Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[crouch]

12 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I don't know why they weren't given more scrutiny, they did come up a long time ago as part of the discussion around the £100bn exit bill. It was dismissed as project fear and  didn't get any cut through,  much like the £13bn p.a. cost off the new customs system, which surprise  surprise turns out will cost £13bn p.a.

Why now? Because the risk of an extension or god forbid a second referendum has passed.  I did refer to it a couple of times when it was included in BJ's renegotiated "oven ready" deal

 

I still don't understand why this has not received more attention.

One thing that does occur to me: are the negotiations going down the "no deal" route to give grounds for a repudiation of the WA and rewrite the whole set of "sovereignty incompliant" aspects of the existing WA? This possibility is covered in the CBP report mentioned in Chris Grey's blog.

Edited July 19, 2020 by crouch

[dryrot]

22 hours ago, NobodyInParticular said:

It's hard to imagine the UK would be measurably better off in economic terms than France in such a scenario as it has been pretty much equal for the last 50 years and the UK is trying to make trade more difficult. France has issues, but it's probably going to ultimately reap benefits in all sorts of areas such as heavy engineering by having no meaningful competition or in world markets from the UK. It's basically going to be competing against Germany, China, USA and South Korea, Japan (with access to the EU) on the whole in that area.

Sorry, bit late - I bolded your quote. Thats quite a strange way of putting it. One of the benefits/objects of Brexit is free trade with the world, outside the EU protection bloc. (Not saying they'll achieve that, but its one of the objectives?)

[OnionTerror]

3 minutes ago, dryrot said:

Sorry, bit late - I bolded your quote. Thats quite a strange way of putting it. One of the benefits/objects of Brexit is free trade with the world, outside the EU protection bloc. (Not saying they'll achieve that, but its one of the objectives?)

Free trade as a concept (purely the removal of tariffs and quotas) doesn't really exist any more.

[dryrot]

17 hours ago, Confusion of VIs said:

I think you will find they are using the growth rate forecasts made before the vote. 

Are you claiming there was some vast conspiracy organised by Remainers to inflate those forecasts so that in the event of  losing a yet to be called referendum they could years later say "I told you so".

Clearly you are enjoying wearing your TFH.

???? "vast conspiracy"? Calm down

Try looking at this thread page #5235 @MonsieurCopperCrutch posted a large picture claiming the UK had lost out already. This was gleefully reposted by ultiple Remainers, filling up most of that page!

I pointed out that when you looked into the claim it was one guy who compared UK growth rate against the G7 (NOT the EU) -China has had a greater growth rate than most of the world for years.

Edited July 19, 2020 by dryrot

[pig]

On 18/07/2020 at 07:57, debtlessmanc said:

That you guys joust with someone like me (who actually voted remain) is the joke. My only beef is the silly idealism betrayed here. The UK has a problem with empire indeed, -the empire that the EU clearly aspires to be. The UKs mandarins did not treat it with the same cynicism that other countries mandarins did as they were used to being in charge rather than subservient. Again we also agree that the uk had a bad attitude towards the project. If the UK wanted to be in thr EU it should have changed to fit in, mandatory local registration, ID cards and bilinguality in welsh/english in schools with job interviews in welsh. Then we would look like other EU states pretty much perfectly. 

At least now you know if you’re sensitive about silly leaver ideals waving a Remainer flag isn’t going to shield you.
 

Everybody is different of course - your need to ‘fit in’ isn’t wrong, it just starts to become a problem when you arbitrarily deign others - countries or individuals - as unacceptable.

 

[NobodyInParticular]

55 minutes ago, dryrot said:

Sorry, bit late - I bolded your quote. Thats quite a strange way of putting it. One of the benefits/objects of Brexit is free trade with the world, outside the EU protection bloc. (Not saying they'll achieve that, but its one of the objectives?)

