Brexit Discussion Thread.

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, Foxxed said:

Sorry, what are these facts you're referring to?

 

The threat of a tax haven was issued by May months and months ago

 

And we have threatened less cooperation on security with EU member states.

 

And the how our national newspapers report the news is very noteworthy: it is a reflection of country, of the newspaper reading public.

 

There have been plenty of newspaper column inches getting exciting about a change of passport colour.

 

Let's leave aside the fanatic excitement of perhaps returning to the Imperial measurement system.
 

The Telegraph and others has been theorising about how we'd fair in a war with Spain over Gibraltar.

 

These are the debates our credible national newspapers are having because of our current political situation.

For a start The EU brought up Gibraltar not us.  Then you hugely underestimate the UK impact on European security, both through NATO and intelligence services, with a flippant comment on crime.

You also ignore that trade is our biggest bargaining chip, and will always be.  Much to our Shame so are the rights of EU citizens here, if only to ensure equal rights for our citizens in the EU.

You seem obsessed with belittling the UK, and you are not alone.  I just don't understand why.

[lgfualol]

 

Classic front page by the Sun. UP YOURS SPAIN - book holidays to Spain from 15 pound!

[Foxxed]

3 hours ago, The Doctor said:

No they aren't. They've said they wouldn't veto if Scotland left constitutionally. As Catalonia will never be granted an independence referendum, they can't leave Spain constitutionally so Scotland provides no precedence.

Ah excellent point. In that case, Spain can have their cake and eat it. They can use Brexit negotiations with the backing of the EU member states to further control Gibraltar while retaining their internal unity. And use Scotland to give the UK more pressing issues to deal with: indy ref was scuppered by no EU membership, no currency and uncertain UK trade--Spain has now removed two of those issues.

[Alf Bentley]

41 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

 

Classic front page by the Sun. UP YOURS SPAIN - book holidays to Spain from 15 pound!

 

 

Classic effort with the hols ad

 

Mind you, they could have worked out how to get a "tilde" (squiggle over the "N") from their keyboard: Alt+164 (ñ) or Alt+165 (Ñ), chaps!

Will let them off for using "Señors" instead of "Señores" so as to rhyme with "yours" and "Delors" (sort of). 

[Foxxed]

3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

For a start The EU brought up Gibraltar not us.  Then you hugely underestimate the UK impact on European security, both through NATO and intelligence services, with a flippant comment on crime.

You also ignore that trade is our biggest bargaining chip, and will always be.  Much to our Shame so are the rights of EU citizens here, if only to ensure equal rights for our citizens in the EU.

You seem obsessed with belittling the UK, and you are not alone.  I just don't understand why.

Of course Spain through the EU brought up Gibraltar up. The Brexit campaign focuses largely on immigration and borders. Spain have their own border issues. They now see a way to move forward now we've decided to leave the Single Market.

 

I agree our impact on security is large. My problem is that we once would lead the way forward in these issues. We have now turned from that and are threatening the security of countries we once called allies. This is not the Britain I once knew.

 

I agree trade is the biggest bargining chip. And we depend more on the larger EU market than the EU depends on us. This does not give us the upper hand. And that is why threats around tax havens and security are popping up.

 

You say I belittle the UK. But the UK is a very large thing. It is the people, the football, the music, the arts, the comedy, the creativity, the culture. What I belittle is our leaders. Leaders who threaten security of our allies. And those who glibly ponder a war with an ally. And those who see our new situation in the world as an opportunity to see people as scapegoats.

[Webbo]

12 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Of course Spain through the EU brought up Gibraltar up. The Brexit campaign focuses largely on immigration and borders. Spain have their own border issues. They now see a way to move forward now we've decided to leave the Single Market.

 

I agree our impact on security is large. My problem is that we once would lead the way forward in these issues. We have now turned from that and are threatening the security of countries we once called allies. This is not the Britain I once knew.

 

I agree trade is the biggest bargining chip. And we depend more on the larger EU market than the EU depends on us. This does not give us the upper hand. And that is why threats around tax havens and security are popping up.

 

You say I belittle the UK. But the UK is a very large thing. It is the people, the football, the music, the arts, the comedy, the creativity, the culture. What I belittle is our leaders. Leaders who threaten security of our allies. And those who glibly ponder a war with an ally. And those who see our new situation in the world as an opportunity to see people as scapegoats.

