BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴

john80

rjsterry wrote:

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

We are an economy of 60 million people. Take the humble washing machine and assume that we replace our washing machine every ten years and there are around 27.2 million households in the UK. That means that a UK manufacturer could sell to a market of 2.7 million machines per annum. Alternatively we could buy a washing machine from elsewhere in the world with money generated from some other form of enterprise within the UK. Unfortunately if this alternative enterprise is us all holding the door open for each other then we might be on the road to ruin. I think the above proposal is a pretty depressing continuation of the decline in the UK economy.

Nice exemplar of the classic "manufacturing is real jobs, anything else doesn't count" fallacy.

Quite apart from the fact that if people want a washing machine for a couple of hundred pounds, no worker is ever going to get rich screwing them together.

A large part of the workforce is only just being weaned of in work benefits through a policy of reducing government subsidies and increasing the lower tax threshold. People working on production lines generally don't earn mega money however there is currently a large percentage of people on minimum wage that are not exactly creaming it in and unsurprisingly they tend not to be in the manufacturing sectors.

john80

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

We are an economy of 60 million people. Take the humble washing machine and assume that we replace our washing machine every ten years and there are around 27.2 million households in the UK. That means that a UK manufacturer could sell to a market of 2.7 million machines per annum. Alternatively we could buy a washing machine from elsewhere in the world with money generated from some other form of enterprise within the UK. Unfortunately if this alternative enterprise is us all holding the door open for each other then we might be on the road to ruin. I think the above proposal is a pretty depressing continuation of the decline in the UK economy.

Nice exemplar of the classic "manufacturing is real jobs, anything else doesn't count" fallacy.

I am not saying that other jobs don't count. For example someone who works to create the next BBC series that is exported around the world is a pretty good job for the country. It does not have to be all manufacturing but if you want to employ a large number or a good number of skilled people then making things using modern manufacturing techniques is not a bad start is it. Just ignoring these rather humdrum enterprises because they are not sexy or exciting is not the answer if the other solution is to import everything.

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bonzo Banana wrote:

My own viewpoint conflicts with just about every political party of the UK who seem to think a free trade agreement is beneficial but my viewpoint is with Europe we have a huge trade deficit and as we buy in a surplus of goods the sterling we export is re-invested in the UK buying up assets and industry which means even further erosion of the UK economy so I actually favour WTO low tariffs in order to give our economy some breathing room in order to create products more cheaply here than imports and considering our trading deficit this seems a logical thing to do. We are definitely the losers when it comes to the free trade agreement with the EU at least and we really have to stop buying so many goods from China. Also being able to set our own sales tax on a product by product basis means we can reduce the damage of certain imports which are very damaging and as we restore a reasonable level of production in that area we can reduce that sales tax. I guess my point is I just want the UK to run a realistic economy not funded on borrowing and can't see how a free trade agreement can help us currently. A free trade agreement is great for Europe as they are running a surplus but its terrible for us.

I realise to many free trade is almost a religion but there are always winners and losers of such an agreement. If we had true free trade where there were no minimum wages and no borrowing then as people keep buying imports they reduce the size of the economy become much poorer and force lower wages on themselves which helps correct the trade deficit because they can't afford to buy imports and the value of the pounds falls making exports more competitive but by constantly injecting borrowed money into the economy and paying people too much the self-correcting mechanism is disabled. I like the minimum wage and would prefer better political control of imports etc through tariffs and sales tax.

Also if we are going to do anything about the environment surely that means stop moving so many goods around the world but try to localise production even if that means smaller less efficient factories, using the same goods for longer and repairing them rather than replacing them. Growing more of our own food and much more recycling of items. All things that would help repair our economy and also repair the world itself.

I think if both Labour and Conservative governments had refused to borrow money years ago and not propped up the economy the economy would have shrunk more dramatically and we would have left Europe many years ago before such damage was done financially. I don't even have children but find it morally wrong that future generations have to suffer because of the current population's greed and stupidity. I wouldn't borrow money in your name and expect that to be legal yet governments borrow from future generations in order to hide their incompetence.

There's a lot going on in this - too much to go through, but I'd like you to explain how you understand free trading between nations to have "winners and losers"?

Because the whole point of proper free trade is everyone wins. I have a feeling you're conflating unfettered capitalism in a fairly raw form with free trade - that ain't the case.

https://www.economicshelp.org/trade2/be ... ree_trade/

If everyone wins then why do we have a high debt as a percentage of GDP and we are not flush with cash. Surely with all this free trade we have been doing for decades would have delivered an economy that can pay for education, health and social care which seems currently to be a struggle for the UK government. If it is working so well then maybe and explanation as to why the above basic needs require us to borrow to fund this would be helpful. Maybe we plan never ending growth to get ourselves out of the problem we currently face.

