UK Politics & Brexit Discussion

[Dr. Gonzo]

24 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

No doubt some want to dish out Soviet Union style punishment to threaten and coerce other ethnic groups of people into submitting to their centralised dominance. How many and how much power those people have I don't know. I'd be ashamed of that if I was pro-EU. I'd be ashamed if Westminster tried to punish Scotland to put the Welsh off.

It has been found in a court of law that Ireland and a few others were deliberately and excessively punished by €urozone elites, imo those behind that should be pulled up into a human rights court. If you deliberately inflict suffering on others as they have done in the periphery you've committed a crime in my view. It is one thing to suffer at the hands of negligence and mistakes, democracy exists to correct that, It's another to deliberately be made to suffer. That is only possible when you lose power, you have no way of holding the people incharge to account and through fear you submit.

You do hear politicians talking about how the deal must be worse than membership. This shows they do not even know the point of membership themselves. They don't even know the point of what they are doing. That is suspicious. Maybe they know it's not the best thing to be doing but are so fanatical they don't care. Even I can see the point of membership is the theory and idea that the merger of laws and free movements will make trade easier and open markets up. If someone was to leave they don't need to be punished, they would in theory weaken themselves by changing laws and blocking freedoms. If you have to engineer failure you are admitting you could be wrong, your ideas might be wrong and you don't want to take the risk of finding out.

This is all reminiscent of the collapse of communism.

 

What do you think is a realistic scenario with how we'll be set up to trade with Europe and the rest of the world post-Brexit.

If we lived in a world where Donald Trump didn't just win the U.S. presidency, I'd be fairly optimistic about the idea I once thought was silly of Britain being a part of NAFTA. But NAFTA's future is in doubt with Trump, and who in the hell knows how negotiating with his administration will go. His stance is reminiscent of very old U.S. isolationist policies. But realistically, what we've seen from his presidency is while he may have said certain things on the campaign trail... what he actually tries to push as a president may be very different.

There's no real guarantee that NAFTA can become the biggest trading block and usurp the EU, especially as Trump's NAFTA talk caused massive economic uncertainty in Mexico, and now Mexico is looking for agricultural imports they've traditionally bought from the U.S. from Latin American countries. Fuck knows what kind of impact this will have on the United States' economy (although trade with Mexico accounts for 1 in 5 jobs in Texas). Mexico has to do this because in the face of economic uncertainty, any financial advisor will suggest diversifying. The UK and EU will be looking to do similar moves as well, considering the uncertainty in the future trade talks that lie ahead.

The anti-globalist position of many Brexit supporters also poses major issues for the best way for Britain to enter into trade agreements in a post-Brexit world. For manufacturing to return to Britain en masse, we'd have to see workers rights in the country totally gutted, so as to provide for cheaper British labour. This would likely mean more jobs available... but it would also mean adjusting expectations regarding income and quality of life. Alternatively, we could force tarrifs on imported goods - but without bringing widespread manufacturing back all that will do is make it so fewer people can afford quality goods. And a less isolationistic approach would involve trying to engage in global trade, where the futures of the two largest trade blocks are in doubt and uncertain.

Economic stagnation WILL lead to a brain drain. It doesn't matter what country it is, if you can take your qualifications and experience and get paid a lot more than you would in the UK... it is hard to say no to a significantly fatter wallet. My concern is that Britain has done so much to weaken it's manufacturing capability since the 1980s and done so much to push towards services being the backbone of our economy, what happens if the economy majorly stagnates and other countries come calling for our top export producers. The financial services sector makes up the vast majority of our net exports. Insurance services is the next largest, but it's barely a third (if that) of what the financial services sector does for net UK imports. As someone who's clients are generally banks and insurance companies... and who left the UK for moneymoneymoney, I see stagnation as a way for Britain to lose some of it's best talent.

Honestly, I think Britain's best hope is for more and more isolationist policies coming from the majority of countries worldwide. But I don't think that's likely at all, as it doesn't make economic sense for most countries to adopt those policies. Ultimately, I understand the harm caused by Thatcher's dismantlement of our manufacturing sector and I know how it devastated communities. But at the same time, I think it's a bit of a case of "too little, too late" to fight against globalism decades after the western and eastern world have embraced it.

I hope I am wrong, and that Brexit does some good for our economy and our people. But I don't think there was a whole lot of foresight in the arguments for Brexit and I don't really see the government moving with a cohesive and thought out plan, and I simply can't see it being good for us in the short term. I'm actually fairly despondent because last year I was thinking about moving back to England, but now I'm not confident it is in my financial interest to. And I'm not particularly thrilled about the possibility of needing to learn a new language if I want to get the hell out of America.

[SirBalon]

All I know is that if there are benefits of me belonging and paying to belong to a club, the moment I don't want to be a part of that club and stop paying the fee to pertain to that club I can't then get all arrogant and try to convince the members that still belong to said club to give me the fundamental benefits of such membership.  It sounds like the Italians say...  Pazzo!  It doesn't make sense!

Also, I don't understand all the bad blood comments against the EU for wanting to tell us to F-OFF with negotiations considering the above.  But then again we have people here complaining that Sturgeon wants an independence referendum when she is the voted ruling leader of a party called SNP (Scottish NATIONALIST Party) and that her country men/Women voted as a majority to remain within the European Union...  All this understanding that they are actually a nation anyway.

