Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Matt I'm not in government and I don't have access to the Treasury. You're also happy to refuse to answer the same questions around Brexit. Presumably you'd slow the pace of change and/or set priorities. I'm not convinced it is highly likely though. The tax increases they've talked about so far are not so great as to drive business out of the UK. As I've said before, corporation tax would be going up to a level not seen since (gasp) about 2012....there would also be a much smaller increase on small businesses.

I wouldn't refuse a question about anything what do you want me to answer? I'm not under the impression you are working for the treasury, I'm asking what you personally would do.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Nobody voted to be poorer, and nobody voted for a 'no deal'.

 

It was unconceivable after the referendum, that we wouldn't be able to arrange a trade deal with our biggest trade partner. I think we should have been entitled to expect a basic level of competence from the Government.

 

The more I think about the referendum, the more confused I feel about it. Or rather, the more confused I am about people's determination to abide by the result, regardless of the consequences.

 

 "Leave on WTO terms" wasn't on the referendum ballot paper. Neither was "Leave with no deal."

 

I certainly wouldn't feel bound by the "will of the people" if either of those scenarios came to pass.

I voted for a no deal, thats what i hoped would happen and still do.

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

I wouldn't refuse a question about anything what do you want me to answer? I'm not under the impression you are working for the treasury, I'm asking what you personally would do.

The answer was in the my third sentence. 

 

What I'd like to know from you is can you acknowledge that the policies of the 80s, 90s and 00s have directly led to the disconnection voters feel and the failure of the economy to grant prosperity to future generations, as I set out two posts ago? 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I voted for a no deal, thats what i hoped would happen and still do.

You've properly lost the plot over Brexit.

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

Btw. Your analogy is unwittingly ironic. I've been involved in divorce negotiations for 6 months! In my case, "the woman" has been unreasonable about capital, but reasonable about access and maintenance. Fingers crossed negotiations are (finally) making better progress than EU v. UK!  

Very sorry to hear that Alf, hope it goes as well it can for you.

[Strokes]

Just now, toddybad said:

You've properly lost the plot over Brexit.

No deal is the best option, it always has been.

[Fox Ulike]

20 hours ago, MattP said:

Not officially, but they have leaked figures, that's what they do, they don't officially ask for things, they use shady methods to do it through the press so they can impress people like you across the continent and try to make it appear they are being reasonable, we have made an offer of 20 billion, they have turned it down, we have then asked for a remit of what they want, they respond to that with more intransigence and claiming the ball is in our court.

 

The government is at some fault, they have already made too many concessions and we have looked weak, hopefully the talk now of planning for "no deal" will give some urgency to the other side as well as ours, we have to show this is a serious option for us even if we privately don't believe it.

Why do you think the EU would really be that bothered about the prospect of a "no deal"?  Why will this give the EU urgency?

 

The British have made a decision that will damage us economically and are pursuing the most extreme scenarios as realistic options. Why wouldn't the EU be of a similar mind-set? They can obviously accept the damage of a 'no deal' multiple times better than we can.

 

The only negotiating cards we ever held in our hands were:

• What type of Brexit we would pursue
• When we would trigger Article 50

 

Theresa May spaffed these almost immediately by declaring that 'Brexit means Brexit' and telling everybody exactly when we would trigger Article 50.

 

We have no option other than to renege on Article 50, declare it not fit-for-purpose and start the withdrawal process from scratch. The only way we can realistically do that is with a change of Government.

 

Don't expect the EU to kindly solve our problems for us.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

The answer was in the my third sentence. 

 

What I'd like to know from you is can you acknowledge that the policies of the 80s, 90s and 00s have directly led to the disconnection voters feel and the failure of the economy to grant prosperity to future generations, as I set out two posts ago? 

Definitely, the policies of all governments have, I think it's nonsense personally given our standard of living has exploded during that time, even the poorest now have mobile phones and the internet but yes, my answer is those policies are effecting people, certainly on things like housing.

 

No to yours, it wasn't an answer, it was a claim, you claimed corporation tax wouldn't see business leave, that's an opinion, not an answer.

 

My question was "What do you do IF you don't raise the taxation you intend?  The answer to that is not to say it won't, it's to address the scenario I raised. Have another go. It doesn't even have to be because of policy, let's say it happens because of another global recession.

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Fox Ulike said:

Why do you think the EU would really be that bothered about the prospect of a "no deal"?  Why will this give the EU urgency?

