Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Sam Russell

looksee wrote: »

And if it were a threat (threat to what? Personal safety?) then there should be consequences. Its arguable that Murdoch was simply stating fact in saying that his newspapers would not support current government thinking, in the same way that other newspapers would support it. Ideally all newspapers would be completely neutral, but that will not happen with a free press.

Whether one individual should have so much power in reporting and controlling the news is another matter. I do not agree that individuals should have that much power, but that is not this argument. However the power is divided up it should be possible for a newspaper to say 'this is what we believe and this is what we will support'.

I do not agree in any way with Rupert Murdoch or support his opinions, and he should be called out, and in a robust democracy his argument will get no further than it did. But in a democracy he should be able to make his argument. The 'threat' was simply that he would not support the government; there could be times when this would be the good thing. Just think if he had not supported Johnson.

John Major recognised it as a threat to democracy.

Who was it said 'Speak with a soft voice but carry a big stick'? Having a national newspaper with a wide circulation is a big stick.

listermint

looksee wrote: »

And if it were a threat (threat to what? Personal safety?) then there should be consequences. Its arguable that Murdoch was simply stating fact in saying that his newspapers would not support current government thinking, in the same way that other newspapers would support it. Ideally all newspapers would be completely neutral, but that will not happen with a free press.

Whether one individual should have so much power in reporting and controlling the news is another matter. I do not agree that individuals should have that much power, but that is not this argument. However the power is divided up it should be possible for a newspaper to say 'this is what we believe and this is what we will support'.

I do not agree in any way with Rupert Murdoch or support his opinions, and he should be called out, and in a robust democracy his argument will get no further than it did. But in a democracy he should be able to make his argument. The 'threat' was simply that he would not support the government; there could be times when this would be the good thing. Just think if he had not supported Johnson.

The threat is in the masse ownership of most of the circulation of the media. That should not be allowed. In effect its a monopoly on opinion.

And it has evidently found to have a stark difference in public perception of all matters from outlook to political think. The basic 'ban' on the likes of the Sun in liverpool demonstrates how powerful removal of monopoly is.

looksee

listermint wrote: »

The threat is in the masse ownership of most of the circulation of the media. That should not be allowed. In effect its a monopoly on opinion.

And it has evidently found to have a stark difference in public perception of all matters from outlook to political think. The basic 'ban' on the likes of the Sun in liverpool demonstrates how powerful removal of monopoly is.

I absolutely agree with that, but the argument was that a threat was made to the government through John Major. It would only have been a threat to democracy if John Major had acted on it. You can't have rules that say 'in the event that one person has too much clout then he is not allowed to try and use it on the prime minister'.

The problem is with him having too much power, and agreed it is a monopoly situation. If the owner of a single newspaper had had a conversation with JM and said, we don't like your policies, we will disagree with them in our newspaper, would that have been a threat to democracy?

First Up

correct horse battery staple wrote:

Last I checked UK exports 47% of its exports to EU27 and only 4% vice versa

About 8% of EU exports go to the UK.

WomanSkirtFan8

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1) the EU will still trade with the UK, just on less favourable conditions;
2) what 50% of security do you mean?
3) it took Canada 53 years to agree a free trade agreement with the US, and a further 6 years to turn that into the NAFTA. So 10 years is a pretty good achievement

It took between 8 and 9 years for the EU to do a trade deal with Japan. Saying and actually doing are two completely different things altogether.

brickster69

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Last I checked UK exports 47% of its exports to EU27 and only 4% vice versa

Brexiteers do like to pull figures out of thin air, where exactly has 16% figure came from @brickster?

Size of it's economy compared to the EU's

Igotadose

brickster69 wrote: »

Size of it's economy compared to the EU's

Size based on what? GDP shows it about 14% (2.622 Tn vs 18.8 tn), all in dollars

Sam Russell

looksee wrote: »

I absolutely agree with that, but the argument was that a threat was made to the government through John Major. It would only have been a threat to democracy if John Major had acted on it. You can't have rules that say 'in the event that one person has too much clout then he is not allowed to try and use it on the prime minister'.

The problem is with him having too much power, and agreed it is a monopoly situation. If the owner of a single newspaper had had a conversation with JM and said, we don't like your policies, we will disagree with them in our newspaper, would that have been a threat to democracy?

So if someone threatens to beat my head in if I do not give my wallet, and I refuse to give it to him, it is only a threat if he does beat my head in.

I think it is a threat if I do think it is a threat, and I think it is intended as a threat. Clearly both were true for John Major.

First Up

Those numbers don't show interdependence. These do;

UK exports to EU = 8% of UK GDP
EU exports to UK = 2.3% of EU GDP

And that's just goods. Services make up 80% of the UK economy and more than 40% of services exports are to the EU (and growing).

