Brexit: Now What? Part II

[catsmate]

No it means keep out people who have no chance of making it in this country.

Expect the EU to exclude useless Britons then.

And keep out people who are violent and have criminal records to prove that.

You do know that this was a myth?

 

[CapelDodger]

That's not the way referendums work. In any case there is the fallacy of splitting the leave voters into sections while leaving the remain voters all in one group. You should similarly split the remain voters into groups like:

Do as Cameron tells me

What a strange world you imagine out there. Have you ever visited?

Don't want to risk my savings

Tell me, do these imaginary people who "do as Cameron tells them" want to risk their savings?

Worried I won't be able to go to Majorca for cheap holidays

Again it's not obvious why this concern would be mutually exclusive with the others.

Keep my house price (and my second/third/... house prices high)

Again, not an exclusive concern

I have an overpaid job because of our EU membership.

That must be a very small group, and again is likely to have concerns about their house-prices and the rest of it. Apart from their desire to "do what Cameron tells them", which is a bizarre enough idea to be worth repeated. I mean, wtf?

(Plenty of people do what Murdoch tells them, but he was telling them to leave - in Europe Murdoch is a small fish with little influence, but in an isolated UK he holds governments in his palm.)

If you did that then you might find that the best you could do would be to please one of the leave groups.

The best one could do is please one of the mutually exclusive Leave groups because they're, you know, mutually exclusive. It's obviously possible to please the Remainers because they all want the same thing - what they already enjoy.

 

[catsmate]

I never said we couldn't compete globally while in the EU, the point is that we don't need to be in the EU to do that.

So why hasn't the UK been embracing those opportunities you claim now exist?

I strongly doubt that we'll get a bad deal.

They want tariff free access to our market just as much as we want access to theirs.

Not true, look at the numbers.

We account for 16% of the EU's exports.

And they account for 50% of yours.

There will be mutual backscratching, but we will be exempt from EU laws such as these:

And you won't be part of the EU block when negotiating.

And by coming out of that, we are free to negotiate free trade deals with any country or bloc. Switzerland has more free trade agreements than the EU. We can too.

Sigh. The UK is a far smaller economy than the UK, you'll be screwed. Not least because of your lack of expertise.

We can transparently and openly negotiate deals and keep the public informed of the details, instead of having secretive panic causing TTIP style discussions behind closed doors.

Oh good grief...

 

[CapelDodger]

Expect the EU to exclude useless Britons then.

Another use for the 11+.

 

[catsmate]

The EU accounts for less than 44.6% of UK exports, the trade balance between the UK and EU has been in decline since 1999.

Not true. Go look at the numbers.

It is presently still an important market, I'll give you that, but you over inflate it's importance.

Half your exports isn't important?

At the very least the proposals present in trade deals should not be secret from MPs of all parties.

Yes they should. MPs leak details, including half-truths, for personal/party advantage.

The level of secrecy involved with TTIP played a big part in undermining public confidence in the unelected EU Commission.

Citations for this claim?

 

[catsmate]

Technically 'said' as DECC is no more, but yes renewables are generally more expensive.

The last detailed price comparison was done by DECC. I suggest you look at the numbers before making further silly claims.

 

[catsmate]

British export in services amounts to $140 billion a year, and this actually excludes travel, transport and banking.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindus...e/bulletins/internationaltradeinservices/2014

Wind turbines amount to 3.2% of UK good exports, a paltry $15 billion. Services are the largest single sector of British exports, followed by machinery.

You may also want to read the second paragraph in the Main points section of the link I cited. Have a tissue ready.

McHrozni

Plus, and this is a really important part, much of the UK's exports are dependent on imported materials. Something that's adversely effecting competitiveness given the Sterling plunge.

 

[catsmate]

Here's another take on Brexit, Economist Roger Bootle's opinion:


Full article here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...?WTmcid=tmgoff_soc_spf_fb&WT.mc_id=sf35729043

I see the Telegraph is trotting out their tame Euroskeptic again.

 

[catsmate]

And spouting nonsense at a professional level.

If it comes to it, even the 10pc tariff on cars would be more than compensated by the lower exchange rate for the pound.

Wouldn't the lower exchange rate for the pound translate into lower purchasing power of an average Brit as well? That's usually the case. What would compensate that, exactly?

And if the City loses passporting rights, that isn’t a killer blow either. The key requirement is to be outside the EU’s icy regulatory embrace. In the long term, securing this would be well worth enduring some short-term loss.

