Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks...

[Worm]

Anyway, quick question please, and forgive me for not knowing your (and the EU's) history very well:

When (or if) this goes down; how long will it have been since the UK saw that amount of independence (not sure if I even want to use that word, but I think that gets my point accross)? The 1970s? All the way back to WWII??


In other words, and I know that sometimes not all situations are comparable, but if you had to say "This sets us back to XXXX." What year would be most appropriate?

In simple terms, I would probably say 1973 - when we joined the EU (though it wasn't called that at the time). But it's not that simple, because the world has moved on since then. The EU is a different entity, and global economies are very different. I simply do not have the knowledge to make a clear comparison.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Just an American stopping by here again to say good luck and I hope the politicians in the UK grow some balls.

Thank you, it is appreciated. I think we've reached the point that all we really have left now is the kind wishes of our friends.

When (or if) this goes down; how long will it have been since the UK saw that amount of independence (not sure if I even want to use that word, but I think that gets my point accross)? The 1970s? All the way back to WWII??


In other words, and I know that sometimes not all situations are comparable, but if you had to say "This sets us back to XXXX." What year would be most appropriate?

Brexiters mention 1973 [ETA: Ninja'd by Worm] a lot, but it isn't really true. The situation isn't directly comparable to any time in the past. unless you're a disproportionately huge market there's no meaningful independence from other country's rules and standards if you want to trade with them and our businesses are so intertwined with those of other countries that turning the clock back is simply fantasy.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

In simple terms, I would probably say 1973 - when we joined the EU (though it wasn't called that at the time). But it's not that simple, because the world has moved on since then. The EU is a different entity, and global economies are very different. I simply do not have the knowledge to make a clear comparison.

I don't know because my memory doesn't go back that far but in 1973 did we have NO international trade agreements at all? Because that is where we will end up with a no deal Brexit and I find it unlikely that we didn't have any in 1973.

In the event of a no deal I reckon we would take a good 5 - 15 years to get back to 1973 status. And that would only leave us about 50 years behind the rest of Europe.

 

[wobs]

You'd think by now people would have noticed that, no matter how solemnly the Tories promise to reduce immigration during election campaigns, they always actually allow it to increase.

The baby boomer generation is retiring, and the ratio of workers to pensioners is dropping like a stone. Pensioners are going to have to decide if they really would rather lie in their own **** than have someone who doesn't look and sound exactly like them wiping their bottoms for them.

I now have a different mental image of "Free Movement". Thanks.

 

[GnaGnaMan]

Anyway, quick question please, and forgive me for not knowing your (and the EU's) history very well:

When (or if) this goes down; how long will it have been since the UK saw that amount of independence (not sure if I even want to use that word, but I think that gets my point accross)? The 1970s? All the way back to WWII??

In other words, and I know that sometimes not all situations are comparable, but if you had to say "This sets us back to XXXX." What year would be most appropriate?

The problem with 1973 is that at the time the UK was in EFTA, European Free Trade Area. In terms of Brexit this is known as the Norway option since Norway still is in EFTA.

EFTA was originally founded as an alternative to the EU-predecessor (EEC). The idea was to have a free trade zone without the political integration. It did not work very well and so most EFTA members joined the EEC/EU. In fairness, one might make the argument that EFTA has changed so much that EFTA membership then is not comparable to the Norway option now.

EFTA was founded in 1960 with the UK as a founding member. So maybe that is the year.

The problem there is the British Empire. If you had talked about British independence in 1960, anyone would have assumed that you meant independence from Britain. In 1960 Britain still had numerous African colonies. If you go back to WW2 you find that the whole of the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) is under British Rule.

Britain moved pretty seamlessly from fading world domination to European integration. The UK never had this kind of independence.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And if we are talking about the impending independence of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland then we are back to the 17th century.

 

[Darat]

Erm, the war finished in 1945.

We've always been at war with Luxembourg.

 

[Mid]

Not sure if people have seen it but there's an interesting speech by Ivan Rogers (the UK ambassador to the EU till 2017) on 9 lessons from Brexit. Full speech here:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

Summary here:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-rogers-brexit-bombshell-digested-home-truths

It's not really complementary of any of the major actors in UK politics.

I found this part particularly well put:

As for the Prime Minister’s proposed model, the entire EU knows that where we have now reached derives from her putting the ending of free movement of people well above all other objectives, and privileging as near frictionless trade in goods as she can get over the interests of UK services sectors.