Of course it varies by country and sector but the EU's exposure to the UK is nothing that will cause much loss of sleep. The UK's exposure to the EU is potentially devastating.

reslfj

First Up wrote: »

Igotadose wrote: »

Size based on what? GDP shows it about 14% (2.622 Tn vs 18.8 tn), all in dollars

Those numbers don't show interdependence. These do;

UK exports to EU = 8% of UK GDP
EU exports to UK = 2.3% of EU GDP

And that's just goods. Services make up 80% of the UK economy and more than 40% of services exports are to the EU (and growing).

Of course it varies by country and sector but the EU's exposure to the UK is nothing that will cause much loss of sleep. The UK's exposure to the EU is potentially devastating.

The effect of and sensitivity to trade is related to both export and needed import.

Export or rather the value added within the UK/EU27 of the exported goods is what can be used to pay for external costs (or service earlier debt)

Import is to supply the goods needed, which can't be produced economically or produced at all within the country/trade-group. Needed import must also be financed making export vital.

Both export and import statistics need to be taken apart and analysed before meaningful conclusions can be made.

Export of a UK assembled car represent a large amount of money, but has only between 25% and 33% UK added value, while a UK lamb is far less in money terms, but is very close to 100% UK added value.

Movement of financial gold e.g. from a bank in London to one in Zürich is added with its full gold-value to the export-statistics, but the value added in the UK is only a tiny airport transport, security, and insurance charge.
It is also statistically export to a non-EU country even though Switzerland is closely bound/integrated to/with the EU.
Import is - iirc - handled the same way.

Without gold the UK exports just under 50% of its total export to the EU27, while around 7% of EU27 members' export is UK bound (Ireland 12% but less than $20bn in real terms)

Important industries has now spare production capacity. The auto industry can in many cases fairly easily move much production from the UK to their factories within EU27.

Alternative available markets are also very important when talking impact of trade disruptions.

The UK has very few trade deals agreed and none(?) permanent FTA's yet. The Faroe Islands doesn't really count - does it.

The EU27 has 60+ world class FTAs and new coming on line now or in the near future - Korea, Singapore, Japan, Canada, Mercosur/Mercosul, AuNz and more.
It is very much easier and more profitable for EU27 companies to relocate their current UK export to other markets than it will for UK-only companies - come 2021.

When looking for new trading partners it's important to realistically asses the attractiveness of one's own market for the potential trading partner.
And what can the UK realistically export to the new trading partner?

The size in terms of GDP is often a very rough and far from a fair measure of the real value of your own and of a potential trading partners' market.

Lars

Found this graph in a recent Bloomberg article:

RobMc59

First Up wrote: »

Those numbers don't show interdependence. These do;

UK exports to EU = 8% of UK GDP
EU exports to UK = 2.3% of EU GDP

And that's just goods. Services make up 80% of the UK economy and more than 40% of services exports are to the EU (and growing).

Of course it varies by country and sector but the EU's exposure to the UK is nothing that will cause much loss of sleep. The UK's exposure to the EU is potentially devastating.

I`d prefer to stay in the EU but would question the implied assertion that is common in many posts that the sun,moon and stars revolve around the EU and any country that leaves,or wishes to leave will sink without trace-the truth is no country the size of the UK has ever left the EU so all these tales of the imminent collapse of the UK because it leaves the EU are pure speculation and opinion-no one really knows what`s going to happen.

Just finished listening to this short and very interesting BBC history extra podcast on how Britain's selective memory when it comes to it's history helped to shape the election result
https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/long-history-brexit-podcast-david-reynolds/
(available free on spotify and itunes too)

Much of what is covered relates what we've been saying from the very beginning - it's just jarring to finally hear some self awareness from an English academic! And in a BBC production at that!

Frank Bullitt

https://twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1222206827376652288

Absolutely incredible scenes here...

Enzokk

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`d prefer to stay in the EU but would question the implied assertion that is common in many posts that the sun,moon and stars revolve around the EU and any country that leaves,or wishes to leave will sink without trace-the truth is no country the size of the UK has ever left the EU so all these tales of the imminent collapse of the UK because it leaves the EU are pure speculation and opinion-no one really knows what`s going to happen.

Can you find these posts that, as you assert, states the UK will sink and disappear without a trace?

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

I`d prefer to stay in the EU but would question the implied assertion that is common in many posts that the sun,moon and stars revolve around the EU and any country that leaves,or wishes to leave will sink without trace-the truth is no country the size of the UK has ever left the EU so all these tales of the imminent collapse of the UK because it leaves the EU are pure speculation and opinion-no one really knows what`s going to happen.

