Getting brexit done!

[Bellend Sebastian]

Assume we're close to "sorting all the Muslims out", which was my father-in-law's closing argument about the positive effects of Brexit on the day of the referendum, which helpfully coincided with an especially tense family holiday

[Footballwipe]

1 hour ago, Dahnsouff said:

It is, but its not about Boris either (He is just the majority party elected leader, could be Starmer, could be Corbyn, etc), its about the public's disenfranchisement with politics on the whole. Brexit on the whole is pertinent, your guy/gal in the street is not detail orientated (Yes, it is a sweeping statement, but one I stand by) when it comes to politics. it is commonplace to not spot the difference between reality and assumption. 

So we either re-engage on a large scale or we find a better way for the information to be delivered.

You're not wrong on this, at all. It's what got us into this mess in the first place. Baseless, fist clenching rhetoric. Nodding heads and shock jocks spouting false stuff and twisting the truth that whips people up into a frenzy. They know this, they know what the average person does and doesn't want to know.

 

Sadly, it's also meant that any kind of accountability is gone, too.

[Voll Blau]

56 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Just to add they’re saying an ‘Australian deal’ instead of no deal because they know how damaging it’ll be. Australia has massive trade deals with its nearest neighbours in Asia. We won’t anything like the same.

 

We’re being lied to and gaslighted because Tories think the nation is stupid. 

I think national journalists get quite a lot of undeserved flack but it's an abject failure of journalism in this country that only Andrew Neil, to my knowledge, has actually bothered to call that term out for what it is.

 

To be fair opposition parties haven't done nearly enough to challenge that bollocks phrase either.

[Jon the Hat]

19 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

I think national journalists get quite a lot of undeserved flack but it's an abject failure of journalism in this country that only Andrew Neil, to my knowledge, has actually bothered to call that term out for what it is.

 

To be fair opposition parties haven't done nearly enough to challenge that bollocks phrase either.

The UK press has also (as pointed out by Andrew Neil) failed completely to perform even the most basic critique of the EU negotiating position.

[Nalis]

13 minutes ago, Bellend Sebastian said:

Assume we're close to "sorting all the Muslims out", which was my father-in-law's closing argument about the positive effects of Brexit on the day of the referendum, which helpfully coincided with an especially tense family holiday

Its silly logic isnt it and not the first time I've heard something similar, there isnt a single EU country that is mostly brown or mostly Muslim so what was the point in voting for Brexit on that basis? If anything it means more non-white European immigrants coming into the UK so more fool those who voted Brexit on purely on racist grounds*.

 

*Obv there are other reasons people voted Brexit before I get pelters.

[LVFox]

Just now, Nalis said:

Its silly logic isnt it and not the first time I've heard something similar, there isnt a single EU country that is mostly brown or mostly Muslim so what was the point in voting for Brexit on that basis? If anything it means more non-white European immigrants coming into the UK so more fool those who voted Brexit on purely on racist grounds*.

 

*Obv there are other reasons people voted Brexit before I get pelters.

Or the classic "You just wait until Turkey gets in"

[Alf Bentley]

10 hours ago, Spudulike said:

I'm no Tory apologist but to keep on quoting this oven ready deal stuff is beyond ridiculous given that it was clearly referring to the Withdrawal agreement as stated in the Conservative manifesto. Even the opposition party leader now understands this eventhough some of his MP's (Rachel Reeves) don't (they do actually but like to play on voters lack of knowledge). Sorry, not a dig at you Mike, but it's so tedious. 

 

The "oven ready deal" and "get Brexit done" slogans were clearly duplicitous.

 

You're right that, if you were in the minority who paid close attention to Brexit politics or who read the party manifesto, you'd know they referred to the Withdrawal Agreement.

 

But they were slogans deliberately invented to deceive - in a particular context. The context was (a) most people do NOT pay close attention to Brexit politics or read the party manifesto; (b) a large proportion of the electorate - most Brexiteers and even many Remainers - were frustrated at Brexit dragging on, caught up in parliamentary deadlock & just wanted it over and done.

 

Johnson & Cummings were well aware of that context - and invented their slogans to deceive people that the whole Brexit process (not just the WA) would be over, quickly and easily, through their deal. They used that deceit to win majority power at the election (though other factors like the idiot Corbyn played a part).

 

Yes, the manifesto makes clear that "the deal" is the Withdrawal Agreement. But it goes on to say: "It puts the whole country on a path to a new free trade agreement with the EU". And when Johnson was asked about the chances of No Deal last year, he said that the odds were "a million to one against"......despite having shifted all the level-playing-field stuff from the WA to the non-binding Political Declaration in preparation for a potential No Deal. See also @Voll Blau's ITV clip posted above.

