Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Leroy42

Gintonious wrote: »

Well, looks like she is under investigation now.

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1234516006875389953

Would that the same type of investigation that was done with respect to Russian interference in the election, or maybe the investigation into illegality undertaken by vote leave, or maybe the investigation into the business relationship between Johnson and Acuri?

IM memory, the UK used to at least have a code that politicians caught would fall on their sword, very different than the brazen holdouts in Ireland. That very much seems to be consigned to the past.

moon2

Spook_ie wrote: »

No, actually my post starts with a question aimed at Resljf, followed by a categorical statement that each country comprising the EU is out to get what it can for itself, not what it can do for the EU.

This is then followed by a summation that because of this the EU is a failed/failing experiment.

Oh that makes sense. By the same token the UK is obviously also a failed experiment. The constituent countries are each out to get what they can for themselves. Scotland and NI want to remain part of the EU, yet England wants to leave. Why aren't they banding together to see what they can do for the UK?

Spook_ie

moon2 wrote: »

Oh that makes sense. By the same token the UK is obviously also a failed experiment. The constituent countries are each out to get what they can for themselves. Scotland and NI want to remain part of the EU, yet England wants to leave. Why aren't they banding together to see what they can do for the UK?

Never said it wasn't, though its more historically a politicaly expedient merger of royal houses since 1700s rather than some grand social experiment of the late 1940s.

If the EU lasts for 300 years it could probably class as successful as the UK but it's still a wee puppy at the moment and without radical reform that puppy will always be a mongrel of statelets like Ireland, Germany, France etc. and not a true European Union.

moon2

Spook_ie wrote: »

Never said it wasn't

That reads like you're in agreement that the UK is a failure. By extension the US is also a failure as politics there expose differences as least as great as Brexit has exposed in the UK.

This might be a bit reductionist when applied on top of an already very simplified position, but your position could be restated as: A State/Union is a failure if constituent parts disagree, instead of working together.

Which grouping of countries, or even a single country with constituent parts, would you consider as a role model for a successful state/union?

Sam Russell

Spook_ie wrote: »

Never said it wasn't, though its more historically a politicaly expedient merger of royal houses since 1700s rather than some grand social experiment of the late 1940s.

If the EU lasts for 300 years it could probably class as successful as the UK but it's still a wee puppy at the moment and without radical reform that puppy will always be a mongrel of statelets like Ireland, Germany, France etc. and not a true European Union.

I think there has been another political expedient since the Bretton Woods agreement in 1944 that transferred hegemony to the new world power, the USA, and that has resulted demerger of the British Empire as different colonies gained independence bit by bit.

The last few will soon be free, leaving he United Kingdom of England. It will then be a true united kingdom.

First Up

Spook_ie wrote:

If the EU lasts for 300 years it could probably class as successful as the UK but it's still a wee puppy at the moment and without radical reform that puppy will always be a mongrel of statelets like Ireland, Germany, France etc. and not a true European Union.

Some people oppose the EU because they fear it will become a superstate, while you criticise it for not being one.

CelticRambler

Spook_ie wrote: »

The EU is a failed/failing political experiment.

You have a strange understanding of the words "fail" and "experiment". The EU is currently performing pretty much as its founders envisaged, so it's hard to see what you mean by saying it's "failed/failing" - by what parameters are you measuring that supposed failure?

And in what way is it an experiment? The Union's terms and conditions are written down, and steps are pro-actively taken to ensure that it achieves its state objectives. This is the very opposite of the experimental process, where the outcome is not known, and any attempt to guarantee a certain result invalidates the concept.

Brexit, on the other hand, is a political experiment, albeit uncontrolled, where all the reagents are being thrown into a test-tube in a random order and without any real hypothesis to prove. The result will certainly be ... interesting.

PopePalpatine

First Up wrote: »

Some people oppose the EU because they fear it will become a superstate, while you criticise it for not being one.