But we do know.

The UK has no replacement markets. Zero none.

Now in all your wisdom of talking up the economy. Rather than talking it down. Because I feel that's what your implying here.

What are they going to replace those markets with. And if the markets are maintained in some form do you actually know the true picture of the additional financial cost to the business and thus the consumer.


Do you? Since we're putting positive spin on stuff...

First Up

RobMc59 wrote:

I`d prefer to stay in the EU but would question the implied assertion that is common in many posts that the sun,moon and stars revolve around the EU and any country that leaves,or wishes to leave will sink without trace-the truth is no country the size of the UK has ever left the EU so all these tales of the imminent collapse of the UK because it leaves the EU are pure speculation and opinion-no one really knows what`s going to happen.

I've not seen anyone claim the sun, moon and stars revolve around the EU but I've seen fact based arguments about why the UK will find it tough outside of it.

I have yet to see any fact based arguments that the UK will be better off. In fact most of the Brexit arguments have to resort to nonsensical exaggerations about EU armies and Brussels controlling our lives to try to justify it.

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

But we do know.

The UK has no replacement markets. Zero none.

Now in all your wisdom of talking up the economy. Rather than talking it down. Because I feel that's what your implying here.

What are they going to replace those markets with. And if the markets are maintained in some form do you actually know the true picture of the additional financial cost to the business and thus the consumer.


Do you? Since we're putting positive spin on stuff...

That`s the thing though,I`m not talking up the UK economy and as I`ve said I`d rather stay in the EU but how can anyone say how all this will finish as there`s nothing to compare it to?
The worst case scenario for the UK is a no deal hard brexit whilst a deal where the UK abides by EU standards and can trade with other countries freely is probably the best outcome for the UK but unlikely unless there is some serious trade offs.

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

That`s the thing though,I`m not talking up the UK economy and as I`ve said I`d rather stay in the EU but how can anyone say how all this will finish as there`s nothing to compare it to?
The worst case scenario for the UK is a no deal hard brexit whilst a deal where the UK abides by EU standards and can trade with other countries freely is probably the best outcome for the UK but unlikely unless there is some serious trade offs.

You've referenced nothing about the costs involved.

See this is the thing about individuals who make claims that others are saying the EU is the centre of the earth....which might I add you made up.

You don't live in reality , you give out to people for telling you realistic scenarios fact based evidence of tariffs ,schedules,rules, import and export percentages, GDP. You know the real measurable stuff . And yet you talk in unicorns about this never being done and it could... Be all so positive.

It's pony frankly. And the average person in the street is going to be alot worse off. More than 2008. They are the real facts. Everything is going to cost more. Wages are going to stagnate. Doesn't take kindergarten to work that out.

RobMc59

First Up wrote: »

I've not seen anyone claim the sun, moon and stars revolve around the EU but I've seen fact based arguments about why the UK will find it tough outside of it.

I have yet to see any fact based arguments that the UK will be better off. In fact most of the Brexit arguments have to resort to nonsensical exaggerations about EU armies and Brussels controlling our lives to try to justify it.

The vast majority of what`s said and written is all supposition and opinion by everyone.Personally I don`t listen to brexiteer waffle about an EU army and even if there was one would think it`s a good thing.

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

You've referenced nothing about the costs involved.

See this is the thing about individuals who make claims that others are saying the EU is the centre of the earth....which might I add you made up.

You don't live in reality , you give out to people for telling you realistic scenarios fact based evidence of tariffs ,schedules,rules, import and export percentages, GDP. You know the real measurable stuff . And yet you talk in unicorns about this never being done and it could... Be all so positive.

It's pony frankly. And the average person in the street is going to be alot worse off. More than 2008. They are the real facts. Everything is going to cost more. Wages are going to stagnate. Doesn't take kindergarten to work that out.

The clue to how I feel about brexit is the bit where I said I`d rather stay in the EU in numerous posts.That does`nt mean I believe everything I read/hear from the EU either,you do realise there is a titanic propaganda struggle going on from both sides?

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

The vast majority of what`s said and written is all supposition and opinion by everyone.Personally I don`t listen to brexiteer waffle about an EU army and even if there was one would think it`s a good thing.

That's bull though.

It isn't supposition to say there will be tariffs.
It isn't supposition to say there will be import and export delays.
It isn't supposition to say businesses have closed down, removed hours and worst of all stopped investment.
It isnt supposition to say tens of thousands of jobs have already been lost.

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

The clue to how I feel about brexit is the bit where I said I`d rather stay in the EU in numerous posts.That does`nt mean I believe everything I read/hear from the EU either,you do realise there is a titanic propaganda struggle going on from both sides?

