Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 hours ago, purpleronnie said:

Can anyone see anything else than us crashing out with a No deal?

 

Surely the EU won't agree to the current deal the Tories have, May won't want make any more concessions and face losing any support she still has, but then if she does crash us out she'll be humiliated which surely means resignation.

 

I guess then we'll find out if a No deal really is a disaster or not.

 

 

I think it highly unlikely there will be no deal.

 

We might end up with a crap deal.

 

We may get a good deal.

 

Really its in the EUs interest to have a deal with one of the world biggest market places to sell cars, wine, etc etc. 

 

Unless they are crazy they wont want to exclude themselves from one of the worlds biggest consumer market places, it would be suicide for their own economies. 

 

If we put high tariffs on EU manufactured cars it would cause serious problems for the likes of BMW/Audi/Renault/PSG etc etc, it would cause issues in those EU economies. Surely crashing their own economies is not worth it to 'teach the UK a lesson'. 

 

My main concern with the deal proposed by May is that services are not mentioned. Now this is 70% of our GDP, if this is tariffed by the EU, its quite a bad deal for us as a country, as they get to sell us manufactured goods tariff free but we cant sell our services. 

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, purpleronnie said:

Can anyone see anything else than us crashing out with a No deal?

Yeah, I actually think this deal, if accepted by the EU, will make it past parliament. Brexiteers like Gove and Leadsom have said they accept it, Rees-Mogg is even hinting that he'll vote for it and then deal with a better Brexit later on down the line, the DUP are in, so you've probably only got those who have sent the no confidence letters voting against it which hasn't reached 48 yet. The logic might be to get out, dispose of her and then fight the next General Election on a proper Brexit with a leader and cabinet that actually believe in it.

 

She might only need 25-30 odd votes from the Labour side of the house to give it Royal Ascent and given the possibility of no deal and the fear they have of de-selection in the face of an immediate GE, I don't think she'll have a problem getting those numbers.

This can't be the end position and it certainly won't last, it doesn't give us the benefits of leaving in terms of independent trade and it doesn't give us the beenfits of staying in at least having a vote on policy.

[Alf Bentley]

56 minutes ago, hairy said:

I found this interesting to read from the New York Times

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/opinion/boris-johnson-resignation-brexit.html

 

I was hoping that it would be an article by an American from an external perspective, but it's by Jenni Russell, a British journalist.

 

I agree with some of the points made: the impossibility of satisfying expectations, the potential damage, Boris being a careerist charlatan etc.

 

But I completely disagree with other points:

 

- The statement that "further political paralysis seems certain" could not be more wrong, surely? A political crisis seems certain now, not paralysis. If May gets her Chequers white paper through parliament, she'll take it to Brussels for negotiations that will conclude by October, probably generating a crisis then. If her white paper is defeated, then her leadership and/or her government will be in immediate crisis. The time for fudging or kicking cans down the road is now limited. We are due to leave the EU in March and before then all the EU institutions and nations, including the UK, will have to adopt a final stance on the divorce deal and the transition (negotiations over the future UK-EU relationship could drag on for years). That final divorce deal/no deal could conceivably get delayed by a couple of months, but not much longer.....doesn't sound like paralysis to me. I suppose the focus on Brexit paralyses action in other policy areas, that's about all.

 

- The article depicts Boris as having almost single-handedly won the referendum for Leave. Given how close the result was, he may or may not have tipped the balance (impossible to know). But there had been a large Brexit minority for years. When you then add in the perfect storm of years of stagnant living standards and insecurity post-crash, negative media coverage of the EU and an awful referendum campaign by both sides, it was always going to be close.

 

- While the article is probably right to paint Boris as an egotistical charlatan who took up the Leave cause as a careerist move, it is wrong to suggest that the same applies to the likes of Gove and Davis. However much I might disagree with them, they have a long history of support for Brexit, and Gove was about the only leading politician who was unambiguously Hard Brexit from the start of the referendum. Gove might not have expected to win, but I'm sure that he "intended and wanted" to win, even if Boris didn't. 

 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

27 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

This can't be the end position and it certainly won't last, it doesn't give us the benefits of leaving in terms of independent trade and it doesn't give us the beenfits of staying in at least having a vote on policy.

This is the stupid thing really.

 

Having a very soft deal like the one proposed means there is little point of the whole process, its really Brexit in name only. I suppose like you say the only benefit for leave is that it could lead to a party winning an election on a hard Brexit stance. 

 

I am sick of hearing about the whole thing to be honest. Its a monumental cluster****.

