Brexit

Shhh · Challenger level

Brexit

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I love the discussions, Shhh - it's usually so difficult to have them within the framework of 'reasonableness' so I honestly appreciate our 'chats'

I don't buy off on the point that you often make, though, that it's nowhere near as bad as it was threatened.

By which I mean, you're quite right, it isn't (because there was such a load of cr*p about we'd fall off the edge of a cliff, which is patently untrue).

BUT I don't really see the relevance of this now.

i.e. yes, the 2016 doomsday guys were well off target

But it isn't really relevant now (either for good or bad). And it's not much consolation, to me, to say, OK, it's not quite as hideous as some people threatened.

Honestly, nearly all that I see is negative, but I completely buy off on their being two sides, and I appreciate you putting some of the other side, I really do.

I also realise that I have to try and split the current government from Brexit.

However, that's very difficult as a large amount of our current problems are, IMO, due to Brexit BUT completely exacerbated by an incompetent government who doesn't care less as long as the newspapers aren't printing anything. The amount they are exacerbated is obviously debatable but the government's lack of policy is obviously a key problem and a different approach to Brexit would make a huge difference (for the better)

Public Accounts Committee chairperson, Dame Meg Hillier, wrote in a recent report: "One of the great promises of Brexit was freeing British businesses to give them the headroom to maximise their productivity and contribution to the economy - even more desperately needed now on the long road to recovery from the pandemic.

"Yet the only detectable impact so far is increased costs, paperwork and border delays.

There is much more work that Government should be doing in the short term to understand and minimise the current burden on those trading with the EU, to address the immediate delivery and readiness risks in introducing import controls, and to have a border in place which is operating effectively without further delays or temporary measures."

So, as yet, I'm still to see the benefits, see a lot of negatives, firsthand as well as reading, and the fact that the stock exchange is broadly in line with other stock exchanges doesn't help, IMO, nor really the rise in truckers wages as - again - they've had similar rises in Europe. I don't see anywhere that we are outperforming where we were previously.

But I fully concede that others may view it differently. And, as said, enjoy that we can exchange those views

paulisi · Tennis legend

I suspect that the pro European brigade are using the Brexit argument to knock everything and not looking for the other side of the argument.

The argument above only looks at UK importers to the EU. The same issues apply to exporters from the EU to UK, so whilst we may not be exporting as much, we may be getting less EU imports.
This creates opportunities for UK firms to grow internally and pick up the spare capacity in these markets.
It works both ways.

christ · Futures qualifying

I think that it is difficult to be clear on the actual impact of Brexit due to the immediate arrival of Covid followed by the Russian adventure in Ukraine, and doubtless there will me many subsequent events that muddy the water still further. What I have learned, though, from the last two-plus years is that I would prefer if our nation was more self-sufficient, and less reliant on others, particularly those that may not be acting in good faith.

I would rather that the events of the last few years led us to completely cease asymmetric trading, where we stand to lose a lot more from cessation of trade than we gain, and we should cease that asymmetric trading as soon as possible, so that we don't get held to ransom by the other party in the trade.

I find it appalling that we rely on China for our Covid test kits and iPhones, and Russia for whatever we rely on Russia for (among other things they must be huge council tax payers): we also rely on the Middle East for things that we shouldn't. And one thing that Mr Trump taught us is that we definitely shouldn't be over-reliant on the US of A for anything, as they are equally likely to turn around and blackmail us if the whim takes them (qv Ukraine). All of the pro-Brexit arguments apply much more vigorously to these folk, and if leaving the EU means that we are better able to manage our extraction from these over reliances, then I am all for it (regardless of what I may have originally though of Brexit itself).

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Brilliant to have so many responses.

Genuinely curious, christ - I take on board your points about being beholden to other countries, and agree with some of the sentiment, but
(a) do you really think we can - or should - be self-sufficient - that it's either a practical or a good aim? Isn't part of good government policy, to work with partners?
and, even so,
(b) surely the very benefit of being part of the EU is that you are less reliant on China, the US, the Middle East.... we were part of a tech, scientific, environmental, arts, food, etc etc community. And now we're basically not. So the government is falling over themselves trying to do deals and not offend various countries that you'd rather we told to stick it.

For instance, our reliance on China has gone up massively.

"Data from the Department for International Trade showed that the UK imported £40.5bn more from China than it exported to the country in the year to June 2021 up from the £11.8bn deficit in the previous 12 months."

