Brexit discussion thread XIII (Please read OP before posting)

AutoTuning

BonnieSituation wrote: »

It's off the wall because the responses don't marry at all from any reasonable reading of the situation.

That’s Twitter’s Brexity #tags - I wouldn’t expect anything else. It’s like the comments section of the Daily Express.

There’s a lot of failing to see how it’s being perceived in the real world though.

It illustrates that there’s a rather hard collision with reality ahead for many who’ve been living in that bubble.

Peregrinus

GM228 wrote: »

I highly doubt it, but perhaps it was more than just peace, safety and freedom on Churchill's mind when he called for a United States of Europe in his famous speech to the academic youth in 1946?

In Churchill's conception, the "United States of Europe" would deliver "happiness, prosperity and glory" to its members. So, yeah, there definitely was an economic dimension to the the project. But it was mainly about providing political security and stability.

But it's worth pointing out that, in Churchill's conception, the UK wasn't going to be a member. The USE would be led by France and Germany, while the UK (with its Commonwealth), the USA and (he rather optimistically trusted) the Soviet Union would be "friends and sponsors" from outside. Churchill still thought of the UK as a world power in its own right, and thought that was enough to mean tha tit would be a happy, prosperous and glorious country on its own.

Enzokk

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

As part of my ongoing practice of listening to ones opponents and trying to understand them more, I came across this tweet from what is apparently a Brexiteer businessman.

https://twitter.com/WhatNowDoc/status/1339314431847768065

Now, I'm not sure if I am completely misreading this, or if I am not perhaps 'getting' something, but maybe one of you can correct me - because to me this looks like a man making a business inquiry, getting a polite response and then behaving like a pig-ignorant lout before throwing a tantrum and proclaiming his plans to grow his own trees (presumably along with blackjack and hookers). Yet apparently most of the replies are fawning applause - again, someone feel free to correct me if I'm misinterpreting this.

The replies should be seen in context of what we are accused of here, echo chamber. Why would the twitter user be following others that gives him grief about his political views if a polite, if blunt, reply on an enquiry sent him on a rant?

lawred2

volchitsa wrote: »

One in three? That's unbelievable (to me) in a developed country. Is that because I just don't have a clue or are there comparable levels of child hunger in Ireland and other EU countries?

Read today that UNICEF are for the first time in their history going to be distributing food aid in the UK..

Incredible really

The Raging Bile Duct

lawred2 wrote: »

Read today that UNICEF are for the first time in their history going to be distributing food aid in the UK..

Incredible really

Is there a link to this?

Seth Brundle

The Raging Bile Duct wrote: »

Is there a link to this?

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-for-the-first-time-in-its-history-unicef-will-help-feed-kids-in-the-uk-12163515
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/dec/16/unicef-feed-hungry-children-uk-first-time-history

Lumen

Enzokk wrote: »

The replies should be seen in context of what we are accused of here, echo chamber.

A problem with all online discussion, and this thread is not immune, is that people often examine arguments for signals of intent, or values, so that rather than considering "does this point have merit?" they ask "what kind of atrocity are you trying to justify with this line of argument". It's not illuminating.

For instance, there is an argument that free trade and labour markets have enabled (but not forced) the slump in UK productivity over the last couple (few?) decades, because it's more cost effective to employ cheap low skilled labour to solve a problem than to invest smartly.

The corollary is that trade barriers could enable (but not force) the UK to increase productivity, which would enable higher living standards.

Of course I wouldn't trust the Tories to make good on this opportunity, because as soon as Brexit is done they'll be back fully unleashing their Victorian capitalist tendencies.

None of that is an argument in favour of Brexit, which is how I expect it to be interpreted.

Just because something is net awful doesn't mean it is without potential upsides.

Zubeneschamali

Lumen wrote: »

There is an argument that free trade and labour markets have enabled (but not forced) the slump in UK productivity over the last couple (few?) decades, because it's more cost effective to employ cheap low skilled labour to solve a problem than to invest smartly.