 

The British have made a decision that will damage us economically and are pursuing the most extreme scenarios as realistic options. Why wouldn't the EU be of a similar mind-set? They can obviously accept the damage of a 'no deal' multiple times better than we can.

 

The only negotiating cards we ever held in our hands were:

• What type of Brexit we would pursue
• When we would trigger Article 50

 

Theresa May spaffed these almost immediately by declaring that 'Brexit means Brexit' and telling everybody exactly when we would trigger Article 50.

 

We have no option other than to renege on Article 50, declare it not fit-for-purpose and start the withdrawal process from scratch. The only way we can realistically do that is with a change of Government.

 

Don't expect the EU to kindly solve our problems for us.

Because a "no deal" will harm both sides. That's something acknowledged by almost everyone.

 

It might hurt us more,that argument I accept, but it will still hurt them, therefore they should seek to avoid it.

[Fox Ulike]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I voted for a no deal, thats what i hoped would happen and still do.

Seriously? Why would you hold strong views on Trade arrangements?!! Apologies, but that sounds bizarre.

 

Personally, i'd never even heard of the Customs Union, the EEA, the Norway scenario or EFTA before the referendum.

 

 

 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Because a "no deal" will harm both sides. That's something acknowledged by almost everyone.

 

It might hurt us more,that argument I accept, but it will still hurt them, therefore they should seek to avoid it.

It wont hurt us more matt, the sterling has dropped 10% and its not smashed us apart. WTO terms puts our prices roughly where they were 2016. Tradewise, there really wont be much damage. Things that are important to establish are the irish border and citizens rights, after that we should walk away.

[Fox Ulike]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Because a "no deal" will harm both sides. That's something acknowledged by almost everyone.

 

It might hurt us more,that argument I accept, but it will still hurt them, therefore they should seek to avoid it.

Hmmm. That's like expecting your next-door neighbour to put out a fire in your own kitchen because of the damage it will do to his garden.

 

Good luck with that.

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Very sorry to hear that Alf, hope it goes as well it can for you.

 

Thanks, Matt. It's been a long time coming, so I'm mainly just keen to get on with future life, not bitter or upset about what has ended. I'm already living separately with daughter staying over 2-3 days/nights per week.

Agreement re. child access and maintenance has been quite smooth, arguments over capital and last-minute withdrawal from agreements the only problems. In theory all is now agreed, but until it's legally signed off, I remain a bit nervous.

 

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Seriously? Why would you hold strong views on Trade arrangements?!! Apologies, but that sounds bizarre.

 

Personally, i'd never even heard of the Customs Union, the EEA, the Norway scenario or EFTA before the referendum.

 

 

 

The single market is a protectionist racket, that is not in our favour. Any deal would seek to protect those within. We can easily operate relatively unscathed on WTO terms and then look to buy more competitively from outside the single market.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks, Matt. It's been a long time coming, so I'm mainly just keen to get on with future life, not bitter or upset about what has ended. I'm already living separately with daughter staying over 2-3 days/nights per week.

Agreement re. child access and maintenance has been quite smooth, arguments over capital and last-minute withdrawal from agreements the only problems. In theory all is now agreed, but until it's legally signed off, I remain a bit nervous.

 

Best of luck with that Alf. 

[Fox Ulike]

Just now, Strokes said:

The single market is a protectionist racket, that is not in our favour. Any deal would seek to protect those within. We can easily operate relatively unscathed on WTO terms and then look to buy more competitively from outside the single market.

I hope you're right.

 

Have you seen any analysis on this? What are WTO terms for key British exports?

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Hmmm. That's like expecting your next-door neighbour to put out a fire in your own kitchen because of the damage it will do to his garden.

 

Good luck with that.

I would fully expect my next door neighbour to put out a fire if they could whether it would damage them or not, I'd do the same.

 

The point I was making is that no one should want any damage done to them, that's common sense, we are a very large export market for the EU and more importantly for France and Germany, a deal can be good for both but we have to say we are prepared to walk and mean it to get that.

[Strokes]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

I hope you're right.

 

Have you seen any analysis on this? What are WTO terms for key British exports?

I can post some bits up later, im at work on my phone now and its a bit tricky.

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I would fully expect my next door neighbour to put out a fire if they could whether it would damage them or not, I'd do the same.

