Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Headshot

boring accountant wrote: »

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.

Yes it’s the definition of Cringeworthy and these so called “Conservatives opinion” gave me a good laugh

Professor Moriarty

boring accountant wrote: »

Is this a fact?


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

India stated categorically that increased immigration from India to Britain would be a prerequisite of any FTA between the two countries.

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".

Yes, I literally believe this.

Literally, not figuratively.

Conservative opinion is not deranged. We believe what we believe with as much conviction as you do yours. I respect your view that you do not agree on these matters, but I see no need to silence you. Nor will I ever.

I would rather let the general public scan both opinions and opt for whatever conclusion they come to.

It's cheap, and unnecessary to point to my quotes and hope for multi-likes. Let's debate the theory in question, and not resort to cheap tactics of banning or multi-liking because we don't read what we would like to see.

If political uniformity is what you yearn for, undiluted Communism or Fascism may appeal to you.

To everyone else, who appreciates dialogue, we see no need to attain cheap political points.

prawnsambo

And likewise (and there's plenty of proof) Boris Johnson is a serial liar and cheat. Daniel Hannan is a failed politician who has written articles that contained laughably poor research and Nigel Farage is a far right charlatan who's been bankrolled by a dodgy businessman and has never won an election for a HoC seat. And of course has lied repeatedly. Including about said financing by dodgy businessman.

LuckyLloyd

boring accountant wrote: »

Is this a fact?


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

Would you have thought that? China will want many things for free trade access to a market that dwarfs the UK. It won't be necessarily their best and brightest gaining the right to live and work in the UK as part of such an arrangement - particularly when extraordinary people from China already fill jobs in the city and elsewhere. The other thing you can expect is a free run for Chinese money at British assets, though I'm sure there is some soundbite available on why the Chinese wouldn't be interested in that either.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

It doesn't matter what my political persuasion is. Presenting gushing descriptions of politicians on "my side" of a debate as reality absent of substance is inflammatory and unhelpful, which I suspect is a large part of the intent.

Statistics and "backing" (I assume you mean logical deduction and / or evidence here) are the basis for good discussion and debate. Yes, there are places on the Internet and in the media (like the Telegraph) where Boris Johnson is labelled as "brilliant" and his career of political failure is glossed over - while his lacking personal character is studiously ignored. This is clearly not that place so you should either get to rebutting his failures or start trying to convince me why a philanderer who seeks to forget his children as quickly as his supporters forget his gaffes is fit to lead any country. Because there is a mountain of reasoned comment and analysis that says him being leader of the United Kingdom is a sure sign of national crisis.

As for democracy, this forum is most certainly not trying to be such. You do not have unchallenged free speech here. There are rules and expectations on discourse. Your posts are not meeting them, and so long as that continues they will be challenged in this manner.

Strazdas

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Telegraph becomes a self-parody:

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

Behind a paywall in the online edition.....crazy stuff from a serving PM

boring accountant

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Would you have thought that? China will want many things for a free trade access to a market that dwarfs the UK. It won't be necessarily their best and brightest gaining the right to live and work in the UK as part of such an arrangement - particularly when extraordinary people from China already fill jobs in the city and elsewhere. The other thing you can expect is a free run for Chinese money at British assets, though I'm sure there is some soundbite available on why the Chinese wouldn't be interested in that either.

Are you suggesting that I employ the use of soundbites? Could be that I actually agree with the above, minus the passive aggressive hostility.

LuckyLloyd

Strazdas wrote: »

Behind a paywall in the online edition.....crazy stuff from a serving PM

I've held a subscription to the Telegraph since Brexit was voted for so I have a window into the opinions of the Brexit faithful. In the Opinion section, before editorial comment, they have a collection of his articles over the years when he was writing his column for the paper. They put that there when he was officially running for leader. The Telegraph is like a shrine to Johnson. All that said, it's obviously a completely ridiculous way to "launch" a general election campaign but we live in interesting times.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

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.

That's an interesting point of view ... but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In a previous thread, I highlighted the enormous difference in the growth in trade with China of the UK compared with Ireland. Ireland has exceptional negotiators who have been able to make the very most of EEC/EU membership to drive our foreign trade to record levels year after year, while the UK has stagnated or gone into reverse. That's why Ireland has a trade surplus with China and the UK has a deficit.

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.

Well, yeah, kinda. What he's demonstrated is how easy it is to manipulate the two-party system when it's built on FPTP. Macron did exactly the same in France (side note: there's the model that could see the LibDems unseat both of the Old Reliables) and Trump in the White House is essentially the result of the Farage-like Tea Party's antics a few years ago.