It was a silly comment from a silly old man. Nobody pondered war, stop pretending otherwise.

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

It was a silly comment from a silly old man. Nobody pondered war, stop pretending otherwise.

Ffs Webbo. I already cleaned out my tank. 

[davieG]

If the Referendum hadn't already done so this certainly scuppers any chance of Real Madrid and Barcelona joining the PL.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Ffs Webbo. I already cleaned out my tank. 

What are you going to keep your fish in now?

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

It was a silly comment from a silly old man. Nobody pondered war, stop pretending otherwise.

As indeed is all the crap about changing back to imperial measures.  

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Foxxed said:

Of course Spain through the EU brought up Gibraltar up. The Brexit campaign focuses largely on immigration and borders. Spain have their own border issues. They now see a way to move forward now we've decided to leave the Single Market.

 

I agree our impact on security is large. My problem is that we once would lead the way forward in these issues. We have now turned from that and are threatening the security of countries we once called allies. This is not the Britain I once knew.

 

I agree trade is the biggest bargining chip. And we depend more on the larger EU market than the EU depends on us. This does not give us the upper hand. And that is why threats around tax havens and security are popping up.

 

You say I belittle the UK. But the UK is a very large thing. It is the people, the football, the music, the arts, the comedy, the creativity, the culture. What I belittle is our leaders. Leaders who threaten security of our allies. And those who glibly ponder a war with an ally. And those who see our new situation in the world as an opportunity to see people as scapegoats.

 

We don't need an upper hand on trade.  We are a very large market for EU countries, and that is more than enough.  We import more than we export, so any impact of tarrifs on exports will cause more harm to the EU than to us in absolute terms.  The relative terms you base your dependency argument on are irrelevant, and I dont know why people keep using them.  Regardless, the absolute is large enough to mean we will have tariff free trade.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

It was a silly comment from a silly old man. Nobody pondered war, stop pretending otherwise.

 

40 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

As indeed is all the crap about changing back to imperial measures.  

Not taking jingoistic nationalists seriously is a little unwise IMO. Many people tend to like to listen to them, and their views get repeated.

 

(The front page of the Sun being exhibit A in this one.)

[Jon the Hat]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Not taking jingoistic nationalists seriously is a little unwise IMO. Many people tend to like to listen to them, and their views get repeated.

 

(The front page of the Sun being exhibit A in this one.)

Oh I have no doubt you can find people who think this stuff, i just don't think they have any power or indeed care enough to actually do anything about it.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Oh I have no doubt you can find people who think this stuff, i just don't think they have any power or indeed care enough to actually do anything about it.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

 

Sadly a few areas of history seem to say differently.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

You'd think so, wouldn't you?

 

Sadly a few areas of history seem to say differently.

If you can find any examples in history where a single member of the House of Lordswith no place in the govt has forced us into war I'd be interested seeing it.

 

He didn't even threaten war, he said we'd defend Gibraltar with the same resolve.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

If you can find any examples in history where a single member of the House of Lordswith no place in the govt has forced us into war I'd be interested seeing it.

 

He didn't even threaten war, he said we'd defend Gibraltar with the same resolve.

 

I'm reasonably sure there are cases in history where a single politicians jingoistic stance has eventually convinced others and brought about a war, particularly when mass media are prepared to broadcast that view far and wide. I'd have to look specific cases up, though. That was my point - the comments of a single person, no matter on this topic, no matter how low they might be in the pecking order, sometimes get noticed.

 

And of course he didn't use the W-word explicitly, but what exactly do you think he was talking about when he referenced the Falklands and what Thatcher did to defend them?

[Webbo]

11 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm reasonably sure there are cases in history where a single politicians jingoistic stance has eventually convinced others and brought about a war, particularly when mass media are prepared to broadcast that view far and wide. I'd have to look specific cases up, though. That was my point - the comments of a single person, no matter on this topic, no matter how low they might be in the pecking order, sometimes get noticed.

 

And of course he didn't use the W-word explicitly, but what exactly do you think he was talking about when he referenced the Falklands and what Thatcher did to defend them?

