Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[Old Skier]

Surprise Suprise, Owen Jones talking sense:

"The Remain cause is sabotaged by a small, vocal arrogant clique who treat the referendum result as just mass stupidity and delusion, won through cheating, without understanding the anger that brought it about."

 

[jp5]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1060472540659879936

"I hadn't quite understood the full extent of this, but we are particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing"

The incompetence of those we are relying on would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

 

[Foxholer]

...
IMO, as an econometrician, I for one forecast that the UK will compete well in the wider world and do far better with it freedom for tax setting, trade relations, agile business strategies, innovation and investment stability.

Well that puts the kybosh on the likelihood of it happening then! I'm pretty sure almost no economic prediction has EVER been totally correct ('somewhere between roughly accurate and totally wrong' is a memorable quote!) irrespective of what (if any) tools are used to arrive at the prediction!

Oh and hasn't UK already got 'freedom for tax setting, trade relations, agile business strategies, innovation and investment stability'?! It's actually 'throwing away' a lot of valuable trade relations (all those ones negotiated on its behalf by/inconjunction with the EU) and standards and hoping that it can re-establish them itself.

As far as I can see, Brexit is NOT about improving UK's economy - which is actually likely to suffer, at least in the short term, simply because of the change. It's about who actually controls what happens in UK - from final say on legal matters to who can acually live, work and reside in UK!

 

[Deleted member 18121]

Surely the only fair way to compare leave and remain is to spend the next 45 years out of the EU and then see which one was better.

 

[User62651]

Surely the only fair way to compare leave and remain is to spend the next 45 years out of the EU and then see which one was better.

would you then compare 1973 -2018 'in EU' with the preceeeding 1927-1972 'before EU'. Comparing like with like is and will be impossible..........which will help both remain and leave determine that they were both correct in some years time!

 

[Deleted member 18121]

would you then compare 1973 -2018 'in EU' with the preceeeding 1927-1972 'before EU'. Comparing like with like is and will be impossible..........which will help both remain and leave determine that they were both correct in some years time!

No, because that doesnt fit my agenda

 

[drdel]

Well that puts the kybosh on the likelihood of it happening then! I'm pretty sure almost no economic prediction has EVER been totally correct ('somewhere between roughly accurate and totally wrong' is a memorable quote!) irrespective of what (if any) tools are used to arrive at the prediction!

Oh and hasn't UK already got 'freedom for tax setting, trade relations, agile business strategies, innovation and investment stability'?! It's actually 'throwing away' a lot of valuable trade relations (all those ones negotiated on its behalf by/inconjunction with the EU) and standards and hoping that it can re-establish them itself.

As far as I can see, Brexit is NOT about improving UK's economy - which is actually likely to suffer, at least in the short term, simply because of the change. It's about who actually controls what happens in UK - from final say on legal matters to who can acually live, work and reside in UK!

You must be right, but just in case you're mistaken I'd ask that you take a minute to consider why it is countries like Australia, USA etc. etc are keen to do advantageous trading deals if for the last 40 odd years we could have done these deals anyway!!

 

[bluewolf]

You must be right, but just in case you're mistaken I'd ask that you take a minute to consider why it is countries like Australia, USA etc. etc are keen to do advantageous trading deals if for the last 40 odd years we could have done these deals anyway!!

Advantageous to who?

 

[hors limite]

I made this post months ago and didn't get any sensible replies from our Brexit enthusiasts.

"I'm sorry but when the narrow majority voted to leave things were very different. There was the £350mn/week Brexit dividend that has now disappeared. We were told that negotiating an exit would be easy and that trade with the EU wouldn't suffer - nobody mentioned the £40bn divorce bill.. We were told that the rest of the world would be hammering on our door with new trade deals. At the same time, many people who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than I do have been warning about the dangers of no deal or a "hard" Brexit. They are in their multitudes and range from the boss of Airbus, to the Governor of the B of E, to the Chancellor and all we are expected to believe that they are somehow conspirators in "Project Fear". We are told that the EU has been holding back UK exporters from developing their markets - Germany seem to manage spectacularly well. If that wasn't enough we've got Rees- Mogg telling us it might take 50 years to see any benefit. The whole bloody shambles is costing £3bn which could be a lot better spent elsewhere.
The benefits from Brexit are always intangible - taking back control, ridding ourselves of EU shackles. Spare us Minford, but can anyone point out what the benefits of Brexit might be?"

