Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, SMX11 said:

The problem is nobody in power practices these polices other than somewhere like Hong Kong. The term Neo-Liberalism means nothing as it is overused and used to describe anything other than socialism. 

Blair and New Labour were often described as neo liberal but didn't do any privatising nor did they reduce govt spending. There's nothing in that list that I'd disagree with.

[SMX11]

41 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Blair and New Labour were often described as neo liberal but didn't do any privatising nor did they reduce govt spending. There's nothing in that list that I'd disagree with.

Precisely, they were Neo-Keynesian as are the current lot.  

[Spiritwalker]

4 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Not much comment about May putting security cooperation on the negotiating table....what do people reckon to that?

 

Are we seriously prepared to use that as a bargaining chip? 

 

I know that British security is reputed to be better than most other security services, so it's an area of strength.

But would we be ready to share less security with our neighbours, risking more ISIS attacks on the continent?

We may have better security services, but would presumably still run a greater risk of terrorist attacks in the UK, too, if our neighbours didn't share their information with us.

 

Even it's a negotiating tactic and the intention is not to follow through on the threat, will it really help foster positive negotiations and make the EU27 more likely to make concessions?

Could have the opposite effect, I reckon.

I think the government  probably now regrets throwing security into the mix (or at least wish they had been more subtle), they seem to be backtracking.

Threats are only of use if you are prepared to go through with them and there's

no way they would take that risk.

[Thracian]

3 hours ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I'm guessing that @Alf Bentley is well and truly back from his sabbatical then! 

You just can't keep a good man down 

And a top man in these chapters, no question. .  

[Thracian]

24 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

I think the government  probably now regrets throwing security into the mix (or at least wish they had been more subtle), they seem to be backtracking.

Threats are only of use if you are prepared to go through with them and there's

no way they would take that risk.

I don't ever believe in threatening anyone. It makes people wary and puts their backs up. Neither offers an advantage.   

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, SMX11 said:

The problem is nobody in power practices these polices other than somewhere like Hong Kong. The term Neo-Liberalism means nothing as it is overused and used to describe anything other than socialism. 

 

58 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Blair and New Labour were often described as neo liberal but didn't do any privatising nor did they reduce govt spending. There's nothing in that list that I'd disagree with.

 

The term "neo-liberalism" is certainly used loosely and sometimes as a wild term of abuse, which is why I posted that definition.

 

I'm sure very few regimes have been 100% pure "neo-liberal", just as very few have been 100% pure "socialist".

Using that Wiki definition, though, you'd have to say that every Tory government since Thatcher has been neo-liberal to a fair extent: legislating for privatisation, lower public spending, free trade, a smaller state, cutting tax etc. Not to the extent that neo-liberal ultras would like, but shifting the economy in that direction.

 

So, it doesn't surprise me that Webbo, as a Thatcherite Tory (approximately?), doesn't disagree with anything in that list of neo-liberal policies.

While I'm not a fan of "the big state" or centralisation, I'm sure it won't surprise Webbo, either, that I'm NOT keen on those neo-liberal policies....because, like lots who voted Remain and oppose Corbyn, I'm NOT a neo-liberal.

 

Blair actually did cut cut public spending during his first term (not the second or third) - though that was more "electoral politics", to win public trust, than any commitment to neo-liberal economics. Most would also see Blair's extensive use of PFI instead of public spending on schools and hospitals as a form of privatisation, too (though there was some cynical electoral politics in that, too - keep taxes low to win votes, while backloading the funding burden on future generations). Overall, New Labour was probably a mixture - apart from PFI, they didn't seek to privatise, but didn't seek to nationalise either. They tried to square the circle by keeping tax low but boosting spending on public services....closer to a blend of creative accounting and electoral trickery than any commitment to any commitment to neo-liberal economics or neo-Keynesianism (after the cuts in their first term, Labour raised spending during a boom 2001-2006, which is the opposite of Keynesianism!).

