Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

forgottenhills

Enzokk wrote: »

And also, the divorce payment is done. It was settled in the Withdrawal Agreement. There is no taking back the money unless the UK want to become a pariah with other states. They have confirmed they owe this money, not paying it would mean any bonds the UK government issues are void as they have shown themselves not to pay what they owe.

Can we stop saying the divorce payment is up for debate please.

Normally I would agree with you but this is a very radical UK government. A normal government wouldn't have already reneged on the WA so it is difficult to predict anything that they will do with certainty. A large bill due is bad news for both the debtor and creditor.

listermint

forgottenhills wrote: »

Normally I would agree with you but this is a very radical UK government. A normal government wouldn't have already reneged on the WA so it is difficult to predict anything that they will do with certainty. A large bill due is bad news for both the debtor and creditor.

Unfortunately impacting he credit rating isn't something that's going to happen regardless of how radical they are.

forgottenhills

Sam Russell wrote: »

To quote Keynes, 'In the long term, we are all dead'.

A lost decade would be bad but a lost generation would be a catastrophe.

I expect it to be the latter. The 'victory' of WW II was not fruitful until long after the magic of the SMCU worked on the UK economy. That took 50 years.

I think Brexit might take longer, and could well be overtaken by other factors.

I agree, just trying to make the point that nothing is certain in life. It is not beyond the stuff of fantasy that the UK could create a booming economy in post Brexit times, even if it took them 20 years or more. They have a history of both stubbornness and resilience.

It was indeed an irony that as one of the victors of WWII the UK came out of it badly financially while Germany and Japan received a great deal of economic assistance.

forgottenhills

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It depends what you mean by an economic powerhouse. Brexiteers have been making the point that most of the growth in the world is outside of Europe and so it is. Developing nations are catching up on European nations. India has overtaken the UK economically but so too will Brazil, Nigeria, the Philipines etc, probably in the next few decades.

I would imagine that the UK will remain a top 10 economy or at least a top 20 economy for decades to come, but it is on the decline, not the way up. Brexit wont help that and will likely hasten it.

The UK simply cannot compete with the US, China, India, Japan, Germany and maybe Russia in the next decade, baring a major catastrophy like an all out war

I agree with you on this. In fact there is an argument that the UK economy has been on a long term decline (propped up only by success in financial services) and so they needed to do something radical. A follow up to this point is that the Tory party radicals behind what is going on now have the idea that they can create a different type of economy centred on building UK technology/pharma companies to rival Apple , Facebook etc. The UK has always had strong research and ideas without always the follow through to commercial success. All of this with massive government support/subsidies etc which they cant do at present as part of the EU. Of course if this is actually the strategy it is incredibly risky/radical and far removed from traditional conservative economics.

Sam Russell

forgottenhills wrote: »

I agree, just trying to make the point that nothing is certain in life. It is not beyond the stuff of fantasy that the UK could create a booming economy in post Brexit times, even if it took them 20 years or more. They have a history of both stubbornness and resilience.

It was indeed an irony that as one of the victors of WWII the UK came out of it badly financially while Germany and Japan received a great deal of economic assistance.

Neither Germany nor Japan poured huge amounts of their economy into military spending like nuclear weapons, and foreign wars. I think that might have contributed to the UK's lacklustre economic performance.

The pursuit of quality manufacture, and productivity did contributed to the success of Japan and Germany. This is particularly true of the auto industry.

Strazdas

listermint wrote: »

The ultimate mark of how sovereign the UK is. Was that it was always fully entitled to leave.


And has done so.

Fintan O'Toole has argued all along that Brexit can only ever be a crushing disappointment to its supporters. An already sovereign country supposedly becomes sovereign. No benefit whatsoever to their lives and they bring a whole load of grief down on the economy.

Enzokk

forgottenhills wrote: »

You have got the wrong end of the stick is stating that it is me arguing that Brexit is a success because of non-economic matters. The nub of my argument on this particular point is that there are Brexiteers out there (not me) who will be happy that they have left the EU even if their economy goes down the toilet. Maybe this is because nationalism trumps everything else for them, maybe it is because they are rich or are on pensions and won't be affected, but the point is that these people exist, in fact they seem to be surprisingly numerous in the UK. It is denial to think that these people don't exist or presumptious to think that a different criteria for the success of Brexit on thier behalf is idiotic (even we may all disagree strongly with their worldview).