Can this argument explain why this happened in the UK but not in Germany, when the EU framework was the same for both?

Call me Al

Charles Babbage wrote: »

However, these overlap with business travel. British citizens will not longer be able to go to trade shows and other trips where they perform professional duties, without a visa.

What about those UK citizens lucky enough to be the ones with an EU passport?

CelticRambler

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can this argument explain why this happened in the UK but not in Germany, when the EU framework was the same for both?

A simple answer would be "political leadership decided to focus on different priorities" - in the UK, the effort was put into boosting financial services exports to the Single Market (look where we are today); in Germany, attention was paid to employing real people to do real work so as to be able to export real goods.

I can put two of my visitors in the same kitchen with access to the same ingredients and equipment and end up with two completely different meals. Politics is just another form of cooking.

Peregrinus

Plus, does it explain why the problem manifested in 2008, when the EU framwork had been in place for a good 15 years before that?

The truth is that there's no generally accepted account of the reasons for the UK's productivity problem and, if only for that reason, we can't say the EU framework has nothing to do with it. It could do. But, if it does, it must be the result of an interaction between the EU framework and some other factor which is peculiar to the UK. If the EU framework was producing this result all on its own, then other EU countries would be similarly affected.

And this doesn't enable us to say that restoring trade barriers would tend to fix the problem. The most we can say is that restoring trade barriers might, or might not, enable a fix that wouldn't be possible without restoring the trade barriers. We are still no closer to knowing what that fix might be.

listermint

Lumen wrote: »

A problem with all online discussion, and this thread is not immune, is that people often examine arguments for signals of intent, or values, so that rather than considering "does this point have merit?" they ask "what kind of atrocity are you trying to justify with this line of argument". It's not illuminating.

For instance, there is an argument that free trade and labour markets have enabled (but not forced) the slump in UK productivity over the last couple (few?) decades, because it's more cost effective to employ cheap low skilled labour to solve a problem than to invest smartly.

The corollary is that trade barriers could enable (but not force) the UK to increase productivity, which would enable higher living standards.

Of course I wouldn't trust the Tories to make good on this opportunity, because as soon as Brexit is done they'll be back fully unleashing their Victorian capitalist tendencies.

None of that is an argument in favour of Brexit, which is how I expect it to be interpreted.

Just because something is net awful doesn't mean it is without potential upsides.

But one could take that as seeing legitimate reason of the basis free trade and Labour markets are the cause for the UKs decline.

How has productivity in Ireland increased during the same time frame ?


The argument above is to be blunt putting lipstick on a pig of an argument. There is no legitimate reason in it. And additionally it's a let off for the Tory government's who've managed the UK into this decline.

This is and has always been nothing to do with the EU.


One could make the argument that it has everything to do with a certain college in Windsor. That would have at least some basis in reality.

Peregrinus

Call me Al wrote: »

What about those UK citizens lucky enough to be the ones with an EU passport?

No UK citizen has an EU passport by virtue of their UK citizenship. Are you perhaps talking about UK citizens who also hold citizenship of one of the member states of the EU?

Lumen

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Can this argument explain why this happened in the UK but not in Germany, when the EU framework was the same for both?

The key word is "enabled", and not everything is the same. Example: zero hour contracts are illegal in Germany (AFAIK).

Thatcher destroyed the unions and they've never recovered their power or reputation. British capitalism has a long-standing reputation for short termism and corruption, epitomised by the Phoenix/MG debacle of the early noughties.

My own perspective on British capitalism is that the short termism is intimately connected with the unpleasantness in the way workers are treated. If you treat your workers with contempt you'll naturally feel like you want to debt-up ad cash out ASAP rather than building a sustainable and rewarding long term business.

So from a pure capitalist perspective the UK has done well out of the EU as it's been able to lower its own labour market standards whilst selling into the EU, but it hasn't made everyday life more pleasant.