[Webbo]

I wouldn't accuse you , or anyone else, of being neo liberal, Alf, It's a phrase I hate. Thatcherite, I'd accept that.

 

In a lot of ways the EU had a "neo liberal" economic policy. It's just a shame it insisting on over regulating everything and trying to shoehorn us into a federal state.

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

I think we were told that the UK could, rightfully, not cherry pick what we wanted. 

 

I think putting our security services on the table is a way to show it works both ways. 

 

Security costs money. Why promise access to it while our economy is being threatened? There are a lot of EU countries already not paying their fair share into NATO. Why should they be protected on the cheap? 

 

These negotiations will be dirty, there's no doubt about it. Personally, I don't like it, but I like rolling over and having my belly tickled less. If we're being threatened with tariffs, huge exit bills and the like, it makes sense to use the little we have to our advantage, and whilst they take a lot of stick, our security services are of genuine high quality. 

 

"we're being threatened with tariffs and huge exit bills"?! 

As I understand it, the worst case scenario is that we end up paying the same tariffs as any other non-EU country without a trade deal - tariffs set by the WTO.

The "huge exit bills" relate to commitments we'd made on the assumption that we were staying in the EU, not some special charge for leaving. I'm sure there'll be grey areas as to what is still payable, but it's not really an "exit bill"

 

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

Out NATO contributions are a percentage of our GDP, if Europe wants to punish us and make our economy suffer then the money will be reduced and cuts will have to made.

 

Anyway it's all grandstanding, both sides are making demands that they know they won't get. It's all part of the negotiations.

 

If I cancelled my LCFC season ticket and opted to buy tickets for individual matches, I'd have to pay more per match because I was no longer a "member of the season ticket holders' club".

The club wouldn't be "threatening me with tariffs" or "wanting to punish me", I'd just be treated on a different basis because I was no longer a "member"....and other season ticket holders would be pretty pissed off if I was still able to buy tickets for the same price as them. Likewise, other EU countries would be pissed off if they got no benefits over us from still being EU members.

 

However, the EU won't want our economy to suffer too much from leaving as they'll still want us to be allies, trading partners, a stable neighbour, host to some of their nationals etc. They'll want our deal to be demonstrably worse than that of EU members, but not to do us major damage - and that's fair enough. I couldn't walk into a gym and expect to use the equipment on the same basis as paid-up members.

 

I'm sure you're right about the "grandstanding", though. I just hope both sides show enough reason to do a deal that does as little harm as possible to both sides.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

"we're being threatened with tariffs and huge exit bills"?! 

As I understand it, the worst case scenario is that we end up paying the same tariffs as any other non-EU country without a trade deal - tariffs set by the WTO.

The "huge exit bills" relate to commitments we'd made on the assumption that we were staying in the EU, not some special charge for leaving. I'm sure there'll be grey areas as to what is still payable, but it's not really an "exit bill"

 

 

If I cancelled my LCFC season ticket and opted to buy tickets for individual matches, I'd have to pay more per match because I was no longer a "member of the season ticket holders' club".

The club wouldn't be "threatening me with tariffs" or "wanting to punish me", I'd just be treated on a different basis because I was no longer a "member"....and other season ticket holders would be pretty pissed off if I was still able to buy tickets for the same price as them. Likewise, other EU countries would be pissed off if they got no benefits over us from still being EU members.

 

However, the EU won't want our economy to suffer too much from leaving as they'll still want us to be allies, trading partners, a stable neighbour, host to some of their nationals etc. They'll want our deal to be demonstrably worse than that of EU members, but not to do us major damage - and that's fair enough. I couldn't walk into a gym and expect to use the equipment on the same basis as paid-up members.

 

I'm sure you're right about the "grandstanding", though. I just hope both sides show enough reason to do a deal that does as little harm as possible to both sides.