As I said, I'd be interested in seeing it. There is absolutely no chance we are going to war over this. Nobody genuinely believes we will.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

As I said, I'd be interested in seeing it. There is absolutely no chance we are going to war over this. Nobody genuinely believes we will.

I think you're right on the bolded (though I think there ARE quite a few people who would jump at the chance to stick it to the "senors" and genuinely believe we will, or should).

 

But as was said before, not taking the jingoistic rants of a single person in politics seriously has led to trouble in the past so it's probably best not to dismiss any of them until really conclusively proven otherwise.

[Voll Blau]

This whole Gibraltar thing just reminds me of this...

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

We don't need an upper hand on trade.  We are a very large market for EU countries, and that is more than enough.  We import more than we export, so any impact of tarrifs on exports will cause more harm to the EU than to us in absolute terms.  The relative terms you base your dependency argument on are irrelevant, and I dont know why people keep using them.  Regardless, the absolute is large enough to mean we will have tariff free trade.

 

Here is an excellent summary of the figures and arguments re. EU-UK trade: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

 

I agree that, all other factors being equal, it is in the interests of both sides to minimise or eliminate tariffs - and the British market is big enough for that to matter (to some EU nations more than others).

 

However, this "we import more than we export" argument, while factually accurate, is of minor importance. All that means is that, were we to have tariffs, the EU countries (apart from Ireland & 4 others) would pay us slightly more than we paid them.

In contrast, as it stands, 45% of our exports are to the EU, whereas only 8% or 17% of theirs are to us (depending on whether your count intra-EU trade). So, until such time as we developed new, non-EU markets, 45% of our exports would become less competitive, whereas only 8% or 17% of EU exports would become less competitive. That is why the "relative terms" argument is NOT irrelevant.

 

Anyway, most experts reckon that non-tariff barriers to trade (regulations applicable) will be much more important than tariffs. 

 

Both sides lose if there is no trade deal, but the UK loses more than the EU (at least unless it finds lucrative non-EU export markets quickly or massively expands its domestic market). Trade matters to both, but is a weak card (comparatively) for the UK. That's probably why we've been hearing veiled threats about turning the UK into an offshore tax haven or reducing security cooperation - much more realistic threats, even if they're morally repugnant and would seriously harm the UK public into the bargain.

[fuchsntf]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

It was a silly comment from a silly old man. Nobody pondered war, stop pretending otherwise.

No but It was a Shitstirring  stick for both sides, which stirs up other fires and totally incorrect based opinions,

from the electorate through Europe..More so through Spain and UK.. Look at the Daily journal headlines.

If people believe Moyes should be fired...then whats the sentence for this berk and idiot hangers on..

[fuchsntf]

57 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Here is an excellent summary of the figures and arguments re. EU-UK trade: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

 

I agree that, all other factors being equal, it is in the interests of both sides to minimise or eliminate tariffs - and the British market is big enough for that to matter (to some EU nations more than others).

 

However, this "we import more than we export" argument, while factually accurate, is of minor importance. All that means is that, were we to have tariffs, the EU countries (apart from Ireland & 4 others) would pay us slightly more than we paid them.

In contrast, as it stands, 45% of our exports are to the EU, whereas only 8% or 17% of theirs are to us (depending on whether your count intra-EU trade). So, until such time as we developed new, non-EU markets, 45% of our exports would become less competitive, whereas only 8% or 17% of EU exports would become less competitive. That is why the "relative terms" argument is NOT irrelevant.

 

Anyway, most experts reckon that non-tariff barriers to trade (regulations applicable) will be much more important than tariffs. 

 

Both sides lose if there is no trade deal, but the UK loses more than the EU (at least unless it finds lucrative non-EU export markets quickly or massively expands its domestic market). Trade matters to both, but is a weak card (comparatively) for the UK. That's probably why we've been hearing veiled threats about turning the UK into an offshore tax haven or reducing security cooperation - much more realistic threats, even if they're morally repugnant and would seriously harm the UK public into the bargain.

Errm, intersting post, but it loses any signifigance it may have had....You used the term "Experts" to qualify the Reasoning.

One point always stays with me...Eu do not have to do any negotiating, thats the big uk political lie. The Negotiations have to

come from the UK.. There are no big EU businesses nor WWide that need what we have to offer....