I don't get it at all...  I do understand WANTING or WISHING for a great deal you usually wouldn't get when you resign from a member's club.  Boy!  I'd love to have stopped paying for the gym I belong to and for them to say... "Hey!  You're a well to do guy, we like you, we'll let you off and you can continue to use the member's benefits without adhering to the member's obligations"...  Somehow that ain't gonna happen which is why I continue to pay my membership.

I bloody hate renewing my passport!  Honestly...  It's a pain in the arse for me.  I have a Spanish ID card that fits in my wallet (is always in my wallet) and I travel all over the EU with it.  I only clean the dust off my passport every time I travel outside the continent.  Anyhow...  Let's see what happens and let's also hope we can convince them over there that it's in their best interests to let us have benefits without adhering to the penalties.

Something tells me that the reason most people voted leave (not me and I know many others) will be a shot in the foot....  Britain will continue to allow free movement and the Government will paint a pretty picture that will try and make us believe that we're actually in control of that moment but that we're only doing it in our economic best interests.

Edited March 29, 2017 by SirBalon

[Dr. Gonzo]

29 minutes ago, SirBalon said:

Something tells me that the reason most people voted leave (not me and I know many others) will be a shot in the foot....  Britain will continue to allow free movement and the Government will paint a pretty picture that will try and make us believe that we're actually in control of that moment but that we're only doing it in our economic best interests.

If there is free movement post Brexit - it will absolutely be because it is in our economic best interests. If the alternative to free movement is losing major chunks of the industry that is the backbone of our GDP, free movement is a clear winner.

But if the EU is going to allow that, they'll need us to give them a good reason for doing so. Personally, I don't think we're in a strong negotiating position as things stand.

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

What do you think is a realistic scenario with how we'll be set up to trade with Europe and the rest of the world post-Brexit.

If we lived in a world where Donald Trump didn't just win the U.S. presidency, I'd be fairly optimistic about the idea I once thought was silly of Britain being a part of NAFTA. But NAFTA's future is in doubt with Trump, and who in the hell knows how negotiating with his administration will go. His stance is reminiscent of very old U.S. isolationist policies. But realistically, what we've seen from his presidency is while he may have said certain things on the campaign trail... what he actually tries to push as a president may be very different.

There's no real guarantee that NAFTA can become the biggest trading block and usurp the EU, especially as Trump's NAFTA talk caused massive economic uncertainty in Mexico, and now Mexico is looking for agricultural imports they've traditionally bought from the U.S. from Latin American countries. Fuck knows what kind of impact this will have on the United States' economy (although trade with Mexico accounts for 1 in 5 jobs in Texas). Mexico has to do this because in the face of economic uncertainty, any financial advisor will suggest diversifying. The UK and EU will be looking to do similar moves as well, considering the uncertainty in the future trade talks that lie ahead.

The anti-globalist position of many Brexit supporters also poses major issues for the best way for Britain to enter into trade agreements in a post-Brexit world. For manufacturing to return to Britain en masse, we'd have to see workers rights in the country totally gutted, so as to provide for cheaper British labour. This would likely mean more jobs available... but it would also mean adjusting expectations regarding income and quality of life. Alternatively, we could force tarrifs on imported goods - but without bringing widespread manufacturing back all that will do is make it so fewer people can afford quality goods. And a less isolationistic approach would involve trying to engage in global trade, where the futures of the two largest trade blocks are in doubt and uncertain.

Economic stagnation WILL lead to a brain drain. It doesn't matter what country it is, if you can take your qualifications and experience and get paid a lot more than you would in the UK... it is hard to say no to a significantly fatter wallet. My concern is that Britain has done so much to weaken it's manufacturing capability since the 1980s and done so much to push towards services being the backbone of our economy, what happens if the economy majorly stagnates and other countries come calling for our top export producers. The financial services sector makes up the vast majority of our net exports. Insurance services is the next largest, but it's barely a third (if that) of what the financial services sector does for net UK imports. As someone who's clients are generally banks and insurance companies... and who left the UK for moneymoneymoney, I see stagnation as a way for Britain to lose some of it's best talent.

Honestly, I think Britain's best hope is for more and more isolationist policies coming from the majority of countries worldwide. But I don't think that's likely at all, as it doesn't make economic sense for most countries to adopt those policies. Ultimately, I understand the harm caused by Thatcher's dismantlement of our manufacturing sector and I know how it devastated communities. But at the same time, I think it's a bit of a case of "too little, too late" to fight against globalism decades after the western and eastern world have embraced it.

I hope I am wrong, and that Brexit does some good for our economy and our people. But I don't think there was a whole lot of foresight in the arguments for Brexit and I don't really see the government moving with a cohesive and thought out plan, and I simply can't see it being good for us in the short term. I'm actually fairly despondent because last year I was thinking about moving back to England, but now I'm not confident it is in my financial interest to. And I'm not particularly thrilled about the possibility of needing to learn a new language if I want to get the hell out of America.

There are no anti-globalists in government or any senior ones in the leave campaign. This whole we are going to trade with the world rhetoric which dominates is probably going to lead to cheaper food and a loss of exports for Ireland, France and Spain's agricultural industry and that is about it. 