The labour market differences make the discussions about LPF particularly interesting, since labour markets have been mentioned. Does anyone have any more detail about what's been proposed by the EU for labour market alignment as a condition for market access?

Peregrinus

Lumen wrote: »

. . . . Does anyone have any more detail about what's been proposed by the EU for labour market alignment as a condition for market access?

Nobody has this information at the moment, because the two sides are not publishing draft text, or details of the issues they are thrashing out between them. We only get headlines, broad principles, etc. We won't know more unlee and until there's agreement on a draft FTA and it is published.

CelticRambler

Call me Al wrote: »

What about those UK citizens lucky enough to be the ones with an EU passport?

When I first heard it, I thought it was just a joke amongst my young British friends, but more recently they've convinced me there are lots of them seriously looking for a nice European to marry. Very third-worldy. :eek:

'Twould be quite funny if one of the (many unexpected) side-effects of Brexit was to encourage a wave of EU-GB marriages and dual-nationality children. If my own children's experience in primary school in Kent (20 years ago) is anything to go by, they could end up with little Jimmy Gammon being the only child in the class who needs a visa-waiver, supplementary insurance and a blue-not-EU tag to go on the school tour to France. :pac:

Peregrinus

CelticRambler wrote: »

When I first heard it, I thought it was just a joke amongst my young British friends, but more recently they've convinced me there are lots of them seriously looking for a nice European to marry. Very third-worldy. :eek:

But in this analogy, it's the UK that's the third world country.

Lumen

Peregrinus wrote: »

Plus, does it explain why the problem manifested in 2008, when the EU framework had been in place for a good 15 years before that?

Austerity following financial crisis. A peculiarly European approach, ironically!

Peregrinus wrote: »

The truth is that there's no generally accepted account of the reasons for the UK's productivity problem and, if only for that reason, we can't say the EU framework has nothing to do with it. It could do. But, if it does, it must be the result of an interaction between the EU framework and some other factor which is peculiar to the UK. If the EU framework was producing this result all on its own, then other EU countries would be similarly affected.

The British psyche was primed for this self-selected disaster by long term decline of empire and weird WWII origin myths, warmed up by a couple of decades of Eurosceptic* press, and given fuel by immigration, but the detonator was the best part of a decade of austerity. There's no way the Tories would have pulled this off otherwise. Depress, divide.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The most we can say is that restoring trade barriers might, or might not, enable a fix that wouldn't be possible without restoring the trade barriers.

I think that's almost exactly what I wrote.

* Eurosceptic is a misleading word, since scepticism requires an open mind. Europhobe would be better.

listermint

I'm not sure this is even possible without full Congress approval.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mini-trade-deal-talks-uk-us-5302899-Dec2020/

Peregrinus

Lumen wrote: »

I think that's almost exactly what I wrote.

Except that you left out the important corollary; we have no idea what the fix might be, so being theoretically able to do it isn't a huge advantage.

"Breaking these eggs would enable me to make an omelette - if I had the remotest idea of how to go about making an omelette."

Lumen

listermint wrote: »

The argument above is to be blunt putting lipstick on a pig of an argument. And additionally it's a let off for the Tory government's who've managed the UK into this decline.

I'm not sure which second argument you're referring to. If you mean Brexit, my argument could be deployed with that intent of defending Brexit, but that is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of it.

listermint wrote: »

How has productivity in Ireland increased during the same time frame ?

Ireland's reliance of multinational tax avoison is less morally reprehensible than London's blatant money laundering, but it's still not a great look and risks blowing up sometime in the future (particularly when combined with high public debt levels). It's a great plan until it isn't.

Dymo

This is also happening the other way around. I know a company in England that will supply to Ireland but won't deliver to Ireland any more, which means that if they want a delivery they will have to send a 40ft truck over to collect it and do all of the paperwork.

https://twitter.com/WhatNowDoc/status/1339314431847768065?s=20

FreudianSlippers

listermint wrote: »

I'm not sure this is even possible without full Congress approval.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mini-trade-deal-talks-uk-us-5302899-Dec2020/

Congress previously granted some of their powers to the President to do "fast-track" trade deals, but you're correct it still has to be approved by Congress (although it's a simple yes/no vote).