It is not "exceptional" to be able to manipulate a fundamentally flawed system, especially when you have access to huge financial resources and a compliant media (I include Facebook/Twitter in this description).

Joe_ Public

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

The Telegraph becomes a self-parody:

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

They're supposed to be learning from 2017. But we know from that election that voters didnt connect with all that "leninist trotskyite whatever" bullcrap, it went completely over their heads. Nobody under 40 relates to that stuff, they barely teach it in schools over there so they need better attack lines if they want to spread the appeal beyond the usual base of deplorables.

Christy42

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.

It's a good thing for him as nowhere would vote for him as MP and he knows it. He wants the easy MEP paychecks because not enough people show up to vote for them (maybe if they wanted change in Europe they should at least try that).

So much for democracy. Someone who can't even get elected as an MP (after repeated failures) gets so much of a platform for saying what the UK should do next.

boring accountant

CelticRambler wrote: »

That's an interesting point of view ... but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In a previous thread, I highlighted the enormous difference in the growth in trade with China of the UK compared with Ireland. Ireland has exceptional negotiators who have been able to make the very most of EEC/EU membership to drive our foreign trade to record levels year after year, while the UK has stagnated or gone into reverse. That's why Ireland has a trade surplus with China and the UK has a deficit.



Well, yeah, kinda. What he's demonstrated is how easy it is to manipulate the two-party system when it's built on FPTP. Macron did exactly the same in France (side note: there's the model that could see the LibDems unseat both of the Old Reliables) and Trump in the White House is essentially the result of the Farage-like Tea Party's antics a few years ago.

It is not "exceptional" to be able to manipulate a fundamentally flawed system, especially when you have access to huge financial resources and a compliant media (I include Facebook/Twitter in this description).

As much as I like the IDA and think they've done a fantastic job of promoting Ireland, they're not trade negotiators. Our competitiveness is down to our tax rate. Opinions to the contrary are mostly puffery designed to distract from the fact that we're simply scalping off EU trade in technology and pharmaceuticals.

The UK would have had a lower CT rate were it not for a much stronger union/labour movement to oppose such a move.

Strazdas

CelticRambler wrote: »

That's an interesting point of view ... but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In a previous thread, I highlighted the enormous difference in the growth in trade with China of the UK compared with Ireland. Ireland has exceptional negotiators who have been able to make the very most of EEC/EU membership to drive our foreign trade to record levels year after year, while the UK has stagnated or gone into reverse. That's why Ireland has a trade surplus with China and the UK has a deficit.



Well, yeah, kinda. What he's demonstrated is how easy it is to manipulate the two-party system when it's built on FPTP. Macron did exactly the same in France (side note: there's the model that could see the LibDems unseat both of the Old Reliables) and Trump in the White House is essentially the result of the Farage-like Tea Party's antics a few years ago.

It is not "exceptional" to be able to manipulate a fundamentally flawed system, especially when you have access to huge financial resources and a compliant media (I include Facebook/Twitter in this description).

If EU membership severely affected the negotiating skills of member states, it would surely create the same problems for all 28 member states, not just one of them.

Joe_ Public

Speaking of the telegraph and the right honourable prime minister. Just the three corrections this year. Still only early November, mind!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-column_uk_5dbefdb8e4b0576b62a39781

prawnsambo

boring accountant wrote: »

As much as I like the IDA and think they've done a fantastic job of promoting Ireland, they're not trade negotiators. Our competitiveness is down to our tax rate. Opinions to the contrary are mostly puffery designed to distract from the fact that we're simply scalping off EU trade in technology and pharmaceuticals.

The UK would have had a lower CT rate were it not for a much stronger union/labour movement to oppose such a move.

Your confusing FDI with trade. They are not the same. We have a trade surplus with China. That has nothing to do with our CT rate.

Edit: And it's not the IDA who work on trade, it's the DFA (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade).

boring accountant

Strazdas wrote: »

If EU membership severely affected the negotiating skills of member states, it would surely create the same problems for all 28 member states, not just one of them.

THe UK hasn't been negotiating with the EU 28 it has been negotiating with career trade negotiators employed by Brussels.



The lack of qualified trade negotiators in the UK was talked about repeatedly in financial and business media when the negotiations first began.

If I recall correctly there were suggestions that they would draft in UK business leaders to negotiate on their behalf.


Perhaps it has affected all 28 in the same way, we won't know until someone else leaves.