So the maths of 'free trade' and the logic behind it are fairly irrefutable.

What you're complaining about are the consequences of political choices governments have made that really have nothing to do with trade at all.

Enlighten us then as to how we have such a high debt and until recently had a really high deficit. Given the government are not spending like mad on essential public services or infrastructure what is this massive success we are seeing. Is life getting better for the majority of low to middle income earners in the UK as the figures would suggest otherwise. What could the government have done differently to have positive deficit, low debt, improved living standards with the decades of international trade that we have been following.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bonzo Banana wrote:

My own viewpoint conflicts with just about every political party of the UK who seem to think a free trade agreement is beneficial but my viewpoint is with Europe we have a huge trade deficit and as we buy in a surplus of goods the sterling we export is re-invested in the UK buying up assets and industry which means even further erosion of the UK economy so I actually favour WTO low tariffs in order to give our economy some breathing room in order to create products more cheaply here than imports and considering our trading deficit this seems a logical thing to do. We are definitely the losers when it comes to the free trade agreement with the EU at least and we really have to stop buying so many goods from China. Also being able to set our own sales tax on a product by product basis means we can reduce the damage of certain imports which are very damaging and as we restore a reasonable level of production in that area we can reduce that sales tax. I guess my point is I just want the UK to run a realistic economy not funded on borrowing and can't see how a free trade agreement can help us currently. A free trade agreement is great for Europe as they are running a surplus but its terrible for us.

I realise to many free trade is almost a religion but there are always winners and losers of such an agreement. If we had true free trade where there were no minimum wages and no borrowing then as people keep buying imports they reduce the size of the economy become much poorer and force lower wages on themselves which helps correct the trade deficit because they can't afford to buy imports and the value of the pounds falls making exports more competitive but by constantly injecting borrowed money into the economy and paying people too much the self-correcting mechanism is disabled. I like the minimum wage and would prefer better political control of imports etc through tariffs and sales tax.

Also if we are going to do anything about the environment surely that means stop moving so many goods around the world but try to localise production even if that means smaller less efficient factories, using the same goods for longer and repairing them rather than replacing them. Growing more of our own food and much more recycling of items. All things that would help repair our economy and also repair the world itself.

I think if both Labour and Conservative governments had refused to borrow money years ago and not propped up the economy the economy would have shrunk more dramatically and we would have left Europe many years ago before such damage was done financially. I don't even have children but find it morally wrong that future generations have to suffer because of the current population's greed and stupidity. I wouldn't borrow money in your name and expect that to be legal yet governments borrow from future generations in order to hide their incompetence.

There's a lot going on in this - too much to go through, but I'd like you to explain how you understand free trading between nations to have "winners and losers"?

Because the whole point of proper free trade is everyone wins. I have a feeling you're conflating unfettered capitalism in a fairly raw form with free trade - that ain't the case.

https://www.economicshelp.org/trade2/be ... ree_trade/

If everyone wins then why do we have a high debt as a percentage of GDP and we are not flush with cash. Surely with all this free trade we have been doing for decades would have delivered an economy that can pay for education, health and social care which seems currently to be a struggle for the UK government. If it is working so well then maybe and explanation as to why the above basic needs require us to borrow to fund this would be helpful. Maybe we plan never ending growth to get ourselves out of the problem we currently face.

So the maths of 'free trade' and the logic behind it are fairly irrefutable.

What you're complaining about are the consequences of political choices governments have made that really have nothing to do with trade at all.

Enlighten us then as to how we have such a high debt and until recently had a really high deficit. Given the government are not spending like mad on essential public services or infrastructure what is this massive success we are seeing. Is life getting better for the majority of low to middle income earners in the UK as the figures would suggest otherwise. What could the government have done differently to have positive deficit, low debt, improved living standards with the decades of international trade that we have been following.

The govt' has spent more than it received in tax.

Ergo it has a deficit, which it has funded through borrowing.

The current economic growth is concentrated in those who are already quite wealthy.

None of this has anything to do with free trade - as I said above I think you are conflating certain iterations of capitalism (which are a political choice on what economic system a nation has, created through rules and regulations which are enacted by parliament, who decides) and the basic fundamentals of economics.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why don't one of you explain how you arrive at a realistic net-positive outcome then? The ability to submit to the US demands more easily doesn't count, before you trot that one out.