Nothing has changed.The Brexiteers keep on telling us that all the leading businessmen, economists, think tanks, business organisations are still peddling "Project Fear". The brexiteers are taking their tactics from Trump and even that fails to embarrass them. Not to mention the company that they keep - Johnson, Fox, Farage, Banks, Davies, Rees-Mogg - just listing their names makes me shudder. One of their very few cheerleaders with any sort of credibility, Dyson, has announced that such is his sense of patriotism that his new cars as well as all his other products will be made in SE Asia - you couldn't make it up.
Then we have the self appointed experts on this forum who dismiss an army of accredited authorities but deludedly invite us to believe that their knowledge is somehow superior.
If , from this shambolic process, a deal emerged, that didn't damage the economy and lead to job losses, no one would be more pleased than me. However, if it all goes to Hell in a handbasket, I hope that the Brexiteers will take ownership of the consequences.

 

[Old Skier]

Perhaps because Remainers want to believe what they hear and Leavers want to believe what they hear.

Try balance and you might get an answer, you seem to ignore the experts that predict that there will be a benefit from leaving in the long term.

 

[User62651]

I made this post months ago and didn't get any sensible replies from our Brexit enthusiasts.

"I'm sorry but when the narrow majority voted to leave things were very different. There was the £350mn/week Brexit dividend that has now disappeared. We were told that negotiating an exit would be easy and that trade with the EU wouldn't suffer - nobody mentioned the £40bn divorce bill.. We were told that the rest of the world would be hammering on our door with new trade deals. At the same time, many people who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than I do have been warning about the dangers of no deal or a "hard" Brexit. They are in their multitudes and range from the boss of Airbus, to the Governor of the B of E, to the Chancellor and all we are expected to believe that they are somehow conspirators in "Project Fear". We are told that the EU has been holding back UK exporters from developing their markets - Germany seem to manage spectacularly well. If that wasn't enough we've got Rees- Mogg telling us it might take 50 years to see any benefit. The whole bloody shambles is costing £3bn which could be a lot better spent elsewhere.
The benefits from Brexit are always intangible - taking back control, ridding ourselves of EU shackles. Spare us Minford, but can anyone point out what the benefits of Brexit might be?"

Nothing has changed.The Brexiteers keep on telling us that all the leading businessmen, economists, think tanks, business organisations are still peddling "Project Fear". The brexiteers are taking their tactics from Trump and even that fails to embarrass them. Not to mention the company that they keep - Johnson, Fox, Farage, Banks, Davies, Rees-Mogg - just listing their names makes me shudder. One of their very few cheerleaders with any sort of credibility, Dyson, has announced that such is his sense of patriotism that his new cars as well as all his other products will be made in SE Asia - you couldn't make it up.
Then we have the self appointed experts on this forum who dismiss an army of accredited authorities but deludedly invite us to believe that their knowledge is somehow superior.
If , from this shambolic process, a deal emerged, that didn't damage the economy and lead to job losses, no one would be more pleased than me. However, if it all goes to Hell in a handbasket, I hope that the Brexiteers will take ownership of the consequences.

Whilst I generally agree with that summation, remember Leave won the vote! How do we get past that fact? As a Government Tories have to enact (or be seen to enact) the promise of their manifesto and uphold democracy. Shocking position for the country to find itself in where democracy is actually harming us.

However democracy is also working against itself in that more democracy (from commons) is needed to get the original democratic vote (by public) through.
from Bloomberg today - this is where May's deal stands, even if she gets some kind of deal with EU, she has to get past this, not easy and a bit ironic given the reasonable commons majority she inherited from Cameron then blew a year later at her own behest to now rely on DUP, Labour rebels and others, mainly for being a Maybot -

 

[Foxholer]

You must be right, but just in case you're mistaken I'd ask that you take a minute to consider why it is countries like Australia, USA etc. etc are keen to do advantageous trading deals if for the last 40 odd years we could have done these deals anyway!!

Advantageous to who?

Hopefully/surely both - otherwise there'd be no point doing the deal!
I DO know that there was an 'advantageous' - for both sides - deal that UK had with New Zealand for Butter that got the chop, perhaps after a certain 'wind-down' period. Mind you, that was actually the trigger for NZ to 'get more into the real world' so not necessarily a complete 'negative'. And, from memory, part of the (or maybe the entire) reason it had to be chopped was that NZ producers were deemed to be being subsidised by the NZ Government.

It does seem that deals will be able to be made. But that will not happen immediately and, by international trade law, can only ever be as good as the deal between the EU and the other country.

 

[drdel]

I made this post months ago and didn't get any sensible replies from our Brexit enthusiasts.

