Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[Information Analyst]

You missed the point. So I'll use the analogy again to show why it's poor.

People use the club analogy to point out you can't expect to leave a club but continue to behave as though you haven't left. But you also don't leave a club but still have to pay into it.

And it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that this argument is false, for example if membership dues are paid or have fallen into arrears. A one-off closing payment to settle matters is not as outrageous as you keep trying to suggest.

If you do still pay into a club then you haven't left - you've perhaps changed your membership type from 'gold' to 'silver' or similar - and then you WOULD be able to continue to use the club but with reduced benefits.

Like those popular pre-referendum Leave suggestions of the deal Norway or Switzerland, you mean? Neither are in the EU, but pay to have some of the benefits.

 

[catsmate]

Genuine question, I don't know the answer. If there is a "no deal" break next spring, and we plunge out of the EU with nothing agreed, do we still pay the "divorce settlement" (C. £39 billion)?

That would depend on whether the UK want's to retain it's credit rating.

 

[catsmate]

When are we going to get clear of this stupid club analogy? Ex members of a golf club are not expected to pay any money to the club.

If they've signed contracts they are.

 

[Information Analyst]

There's at least one difference: You don't ruin your life by leaving club...

Although you could if it was the main centre of your social life, and that your business profited significantly from the contacts and networking you enjoyed with other members.

Damn, this comparison just gets more and more apt...!

 

[catsmate]

Some may think that this is a bit of a stretch to include in a Brexit thread, but I think it directly relates:



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44609494

It looks like there's an expectation that there's a magic money tree. IMO we're having to buy influence with the US and NATO allies because we'll no longer have the benefit of being part of the EU and hence benefit from their political, economic and diplomatic clout.

The extra £20bn a year sounds like an awful lot more than the EU contributions and it also sounds to me like we're proposing to engage in rearming. Someone in another thread (I'm sorry I forget which though it was likely in US Politics) pointed out that if you're spending all of this money on the military - it's a shame if all the kit just sits around gathering dust. I think increased military spending inevitably results in increased military adventures.

That'd be ~Stg£385M pw, or about 10% more than the mythical Stg£350M...

 

[catsmate]

I thought that the UK armed forces were for our benefit, not to be useful to the US and certainly not when the US seems to be having a bit of a democratic shortage at the moment.

Given the incipient desperation on the part of the May government and the behaviour of current US Molester-In-Chief expect to see the UK contracted for "border security" and locking children in cages...

 

[The Don]

Given the incipient desperation on the part of the May government and the behaviour of current US Molester-In-Chief expect to see the UK contracted for "border security" and locking children in cages...

Sadly I can see us doing it for free to try and maintain the "special relationship"

The UKs role in the US rendition programme a decade and more ago is IMO (yet another) cause for national shame.

 

[catsmate]

We need to rearm. Challenger two is worn out, there are plans fora major interim refurb while a replacement is developed.
Warriors are worn out they need a replacement as do the CVRT family (Scimitar and such, they have been on the go since the 70s)

This is partly covered by the introduction of the 'Boxer' family but that won't include the new tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles.

Another cost is the re-engineering of the type 45 destroyers, They need all new generating plant to fix the problems they have had with power losses, that involves cutting holes in the hull side and replacing the whole generator plant. These problems were known about when they were taken in to service from BAE and various fixes have been tried without success. When systems are stressed in combat exercises the ships completely lose power and they are dead in the water while things are restarted.
It has been identified as inadequate generating capacity and faults in the switching.

There are also big problems with the latest frigate. It has been signed off but has bad workmanship faults that need to be corrected. Contractors have skimped on a lot of the electrical fittings and one of the boat cranes had been secured with some of the bolts broken and their heads glued in to place to look finished. Also welding cracks in some of the hull plating.
It has gone back to BAE fore corrective work.

It all costs money. There are big voices demanding that work on future ships is taken from the Clyde and brought back to Portsmouth.

1. Is there really a need for a replacement MBT?
2. Most of the UK's defense equipment problems have a single source; BAe

 

[catsmate]

So is Brexit analogous to a putter, a wood or an iron?

Water hazard.

 

[catsmate]

But you also don't leave a club but still have to pay into it.

Yes you do, if you've contracted to do so. Fail.

If you do still pay into a club then you haven't left.

As I pointed out this is simply untrue.

Another thing that the club analogy misses for Brexit is the trading relationship.

Members of the club get a 15% discount in the club shop, non-members don't.
Likewise those showing their membership card get discounts at other enterprises due to connections to the club. Non-members (i.e. the UK) don't.

 

[catsmate]

The club analogy for the new trade deal would be the ex member turning round and saying something like "of course I'll still want to play on the golf course, so you'll do me a good deal on green fees and a discount in the shop etc won't you?". No, you'll pay the full non-member prices, and you'll still have to obey the club rules though you will no longer have any say in what they are.