UK is roughly what, 2, 2.5% of global GDP?

The US is what, 25%?

EU is what, 22%?

I don't need to - I think we should stay in the EU - but that doesn't mean that I think all the leavers reasons are wrong - I just don't agree with the overall stance of leaving. Like all democracy - it's compromise....

Me neither. Although Rick knows fine well that asking for a reasonably accurate forecast of the outcome of complex trade negotiations to which we will not be party is in reality not possible.

That wasn't the question.

Rick said: "I can't see any practical theory which suggests the UK can get a more beneficial deal with the US without the leverage of being part of the EU." You seem to be arguing "well, I guess we'll just never know until we see what happens".

That's not how I read it. I guess it isnt clear.

But in any event missing my point, so nothing new there.

Which bit wasn't clear?

rjsterry

I see Gove's prospective Brexit strategy is essentially the same as May's. Ho-hum.

darkhairedlord

rjsterry wrote:

I see Gove's prospective Brexit strategy is essentially the same as May's. Ho-hum.

At least Gove and Rory Stewart are differentiating themselves from the fantasists on this.

pblakeney

Asked before, never was answered, and now appears to have gone missing, so I'll ask again.
Since my Brexiteer father can't answer these three questions, can a no deal supporter do it for him?

1. What will we be selling that we aren't selling now?
2. Who will we be selling them to that we aren't now?
3. Why aren't we selling these things now?*

*Simply stating "EU". Is not sufficient. Full, proper and correct answers please.

morstar

rjsterry wrote:

I see Gove's prospective Brexit strategy is essentially the same as May's. Ho-hum.

No fan of either of them, but...

1) No deal is widely opposed and not what was sold as Brexit (apart from by revisionism).
2) Remain did lose the ref and is not widely supported (or actively pursued) in parliament.
3) A deal is what was promised and voted for. How pursuing that objective seen as an insane option is beyond me.

It all comes back to deadlines.
Can parliament actually block no deal? If it can, we are never leaving until a cross party deal is agreed or a new parliament with a clear brexit position is elected. That must surely encourage cross party compromise and agreement as both Labour and Con need Brexit done and dusted asap. If Brexit isn't done, neither will relish a GE.

rjsterry

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I see Gove's prospective Brexit strategy is essentially the same as May's. Ho-hum.

No fan of either of them, but...

1) No deal is widely opposed and not what was sold as Brexit (apart from by revisionism).
2) Remain did lose the ref and is not widely supported (or actively pursued) in parliament.
3) A deal is what was promised and voted for. How pursuing that objective seen as an insane option is beyond me.

It all comes back to deadlines.
Can parliament actually block no deal? If it can, we are never leaving until a cross party deal is agreed or a new parliament with a clear brexit position is elected. That must surely encourage cross party compromise and agreement as both Labour and Con need Brexit done and dusted asap. If Brexit isn't done, neither will relish a GE.

All well and good but May's strategy didn't work. To try and kid everyone that you can magically solve it by doing the same thing is not a sign of hope.

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

Robert88 wrote:

I don't see why making our own stuff is a good idea. We don't have the skills nor the economies of scale, our management is renowned for being rubbish and the expense of re-jigging the infrastructure would not be recouped.

We are an economy of 60 million people. Take the humble washing machine and assume that we replace our washing machine every ten years and there are around 27.2 million households in the UK. That means that a UK manufacturer could sell to a market of 2.7 million machines per annum. Alternatively we could buy a washing machine from elsewhere in the world with money generated from some other form of enterprise within the UK. Unfortunately if this alternative enterprise is us all holding the door open for each other then we might be on the road to ruin. I think the above proposal is a pretty depressing continuation of the decline in the UK economy.

As consumers we hold all the power. For example if Ford wish to shut down their engine manufacturing plant then why would I continue to look at buying a ford as my next car when Nissan also do a pretty equivalent product in the UK. You don't have to get many in the market place to think like this and before long brands are pretty unsustainable when they have no loyalty to a reasonable sized market.

So we stick a tariff of £100 on washing machine imports to give the UK manufacturer a chance and the public end up paying over £2bn a year to provide jobs for a couple of thousand people.

The yanks did exactly this with tires (sic)
https://piie.com/publications/policy-br ... -high-cost

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I see Gove's prospective Brexit strategy is essentially the same as May's. Ho-hum.

No fan of either of them, but...

1) No deal is widely opposed and not what was sold as Brexit (apart from by revisionism).
2) Remain did lose the ref and is not widely supported (or actively pursued) in parliament.
3) A deal is what was promised and voted for. How pursuing that objective seen as an insane option is beyond me.