In terms of the state of the UK economy there are more serious systemic problems. These might be addressed if the government are forced into action because of Brexit fallout, but that assumes competence where there probably isn't any. Werner's recent research suggests GDP growth in the United Kingdom over the last 30 years was not the result of trade with the continent but came from debt being used to fund productive capacity. Something which has been extremely low because we are primarly using money creation to fund the housing market and have allowed private bankers to print money and lend to whatever gets them the biggest quickest bonus which isn't small businesses and productivity.

What places like Sunderland need is access to credit for productive means. Small and medium businesses in the UK notoriously can't get access to credit. I think a good place to start would be John McDonnell's proposal for regional investment banks, mimicking the German model which funnily enough the ECB are trying to destroy.

Staying in the EU or leaving the EU really wasn't going to make a difference economically to poor people in Hartlepool. But they can hope that their screams were heard.

Trump's isolationism beneath the surface is recognition of the reality that something is fundamentally going very wrong in international trade whereby countries are having to cheat each other to get ahead because non of them have anything unique. Big business crossing borders freely has created a situation where governments compete to entice them in. Innovation is no longer in job creating activities. It's in job destroying activity. Investment in productivity isn't coming from governments or banks anywhere near where it needs to be, It's left up to big businesses to buy up supply chains and move it around, make it cheap enough to drive consumption across the West, create mass consumers, zombies gorging on products. When Trump says China is cheating he's not far from the truth, the big US corporations are going to China to take advantage of cheap labour. The Chinese haven't invented anything, big US businesses just went in to drive their bottom line down. That doesn't mean bringing jobs back is feasible, but investment in new technology, in productivity, in innovation is where success is. Trying to beat everyone else is a questionable approach and never ending game. 

In North East England mines and shipyards were closed and the Thatcher government gave state welfare and goodies to Japanese mega firm Nissan to open up, which have continued and been extended by every government since. When it comes to international trade it is all about cheating. Britain as you can tell is pretty bad at cheating in manufacturing. It is very good at financial fraud however. Very good at financial corruption. Easily the biggest finance sector cheats on the planet. The only thing the UK has to lose in trade talks with the EU is it's current cheating in the city of London. The rest of the country isn't cheating. One terms are agreed maybe the government will look to find a new sector to cheat with if it needs to.

Britain needs to find it's way back to innovation. Not going to happen with this banking sector which has basically turned us into a credit card mortgage junkie economy of mass consumers.

Theresa May is an nanny knows best statist conservative. I don't know how much she will give to the libertarian Thatcherite's but she certainly seems to want to meddle in people's economic life so there is going to be plenty of attempts at industrial cheating under her tenure.

[SirBalon]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

If there is free movement post Brexit - it will absolutely be because it is in our economic best interests. If the alternative to free movement is losing major chunks of the industry that is the backbone of our GDP, free movement is a clear winner.

But if the EU is going to allow that, they'll need us to give them a good reason for doing so. Personally, I don't think we're in a strong negotiating position as things stand.

It doesn't matter whether or not we're in a strong or weak position for negotiations.  What matters to the club is that it must maintain its rule book because otherwise others will say... "What!  I want the same!".

Most people that I know that voted out and in any case we all know this to be the case, voted out because of 'free movement'.  Now if we end up having free movement OF ANY KIND, then I want those that voted out to lift their voice because otherwise it will confirm the thoughts that many had on the make-up of "leavers"...  They're "knuckle draggers".

I'm no knuckle dragger I don't want to be associated with them.  I personally couldn't give a damn about the free movement and there are other fundamental issues surrounding national economic control that I dislike.  I don't like being dictated when I have a border, but in effect within the EU I don't have a border and it's all make believe which annoys me when I have to wait in line at the supposed "passport control" having a plum with a superiority complex looking at me, looking at my ID card, looking at me, looking at my ID card, looking at me, looking at my ID card, looking at me, looking at my ID card, looking at me, looking at my ID card for 5 minutes before he says... "You were born in the UK!" (eyes of amazement while looking at my Spanish national ID card), "why haven't you used your British Passport", to which I respond always "because I can use this and it fits in my wallet... I'm lazy or maybe just a pragmatic person".  He will then look at me with disdain (I care not for the reason why and look upon him with a look of superiority making sure he notices it)...  He will always then say in some manner or other...  "Maybe you should feel proud to have access to a British Passport" to which I always say, "I know, I do...  I even have two, the other is Spanish, and some of us even having the same rights to have one shouldn't be entitled to it" (I give the thumbs up and wink).

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, SirBalon said:

All I know is that if there are benefits of me belonging and paying to belong to a club, the moment I don't want to be a part of that club and stop paying the fee to pertain to that club I can't then get all arrogant and try to convince the members that still belong to said club to give me the fundamental benefits of such membership.  It sounds like the Italians say...  Pazzo!  It doesn't make sense!

Also, I don't understand all the bad blood comments against the EU for wanting to tell us to F-OFF with negotiations considering the above.  But then again we have people here complaining that Sturgeon wants an independence referendum when she is the voted ruling leader of a party called SNP (Scottish NATIONALIST Party) and that her country men/Women voted as a majority to remain within the European Union...  All this understanding that they are actually a nation anyway.

I don't get it at all...  I do understand WANTING or WISHING for a great deal you usually wouldn't get when you resign from a member's club.  Boy!  I'd love to have stopped paying for the gym I belong to and for them to say... "Hey!  You're a well to do guy, we like you, we'll let you off and you can continue to use the member's benefits without adhering to the member's obligations"...  Somehow that ain't gonna happen which is why I continue to pay my membership.

