Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

dogbert27

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Dishy rishi might be in trouble on Monday so

He's replaced furlough with a Jobs Support Scheme.

Furlough paid 80% of an employees wages up to £2,500

The Jobs Support Scheme will pay 2/3rds of an employees wages up to £2,100 I think for the next 6 months.

Things will get steadily worse.

PeadarCo

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.

To be fair looking ahead to 2050 is waste of time as a lot can change over 30 years. Look at Ireland. 100 odd years ago Ireland achieved independence. You can argue that up until the 90's independence wasn't an economic success. Looked at in the 50's for example or any of the years with a the large amount emigration you could argue independence was a total failure economically. (I appreciate I am completely oversimplifing the 70 odd years in between and the fact that for most of that period Ireland was still tightly bound economically to the UK in ways Brexiters would never accept of the EU)

The thing is Brexiters promised bonuses from day 1 of Brexit. It was supposed to be the easiest trade deal in history and the UK had all the cards. So looking 30 years ahead is a waste of time because a lot can change but also if you have to do that Brexit or at least the Brexit defined by Brexiters in the Brexit referendum is an absolute failure. While they were very light on detail the one thing they did promise was that the UK would be better outside the EU immediately. It wasn't ah we will have 10/20/30 etc years of hardship and then things would be better. It was things would be better now/once Brexit happened.

CelticRambler

forgottenhills wrote: »

The thinking ... 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.

And again, what's so unique about that - sufficiently unique to attract talent away from the US or India or China? Is it now okay to have brown, black, yellow and red immigrants, as long as you can shovel money at them? That seems vaguely reminiscent of the parasitic immigrant scrounger trope that played such a prominent role in Brexit campaigning.

Moreover, what kind of tech company would they want to cultivate? A GPS-system based on completely unsuitable broadband satellites? Or a contagious illness contact tracing app? Or how about a software system that could quickly and accurately allocate the right benefits to the right people?

Yet again, if we take real world examples, the people that the English electorate put into power are really good at messing things up. One of the UK's great tech successes is the Raspberry Pi ... now possibly-probably-maybe being relocated out of the UK to either Ireland or the Netherlands - due to Brexit.

This takes us back to the "facts vs opinion" debate earlier in the thread. It's all very well thinking that Brexit will be great for (what's left of) the UK, but it's damnably difficult to find any examples of anything that Britain can do better at when divorced from the EU - and remarkably easy to find examples of how they will be (or already are) desperately poor at going it alone.

View

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.

Mostly due to the fact that the expenditure was per-capita based and the UK had the largest population and suffered greatly during the war.
Plus the fact that the US could not afford to lose any western European countries to communism, the UK having just elected a socialist government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures

dogbert27

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Not surprised. Despite their own hype the British are fckin useless

The only "new" British technology that I can think of over the last 20 odd years is Dyson.

He wanted Brexit and then last year decided to move the headquarters from England to Singapore.

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mostly due to the fact that the expenditure was per-capita based and the UK had the largest population and suffered greatly during the war.
Plus the fact that the US could not afford to lose any western European countries to communism, the UK having just elected a socialist government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures

So they got the most money yet Germany seems to be the one to have gotten their act together despite having shackles on it for much of the period between now and that time.


Telling...

dogbert27

listermint wrote: »

So they got the most money yet Germany seems to be the one to have gotten their act together despite having shackles on it for much of the period between now and that time.


Telling...

How the Brits wasted Marshall Aid by believing they were a world super power.

I guess history does repeat itself.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtml

The French and German tenders for Marshall Aid resemble today's four-year business plans, being detailed technocratic strategies which give clear priority to investment in reconstructing industry and infrastructure. However, the British tender, originally drafted by a senior Treasury civil servant, resembled an Oxbridge economist's prolix prize-essay - with a tour of the world's economic horizon and Britain's place within it.

Sam Russell

listermint wrote: »

So they got the most money yet Germany seems to be the one to have gotten their act together despite having shackles on it for much of the period between now and that time.


Telling...

Well, GB£ was devalued in 1948 - forced by the USA - from US$4 to US$2.80, while debts to the USA from WW II were still denominated in US$.

Then the NHS was founded to bring health services to the whole nation at no cost to the user. A magnificent achievement - but expensive.

Then they lost India, and then Africa, and the rest of the Empire.

Then they went to war in Korea, Malaya, Suez, etc. while patrolling the high seas in their Naval ships, flying the flag.