Nah, that's next week's line.

First Up

PopePalpatine wrote:

Nah, that's next week's line.

They hop from one to the other.

Capt'n Midnight

gooch2k9 wrote: »

BBC reporting a US-UK deal will see a GDP rise of between 0.07% and 0.16%. I'm no trade expert, and I know we're dealing in trillions here but these numbers just don't seem worth all the heartache of the last few years. Not for the general populace anyway.

Link with numbers https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51706802
One of the other numbers is a drop of 7.6% in GDP over 15 years if they don't get a deal with the EU. And they are genuinely risking that happening to get a deal worth less than 1% of that ?


Nevermind inflation, that total 0.07% growth , over 15 years, isn't much more than you'd expect from an average month's population increase* before Brexit.


* UK population growth has dropped

CelticRambler

The other day, RobMc59 asked a perfectly reasonable question:

RobMc59 wrote: »

Is`nt creating 50,000 more jobs a good thing?

which attracted a surprising amount of condescension for this forum, not to mention much veering off onto the philosophical question of what constitutes a "good" job.

All of which served to stifle a discussion about whether or not the government can, in fact, create these extra jobs, and what would be the direct effect on the British labour force.

Rob subsequently added this message and link, which goes to the heart of the matter:

RobMc59 wrote: »

Can you supply a link to where you`re getting your figures for UK unemployment from as all information I can find is along these lines:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peoplenotinwork/unemployment

At 3.8%, the UK is effectively in a state of "full" employment whereby - in theory - all the jobs on offer can be filled by people who want to work, and anyone looking for work can find a job without much effort. But that's the theory.

Quite apart from deliberate manipulation of the (un)employment figures, this percentage hides a fundamental problem in the UK labour market where the available skillset doesn't match the profile required of applicants. This means that on the one hand there's a population of people "employed" on zero-hours contracts even if they spend most of their week sitting around waiting to be called up, and on the other, a long list of professions suffering a critical shortage - doctors, vets, nurses, teachers, engineers, biological scientists, physical scientists, IT professionals, architects, economists, performing and graphic artists, welders and chefs ... amongst others.

There is a obviously a massive failure of the British educational system to provide enough native-born/English trained students to fill these roles. So what are the school leavers doing? Well, it doesn't really matter, because creating 50000 administrative posts isn't going to add anything to the economy other than more strain on a situation that's already frazzled.

Notional costs being bandied about earlier were a bit over the top, as whatever additional cost-per-person is incurred will most likely be recovered through tax and NI contributions, and these workers' disposable income will contribute to the wider economy - so RobMc59 wasn't wrong in asking if this isn't a good thing. And it's irrelevant whether these people make other people's lives difficult or not.

The problem is that without bringing in new blood, there's nowhere for these 50000 people to be recruited from without driving other sectors onto the critical shortage list. Whether these jobs are created as public sector positions with all the bells and whistles, or farmed out to "service providers" as yet more zero-hours contracts, they can only move around the money that already exists in the system.

The very best that the government can hope for is that this programme will help to mop up the (hundreds|thousands|tens of thousands) newly unemployed as a result of jobs lost due to a hard or no-deal Brexit.

First Up

It will need more than a trade "deal" for UK companies to replace sales lost in the EU with new business in the US - or anywhere else.

Developing new markets takes time and effort; a few percent less import duty is grand but finding customers, building channels to the market and competing with and displacing established suppliers is not easy, quick or cheap.

The UK does 45% of its business in the EU and 15% in the US. People who think you can replace the former with the latter don't know much about how business is done.