Our only bargaining point imo, are our 60mil+ inhabitants, to help keep as as customers,Plus High spending  tourists all year

Round.

 

I never liked Maggie T., but she was right imo in one area, but her political and business allies didnt back her.....

That was our advance and developement, would be on the b ack of the Medium come small Businesses.

From the entrepreneur, through to Old and new  technical/mechanical skilled businesses that are allowed to develope,

create their employees paths.

I have no idea, what there is to negotiate, Where  a UK poltician is competent enough to bring home any plus points..

They, not the Eu have beencselling the Uk out for years....Backbenchers have lost the power, and therin electorates trust.

We are too busy, where everybody is trying to be a dell boy....

Even our military , Police and medical frontliners have and are b eing let down by these Home grown political nerds.

[Jon the Hat]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Here is an excellent summary of the figures and arguments re. EU-UK trade: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

 

I agree that, all other factors being equal, it is in the interests of both sides to minimise or eliminate tariffs - and the British market is big enough for that to matter (to some EU nations more than others).

 

However, this "we import more than we export" argument, while factually accurate, is of minor importance. All that means is that, were we to have tariffs, the EU countries (apart from Ireland & 4 others) would pay us slightly more than we paid them.

In contrast, as it stands, 45% of our exports are to the EU, whereas only 8% or 17% of theirs are to us (depending on whether your count intra-EU trade). So, until such time as we developed new, non-EU markets, 45% of our exports would become less competitive, whereas only 8% or 17% of EU exports would become less competitive. That is why the "relative terms" argument is NOT irrelevant.

 

Anyway, most experts reckon that non-tariff barriers to trade (regulations applicable) will be much more important than tariffs. 

 

Both sides lose if there is no trade deal, but the UK loses more than the EU (at least unless it finds lucrative non-EU export markets quickly or massively expands its domestic market). Trade matters to both, but is a weak card (comparatively) for the UK. That's probably why we've been hearing veiled threats about turning the UK into an offshore tax haven or reducing security cooperation - much more realistic threats, even if they're morally repugnant and would seriously harm the UK public into the bargain.

You cannot argue that non tariff barriers to trade (regulations and standards) will be an issue when they will be the same the day after we leave - yu could argue we risk divergence over time.

I know the argument on relative impact, I just don't believe it is significant.  The EU countries cannot afford to have the 17% impacted given the context of their low growth rates.  Im not saying this will be perfect, just that there really is not upper hand for either side.  It is a huge amount of trade by value, and it is irrelevant the %ages.

[Alf Bentley]

16 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You cannot argue that non tariff barriers to trade (regulations and standards) will be an issue when they will be the same the day after we leave - yu could argue we risk divergence over time.

I know the argument on relative impact, I just don't believe it is significant.  The EU countries cannot afford to have the 17% impacted given the context of their low growth rates.  Im not saying this will be perfect, just that there really is not upper hand for either side.  It is a huge amount of trade by value, and it is irrelevant the %ages.

 

Hmmm...

 

If we do continue to apply EU regulations and standards, will we be "taking back control" sufficiently to satisfy Brexit supporters? Obviously, we can apply our own UK regulations/standards equivalent to EU regulations/standards, so would "take back control" to some extent, but equivalence would presumably need to be overseen by an international body acceptable to the EU - either the European Court of Justice or some new body...would that be deemed acceptable by the Brexiteers?

 

EU growth may have been slightly lower than UK growth over recent years, but there isn't a massive difference. So, while it's true that the EU won't want 17% of their exports impacted, presumably the UK won't want 45% of its exports impacted either, albeit from a slightly higher growth figure. It might also affect investment decisions by multinational firms in certain sectors, if the profitability of investment in the UK would be lower (and our economy has a lot of foreign investment).

 

In one sense, we agree, I think: a reasonable trade deal is in the interests of both sides, but of course they're complex agreements to negotiate and other issues can get in the way. I'd also imagine there could be disputes among EU27 countries whose national interests pointed in different directions: e.g. some nations might stand to benefit from, say, the UK car industry or financial sector becoming less competitive, whereas others might not...

[Webbo]

Even if tariffs are applied we're not going to stop trading immediately. We won't go from 45% of our exports to zero, and vice versa.