If this were true there would be no significant financial centers on the continent. The presensce of alternatives to London - Frankfurt, Paris, Amsterdam, Dublin and more - directly disproves this idiotic 'point'. The key requirement is to be able to sell the products within the EU. Guess what that requires?

He also tries to have it both ways:

The larger and more diverse the organisation doing the negotiations, the more difficult it is to reach agreement. In practice, this factor has been more dominant in the EU’s history than clout. The EU has been a bad trade negotiator and has signed comparatively few trade deals.

And actually, trade deals aren't always better

In any case, the importance of trade deals has been greatly over-estimated.

That's never a good sign if you're looking for serious analysis. A single instance of it - like here - is enough to cast serious doubt on the validity of the entire analysis.

There's also this little gem at the end:

About this, Sir Thingummy Whatnot, of the widget manufacturers’ lobby, understands next to nothing. By all means, listen to what he has to say; but don’t fall into the trap of believing that he knows what is in the interests of the British economy.

Basically a repeat of "let's all ignore the actual experts" stupidity.

McHrozni

I skimmed his book on Europe last year, it was similarly full of double standards and inaccuracies.

 

[catsmate]

The silly nonsense is the idea that you have to be in a clique of nations governed by Commission,

If you want access to the EU markets, you play by their rules.

tolerating the demise of British industry

UK inefficiency was more to blame, but keep with the EU blaming.

and basing everything on the services sector (which may I remind you crashed the UK economy in 2008).

Mainly down to improper regulation, which your tame experts are calling for less of now.

Yes the services sector does well out of the EU,

As does the UK, where do you think the tax revenue comes from?

but other industries don't.

Your manufacturing sector doesn't do that well worldwide.

Ford don't make cars here anymore or Transit vans (those are made in Turkey now).

So? The UK is expensive and inefficient.

The fishing industry and shipbuilding have suffered,

You overfished and couldn't compete. Your problems.

Terry's of York are no longer based in the UK only the intellectual property and branding remains of that once great company.

So what? It's cheaper to operate abroad, something that's not going to change because of Brexit unless the Conservatives actually manage to destroy the unions (as they hope).

Cadbury's have also relocated much of their manufacturing abroad.

What's with the chocolate fixation?

Companies were already leaving before Brexit and we need to find new ways of doing things.

Yes, and the process is accelerating.

UK industry sometimes needs state aid. EU rules make it very difficult to provide that aid.

To compensate for their inefficiency?

The EU is inflexible, it hasn't helped the majority of Britons.

Untrue.

It wasn't working. Now we're leaving. Get over it.

It's working fine, the UK is having a tantrum and will have o face the consequences.

 

[catsmate]

That's not the way referendums work.

There's no reason not to have a multi-option referendum using a variant of PR. It would, in fact, be fairer.

 

[catsmate]

Another use for the 11+.

Or a points based system: ask a few questions based on the Leave myths and remove points if they've bought into them. Or
Did you vote for Brexit: automatic exclusion from the EU

 

[Airfix]

If you want access to the EU markets, you play by their rules.

Only the rules to do with product safety and product standards compliance.
Not the majority of the TFEU rules which are for political union members only.

UK inefficiency was more to blame, but keep with the EU blaming.

Inefficiency couldn't be reformed without state aid.

EU rules make it harder to provide that aid.

Mainly down to improper regulation, which your tame experts are calling for less of now.

It is the EU which provides the bulk of improper regulation.

Your manufacturing sector doesn't do that well worldwide.

It does better than it does in the EU.

So? The UK is expensive and inefficient.

Partly because of EU rules and wasteful financial contributions to the EU.

You overfished and couldn't compete.

Continental fishing trawlers overfished, our boats could not compete.
As members of the EU we had to allow access to our waters.

So what? It's cheaper to operate abroad, something that's not going to change because of Brexit unless the Conservatives actually manage to destroy the unions (as they hope).

So you want to kill off manufacturing in Britain ?

What's with the chocolate fixation?

I like chocolate, don't you ?

And soon we won't have to levy customs tariffs on cocoa.

Yes, and the process is accelerating.

No, there is uncertainty, but to date no big manufacturer has left because of the referendum.

To compensate for their inefficiency?

To provide time to reform and return to profit and to provide funds for survival. It was done for the banks, so why not steel ?