It is somewhat akin to holding the view that the only criteria for a reunification of Ireland should be that of the economic success of the project and to regard other views on the criteria for the success of the project as worthless.

I am not sure why you are pointing this out. We know there are those that will believe it a success no matter the damage. It is your insistence that seems strange to me at least and it seems like you are defending this view instead of just pointing it out. There are people out there believing all sorts of nonsense and we don't give them airtime because it is wrong and stupid. But people do believe these things.

As for the Irish unification issue, this is not the place to have that discussion but to try and equate that with Brexit is very simplistic.

forgottenhills wrote: »

Normally I would agree with you but this is a very radical UK government. A normal government wouldn't have already reneged on the WA so it is difficult to predict anything that they will do with certainty. A large bill due is bad news for both the debtor and creditor.

We will have to see if the renege on the WA. At the moment they have not done so yet. It may just be a ploy by Johnson to create a victory that he needs to sell to the UK people.

But you are right, if they do renege on the WA then there is no knowing what they will do. What we do know is that if they throw out the WA there will be no deal with the EU. They will trade on WTO terms and any access to EU agencies will be severely limited. They can then decide to rip up the rest of the WA and not just the Irish Protocol, but that would be so stupid I don't even think anyone here thinks they are that silly.

forgottenhills

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Let's go back to first principles.

@forgottenhills for something to be judged a success or failure, this something needs to be clearly defined.

So perhaps (yes I am aware there's likely dozen threads and 5 years passed) someone like yourself in bullet points explain exactly what you think Brexit is and what you hope it would accomplish in short (6 months), medium (2 years) and long term (10 years+).

We can then go through each point and have a discussion.

Is that OK? What does Brexit mean to you? Please don't say "Brexit means Brexit" or "red, white and blue Brexit" we heard all that drivel. Let's talk in concrete expectations and contrast against facts known so far.

Thanks

Why do you ask me to define "Brexit"? I am Irish and have stated that I hate the bloody thing, it is has cost me extra work and money to date and things will only get worse after Jan 1st. I don't have any goals for it except to survive it and also the hope that Ireland isn't badly affected by it, economically or otherwise. At the same time I try to understand it and take a detached view of where it is heading, not where I want it to head.

I suggest that you go onto UK media sites and look at the different views and goals that people had or have for Brexit there. Which have changed since 2016 now that the negotiations and politics around it have proceeded as they have.

What you will find there are a huge mix of views, people there who hate it, people who fear what will occur post Jan 21, people who love it and hate the EU and and many people who are still uninformed or disinterested. All these people have their own definition of success or failure of "Brexit", or even what Brexit means or should have meant. Most have made their mind up already on the outcome as they are entrenched in their views. I suppose what is different about Brexit is the fact that pro and anti views have crossed party lines and may now influence British politics for a long time if every UK election is framed in Brexit terms for years to come.

1st dalkey dalkey

forgottenhills wrote: »

Normally I would agree with you but this is a very radical UK government. A normal government wouldn't have already reneged on the WA so it is difficult to predict anything that they will do with certainty. A large bill due is bad news for both the debtor and creditor.

I don't know whether 'radical' is the right word for it, but it is certainly different.

To openly admit in your parliament that you intend to breach an international agreement recently entered into, while still in the middle of negotiations with the other party to that agreement, on another agreement, is certainly different.

It calls into question the seriousness of the UK government as a negotiating partner.

And, while that situation persists, it also calls into question the seriousness of the EU, that it remains in new negotiation under those circumstances.

The real question is whether the UK, under the current regime, is a trustworthy partner in any negotiation or deal.

They are of the Trump, disrupter, variety.

Will doing a deal merely provide opportunity for future disruption?

Might it be better avoided entirely, until there is regine change?

Imreoir2

forgottenhills wrote: »

I agree, just trying to make the point that nothing is certain in life. It is not beyond the stuff of fantasy that the UK could create a booming economy in post Brexit times, even if it took them 20 years or more. They have a history of both stubbornness and resilience.