If you scrapped your season ticket and then the club made you jump through hoops to buy a ticket or refused to sell you a ticket that they'd be quite happy to sell to say, a Canadian, then it probably is a punishment.

 

If the EU want to keep us in then they'd be better off making us a good offer. British people don't like being bullied.

[The Doctor]

20 hours ago, Thracian said:

What bothers me most is not the challenge of Brexit itself, but that a good chunk of the UK will be hoping it's a disaster. It shows people up for what they are I suppose but I can't see how it'll help except in providing extra incentive for those who support Brexit to make it work. But you can bet that every setback will make headlines and mischief making will abound.       

There's a world of difference between wanting it to fail and expecting it to fail. I doubt anyone actively wants Brexit to leave this country a pathetic shadow of what it was before, but realistically it will - you can ground your views in reality but still pray that a miracle occurs.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

There's a world of difference between wanting it to fail and expecting it to fail. I doubt anyone actively wants Brexit to leave this country a pathetic shadow of what it was before, but realistically it will - you can ground your views in reality but still pray that a miracle occurs.

Why will it? None of the doomsaying has come true so far.

 

We've had recessions while we've been in the EU and we'll have them out of the EU. There will be a down turn eventually but it won't necessarily be the fault of Brexit.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Spiritwalker said:

I think the government  probably now regrets throwing security into the mix (or at least wish they had been more subtle), they seem to be backtracking.

Threats are only of use if you are prepared to go through with them and there's

no way they would take that risk.

 

I hope you're right about that.

 

If May is serious about seeking good future relations with the EU, it would be improve the mood to assume that security cooperation will be possible, rather than loudly anticipating the consequences of failure - which would be bad for both sides.

It's in the interests of both sides, all Brits and all Europeans for such cooperation to continue - it's a win-win. If money comes into it and the EU acts inflexibly, we could take an inflexible line over some other payment rather than effectively threatening that we're ready to accept an increased terror risk across Europe if we don't get a decent trade deal....which seemed to be the implication.

 

If the EU acts unreasonably over trade, we can act unreasonably over trade....not over security.

 

 

[The Doctor]

Just now, Webbo said:

Why will it? None of the doomsaying has come true so far.

 

We've had recessions while we've been in the EU and we'll have them out of the EU. There will be a down turn eventually but it won't necessarily be the fault of Brexit.

Even with a top team of negotiators we'd end up with a worse trade deal than we have currently, Alfs example of a gym is a fair comparison - you can't get a better deal for using the services on PAYG terms than as a member: if you could then no-one would bother to have a membership; and even then we'd not have a deal in place in time for leaving, they take decades to negotiate.

But, we don't have a top team of negotiators, we've got the three stooges and an insane plan to blackmail the EU with withdrawing our security knowledge (as if our obligations to NATO just cease by leaving a group NATO cooperate with). 

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

If you scrapped your season ticket and then the club made you jump through hoops to buy a ticket or refused to sell you a ticket that they'd be quite happy to sell to say, a Canadian, then it probably is a punishment.

 

If the EU want to keep us in then they'd be better off making us a good offer. British people don't like being bullied.

I'll admit I've not been paying much attention lately, what are the EU block selling to Canada that they're refusing to offer us?

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'll admit I've not been paying much attention lately, what are the EU block selling to Canada that they're refusing to offer us?

Nothing yet, we are still in a fta.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Nothing yet, we are still in a fta.

Then are they threatening to sell to us stuff with a higher tariff than they impose on Canada?

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Then are they threatening to sell to us stuff with a higher tariff than they impose on Canada?

No idea, that was webbo analogy. We will get tariffs free trade anyway, so this is all pointless.

[Thracian]

11 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

There's a world of difference between wanting it to fail and expecting it to fail. I doubt anyone actively wants Brexit to leave this country a pathetic shadow of what it was before, but realistically it will - you can ground your views in reality but still pray that a miracle occurs.

