Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Peregrinus

Cal4567 wrote: »

I don't post here often. More of a long time lurker.

What I will say is my opinion that once they get over the early transition period, the UK will be fine in my opinion. Even if it dips, what are we talking about, the World's 6th largest economy, dropping to 7th? If I had the money I'd be investing in elements of the UK economy if I could find any Brexit related bargains.

The short-term effect - say, two to threee years - of a no-deal Brexit is a massive hit. But the long term effect is a permament drag on growth. Year after year after year, the UK will underperform comparable economies, for as long as no-deal persists. This continues until the UK reconstructs a trading relationship with the EU that is meaningfully comparable to the one it has had up to now.

You suggest that the UK might fall from sixth to seventh place in the world rankings. I see no reason to think that it will stop there. It's worth remembering the reason why the UK entered the EU in the first place; persistent decline, relative to other European economies.

In 1957, when the EU was founded, the UK was the third biggest economy in the world, after the US and the USSR. It was fourth in 1960 (overtaken by Germany), 5th in 1965 (overtaken by France), 6th in 1970 (overtaken by Japan). Even after joining the EU it continued to decline (though more slowly) being overtaken by Italy during the Thatcher years of the 80s.

The turnaround didn't come unti the Single Market was completed in the 1990s, whereupon the rise of the UK began. By 200 they were back to 5th place (overtook Italy, Soviet Union eliminated from the running by Events) and by 2005 they were fourth (overtook France). Since then they have slipped back, due to a combination of the rise of China, the Global Financial Crisis (which hit the UK particularly hard, as a financial power) and the imact of Brexit expectations and uncertainties.

A hard Brexit removes what seems to have been the main engine of the UK's relative growth, which is participation in the Single Market, and doesn't appear to offer any opportunities that might conceivably replace that. I don't see the UK recovering from the initial shock, stablisings and then moving on to growth, unless and until it reconnects with the Single Market.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

In 1957, when the EU was founded, the UK was the third biggest economy in the world, after the US and the USSR. It was fourth in 1960 (overtaken by Germany), 5th in 1965 (overtaken by France), 6th in 1970 (overtaken by Japan). Even after joining the EU it continued to decline (though more slowly) being overtaken by Italy during the Thatcher years of the 80s.

The turnaround didn't come unti the Single Market was completed in the 1990s

Thatcher was a big part of that push to the Single Market, and while Brexiteers are talking nonsense about the promise of doing trade deals with the Third World, Corbyn is talking about undoing Thatchers work, renationalizing everything and taking the UK back to the 1960s when it was at its worst economic position relative to Europe.


Expect the economy to go backwards even faster in a Corbyn led Brexit.

Peter Flanagan wrote a very reflective piece in this morning's Irish Times. Loads to dwell on, in particular his reminder of the rhetoric of other European populist politicians, and the deeply unsettling fact the Poland and Hungary want to stay in the EU:

All Britain wants to do is leave - the likes of Hungary and Poland want to stay, and use their influence to challenge the liberal values on which the Union was founded. As painful as the British have made their departure, it’s time to consider who we’re being left behind with.

Touché! For the first time, it makes me glad the British want to leave before they undermine it further.

His second, enormously overlooked point was on the rapidly growing inequality he sees in Britain, for which the EU is being scapegoated:

Rather, what strikes me most about the UK is the inequality -I live in one of the poorest boroughs in the UK, where high-rise luxury apartment blocks face council towers, the residents of both peering out at each other with mutual suspicion. A United Nations report last year found that a fifth of the UK’s population are living in poverty, while a separate study found that the five poorest regions in Northern Europe are all in the UK. People are angry, and they are right to be. Snake-oil salesmen like Farage and Boris Johnston gave people a chance to give two fingers to the elites, and they took it...

Are the British really as xenophobic as they’ve been made out to be since Brexit?

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Peter Flanagan wrote a very reflective piece in this morning's Irish Times ...