And China has now overtaken Germany as Britains biggest source of imports - "Goods imports from China to the UK increased by 66% since the start of 2018 to £16.9bn in the first quarter of 2021, the Office for National Statistics said. Imports from Germany fell by a quarter over the same period, to £12.5bn."

So by cutting a lot of ties with the EU we are now being forced to trade with those you'd prefer not to.

Now, just to be clear, Brexit didn't mean we had to completely leave that community and its benefits - there were a myriad of options which would have been a half-way house and allowed us to keep most of the benefits (and obviously a few drawbacks). Indeed, that was more the 'soft' Brexit that was promised in 2016.

PS I don't really buy off, though, on the argument that Covid muddies the water, re Brexit impact. As all of Europe, and practically all the world, were very similarly affected by Covid. So it's had a blanket effect but that's all, pretty much the same to everyone, so the Brexit parts still can be seen.

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Sunday 27th of March 2022 10:51:05 PM

Shhh · Challenger level

A side issue to Brexit here but the Russian Gas/oil situation has made us all think our dependency on other countries, just such a shame to go running cap in hand to the Saudis as an alternative cry I certainly agree with the points you make christ

There is a notion banded about that as a country we do not make anything any more. Simply not true. The UK is still in the top 10 manufactures in the world. Not for one minute do I wish to pull the drawbridge up and become self-sufficient but I would like us to trade more on choice than dependency. Energy is not a quick fix but one that we can work towards. Food we can, and I believe should produce more of our own and as we saw with the PPE scramble, a manufacture base can be essential in crisis times.

To bring this back to the thread title, the above is not totally dependent on Brexit but having left does make it easier to facilitate.....if we so wish?????

christ · Futures qualifying

Coup Droit wrote:
Genuinely curious, christ - I take on board your points about being beholden to other countries, and agree with some of the sentiment, but
(a) do you really think we can - or should - be self-sufficient - that it's either a practical or a good aim? Isn't part of good government policy, to work with partners?
and, even so,
(b) surely the very benefit of being part of the EU is that you are less reliant on China, the US, the Middle East.... we were part of a tech, scientific, environmental, arts, food, etc etc community. And now we're basically not. So the government is falling over themselves trying to do deals and not offend various countries that you'd rather we told to stick it.

My position, as an old cantankerous person, is that the one-sided nature of so many international deals is dangerous, and that we should take the "standard of living" hit by not engaging in such deals. If we can't afford the oil deal, live with less oil. (substitute any other noun for oil) (... and substitute "fewer" for "less" as appropriate).

I see the EU as no different than any of the other nations, really, in that we should only trade on an equal footing: being "part" of the EU made that trade inherently unequal (rightly or wrongly we got "the benefit" of whatever the EU negotiated/ dictated on our behalf). Any deal that we can't afford to lose is a bad deal, as it means that the other partner has us by the short and curlies: either don't strike the deal - or, if it is too late - wind such deals down.

I see the P&O dispute as another side of the same issue: we have a company running internal ferries using ships that are registered overseas and staff (now) also registered overseas, therefore regulated overseas. Why? So that the ferry is cheaper to run, and can continue to be "affordable". My preference is to make the ferry less affordable (if necessary much less affordable) so that it can be sustained at all costs and we have control.

The public can't be trusted (given a choice between two identical phones - one made in the UK for £3k and an identical one made in China for £1k, people will bemoan the trade gap and buy the Chinese one. Similarly for ferries - if two ferries ran the same route, one fully under British control for three times the price of the foreign-run one, the great unwashed will travel on the cheap one whilst complaining about the government "not doing something about P&O") so we need to legislate/ mandate things that are good for our country in the medium long term, not what is good for "the trade bloc" or good for the Chinese/ Americans/ Russians/ Saudis etc. I refer all parties to RyanAir as an example of people incessantly moaning about the inadequacy of something that they gladly chose because it was cheaper.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

"The public can't be trusted ..... "

I know, christ, I know......

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Monday 28th of March 2022 04:38:41 PM

indiana · Tennis legend

Coup Droit wrote:
"The public can't be trusted ..... "

I know, christ, I know......

-- Edited by Coup Droit on Monday 28th of March 2022 04:38:41 PM

Ha.

Thank you CD and Bob for your ongoing posts and details that essentially just continue to firm up my general thoughts in being very much against Brexiit.

Thank you too for the opposing posts which I also read and consider but generally make little impression on me, often when taken along with good rebuff posts. And yes, maybe give up on the not as bad as some claimed stuff and try and find more convincing positive consequences of Brexit. to set against the negatives.