 

Again there are some principals of Brexit that I can get behind but as someone mentioned already the politicians in this country do not have the integrity or guts to get the job done and make a success of it. This is why I don't ever believe it can be a success because the elite want it to fail either way.

Edited 11 July 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Donut]

52 minutes ago, MattP said:

Yeah, I actually think this deal, if accepted by the EU, will make it past parliament. Brexiteers like Gove and Leadsom have said they accept it, Rees-Mogg is even hinting that he'll vote for it and then deal with a better Brexit later on down the line, the DUP are in, so you've probably only got those who have sent the no confidence letters voting against it which hasn't reached 48 yet. The logic might be to get out, dispose of her and then fight the next General Election on a proper Brexit with a leader and cabinet that actually believe in it.

 

She might only need 25-30 odd votes from the Labour side of the house to give it Royal Ascent and given the possibility of no deal and the fear they have of de-selection in the face of an immediate GE, I don't think she'll have a problem getting those numbers.

This can't be the end position and it certainly won't last, it doesn't give us the benefits of leaving in terms of independent trade and it doesn't give us the beenfits of staying in at least having a vote on policy.

We are leaving the European Union.

 

Brexit means brexit. You all knew that.

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think it highly unlikely there will be no deal.

 

We might end up with a crap deal.

 

We may get a good deal.

 

Really its in the EUs interest to have a deal with one of the world biggest market places to sell cars, wine, etc etc. 

 

Unless they are crazy they wont want to exclude themselves from one of the worlds biggest consumer market places, it would be suicide for their own economies. 

 

If we put high tariffs on EU manufactured cars it would cause serious problems for the likes of BMW/Audi/Renault/PSG etc etc, it would cause issues in those EU economies. Surely crashing their own economies is not worth it to 'teach the UK a lesson'. 

 

My main concern with the deal proposed by May is that services are not mentioned. Now this is 70% of our GDP, if this is tariffed by the EU, its quite a bad deal for us as a country, as they get to sell us manufactured goods tariff free but we cant sell our services. 

 

I hope you're right about No Deal, think you're definitely right that we might end up with a crap deal but am doubtful that we can get a good deal. If May's Chequers proposals were accepted, that might not be disastrous, but I'm expecting the EU to want further major changes to them. In particular, I cannot see them accepting her proposed "Facilitated Customs Arrangement". Granted, it could resolve the Irish border issue, but it would also leave them relying on the UK, as a third country, to administer their tariffs for external goods bound for the EU. Meanwhile, the UK is asking to trade goods tariff-free with the EU, while being free to undercut the EU on external tariffs....sounds like a very bad deal for the EU to me.

 

Then there's the wider issue that the Chequers proposals effectively ask the EU to fragment the Single Market. We want free movement of goods, but not of services, people or capital, as I understand it - opting into some elements of the single market, but out of the rest ("cherrypicking"). Wouldn't the EU be concerned that other nations (e.g. Italy, Hungary) might also say that they want free movement of goods but not of people? If the EU stands firm on issues like this, presumably either the UK will have to make further major concessions, probably leading to a Soft Brexit deal or an ultra-crap arm's length deal (no deal on goods or Ireland?), or we'll be into a No Deal scenario, with no transition period and just a few months until March 2019?

 

It is true that No Deal would be damaging to the EU economy as well as to ours - but describing it as "suicide" is hyperbole. The damage to the UK economy would be much greater as exports to the EU make up 12% of the UK economy, whereas exports to the UK make up just 3-4% of the EU economy: https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/    It's true that the impact would be greater on certain countries (Germany, Netherlands, Ireland) and certain sectors (cars, wine). But, by definition, that means the impact in many EU countries/sectors would be minimal. And EU exporters wouldn't be "excluded" from the UK market, just less competitive - they'd have to raise prices, cut costs, accept lower margins or whatever. The EU would lose a proportion of 3-4% of its economy and some more of that 3-4% would be less competitive. The UK would lose a proportion of 12% of its economy and some more of that 12% would be less competitive. 

 

I doubt that the EU wants to "teach the UK a lesson". It would prefer we didn't leave at all and wants a deal, assuming we do leave. But they'll be looking to the future of the EU27. They won't want to do a deal that causes discontent from remaining countries. They won't want other countries feeling that the UK is getting similar terms to them without having the same obligations (e.g. free movement of goods, but not of people). Particularly when there's already a lot of Euroscepticism on the continent, it is of existential importance to the EU's future that the EU27 feel that they are still benefiting from membership compared to non-members like the UK. As an analogy, it would be sheer stupidity for LCFC to offer general sale ticket buyers special benefits or terms like those offered to season-ticket holders. Similarly, it is in the EU's self-interest to protect the interests of its members more than non-members like the UK.