I bloody hate renewing my passport!  Honestly...  It's a pain in the arse for me.  I have a Spanish ID card that fits in my wallet (is always in my wallet) and I travel all over the EU with it.  I only clean the dust off my passport every time I travel outside the continent.  Anyhow...  Let's see what happens and let's also hope we can convince them over there that it's in their best interests to let us have benefits without adhering to the penalties.

That's a funny gym where over half the members get paid to go to it. I'd love it if my gym bought me a car with other members money. Then when I rock up to the gym in my Porshe and that guy who paid for it is trying to get in without buying me more stuff I will tell him to f off, I'm using the Smith machine and only me, if you want to share you can buy me a rolex.

 

The EU isn't supposed to be a supremacist membership club. It's supposed to be countries mutually agreeing to have a common legal system under the principle that doing so is the best form of action for wealth creation. Giving free market access to those outside, which they have done to others, is not letting someone use the facilities because there are no facilities, the benefits of membership are not free trade but the principle of a unified law. Such law enables business to operate easier. Simply being outside of that legal system in practice means all benefits are lost.

 

[SirBalon]

10 minutes ago, HoneyNUFC said:

That's a funny gym where over half the members get paid to go to it. I'd love it if my gym bought me a car with other members money. Then when I rock up to the gym in my Porshe and that guy who paid for it is trying to get in without buying me more stuff I will tell him to f off, I'm using the Smith machine and only me, if you want to share you can buy me a rolex.

 

The EU isn't supposed to be a supremacist membership club. It's supposed to be countries mutually agreeing to have a common legal system under the principle that doing so is the best form of action for wealth creation. Giving free market access to those outside, which they have done to others, is not letting someone use the facilities because there are no facilities, the benefits of membership are not free trade but the principle of a unified law. Such law enables business to operate easier. Simply being outside of that legal system in practice means all benefits are lost.

 

You know as well as I do that my gym detail was an analogy and what you've done in effect by using it and stripping it is use the reason (one of the main ones) as to why I voted "leave". 

But on your second paragraph, you mention those that have or use the facilities of free trade without being members. That's a very weak argument mate because those that have access to free trade were never members in the first place and organised a deal for themselves from the outset of staying out. We stand uniquely on our own by "leaving" a membership we were a participant in.  There is too much to lose for the EU to offer us the most beneficial deal of the membership having bunked off all the crap.  Others would leave and as has been seen in politics over the last 18 months, you can't underestimate the way people vote anymore.

In the end we'll get the free trade but we'll let the free movement continue with a pretty picture painted for the dumber part of society that voted out which they will no doubt believe because they "won". 

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, SirBalon said:

You know as well as I do that my gym detail was an analogy and what you've done in effect by using it and stripping it is use the reason (one of the main ones) as to why I voted "leave". 

But on your second paragraph, you mention those that have or use the facilities of free trade without being members. That's a very weak argument mate because those that have access to free trade were never members in the first place and organised a deal for themselves from the outset of staying out. We stand uniquely on our own by "leaving" a membership we were a participant in.  There is too much to lose for the EU to offer us the most beneficial deal of the membership having bunked off all the crap.  Others would leave and as has been seen in politics over the last 18 months, you can't underestimate the way people vote anymore.

In the end we'll get the free trade but we'll let the free movement continue with a pretty picture painted for the dumber part of society that voted out which they will no doubt believe because they "won". 

Fair point but personally I don't believe anyone other than Sweden will leave. No one has the bottle to leave the €uro, maybe Finland, but no one in the nation's with real anti-EU sentiment will leave without another collapse first. Brexit isn't even remotely relevant to those €uro countries leaving situation and free trade is a minor issue in comparison to what they'd have to do. In addition to that trying to stress a difference between Britain and membership implies not giving anything to the concerns of the anti-EU sentiments in countries like Italy so is a questionable tactic in itself. I can see the EU taking that approach but it's not necessarily clever and would be further mismanagement In my opinion. They need to start compromising with the nation states. The lack of compromise is what pushed Britain out. 

 

Free trade has a kind of off narrative in political discourse anyhow. Firstly it assumes removing tariffs is significant, in reality tariffs are already low for most goods and floating currencies act as a cushion against tariffs which wasn't the case in the 19th and 18th century. Secondly free trade and trading blocs in general are treat as if they are how wealth is created. In Adam Smith's day free trade was a case of you grow cotton, we can't grow cotton, we've got mills and expertise, if we trade you give us cotton we give you what we can do with cotton both our economies benefit, wealth is created as otherwise neither of us would have had the products we get through trade. Fast forward to now and what happens in a lot of free trade areas is we make chocolate, it would be cheaper to make chocolate over there, we will move over there. Nothing new is added to the economy, wealth is moved not created, the cheaper consumer cost means we can buy more variety but we didn't create wealth. This has happened a lot to Britain and America largely because our financial systems were opened up and wealth was replaced by debt. 

[SirBalon]

What is the Great Repeal Bill?

The only explanation you need to read

 

What is the ‘Great Repeal Bill’ ? 

The Government has announced it will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act in a move that will end the legislation that gives European Union law supremacy in Britain.

In its place, a new “Great Repeal Bill” will be introduced in Parliament as early as next year and put power for the nation’s laws back into the hands of MPs and peers.