 

The point I was making is that no one should want any damage done to them, that's common sense, we are a very large export market for the EU and more importantly for France and Germany, a deal can be good for both but we have to say we are prepared to walk and mean it to get that.

 

Common sense (economically) is staying in the single market/Customs Union. Common sense is against a 'no deal'.

 

(And without getting into the arguments about that, it's a view held by the majority of politicians, economists, business leaders etc. And it's the conclusion of the majority of research done on the subject. And it's probably also only a minority of the electorate who support it).

 

So my point is: When the UK has made a decision that goes against common sense, and against our own best interests - why do you expect the EU to react differently?

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Fox Ulike said:

Common sense (economically) is staying in the single market/Customs Union. Common sense is against a 'no deal'.

 

(And without getting into the arguments about that, it's a view held by the majority of politicians, economists, business leaders etc. And it's the conclusion of the majority of research done on the subject. And it's probably also only a minority of the electorate who support it).

 

So my point is: When the UK has made a decision that goes against common sense, and against our own best interests - why do you expect the EU to react differently?

I haven't said I expect the EU to act differently, if you read my thoughts after the decision I said the EU would be difficult to deal with, one of the first things I did last year was read "Adults in the Room" to give myself an insight int what these people are like, I still think common sense will win through in the end and some deal will be done, even if very late, despite the "block of 27" we hear about, the reality is we are dealing with negotiators who have red lines written for them by France and Germany - plus the EU is being besiged by problems at the minute and Catalonia could bring the whole thing down, Brexit might not even be their biggest concern come March 2019.

 

As for the question as why the electorate made that decision, I couldn't possibly speak for 17.4million people but;

 

I'd imagine it was a variety of things, but one thing I think those people did virtually all have in common was to have come to value being an independent sovereign nation over one that answers to higher bodies outside it's own constitituions, I made the decision that for us to be able to do our own trade deals and be outside the jurisdiction of the ECJ would override the financial impact, I'd imagine many more did so for reasons like border control. One of the biggest mistakes politicians make now is still sitting on the Bill Clinton "it's the economy stupid" line, a lot more matters.

 

The same point you make about leaving the EU stands with current Labour policy as well, it's almost identical, it's a view held by the majority of politicians, economists, business leaders etc that they would be a disaster for the economy, but maybe a lot of people feel living in a poorer but fairer society is a price worth paying and that's why they are voting that way.

[Fox Ulike]

9 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I can post some bits up later, im at work on my phone now and its a bit tricky.

I can wait.

 

Worrying, I don't have to go very far to find research that disproves what you're saying. There are various reports in the press today about Rabobank's latest assessment:

 

http://metro.co.uk/2017/10/11/hard-brexit-would-cost-400-billion-wipe-18-off-gdp-and-cause-a-recession-6994076/

 

A ‘no deal’ hard Brexit would plunge the country into an immediate recession, according to a new report. The potential Tory plan would cost the British economy £400 billion and wipe 18% off GDP growth by 2030, investment firm Rabobank warned

 

How do you feel when you read stuff like that? 18% off GDP!!

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Matt I'm not in government and I don't have access to the Treasury. You're also happy to refuse to answer the same questions around Brexit. Presumably you'd slow the pace of change and/or set priorities. I'm not convinced it is highly likely though. The tax increases they've talked about so far are not so great as to drive business out of the UK. As I've said before, corporation tax would be going up to a level not seen since (gasp) about 2012....there would also be a much smaller increase on small businesses.

 

37 minutes ago, MattP said:

Definitely, the policies of all governments have, I think it's nonsense personally given our standard of living has exploded during that time, even the poorest now have mobile phones and the internet but yes, my answer is those policies are effecting people, certainly on things like housing.

 

No to yours, it wasn't an answer, it was a claim, you claimed corporation tax wouldn't see business leave, that's an opinion, not an answer.

 

My question was "What do you do IF you don't raise the taxation you intend?  The answer to that is not to say it won't, it's to address the scenario I raised. Have another go. It doesn't even have to be because of policy, let's say it happens because of another global recession.

As I said, its in the third sentence.

Exactly the same as any other government would do.

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It wont hurt us more matt, the sterling has dropped 10% and its not smashed us apart. WTO terms puts our prices roughly where they were 2016. Tradewise, there really wont be much damage. Things that are important to establish are the irish border and citizens rights, after that we should walk away.