Totally undermined by his reference to an out-dated and very selective report - the "poorest regions of Europe" fallacy. If we're going to hold Brexiteers and the utterings of Tory leadership contenders to a high standard, then people writing on "our" side need to avoid injecting this kind of inaccuracy into their writing.

lawred2

CelticRambler wrote: »

Totally undermined by his reference to an out-dated and very selective report - the "poorest regions of Europe" fallacy. If we're going to hold Brexiteers and the utterings of Tory leadership contenders to a high standard, then people writing on "our" side need to avoid injecting this kind of inaccuracy into their writing.

You're the first person I've seen to question the accuracy, veracity or findings of that report. I must have missed the deconstruction of that report. When/where did that happen?

Leroy42

Jonathon Pie's latest video makes the valid point that what the Trump visit shows is just how much the UK will now be reliant on the US for its future. That they have given up being part of the club of the EU, with a voice, to now having to simply accept whatever rules and regulations the US desires in order to get any sort of trade deal.

As the largest and most powerful country in the world we are all reliant on a good relationship with the US, Ireland as much as anyone. But at least we have tried to limit that influence and become part of a club with, at least theoretically, the ability to negotiate on relatively equal footing.

Surely the UK can see exactly what the future holds for them. Afraid to annoy the Chinese, willing to accept any amount of put-downs and insults in order to stay close to the US (he has derided the PM, the Mayor of London, passed on far-right videos, he has torn up the UK agreed Iran deal, pulled out of the Paris Accord, threatened tariffs on UK goods such as Bombardier).

CelticRambler

lawred2 wrote: »

You're the first person I've seen to question the accuracy, veracity or findings of that report. I must have missed the deconstruction of that report. When/where did that happen?

You haven't been paying attention! It's been deconstructed several times over the life of this discussion (pervious threads). Google it for the full debunking, but in essence, the "Europe" used in the original study was limited to the north-western, Anglo-Teutonic corner of the continent, and the financial parameters were a bit iffy too.

lawred2

CelticRambler wrote: »

You haven't been paying attention! It's been deconstructed several times over the life of this discussion (pervious threads). Google it for the full debunking, but in essence, the "Europe" used in the original study was limited to the north-western, Anglo-Teutonic corner of the continent, and the financial parameters were a bit iffy too.

Is this not it?

Seems to be saying many areas of the UK on a par with the later Eastern European accession states. Is that not a Pan-European report?

What was iffy about the financial parameters?

Actually nevermind - you've said it's been discussed at length here before so I don't want to take the thread back there.

An Ciarraioch

ChUK, we hardly knew you - would the Lib Dems even want Umunna or Allen now?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/04/change-uk-poised-to-lose-at-least-half-its-mps-heidi-allen-chuka-umunna-lib-dems

Headshot

wow Change UK is not lasting long

Sam Russell

Headshot wrote: »

wow Change UK is not lasting long

It appears they are becoming the Loose Change of UK politics.

marno21

Change UK was always going to go this way - further splintering is of no benefit to anyone - especially in a FPTP based system.

The Lib Dems seem an appropriate outlet for their policy directions. Until Corbyn gets the door anyhow.

devnull

Really they should have joined the Lib Dems in the first place or just called themselves the Remain Party, the fact that the remainers are so divided is a problem - sitting as independents will just dillute those peoples influence and the remain course.

The Brexiteers for all their faults at least are aligning under a single cause with Farage.

jochenstacker

devnull wrote: »

Really they should have joined the Lib Dems in the first place or just called themselves the Remain Party, the fact that the remainers are so divided is a problem - sitting as independents will just dillute those peoples influence and the remain course.

The Brexiteers for all their faults at least are aligning under a single cause with Farage.

It's pure Judean People's Front stuff at this stage.

devnull

The remaining parts of Change UK are talking about how they are going to take on the Lib Dems according to what is being reported on Sky News at the moment.

Absolute madness and playing into Farage's hands.

robinph

Wondering if Trump might have given Brexit a bit of a clattering today by admitting that the US is after the NHS in any future deal? We all knew it already, but that he said it in the press conference might finally get some of the people blindly screaming leave means brexit means no deal to stop and have a think for a moment.

Professor Moriarty

robinph wrote: »

Wondering if Trump might have given Brexit a bit of a clattering today by admitting that the US is after the NHS in any future deal? We all knew it already, but that he said it in the press conference might finally get some of the people blindly screaming leave means brexit means no deal to stop and have a think for a moment.