It all comes back to deadlines.
Can parliament actually block no deal? If it can, we are never leaving until a cross party deal is agreed or a new parliament with a clear brexit position is elected. That must surely encourage cross party compromise and agreement as both Labour and Con need Brexit done and dusted asap. If Brexit isn't done, neither will relish a GE.

All well and good but May's strategy didn't work. To try and kid everyone that you can magically solve it by doing the same thing is not a sign of hope.

Exactly - the public voted out - sold on "a deal" - the deal in it's current form is unacceptable (to parliament at least) and the EU have said no more negotiating .... so that only leaves 2 options - no deal or forget the whole sorry mess ... both of which go against what was voted for by the public ...

This is like a group of friends deciding to go out for a meal - getting into town and finding a kebab shop open or the restaurant only has a table available much later - and then needing to decide whether to abandon the meal, have the kebab or to wait for the restaurant ...
At the moment, we're just hanging around on the street corner - if we pontificate for too much longer, the decision is going to be taken away - the restaurant will close....

ddraver

john80 wrote:

As consumers we hold all the power. For example if Ford wish to shut down their engine manufacturing plant then why would I continue to look at buying a ford as my next car when Nissan also do a pretty equivalent product in the UK. You don't have to get many in the market place to think like this and before long brands are pretty unsustainable when they have no loyalty to a reasonable sized market.

Didnt work so well for British Leyland...

I'll put this in the folder with "people buy Mercedes & BMWs as a purely economic decision"

john80

ddraver wrote:

john80 wrote:

As consumers we hold all the power. For example if Ford wish to shut down their engine manufacturing plant then why would I continue to look at buying a ford as my next car when Nissan also do a pretty equivalent product in the UK. You don't have to get many in the market place to think like this and before long brands are pretty unsustainable when they have no loyalty to a reasonable sized market.

Didnt work so well for British Leyland...

I'll put this in the folder with "people buy Mercedes & BMWs as a purely economic decision"

Look I am not suggesting you buy poor cars but you could buy a jag or a landrover instead of a merc or bmw. In the mid priced sector there are also plenty of options to go british made.

veronese68

I should imagine it would go something like this.

PBlakeney wrote:

Asked before, never was answered, and now appears to have gone missing, so I'll ask again.
Since my Brexiteer father can't answer these three questions, can a no deal supporter do it for him?
1. What will we be selling that we aren't selling now?

Stuff we will be able to make once freed from the shackles of the evil EU.

PBlakeney wrote:

2. Who will we be selling them to that we aren't now?

The whole world will be gagging for it.

PBlakeney wrote:

3. Why aren't we selling these things now?*

Because we are restrained by the shackles of the EU.

PBlakeney wrote:

*Simply stating "EU". Is not sufficient. Full, proper and correct answers please.

It's all the EU's fault, everybody knows that. We voted to leave so we should just leave now.
Stop asking questions, we voted to leave, biggest democratic vote, blah blah blah...

veronese68

john80 wrote:

Look I am not suggesting you buy poor cars but you could buy a jag or a landrover instead of a merc or bmw. In the mid priced sector there are also plenty of options to go british made.

For how long? Honda, Nissan, Ford engines.
Morgan is still British.

john80

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bonzo Banana wrote:

My own viewpoint conflicts with just about every political party of the UK who seem to think a free trade agreement is beneficial but my viewpoint is with Europe we have a huge trade deficit and as we buy in a surplus of goods the sterling we export is re-invested in the UK buying up assets and industry which means even further erosion of the UK economy so I actually favour WTO low tariffs in order to give our economy some breathing room in order to create products more cheaply here than imports and considering our trading deficit this seems a logical thing to do. We are definitely the losers when it comes to the free trade agreement with the EU at least and we really have to stop buying so many goods from China. Also being able to set our own sales tax on a product by product basis means we can reduce the damage of certain imports which are very damaging and as we restore a reasonable level of production in that area we can reduce that sales tax. I guess my point is I just want the UK to run a realistic economy not funded on borrowing and can't see how a free trade agreement can help us currently. A free trade agreement is great for Europe as they are running a surplus but its terrible for us.

I realise to many free trade is almost a religion but there are always winners and losers of such an agreement. If we had true free trade where there were no minimum wages and no borrowing then as people keep buying imports they reduce the size of the economy become much poorer and force lower wages on themselves which helps correct the trade deficit because they can't afford to buy imports and the value of the pounds falls making exports more competitive but by constantly injecting borrowed money into the economy and paying people too much the self-correcting mechanism is disabled. I like the minimum wage and would prefer better political control of imports etc through tariffs and sales tax.