[lgfualol]

I would say this whole thing is unbelievable, but it is totally believable for those who can see through Boris and the Tory party BS.

 

20p says Boris quits early Jan.

[Buce]

'Australian-style' deal with EU would be bad for UK, says former Australian prime minister

"It’ll be pretty disappointing, I think you’ll find out.

We obviously have a deal with the EU on WTO terms, and there are some very large barriers to Australian trade with Europe, which we’re seeking to address as we negotiate a free trade agreement with Europe. But Australians would not regard our trade relationship with Europe as being a satisfactory one.

It’s our third biggest trading partner collectively because it’s such a big economy. But there are very big barriers to Australian exports of agricultural products in particular, there’s a lot of friction in the system in terms of services. There’s a lot to aim for, and when I was Prime Minister we started formal negotiations of a European-Australian Free Trade Agreement, but that will take some time.

So be careful what you wish for. Australia’s relationship with the EU is not one from a trade point of view that Britain, I think, would want."

[Jon the Hat]

24 minutes ago, lgfualol said:

I would say this whole thing is unbelievable, but it is totally believable for those who can see through Boris and the Tory party BS.

 

20p says Boris quits early Jan.

Boris isn't going to quit.  Even if he did who do you think takes over?  Rishi?  Gove? Hunt? Javid?  I'm not sure we get any stronger in any of those situations.  I would like to see Javid back in a big role though asap as we need him.

 

The fact is the EU are not acting rationally, they are actually politically and emotionally.  Any rational actors would have agreed a deal by now.  In the meantime we are faced with the constant barrage of "The UK is screwed!!" and "The EU is protecting itself against a strong competitor right on its borders!!"  which cannot both be true.  We are either screwed and irrelevant "in which case why does the EU care so much" or very powerful and important threat to the EU27" in which case we will be fine deal or no.  The truth is somewhere in between no doubt, but then some rational commentary would be good.

[Voll Blau]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

Boris isn't going to quit.  Even if he did who do you think takes over?  Rishi?  Gove? Hunt? Javid?  I'm not sure we get any stronger in any of those situations.  I would like to see Javid back in a big role though asap as we need him.

 

The fact is the EU are not acting rationally, they are actually politically and emotionally.  Any rational actors would have agreed a deal by now.  In the meantime we are faced with the constant barrage of "The UK is screwed!!" and "The EU is protecting itself against a strong competitor right on its borders!!"  which cannot both be true.  We are either screwed and irrelevant "in which case why does the EU care so much" or very powerful and important threat to the EU27" in which case we will be fine deal or no.  The truth is somewhere in between no doubt, but then some rational commentary would be good.

I wholeheartedly agree...

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

'Australian-style' deal with EU would be bad for UK, says former Australian prime minister

"It’ll be pretty disappointing, I think you’ll find out.

We obviously have a deal with the EU on WTO terms, and there are some very large barriers to Australian trade with Europe, which we’re seeking to address as we negotiate a free trade agreement with Europe. But Australians would not regard our trade relationship with Europe as being a satisfactory one.

It’s our third biggest trading partner collectively because it’s such a big economy. But there are very big barriers to Australian exports of agricultural products in particular, there’s a lot of friction in the system in terms of services. There’s a lot to aim for, and when I was Prime Minister we started formal negotiations of a European-Australian Free Trade Agreement, but that will take some time.

So be careful what you wish for. Australia’s relationship with the EU is not one from a trade point of view that Britain, I think, would want."

Australia (and Canada) have other barriers to though no?  They can't overcome a tariff if they also have higher transport costs.  The point of the EU has been that the UK needs to be held to a higher standard than any other deal ever because we are close and integrated and hence a threat.  If this is true then WTo tariffs will in most cases not impact us the way they do Australia and Canada.

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, Voll Blau said:

I wholeheartedly agree...

Bear in mind that the Chequers deal was better for the EU than what they are now offering, and they rejected that!

[ealingfox]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Boris isn't going to quit.  Even if he did who do you think takes over?  Rishi?  Gove? Hunt? Javid?  I'm not sure we get any stronger in any of those situations.  I would like to see Javid back in a big role though asap as we need him.

