New Brexit Thread

[oowee]

On 14/06/2020 at 08:33, 12gauge82 said:

What a load of nonsense, it is exactly the other way around. It has let the remainers off the hook, however give it a few years and I believe we will see the UK trading well, as the EU crumbles, it's already starting with Germany refusing to print more money to bail out the likes of Greece, many of the Mediterranean countries are likely to go bust and the internal conflict that will ensue in the EU will be it's downfall. 

More evidence of Covid being the saviour of Brexit. 

[Rewulf]

14 minutes ago, oowee said:

More evidence of Covid being the saviour of Brexit. 

I wasnt aware it needed 'saving'

You mean the plans to derail it were scuppered by covid ?
Not sure how you work that one out..if anything covid was used as a reason to extend the deadline , but alas , were completely ignored 😏

[TIGHTCHOKE]

3 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I wasnt aware it needed 'saving'

You mean the plans to derail it were scuppered by covid ?
Not sure how you work that one out..if anything covid was used as a reason to extend the deadline , but alas , were completely ignored 😏

Desperation!

[Gordon R]

Remainers never quit. 

[oowee]

8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I wasnt aware it needed 'saving'

You mean the plans to derail it were scuppered by covid ?
Not sure how you work that one out..if anything covid was used as a reason to extend the deadline , but alas , were completely ignored 😏

 

4 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Desperation!

I thought that was all good news? 

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

More evidence of Covid being the saviour of Brexit. 

More evidence you can't follow logical reasoning more like, no wonder you think remaining in the EU would be a good idea.

[Raja Clavata]

On 14/06/2020 at 08:33, 12gauge82 said:

What a load of nonsense, it is exactly the other way around. It has let the remainers off the hook, however give it a few years and I believe we will see the UK trading well, as the EU crumbles, it's already starting with Germany refusing to print more money to bail out the likes of Greece, many of the Mediterranean countries are likely to go bust and the internal conflict that will ensue in the EU will be it's downfall. 

I understood Oowee's point to be that whatever short to medium term economic impact would result from Brexit has been trumped by the economic hit we will take as a result of COVID-19.

If you interpreted a different way please elaborate as I really do not get how you can claim it is exactly the other way?

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

More evidence you can't follow logical reasoning more like, no wonder you think remaining in the EU would be a good idea.

And then this, oh boy 🙄

 

[12gauge82]

2 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I understood Oowee's point to be that whatever short to medium term economic impact would result from Brexit has been trumped by the economic hit we will take as a result of COVID-19.

If you interpreted a different way please elaborate as I really do not get how you can claim it is exactly the other way?

And then this, oh boy 🙄

 

Fair point, I'm so used to oowee rubbishing the economic benefits of Brexit, skim reading through this thread, I missed that he has actually accepted that Brexit is actually looking positive for the UK, hats off to him for admitting he was wrong all along 👍

[Raja Clavata]

Just to prove the point. Never mind.

[oowee]

7 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

Just to prove the point. Never mind.

It's very sad 😢 

 

[Raja Clavata]

And insightful.

[12gauge82]

Come on guys, just admit you got it wrong. Thank god for Brexit and the brexiteers who had the courage to see it though.

[Raja Clavata]

Just now, 12gauge82 said:

Come on guys, just admit you got it wrong. Thank god for Brexit and the brexiteers who had the courage to see it though.

We ain't biting, but feel free to keep digging. I've modified my position since the GE result, admitted I read it wrong.

I'd suggest you show us what you've got, but you already did.

Fortunately some of the other posters do have something to contribute around the economic aspects of all this.

[12gauge82]

43 minutes ago, Raja Clavata said:

We ain't biting, but feel free to keep digging. I've modified my position since the GE result, admitted I read it wrong.

I'd suggest you show us what you've got, but you already did.

Fortunately some of the other posters do have something to contribute around the economic aspects of all this.

Fair enough, I'm not going to gloat, brexit has been one of the most complex issues in this countries history.

