Brexit discussion

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by pip08456

It's also possible you won't wake up tomorrow. Does that mean that you won't?

Nope. Just that I could. Which is exactly the point. I've no idea what you're trying to say with this. The guy was simply stating a fact, a pretty self-evident one, that you don't need to be a logician to grasp, and the headline accurately summarised it.

---------- Post added at 10:29 ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 ----------

All the stuff above aside what are people expecting from Theresa May tomorrow in Florence?

---------- Post added at 10:35 ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 ----------

Originally Posted by Mr K

So Brexiters voted for something that they don't have a clue how it will turn out ? Just hoping, against all odds ? Hell of a gamble and so far it isn't looking good.

Our Government can't even agree with itself let alone 27 other countries. The PM and chancellor hearts aren't really in it, they campaigned for remain after all, they can see the disaster unfolding, just a matter of damage limitation and how they can wangle it best for their own careers. As for Boris, he's certifiably mad. All these characters will be ok whatever. They are protected by wealth. The rest of the British public will suffer badly.

True, as of right now that seems to be the direction, but although time is running out there is still time for a reboot of the whole thing, and for them to get a grip.

From what I've read business is desperately looking for something concrete from tomorrow's speech.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...in-loses-jobs/

Is one example. There are others from other sectors all over the place though.

She absolutely has to nail this. 'Brexit means Brexit and we're going to make a success of it' isn't going to cut it.

I had hoped that I was going to finish my life in uninteresting times. I guess everyone else got bored with that idea..

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I don't want any more of this nonsense. I want us to get our economy back on an even keel, making decisions in line with the wishes of the people of this country, investing in the right things and developing our trade with the rest of the world, which is what we do best as a country.

I'm afraid a major, major problem is that making decisions in line with the wishes of the people doesn't necessary go alongside getting the economy back on an even keel, investing in the right things or developing global trade.

One of the most unpopular policies from the last election was intended to get the economy back on an even keel and people rarely vote for tax rises or spending cuts.

As far as what we do best goes the world is very, very different from the pre-EEC days, the UK economy is very, very different and what our trade partners want from us is very, very different.

It's also debatable whether the will of the people as it stands now is pro-globalisation.

Are you in favour of the UK going along the lines of Singapore, would you prefer the UK to become more of a social democracy, or do you envisage it remaining roughly as it is in terms of the balance between state and private sector, and the level of regulation?

The words sound great, what is your vision to achieve them?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I'm afraid a major, major problem is that making decisions in line with the wishes of the people doesn't necessary go alongside getting the economy back on an even keel, investing in the right things or developing global trade.

One of the most unpopular policies from the last election was intended to get the economy back on an even keel and people rarely vote for tax rises or spending cuts.

As far as what we do best goes the world is very, very different from the pre-EEC days, the UK economy is very, very different and what our trade partners want from us is very, very different.

It's also debatable whether the will of the people as it stands now is pro-globalisation.

Are you in favour of the UK going along the lines of Singapore, would you prefer the UK to become more of a social democracy, or do you envisage it remaining roughly as it is in terms of the balance between state and private sector, and the level of regulation?

The words sound great, what is your vision to achieve them?

We all know that austerity measures have been unpopular, but they have succeeded in reducing our deficit by about three quarters. This was necessary, because until that deficit is eliminated, the interest we are paying on that colossal sum will continue to increase. It would have been better to have continued with Osbourne's original plan for that reason, but the Government bowed to public pressure and eased off, which means of course that there will be even more debt to repay by the time the deficit is eliminated.

I do not disagree that much has changed since pre-EEC days, but the principles of free trade are still there, in fact many tariffs that used to be imposed have been eliminated or reduced. The EU has restricted our ability to trade freely and make new deals and these shackles will be removed when we get out.

The public voted to leave the EU. That also means leaving the Common Market and the Customs Union, because unless we do this, we cannot control immigration and we cannot make our own trade deals. That would contradict the logic of leaving and this half way house would be a shocking disappointment and a disaster for this country.