 

16 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

There's a world of difference between wanting it to fail and expecting it to fail. I doubt anyone actively wants Brexit to leave this country a pathetic shadow of what it was before, but realistically it will - you can ground your views in reality but still pray that a miracle occurs.

I'm sure glad you're not my motivational therapist. Maybe England and it 70 million people will become a shadow of it's former self - the great colonial self that so many seem to despise in any case - and maybe it won't,

 

Maybe the 70 million, far more than ever made something of this country in the past, will not themselves be a gathering of losers and will actually show themselves well capable of standing on their own feet.

 

And maybe it will be Europe that will see the error of its wasteful, bullying, dictatorial, federalist ways and find it damned difficult - collectively - to cope with the various problems its policies have, and will continue, to spawn. 

 

Some of those problems have already materialised. Social, economic, cultural, and with the EU caught in the traps of its own legislation and modus operandi.

 

Yet for all the tepid reassurance, I feel sure that some in Europe will want to punish us and am not at all certain we should be bothering to negotiate a trade deal  with people - like the French - who clearly don't want to do anything but make us suffer. And doubtless Juncker's federalist friends as well.

 

The Germans, of course, will be quietly hoping to take advantage. But they'll be increasingly picking up the tab and will be risking the alienation of as steadfast an ally as they're likely to get at a time when a good part of the EU "federation" is struggling economically, and another sizeable part is going to keep draining funds for a while yet.

 

So what the pessimists on here are saying is that the industrial powerhouse of Germany is somehow going to forget their trading and friendship with 70 million culturally sympathetic Brits and somehow hope that the caliphatically ambitious and admirably cunning Erdogan will somehow weld Turkey into the European family as a supposedly comparable friend and ally while not expecting substantial quids pro quo to be paid in return over time.

 

 Or that the weaker members of the European Union will somehow start performing the music of economic miracles.

 

Well, there's nothing like optimism.    

 

But it's a scenario the EU is welcome to. And I, for one, would be more than happy for Mrs May to stick to her promise of continued friendship and goodwill towards Europe while politely declining a formal EU  trade agreement and taking the route of world trade regulations and quickly negotiating our own deals with longstanding friends and other potential trading partners outside the EU group.   

 

I'd also contact the US and solicit their aid in turning us into a floating battleship, for purely defensive purposes. Our realistic defence capability is highly questionable from what I've read and we're sure going to need far better - and more sophisticated - capability very soon. It'll be a good excuse to explore the possibilities of reviving our military and merchant shipbuilding industry...something I believe we were fairly good at once.  

 

"Pathetic shadow?". I can't see a moment's rest but I can see a whole lot of opportunity in all sorts of directions. And a major "example" role in the world for potentially Great Again Britain if we handle the job properly.

 

Or for England, Northern Ireland and Wales,  if we finally lose patience with the serially-dissatisfied Sturgeon and suggest the Scots carry themselves homeward to think again about the kind of leadership they need to be "United" with anyone.                     

 

 

 

     

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, The Doctor said:

 

But, we don't have a top team of negotiators, we've got the three stooges and an insane plan to blackmail the EU with withdrawing our security knowledge (as if our obligations to NATO just cease by leaving a group NATO cooperate with). 

That's only your opinion based on nothing more than prejudice.

[Webbo]

48 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I'll admit I've not been paying much attention lately, what are the EU block selling to Canada that they're refusing to offer us?

Canada have got a free trade agreement. If they give us the same that's great, common sense, best for all sides and no has to suffer. There's no logical reason why it won't happen but people are talking as if the EU won't agree that.

[Donut]

I dont like the possibility of working time directives being scrapped.

 

You can talk neo liberal this and hard brexit that but if theres loads of zero hour contracts springing up and all of a sudden my boss wants me in the office for 60 hours a week cos he can, this country can fvck off.