 

You might be right that the extra cost of tariffs would be offset by the depreciation of sterling. However, that doesn't address the issue of non-tariff barriers (extra customs procedures, monitoring of compliance with EU regulations and standards etc.), which most experts see as more important. In the medium-term, such barriers could make British firms less competitive/profitable and risk international corporations shifting investment to EU nations where they can be more competitive/profitable.

 

Surely sterling depreciation brings other problems, too? Dearer imports, potentially lower investment, higher inflation, potentially lower real incomes, dearer foreign holidays etc.

 

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The single market is a protectionist racket, that is not in our favour. Any deal would seek to protect those within. We can easily operate relatively unscathed on WTO terms and then look to buy more competitively from outside the single market.

 

Why would other nations/foreign firms offer more competitive deals to an isolated medium-sized nation (UK) than to the world's largest integrated trading bloc (EU)? Surely they will base such decisions on their own self-interest and on how far that is achievable? Surely they'll see bigger gains in volume to be made from trading with the much larger EU market - and more scope for driving a harder deal with the UK, knowing that it is desperate for new trading partners? This is particularly true, surely, when most of our potential alternative trading partners are large/rising trading nations (USA, China, India, Japan, SE Asia, Brazil etc.)  

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

As I said, its in the third sentence.

Exactly the same as any other government would do.

Hitting small business with wage hikes and tax increases while the richer ones can vanish to places like Ireland as you have stayed in the SM?

 

Absolutely terrible, if that's in your manifesto in 2022 you'll get hammered.

 

 

[Captain...]

51 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

We'll probably have to agree to disagree, but I find this a false analogy:

- Provided he's not dangerous, a divorcing father will have a legal right to future access to his child (though the focus is on the child's needs), whereas neither the UK nor the EU has a right to insist on a future trade deal, which is entirely voluntary (though a good idea).

- A divorcing father will be paying maintenance towards the future care of his child, whereas the "divorce payment" the UK is being asked for relates to commitments during the marriage (though there are grey areas up for negotiation re. spending/projects taking place both during and after the EU/UK marriage - the equivalent of your university support and dog)

- Just as the man in your scenario can cite financial difficulties, so can the woman (the EU)

- Whether EU demands are disproportionately high or UK offers are disproportionately low are a matter of opinion. Information emerging from negotiations seems insufficient to judge.

- In a divorce, there is a de facto connection between maintenance and access (though not legally, I think). In the Brexit scenario, there is no essential connection between the divorce payment and future access to the EU, which depends on separate negotiations, which might or might not take place (but hopefully will)

 

I'm not trying to claim that the EU is entirely in the right and the UK in the wrong. If the EU takes an intransigent stance on UK funding of post-Brexit commitments, it will be in the wrong. If it intransigently avoids negotiations over future trade, it will be stupidly harming itself and us. But things haven't even reached that stage, have they? We're still debating the calculation of the divorce payment, not future EU projects, officials' pensions etc. Plus, I must stress: the EU is under no obligation whatsoever to discuss a future trade deal. Although it would be damaging to everyone's interests, the EU is perfectly entitled to simply say "we don't want any future trade deal". The only obligation on both sides is to negotiate the terms of the Brexit divorce.

 

What you said before makes more sense to me: strategically, the UK would be better advised to be more generous in the divorce negotiations in order to accelerate progress to negotiations over future trade. After all, nothing agreed re. divorce payments will be written in stone until ratified by the UK parliament, European Council and European Parliament.

 

Btw. Your analogy is unwittingly ironic. I've been involved in divorce negotiations for 6 months! In my case, "the woman" has been unreasonable about capital, but reasonable about access and maintenance. Fingers crossed negotiations are (finally) making better progress than EU v. UK!  

Sorry to hear that Alf, hope it all gets resolved quicker than Brexit. Also don't be so concerned over money Brexit will cause the economy to tank and the resulting recession will leave us all broke and homeless anyway. 

 

I guess my point is that one relies on the other and each party has its priorities. In a divorce situation if the man stops paying maintenance then the woman can withdraw access rights and vice versa. They are linked and as such should be discussed together. Goodwill on one side will hopefully be reflected with goodwill on the other.

 

If you had been forced to settle all the disputes over capital and maintenance payments first before you were even allowed to discuss access do you not think that would have put you under massive pressure from a negotiating point of view?