They are unsurprised by the former but surprised – sometimes gleefully by the latter, as it seems to point precisely to a deal skewed in their favour.

We have essentially sacrificed all ambition on services sectors in return for ending free movement, sold the latter as a boon (when amongst other things, it clearly diminishes the value of a UK passport), and presented the former as a regaining of sovereignty, when it guarantees a major loss of market access in much our largest export market.

Well, by all means argue for it. I fully accept that control of borders – albeit with much confusion about the bit we already have control over, but year after year fail, under this Government, to achieve any control of – was a central referendum issue.

But don’t argue it’s the only feasible Brexit. Or that it’s an economically rational one.

And also just below it this part:

Fifth lesson: If WTO terms or existing EU preferential deals are not good enough for the UK in major third country markets, they can’t be good enough for trade with our largest market.

 

[Darat]

Consultant for nearly twenty years. Worked for over a hundred clients, up to hundred thousand seats. Work for large financial sector company active in sixty plus countries which is active in real planning for Brexit.
Plus a pair of doctorates.

Yours?

She's watched Dad's Army and 'Allo' Allo.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Not sure if people have seen it but there's an interesting speech by Ivan Rogers (the UK ambassador to the EU till 2017) on 9 lessons from Brexit. Full speech here:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

Summary here:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-rogers-brexit-bombshell-digested-home-truths

It's not really complementary of any of the major actors in UK politics.

I found this part particularly well put:



And also just below it this part:

A really good article and one of many similar ones that I have seen doing the rounds that set out succinctly and in a factual way the issues with Brexit. None of these have ever been countered by anything more than barking from the Leavers.

The dishonesty of all involved and the continued favouring of courting a section of public opinion over and above telling the truth to the people of the country is shameful and it afflicts both Tory and Labour equally.

 

[wobs]

You want People's Vote? What options would be put on the ballot paper? That is a tricky question:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-deal-negotiation-eu-parliament-a8686776.html

 

[Ian Osborne]

Does anyone have any idea what Labour's Brexit position is? I can't help feeling we might not be going down the pan so badly if we had a solid opposition.

 

[Tolls]

Um, we've thrashed this out here and I can't see the issue with Remain/May Deal/No Deal using AV. That article really doesn't explain it what their issue with that is terribly well.

You could rename "No Deal" as "Shoot ourselves in the head" if you want, but those really are our only options.

 

[Andy_Ross]

She's watched Dad's Army and 'Allo' Allo.

Don't forget Duty Free.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Does anyone have any idea what Labour's Brexit position is? I can't help feeling we might not be going down the pan so badly if we had a solid opposition.

Judging by some of their tweets of late the Labour position on Brexit seems to be that the SNP are bad.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Um, we've thrashed this out here and I can't see the issue with Remain/May Deal/No Deal using AV. That article really doesn't explain it what their issue with that is terribly well.

You could rename "No Deal" as "Shoot ourselves in the head" if you want, but those really are our only options.

Indeed it can only be a 3-way question on the available deal or no deal or staying in the EU. However that is asked.

Alternatively, you could probably get away with saying that since nobody but a nutter would go with no deal the question should be 'Do we leave the EU on the negotiated terms?' with Yes meaning accept the deal and no meaning remain.

 

[Michel H]

What do you think about Theresa May's decision to delay vote on her Brexit withdrawal deal, in the House of Commons? Is this yet another "bad calculation" by the Prime Minister (like when she called a general election, in 2017, only to lose it), which will lead to unnecessary waste of time in a difficult situation? Or is it the smart tactical thing to do, in order to optimize her chances of winning that vote?

 

[Darat]

Brexit is going to have to be put on the back burner whilst our parliament deals with the serious emergency engulfing the UK.

 

[Michel H]

Indeed it can only be a 3-way question on the available deal or no deal or staying in the EU. However that is asked.

Alternatively, you could probably get away with saying that since nobody but a nutter would go with no deal the question should be 'Do we leave the EU on the negotiated terms?' with Yes meaning accept the deal and no meaning remain.

This sounds like a clever idea, but I wonder if Theresa May would like that.

 

[The Moog]

Not sure if people have seen it but there's an interesting speech by Ivan Rogers (the UK ambassador to the EU till 2017) on 9 lessons from Brexit. Full speech here:

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

Summary here:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-rogers-brexit-bombshell-digested-home-truths

It's not really complementary of any of the major actors in UK politics.

Thanks for this.
Lots of things I did not know. It is still stunning quite how badly May has handled every single thing.