LuckyLloyd

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Speaking of the telegraph and the right honourable prime minister. Just the three corrections this year. Still only early November, mind!

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boris-johnson-column_uk_5dbefdb8e4b0576b62a39781

Constructive deception?

boring accountant

prawnsambo wrote: »

Your confusing FDI with trade. They are not the same. We have a trade surplus with China. That has nothing to do with our CT rate.

Edit: And it's not the IDA who work on trade, it's the DFA (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade).

Admittedly I skimmed the first paragraph of your post, but the DFA aren't trade negotiators either. They have no power to set tariffs or regulatory standards. So how, in your opinion, has the DFA negotiated its way to increasing trade with China?


With trade surpluses/deficits a lot has to do with the nature of the country's exports which is often determined by geographical, historical and demographic factors, not necessarily trade policy. That makes it hard to draw a fair comparison between the relative imbalances between two different economies.

CelticRambler

boring accountant wrote: »

As much as I like the IDA and think they've done a fantastic job of promoting Ireland, they're not trade negotiators. Our competitiveness is down to our tax rate.

As the others have pointed out, our trade surplus with China is based on trade in real goods - milk powder, crisps, beef, horse food. Nothing to do with corporation tax, everything to do with having competent negotiators on the ground, getting good deals for our produce in a growing market on the back of whatever the EU has already put in place. There's no reason why the British shouldn't be able to achieve the same ... but they don't. Or rather they much prefer to buy stuff from China than sell to them. If that's how things are today within the EU, why would it be any different when they're outside?

Strazdas

boring accountant wrote: »

THe UK hasn't been negotiating with the EU 28 it has been negotiating with career trade negotiators employed by Brussels.



The lack of qualified trade negotiators in the UK was talked about repeatedly in financial and business media when the negotiations first began.

If I recall correctly there were suggestions that they would draft in UK business leaders to negotiate on their behalf.


Perhaps it has affected all 28 in the same way, we won't know until someone else leaves.

It sounds like just another excuse to bash the EU by the Europhobes (the UK seems useless at a lot of different things, with or without EU membership).

boring accountant

Strazdas wrote: »

It sounds like just another excuse to bash the EU by the Europhobes (the UK seems useless at a lot of different things, with or without EU membership).

I'm not an EU basher by any stretch of the imagination. If anything the structure of the EU lends itself well to producing a highly effective civil service by allowing the bloc to take only the best from each country. It also helps that officials are not beholden to a party or an electorate.

If that comes at the cost of quality in the domestic civil service then that's a negative worth mentioning.

Strazdas

boring accountant wrote: »

I'm not an EU basher by any stretch of the imagination. If anything the structure of the EU lends itself well to producing a highly effective civil service by allowing the bloc to take only the best from each country. It also helps that officials are not beholden to a party or an electorate.

If that comes at the cost of quality in the domestic civil service then that's a negative worth mentioning.

Not having independent trade negotiators should not be a problem for the UK. Brexiteers and Leave voters have created the dilemma with their hare brained scheme to get out of the EU and SMCU. Perhaps the advocates of Leave should have anticipated all this when they were pushing for it in 2016 (they insisted there would virtually be no downsides to leaving).

Capt'n Midnight

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I think the point is that any trade agreement the UK makes post Brexit is very unlikely to match the one they currently enjoy today

Not quite true as historical EU trade deals would be an average for 28 different agendas.

So for deals that would have suited German or France better than the UK, third party countries might happily roll over.


Even with that the UK has gotten continuity deals for 8% of trade.

boring accountant

Strazdas wrote: »

Not having independent trade negotiators should not be a problem for the UK. Brexiteers and Leave voters have created the dilemma with their hare brained scheme to get out of the EU and SMCU. Perhaps the advocates of Leave should have anticipated all this when they were pushing for it in 2016 (they insisted there would virtually be no downsides to leaving).

No, the real mistake was having a referendum in the first place because there is no constitutional basis for a referendum and there wasn't a parliamentary majority in favour of the decision.


As it happened, they had a non-binding referendum and so Brexit became a policy without a government to support it, creating a constitutional crisis.



Regardless of what advocates of Leave/Leave voters did or didn't do, they didn't have the power to enact policy until BJ came into office. And by that stage it was already FUBAR.


The real culprit in all of this is David Cameron. He's the only person in the country who could have stopped this whole mess before it began.

Strazdas

boring accountant wrote: »

No, the real mistake was having a referendum in the first place because there is no constitutional basis for a referendum and there wasn't a parliamentary majority in favour of the decision.