J Mysterio

Enzokk wrote: »

I know we sometimes give in to hyperbole on this thread about the UK and its path now that they have left, but a couple of stories that interest me that makes me shake my head in puzzlement on what they are actually doing and trying to achieve. Firstly, seems like Johnson is setting the UK up to leave the ECHR. This may just be because it contains the words, European, and people not knowing it predates the EU by quite a bit and the UK had a big hand during its creation.

https://twitter.com/LordCFalconer/status/1233906245641392130?s=20

This is a reply to another tweet about this story,

https://twitter.com/peterdavies211/status/1233904775663583233?s=20



When he is questioned about his dubious knowledge of the ECHR and Tony Blair, he pivots to, "I said political construct...", whatever that is supposed to mean. He got it wrong and cannot admit it. As for looking at his profile, he likes free speech so I wonder if he will stand up for free speech in this story,

Mary Beard blocked by No 10 as British Museum trustee 'for pro-Europe views'



So Cummings and Johnson has rejected her for her pro-EU views. But what happened to free speech? Or is that only allowed for people to say offensive things and not for those that has opposing views?

Just on the ECHR, the UK does understand that leaving it will mean the collapse of the GFA, right? I mean they must have read through the document to understand this. Then again the way they have spaffed all over their obligations of the GFA it is not surprising they would gladly rip it up. I think we will have to seriously consider the UK a rogue government soon who cannot be trusted to fulfill their international obligations and to be treated with caution, the same as North Korea.

Mary Beard thing has blown my mind. UK has truly lost it.

Capt'n Midnight

First Up wrote: »

It will need more than a trade "deal" for UK companies to replace sales lost in the EU with new business in the US - or anywhere else.

Let's dumb it down a lot and pretend that UK imports and exports are roughly the same.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51698768

The US is the UK's largest trading partner after the EU, accounting for nearly 19% of all exports in 2018 and 11% of imports. The EU accounted for 45% of all exports and 53% of imports.

The surplus exports to the US is 19% - 11% = 8%
The surplus imports from the EU is 53% - 45% = 8%

At a very, very simplistic level the excess exports to the US pay for the excess imports from the EU. This will have been noticed by the US.

The UK plan is to increase exports to the US during an election year with "America First" Trump ?

What are the chances of a US-EU trade deal ?
Because that might pull the rug out from under the UK's position.

RobMc59

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Let's dumb it down a lot and pretend that UK imports and exports are roughly the same.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-51698768The surplus exports to the US is 19% - 11% = 8%
The surplus imports from the EU is 53% - 45% = 8%

At a very, very simplistic level the excess exports to the US pay for the excess imports from the EU. This will have been noticed by the US.

The UK plan is to increase exports to the US during an election year with "America First" Trump ?

What are the chances of a US-EU trade deal ?
Because that might pull the rug out from under the UK's position.

I'd say the unhinged trump now intends to square up to the EU for a trade war rather than a deal now he's cooled his ire towards China.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-europe-analysis-idUSKBN2051AK

Cookie_Monster

Spook_ie wrote: »

No, actually my post starts with a question aimed at Resljf, followed by a categorical statement that each country comprising the EU is out to get what it can for itself, not what it can do for the EU.

This is then followed by a summation that because of this the EU is a failed/failing experiment.

Is Ireland a failed state as our government has to agree to a budget every year and parties and TDs have to compromise on their local areas versus national interests?

Xertz

The US has actually had government shut downs due to inability to agree the budget and vicious political disagreements between the Republicans and Democrats, yet you never hear anyone calling the US a “failed experiment”.

There’s a major agenda in the UK commentary in particular to paint the EU as a failure anytime there’s a normal level of discourse going on.

The budget is ultimately a compromise and it will be hammered out. That’s just normal.

Sam Russell

Xertz wrote: »

The US has actually had government shut downs due to inability to agree the budget and vicious political disagreements between the Republicans and Democrats, yet you never hear anyone calling the US a “failed experiment”.

There’s a major agenda in the UK commentary in particular to paint the EU as a failure anytime there’s a normal level of discourse going on.

The budget is ultimately a compromise and it will be hammered out. That’s just normal.

Surely robust discussion of the budget is a sign of the very opposite of a failed entity. Small states argue their case and are not rolled over by the larger states.

