Politics, politics, politics

[scaramanga]

This one of the best articles that I have read on Brexit

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/dunkirk-christopher-nolan-brexit.html

Frankly it reads as nonsense to me and not just because I disagree with it.

It suggests an ambition or result of independence and separatism that nobody is suggesting. Brexit is about more trade, not less.

We don't need to have the best manufacturing sector, we can buy from India and China (and still Germany too). If we don't have the employees we can still import them, it's just that now we don't have to pay them or their families any in or out of work benefits.

And whilst 45% of all our exports sounds like a big number (I suspect it's chosen as the figure of choice for that reason), 14% of our GDP doesn't. In fact, it's not hard to imagine that savings could be made on that 86% of GDP that could cover the cost of even a massive drop in EU trade causing a 1-2% drop in GDP. That's without the benefits of reduced input costs and a larger market to trade with.

 

[Gutter Boy]

It seems ridiculous to me to blame immigrants for the poor standard of British education. I absolutely agree that the government should put more money into education and look to adopt approaches taken in better educated countries. This is a long term policy though and would take 20 years to see through.

I agree also that the impact in some areas has been greater than others. This is in part again down to how government has chosen to spend money. I have spent a fair amount of time in Lincolnshire. Agriculture there is heavily reliant on seasonal migrant labour, it is hard to see a different solution to that in the short term but communities should be funded appropriately to support this.

I disagree that there should be a policy to reduce population size. That sounds a little Maoist to me. I think that people should be free to move where there are jobs, that was the position within the EU but Britain didn't implement the rules properly.

A lot of the problems that we see here are down to the inequality of British society. I want a government that seeks to grow the economy and share the proceeds of that growth more evenly. If the whole country had felt the benefit of past growth (and the growth that came as a result of EU migration) I do not believe that we'd be where we are now.

It's skills, not education. Our academic system is as good as any in the world. It's the half that aren't academic and get stuck in call centres and supermarkets that need attention. Vocational pathways from 14-21.

The natural population is declining. It does naturally in first world countries where women are fully emancipated. Immigration is used to achieve a net growth, to prop up pension funding. I would set the limit at that which still gives a slight net decrease in population.

 

[Gutter Boy]

This one of the best articles that I have read on Brexit

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/opinion/dunkirk-christopher-nolan-brexit.html

Doesn't that just say that our structures are screwed and built on sand? That we've grown lazy and decadent. And are in dire need of a new focus and reinvigorating?

Re-balancing the economy - from financial service to an industrial strategy, and from south-east to nationwide - and developing homegrown talent, which this shock will necessitate - are things that will stand us in much better stead for the coming decades than carrying on in the old artificially propped-up system.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I'm talking about what the report will find, not proposing some utopia.

That is not to say that immigration hasn't caused problems in some areas but I think that is largely down to government policy and could be addressed without leaving the EU.

I actually dont really care that much about immigration. Think we should have a quota but as you say we could have done that in the EU. I know loads of Latvians and a few other east europeans and not a bad one amongst them.

Nope the reason to leave is because they are gansters.

As for the new york times article the 100th they have wrote about Brexit, that paper is so left it makes the Guardian look like the mail.

As for the two girls in it who do not want to do immigrant jobs, well if we ever leave those lazy scum will have to, they will not be able to hide behind human rights.

I would like to see a change in the country where it is not seen as racist to do criminal record checks on people moving here. I want our British underclass to work for a living, i want Britain to engage with the world in our interests. All the many different things i want for the future come from being out of the gangster club and i do not care if our GDP goes down for a few years.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

https://twitter.com/x/status/890865752814665728

was he posting when our numbers were higher. Does he understand about economic cycles one reason having the same currency for different countries is madness even the one eyed jock monster got that.

 

[Gutter Boy]

For me the most retarded thing is the remainer media using the exchange rate and things being expensive for British tourists going overseas as a negative consequence of Brexit.

In fact the exchange rate is moving in our favour and being expensive for British tourists means things are much better for British exports, and hence the economy.

Exports vs the cost of Sangria of the Costas. I just can’t work out if the people writing it are that dumb, or whether they know but know their readers probably won’t.

It’s almost up there with my favourite ‘there’s still XXX,000 people living in poverty in this country’, when the poverty measure is actually relative (e.g. the bottom 15% of society), so will always be that number.

 

[milo]

Strong stuff from Matthew Parrish in today's Times. He's right, of course.

 

[Gutter Boy]

It's a bit like a Spurs transfer window really. All the anti-Levy phalanx getting stirred up by Talksport calling us a small club with no ambition.

We really have no idea how well things are going or how well they could ever go considering the whole purpose of the EU has been to accumulate power, and now they are struggling with the idea of having to renounce some. You can't start writing any history, let alone an objective one, until you have the context of time - that's why journalism is always a poor relation.

 

[scaramanga]

Strong stuff from Matthew Parrish in today's Times. He's right, of course.

I can't dance with most of that.

I would take exception to the claim that the referendum didn't need to be called. Not only had it been promised to the public, it was also absolutely required once the EU stupidly and arrogantly sent Cameron home without the very reasonable requests he'd made.