 

Good point about May's proposals not addressing services, which could presumably still be subject to new EU tariffs or red tape. We need to be careful with stats, though. Services are important among our exports, but "only" account for 32% of exports (2017 figure, source: UK parliament). You're right that they account for 70%+ of our economy overall (actually closer to 80% now, I think), but a large proportion of those services are supplied within the domestic market (retail, hotels/restaurants, transport, household insurance, personal services, care services etc.). Of course, even having barriers applied to 32% of our exports would be bad news - and spending on services within the domestic market would be indirectly affected by any hit taken by the wider economy or by goods exporters. Again, if barriers/tariffs were applied to exports of services, many would still be supplied due to demand for expertise, just at higher prices, with lower profit margins or with cost cuts - so, again, it would be a proportion of 32% of our exports that would be lost, not the whole 32% by a long chalk.

 

Sorry to ramble on! I'm trying to get it straight in my own head as much as anything.... 

[Guest]

Soft Brexit looks like the outcome.

Really it was probably the only possible outcome.

It's probably also the right outcome, despite the fact we will be a vassal state.

Ultimately leave win so we need to leave.

But it won by a tiny margin so a middle ground Brexit that sort of works for both sides is the only viable option.

Remainers don't get to remain and hard Brexiters don't get to wreck the economy and tear up decades worth of regulations.

I suspect what happens next depends on whether government responds to the issues that made Brexit happen - and to me they aren't issues that are really anything to do with the EU. We need to invest outside London. That's the key. Create jobs and growth in the north of England. It's sort of ironic that the north of England has voted tory and leave given the effect both have on jobs and growth in the north but hopefully at some point we'll get a labour government that do something about it.

Edited 11 July 2018 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

28 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Create jobs and growth in the north of England. It's sort of ironic that the north of England has voted tory and leave given the effect both have on jobs and growth in the north but hopefully at some point we'll get a labour government that do something about it.

 

 

Like they didn't last time during 13 years in power you mean?

 

If anything the Tories have gone more to stimulate growth since 2010 with lower taxes to help entrepreneurs, start ups are prevailed across much of the north now. 

 

https://www.pwc.co.uk/who-we-are/regional-sites/yorkshire-north-east/press-releases/cities-in-the-north-of-england-amongst-fastest-improving-cities-.html

 

13 years of Labour, all that happened was the handout of more benefits and cramming of northern towns with low skilled immigrants, its hardly surprising the way they voted In all honesty.

 

I don't think many hard working northern folk get Corbyn or his party at the moment. If Farage comes back then there will be a resurgence of UKIP.

[Guest MattP]

34 minutes ago, toddybad said:

We need to invest outside London. That's the key. Create jobs and growth in the north of England. It's sort of ironic that the north of England has voted tory and leave given the effect both have on jobs and growth in the north but hopefully at some point we'll get a labour government that do something about it.

 

No idea where to start with this, at one point in the last few years there had been more jobs created in Yorkshire alone than France ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11481637/Budget-2015-Yorkshire-created-more-jobs-than-France-Chancellor-claims.html ) so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say it's ironic that the North of England votes Tory because it has had a poor effect on jobs, job creation has also increased since the vote to leave. - think about these things before you throw them out.

 

As for a Labour government creating those things in the North, the party has the four great offices of state held by...

Jeremy Corbyn - Islington North

John McDonnell - Hayes and Harlington

Emily Thornberry - Islington South

Diane Abbott - Hackney and Stoke Newington

 

That's literally four places in the almost the same part of the capital, three of them next door to each other. Total delusion if you think that four will bring anything to anywhere outside of London.

[ealingfox]

20 minutes ago, MattP said:

No idea where to start with this, at one point in the last few years there had been more jobs created in Yorkshire alone than France ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11481637/Budget-2015-Yorkshire-created-more-jobs-than-France-Chancellor-claims.html ) so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say it's ironic that the North of England votes Tory because it has had a poor effect on jobs, job creation has also increased since the vote to leave. - think about these things before you throw them out.

 

As for a Labour government creating those things in the North, the party has the four great offices of state held by...

Jeremy Corbyn - Islington North

John McDonnell - Hayes and Harlington

Emily Thornberry - Islington South

Diane Abbott - Hackney and Stoke Newington

 

That's literally four places in the almost the same part of the capital, three of them next door to each other. Total delusion if you think that four will bring anything to anywhere outside of London.