All this talk about a Singapore type country emerging from all this is hype and complete overkill. The reason the Government has unleashed the potential of such an arrangement is to bring the EU to its senses sooner rather than later in the negotiation. We would only have that outcome if the EU folded its arms and refused to negotiate. But the point is, they will negotiate, because it is in our joint interests to do so. We are only in the posturing stage at the moment, and after the German elections, we can look forward to Angela Merkel taking a firm steer on these negotiations which will result in a sensible outcome.

The thing that many remainers can't get their heads around is that a deal with the EU is by far the most likely outcome and that Britain will benefit both from being able to trade on reasonable terms with the EU and make its own trade deals while at the same time controlling immigration and making our own laws.

The thought of Britain behaving a la Singapore right on their doorstep frightens the EU to death because that would introduce huge unwelcome competition that obviously they wouldn't want. They would also be putting their own economies at risk and increasing unemployment if the EU introduced tariffs to reduce their trade with us.

This is why David Davis has a permanent grin on his face. Unless the EU is completely bonkers, he knows they will capitulate eventually. If Canada can do a trade deal without suffering huge EU encumbrancies, and other countries all over the world can also do so without trade deals, then so can we.

The only real question that remains, stripping away all the hype, is how long the transition period will be (and this depends on the result of the negotiation because until we know what is agreed, we don't know what the length of that period will be) and the price of the divorce bill. And that will be based on legal obligations and a fair price to get a good settlement.

[Ignitionnet]

Here's a piece from Iain Martin, a journalist who certainly supports Brexit but who, like Dominic Cummings, is alarmed by the way the Government is going about implementing it.

Paywalled.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...bf4cc0cc72404c

Anyone who has ever worked for a large business or serious organisation will be aware of the need for proper forward planning. Under the cover of all that annoying talk about strategy and “blue-sky thinking”, good companies think ahead and ask practical questions. What are we going to do next year to make more money? What could go wrong? What decisions have to be taken now to avert potential difficulties?

It is in this context, with business and the wider country asking what the precise plan is for Brexit, that the prime minister’s make or break speech in Florence tomorrow should be seen. In the last year business leaders have been messed around enough by the Tories, who all but branded them crooks in their manifesto. Before they lose what little faith they have left in British statecraft and start signing off on emergency preparations for the UK crashing out in a shambolic fashion, May has to produce a clear plan on the sequencing for Brexit.

“Do these politicians not understand how the world works? I’m already having meetings where we’re talking in detail about the second half of next year,” says a senior executive in a leading City firm. “Before you know it we’ll be talking about 2019.” And we all know what is supposed to happen in March of that year.

With that immovable exit date drawing near, it is no exaggeration to say that failure in Florence would constitute something close to a national economic disaster. Unless it is possible by teatime on Friday to give a crisp summary of three key points that would fit in small writing on the back of a business card then May will have failed and business will know it and prepare accordingly.

Other than politicians engaging in demagoguery, the odd journalist, and random people online who seem to take criticism of the process personally and the words of people like Nigel Farage as gospel, I'm not aware of anyone who thinks the UK leaving the EU abruptly in 2019 without any kind of transitional arrangements and going straight to WTO is a good idea.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Here's a piece from Iain Martin, a journalist who certainly supports Brexit but who, like Dominic Cummings, is alarmed by the way the Government is going about implementing it.

Paywalled.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...bf4cc0cc72404c



Other than politicians engaging in demagoguery, the odd journalist, and random people online who seem to take criticism of the process personally and the words of people like Nigel Farage as gospel, I'm not aware of anyone who thinks the UK leaving the EU abruptly in 2019 without any kind of transitional arrangements and going straight to WTO is a good idea.

That includes the Government and the EU itself, which is why there will be a deal that includes a transitional period of about 2 years, during which we will continue making contributions to the EU.