The Bill will be formally introduced in the next Queen's Speech, before it is voted through by MPs and Peers. 

The House of Commons library has warned it will be one of the largest legislative processes "ever undertaken".

Theresa May, the Prime Minister, says the Bill means the UK "will be an independent sovereign nation". 

What is the 1972 European Communities Act?

A year before joining what was then the European Economic Community in 1973, the Government paved the way with the 1972 Act. 

It is the crucial piece of legislation that makes European Union law automatically binding in the UK. If there is a clash with British law, EU law takes precedence.

The Act allowed Britain to join what would become the EU the following year. 

Throughout the years, as controversial judgments from the European Court of Justice has often triggered anger among Tory MPs, the legislation became symbolic of Brussels’s influence over Britain.

Vote Leave, the formal campaign to leave the EU, named repealing the European Communities Act as one of their six Brexit “road map” promises a week before the referendum vote.

What is in the Bill? 

There are three principal elements that make up this Bill. 

The first is repealing the European Communities Act 1972, the historic law that took Britain into the EU. 

Second, the Bill will convert all EU law into United Kingdom law to prevent a black legal whole after Brexit. Thousands of European laws, dictats and directives will be turned into UK law before Brexit is completed in mid-2019. 

And thirdly, the Bill will create the necessary powers for MPs to change these laws once Britain has left the EU. 

However, there are concerns that under so-called Henry VIII clauses, the Government will have sweeping powers to repeal legislation without parliamentary approval.

What are Henry VIII clauses? 

King Henry VIII published a 'Statute of Proclamations' in 1539, which gave him the power to legislate by proclamation.

So-called “Henry VIII clauses” today give the Government powers to change old laws that have already been passed by Parliament.

And they allow the Prime Minister to change existing laws without Parliament’s full approval. 

Ministers insist they need these powers to “correct” European laws that refer to EU bodies soon to be defunct after Brexit. 

But critics have accused the Government of avoiding scrutiny and - crucially - circumventing the Lords.

David Davis, the Brexit Secretary has said any powers created in this way will be "time limited" and "Parliament will need to be satisfied that the procedures are appropriate".

How many laws will be converted? 

The Government's white paper on the Repeal Bill has no precise figure for the number of EU rules which will be transferred into domestic law.

However, it does note that there are currently more than 12,000 EU regulations in force.

 The paper adds that Parliament has passed 7,900 statutory instruments implementing EU legislation and 186 Acts which incorporate a degree of EU influence.

Could the Bill be blocked? 

In January the Scottish Secretary hinted that the UK Government will seek the consent of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over the Great Repeal Bill.

David Mundell said he was working on the basis that they would vote in a legislative consent motion (LCM), as the Bill would have an impact on devolved responsibilities.

He also warned that if consent was withheld it would have “very serious consequences”. 

There are concerns that the Scottish Parliament could seek to block the Bill's passage. 

Under the Sewel convention, the UK Parliament does not normally legislate on matters which the Scottish Parliament is responsible for without gaining their consent. 

However, Alex Salmond, the former first minister, claimed that if Westminster were to ignore a decision by Holyrood to withhold its consent it would precipitate a “constitutional crisis”.

Asked what would happen if Holyrood withheld its consent, Mr Mundell warned that it could result in a "hole in our law" if the body of European law isn't adopted. 

 

What is the Great Repeal Bill? The only explanation you need to read

The Great Repeal Bill: White Paper - GOV.UK

 

 

[Fairy In Boots]

On 29/03/2017 at 7:07 PM, Dr. Gonzo said:

They've also got the incentive to make it unappealing as fuck for anyone else to leave the EU, because like Brits, they're going to be approaching this from a self-interested point of view rather than caring about the British public. They're fighting to keep the world's largest trade block in tact. And yes, it has become a political union (rather than the economic union that we were promised when we joined) - but they're fighting to keep Europe strong in global trade and to keep the EU stable. And considering the rise of populism in the West, I think that's understandable.

Ultimately what's best for the EU and the UK are favourable terms for both parties and for their citizens living in the UK, and ours in the EU. But there are more political considerations at play than just the economy... and those are going to make an impact on how negotiations play out.

 

I think that's a pretty simplistic view of things and it skips the obvious steps between where we are today and where we will be. Some of our biggest trading partners will remain major EU countries, by necessity. Whether you like it or not, they're major trade partners and our economy is tied to doing business with them. Trade talks being sorted will relieve economic uncertainty, which is good for everybody.

With the likelihood of NAFTA being renegotiated and Trump being very pro-Brexit, it would probably be in Britain's best interests to try to become members of NAFTA (despite not being... in North America). As that's the largest consumer nation in the world, a former commonwealth country, and a large manufacturing country (albeit incredibly unstable because of the aftereffects of the U.S. war on drugs). Despite Trump believing that NAFTA is a bad trade deal, if it is renegotiated it's likely that Canada and Mexico will be able to secure better trade deals than were negotiated in the 90s - and that gives us a chance to walk up to the negotiation tables to land a new and beneficial trade deal. It is likely that once we're out of the EU, NAFTA will be the largest trade block.

It won't really appeal to the nationalists and isolationists, nor does it promise to bring back manufacturing to this country (which, by the way, the real time to fight back against that was in the 1980s... rather than 30 years later after, with Western world wholly embraced globalism and convinced China to play along). But it does stand to not provide stability to British exports and our economy. But this could be the economic (not political) union that the EU was when we first joined.