Call me Al

Peregrinus wrote: »

No UK citizen has an EU passport by virtue of their UK citizenship. Are you perhaps talking about UK citizens who also hold citizenship of one of the member states of the EU?

I know that.
So yes, obviously.



I'm just thinking in the context of the desirability of employee candidates in the UK.
Will an EU passport become an advantage for some employers or certain types of jobs.

listermint

Lumen wrote: »

I'm not sure which second argument you're referring to. If you mean Brexit, my argument could be deployed with that intent of defending Brexit, but that is irrelevant to the truth or otherwise of it.



Ireland's reliance of multinational tax avoison is less morally reprehensible than London's blatant money laundering, but it's still not a great look and risks blowing up sometime in the future (particularly when combined with high public debt levels). It's a great plan until it isn't.

The argument that it was membership of the EU that allowed cheap labour and thus a decline in living standards.

This argument let's successive Tory government's off the hook. It's successive Tory government's and their single minded educated origin that is the root of the problems.

How did Ireland and obviously Germany not suffer similar feats with their EU access and large migratory labour coming in from all over.


It's not the EU. (Hint)

listermint

Call me Al wrote: »

I know that.
So yes, obviously.



I'm just thinking in the context of the desirability of employee candidates in the UK.
Will an EU passport become an advantage for some employers or certain types of jobs.

Obviously. But more of an advantage to employees as they are deemed mobile.

Lumen

listermint wrote: »

This argument lets successive Tory governments off the hook. It's successive Tory governments and their single minded educated origin that is the root of the problems.

Actually a lot of the damage was done under Blair, and the roots of Blairism can be traced to the defeat of Kinnock in 1992.

"We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes" – Peter Mandelson.

The second half of that sentence has become washed from history and policy.

The reality is that successive generations of British politicians have had no idea how to generate productivity in the economy except by cutting living standards for the working class.

forgottenhills

Peregrinus wrote: »

But in this analogy, it's the UK that's the third world country.

Except the UK is not a third world country by any means, jest or not. This is the country which lent us a few billion when we were on our uppers only a few years ago and which is still a major customer for the exports we produce which support many jobs here (as opposed to some of our more automated exports or those related to an element of bogus GDP such as transfer pricing, IP movements etc). In my time on this earth I have learned not to insult my neighbours, especially those that are also my customers. If people here went on a UK message board and saw Ireland described as a third world country we wouldn't be terribly amused.

Enzokk

forgottenhills wrote: »

Except the UK is not a third world country by any means, jest or not. This is the country which lent us a few billion when we were on our uppers only a few years ago and which is still a major customer for the exports we produce which support many jobs here (as opposed to some of our more automated exports or those related to an element of bogus GDP such as transfer pricing, IP movements etc). In my time on this earth I have learned not to insult my neighbours, especially those that are also my customers. If people here went on a UK message board and saw Ireland described as a third world country we wouldn't be terribly amused.

He said in the analogy they were using they are the third world country. He didn't say they were a third world country, subtle but important difference.

listermint

Lumen wrote: »

Actually a lot of the damage was done under Blair, and the roots of Blairism can be traced to the defeat of Kinnock in 1992.

"We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes" – Peter Mandelson.

The second half of that sentence has become washed from history and policy.

The reality is that successive generations of British politicians have had no idea how to generate productivity in the economy except by cutting living standards for the working class.

Whatever about the Mandelson quote - Paying their taxes as opposed to not is a good thing.

And frankly i find the Blairism commentary utterly boring all the same. It was the longest period of growth in the UK where living standards were raised across the board for everyone. It was basically the best feel good era in modern times after VE Day.

But Iraq yada yada etc etc. Blairism....