What do you read or hear from the EU that you don't believe?

Be specific.

Is it that EU research funding is gone . Hundreds of millions gone. My friend is back in Dublin since last year research work down the pan. Living in Essex 5 years.

Is it that their will be tariffs on goods. Because there will it's part of the agreement for third party's that's how it is.

What is it you don't believe... Be specific please

RobMc59

listermint wrote: »

What do you read or hear from the EU that you don't believe?

Be specific.

Is it that EU research funding is gone . Hundreds of millions gone. My friend is back in Dublin since last year research work down the pan. Living in Essex 5 years.

Is it that their will be tariffs on goods. Because there will it's part of the agreement for third party's that's how it is.

What is it you don't believe... Be specific please

I don`t believe the majority of what the UK government says regarding brexit,I also don`t believe the EU is`nt worried about the effects of brexit on the EU.

First Up

RobMc59 wrote:

The vast majority of what`s said and written is all supposition and opinion by everyone.

The realities of how international trade works are clear and are there to be seen. There is no supposition about it.

The UK has to replace the terms under which it has done all of its international business for more than 45 years. They haven't even started and there has not been a single indication that they can improve any of them.

Leroy42

First Up wrote: »

The realities of how international trade works are clear and are there to be seen. There is no supposition about it.

Exactly. Many Brexiteers seem to believe that the UK are simply going to rewrite all the norms that have built up over many years. That nothing can be learned from the past or even present and that they start off with a blank piece of paper on which they can draw the outcome to suit themselves.

But we know that isn't true. Even if the EU wanted to give the UK everything, they have manh competing interests to worry about. How will the other members react if a non member get all the benefits and none of the costs. How will other 3rd party countries, ie Canada, Japan, react when the UK get a much better deal given they have clauses in their agreement specifically covering that. How will countries like the US and China react when they see the EU cave in to the worlds 6th largest economy, when they sit in 1st and 2nd?

listermint

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don`t believe the majority of what the UK government says regarding brexit,I also don`t believe the EU is`nt worried about the effects of brexit on the EU.

The EU is worried they've said so.

Where the hell are you consuming your news from ??

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

About 8% of EU exports go to the UK.

About 8% of Irish exports go to GB and 1% to NI

listermint wrote: »

But we do know.

The UK has no replacement markets. Zero none.

It's worse than that.

Despite the very real fall in sterling countries with established markets aren't importing more stuff from the UK. Which should give everyone a clue how things will go in new markets.



And that's while they can continue to use the EU's free trade deals.

Now they won't have those deals. And rules of origin mean that cars for example will no longer qualify without very special exemptions, which won't come cheap.

BonnieSituation

Interesting example of EU cooperation:

RT&#201 wrote:

EU citizens will be flown out of Wuhan, the Chinese city at the epicentre of a deadly virus outbreak, the European Commission has said.

"Initial numbers indicate that around 250 French citizens will be transported in the first aircraft and over 100 EU citizens from other countries will join the second aircraft," it said in a statement.

"This is a first request for assistance and others may follow in the coming days."

The EU citizens will be flown out of the Wuhan on two French planes this week.

France had earlier announced it was dispatching the first plane to fetch its citizens in Wuhan without giving figures of how many would be on board.

The Commission said in its statement the airlift, at France's request, would now be co-funded by the EU under its civil protection mechanism and broadened with the second plane for EU citizens.

It said "only healthy or asymptomatic citizens will be authorised to travel" on the flights.

https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/0128/1111351-coronavirus/

---

I'm sure those non-French citizens are glad of the EU right now. I wonder if any Brits in the will be on the flight?

SantaCruz

RobMc59 wrote: »

I don`t believe the majority of what the UK government says regarding brexit,I also don`t believe the EU is`nt worried about the effects of brexit on the EU.

The EU's representatives are on the record as saying they ARE worried.

Strazdas

Leroy42 wrote: »

Exactly. Many Brexiteers seem to believe that the UK are simply going to rewrite all the norms that have built up over many years. That nothing can be learned from the past or even present and that they start off with a blank piece of paper on which they can draw the outcome to suit themselves.

But we know that isn't true. Even if the EU wanted to give the UK everything, they have manh competing interests to worry about. How will the other members react if a non member get all the benefits and none of the costs. How will other 3rd party countries, ie Canada, Japan, react when the UK get a much better deal given they have clauses in their agreement specifically covering that. How will countries like the US and China react when they see the EU cave in to the worlds 6th largest economy, when they sit in 1st and 2nd?

It will be a disaster. No developed country has ever even attempted what the UK is doing : walking away from all its longstanding trade deals and treaties for purely political and nationalistic reasons and to keep the worst people in their society happy.