Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Imreoir2

theological wrote: »

You have the strange belief that somehow the UK won't be able to negotiate free trade agreements even when much smaller countries have managed to. The idea that countries wouldn't want enhanced access to the UK market (the world's 5th largest) post-Brexit is bizarre.

I fully respect your right to disagree with me, and I welcome the opportunity to be challenged but please provide something to back up your arguments.

I am sure the UK would be able to agree some trade deals, but there are two important points to bear in mind. The trade deals the UK does manage to agree will be less advantageous than the deals it currently enjoys as part of the EU, and it will not be able to agree enough trade deals quickly enough to make up for the reduction of access to the EU market by the end of the transition period in just over a years time.

The UK has no functional experience of trade negiotations and its team will be amatures during its initial efforts to secure trade deals. The UK will start off at a huge disadvantage as it will be working under the deadline of the end of the transition period once it is out of the EU. This hands sigificant leverage to its rivals in trade talks. More importantly than these two factors is the limited size of the UK market. As has been said countless times, trade is a numbers game. The EU market is huge and it has a lot of heft in trade talks as a result. The UK market is much smaller and it will have less influence in trade talks because of that inescapable fact.

The UK will be able to agree trade deals, but the best they can hope for in most cases is keeping the trade arangements they have now. In many cases the indications are that they will fall short of even standing still. The UK needs to masivly improve its tradeing relationships outside Europe to make up for the damage that leaving the single market and customs union will cause. Far from this, it is likely that the UK is going to expend a lot of effort and resources only to end up with worse overall tradeing arangements outside Europe.

Europe is the UK's most important market and Brexit is going to do significant damage to that tradeing relationship, outside Europe the weakness of the UK's position will likely see its trading relationships disimprove too, with any significant agreements it eventually reaches being one sided against the UK.

Akrasia

lawred2 wrote: »

Is there no election standards office in the UK?

The election campaign starts at midnight tonight so they can lie with total impunity today, and just mostly impunity tomorrow

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

The stark reality is that the NHS is being slowly privatised bit by bit, and the reason the public aren't rising up in fierce indignation is because it is being done sneakily, and (believe it or not) many people in the private sector are making money out of it.

Over the past decade of Tory rule, NHS privatisation has risen from 6% to 7%.

During Labour, it rose from 4% to 6%.

If the Tory's were interested in en masse privatisation, I think the shift from 6-7% would not be observed.

Am I claiming that no privatisation has taken place / will take place - no. But what these statistics demonstrate is that these hyperbolic claims that the NHS is "being slowly privatised" is absurd.

At this rate, if the Torys were in charge for the next 80 years, NHS privatisation would rise from 7% to 15% by the year 2100.

Rjd2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Can only assume theyve crunched the numbers and come up with this as a winning strategy. Or maybe just some mad gamble by their resident "evil genius" Mr Cummings. Frankly i really dont know what their game is.

Cummings is not running the campaign, its Isaac Levido who is the prodigy of Lynton Crosby who I think played a role in the 2017 disaster.

Joe_ Public

Rjd2 wrote: »

Cummings is not running the campaign, its Isaac Levido who is the prodigy of Lynton Crosby who I think played a role in the 2017 disaster.

Thanks. "Protege" of lynton crosby would ring seven hells of alarm bells for me. I am forever astonished at how people in politics can do such sh!t jobs for huge salaries and seemingly never be out of work. I see nick timothy regularly spouting garbage in the telegraph these days, another epic failure from 2017.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Over the past decade of Tory rule, NHS privatisation has risen from 6% to 7%.

During Labour, it rose from 4% to 6%.

If the Tory's were interested in en masse privatisation, I think the shift from 6-7% would not be observed.

Am I claiming that no privatisation has taken place / will take place - no. But what these statistics demonstrate is that these hyperbolic claims that the NHS is "being slowly privatised" is absurd.

At this rate, if the Torys were in charge for the next 80 years, NHS privatisation would rise from 7% to 15% by the year 2100.

Where are you getting your bolded percentages from? Because since 2014/15 the amount of NHS budget going to private healthcare had risen by 14% in 2018. And that doesn't include the almost £14 billion spent separately by the DHSC.

LuckyLloyd

gooch2k9 wrote: »

I'm starting to think Twitter is more a force for harm than good.

Only now?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Where are you getting your bolded percentages from? Because since 2014/15 the amount of NHS budget going to private healthcare had risen by 14% in 2018. And that doesn't include the almost £14 billion spent separately by the DHSC.