As it happened, they had a non-binding referendum and so Brexit became a policy without a government to support it, creating a constitutional crisis.



Regardless of what advocates of Leave/Leave voters did or didn't do, they didn't have the power to enact policy until BJ came into office. And by that stage it was already FUBAR.


The real culprit in all of this is David Cameron. He's the only person in the country who could have stopped this whole mess before it began.

I won't disagree with that. Some MPs were pushing for a supra majority in the referendum but were told by Tories there was no need for such a thing as the referendum was only advisory.

Cameron started telling people during the campaign the result was binding, knowing full well this was a lie without an ounce of legality attached to it.

boring accountant

Strazdas wrote: »

I won't disagree with that. Some MPs were pushing for a supra majority in the referendum but were told by Tories there was no need for such a thing as the referendum was only advisory.

Cameron started telling people during the campaign the result was binding, knowing full well this was a lie without an ounce of legality attached to it.

A supra majority wouldn't have cut it. If Remain won, Leavers would claim it was illegitimate because it was stacked against them from the start.



A supra majority referendum wouldn't have even achieved its purpose of settling the issue.



The only way to settle this issue would be at a general election, however long it took, to get a Leave supporting majority government/coalition, or for Brexit to eventually give way to other concerns.

listermint

boring accountant wrote: »

As much as I like the IDA and think they've done a fantastic job of promoting Ireland, they're not trade negotiators. Our competitiveness is down to our tax rate. Opinions to the contrary are mostly puffery designed to distract from the fact that we're simply scalping off EU trade in technology and pharmaceuticals.

The UK would have had a lower CT rate were it not for a much stronger union/labour movement to oppose such a move.

But that doesn't explain how Amazon paid close to zero taxes in the UK since they've been there


Can a boring accountant explain that one considering the UK is so hard done by by labour unions.

I mean if it's their tax rate and all that.

And I won't even start on the Irish tosh.

listermint

boring accountant wrote: »

A supra majority wouldn't have cut it. If Remain won, Leavers would claim it was illegitimate because it was stacked against them from the start.



A supra majority referendum wouldn't have even achieved its purpose of settling the issue.



The only way to settle this issue would be at a general election, however long it took, to get a Leave supporting majority government/coalition, or for Brexit to eventually give way to other concerns.

That's a lie.

There was no appetite for anything about leaving the EU outside of the ERG inside the Tories. Not a single person on the street cared.

This issue would have been put to bed straight away.

Are you attempting to rewrite history saying there was a large public push for exiting the EU. If yes can you give some evidence of this prior to 2015 . I'm intrigued by your thoughts on this

Zubeneschamali

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, I literally believe this.

Literally,

I don't believe you.

Johnson is a proven liar, and I don't believe for a moment that his supporters are stupid enough to think otherwise.

You are backing a blatant, open liar for PM, and we all see you doing it.

theological

CelticRambler wrote: »

That's an interesting point of view ... but doesn't stand up to scrutiny. In a previous thread, I highlighted the enormous difference in the growth in trade with China of the UK compared with Ireland. Ireland has exceptional negotiators who have been able to make the very most of EEC/EU membership to drive our foreign trade to record levels year after year, while the UK has stagnated or gone into reverse. That's why Ireland has a trade surplus with China and the UK has a deficit.

It does stand up to scrutiny in my opinion. The objection I had was that the UK doesn't have a free trade negotiation competence or much experience in recent years. This is true but it isn't a benefit of being an EU member. Joining the EU made the UK depend on them for trade negotiations hence why their trade negotiation capacity was reduced.

There are two ways of looking at the facts on this. One is to say it is a benefit because the UK doesn't have to pay for it (but it pays substantially for EU membership anyway) or that it is a drawback because the UK lost an independent trade policy. I mean towards the latter in the case of the UK because it is a large economy already.

As for surpluses with particular countries if you went through the UK list it would have certain countries with a better trade surplus than Ireland so respectfully I don't think there's much merit exploring that point.

I think it is better that matters like trade are taken into the hands of British politicians ultimately.

Strazdas wrote: »

If EU membership severely affected the negotiating skills of member states, it would surely create the same problems for all 28 member states, not just one of them.

It does affect all EU states. All member states are prohibited from negotiating their own free trade agreements. All member states have to give up control of their tariff schedule.

As I say it can be argued both ways and I can see that. It benefits smaller countries to centralize this competence. It doesn't suit the UK.