In the meantime, exports were, well, not getting exported, and balance of payments were in crisis.

Germany (well West Germany) suffered from none of these ills. They just kept their hands tightly on inflation, and kept working with the unions in industrial
harmony.

listermint

Sam Russell wrote: »

Well, GB£ was devalued in 1948 - forced by the USA - from US$4 to US$2.80, while debts to the USA from WW II were still denominated in US$.

Then the NHS was founded to bring health services to the whole nation at no cost to the user. A magnificent achievement - but expensive.

Then they lost India, and then Africa, and the rest of the Empire.

Then they went to war in Korea, Malaya, Suez, etc. while patrolling the high seas in their Naval ships, flying the flag.

In the meantime, exports were, well, not getting exported, and balance of payments were in crisis.

Germany (well West Germany) suffered from none of these ills. They just kept their hands tightly on inflation, and kept working with the unions in industrial
harmony.

Those ills you describe were actions of successive English government's..

View

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mostly due to the fact that the expenditure was per-capita based and the UK had the largest population and suffered greatly during the war.
Plus the fact that the US could not afford to lose any western European countries to communism, the UK having just elected a socialist government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures

Back then, the population of the U.K. was barely equal to that of the newly created FRG, much less the combined total of the populations of the FRG, Italy and Austria. And all three of them also suffered greatly during the war.

An Ciarraioch

Deleted User wrote: »

Mostly due to the fact that the expenditure was per-capita based and the UK had the largest population and suffered greatly during the war.
Plus the fact that the US could not afford to lose any western European countries to communism, the UK having just elected a socialist government.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan#Expenditures

Attlee, Morrison and Cripps were about as far removed from communism as it was possible to imagine, with many having began their political careers on London County Council.

An Ciarraioch

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Attlee, Morrison and Cripps were about as far removed from communism as it was possible to imagine, with many having began their political careers on London County Council.

The Americans were fearful of who may succeed them, rather than the Labour government particularly when socialism is considered as a small step to communism in the eyes of many American republicans.

An opinion that still holds true today.

Sam Russell

listermint wrote: »

Those ills you describe were actions of successive English government's..

Of course the UK Gov had a lot of blame for UK ills. This stemmed from the deep divide between the two major parties, who reversed the policies of the previous Gov, with no regard to consequences.

However, the NHS was a magnificent success and was not reversed.

But the willingness to enter costly wars, and expensive military hardware with no real point cost them dear.

J Mysterio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course there is a chance that they will someday be successful.

No-one is predicting an actual Mad Max wasteland.

What people are saying is that Brexit makes success harder, and imposes such a big cost up front that even if they succeed and get back to a pre brexit growth curve, they will never recover what they have lost vs. If they Remained.

So best case, Brexit costs them for decades. Worst case, it puts them on a permanently lower growth curve, so they fall further and further behind, forever.

Au contraire, if the UK keeping going as they are, a Mad Max wasteland is entirely possible. Huge swathes of the UK are in poverty as we speak. Look at the School Meals scandal... and the government's reaction to it. The real pain is yet to come. Couple that with Covid... Not good.

BonnieSituation

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

As an aside, I am reminded of an intermittent poster, on matters British, called Theological. Dunno why, but I am. Wonder what became of him.

He's defending the Tories in the UK response to Covid thread atm.

---

I'm not sure what the arguments are after all this time. Brexit has been an unmitigated and expensive disaster

It's very nature means it HAS to be a failure. That it still needs to be affirmed for some is mind boggling.

Peregrinus

forgottenhills wrote: »

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.

It seems a very far-fetched idea, since this is not, of course, how the US produced its world-leading companies. The UK did try this kind of thing before and failed very badly.

I'd take this argument more seriously if it was accompanied by some solid and well-researched thinking about what went wrong before and why it will be different this time. As it stands, it just looks like a rationalisation; they have an instinct to distance themselves from the EU, so they cast about for colorable arguments as to why this would be beneficial for them. And this one will do.

Zubeneschamali

J Mysterio wrote: »

Au contraire, if the UK keeping going as they are, a Mad Max wasteland is entirely possible.

The UK is not going to turn into a radioactive desert ruled by murderous gangs of leather fetishists no matter how Brexit pans out.

Zubeneschamali

Peregrinus wrote: »

It seems a very far-fetched idea, since this is not, of course, how the US produced its world-leading companies. The UK did try this kind of thing before and failed very badly.