The debate here is healthy but one side is well ahead IMO.

christ · Futures qualifying

Coup Droit wrote:
"The public can't be trusted ..... "

I know, christ, I know......

Do you contend that we can? I have lost patience with the old ladies in ASDA that moan about how the high street shops are dying, but there is nothing they could do about it, as ASDA prices are so much lower ...

Personally I don't care which side of the Brexit debate anyone is on (an unfortunate side effect of what we humorously call "democracy" is that up to fifty percent of the populace will always be disappointed by the result of an election/ vote/ selection/ referendum etc.), but the fact that the public - flying in the face of common sense - voted for it demonstrates their inherent untrustworthiness in my view.

Shhh · Challenger level

From todays news, Brussels has launched a legal challenge over the use of British parts in the UKs offshore wind farms.

I am sure the reasons or counter arguments can be spelt out here but the "great unwashed" and the "public cannot be trusted" crowd read such statements as above and do not agree with that principle. Patronise such people as much as you like, but I think their point of view is as valid as anyone elses. Simply shaking your head and telling people they are wrong, do not understand the issues and so on does not change how they feel, hence the reason the vote went the way it did .

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Just to be clear, this is a WTO dispute - i.e. the EU happens to be the claimant but it's nothing to do with EU law, it's claimed it's a breach of our WTO obligations

NB I've no idea, haven't read the claim papers, it'll drag on, that's for sure

And Christ wasn't really dissing the whole population - he was giving examples of people's inconsistencies

I have respect for all the people who voted. My lack of respect is with the governing members who lied. That applies to both sides, of course.

But my problem with the Brexit vote (and it would have been the same if it were the other way round, but it wasn't) is that, from exit polls, most thought they were voting for a soft Brexit, and we got practically the hardest Brexit possible. That's not the voters' fault, as such - it's a very different premise that they voted for. And it was the same the next year and the year after....

EG in one poll, of those who voted for Brexit, this was the result:

10 June 2017
Poll by Survation
Do you prefer:
A hard Brexit, involving leaving the EU single market and customs union 35%
A soft Brexit, not involving leaving the EU single market and customs union 55%
Don't Know 10%

So, of the 52% who voted for Brexit, well over half wanted a soft Brexit, a year later.

And they didn't get it. The got pretty much the opposite.

So 48% of people were disappointed (the Remainers).

And 29% (overall) were disappointed (the Brexiteers who wanted a soft one)

So we're left with AT MOST 23 % who are happy (and that's counting the don't knows as hard Brexit, just to be the most generous possible)

paulisi · Tennis legend

Brexit has happened, we need to make the most of the current laws and regulations and stop looking back at rules that happened in the past.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

paulisi wrote:
Brexit has happened, we need to make the most of the current laws and regulations and stop looking back at rules that happened in the past.

Absolutely. The WTO are current rules though.

christ · Futures qualifying

Shhh wrote:
I am sure the reasons or counter arguments can be spelt out here but the "great unwashed" and the "public cannot be trusted" crowd read such statements as above and do not agree with that principle. Patronise such people as much as you like, but I think their point of view is as valid as anyone elses. Simply shaking your head and telling people they are wrong, do not understand the issues and so on does not change how they feel, hence the reason the vote went the way it did .

I have no intention to patronise anyone.

The issue for me is that so many people hold two - exactly opposing - points of view at the same time, and they expect "someone" to sort it so that both ideas can be realised. They want P&O workers to be paid a lot, but they want cheap ferries. They want cheap iPhones, but not to depend on China. They want cheap fuel and they want to avoid global warming. They want high street shops and LIDL prices. They want infinite funding for state services such as the NHS, but they don't want to pay "too much" in taxes. They want immigrants to fill low-paid jobs, but don't want immigrants. I don't belittle how these people feel, but I point out that what they expect is not actually achievable.

People (well, the vast majority of people) will vote for their own short-term self interest, regardless of the long term and regardless of the impact on others. Thus a referendum is no way to run a railroad. Someone needs to consider the long term benefit to society, and enact whatever is necessary to get there: politicians that have embraced populism (i.e. promising people that the politicians can and will satisfy the short-term self-interest of those people) are popular, as the people with conflicting requirements expect all of their requirements to be met by these politicians. Never underestimate the electorate's ability to suspend disbelief when they are promised things by a charismatic politician.

Out of interest: I didn't vote for or against Brexit, as I was - and remain - confident that our current politicians would find a way of messing up whichever "mandate" they got. I am not a great proponent of voting for politicians, as it only encourages them.