It was indeed an irony that as one of the victors of WWII the UK came out of it badly financially while Germany and Japan received a great deal of economic assistance.

Is it possible? Yes, but despite not becasue of Brexit. Brexit makes it far less likely and far more dificult for the UK to be successful in the future.

It is often the case that the defeated power recovers quickly after defeat. The defeat forces often much needed change in the society allowing a better ruling structure to take power, and the military restrictions often forced on the vanquished frees them from wasting money on their military.

Brexit may well force societal change on the UK which may benefit the people of the UK in the long term, though the UK itself may not be around to see it as the likely changes include the breakup of the UK itself.

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

It is not a given though that they won't be able to trade their way out of difficulties and even produce a boom economy over a longer timescale of 20 to 50 years. So even using economics as the only criteria you then have to decide over what timescale do you measure the economic impact and success or otherwise of Brexit.

forgottenhills wrote: »

In fact there is an argument that the UK economy has been on a long term decline (propped up only by success in financial services) and so they needed to do something radical.

Well, using your timescale of "20-50 years" the omens are not good, because 50 years ago the UK economy was in a very steep decline, one that came to an end only when they were admitted to the EEC. Their improved fortunes accelerated in the last 20 years when their financial services sector was able to benefit from Single Market access, coming to represent more than 40% of their economy.

All that growth, and the much lauded 5th (6th, 7th) largest economy in the world was built on EEC->EU membership.

Today, they are where they are, but they have deliberately opted out of the greatest trade deal they ever made with nothing, absolutely nothing, lined up to take its place. When suggesting that the UK will be better outside the EU, as it was back in the 60s and early 70s, you need to explain why today's UK is so different to that UK.

forgottenhills

1st dalkey dalkey wrote: »

I don't know whether 'radical' is the right word for it, but it is certainly different.

To openly admit in your parliament that you intend to breach an international agreement recently entered into, while still in the middle of negotiations with the other party to that agreement, on another agreement, is certainly different.

It calls into question the seriousness of the UK government as a negotiating partner.

And, while that situation persists, it also calls into question the seriousness of the EU, that it remains in new negotiation under those circumstances.

The real question is whether the UK, under the current regime, is a trustworthy partner in any negotiation or deal.

They are of the Trump, disrupter, variety.

Will doing a deal merely provide opportunity for future disruption?

Might it be better avoided entirely, until there is regine change?

I agree with all your points, particularly about the current UK government adopting Trumpian negotiating tactics. However unlike the US, the UK seem to mean what they say about dates. No one is suggesting that the UK won't exit the SM on 1st Jan come what may, even though a normal government wouldn't exit with no deal.

Its a tough decision for the EU and I wouldn't like to be a PM of the most affected countries in the EU right now. Do they allow the UK a free trade deal with a few strings attached (a great deal for the UK and a risk to the long term stability of the SM) or face the disruption of a no deal exit on top of the current even worse impact of COVID?

I personally would vote to avoid any deal with the UK that is not subject to clear governance, and hope that the UK would come back to the table, even if it meant a period of disruption all around. I too was puzzled that Merkel intervened to signal that the EU could compromise (presumably on fishing) and also that Barnier wanted back to the table so quickly. The UK must have more cards than is apparent, unless it too was signalling in secret that Johnson's public pronouncements were for internal consumption only.

forgottenhills

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Is it possible? Yes, but despite not becasue of Brexit. Brexit makes it far less likely and far more dificult for the UK to be successful in the future.

It is often the case that the defeated power recovers quickly after defeat. The defeat forces often much needed change in the society allowing a better ruling structure to take power, and the military restrictions often forced on the vanquished frees them from wasting money on their military.

Brexit may well force societal change on the UK which may benefit the people of the UK in the long term, though the UK itself may not be around to see it as the likely changes include the breakup of the UK itself.

Yes and the other unusual development is that the Conservative and Unionist party seem to have ditched the Unionist part of their name as they seem to care less if Scotland, Wales and NI leave the UK. This is English rather than British nationalism on the move and where it ends up or what upheaval is coming down the line is not clear.

forgottenhills

CelticRambler wrote: »

Well, using your timescale of "20-50 years" the omens are not good, because 50 years ago the UK economy was in a very steep decline, one that came to an end only when they were admitted to the EEC. Their improved fortunes accelerated in the last 20 years when their financial services sector was able to benefit from Single Market access, coming to represent more than 40% of their economy.

