have many more options for shipping surplus beef and other products. Certainly we will have much more favorable options than farmers in Britain and Northern Ireland. If anything a no deal brexit will be like the economic war in reverse. We will be part of the more powerful player this time.

murphaph

I don't think the average UK customer even sees Irish beef as a premium product. They often think we are just one of their regions. On the continent it's different. Irish beef is sold as a premium product. There's more than enough potential to exploit.

Stop moaning ffs

Leaked no-deal Brexit contingency plans reveal Britain is not prepared for an October exit

https://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-no-deal-brexit-plans-reveal-uk-is-not-prepared-for-october-exit-2019-7?r=US&IR=T

FrancieBrady

murphaph wrote: »

I don't think the average UK customer even sees Irish beef as a premium product. They often think we are just one of their regions. On the continent it's different. Irish beef is sold as a premium product. There's more than enough potential to exploit.

Losing that dependency when we recover from Brexit will be a massive plus for this country.