Also if we are going to do anything about the environment surely that means stop moving so many goods around the world but try to localise production even if that means smaller less efficient factories, using the same goods for longer and repairing them rather than replacing them. Growing more of our own food and much more recycling of items. All things that would help repair our economy and also repair the world itself.

I think if both Labour and Conservative governments had refused to borrow money years ago and not propped up the economy the economy would have shrunk more dramatically and we would have left Europe many years ago before such damage was done financially. I don't even have children but find it morally wrong that future generations have to suffer because of the current population's greed and stupidity. I wouldn't borrow money in your name and expect that to be legal yet governments borrow from future generations in order to hide their incompetence.

There's a lot going on in this - too much to go through, but I'd like you to explain how you understand free trading between nations to have "winners and losers"?

Because the whole point of proper free trade is everyone wins. I have a feeling you're conflating unfettered capitalism in a fairly raw form with free trade - that ain't the case.

https://www.economicshelp.org/trade2/be ... ree_trade/

If everyone wins then why do we have a high debt as a percentage of GDP and we are not flush with cash. Surely with all this free trade we have been doing for decades would have delivered an economy that can pay for education, health and social care which seems currently to be a struggle for the UK government. If it is working so well then maybe and explanation as to why the above basic needs require us to borrow to fund this would be helpful. Maybe we plan never ending growth to get ourselves out of the problem we currently face.

So the maths of 'free trade' and the logic behind it are fairly irrefutable.

What you're complaining about are the consequences of political choices governments have made that really have nothing to do with trade at all.

Enlighten us then as to how we have such a high debt and until recently had a really high deficit. Given the government are not spending like mad on essential public services or infrastructure what is this massive success we are seeing. Is life getting better for the majority of low to middle income earners in the UK as the figures would suggest otherwise. What could the government have done differently to have positive deficit, low debt, improved living standards with the decades of international trade that we have been following.

The govt' has spent more than it received in tax.

Ergo it has a deficit, which it has funded through borrowing.

The current economic growth is concentrated in those who are already quite wealthy.

None of this has anything to do with free trade - as I said above I think you are conflating certain iterations of capitalism (which are a political choice on what economic system a nation has, created through rules and regulations which are enacted by parliament, who decides) and the basic fundamentals of economics.

What economic system would resolve this and can you do this within the current EU framework. If so how.

imposter2.0

Veronese68 wrote:

Morgan is still British.

Woah - not so fast. Now owned by Italian venture capital firm. Only happened in March 2019, tbf...

surrey_commuter

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

john80 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Bonzo Banana wrote:

My own viewpoint conflicts with just about every political party of the UK who seem to think a free trade agreement is beneficial but my viewpoint is with Europe we have a huge trade deficit and as we buy in a surplus of goods the sterling we export is re-invested in the UK buying up assets and industry which means even further erosion of the UK economy so I actually favour WTO low tariffs in order to give our economy some breathing room in order to create products more cheaply here than imports and considering our trading deficit this seems a logical thing to do. We are definitely the losers when it comes to the free trade agreement with the EU at least and we really have to stop buying so many goods from China. Also being able to set our own sales tax on a product by product basis means we can reduce the damage of certain imports which are very damaging and as we restore a reasonable level of production in that area we can reduce that sales tax. I guess my point is I just want the UK to run a realistic economy not funded on borrowing and can't see how a free trade agreement can help us currently. A free trade agreement is great for Europe as they are running a surplus but its terrible for us.

I realise to many free trade is almost a religion but there are always winners and losers of such an agreement. If we had true free trade where there were no minimum wages and no borrowing then as people keep buying imports they reduce the size of the economy become much poorer and force lower wages on themselves which helps correct the trade deficit because they can't afford to buy imports and the value of the pounds falls making exports more competitive but by constantly injecting borrowed money into the economy and paying people too much the self-correcting mechanism is disabled. I like the minimum wage and would prefer better political control of imports etc through tariffs and sales tax.

Also if we are going to do anything about the environment surely that means stop moving so many goods around the world but try to localise production even if that means smaller less efficient factories, using the same goods for longer and repairing them rather than replacing them. Growing more of our own food and much more recycling of items. All things that would help repair our economy and also repair the world itself.

I think if both Labour and Conservative governments had refused to borrow money years ago and not propped up the economy the economy would have shrunk more dramatically and we would have left Europe many years ago before such damage was done financially. I don't even have children but find it morally wrong that future generations have to suffer because of the current population's greed and stupidity. I wouldn't borrow money in your name and expect that to be legal yet governments borrow from future generations in order to hide their incompetence.