Incidentally, you asked also about the type of Government I envisaged once we leave the EU. I found that surprising, as surely this will be determined by the voters at General Elections.

However, I do think that a Conservative Government under strong leadership would be best placed to make a success of Brexit. I am beginning to have doubts about whether Theresa May is up to it, given everything that's happened, but I think she deserves a chance to redeem herself after that disastrous election campaign.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

We all know that austerity measures have been unpopular, but they have succeeded in reducing our deficit by about three quarters. This was necessary, because until that deficit is eliminated, the interest we are paying on that colossal sum will continue to increase. It would have been better to have continued with Osbourne's original plan for that reason, but the Government bowed to public pressure and eased off, which means of course that there will be even more debt to repay by the time the deficit is eliminated.

A number of people have said that austerity was a mistake and actually prolonged the period of time it took to reduce the deficit. It barely budged until austerity was loosened and more spent on investment.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I do not disagree that much has changed since pre-EEC days, but the principles of free trade are still there, in fact many tariffs that used to be imposed have been eliminated or reduced. The EU has restricted our ability to trade freely and make new deals and these shackles will be removed when we get out.

That's one that's been done to death so won't revisit.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The public voted to leave the EU. That also means leaving the Common Market and the Customs Union, because unless we do this, we cannot control immigration and we cannot make our own trade deals. That would contradict the logic of leaving and this half way house would be a shocking disappointment and a disaster for this country.

Ditto.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

All this talk about a Singapore type country emerging from all this is hype and complete overkill. The reason the Government has unleashed the potential of such an arrangement is to bring the EU to its senses sooner rather than later in the negotiation. We would only have that outcome if the EU folded its arms and refused to negotiate. But the point is, they will negotiate, because it is in our joint interests to do so. We are only in the posturing stage at the moment, and after the German elections, we can look forward to Angela Merkel taking a firm steer on these negotiations which will result in a sensible outcome.

I'm afraid a study simulating various Brexit scenarios indicated that the UK dropping to WTO terms would have a marginal impact on Germany, an even more marginal one relative to a comprehensive FTA, and far more of an impact on the UK.

It is of course in their interests to negotiate, however it's also in our interests to present a realistic position which, so far, we haven't. Friday may change this. Angela Merkel doesn't control the negotiations, and cannot unilaterally change the negotiating position. A deal requires consensus and to change the negotiating parameters requires much the same.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The thing that many remainers can't get their heads around is that a deal with the EU is by far the most likely outcome and that Britain will benefit both from being able to trade on reasonable terms with the EU and make its own trade deals while at the same time controlling immigration and making our own laws.

As of right now it's debatable what the most likely course of events is. The majority view across the political spectrum seems to be that we're heading for WTO.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

The thought of Britain behaving a la Singapore right on their doorstep frightens the EU to death because that would introduce huge unwelcome competition that obviously they wouldn't want. They would also be putting their own economies at risk and increasing unemployment if the EU introduced tariffs tonreduce their trade with us.

There is no way the UK will behave a la Singapore. Any government that tried would be voted out extremely rapidly. Singapore's tax burden is less than half ours, and they have the public services and social security safety net to match that low taxation.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

This is why David Davis jas a permanent grin on his face. Unless the EU is completely bonkers, he knows they will capitulate eventually. If Canada can do a trade deal without suffering huge EU encumbrancies, and other countries all over the world can also do so without trade deals, then so can we.

Indeed we can, however I'm not sure about use of capitulation as a turn of phrase and I always considered that permanent grin on DD's face to be wind. A CETA-like FTA wouldn't actually resolve many of the problems of the WTO model for us, it would not soothe the concerns of business and, so far, very little progress has been made on either side. A game of chicken suits no-one - we would lose more - so Friday is important in putting aside the demagoguery, ceasing playing politics to wag the dog and presenting a way forward.

There's no need for any capitulation; there's every need for co-operation.