It's working fine,

No, it isn't. Unless you're in banking it's a terrible bureaucratic quagmire of inefficiency waste and in some cases corruption.

the UK is having a tantrum and will have to face the consequences.

The consequences being, freedom, opportunity, not being part of the EU military programme, being able to decide our own customs tariff policy, full self governance over UK tax policies.
Freedom to nationalise anything the UK wishes to, so if we want, the railways could be returned to 100% state ownership, the NHS could be too.

 

[The Don]

I see a lot of unevidenced claims in Arifix's most recent post


edited to add....

That the UK is unable to compete in the global market because of our net contributions to the EU is laughable.

At one end of the spectrum we are being spanked by China and the developing world because their cost bases are orders of magnitude lower, their environmental legislation laughable and their workers' rights almost non-existent. If you want to found a workers' paradise by attempting to compete with the developing world on cost then I think you're going to be very disappointed.

At the other end of the spectrum we're being spanked by Germany, the Baltic states and Scandinavia on quality and innovation. As they're members of the EU, it's not the Eu to blame for that either.

IMO the "problems" with British industry are very difficult to generalise, not least because we do have some very successful UK businesses but the problems that UK businesses have, and have had include:

• Poor employer/employee relationships with plenty of blame on both sides
• Chronic under-investment resulting in outdated plant and product
• Short-termism in the boardroom with decisions being made on a three month and not ten year time horizon
• A chronically underskilled workforce due to both employer and employee attitiudes to skills development

None of which have been caused by the EU and some of which are partially ameliorated by EU-introduced legislation.

At the start of the thread which ran prior to the Brexit vote I asked how the UK will be more competitive outside the EU without it having a negative impact on workers pay and conditions, the environment or consumer rights. i never received an adequate answer.

 

[Airfix]

I see a distinct lack of understanding of what the EU is, how it works, what it's legislation is and what it's legislation is for, in the posts of remainers.

 

[The Don]

I see a distinct lack of understanding of what the EU is, how it works, what it's legislation is and what it's legislation is for, in the posts of remainers.

Has it occurred to you that if everyone else is "wrong" and that you are the only one who is "right" that it may just be possible that it's your understanding that is at fault ?

Glaring errors have been regularly and repeatedly pointed out to you but you seem to take no notice whatsoever and never even acknowledge that they have been made.

 

[Aepervius]

I see a distinct lack of understanding of what the EU is, how it works, what it's legislation is and what it's legislation is for, in the posts of remainers.

I will leave that here for the posterity.

 

[Aepervius]

That the UK is unable to compete in the global market because of our net contributions to the EU is laughable.

I think he meant rather that if Uk was outside of EU, they could bypass some rules on worker protection, bypass rules on illegal subsidy for governments to companies (Those "helps" mentionned upthread) and even bypass some protections on financial sector put in place since 2008, and make their own trade deal which would be better than the one offered to EU. Also he meant there would not be different rules on foreign worker possible as the one existing today.

How he comes to this wishful thinking I have no guesses, but I don't think he ever meant to say the net contribution financially had any effect, that would be a bit of a strawman,
I don#t see him saying that anywhere, but I may have missed it ?

 

[Airfix]

Meanwhile in EU land:
Guy Verhofstadt the EU's Brexit negotiator said:

The @EUCouncil should seriously discuss proposals in #Bratislava & commit to ambitious timetable for integration of EU military forces

https://twitter.com/GuyVerhofstadt/status/775366813836255232

Remember when the remain campaigners said there would not be an EU military?
Clegg said it, David Cameron said it, they said it wouldn't happen.

They also stressed the veto. But QMV is doing away with vetos.

The EU already has battlegroups and the Eurocorps.

This was one of my concerns.

 

[The Don]

I think he meant rather that if Uk was outside of EU, they could bypass some rules on worker protection, bypass rules on illegal subsidy for governments to companies (Those "helps" mentionned upthread) and even bypass some protections on financial sector put in place since 2008, and make their own trade deal which would be better than the one offered to EU. Also he meant there would not be different rules on foreign worker possible as the one existing today.

How he comes to this wishful thinking I have no guesses, but I don't think he ever meant to say the net contribution financially had any effect, that would be a bit of a strawman,
I don#t see him saying that anywhere, but I may have missed it ?

I got it from this exchange:

So? The UK is expensive and inefficient.

Partly because of EU rules and wasteful financial contributions to the EU.

So I read it as "wasteful financial contributions to the EU" were a significant factor in UK uncompetitiveness.