 

The fact is the EU are not acting rationally, they are actually politically and emotionally.  Any rational actors would have agreed a deal by now.  In the meantime we are faced with the constant barrage of "The UK is screwed!!" and "The EU is protecting itself against a strong competitor right on its borders!!"  which cannot both be true.  We are either screwed and irrelevant "in which case why does the EU care so much" or very powerful and important threat to the EU27" in which case we will be fine deal or no.  The truth is somewhere in between no doubt, but then some rational commentary would be good.

 

And you don't think there are any instances of the UK not acting rationally, or acting politically and emotionally? That the UK has been a rational actor throughout?

[RoboFox]

Having created this mess by talking nonsense about the UK’s trading status for decades, Brexiters have now graduated to talking nonsense about the trading status of Australia & Canada. Stubborn and ignorant.

 

Also, what is this obsession with "Australian-style deal"? It's essentially NO DEAL (even though Australia has been actively working towards a deal with the EU since 2018 because it believes it to be beneficial)

 

I'm trying hard not to think their constant use of Australia isn't because they're a predominantly white, Anglo-Saxon culture that the Brexiters can therefore relate to against the exotic uncertainty of Jonny Foreigner.

 

Edited 11 December 2020 by RoboFox

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

And you don't think there are any instances of the UK not acting rationally, or acting politically and emotionally? That the UK has been a rational actor throughout?

Both sides have been at times for sure.  We've also been hugely inconsistent over the at least 2/12 of the 4 years which certainly hasn't helped. I would argue we have been pretty clear for a year now though what our position was, and the EU is currently the one expecting permanent access to the waters of a sovereign nation.  No one agrees to this anywhere in the world.  Why would we agree to a worse position than Norway?

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

In the meantime we are faced with the constant barrage of "The UK is screwed!!" and "The EU is protecting itself against a strong competitor right on its borders!!"  which cannot both be true.  We are either screwed and irrelevant "in which case why does the EU care so much" or very powerful and important threat to the EU27" in which case we will be fine deal or no.  The truth is somewhere in between no doubt, but then some rational commentary would be good.

 

It partly depends what you mean by "the UK". It's at least theoretically possible that the post-Brexit UK could prove to be a strong competitor on its borders by accepting lower standards in employment, social protection, environment & product quality, slashing corporate tax rates, allowing the pound to devalue against the euro etc. Or even subsidising particular sectors more than the EU allows.

 

Now, you may say that the UK hasn't done that and that neither the Govt nor Johnson intends to do that.......maybe, maybe not. But it's a rational fear for the EU and clearly lies behind their attachment to the "level playing field" concept. Maybe the EU is over-fearful, as Kopfkino suggested, but stuff like Theresa May threatening them with "Singapore on Thames" doesn't discourage the idea - and, rightly or wrongly, continentals often lump the UK and US together as the "Anglo-Saxons" with an implied competition model of flexible labour, low tax, low social standards, low regulation etc.

 

The post-Brexit UK, as in UK-based companies, could theoretically be a major threat to the EU while simultaneously the UK, as in its people, are screwed by low employment protection & social provision, deregulation & low corporate tax.

 

I just hope that the EU throw Johnson some concession (perhaps on fishing or a joint supervisory body for the level playing field) that allows him to climb down and allows us to avoid No Deal. Otherwise, things aren't going to be pretty in a multitude of ways....

[Jon the Hat]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It partly depends what you mean by "the UK". It's at least theoretically possible that the post-Brexit UK could prove to be a strong competitor on its borders by accepting lower standards in employment, social protection, environment & product quality, slashing corporate tax rates, allowing the pound to devalue against the euro etc. Or even subsidising particular sectors more than the EU allows.

 

Now, you may say that the UK hasn't done that and that neither the Govt nor Johnson intends to do that.......maybe, maybe not. But it's a rational fear for the EU and clearly lies behind their attachment to the "level playing field" concept. Maybe the EU is over-fearful, as Kopfkino suggested, but stuff like Theresa May threatening them with "Singapore on Thames" doesn't discourage the idea - and, rightly or wrongly, continentals often lump the UK and US together as the "Anglo-Saxons" with an implied competition model of flexible labour, low tax, low social standards, low regulation etc.

 

The post-Brexit UK, as in UK-based companies, could theoretically be a major threat to the EU while simultaneously the UK, as in its people, are screwed by low employment protection & social provision, deregulation & low corporate tax.

 

I just hope that the EU throw Johnson some concession (perhaps on fishing or a joint supervisory body for the level playing field) that allows him to climb down and allows us to avoid No Deal. Otherwise, things aren't going to be pretty in a multitude of ways....