Like not being able to play during "members only" times.

Curiously my brother is now secretary of a golf club hence I have some knowledge of the inanity of such institutions.

 

[Andy_Ross]

1. Is there really a need for a replacement MBT?
2. Most of the UK's defense equipment problems have a single source; BAe

Yes we do need a new MBT. If we don't have one we give up high intensity warfare and we are no use to NATO
All we will be able to do is the low intensity 'insurgeny stuff'.

There is talk of a life extension for the Challenger 2.
This involves re-engineering the suspension and engine etc to extend the life of the chassis and reworking the turret to take the 120mm smoothbore gun as used by US and Germany etc.
The gun is the most important job, the existing rifled 120mm is not able to use the latest and more lethal ammunition that has been developed over the last ten years or so.

As for BAE, I agree. Babcock should be getting more work and the new Destroyers and Frigate building shouldn't have been moved from Portsmouth.
It only went to the Clyde to keep the Scots happy after the Devolution referendum.
Too late to bring it back though, the yard has gone in Portsmouth.

 

[Lothian]

Well to be serious for a moment, as I understand it the UK is prevented from signing new trade deals until we have left the EU on 29 March 2019 so it's not unreasonable that none have been signed.

Dr Liam Fox assured us all that there are however 40 deals ready to sign on the 30 March 2019 and doubtless they will be signed on that date and be far better than the shabby deals we had with those countries when we were labouring under the yoke of EU oppression.

If in the transition period we remain in the Customs union I understand we would not be able to sign new deals during that period eitehr. It could be 2021 before the first deal is signed. I imagine that with all the anticipation that first signing would be quite an event. There won't be a hotel room to be had in Malé to see Prime Minister BoJo sign the first deal.

 

[Darat]

If in the transition period we remain in the Customs union I understand we would not be able to sign new deals during that period eitehr. It could be 2021 before the first deal is signed. I imagine that with all the anticipation that first signing would be quite an event. There won't be a hotel room to be had in Malé to see Prime Minister BoJo sign the first deal.

To be slightly serious I thought part of a transition deal was that we could start to negotiate with countries but not start the agreements until the transition agreement ended?

 

[Lothian]

To be slightly serious I thought part of a transition deal was that we could start to negotiate with countries but not start the agreements until the transition agreement ended?

I think that is the same as what I said albeit I said it with more spelling mistakes. At least it is what I meant to say. We can't benefit from new trade deals until after transition.

 

[Darat]

I think that is the same as what I said albeit I said it with more spelling mistakes. At least it is what I meant to say. We can't benefit from new trade deals until after transition.

The difference is that we can't legally at the moment start actual negotiations with another country, but in the transition period we would legally be able to do so.

Mind you I don't know if this is one of those comforting lies I remember being told and I'm clinging to like Linus' security blanket.

 

[Lothian]

The difference is that we can't legally at the moment start actual negotiations with another country, but in the transition period we would legally be able to do so.

Mind you I don't know if this is one of those comforting lies I remember being told and I'm clinging to like Linus' security blanket.

I understood we could not currently start formal negotiations but if we were to, let say nudge nudge, discuss what we each might want to say in the purely hypothetical chance that we do decide to enter formal negotiations at a later date that wouldn't be wrong, surely?
Otherwise it begs the question how would Liam Fox be able to say they have 40 deals ready to sign?

Edited to add.

I would have thought we could come up with a quick hit list of small countries were we can persuade them to sign a similar agreement as we currently have. Getting a better deal or even a comparable deal with any large nation is going to be a lot harder. Apart from America, of course. Trump promised to put us at the head of the the queue to make Britain Great again.

In 2 years since the vote with the EU we have yet to agree a single element of a future trade deal

 

[P.J. Denyer]

So is Brexit analogous to a putter, a wood or an iron?

None of the above. It's analogous to the loud mouthed drunk in the club bar who no-one has ever seen hit a stroke.

 

[The Don]

Otherwise it begs the question how would Liam Fox be able to say they have 40 deals ready to sign?

As I understood it, this assumes that countries will be happy to "roll over" the agreements that they have in place with the EU to the UK only.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43581729

This of course means that the UK will have to continue to abide by EU rules because if there is divergence, then it's not a rollover.

I think that Liam Fox is being over-optimistic. Even if he has been given a nod and a wink that this will happen, once the counties have a little think about the situation, at least some may see the opportunity to try and extract additional concessions from the UK and then we're into full trade negotiations.

 

[Aber]

Even if he has been given a nod and a wink that this will happen, once the counties have a little think about the situation, at least some may see the opportunity to try and extract additional concessions from the UK and then we're into full trade negotiations.

There are of course some countries where it would be reasonable to give concessions - main category would be those supplying agricultural produce that can't be grown in the UK.