Give me some time, I've been a little pre occupied lately and I'll see if I can add some useful input to this thread.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

A good article from Paul Goodman

Britain has left the European Union.  Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings turned round a Conservative poll rating of barely 20 per cent, a hostile Supreme Court judgement over prorogation, Commons defeats, stalemate and resignations to deliver first a Commons majority of 80 and then Brexit itself – less than six months after the Conservatives were reduced to only a bare four MEPs under Theresa May.

So what’s at stake in the current trade negotiation with the EU is the form of Brexit, not the fact of it.  Will we be, at one of the scale, more like (say) Norway, circling within the orbit of the EU’s Single Market rules and social market consensus; or, at the other end, Australia (for example), having no trade deal at all, and trading on minimum WTO terms?

Perhaps, at some point in the future, some other Government will lean in a Norway-type direction.  But that is neither what Johnson’s Brexit deal pointed towards, nor what his election manifesto expressly promised.

On Johnson’s deal, the revised Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration was worse for Northern Ireland than Theresa May’s version, since it expressly separated it further from the settlement which will apply to Great Britain…

…But better for Great Britain than May’s deal, since that settlement gives it greater potential to shape its own economic destiny as an independent state.

On the Conservative Manifesto, that document expressly committed the Prime Minister to a future relationship “based on free trade and friendly cooperation, not on the EU’s treaties or EU law”…

…And to “not extending the implementation period beyond December 2020”.  Given those commitments, we’re surprised that anyone was surprised that the Government made it clear this week that it keep that pledge.

The thrust of the public objection to doing so came from the now reduced Remainer residue – the diehard remnants of the campaigners that sought a second referendum less than a year ago.

It was that the start of 2021 would be a bad time for more friction in trade between the UK and the EU, because of the effects of the Coronavirus.

But the heart of the economic case for Brexit was always what this site called short-term pain for medium-term gain – in other words, trading off more friction with the EU for greater spending, regulatory and tax freedoms overall.

There is no guarantee that the end of transition will be any more or less disruptive in two years than it will be in December.

In any event, the real objection of those former Remainers to not extending wasn’t the public one.  Rather, it was that ending the implementation period will make it easier for Britain to begin leaving that EU orbit.

In other words, the campaign to extend transition was essentially part of the push to keep Britain within it – and make it more like Norway and less like Canada or Switzerland – or Australia, if there’s no trade deal at all.

However, the sum of the matter is that this ship is already sailing.  The economic arguments for and against Brexit were tested in the 2016 referendum.  Leave won.

Johnson then refined them further, proposing “a new relationship based on free trade and friendly cooperation, not on the EU’s treaties or EU law” in that manifesto last year.  He won.

The question that therefore remains is whether a trade deal will or won’t be agreed before the end of the year – which, given the legal and political exigencies, will mean that the parties need to get a negotiating move on.

And as our columnist Stephen Booth keeps pointing out, the dynamics of this negotiation are rather different from those of May’s.

It wouldn’t be true to claim that the UK wants nothing from a trade deal other than a barebones settlement.  It would like greater access for financial services, for example, and less trading friction than other third parties.

But in the last resort, Johnson seems prepared to walk away from the talks rather than concede “a role” to the European Court of Justice, to quote from the manifesto again.

Furthermore, he has a majority of 80, specifically returned on the basis of his Brexit vision and pledges, whereas May had none at all.

Additionally, the second most intractable problem in the two-stage negotiation has been resolved: the matter of where regulatory and trade barriers will run between Great Britain, Ireland and Northern Ireland.

Which leaves the hardest one of all – the role of the Court.  If the EU is willing to recognise that Johnson won’t budge, which seems to be the case, the elements are in place for a solution.

The EU wants fishing and migrant access, plus no tariffs, given its manufacturing surplus; the UK wants services and trade access, with minimum friction on rules of origin and other regulatory checks. The Prime Minister will have to be very careful on fishing, particularly given the Scottish dimension – and will want a U.S trade deal as a sign that the UK is truly entering a new era.