"Risen by 14%" refers to costs, not a total percentage of the NHS which is privatised.

In 2017-18, £8.8bn of the health service budget went to organisations in the independent sector - around 7 per cent of the total budget.

Rjd2

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Thanks. "Protege" of lynton crosby would ring seven hells of alarm bells for me. I am forever astonished at how people in politics can do such sh!t jobs for huge salaries and seemingly never be out of work. I see nick timothy regularly spouting garbage in the telegraph these days, another epic failure from 2017.

I think Nick Timothy got shortlisted for a safe Tory seat somehow.

Yeah the guy who cost May her majority and whose campaign was a laughing stock a mere 2 years later is parachuted into a seat not even he can lose. :P

Joe_ Public

Rjd2 wrote: »

I think Nick Timothy got shortlisted for a safe Tory seat somehow.

Yeah the guy who cost May her majority and whose campaign was a laughing stock a mere 2 years later is parachuted into a seat not even he can lose. :P

That would be Nick Timothy CBE to give the obviously soon to be honourable gentleman his rightful title. I read somewhere where he was being jokingly referred to as collossal bell end and that was by members of his own party. Wonder if poor Fi Hill, the chief architect of the 'trousergate' debacle, has anything coming or does she have to content herself with a mere cbe.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

"Risen by 14%" refers to costs, not a total percentage of the NHS which is privatised.

Actually 7.7% according to this. And from the same document it's almost doubled since 2011/12. So your Labour figures seem to be overstated a tad.

prawnsambo

Rjd2 wrote: »

I think Nick Timothy got shortlisted for a safe Tory seat somehow.

Yeah the guy who cost May her majority and whose campaign was a laughing stock a mere 2 years later is parachuted into a seat not even he can lose. :P

Well he's continued his winning streak by coming second in the selection vote.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Actually 7.7% according to this. And from the same document it's almost doubled since 2011/12. So your Labour figures seem to be overstated a tad.

Well, fine, it depends on which report / date; let's agree a figure of 7-8%. The point I made still stands.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, fine, it depends on which report / date; let's agree a figure of 7-8%. The point I made still stands.

Well it doesn't unless the NHS budget also almost doubled from 2011/12 to 2017/18.

jimmycrackcorm

Gintonious wrote: »

https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1191687795343052802

Will this help Corbyn at all?

The good news is now the election gives a clear set of choices for the public. Vote tory to get the Boris deal / hard 2020 brexit. Vote non tory to get a code between soft brexit and public change of mind.

It makes things simple and clear.

An Ciarraioch

The Telegraph becomes a self-parody:

https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1191835817641152515

theological

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK has no functional experience of trade negiotations and its team will be amatures during its initial efforts to secure trade deals. The UK will start off at a huge disadvantage as it will be working under the deadline of the end of the transition period once it is out of the EU. This hands sigificant leverage to its rivals in trade talks. More importantly than these two factors is the limited size of the UK market. As has been said countless times, trade is a numbers game. The EU market is huge and it has a lot of heft in trade talks as a result. The UK market is much smaller and it will have less influence in trade talks because of that inescapable fact.

The UK's reduced competence in trade negotiations is because it joined the EEC in the 70's and later the EU in post-Maastricht. This is the reason I find your argument poor here. It highlights a downside to EU membership which is that countries are required to give up an independent trade policy to join. Leaving the EU and building up this capacity will be good for the UK.

I disagree with the pessimism about the UK being able to agree FTA's. Smaller countries have been able to negotiate good FTA's that have been beneficial to their economies.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

The UK will be able to agree trade deals, but the best they can hope for in most cases is keeping the trade arangements they have now. In many cases the indications are that they will fall short of even standing still. The UK needs to masivly improve its tradeing relationships outside Europe to make up for the damage that leaving the single market and customs union will cause. Far from this, it is likely that the UK is going to expend a lot of effort and resources only to end up with worse overall tradeing arangements outside Europe.

The first step is maintaining trade arrangements that currently exist. I agree in this regard. That's all they can do until they regain control of their own trade policy after leaving the EU.

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Europe is the UK's most important market and Brexit is going to do significant damage to that tradeing relationship, outside Europe the weakness of the UK's position will likely see its trading relationships disimprove too, with any significant agreements it eventually reaches being one sided against the UK.

This is presuming that the UK won't be able to negotiate a FTA with the European Union. Smaller countries like Canada have been able to do this.