The UK has a good trade arrangement with the markets with which it does 50% of its trade and is aiming to achieve a less beneficial trading arrangement. It is also throwing away the beneficial arrangements with countries with which the EU has negotiated good trade arrangements with due to its power as an economic bloc. The UK will be negotiating from a weak position and is unlikely to be able to achieve terms as good. Thus while it will be trying 'free trade', under WTO rules it will be with mostly higher tariffs and poorer arrangements in the majority of cases. So it might be one of the objectives, but it is unlikely to be realised.

[NobodyInParticular]

52 minutes ago, dryrot said:

???? "vast conspiracy"? Calm down

Try looking at this thread page #5235 @MonsieurCopperCrutch posted a large picture claiming the UK had lost out already. This was gleefully reposted by ultiple Remainers, filling up most of that page!

I pointed out that when you looked into the claim it was one guy who compared UK growth rate against the G7 (NOT the EU) -China has had a greater growth rate than most of the world for years.

The UK is in the G7, and presumably aspires to remain in it. It's not an unreasonable comparison, although maybe G20 would also make sense.

[NobodyInParticular]

Just now, NobodyInParticular said:

The UK is in the G7, and presumably aspires to remain in it. It's not an unreasonable comparison, although maybe G20 would also make sense.

P.S. Some areas of the EU have been having very much greater growth than the UK - it's mostly Germany and France (about equal) and Italy (lagging) that have low growth now, and Spain, Portugal and Greece a few years ago. France and Germany are in the G7.

[NobodyInParticular]

2 hours ago, debtlessmanc said:

Eg rules around  vat on online purchases

 That's something that's about to get a lot more complicated for businesses with supply chains involving Europe, so it seems an odd complaint.

[NobodyInParticular]

1 hour ago, crouch said:

I still don't understand why this has not received more attention.

One thing that does occur to me: are the negotiations going down the "no deal" route to give grounds for a repudiation of the WA and rewrite the whole set of "sovereignty incompliant" aspects of the existing WA? This possibility is covered in the CBP report mentioned in Chris Grey's blog.

Looks like it to me. The WA ties the UK to a sense of a level playing field in terms of workers' rights which many of the members of the cabinet don't like and Boris has hinted at he likely to tear up. In that sense the deal may have been oven ready but the EU is playing hardball as the UK seems to be unwilling to honour what it agreed to in the WA and the political declaration. So it seems like a decision to aim for a no deal, blame the EU, then workers' rights can go in the bin. And the £350m a week for the NHS will be spent on an increase drugs bill and again on customs infrastructure.

[dugsbody]

1 hour ago, dryrot said:

One of the benefits/objects of Brexit is free trade with the world, outside the EU protection bloc. (Not saying they'll achieve that, but its one of the objectives?)

Typical brexiter stance. Post so called benefits but leave a get out clause if it doesn't work out that way. 

"We promised, we tried, oh well"

This is why after years of listening to this nonsense, the only argument that is left standing for brexiters is ending freedom of movement. The rest were smokescreens invented in order to get more votes to end freedom of movement.

[NobodyInParticular]

3 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Typical brexiter stance. Post so called benefits but leave a get out clause if it doesn't work out that way. 

"We promised, we tried, oh well"

This is why after years of listening to this nonsense, the only argument that is left standing for brexiters is ending freedom of movement. The rest were smokescreens invented in order to get more votes to end freedom of movement.

I think there are some Brexiteers who believe that 'free trade' on WTO rules and moving away from the social chapter is a Good Thing. Some of them also believe in a whole host of other things that have little benefit for most of us or are patently untrue. Indeed, there seems to be a large overlap between senior Brexiteers of that ilk and those that deny antrhopogenic climate change (and also have interests in fossil fuel companies). Two are former chancellors who managed to make a hash of the economy, jointly inducing one of the longer recessions we've had, although to be fair there were some mild international headwinds too, but a lot of the damage was self-inflicted.

[pig]

16 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

Typical brexiter stance. Post so called benefits but leave a get out clause if it doesn't work out that way. 

"We promised, we tried, oh well"

This is why after years of listening to this nonsense, the only argument that is left standing for brexiters is ending freedom of movement. The rest were smokescreens invented in order to get more votes to end freedom of movement.