Engaging in trade deals with NAFTA nations and the commonwealth is key for us going forward. The big concern then is... are we a country for sale to corporate interests. Are we going to increase privitisation of healthcare and education to be more in line with America? Are we going to remove worker protections and rights we've had under the EU to be more in line with the worker rights of the US (and as someone working in the US, I'm not sure that will be a very popular switch...) - do we have to make major changes so that we can survive in the world economy (because globalism is not going away). Can the UK economy be strong enough to prevent a major brain drain?

+1 purely for the fact you've not labelled Brexit supporters mindless racists and actually looked at the varied reasons. 

On 29/03/2017 at 6:23 PM, HoneyNUFC said:

Merkels move is just part of the gamesmanship to come. The EU's primary target is to extract as much money from the British taxpayer as possible. Rejecting trade negotiations is trying to force the issue they want and preventing the UK from having a similar trade deal to Canada who don't have to pay a penny. They're going to fight to make this generation of Brits accept giving a debt burden to unborn babies to fund projects that have no ROI for the exchequer.

 

+1 purely for the nail on the head comment about gamesmanship, I think most Brexit supporters (who voted knew what they were voting for) are prepared for a lot of back and forth gamesmanship. 

On 29/03/2017 at 10:30 PM, HoneyNUFC said:

There are no anti-globalists in government or any senior ones in the leave campaign. This whole we are going to trade with the world rhetoric which dominates is probably going to lead to cheaper food and a loss of exports for Ireland, France and Spain's agricultural industry and that is about it. 

In terms of the state of the UK economy there are more serious systemic problems. These might be addressed if the government are forced into action because of Brexit fallout, but that assumes competence where there probably isn't any. Werner's recent research suggests GDP growth in the United Kingdom over the last 30 years was not the result of trade with the continent but came from debt being used to fund productive capacity. Something which has been extremely low because we are primarly using money creation to fund the housing market and have allowed private bankers to print money and lend to whatever gets them the biggest quickest bonus which isn't small businesses and productivity.

What places like Sunderland need is access to credit for productive means. Small and medium businesses in the UK notoriously can't get access to credit. I think a good place to start would be John McDonnell's proposal for regional investment banks, mimicking the German model which funnily enough the ECB are trying to destroy.

Staying in the EU or leaving the EU really wasn't going to make a difference economically to poor people in Hartlepool. But they can hope that their screams were heard.

Trump's isolationism beneath the surface is recognition of the reality that something is fundamentally going very wrong in international trade whereby countries are having to cheat each other to get ahead because non of them have anything unique. Big business crossing borders freely has created a situation where governments compete to entice them in. Innovation is no longer in job creating activities. It's in job destroying activity. Investment in productivity isn't coming from governments or banks anywhere near where it needs to be, It's left up to big businesses to buy up supply chains and move it around, make it cheap enough to drive consumption across the West, create mass consumers, zombies gorging on products. When Trump says China is cheating he's not far from the truth, the big US corporations are going to China to take advantage of cheap labour. The Chinese haven't invented anything, big US businesses just went in to drive their bottom line down. That doesn't mean bringing jobs back is feasible, but investment in new technology, in productivity, in innovation is where success is. Trying to beat everyone else is a questionable approach and never ending game. 

In North East England mines and shipyards were closed and the Thatcher government gave state welfare and goodies to Japanese mega firm Nissan to open up, which have continued and been extended by every government since. When it comes to international trade it is all about cheating. Britain as you can tell is pretty bad at cheating in manufacturing. It is very good at financial fraud however. Very good at financial corruption. Easily the biggest finance sector cheats on the planet. The only thing the UK has to lose in trade talks with the EU is it's current cheating in the city of London. The rest of the country isn't cheating. One terms are agreed maybe the government will look to find a new sector to cheat with if it needs to.

Britain needs to find it's way back to innovation. Not going to happen with this banking sector which has basically turned us into a credit card mortgage junkie economy of mass consumers.

Theresa May is an nanny knows best statist conservative. I don't know how much she will give to the libertarian Thatcherite's but she certainly seems to want to meddle in people's economic life so there is going to be plenty of attempts at industrial cheating under her tenure.

 I agree with the need to rebalance the economy and moving towards innovative manufacturing was/is a hope I hold for the post Brexit Britain. I work in Engineering and as you say the cheating goes on from many states particularly EU "partners". It's what I'll ultimately judge May on in 5-6 years time

[Kowabunga]

Apparently Barnier has agreed to leave Gibraltar out of the negotiations and to give veto powers to Spain in the matter of Gibraltar afterwards, making it (to my understanding) a de facto bilateral UK-Spain issue to be tackled with after Brexit.

I would like to read criticism of the EU because of this on here (if more nuanced than "supremacist totalitarian european soviet union rant" the better), as at the very least it means getting leverage in a negotiation aside from pleasing the diplomatic service of a member state against the diplomatic service of a leaving member state over the issue of a tax-haven.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Kowabunga

[Honey Honey]

If Gibraltar is treat in a hostile way it will be a breach of article 8 of the Lisbon treaty. Gibraltar could take the EU/Spain to the ECJ and most likely win with ease. 

[Kowabunga]

1 hour ago, HoneyNUFC said:

If Gibraltar is treat in a hostile way it will be a breach of article 8 of the Lisbon treaty. Gibraltar could take the EU/Spain to the ECJ and most likely win with ease. 