Michel Barnier seems to recognise that the EU will have to give up some ground on fishing, but although a trade deal looks possible on paper it also looks daunting in practice.  This negotiation is more in the hands of the member states and less in that of the Commission than its predecessor, and so vulnerable to spanners in the works.

Whatever happens, Britain has moved on from May’s Government and Brexit stalemate.  The CBI now says that it “supports the Government’s timetable”.  Keir Starmer is a dog that hasn’t barked on implementation extension.  EU alignment is becoming a niche cause.

David Cameron once suggested that the Eurosceptic Conservative Party was irritating the electorate by “banging on about Europe”.  That fate is currently reserved for the pro-EU Liberal Democrats, currently languishing on some seven per cent in the polls.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Blimey Ed Davey on the BBC saying people are "Out of Touch"!

[oowee]

21 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

A good article from Paul Goodman

 

Why's that? Simply stating the obvious.

More interesting is the impact of the virus, the cost to Europe and the value of the Euro and how all of that might effect the EU negotiating stance. It would be interesting to see some commentary on that. 

[Vince Green]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

Why's that? Simply stating the obvious.

More interesting is the impact of the virus, the cost to Europe and the value of the Euro and how all of that might effect the EU negotiating stance. It would be interesting to see some commentary on that. 

The EU cannot have a negotiation stance because it hasn't got the authority to negotiate independently on behalf of the member states. Its a graphic demonstration of everything that's wrong with the EU constitutionally.

When it was first created as a trading community of a handful of countries years ago it was created as a round table. So that things could only happen if all the countries agreed not just the majority.

The European Parliament was deliberately created with no powers to do anything because of internal mistrust

That is its Achilles Heel and the reason why it was always doomed to fail

Edited June 18, 2020 by Vince Green

[Raja Clavata]

As far as I'm concerned Johnson must be prepared to walk away as a last resort, I have no issue with that being the consequence of the decision to leave.

What I do have issue with and concern over is a scenario where he does concede but tries to tell us all that he hasn't.

Just now, Vince Green said:

That is its Achilles Heel and the reason why it was always doomed to fail

I must have missed news of it's official demise with everything else that has been going on...

[Danger-Mouse]

2 hours ago, oowee said:

Why's that? Simply stating the obvious.

More interesting is the impact of the virus, the cost to Europe and the value of the Euro and how all of that might effect the EU negotiating stance. It would be interesting to see some commentary on that. 

Not exactly what you ask for but it touches on some aspects.

 

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, Raja Clavata said:

 

I must have missed news of it's official demise with everything else that has been going on...

If you don't think the EU has failed you must be living on the planet Zog. Its face down in the water

[enfieldspares]

Well I predict this. 

1) Jacob Rees-Mogg will get richer.

2) If it's likely that the city financier friends of Jacob Rees-Mogg will have to decide if keeping financial access means that fishing rights will be "thrown under the bus" then fishing right, indeed, will be "thrown under the bus". And Michael Gove will tell us all that it was for the "better big picture and benefits the UK as a whole".

3) There will still be just as many unemployed and unemployable pickpockets from a certain EU Nation in the UK and claiming UK benefits after 31 December 2020 as were before 31 December 2020....and indeed when the relevant figures are released in early 2021 it'll show that that number has exponentially increased in 2020 as against 2019 because of the Brexit decision.

4) Farmers that voted for Brexit will reap (well metaphorically they won't reap much at all in 2021 as there will be few will accept what's paid to pick it) what they have sown and continue to get subsidies from UK taxpayers to now protect them against cheap US cereal, chocken and beef imports. And Michael Gove will tell us all that it was for the "better big picture and benefits the UK as a whole."

5) It still won't snow on Christmas Day 2020 but hopefully it'll nevertheless be frosty enough that season to bring pigeons in to decoy well.

6) Arlene Foster still won't be happy with Brexit, with life, with the Universe, with everything. 