I don't deny that it will take time for the UK to develop its own trade and immigration policy, I simply think it is a step worth taking. What Brexit offers is the opportunity for the British parliament to make these decisions rather than the European Union. That for me is a good thing because I believe in national sovereignty.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, fine, it depends on which report / date; let's agree a figure of 7-8%. The point I made still stands.

You were asked to provide figures for your points and where you got them.

If not retract the statement as infactual.

boring accountant

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The good news is now the election gives a clear set of choices for the public. Vote tory to get the Boris deal / hard 2020 brexit. Vote non tory to get a code between soft brexit and public change of mind.

It makes things simple and clear.

Simple and clear... until after the election when this "credible deal" first needs to be negotiated between the coalition parties and then voted for by Parliament and then agreed with the EU and then voted for by the public. All while every coalition partner horse trades and stymies in order to get a bite of the cherry.

A Dub in Glasgo

Deleted User wrote: »

Mr Nigel Farage is the most significant political figure in modern UK history. Exceptional.

Yet he will not seek election to the UK parliament after his previous 7 attemps all failed

boring accountant

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yet he will not seek election to the UK parliament after his previous 7 attemps all failed

It's even more impressive that he managed to do all of this without ever winning a seat in the HoC.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Yet he will not seek election to the UK parliament after his previous 7 attemps all failed

I think what Mr Nigel Farage has demonstrated, somewhat uniquely in fact, is that you don't need to be an MP or Prime Minister to recalibrate the political direction of a country.

That is exactly what I mean by "exceptional".

Even many of his staunchest enemies, such as Kenneth Clarke MP, concede that Mr Nigel Farage has been the most successful politician in the modern era.

Even if you hate his guts, you can't ignore that fundamental reality.

A Dub in Glasgo

boring accountant wrote: »

It's even more impressive that he managed to do all of this without ever winning a seat in the HoC.

Do all what?

Mod: Report posts if you have an issue. Please do not derail the thread like this.

LuckyLloyd

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Telegraph becomes a self-parody:

https://twitter.com/BBCHelena/status/1191835817641152515

It's long abandoned any pretence at being something other than a Conservative party newsletter.

LuckyLloyd

Boris Johnson "brilliant"
Daniel Hannon a man of "great intellect"
Nigel Farage "exceptional"
"Surrender acts" and rebranding of lies and nonsense as "constructive deception". It's just a flow of gibberish soundbite posting, there is little actual substance and certainly no attempt to argue a point successfully or change minds.

Just because it's well written and non abusive doesn't mean it's up to scratch for this thread. Bit Cynical is a good example of a poster who has argued a contrarian point of view on here for years, and I would suggest there is a marked difference in the intent and nature of their contributions.

Headshot

Deleted User wrote: »

I think what Mr Nigel Farage has demonstrated, somewhat uniquely in fact, is that you don't need to be an MP or Prime Minister to recalibrate the political direction of a country.

That is exactly what I mean by "exceptional".

Even many of his staunchest enemies, such as Kenneth Clarke MP, concede that Mr Nigel Farage has been the most successful politician in the modern era.

Even if you hate his guts, you can't ignore that fundamental reality.

Mg this is painful to read with this “Mr Nigel Farage” rubbish

If you wanted to be so formal why not “Mr Kenneth Clarke”?

boring accountant

VinLieger wrote: »

And yet you support brexit which will lead to trade deals with the likes of india and china where massive levels of immigration will be a key part of those countries demands.

Is this a fact?


I would have thought the Chinese would want to avoid a brain drain which would only compound their slowing manufacturing.

boring accountant

Headshot wrote: »

Mg this is painful to read with this “Mr Nigel Farage” rubbish

If you wanted to be so formal why not “Mr Kenneth Clarke”?

You think that's bad?

The Irish Times is the only paper of record which consistently refers to Angela Merkel as "Dr Merkel".


Cringeworthy to say the least.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Boris Johnson "brilliant"
Daniel Hannon a man of "great intellect"
Nigel Farage "exceptional"
"Surrender acts" and rebranding of lies and nonsense as "constructive deception". It's just a flow of gibberish soundbite posting, there is little actual substance and certainly no attempt to argue a point successfully or change minds.

Just because it's well written and non abusive doesn't mean it's up to scratch for this thread.

But that's because you have a particular political persuasion. You list my opinions as if they are "clearly" false; but in my view, and many others, they are not false. Just because you have statistics and backing on your side, doesn't make you or anyone else automatically right.

I respect that persuasion, and we should debate those opinions accordingly.

What is not acceptable, is for one side to dismiss another in the way we have seen. It is not democratic. We have to listen to all sides in a debate and come to our own conclusions.