 

 Hayes is literally nowhere near Islington and Hackney. Think about these things before you throw them out.

 

Besides, second-guessing hypothetical policy on the basis of an MPs constituency is not a valid argument.

 

A quick Google search about 'Chancellor claims' tells us that employment fell in France during those years, so anywhere in the UK that created 1 job had them beat.

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

 Hayes is literally nowhere near Islington and Hackney. Think about these things before you throw them out.

 

Besides, second-guessing hypothetical policy on the basis of an MPs constituency is not a valid argument.

 

A quick Google search about 'Chancellor claims' tells us that employment fell in France during those years, so anywhere in the UK that created 1 job had them beat.

Less than 20 miles is nowhere near? OK.  Let's state fact shall we, under the Tories there has been massive job growth in the North, you can't deny that no matter how much you want to. To suggest Northerners should vote Labour on the basis of jobs is something that is from about 1978 and has no relevance or basis in fact.

If you want to vote Labour to be more equal then go for it, but anyone thinking we'll have job growth with a hike in corporation tax is no better than a climate change denier.

Edited 11 July 2018 by MattP

[ealingfox]

9 minutes ago, MattP said:

Less than 20 miles is nowhere near? OK.  Let's state fact shall we, under the Tories there has been massive job growth in the North, you can't deny that no matter how much you want to. To suggest Northerners should vote Labour on the basis of jobs is something that is from about 1978 and has no relevance or basis in fact.

If you want to vote Labour to be more equal then go for it, but anyone thinking we'll have job growth with a hike in corporation tax is no worse than a climate change denier.

 

They are not in the same part of the capital, it's plainly incorrect to say that they are. It's like saying Putney and Walthamstow are in the same part of London, or Kilburn and Woolwich. 

 

Less than 20 miles might not seem like much in Leicestershire but it sure as well is down here. Anything over 10 miles away is nowhere near in relative terms.

 

I didn't deny it at all. The advent of self-employment gig economy jobs in the last 10 years means that a group of chimps in rosettes would have overseen an increase in jobs.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

They are not in the same part of the capital, it's plainly incorrect to say that they are. It's like saying Putney and Walthamstow are in the same part of London, or Kilburn and Woolwich. 

 

Less than 20 miles might not seem like much in Leicestershire but it sure as well is down here. Anything over 10 miles away is nowhere near in relative terms.

 

I didn't deny it at all. The advent of self-employment gig economy jobs in the last 10 years means that a group of chimps in rosettes would have overseen an increase in jobs.

That's why I said "almost the same part".

 

Job's starting rising before the gig economy as well, a cut in corporation will do that as they'll have more to invest in staff, it's as basic as economics can get, you can look across the channel as well for more evidence of it now in the USA - again, of Labour want to say we are going to make these companies pay more in tax that's an argument to make, but for anyone to claim a rise in it will be accompanied by continued jobs growth flies against every single bit of evidence we have. I have no doubt we'll see a huge rise of employment in the public sector under them whilst they squeeze the productive sector but we all know where that ends up.

 

You can see how London-centric the policy is already, the rise to £10 in the minimum wage for a start, it should be clear to everyone that what is actually needed is a minmum wage by area related to cost of living where they are a but if you don't come out of North London you won't see that, I can already imagine Emily Thornberry and Jeremy Corbyn sitting there afterwards congratulating themselves on as Tarquin from Brixton can now afford his car whilst small businesses in places like Middlesboro and Stoke go to the wall as they have to pay staff far more than they can afford or raise prices by.

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, MattP said:

Less than 20 miles is nowhere near? OK.  Let's state fact shall we, under the Tories there has been massive job growth in the North, you can't deny that no matter how much you want to. To suggest Northerners should vote Labour on the basis of jobs is something that is from about 1978 and has no relevance or basis in fact.

If you want to vote Labour to be more equal then go for it, but anyone thinking we'll have job growth with a hike in corporation tax is no better than a climate change denier.

 

 

Don't remember your stance on that being particularly consistent.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

No idea where to start with this, at one point in the last few years there had been more jobs created in Yorkshire alone than France ( https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/budget/11481637/Budget-2015-Yorkshire-created-more-jobs-than-France-Chancellor-claims.html ) so I have no idea what you are talking about when you say it's ironic that the North of England votes Tory because it has had a poor effect on jobs, job creation has also increased since the vote to leave. - think about these things before you throw them out.

 

As for a Labour government creating those things in the North, the party has the four great offices of state held by...