[Nick]

23 minutes ago, Thracian said:

 

I'm sure glad you're not my motivational therapist. Maybe England and it 70 million people will become a shadow of it's former self - the great colonial self that so many seem to despise in any case - and maybe it won't,

 

Maybe the 70 million, far more than ever made something of this country in the past, will not themselves be a gathering of losers and will actually show themselves well capable of standing on their own feet.

 

And maybe it will be Europe that will see the error of its wasteful, bullying, dictatorial, federalist ways and find it damned difficult - collectively - to cope with the various problems its policies have, and will continue, to spawn. 

 

Some of those problems have already materialised. Social, economic, cultural, and with the EU caught in the traps of its own legislation and modus operandi.

 

Yet for all the tepid reassurance, I feel sure that some in Europe will want to punish us and am not at all certain we should be bothering to negotiate a trade deal  with people - like the French - who clearly don't want to do anything but make us suffer. And doubtless Juncker's federalist friends as well.

 

The Germans, of course, will be quietly hoping to take advantage. But they'll be increasingly picking up the tab and will be risking the alienation of as steadfast an ally as they're likely to get at a time when a good part of the EU "federation" is struggling economically, and another sizeable part is going to keep draining funds for a while yet.

 

So what the pessimists on here are saying is that the industrial powerhouse of Germany is somehow going to forget their trading and friendship with 70 million culturally sympathetic Brits and somehow hope that the caliphatically ambitious and admirably cunning Erdogan will somehow weld Turkey into the European family as a supposedly comparable friend and ally while not expecting substantial quids pro quo to be paid in return over time.

 

 Or that the weaker members of the European Union will somehow start performing the music of economic miracles.

 

Well, there's nothing like optimism.    

 

But it's a scenario the EU is welcome to. And I, for one, would be more than happy for Mrs May to stick to her promise of continued friendship and goodwill towards Europe while politely declining a formal EU  trade agreement and taking the route of world trade regulations and quickly negotiating our own deals with longstanding friends and other potential trading partners outside the EU group.   

 

I'd also contact the US and solicit their aid in turning us into a floating battleship, for purely defensive purposes. Our realistic defence capability is highly questionable from what I've read and we're sure going to need far better - and more sophisticated - capability very soon. It'll be a good excuse to explore the possibilities of reviving our military and merchant shipbuilding industry...something I believe we were fairly good at once.  

 

"Pathetic shadow?". I can't see a moment's rest but I can see a whole lot of opportunity in all sorts of directions. And a major "example" role in the world for potentially Great Again Britain if we handle the job properly.

 

Or for England, Northern Ireland and Wales,  if we finally lose patience with the serially-dissatisfied Sturgeon and suggest the Scots carry themselves homeward to think again about the kind of leadership they need to be "United" with anyone.                     

 

 

 

     

Great again Britain -  

[Webbo]

15 minutes ago, Donut said:

I dont like the possibility of working time directives being scrapped.

 

You can talk neo liberal this and hard brexit that but if theres loads of zero hour contracts springing up and all of a sudden my boss wants me in the office for 60 hours a week cos he can, this country can fvck off.

A) there are zhc now and we're still in.

B) if you don't like it, you can vote the govt out.

[Guest]

 

7 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

Great again Britain -  

And yet he has a motivational therapist. Can't decide whether Thracian is coming from right or left today!

 

Right. It's always right.

[The Doctor]

7 hours ago, Webbo said:

That's only your opinion based on nothing more than prejudice.

You say prejudice, I say realism. We've got people like Gove suggesting that we should scrap the CTD when we leave despite that: a) the CTD is being scrapped and replaced by the CTR next year anyway, b) the CTD is important for ensuring the safety of our drugs, and it's replacement is a godsend for transparency over pharma R&D, and c) the pharma industry will insist on being homogeneous with the EU to enable them to continue trade in the EU.

 

Any time the chief Brexiteers opens their mouth it becomes blindingly apparent they're less fit to represent us over this than Rudkin is to negotiate city's transfers, anyone who honestly sees otherwise is deluded.