There's a lot going on in this - too much to go through, but I'd like you to explain how you understand free trading between nations to have "winners and losers"?

Because the whole point of proper free trade is everyone wins. I have a feeling you're conflating unfettered capitalism in a fairly raw form with free trade - that ain't the case.

https://www.economicshelp.org/trade2/be ... ree_trade/

If everyone wins then why do we have a high debt as a percentage of GDP and we are not flush with cash. Surely with all this free trade we have been doing for decades would have delivered an economy that can pay for education, health and social care which seems currently to be a struggle for the UK government. If it is working so well then maybe and explanation as to why the above basic needs require us to borrow to fund this would be helpful. Maybe we plan never ending growth to get ourselves out of the problem we currently face.

So the maths of 'free trade' and the logic behind it are fairly irrefutable.

What you're complaining about are the consequences of political choices governments have made that really have nothing to do with trade at all.

Enlighten us then as to how we have such a high debt and until recently had a really high deficit. Given the government are not spending like mad on essential public services or infrastructure what is this massive success we are seeing. Is life getting better for the majority of low to middle income earners in the UK as the figures would suggest otherwise. What could the government have done differently to have positive deficit, low debt, improved living standards with the decades of international trade that we have been following.

The govt' has spent more than it received in tax.

Ergo it has a deficit, which it has funded through borrowing.

The current economic growth is concentrated in those who are already quite wealthy.

None of this has anything to do with free trade - as I said above I think you are conflating certain iterations of capitalism (which are a political choice on what economic system a nation has, created through rules and regulations which are enacted by parliament, who decides) and the basic fundamentals of economics.

What economic system would resolve this and can you do this within the current EU framework. If so how.

This is nothing to do with the EU.
As a general rule the fewer barriers to trade the greater the economic growth.
You want a more equal society you want to vote for a socialist
You don’t want (quite rightly) the Govt to run a deficit so don’t vote for a socialist

pblakeney

Veronese68 wrote:

I should imagine it would go something like this.

PBlakeney wrote:

Asked before, never was answered, and now appears to have gone missing, so I'll ask again.
Since my Brexiteer father can't answer these three questions, can a no deal supporter do it for him?
1. What will we be selling that we aren't selling now?

Stuff we will be able to make once freed from the shackles of the evil EU.

PBlakeney wrote:

2. Who will we be selling them to that we aren't now?

The whole world will be gagging for it.

PBlakeney wrote:

3. Why aren't we selling these things now?*

Because we are restrained by the shackles of the EU.

PBlakeney wrote:

*Simply stating "EU". Is not sufficient. Full, proper and correct answers please.

It's all the EU's fault, everybody knows that. We voted to leave so we should just leave now.
Stop asking questions, we voted to leave, biggest democratic vote, blah blah blah...

I know you are being sarcastic, but that was pretty much verbatim what my father said. And he was serious.

morstar

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I see Gove's prospective Brexit strategy is essentially the same as May's. Ho-hum.

No fan of either of them, but...

1) No deal is widely opposed and not what was sold as Brexit (apart from by revisionism).
2) Remain did lose the ref and is not widely supported (or actively pursued) in parliament.
3) A deal is what was promised and voted for. How pursuing that objective seen as an insane option is beyond me.

It all comes back to deadlines.
Can parliament actually block no deal? If it can, we are never leaving until a cross party deal is agreed or a new parliament with a clear brexit position is elected. That must surely encourage cross party compromise and agreement as both Labour and Con need Brexit done and dusted asap. If Brexit isn't done, neither will relish a GE.

All well and good but May's strategy didn't work. To try and kid everyone that you can magically solve it by doing the same thing is not a sign of hope.

I don't disagree with you. It just baffles me that trying to get a deal done is seen as the wrong path. Politics is broken. However, if no deal can be blocked by parliament and that block enforced a deal will have to be done in order for lab/con to protect their support.
May lied when she said the council elections were saying 'get brexit done' but she was correct in the interpretation that to protect themselves (Tory party) they do need to get it done sooner rather than later. It's that old habit of confusing self interest with national interest.
If parliament can only advise against (i.e. very strongly object to) no deal, then no deal becomes far more likely.
Nobody seems to be able to quantify how much control parliament has in blocking no deal given that the previous objections have only been advisory. When the chips are down, can the PM just say 'up yours' or is the 'advisory vote' effectively as good as a legally enforceable vote?
Sovereignty eh! Turns out it's not as simple as you might have thought.

rick_chasey

john80 wrote:

What economic system would resolve this and can you do this within the current EU framework. If so how.