All that growth, and the much lauded 5th (6th, 7th) largest economy in the world was built on EEC->EU membership.

Today, they are where they are, but they have deliberately opted out of the greatest trade deal they ever made with nothing, absolutely nothing, lined up to take its place. When suggesting that the UK will be better outside the EU, as it was back in the 60s and early 70s, you need to explain why today's UK is so different to that UK.

I'm not suggesting that the UK will be better outside the EU. All indicators point to the fact they there will be a short to medium term economic shock. However it is impossible to be certain that they wouldn't be able to innovate their economy out of a slump given 20 years or so. Stranger things have happened. Particularly if they achieve a free trade deal with the EU which seems to be on the table although they don't like the attached strings.

The other thing to consider is that while their economic success within the EU has been built on the back of financial services and the access to labour, this success has been largely confined to the London area. Meanwhile the north/manufacturing has been left behind and created discontent. This is one of the drivers of Brexit. But to turn this situation around post Brexit will be a very tall order indeed. But I tend to believe in the truism "never say never".

Strazdas

forgottenhills wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that the UK will be better outside the EU. All indicators point to the fact they there will be a short to medium term economic shock. However it is impossible to be certain that they wouldn't be able to innovate their economy out of a slump given 20 years or so. Stranger things have happened. Particularly if they achieve a free trade deal with the EU which seems to be on the table although they don't like the attached strings.

The other thing to consider is that while their economic success within the EU has been built on the back of financial services and the access to labour, this success has been largely confined to the London area. Meanwhile the north/manufacturing has been left behind and created discontent. This is one of the drivers of Brexit. But to turn this situation around post Brexit will be a very tall order indeed. But I tend to believe in the truism "never say never".

Vote Leave and the right wing press assured people this wouldn't happen. Said Brexit would leave people better off and with even more money in their pocket : the EU was a corrupt, dysfunctional, failing monolith which was holding the UK back and stopping it from reaching its true economic potential.

View

Strazdas wrote: »

Vote Leave and the right wing press assured people this wouldn't happen. Said Brexit would leave people better off and with even more money in their pocket : the EU was a corrupt, dysfunctional, failing monolith which was holding the UK back and stopping it from reaching its true economic potential.

They may have been right about the last bit. A safety net stops you reaching your “true gravitational potential” but that doesn’t mean removing the net is a good idea. :-)

Beechwoodspark

The leave campaign told the public there would be NO adverse affects.

They said Brexit would only bring positive benefits?!?!?

View

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

The leave campaign told the public there would be NO adverse affects.

They said Brexit would only bring positive benefits?!?!?

Not quite. They did have one Brexit supporting economist who predicted that Brexit would basically result in the destruction of “outdated industries” in the U.K., all to be followed by a new renaissance as the U.K. rose like a phoenix from the ashes. Of course phoenixes are about as common as unicorns in real life.

Beechwoodspark

View wrote: »

Not quite. They did have one Brexit supporting economist who predicted that Brexit would basically result in the destruction of “outdated industries” in the U.K., all to be followed by a new renaissance as the U.K. rose like a phoenix from the ashes. Of course phoenixes are about as common as unicorns in real life.

Who will those phoenixes trade with?

Professor Moriarty

45,000 deaths from Covid-19 and counting, economy in free fall, crash out looming and the Tories lead by 3% in the latest poll. Amazing. Well done the Tory press.

54and56

trellheim wrote: »

Danes and French will have their own redlines on fishies its not as simple as that.

They do indeed but they have had their expectations managed down quite a bit recently. It's going to be one of the areas where the EU have to compromise most. The Danes and French won't torpedo the whole deal over fishing. They'll extract as much as they can in exchange for the loss of access and quota which will affect them.

Professor Moriarty

54and56 wrote: »

They do indeed but they have had their expectations managed down quite a bit recently. It's going to be one of the areas where the EU have to compromise most. The Danes and French won't torpedo the whole deal over fishing. They'll extract as much as they can in exchange for the loss of access and quota which will affect them.