Or specifically end freedom of movement for others - particularly if you’re a settled provincial middle-aged/senior citizen, happy in their goldfish bowl, insistent nobody wants freedom from it.

But I think it fell under a broader woolier umbrella of populist nationalism - covering the spectrum from xenophobia to myths about nationalist trade.

Those were the marks anyway, the con-men are more open to question, pseudo-thatcherite fanatics, internal and foreign sponsored VI’s and so on...

[dugsbody]

24 minutes ago, pig said:

Or specifically end freedom of movement for others - particularly if you’re a settled provincial middle-aged/senior citizen, happy in their goldfish bowl, insistent nobody wants freedom from it.

But I think it fell under a broader woolier umbrella of populist nationalism - covering the spectrum from xenophobia to myths about nationalist trade.

Those were the marks anyway, the con-men are more open to question, pseudo-thatcherite fanatics, internal and foreign sponsored VI’s and so on...

I agree that there are other patterns. But, do you ever talk to a brexit voter who wants to retain freedom of movement with the EU?

[Bear Goggles]

47 minutes ago, pig said:

Or specifically end freedom of movement for others - particularly if you’re a settled provincial middle-aged/senior citizen, happy in their goldfish bowl, insistent nobody wants freedom from it.

But I think it fell under a broader woolier umbrella of populist nationalism - covering the spectrum from xenophobia to myths about nationalist trade.

Those were the marks anyway, the con-men are more open to question, pseudo-thatcherite fanatics, internal and foreign sponsored VI’s and so on...

There are two forms of Brexit, “Elite Brexit”, and “Grassroots Brexit”. 
Elite Brexit is all about achieving small state, untrammelled free market capitalism, Britain as a buccaneering nation uninhibited by a socially-leaning, big government EU.

Grassroots Brexit is about reducing immigration, having more money to fund public services like the NHS, bringing back the old days and sticking it to Johnny Foreigner.

The thing that binds them together is the word “sovereignty”. No one can actually agree on what sovereignty means, so it’s not an actual demand with an achievable goal, it’s more of a rallying cry for true believers. 

One thing that I am certain of is that EVERYONE is going to be disappointed with Brexit. Elite Brexit supporters will be disappointed because Brexit is going to lead to less free trade, less free movement, more red tape, and bigger, more interventionist government. Grassroots brexit supporters will be disappointed because they’ll still be forgotten because the don’t live in London, we’ll still have immigrants, and some of them will still be driving around in nicer cars than they have. And remainers will be disappointed because, well, Brexit. 

So there you have it. At least there’s something we can all agree on. It’s all someone else’s fault. 

[Bob8]

3 minutes ago, Bear Goggles said:

There are two forms of Brexit, “Elite Brexit”, and “Grassroots Brexit”. 
Elite Brexit is all about achieving small state, untrammelled free market capitalism, Britain as a buccaneering nation uninhibited by a socially-leaning, big government EU.

Grassroots Brexit is about reducing immigration, having more money to fund public services like the NHS, bringing back the old days and sticking it to Johnny Foreigner.

The thing that binds them together is the word “sovereignty”. No one can actually agree on what sovereignty means, so it’s not an actual demand with an achievable goal, it’s more of a rallying cry for true believers. 

One thing that I am certain of is that EVERYONE is going to be disappointed with Brexit. Elite Brexit supporters will be disappointed because Brexit is going to lead to less free trade, less free movement, more red tape, and bigger, more interventionist government. Grassroots brexit supporters will be disappointed because they’ll still be forgotten because the don’t live in London, we’ll still have immigrants, and some of them will still be driving around in nicer cars than they have. And remainers will be disappointed because, well, Brexit. 

So there you have it. At least there’s something we can all agree on. It’s all someone else’s fault. 

Bravo!

[thecrashingisles]

2 hours ago, dryrot said:

Sorry, bit late - I bolded your quote. Thats quite a strange way of putting it. One of the benefits/objects of Brexit is free trade with the world, outside the EU protection bloc. (Not saying they'll achieve that, but its one of the objectives?)