I mean criticism to this particular decision, not about what they might do in the future, because calling "leaving Gib out of negotiations" hostile (rather vague word anyways) is kind of an overstatement, right?

[SirBalon]

Future of Gibraltar at stake in Brexit negotiations

 

The EU has put the future of Gibraltar at stake in the coming Brexit negotiations, in effect backing Spain in its centuries-old dispute with the UK over the British overseas territory.

After lobbying from Spanish diplomats, the EU’s opening negotiating position for the Brexit talks presents the British government with the choice of reaching agreement with the Spaniards about Gibraltar’s future, or exposing its citizens to economic peril by pushing “the rock” outside any EU-UK trade deal.

“The union will stick up for its members, and that means Spain now,” a senior EU official said. Residents of Gibraltar, which Spain has sought to reclaim almost since it was ceded to Britain in 1713, voted 96% to remain in the EU.

The announcement came towards the end of a nine-page draft document sent by the European council president, Donald Tusk, to member states on Friday outlining negotiating guidelines for the upcoming Brexit talks.

The guidelines, which will be refined at a summit of EU27 leaders at the end of April, ruled out talks on Britain’s future relations with the EU until “sufficient progress” had been made on agreeing the UK’s exit bill, securing citizens’ rights and dealing with Ireland’s border.

The draft document also said no future trade pact could be concluded before Britain had left the bloc, insisted existing EU regulations – including the jurisdiction of the European court of justice – must apply during any transition deal, and rejected sector-by-sector deals, saying they undermined the integrity of the single market.

The surprise clause gives Spain the ability to exclude Gibraltar from any UK-EU transitional single market access arrangement or future trade deal if it is not satisfied with the status of the territory.

It says that once the UK leaves the bloc “no agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom”.

This suggests that unless Britain is willing to let its citizens on “the rock” be subject to an inferior economic future than those in the UK, the EU has in effect handed the Spanish government a veto on Britain’s entire future relationship with the bloc.

A senior UK source with knowledge of EU negotiations said the clause was extraordinary because it effectively signalled a lack of total British sovereignty over Gibraltar. It gives Spain a greater say over the future of Gibraltar than the British government is likely to be willing to accept, the source said.

Another senior UK source with knowledge of both the EU and Whitehall said the government was not surprised to see the reference to Gibraltar in the document because it would have been a key demand from Spain, but suggested it was ominous regarding what was to come.

The Gibraltar government said it had been “shamefully singled out” for unfavourable treatment by the European council at the behest of Spain.

“This unnecessary, unjustified and unacceptable discriminatory proposed singling out of Gibraltar and its people was the predictable machination of Spain that the people of Gibraltar foresaw and one of the reasons why we voted so massively to remain in the EU,” the chief minister, Fabian Picardo, said.

“This is a disgraceful attempt by Spain to manipulate the European council for its own, narrow political interests. Brexit is already complicated enough without Spain trying to complicate it further.”

Gibraltar’s MEP, Clare Moody, claimed Theresa May’s failure to mention Gibraltar in her article 50 letter, notifying the EU of the UK’s intention to leave, had emboldened the Spanish and signalled that London was not affording the territory the same importance in Brexit talks as Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Moody, who has represented Gibraltar in the European parliament since 2014, said: “It is appalling, and an example of the carelessness with which the government are handling these negotiations overall.”

In London, the Conservative MP Bob Neill said: “Gibraltar’s friends in the UK will be watching this very carefully. There will be no sellout.”

Andrew Rosindell, the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Gibraltar, said: “An agreement without including Gibraltar means there can be no agreement. British people must and will stand together, we cannot be bullied by Spain.”

On the Spanish side, Esteban González Pons, the vice-chair of the European People’s party, told El País newspaper that May’s failure to mention Gibraltar in the letter on Wednesday was “very relevant”, adding that the omission was “because Gibraltar isn’t part of the United Kingdom; it’s a colony like the island of St Helena”.

Sources in the his party close to the Spanish government also told the paper: “This absence is a good sign because it heralds good news – that Gibraltar is an issue to be negotiated bilaterally in the future, only between Spain and the UK.”

British government sources pointed towards May’s comments in the House of Commons on Wednesday, when she said the UK was “absolutely steadfast in our support of Gibraltar, its people and its economy”.

The prime minister said: “We have been firm in our commitment never to enter arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their wishes, nor to enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content.” 

The article 50 letter was “a notification in relation to our withdrawing from the European Union”, May said. “Gibraltar is not a separate member of the EU, nor is it a part of the UK for the purposes of EU law, but we are clear that it is covered by our exit negotiations.”

While Spain has long sought sovereignty, or at least co-sovereignty over Gibraltar, its more realistic aims will be to rid the territory of an airport and to ensure it is unable to maintain its 10% corporate tax rate.

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat leader, claimed May had made a “major strategic error” by not mentioning Gibraltar in her article 50 letter. “Gibraltar should not be hung out to dry by this government for the sake of a hard Brexit.” 

A senior EU official said the remaining 27 member states expected the stipulation to remain in place when talks between the UK and the EU started at the end of May or early June.

“The text means what it says,” the official said. “Any extension of the deal [after withdrawal] to Gibraltar, which is a disputed territory, will require the support of Spain. Spain must approve the applicability of a future agreement to territory of Gibraltar. It recognises that there are two parties to this dispute.”