"I'm sorry but when the narrow majority voted to leave things were very different. There was the £350mn/week Brexit dividend that has now disappeared. We were told that negotiating an exit would be easy and that trade with the EU wouldn't suffer - nobody mentioned the £40bn divorce bill.. We were told that the rest of the world would be hammering on our door with new trade deals. At the same time, many people who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than I do have been warning about the dangers of no deal or a "hard" Brexit. They are in their multitudes and range from the boss of Airbus, to the Governor of the B of E, to the Chancellor and all we are expected to believe that they are somehow conspirators in "Project Fear". We are told that the EU has been holding back UK exporters from developing their markets - Germany seem to manage spectacularly well. If that wasn't enough we've got Rees- Mogg telling us it might take 50 years to see any benefit. The whole bloody shambles is costing £3bn which could be a lot better spent elsewhere.
The benefits from Brexit are always intangible - taking back control, ridding ourselves of EU shackles. Spare us Minford, but can anyone point out what the benefits of Brexit might be?"

Nothing has changed.The Brexiteers keep on telling us that all the leading businessmen, economists, think tanks, business organisations are still peddling "Project Fear". The brexiteers are taking their tactics from Trump and even that fails to embarrass them. Not to mention the company that they keep - Johnson, Fox, Farage, Banks, Davies, Rees-Mogg - just listing their names makes me shudder. One of their very few cheerleaders with any sort of credibility, Dyson, has announced that such is his sense of patriotism that his new cars as well as all his other products will be made in SE Asia - you couldn't make it up.
Then we have the self appointed experts on this forum who dismiss an army of accredited authorities but deludedly invite us to believe that their knowledge is somehow superior.
If , from this shambolic process, a deal emerged, that didn't damage the economy and lead to job losses, no one would be more pleased than me. However, if it all goes to Hell in a handbasket, I hope that the Brexiteers will take ownership of the consequences.

Apart from a moan I see little actual contribution to the debate in your post.

While you moan about the UK's decision you might look at what is happening in the member states. Many of the many net-takers are economically unsound and will require much more support from the very few net contributors at a time when the EU growth is slowing and the 'centre's' management costs are growing well above sustainable levels. This would mean that if the UK remained our contribution would grow dramatically and be well above our own economic growth projections. The consequences would be the UK's debt levels would rise and domestic spending would need to fall very fast.

Yet despite the obvious direction of the EU's future the remainers who wish to be shackled to and increasingly Federal arrangement are quite happy for us to blindly follow this silly dream led by Juncker and Macron et al. Even Barnier's speech to rally the troops yesterday was ignored by many delegates who kept talking while he spoke - Merkel and her entourage left halfway through!

Dyson made his decision because the European (not EU) market is mature with slow growth and the new markets for his car are developing elsewhere add to the fact he can get cheaper production facilities and your assertion its related to worries Brexit is baseless.

The future is driven by global businesses, many who have an annual turnover more than many nations - they do not whitter on about the internal wrangles of minnows in the EU - they plan around them. The UK must re-discover it competitive focus and operate on a global stage with global players and investment - staying in the EU (in its present form) will only ensure we waste more and more resources on internal (EU) arguments and support - in a slow but sure race to the bottom.

 

[bluewolf]

Hopefully/surely both - otherwise there'd be no point doing the deal!
I DO know that there was an 'advantageous' - for both sides - deal that UK had with New Zealand for Butter that got the chop, perhaps after a certain 'wind-down' period. Mind you, that was actually the trigger for NZ to 'get more into the real world' so not necessarily a complete 'negative'. And, from memory, part of the (or maybe the entire) reason it had to be chopped was that NZ producers were deemed to be being subsidised by the NZ Government.

It does seem that deals will be able to be made. But that will not happen immediately and, by international trade law, can only ever be as good as the deal between the EU and the other country.

And, to paraphrase, if a bad deal is better than no deal?

Just exactly what kind of deal are we expecting to make with economies bigger than ours. What will we have to sacrifice?

I'm not sure I like our position in these deals. It's almost as though we'd be better off if we were in some sort of trading partnership or bloc. Maybe with close geographical and socio-political neighbours. We might want to look into something like that 🤔

 

[ColchesterFC]

It does seem that deals will be able to be made. But that will not happen immediately and, by international trade law, can only ever be as good as the deal between the EU and the other country.

I'm not sure the last bit of your post is correct. My understanding is that we can negotiate whatever trade deals we like as long as we offer the same terms to all countries. So we could agree a deal with New Zealand that is better than the one they have with the EU but both sides would then have to offer the same agreement to the EU and every other country for those products. Or have I got that wrong?

 

[SocketRocket]

I made this post months ago and didn't get any sensible replies from our Brexit enthusiasts.