In the UK, however, they do not like discussion (except that it agrees with the 52%).

Xertz

Sam Russell wrote: »

Surely robust discussion of the budget is a sign of the very opposite of a failed entity. Small states argue their case and are not rolled over by the larger states.

In the UK, however, they do not like discussion (except that it agrees with the 52%).

Well it’s basically a complex multilateral democracy where a collection of 27 democracies have to come to negotiated agreements and there’s a growing layer of pan European democracy in the EP.

There’s a lot of negotiation and it’s very open.
You’ve market commentators who prefer to see a nice benevolent dictatorship that operates like a company and don’t like those kinds of “messy” democratic processes and prefer some command economy that makes efficient decisions.

You’ve also got commentators, particularly in London, who just point at absolutely everything as a failure of the EU.

There’s huge europhobia (euro scepticism is too weak a word) in some aspects of the financial bubble, particularly in England, but it spills into the US too from time to time. It’s largely about the EU being a serious regulator that has stood up to Wild West speculative capitalism, has seriously enforced competition law and so on and also because the Euro is already established as a reserve currency and could ultimately challenge the USD as a global measure of value and trade.

I’m not into conspiracy theory but, it’s always worth looking at that commentary from a strategic point of view as there’s a lot going on and a hell of a lot of spin and PR coming out of London.

I think though it’s worth being very sceptical of coverage that’s London based. A lot of it is borderline propaganda or at least so based that it’s beyond credibility. It’s very much become “team Brexit”

In terms of balanced financial coverage at the very least stick to financial specialists with proven track records and not the be British domestic media.

Sam Russell

The GBP is on the slide again. In the last week it has gone from 83.5p =€1 to 87.5p = €1.

I think the UK negotiators are spooking the markets.

fash

Sam Russell wrote: »

The GBP is on the slide again. In the last week it has gone from 83.5p =€1 to 87.5p = €1.

I think the UK negotiators are spooking the markets.

That and corona virus apparently - Sterling relies on inflows of credit to stay up- so a Corona virus caused reduction in movement of money into the UK causes Sterling to drop.

CelticRambler

If you can't quite stomach chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef, how about antibiotic oranges?

Roughly 80,000 pounds each of streptomycin and oxytetracycline were used on plants in the USA in 2016 (Additional file 4: Tables S92, S116). With the 2018 US EPA approval of oxytetracycline on citrus crops, use of this antibiotic is expected to increase to more than 388,000 pounds per year – 130,000 pounds more than all tetracyclines used annually in human medicine in the USA [56, 57]. A similar impending increase in streptomycin use, which the US EPA proposed at the end of 2018, indicates that the use of these antibiotics will continue to increase in future years, despite the risk of resistance genes developing in human pathogens

From this paper published in the Environmental Health Journal, with no Brexit axe to grind - it seems the American author's primary target is the US's EPA - the subject matter should be of concern to anyone pushing the "lower food prices" argument in any UK-US deal. The paper describes the numerous pesticides used in the US that are banned not just in the EU, but also in China and Brazil. Of interest to us (and the potentially divergent Brexit side of things) is this observation:

Europe is often criticized by pesticide makers and agricultural interests as being overly protective with burdensome regulations. While the EU has less land dedicated to agriculture than China, its export value of agricultural products is higher than the USA, China and Brazil combined [1]. Therefore, the EU remains highly competitive as a major agricultural power despite having banned many widely-used, potentially hazardous agricultural pesticides.

Now how does Brexit Britain expect to feed itself so much more cheaply when the EU as a whole is already feeding the rest of the world?

CrabRevolution

CelticRambler wrote: »

If you can't quite stomach chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef, how about antibiotic oranges?