That's a fair point of view I think, if very unlikely given we are already holding ourselves to higher employment and environment standards than the EU requires, and I believe the UK is happy to commit to current standards being maintained as a floor, but is not willing to agree to match any future standards the EU might dream up.  The EU is demanding the right to levy a tariff where it changes the rules and we don't match it.  They are not offering that flexibility the other way.  Imagine if the EU decides to ban diesel trucks and insists on a tariff for our goods which are shipped on diesel trucks as they see it as an unfair advantage.  It makes no sense that they can change the rules as they go and punish us for not doing the same.  You can see why we won't agree.  

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That's a fair point of view I think, if very unlikely given we are already holding ourselves to higher employment and environment standards than the EU requires, and I believe the UK is happy to commit to current standards being maintained as a floor, but is not willing to agree to match any future standards the EU might dream up.  The EU is demanding the right to levy a tariff where it changes the rules and we don't match it.  They are not offering that flexibility the other way.  Imagine if the EU decides to ban diesel trucks and insists on a tariff for our goods which are shipped on diesel trucks as they see it as an unfair advantage.  It makes no sense that they can change the rules as they go and punish us for not doing the same.  You can see why we won't agree.  

 

Who knows what is really being offered at the talks? I've seen reports suggesting that tariffs could be charged by either side if one upgraded and the other didn't.

 

I actually don't see a problem with tariffs being introduced under that scenario - and wouldn't see that as punishment, just as a fair competition measure. It's not a sovereignty issue as the UK would still have the right to choose its own regulations.

 

I do think that, if introduced, it should apply to both sides, though.....don't know if that is the case or not. I also think that the EU would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they tried to make the rules too strict: i.e. imposing tariffs for minor regulatory differences. After all, there are plenty of other factors that already influence competitiveness, including productivity, location/transport, pay rates, overheads, exchange rates etc.

 

However, I can also see why the EU might fear potential problems within the EU27 if they allowed post-Brexit UK tariff/quota-free access with an entitlement to undercut EU27 firms via lower regulatory requirements. EU27 member states might then feel that the UK was getting a better deal than they were, since they'd have to meet EU standards. It could cause a lot of internal discontent and demands by member states to be able to make the same changes as the UK without any penalty....

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Who knows what is really being offered at the talks? I've seen reports suggesting that tariffs could be charged by either side if one upgraded and the other didn't.

 

I actually don't see a problem with tariffs being introduced under that scenario - and wouldn't see that as punishment, just as a fair competition measure. It's not a sovereignty issue as the UK would still have the right to choose its own regulations.

 

I do think that, if introduced, it should apply to both sides, though.....don't know if that is the case or not. I also think that the EU would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they tried to make the rules too strict: i.e. imposing tariffs for minor regulatory differences. After all, there are plenty of other factors that already influence competitiveness, including productivity, location/transport, pay rates, overheads, exchange rates etc.

 

However, I can also see why the EU might fear potential problems within the EU27 if they allowed post-Brexit UK tariff/quota-free access with an entitlement to undercut EU27 firms via lower regulatory requirements. EU27 member states might then feel that the UK was getting a better deal than they were, since they'd have to meet EU standards. It could cause a lot of internal discontent and demands by member states to be able to make the same changes as the UK without any penalty....

 

Yes it is tricky for sure.  It makes you realise the challenges of the less well developed parts of the EU having to play by the same rules as the big boys as well.  It's part of why I think it will all fall apart.

[Alf Bentley]

32 minutes ago, RoboFox said:

Having created this mess by talking nonsense about the UK’s trading status for decades, Brexiters have now graduated to talking nonsense about the trading status of Australia & Canada. Stubborn and ignorant.

 

Also, what is this obsession with "Australian-style deal"? It's essentially NO DEAL (even though Australia has been actively working towards a deal with the EU since 2018 because it believes it to be beneficial)

 

I'm trying hard not to think their constant use of Australia isn't because they're a predominantly white, Anglo-Saxon culture that the Brexiters can therefore relate to against the exotic uncertainty of Jonny Foreigner.

 

 

To be fair, I think a lot of it is just positive association with the "Australian-style points system" for immigration, which is widely popular. 

Plus, there's a widespread subliminal perception that Australia is a place with a high quality of life etc.

 

Referring to an Afghan or Mongolian-style trade deal just wouldn't have the same associations! 

 

Admittedly, some might over-estimate the "white Anglo-Saxon" nature of Australia. I've not been there since 1990 but even then there were plenty of people of E/SE Asian origin, not to mention many of those of European origin having their roots in Italy, Greece, Serbia/Croatia, Ireland, Scotland etc. I presume that proportion has increased since 1990.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

 

Yes it is tricky for sure.  It makes you realise the challenges of the less well developed parts of the EU having to play by the same rules as the big boys as well.  It's part of why I think it will all fall apart.