"I'm sorry but when the narrow majority voted to leave things were very different. There was the £350mn/week Brexit dividend that has now disappeared. We were told that negotiating an exit would be easy and that trade with the EU wouldn't suffer - nobody mentioned the £40bn divorce bill.. We were told that the rest of the world would be hammering on our door with new trade deals. At the same time, many people who know a hell of a lot more about the subject than I do have been warning about the dangers of no deal or a "hard" Brexit. They are in their multitudes and range from the boss of Airbus, to the Governor of the B of E, to the Chancellor and all we are expected to believe that they are somehow conspirators in "Project Fear". We are told that the EU has been holding back UK exporters from developing their markets - Germany seem to manage spectacularly well. If that wasn't enough we've got Rees- Mogg telling us it might take 50 years to see any benefit. The whole bloody shambles is costing £3bn which could be a lot better spent elsewhere.
The benefits from Brexit are always intangible - taking back control, ridding ourselves of EU shackles. Spare us Minford, but can anyone point out what the benefits of Brexit might be?"

Nothing has changed.The Brexiteers keep on telling us that all the leading businessmen, economists, think tanks, business organisations are still peddling "Project Fear". The brexiteers are taking their tactics from Trump and even that fails to embarrass them. Not to mention the company that they keep - Johnson, Fox, Farage, Banks, Davies, Rees-Mogg - just listing their names makes me shudder. One of their very few cheerleaders with any sort of credibility, Dyson, has announced that such is his sense of patriotism that his new cars as well as all his other products will be made in SE Asia - you couldn't make it up.
Then we have the self appointed experts on this forum who dismiss an army of accredited authorities but deludedly invite us to believe that their knowledge is somehow superior.
If , from this shambolic process, a deal emerged, that didn't damage the economy and lead to job losses, no one would be more pleased than me. However, if it all goes to Hell in a handbasket, I hope that the Brexiteers will take ownership of the consequences.

Your post has been ignored due to it being so one sided and ironic, you suffer from the blinkered view that you accuse others of. Try a little more balance and you may be taken seriously.

 

[Foxholer]

I'm not sure the last bit of your post is correct. My understanding is that we can negotiate whatever trade deals we like as long as we offer the same terms to all countries....

Deals can be different. But 'most favoured nation' countries need to be at the best rates. So not 'all countries'...only 'most favoured nation' ones. I tried to get that across in the post you quoted, but may not have done so.

...So we could agree a deal with New Zealand that is better than the one they have with the EU but both sides would then have to offer the same agreement to the EU and every other country for those products. Or have I got that wrong?

Again, only the 'tarrifing' nation needs to offer the deal to other countries, and then only to their 'most favoured nation' list.

There is currently no trade agreement between EU and New Zealand, though negotiations (for a Free Trade Agreement) have started.

So a UK-New Zealand deal would have no effect on/for the EU. Likewise, if the EU-NZ FTA magically happened tomorrow, it would not be relevant to UK post-Brexit (and nor would the existing EU-non-EU-country/areas agreements. UK would have to start negotiation and/or use WTO schdules.

 

[User62651]

Your post has been ignored due to it being so one sided and ironic, you suffer from the blinkered view that you accuse others of. Try a little more balance and you may be taken seriously.

He said it didn't get any sensible replies, not ignored. Also it's deadly serious. It might have been blinkered if posted in June 2016 right after the vote when there was some optimism for Brexit based upon the false promises and lack of detail it gave, but it was posted earlier in 2018, some 2 years into the process when it's clear a lot of the leave argument was based on thin air and emotions, little fact and of course now a shambles. Many will totally agree with what he originally posted.

Maybe you should read this article by an FT columnist for some balance of your own? Makes for difficult reading, but most likely right. Suppose it's just project fear spin too?
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/...D_L0pAf5AgzYxFPU_sCsEFHMuSY2lSK9DIAjR-yGPy0Bs

 

[ColchesterFC]

Deals can be different. But 'most favoured nation' countries need to be at the best rates. So not 'all countries'...only 'most favoured nation' ones. I tried to get that across in the post you quoted, but may not have done so.
Again, only the 'tarrifing' nation needs to offer the deal to other countries, and then only to their 'most favoured nation' list.

There is currently no trade agreement between EU and New Zealand, though negotiations (for a Free Trade Agreement) have started.

So a UK-New Zealand deal would have no effect on/for the EU. Likewise, if the EU-NZ FTA magically happened tomorrow, it would not be relevant to UK post-Brexit (and nor would the existing EU-non-EU-country/areas agreements. UK would have to start negotiation and/or use WTO schdules.

Thanks for that info. So does the UK get to decide which countries it has as a "favoured nation" or is there a group of countries that if you add one you have to add them all? For example could we add every country in the world as a "favoured nation" but refuse to add the EU27 and slap ridiculously high tariffs on their goods?

 

[hors limite]

Perhaps because Remainers want to believe what they hear and Leavers want to believe what they hear.

Try balance and you might get an answer, you seem to ignore the experts that predict that there will be a benefit from leaving in the long term.

WHEN? Rees - Mogg himself talked about a wait of 50 years.