What are you looking to resolve? Better earnings for lower and middle incomes? That is a real challenge and not enormously easy to resolve, as it's fairly deeply embedded in the system. It's a challenge most economists are working on, but broadly a more progressive tax approach is one potential solution. Generally more regulation to empower lower earners to reflect how things are done in places like Germany, where the economic growth is seen amongst the lower and middle income earners, would likely help.

The UK has recently seen the people with capital feeling the growth, and not those without.

I would like to know how and why you think the EU framework has any impact on this whatsoever, since I can't see the link at all.

rjsterry

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I see Gove's prospective Brexit strategy is essentially the same as May's. Ho-hum.

No fan of either of them, but...

1) No deal is widely opposed and not what was sold as Brexit (apart from by revisionism).
2) Remain did lose the ref and is not widely supported (or actively pursued) in parliament.
3) A deal is what was promised and voted for. How pursuing that objective seen as an insane option is beyond me.

It all comes back to deadlines.
Can parliament actually block no deal? If it can, we are never leaving until a cross party deal is agreed or a new parliament with a clear brexit position is elected. That must surely encourage cross party compromise and agreement as both Labour and Con need Brexit done and dusted asap. If Brexit isn't done, neither will relish a GE.

All well and good but May's strategy didn't work. To try and kid everyone that you can magically solve it by doing the same thing is not a sign of hope.

I don't disagree with you. It just baffles me that trying to get a deal done is seen as the wrong path. Politics is broken. However, if no deal can be blocked by parliament and that block enforced a deal will have to be done in order for lab/con to protect their support.
May lied when she said the council elections were saying 'get brexit done' but she was correct in the interpretation that to protect themselves (Tory party) they do need to get it done sooner rather than later. It's that old habit of confusing self interest with national interest.
If parliament can only advise against (i.e. very strongly object to) no deal, then no deal becomes far more likely.
Nobody seems to be able to quantify how much control parliament has in blocking no deal given that the previous objections have only been advisory. When the chips are down, can the PM just say 'up yours' or is the 'advisory vote' effectively as good as a legally enforceable vote?
Sovereignty eh! Turns out it's not as simple as you might have thought.

It's pretty clear that an attempt to bulldoze through no-deal would result in a very likely vote of no confidence in the government, followed by a GE. The result of that would probably be a hung parliament, with the major parties getting a kicking.

If the big problem is the backstop, that would suggest going for an SM+CU (Norway+) exit (no backstop needed) to deal with the leaving the EU, then separately negotiating what degree of withdrawal from the SM and CU can be achieved without the time pressure.

But what do I know? Given that even Hammond has decided that trying to tackle climate change is just 'too expensive' I'm not feeling very optimistic at the moment.

kingstongraham

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I see Gove's prospective Brexit strategy is essentially the same as May's. Ho-hum.

No fan of either of them, but...

1) No deal is widely opposed and not what was sold as Brexit (apart from by revisionism).
2) Remain did lose the ref and is not widely supported (or actively pursued) in parliament.
3) A deal is what was promised and voted for. How pursuing that objective seen as an insane option is beyond me.

It all comes back to deadlines.
Can parliament actually block no deal? If it can, we are never leaving until a cross party deal is agreed or a new parliament with a clear brexit position is elected. That must surely encourage cross party compromise and agreement as both Labour and Con need Brexit done and dusted asap. If Brexit isn't done, neither will relish a GE.

All well and good but May's strategy didn't work. To try and kid everyone that you can magically solve it by doing the same thing is not a sign of hope.

I don't disagree with you. It just baffles me that trying to get a deal done is seen as the wrong path. Politics is broken. However, if no deal can be blocked by parliament and that block enforced a deal will have to be done in order for lab/con to protect their support.
May lied when she said the council elections were saying 'get brexit done' but she was correct in the interpretation that to protect themselves (Tory party) they do need to get it done sooner rather than later. It's that old habit of confusing self interest with national interest.
If parliament can only advise against (i.e. very strongly object to) no deal, then no deal becomes far more likely.
Nobody seems to be able to quantify how much control parliament has in blocking no deal given that the previous objections have only been advisory. When the chips are down, can the PM just say 'up yours' or is the 'advisory vote' effectively as good as a legally enforceable vote?
Sovereignty eh! Turns out it's not as simple as you might have thought.