Jeremy Corbyn - Islington North

John McDonnell - Hayes and Harlington

Emily Thornberry - Islington South

Diane Abbott - Hackney and Stoke Newington

 

That's literally four places in the almost the same part of the capital, three of them next door to each other. Total delusion if you think that four will bring anything to anywhere outside of London.

Despite me naming the parties I wasn't particularly trying to be party political.

 

Whichever party is in government we need to see a redistribution of capital investment. I just happen to think the Tories have failed in that regard (for instance scraping the electrification of rail in the north a few days before backing crossrail 2 despite thameslink already existing), but it isn't really my central point.

 

There had been huge under investment in the regions from both parties for decades. Nothing replaced the industries destroyed by Thatcher - nothing worthwhile anyway.

 

Compare budgets for transport from London to the north and its clear there's an issue.

 

It's no coincidence that the north votes for Brexit and commonly expresses concern about immigration affecting infrastructure whereas London with its huge migration votes remain because so much money is pumped in that nobody can see how it would possibly impact on local provision of services.

 

Equally, where do government departments or large corporations put themselves? London. It had the best infrastructure to support them. If infrastructure spending had been greater elsewhere it would be easier to attract private investment.

 

If investment had been more even I don't personally believe all the frustrations that have led to the Brexit vote would have been there to the same degree.

 

 

[Guest MattP]

Very little I disagree with there @toddybad is anything.

We certainly need to divert funding out of London and the South East, but that's just not going to happen in my lifetime due to it's location, even more so if we don't open up to the wider World and stay so close to the continent in terms of trade post-Brexit.

 

Anyway, more important things to prepare for now See you all tomorrow, let's hope we are in a World Cup Final this time tomorrow.

[Smudge]

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

Despite me naming the parties I wasn't particularly trying to be party political.

 

Whichever party is in government we need to see a redistribution of capital investment. I just happen to think the Tories have failed in that regard (for instance scraping the electrification of rail in the north a few days before backing crossrail 2 despite thameslink already existing), but it isn't really my central point.

 

There had been huge under investment in the regions from both parties for decades. Nothing replaced the industries destroyed by Thatcher - nothing worthwhile anyway.

 

Compare budgets for transport from London to the north and its clear there's an issue.

 

It's no coincidence that the north votes for Brexit and commonly expresses concern about immigration affecting infrastructure whereas London with its huge migration votes remain because so much money is pumped in that nobody can see how it would possibly impact on local provision of services.

 

Equally, where do government departments or large corporations put themselves? London. It had the best infrastructure to support them. If infrastructure spending had been greater elsewhere it would be easier to attract private investment.

 

If investment had been more even I don't personally believe all the frustrations that have led to the Brexit vote would have been there to the same degree.

 

 

Also cant disagree with much of that.

 

The north has long been neglected and it really needs to change.

 

Really the government should be offering incentives for business etc to base outside of London. Its also frustrating that many major charities are based in London, operationally the most expensive place. 

[l444ry]

Shame Boris Johnson hadn't stood in front of a bus with "Vote Brexit and get stockpiled Spam and medical supplies in 2 years time."

[ealingfox]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

That's why I said "almost the same part".

 

Job's starting rising before the gig economy as well, a cut in corporation will do that as they'll have more to invest in staff, it's as basic as economics can get, you can look across the channel as well for more evidence of it now in the USA - again, of Labour want to say we are going to make these companies pay more in tax that's an argument to make, but for anyone to claim a rise in it will be accompanied by continued jobs growth flies against every single bit of evidence we have. I have no doubt we'll see a huge rise of employment in the public sector under them whilst they squeeze the productive sector but we all know where that ends up.

 

You can see how London-centric the policy is already, the rise to £10 in the minimum wage for a start, it should be clear to everyone that what is actually needed is a minmum wage by area related to cost of living where they are a but if you don't come out of North London you won't see that, I can already imagine Emily Thornberry and Jeremy Corbyn sitting there afterwards congratulating themselves on as Tarquin from Brixton can now afford his car whilst small businesses in places like Middlesboro and Stoke go to the wall as they have to pay staff far more than they can afford or raise prices by.

 

As I've already explained, they're not almost in the same part either so that is also incorrect, one is in Outer West London and the others are Inner North and East London.

[Strokes]

19 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

As I've already explained, they're not almost in the same part either so that is also incorrect, one is in Outer West London and the others are Inner North and East London.

Who gives a fùck?

Edited 11 July 2018 by Strokes

[bovril]

Going to read this entire thread for three hours to cheer me up. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, bovril said:

Going to read this entire thread for three hours to cheer me up. 

I look forward to the rep points. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[l444ry]

[Webbo]