Fishing is a, ahem, red herring. At best, it's a win for Johnson as he caves in on everything else. At worst, it's a hill to die on.

View

forgottenhills wrote: »

I agree, just trying to make the point that nothing is certain in life. It is not beyond the stuff of fantasy that the UK could create a booming economy in post Brexit times, even if it took them 20 years or more. They have a history of both stubbornness and resilience.

It was indeed an irony that as one of the victors of WWII the UK came out of it badly financially while Germany and Japan received a great deal of economic assistance.

The U.K. was actually the largest recipient of money from the Marshall plan in Europe. It received more money than Germany, Italy and Austria received as a cumulative total.

View

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Who will those phoenixes trade with?

Brexiters don’t do details. All they have to do is believe and reality will distort itself to adjust to their faith. :-)

ExMachina1000

54and56 wrote: »

They do indeed but they have had their expectations managed down quite a bit recently. It's going to be one of the areas where the EU have to compromise most. The Danes and French won't torpedo the whole deal over fishing. They'll extract as much as they can in exchange for the loss of access and quota which will affect them.

Fishing in UK waters is extremely important to the french. The EU takes approximately 700,000 tonnes of fish from uk each year. UK catches about 100,000 tonnes from their own waters

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

However it is impossible to be certain that they wouldn't be able to innovate their economy out of a slump given 20 years or so. Stranger things have happened.

Hence my question: what innovative talent is there in the UK today that wasn't there in the 60s? What creative politicians are there in Westminster, the like of which weren't there in the 60s? What specific traits in the English character can you point to that demonstrate how the Britain of 2050 - or what's left of it after NI and Scotland have removed themselves - can innovate themselves into a better place when the were demonstrably unable to do it in the 60s?

Or to put it another way: in what way will the talent, creativity, innovation and "oomph" that thrived in Britain as a member of the EU be enhanced by walking away from that relationship? I've been asking variations of this question of yeah-but-maybe Brexit apologists for three years, and to date, none can give me a single example of any unique advantage that Britain - as a small independent state - has going for it.

Hermy

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Fishing is a, ahem, red herring. At best, it's a win for Johnson as he caves in on everything else. At worst, it's a hill to die on.

As there was another Douglas Adams reference recently I'm wondering if come January it will be a case of 'So long and thanks for all the fish'?

dogbert27

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

45,000 deaths from Covid-19 and counting, economy in free fall, crash out looming and the Tories lead by 3% in the latest poll. Amazing. Well done the Tory press.

UK national debt clock, getting bigger by over £5000 a second:

https://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

And things will get worse on Monday when furlough ends and loan holidays end too:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/bills/article-8885845/Get-set-Halloween-horror-furlough-ends.html

forgottenhills

View wrote: »

The U.K. was actually the largest recipient of money from the Marshall plan in Europe. It received more money than Germany, Italy and Austria received as a cumulative total.

Thank you I wasn't aware of that fact.

forgottenhills

CelticRambler wrote: »

Hence my question: what innovative talent is there in the UK today that wasn't there in the 60s? What creative politicians are there in Westminster, the like of which weren't there in the 60s? What specific traits in the English character can you point to that demonstrate how the Britain of 2050 - or what's left of it after NI and Scotland have removed themselves - can innovate themselves into a better place when the were demonstrably unable to do it in the 60s?

Or to put it another way: in what way will the talent, creativity, innovation and "oomph" that thrived in Britain as a member of the EU be enhanced by walking away from that relationship? I've been asking variations of this question of yeah-but-maybe Brexit apologists for three years, and to date, none can give me a single example of any unique advantage that Britain - as a small independent state - has going for it.

I'd hate to be thought of as a Brexit apologist but I try to actually inform myself of their thinking so that every new development doesn't come as a complete shock.

The thinking among their current economic hierarchy (the Dominic Cumming group) is that they can create US style technology hubs that can grow into world leading companies. The idea is that the UK government will be free to choose, support and cultivate such companies, in a way currently prohibited by state aid rules. Seems a far fetched idea but is one of the reasons that oversight of state aid is a key sticking point in the current negotiations.