If enough of them really want to stop it, and are willing to do whatever it takes, then they can force a vote of no confidence, or possibly cross the aisle and then force a vote. I don't know what happens under the fixed term parliament act if there becomes a majority for an alternative government part way through a session.

veronese68

PBlakeney wrote:

I know you are being sarcastic, but that was pretty much verbatim what my father said. And he was serious.

Unfortunately that's pretty much what I've heard as well. It's very difficult to argue with because it's a deep seated belief with no basis in fact.

morstar

KingstonGraham wrote:

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

morstar wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I see Gove's prospective Brexit strategy is essentially the same as May's. Ho-hum.

No fan of either of them, but...

1) No deal is widely opposed and not what was sold as Brexit (apart from by revisionism).
2) Remain did lose the ref and is not widely supported (or actively pursued) in parliament.
3) A deal is what was promised and voted for. How pursuing that objective seen as an insane option is beyond me.

It all comes back to deadlines.
Can parliament actually block no deal? If it can, we are never leaving until a cross party deal is agreed or a new parliament with a clear brexit position is elected. That must surely encourage cross party compromise and agreement as both Labour and Con need Brexit done and dusted asap. If Brexit isn't done, neither will relish a GE.

All well and good but May's strategy didn't work. To try and kid everyone that you can magically solve it by doing the same thing is not a sign of hope.

I don't disagree with you. It just baffles me that trying to get a deal done is seen as the wrong path. Politics is broken. However, if no deal can be blocked by parliament and that block enforced a deal will have to be done in order for lab/con to protect their support.
May lied when she said the council elections were saying 'get brexit done' but she was correct in the interpretation that to protect themselves (Tory party) they do need to get it done sooner rather than later. It's that old habit of confusing self interest with national interest.
If parliament can only advise against (i.e. very strongly object to) no deal, then no deal becomes far more likely.
Nobody seems to be able to quantify how much control parliament has in blocking no deal given that the previous objections have only been advisory. When the chips are down, can the PM just say 'up yours' or is the 'advisory vote' effectively as good as a legally enforceable vote?
Sovereignty eh! Turns out it's not as simple as you might have thought.

If enough of them really want to stop it, and are willing to do whatever it takes, then they can force a vote of no confidence, or possibly cross the aisle and then force a vote. I don't know what happens under the fixed term parliament act if there becomes a majority for an alternative government part way through a session.

So "if" no deal is effectively impossible...
There has to be a deal before end October despite virtually no working time to do one. Meaning an off-the-shelf solution.
If PM refuses to withdraw A50 (Almost certainly) and parliament refuses to allow no-deal and a deal has not been agreed. What happens on Oct 31st?

rick_chasey

Veronese68 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I know you are being sarcastic, but that was pretty much verbatim what my father said. And he was serious.

Unfortunately that's pretty much what I've heard as well. It's very difficult to argue with because it's a deep seated belief with no basis in fact.

So there is a lot of evidence to suggest that arguing/debating with people who already believe in something only makes them further entrench their opinion. This is more acute with the more learned folk too.

pblakeney

morstar wrote:

So "if" no deal is effectively impossible...
There has to be a deal before end October despite virtually no working time to do one. Meaning an off-the-shelf solution.
If PM refuses to withdraw A50 (Almost certainly) and parliament refuses to allow no-deal and a deal has not been agreed. What happens on Oct 31st?

We go back to the Eu with the begging bowl. Please sir, can I have some more (extension)?
I guess "no" would mean no deal whether we like it or not. How long an extension can we realistically get?

bompington

bompington wrote:

john80 wrote:

We are an economy of 60 million people. Take the humble washing machine and assume that we replace our washing machine every ten years and there are around 27.2 million households in the UK. That means that a UK manufacturer could sell to a market of 2.7 million machines per annum. Alternatively we could buy a washing machine from elsewhere in the world with money generated from some other form of enterprise within the UK. Unfortunately if this alternative enterprise is us all holding the door open for each other then we might be on the road to ruin. I think the above proposal is a pretty depressing continuation of the decline in the UK economy.

Nice exemplar of the classic "manufacturing is real jobs, anything else doesn't count" fallacy.

Poss
Puts it better than I can:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/20 ... war-hands/

robert88

Bridgend closure was NOTHING TO DO WITH BREXIT.

Ford says.

There's no doubt that the motor car, an invention that managed to dodge any real change for almost a century now has to face a world in which the resistance to change is no longer the dominant force.

The UK is a country ill-equipped to surf the new wave, Brexit or no Brexit. Moreover, we now have to decide whether to pander to the orange shit-gibbon defiling the White House or do deals with China regardless. Brexit will make a difference to our ability to withstand that pressure.