It is ridiculous, of course, but we know Cummings is behind a lot of these senior #10 source stories, and he does have a bee in his bonnet about the UK becoming a tech leader.

It also may explain why the Tories, of all parties, are fighting the EU in favour of state aid to business, which otherwise looks either very out of character or a set up for wholesale corruption.

listermint

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is ridiculous, of course, but we know Cummings is behind a lot of these senior #10 source stories, and he does have a bee in his bonnet about the UK becoming a tech leader.

It also may explain why the Tories, of all parties, are fighting the EU in favour of state aid to business, which otherwise looks either very out of character or a set up for wholesale corruption.

A setup?

2020 has been wholesale corruption does anyone need to be pointed to the hundreds of millions dished out to newly setup companies of Tory donors....


You ain't seen nothing yet.

Tech leader my arse. It's a convenient banner.

Peregrinus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It also may explain why the Tories, of all parties, are fighting the EU in favour of state aid to business, which otherwise looks either very out of character or a set up for wholesale corruption.

The Tories have been acting very out of character in a lot of ways ever since the reverse takeover by UKIP was completed.

Zubeneschamali

listermint wrote: »

2020 has been wholesale corruption

Yes, with the convenient excuses of Brexit and Covid, but to continue that level of corruption long term they'll need to gut state aid rules.

listermint

listermint wrote: »

A setup?

2020 has been wholesale corruption does anyone need to be pointed to the hundreds of millions dished out to newly setup companies of Tory donors....


You ain't seen nothing yet.

Tech leader my arse. It's a convenient banner.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Tories have been acting very out of character in a lot of ways ever since the reverse takeover by UKIP was completed.

Out of character ? Id say very in character tbh, its just far more blatant now than ever before. And possibly civil servants who would previously have kept a lid on it are now pissed with the last 4 years so they will have no problems leaking it out.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1321724004923662336

View

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The UK is not going to turn into a radioactive desert ruled by murderous gangs of leather fetishists no matter how Brexit pans out.

Given a choice between being a Mad Max style radioactive landscape and rejoining the EU, many Brexiters would opt for the former as they would regard the latter as being the worse option. :-)

ancapailldorcha

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Tories have been acting very out of character in a lot of ways ever since the reverse takeover by UKIP was completed.

So much so that people seem to be shocked with their behaviour during the palaver over free school meals and Marcus Rashford's campaign. It's the first time they've been proper Tory since before the Brexit vote IMO.

Professor Moriarty

listermint wrote: »

Out of character ? Id say very in character tbh, its just far more blatant now than ever before. And possibly civil servants who would previously have kept a lid on it are now pissed with the last 4 years so they will have no problems leaking it out.

https://twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1321724004923662336

Wow. That could be a bombshell.

listermint

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Wow. That could be a bombshell.

Any other time, it would be absolutely devastating to a government. But id put money on it that the press conceal it. It is after all a Tory media majority in the UK. People on the street will simply never hear of it.

Professor Moriarty

listermint wrote: »

Any other time, it would be absolutely devastating to a government. But id put money on it that the press conceal it. It is after all a Tory media majority in the UK. People on the street will simply never hear of it.

Time for Newsnight to step in. Or Sky.

CrabRevolution

"Yes, comets! The icebergs of the sky. By jack-knifing from one to the next at breakneck speed we might just get some kind of gravity boost ... or something."- Zapp Brannigan, Futurama.

It's not a very sophisticated point but I'm reminded of this quote by the "Brexit could make the UK a leader at XYZ within 20 years; you can't prove that it won't" arguments.

It follows pretty much the exact same format:

"If we do (cool sounding thing), we might just get (poorly defined benefit with no logical basis)". They've already decided what they're going to do, and are looking for something, anything to give a facade of logic to it.

CrabRevolution

CrabRevolution wrote: »

"If we do (cool sounding thing), we might just get (poorly defined benefit with no logical basis)". They've already decided what they're going to do, and are looking for something, anything to give a facade of logic to it.

Soy sauce might be marginally cheaper after Brexit! Huzzah!

Nody

Batrachotox wrote: »

Soy sauce might be marginally cheaper after Brexit! Huzzah!

It's worse than that; under the existing EU FTA that is still in play for UK until 31st Dec. this year Soy has zero tariffs; what they are celebrating is that they managed to keep the price the same rather than go up.