It's interesting your statements seem to hinge on the assumption that the EU's behaviour will be guided purely by economic considerations. I believe many criticisms of the EU focused on its behaviour not being guided purely by economic considerations, and certainly the cases made for the UK to leave the EU were not guided by economic considerations. Let's hope that, for the first time in this affair, such considerations take precedence over politics, emotions, and vague abstract notions.

While most of the EU aren't extremists like Juncker there are, much as here, a number of people in places of power that will not act pragmatically.

This article from CBC Canada is interesting. In fact, most of the more interesting articles are produced not in the UK or Europe but by third nations in my experience.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Indeed we can, however I'm not sure about use of capitulation as a turn of phrase and I always considered that permanent grin on DD's face to be wind. A CETA-like FTA wouldn't actually resolve many of the problems of the WTO model for us, it would not soothe the concerns of business and, so far, very little progress has been made on either side. A game of chicken suits no-one - we would lose more - so Friday is important in putting aside the demagoguery, ceasing playing politics to wag the dog and presenting a way forward.

There's no need for any capitulation; there's every need for co-operation.

It's interesting your statements seem to hinge on the assumption that the EU's behaviour will be guided purely by economic considerations. I believe many criticisms of the EU focused on its behaviour not being guided purely by economic considerations, and certainly the cases made for the UK to leave the EU were not guided by economic considerations. Let's hope that, for the first time in this affair, such considerations take precedence over politics, emotions, and vague abstract notions.

While most of the EU aren't extremists like Juncker there are, much as here, a number of people in places of power that will not act pragmatically.

This article from CBC Canada is interesting. In fact, most of the more interesting articles are produced not in the UK or Europe but by third nations in my experience.

Capitulation means backing down, and in this case, agreeing to what is common sense. We all know that there's not much of that quality at the EU Commission, which is why our Government is going over their heads to speak to EU countries, who will have a much more pragmatic approach. Almost certainly, Angela Merkel will take the lead as the largest economy, and she will inject some sense into the proceedings. Expect her influence being felt after the German elections. Barnier and Junker are a joke, best ignored.

David Davis is supremely confident that there will be an outbreak of common sense before long, and the longer it takes for the EU to see the light, the more stupid they are going to look.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Capitulation means backing down, and in this case, agreeing to what is common sense. We all know that there's not much of that quality at the EU Commission, which is why our Government is going over their heads to speak to EU countries, who will have a much more pragmatic approach. Almost certainly, Angela Merkel will take the lead as the largest economy, and she will inject some sense into the proceedings. Expect her influence being felt after the German elections. Barnier and Junker are a joke, best ignored.

David Davis is supremely confident that there will be an outbreak of common sense before long, and the longer it takes for the EU to see the light, the more stupid they are going to look.

Sadly these people refuse to accept that. They can't accept they're ever wrong or out of touch. They've never made any mistakes, any problems within the EU can only be solved by more of the same. They've created for themselves their own little cloud cuckoo land empire from which they and their ilk singlemindedly go about the business of leading the EU down the garden path to disaster. They hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe. Their arrogance is as astonishing as their intransigence and quite why anyone with any common sense would have any faith in that vision is beyond me. It's telling that in spite of all the problems the EU faces the usual suspects only ever have time to talk the UK down, rubbish our own side and suck up, without question, the usual Brussels propaganda like suckling pigs at the teat. The only questions they have are for their own government which is doing what the majority who voted at the referendum demanded and they dare to call their constant attempts to derail the process democracy.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Are you in favour of the UK going along the lines of Singapore, would you prefer the UK to become more of a social democracy, or do you envisage it remaining roughly as it is in terms of the balance between state and private sector, and the level of regulation?

The words sound great, what is your vision to achieve them?

I would like Old Boy to expand on his answers to these interesting questions, if he has time.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I would like Old Boy to expand on his answers to these interesting questions, if he has time.

I am not advocating the Singapore option for our trading arrangements, but a low tax economy would certainly be an attractive option for Britain if the EU refused to agree to an amicable arrangement with the UK.