 

You might yet be proven right on that last bit. The EU is going to face some difficult challenges - not least financially and particularly in the wake of Covid and all the associated economic issues (as are we).

 

But I can't help remember visits to a very economically backward Ireland as a child - and similar trips to an economically backward Spain in the early 80s.

Some formerly less well developed countries have done very well out of EU membership over the longer-term, getting lots of structural/regional investment - which is why the richer countries are net contributors (hopefully benefiting long-term from the growth of markets in places like Spain and Ireland......whether Eastern Europe progresses in the same way remains to be seen).

[Innovindil]

12 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Who knows what is really being offered at the talks? I've seen reports suggesting that tariffs could be charged by either side if one upgraded and the other didn't.

 

I actually don't see a problem with tariffs being introduced under that scenario - and wouldn't see that as punishment, just as a fair competition measure. It's not a sovereignty issue as the UK would still have the right to choose its own regulations.

 

I do think that, if introduced, it should apply to both sides, though.....don't know if that is the case or not. I also think that the EU would be cutting off their noses to spite their faces if they tried to make the rules too strict: i.e. imposing tariffs for minor regulatory differences. After all, there are plenty of other factors that already influence competitiveness, including productivity, location/transport, pay rates, overheads, exchange rates etc.

 

However, I can also see why the EU might fear potential problems within the EU27 if they allowed post-Brexit UK tariff/quota-free access with an entitlement to undercut EU27 firms via lower regulatory requirements. EU27 member states might then feel that the UK was getting a better deal than they were, since they'd have to meet EU standards. It could cause a lot of internal discontent and demands by member states to be able to make the same changes as the UK without any penalty....

 

 

I genuinely wonder just how much regulatory red tape we'd have to slice through to be able to viably compete with countries who's people get paid in a month what we get paid in a week. 

 

When you take into consideration the polish bloke that used to work for us is now being paid £300/month for doing the same type of work back home it seems ludicrous to suggest we're somehow going to be blowing European companies out of the water tbh. 

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

To be fair, I think a lot of it is just positive association with the "Australian-style points system" for immigration, which is widely popular. 

Plus, there's a widespread subliminal perception that Australia is a place with a high quality of life etc.

 

Referring to an Afghan or Mongolian-style trade deal just wouldn't have the same associations! 

 

Admittedly, some might over-estimate the "white Anglo-Saxon" nature of Australia. I've not been there since 1990 but even then there were plenty of people of E/SE Asian origin, not to mention many of those of European origin having their roots in Italy, Greece, Serbia/Croatia, Ireland, Scotland etc. I presume that proportion has increased since 1990.

Yes it certainly has.  over 30% of the population were born outside Australia, and of course that figure has been high for several generations, so many of those born in Australia have parents born outside Australia.

Apart from the UK, big migrant populations from China (and Hong Kong), India, South east Asia, Italy Germany and Greece.

 

[dsr-burnley]

45 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

It partly depends what you mean by "the UK". It's at least theoretically possible that the post-Brexit UK could prove to be a strong competitor on its borders by accepting lower standards in employment, social protection, environment & product quality, slashing corporate tax rates, allowing the pound to devalue against the euro etc.

I think you worry unduly about the UK undercutting EU employment rights.  EU rights include 14 weeks' paid maternity leave plus 4 months unpaid, minimum 20 days holiday per year, and no minimum wage.  Obviously we can't undercut them on minimum wage, but I don't think there is much chance of any government proposing to reduce employment rights below the EU bare minimum.  It's wouldn't be politically viable.  Not a vote winner.

 

As for undercutting corporation tax rates - Luxembourg?  See article about their corporation tax, and why they have as much inward investment as the USA.  Ask yourself why loads of Amazon stuff comes from a Luxembourg registered company.  Perhaps it might be worth considering why Luxembourg is allowed to get away with effective corporation tax rates of 1%, and wonder perhaps why recently retired EU President Jean-Claude Juncker, who certainly knew all about this as he was the Prime Minister and/or Finance Minister of Luxembourg from 1989 to 2009, didn't try and stop it.  The naswer is because the EU does not care about undercutting corporation tax rates.  Not as a general principle, anyway.

 

https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/100115/why-luxembourg-considered-tax-haven.asp

Edited 11 December 2020 by dsr-burnley