From this paper published in the Environmental Health Journal, with no Brexit axe to grind - it seems the American author's primary target is the US's EPA - the subject matter should be of concern to anyone pushing the "lower food prices" argument in any UK-US deal. The paper describes the numerous pesticides used in the US that are banned not just in the EU, but also in China and Brazil. Of interest to us (and the potentially divergent Brexit side of things) is this observation:

Now how does Brexit Britain expect to feed itself so much more cheaply when the EU as a whole is already feeding the rest of the world?

I'd imagine they'll now declare that antibiotic-treated oranges are just common sense, and that they've always felt this way, despite only just learning of their existence for the first time.

Nody

CrabRevolution wrote: »

I'd imagine they'll now declare that antibiotic-treated oranges are just common sense, and that they've always felt this way, despite only just learning of their existence for the first time.

No, it will actually improve your health because you get a dose of antibiotic with your daily fruit consumption! Same with hormone treated beef, the dosage will help fill a gap humanity lost from when they were hunting for food on the steppes by running and give a boost to people's strength.

CelticRambler

Nody wrote: »

No, it will actually improve your health because you get a dose of antibiotic with your daily fruit consumption! Same with hormone treated beef, the dosage will help fill a gap humanity lost from when they were hunting for food on the steppes by running and give a boost to people's strength.

Ahhhh, right. So that explains why Americans are so much bigger than us weedy Europeans.

Sam Russell

CelticRambler wrote: »

Ahhhh, right. So that explains why Americans are so much bigger than us weedy Europeans.

Off topic, but the reason that Americans, and many Europeans are taller is because they have been subject to very good medical care that has virtually eliminated childhood illness such as mumps, measles, etc. Previously, children lost a year through various illnesses.

The larger girth is the result of poor diets, supplemented by overeating of poor food laced with copious amounts of fat and sugar.

pixelburp

Given the subject of Corona knocking around the news, it feels particularly timely & relevant to fight the issue of antibiotics in foodstuffs, given the potential of a corner of Europe suddenly & "unknowingly" reducing the efficacy of antibiotics through ingestion. Apart from the US, is there any other major "first world" country who uses antibiotics in its food production? Can't imagine any medical professionals are stoked by the potential for the UK becoming more antibiotic resistant (assuming I got the right end of the stick)...

Nody

I know I should not be surprised at this stage but the level of stupidity (at this stage I can't claim it's ignorance as it's their damn job to know basic stuff like this):

Ministers have reportedly been told of a “nightmare” scenario, in which French fishermen would blockade ports and paralyse cross-Channel trade at the end of the year.

Mr Eustice also sought to dismiss fears that the entire trade deal could be lost over the fishing dispute, suggesting EU countries without fishing fleets in the North Sea would not allow it.

First of all; that's not even close to the nightmare scenario (try France opening it's border; intentional block at every border for health & safety reviews etc.) and secondly any flipping deal has to be approved by ALL countries; there's no way to overrule a country on the deal... I mean it's only 3.5 years into the process but for crying out loud if this is the best UK can bring to the table they should ask EU to govern them instead because this has gone well beyond incompetence at this point.

Leroy42

If ministers didn't blanch at Yellowhammer and the report that US FTA would only add .16% to GDP over 15 years, I somehow doubt this 'nightmare' is going to unduly worry them.

They seem to be happy to ratched up the fears and in doing so lay the blame firmly on the EU. The only reason, that I can think of, is that the worst outcome is actually to plan, and all this is purely to create cover.

reslfj

pixelburp wrote: »

Given the subject of Corona knocking around the news, it feels particularly timely & relevant to fight the issue of antibiotics in foodstuffs,

Antibiotics and resistance to it is a major problem for our health services.

It is, however, only very marginally related to Brexit and this thread

For your information antibiotics can only be used against bacteria, but is absolutely useless against virus.

Fighting viral infections requires an immune reaction within the person (or animal) and vaccinations will prepare and boost the needed immune reaction.

Anti viral drugs are not very common and have a somewhat dubious effect.

Lars