But they have a special relationship. Which means that Trump will make sure that Britain will come to no harm. Trump always looks after countries with whom the US has special relationships Just ask Canada and Mexico.

Beechwoodspark

I’d say trump will put some pressure on varadkar tomorrow regarding brexit

Hurrache

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’d say trump will put some pressure on varadkar tomorrow regarding brexit

There's no pressure he can put on Varadkar. Brexit is an EU issue.

Beechwoodspark

Hurrache wrote: »

There's no pressure he can put on Varadkar. Brexit is an EU issue.

He reportedly met with the ERG, and Farage earlier today. No doubt they mentioned the backstop to him as one of the obstacles to a deal

He will raise it with LV tomorrow I would think.

Enzokk

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

I’d say trump will put some pressure on varadkar tomorrow regarding brexit

I doubt he even personally cares about it or know too much about it either. If Merkel had to explain to him 11 times the relatively simple fact that the EU does trade deals and not Germany, do we expect him to understand Brexit or even care about it?

Hurrache

It'll just be another instance of his ignorance as to how the EU works.

Farage et al anyway doesn't care about the backstop holding things up, they want no deal.

funkey_monkey

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

Enzokk

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

He reportedly met with the ERG, and Farage earlier today. No doubt they mentioned the backstop to him as one of the obstacles to a deal

He will raise it with LV tomorrow I would think.

"Leo, you need to let the backstop go."

"Donald, there is no reason in the world why any Irish leader would even think about this and it is not open for discussion."

"Okay, I have to get to my course, nice meeting you."

Stop moaning ffs

No fan of Leo but loved him refusing to meet Trump at Doonbeg.
Massive amounts of dodgy money has and may still be flowing through there.
Good in him not wanting to get anywhere near the stink of that.

I don’t think he should meet him st all but he certainly won’t be listening to any braggadocio or threats about brexit from Trump.

Leroy42

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

What options do they have? They need a substantial increase in trade with the us to offset the expected loss with the EU and US are in the driving seat. They usually are but even more so.

There won't be sales of hospitals though. Rather it will be us pharmaceuticals given No1 supplier terms. Access to university test results, access to patients for drug trials. Any new facilities will be a cooperative between NHS and some US firm, with NHS taking all the risks. That way no PM ever has to admit to selling off the NHS.

As for standards and regulations, it makes no sense to cry about having no say if you actually agree with everything. And to compete they will need a competitive advantage along with demands of any trade deal.

ancapailldorcha

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

How do you not though? Seriously. I would be absolutely gobsmacked if the Trump administration didn't already have a draft of the deal penned by US healthcare firms waiting and ready for signing. These companies spend a fortune on lobbying and we can now see the results. The NHS will still exist but it will be a vehicle for shifting it's £125 or so billion to US private firms who will take over the running of hospitals and the provision of other services.

The only way I see around this is either the outright cancellation of Brexit or the watering down of it to the point whereby it becomes meaningless. Either is fine by me.

Capt'n Midnight

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

The NHS is being starved of funding by the conservatives. It's what they do.

It also means they can turn around and suggest Private Public Partnership as a way of getting more money, until it's too late go to back.

The NHS could do with £350m a week. NI, Trident, HS2 all cost way more than that. Even Brexit uncertainty is costing £800m a week.

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4831.full

the King’s Fund, the Health Foundation, and the Nuffield Trust predicts that NHS staff shortages in England could increase from 100 000 at present to almost 250 000 by 2030 if not dealt with. This could reach 350 000 if the NHS continues to lose staff and cannot attract skilled workers from abroad,

Christy42

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

Like the backstop is for the EU it will be a hard requirement for the US. Presumably China will have its own requirements. The UK can take their pick but no one will bother to budge.

The UK has a terrible hand and everyone knows it.

funkey_monkey

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Just how realistic do people think it is that the NHS will be sacrificed and safety standards dropped in the UK in order to get a US trade deal?

I'm not getting the link; why, and in what way, would the NHS of all organisations be "sacrificed" in a British-US trade deal? Where's this story coming from?