He added of the EU’s position on Gibraltar: “There is a difference. After Brexit is notified there is a union of 27 and only one side of that argument is represented.”

The day after Britain’s Brexit vote, Spain’s then foreign minister, José Manuel García Margallo, said the outcome had hastened the day when the Spanish flag would fly over the territory.

Although Margallo’s replacement, the Brussels veteran Alfonso Dastis, has softened Spain’s tone, the issue has remained firmly on the negotiating agenda. Spanish MEPs and diplomats are said to have been thrilled that May made no mention of Gibraltar in her article 50 letter.

On Wednesday, Gibraltar’s chief minister had insisted the government would fiercely oppose any Spanish moves to use Brexit negotiations as a means to gain more control over the territory.

“Our sovereignty is not in play,” he told Gibraltar’s parliament. “We will be no pawn in Brexit and no victim of Brexit.”

 

Future of Gibraltar at stake in Brexit negotiations | World news | The ...

Edited March 31, 2017 by SirBalon

[Honey Honey]

1 hour ago, Kowabunga said:

I mean criticism to this particular decision, not about what they might do in the future, because calling "leaving Gib out of negotiations" hostile (rather vague word anyways) is kind of an overstatement, right?

Leaving them out isn't hostile, but anything that sets out to damage Gibraltar is hostile. 

In my opinion part of this move may be because the EU would like to push the United Kingdom out of defence and military roles in the Med. Would like to, will do or would be able to are 3 different things though.

 

[Kowabunga]

On 31/3/2017 at 11:50 PM, HoneyNUFC said:

Leaving them out isn't hostile, but anything that sets out to damage Gibraltar is hostile. 

In my opinion part of this move may be because the EU would like to push the United Kingdom out of defence and military roles in the Med. Would like to, will do or would be able to are 3 different things though.

 

 

 

[Danny]

For me the only good thing that can come out of Brexit is CANZUK, that would literally be my life made and I'd move to either Canada or New Zealand in a heartbeat. But that's just a pipedream.

[Panflute]

Britain and the EU in a custody battle over Gibraltar, who would'a thunk it?

Also, isn't it telling that the EU selected the Guy Verhofstadt (you know, the gap-toothed overweight Papist who looks like an elderly lesbian) as negotiator? One of the most rabid pro-EU politicians and opponents of Farage is going to negotiate on behalf of the EU. Diplomacy!

[Devil-Dick Willie]

15 minutes ago, Panflute said:

Britain and the EU in a custody battle over Gibraltar, who would'a thunk it?

Also, isn't it telling that the EU selected the Guy Verhofstadt (you know, the gap-toothed overweight Papist who looks like an elderly lesbian) as negotiator? One of the most rabid pro-EU politicians and opponents of Farage is going to negotiate on behalf of the EU. Diplomacy!

Send a message. Hahahaha

[Fairy In Boots]

One of the great things missing in the British media coverage of the whole affair is the fact the EU has massive holes in its budgets. They're rubbing their hands thinking they're going to plug it with a big divorce settlement from the UK, I hope we chuck this bizarre notion of "fairness" out the window. We'd committed to the current  budget, we honour our agreed spend which I think is till 2020 then tell them to fuck off. It's a big test in May's premiership for how I'll judge her long term.

Edited April 4, 2017 by Fairy In Boots

[Honey Honey]

Theresa May hater of freedom and incompetent home secretary get a good Brexit deal? There's more chance Chazz resurrects TFF.

 

[Fairy In Boots]

2 hours ago, HoneyNUFC said:

Theresa May hater of freedom and incompetent home secretary get a good Brexit deal? There's more chance Chazz resurrects TFF.

 

It's got new members 😉

Seriously though I'm peeved at the cosying upto Saudi, Brexit will make her or break her for me, if onlY we had a viable opposition 

[Fairy In Boots]

 I love how they completely miss everything he say's and just jumps on one comment. Verhofstadt does absolutely nothing to dispel the myth that Belgium is only famous for two things.

[Kowabunga]

On 4/4/2017 at 11:10 AM, Panflute said:

Also, isn't it telling that the EU selected the Guy Verhofstadt (you know, the gap-toothed overweight Papist who looks like an elderly lesbian) as negotiator? One of the most rabid pro-EU politicians and opponents of Farage is going to negotiate on behalf of the EU. Diplomacy!

TBF, the most adamant about a FUCK U UK, FUCK U UK message, has been Manfred Weber, by far.

Edited April 6, 2017 by Kowabunga

[Honey Honey]

Manfred Weber is a clown in comparison to not only Verhofstadt but every politician in Europe. Verhofstadt to be fair gave an Ok speech yesterday, all things considered. Probably only 2 bitter nonsense comments from him in it, the bizarre jibe at a John Major comment on the common currency and then calling people stupid.

Nigel Farage on the other hand showed largely that he is a wanker who can't help but live life by the idea that "foreigners don't like it up em"

Constantly winding up the EU fanatics connected to other nations is not a good approach. It might have been before the vote but it isn't now.

Dan Hannan needs to be the leading UK voice in the European Parliament, not Nigel trying to get YouTube hits and Daily Express credits.

 

Likewise if you are on the EU/remain side it's not a good idea to make comments that fuel British nationalism and national identity.

There's no class these days. Just man childs.