That's based on myths and misconceptions about what the EU is and how global trade works. Leaving the EU does absolutely nothing in itself to make it easier to trade with the rest of the world, and in practice makes it harder to assert our own interests. The only real thing in our power would be unilateral free trade, but that's one-way only and isn't viable if you want to maintain a mixed economy.

Edited July 19, 2020 by thecrashingisles

[NobodyInParticular]

5 minutes ago, Bear Goggles said:

There are two forms of Brexit, “Elite Brexit”, and “Grassroots Brexit”. 
Elite Brexit is all about achieving small state, untrammelled free market capitalism, Britain as a buccaneering nation uninhibited by a socially-leaning, big government EU.

Grassroots Brexit is about reducing immigration, having more money to fund public services like the NHS, bringing back the old days and sticking it to Johnny Foreigner.

The thing that binds them together is the word “sovereignty”. No one can actually agree on what sovereignty means, so it’s not an actual demand with an achievable goal, it’s more of a rallying cry for true believers. 

One thing that I am certain of is that EVERYONE is going to be disappointed with Brexit. Elite Brexit supporters will be disappointed because Brexit is going to lead to less free trade, less free movement, more red tape, and bigger, more interventionist government. Grassroots brexit supporters will be disappointed because they’ll still be forgotten because the don’t live in London, we’ll still have immigrants, and some of them will still be driving around in nicer cars than they have. And remainers will be disappointed because, well, Brexit. 

So there you have it. At least there’s something we can all agree on. It’s all someone else’s fault. 

I think it sums it up pretty well, sadly.

[pig]

58 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

I agree that there are other patterns. But, do you ever talk to a brexit voter who wants to retain freedom of movement with the EU?

We've dropped Huawei on Trumps insistence because we're in a Brexit hole - our diminishment has affected our sovereignty/influence (and of course we're now unofficially trying to placate the Chines lol).

Many Brexiters used to repetitively pretend that was the kind of relationship we had with the EU, ie we weren't leaders in a group of nations but that it was a singular superstate that dictated to us what to do.

I think it all kind of rationalises down into one self-indulgent deluded bubble.

Edited July 19, 2020 by pig

[thecrashingisles]

2 minutes ago, pig said:

We've dropped Huawei on Trumps insistence because we're in a Brexit hole - our diminishment has affected our sovereignty/influence (and of course we're now unofficially trying to placate the Chines lol).

To be fair I think that decision had much more to do with internal Tory party politics. Johnson was quite happy to ignore Trump.

[NobodyInParticular]

3 minutes ago, thecrashingisles said:

To be fair I think that decision had much more to do with internal Tory party politics. Johnson was quite happy to ignore Trump.

Goes for a lot of it.

[Bob8]

15 hours ago, Timm said:

I've just scrolled through the last 3 pages and suddenly this is my favourite thread on the internet.

Epiphanies, a Mills and Boon bromance and an intriguing Sartre insight.

PS. It's a g.

Can I bring Hume in?

The factual case is clear, but continuing at this point that the facts will sway is clearly folly. It makes more sense to understand why people are driven to their views.

[winkie]

Freedom of movement and choices will be available for both those that want to move here and for those that want to move elsewhere......the selective few, money will have a say, we love and want you but we love your money more......golden passport.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigrant_investor_programs

[winkie]

 

[Confusion of VIs]

4 hours ago, dryrot said:

???? "vast conspiracy"? Calm down

Try looking at this thread page #5235 @MonsieurCopperCrutch posted a large picture claiming the UK had lost out already. This was gleefully reposted by ultiple Remainers, filling up most of that page!

I pointed out that when you looked into the claim it was one guy who compared UK growth rate against the G7 (NOT the EU) -China has had a greater growth rate than most of the world for years.

Similar calculations were made by just about every major forecaster and they all came to the conclusion that by mid 2018 we had lost getting on for 3% of GDP.  Apart from arguing over percentage points there is no real debate about it. 

The GDP cost of Brexit is pretty closely tracking the pre Brexit "project fear" forecasts and in the end you  you either believe it is worth the cost or don't.