As for the balance between the public and private sector, I think we should apply whatever is most efficient. Some things are best done in the private sector, some in the public sector. I really think we pay far too much attention to which sector is providing the service. Some would have the public sector doing everything, just for the sake of it.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

I am not advocating the Singapore option for our trading arrangements, but a low tax economy would certainly be an attractive option for Britain if the EU refused to agree to an amicable arrangement with the UK.

As for the balance between the public and private sector, I think we should apply whatever is most efficient. Some things are best done in the private sector, some in the public sector. I really think we pay far too much attention to which sector is providing the service. Some would have the public sector doing everything, just for the sake of it.

Many thanks, Old Boy. The issue I envisage is that 80% of our exports are services, we're not a manufacturing country like Germany or Poland although that's not to undermine the likes of Vauxhall and Nissan to specific parts of the country (Wirral, Sunderland).

The issues are:
- Services are delivered locally due to time zone constraints, travel, cultural differences etc.
- The delivery of services to the EU (our largest services market with 400m customers) is dependent upon common standards. The Swiss and Norwegians get this and are EEA members ie rule-takers and budget contributors not rule-makers. Why should we expect a better deal than Switzerland, one of the richest countries in the world?
- Developing countries in the Middle East which might substitute for some of the European market are quite protectionist and don't necessarily share our values in the way that European countries do.
- The EU has been the most successful body at concluding trade deals. It's not holding us back. Which significant opportunities are we being denied that leaving the EU will open up?

---------- Post added at 23:33 ---------- Previous post was at 21:40 ----------

Interesting poll 52% of the country wants to remain in the EU.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7960226.html

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Interesting poll 52% of the country wants to remain in the EU.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7960226.html

Absolute cobblers and irrelevant. Sample data and poll numbers are with margin of error. For a start they have not indicated how they conducted the poll and what areas they targeted for votes.

Poll after poll shows that these polls cannot be relied upon. These same polls that said Theresa May would have still got a majority in June snap election. These same polls that said Hillary Clinton would become President of the United States.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Mick

Absolute cobblers and irrelevant. Sample data and poll numbers are with margin of error. For a start they have not indicated how they conducted the poll and what areas they targeted for votes.

Poll after poll shows that these polls cannot be relied upon. These same polls that said Theresa May would have still got a majority in June snap election. These same polls that said Hillary Clinton would become President of the United States.

... and so it continues. The usual nonsense trying to undermine a perfectly clear and legitimate referendum outcome by those who claim to be interested in democracy but who do so only when it yields what they want. When they don't get their way rather than accepting the outcome as so many of them claim to be doing, they beaver away trying to delay, complicate and eventually overturn it by any means they can. That's their agenda. These people are only interested in one thing and make no mistake, that will mean not only remaining in the EU but ensuring measures are put in place to effectively prevent us ever leaving. That's how desperate, duplicitous and despicable these people are.

[jonbxx]

Originally Posted by Osem

... and so it continues. The usual nonsense trying to undermine a perfectly clear and legitimate referendum outcome by those who claim to be interested in democracy but who do so only when it yields what they want. When they don't get their way rather than accepting the outcome as so many of them claim to be doing, they beaver away trying to delay, complicate and eventually overturn it by any means they can. That's their agenda. These people are only interested in one thing and make no mistake, that will mean not only remaining in the EU but ensuring measures are put in place to effectively prevent us ever leaving. That's how desperate, duplicitous and despicable these people are.

So what's the best outcome in your opinion? Hard Brexit, no trade deal? I think most people accept the result of the referendum but the question posed was 'in' or 'out'. There is no clear definition of what 'out' is. The ultimate hard Brexit would be sever all ties - legal, structural, regulatory but even then, we would need to negotiate with the WTO to set tariff schedules which then would involve negotiating with all WTO members.

Saying everything is going to be alright isn't enough. People want assurance that we will be better off with hard facts, not political platitudes