6) In ten years time people will be saying "Why didn't you believe us when we told you so?" Except I can't predict which side of that argument it'll be that's saying it!

Edited June 18, 2020 by enfieldspares

[Rewulf]

3 hours ago, Raja Clavata said:

I must have missed news of it's official demise with everything else that has been going on...

Heres some EU 'democracy' in action 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1297740/brexit-news-brexit-trade-deal-european-parliament-vote-meps-brexit-fishing-british-waters?fbclid=IwAR2YCgSSU6vLpvFrggbTr3OC30pWeMDpzxZ3JCLMwu2kAfRmNxqavjXCxIM

[Retsdon]

Apparently a cool 4.5 million quid to sell the message - although quite what's supposed to be in the message is hard to fathom from the relevant document.  (The link to the PDF is at the bottom).

Below is a typical excerpt from this nonsensical and ungrammatical bit of writing. 

We have developed a theory of change based on behavioural science that uses three communication levers to deliver our campaign effectively:
a. Drives motivation to act
b. Demonstrates that our audience are capable of taking action
c. Communicates about resources or activities (e.g. grants, support, upskilling) that make taking action easier to those without the opportunity to act"

 

Here are  the "strategic goals"

The success of the readiness programme will be measured against achieving five strategic goals, which communications plays a significant role in achieving. These goals are:
"1/ the Government is fully prepared to implement the changes necessary for the end of the transition;
2/ business and citizens are ready for the end of the transition;
3/ the opportunities arising from the transition are identified and pursued, and action taken for the transition aligns with the wider domestic agenda;
4/ the end of the transition period has been de-dramatised by minimising potential short-term disruption and managing the adjustment to a new relationship with the EU; and
5/ the EU is clear that the UK has made the necessary preparations to leave the transition without a further negotiated outcome."

 Who writes this stuff? And who proof reads it? And who approves if for publication? Because never mind one's political perspective, it has to be a big worry that the Cabinet Office, with all the resources at its disposal, is apparently incapable of producing an intelligible document in the English language.  The thing is, it's not just about the language - although you would expect somebody, somewhere, at that level, to know that the main verb of a sentence or clause requires a subject, and that there is no comma before a defining clause. No, the main concern is that sloppy and imprecise language like this will be symptomatic of the sloppy and imprecise thinking that gave rise to it. 

I'm not joking when I say that if  I were asked to proof read writing like this in something like a thesis proposal (from an Arab) , I'd send it back to the student and tell them to re-write it, because not only is the English pretty atrocious, but also the goals are so (probably deliberately) opaque as to make it impossible to judge any outcome of what's being proposed.

 It's utterly mind-boggling that this is the operating level of the Cabinet Office. God helps the country.

...Although, fair play,  I couldn't help but laugh at this little gem further down the page -  "Leave voters are less likely to prepare as they don’t believe in any potential negative consequences of leaving." 😆😆  Perhaps Cummings actually  has a sense of humour after all....

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Raja Clavata]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

If you don't think the EU has failed you must be living on the planet Zog. Its face down in the water

You stated something as if we were compelled to believe it is written in stone as historical fact whereas it actually appears it's speculative conjecture, thanks for the very enlightening clarification.

I am in no way suggesting the EU is perfect and have long held the belief that it will "fail" in due course; but believe it will be in way that makes the failure subjective rather than absolute - I guess we will see though...

Just now, Rewulf said:

Heres some EU 'democracy' in action 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1297740/brexit-news-brexit-trade-deal-european-parliament-vote-meps-brexit-fishing-british-waters?fbclid=IwAR2YCgSSU6vLpvFrggbTr3OC30pWeMDpzxZ3JCLMwu2kAfRmNxqavjXCxIM

I don't readily see how that is either directly or indirectly related to the point I was querying but, since you've cited it, perhaps you can explain the democratic "failure" or whatever other issue you see in the article you provided? In fact, it appears they held a vote and reached a democratic position on a quite important matter...