 

[Gutter Boy]

Things were always on collision course. There's just no appetite for political integration/federalism in Britain, and that's where the EU is rapidly heading.

I know that American article used it to mock the other day, but things like our rights from Magna Carta and standing alone in 1803 and 1941 do matter. As a country we do have the bloody mindedness to say 'no more' to rising threats, no matter what the odds.

 

[Baleforce]

Things were always on collision course. There's just no appetite for political integration/federalism in Britain, and that's where the EU is rapidly heading.

I know that American article used it to mock the other day, but things like our rights from Magna Carta and standing alone in 1803 and 1941 do matter. As a country we do have the bloody mindedness to say 'no more' to rising threats, no matter what the odds.

I think there is, I'm all for it.

 

[scaramanga]

I think there is, I'm all for it.

I'd say you're a rarity.

Most people I know are split down two lines - those who think the EU is set for more integration/federalism and want to leave and those who want to remain and think it's just scare stories from the leave camp.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Might be of interest to the good people of the politics thread:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...le-market-customs-union-brexit-britain-europe

Most trade agreements arise from a desire to liberalise trade – making it easier to sell goods and services into one another’s markets. Brexit will not. Brexit arose from key political, rather than trade, objectives: to have control over our borders, to have sovereignty over our laws, not to submit to the European court of justice (ECJ), and not to pay money into the European budget. When negotiations start it will be the first time countries seek a trade agreement with the clear understanding that they are increasing barriers between them.

I campaigned to stay in the EU, but as a democratic politician, I have to recognise that these objectives provide the benchmarks by which leave voters will judge the future trade relations we negotiate with the EU. Unless the new agreement delivers these objectives in substantial measure, we will find it difficult to justify the final result to the 52% who voted leave.

Of course we must try to retain the economic benefits of the single market when we leave the EU: some argue this means we should negotiate to stay inside the European Economic Area (EEA), which would retain the friction-free trade not only in goods but also in services, upon which the bulk of our economy is based.

However, the political price to be paid for such access is correspondingly high, and runs directly counter to the leavers’ four objectives. In the EEA, Britain would be obliged to keep the four freedoms, including the free movement of people, so no regaining control of our borders; align its regulatory regime with the EU’s – so no regaining sovereignty (in fact we would no longer have a seat at the table so there would actually be a reduction of sovereignty); follow ECJ rulings; and still pay into the EU budget.

The UK would technically not be a member of the EU, but we would in effect become a vassal state: obliged to pay into the union’s budget while having even less sovereignty than we do now – no longer able to appoint commissioners, sit on the EU council to have a say in how we determine our regulations and laws, or appoint British judges to the ECJ to adjudicate disputes. The 52% would almost certainly consider this a con.
Some have suggested we should retain membership of the customs union, the benefits of which extend to goods rather than services, and establish common import tariffs with respect to the rest of the world. But that is not possible. The only members of this union are the member states of the EU, and they alone have negotiating power.

Other countries such as Turkey have a separate customs union agreement with the EU. If we were to have a similar agreement, several things would follow: the EU’s 27 members would set the common tariffs and Britain would have no say in how they were set. We would be unable to enter into any separate bilateral free trade agreement. We would be obliged to align our regulatory regime with the EU in all areas covered by the union, without any say in the rules we had to adopt. And we would be bound by the case law of the ECJ, even though we would have no power to bring a case to the court.

As a transitional phase, a customs union agreement might be thought to have some merit. However, as an end point it is deeply unattractive. It would preclude us from making our own independent trade agreements with our five largest export markets outside the EU (the US, China, Japan, Australia and the Gulf states).

More important, were, say, the EU to negotiate an agreement with the US that was in the union’s best interests but against our own, our markets would be obliged to accept American produce with no guarantee of reciprocal access for our own goods into the US.
Turkey faces precisely such an asymmetry with Mexico, with which the EU negotiated an agreement 20 years ago. Turkey still faces a 20% tariff on its clothing goods exported to Mexico, while it imports Mexican cars on a tariff-free basis.

Labour has been right to say the government must focus on the outcomes rather than the structures. The key is not to try to fit these political and economic requirements into inappropriate existing bodies such as the EEA or the customs union, but to develop a bespoke agreement based on what both sides need.

Labour must evince a positive vision for the future of our country outside the EU. One that is consistent with the leave voters’ objectives, without sacrificing our rights and protections, as the Conservatives threaten to do. That vision must also reassure those who voted to remain that the friction-free access into the single market that we have enjoyed for so long can in large part be maintained.

Decent article. Quick question: why do people talk about representing 52% of the population? Circa one third of the UK population voted to leave the EU.

MPs and government have a duty to represent everyone including the 2/3s who didn't vote to leave. Especially on something so undefined when the referendum votes were caste, and so critical to the UKs future.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[SpurMeUp]

Perhaps very early on/historically, but the 'access to not membership of' line was quite clear by the final weeks of the campaign through May/June.

I think it was sharpened by the EU diktat that membership wasn't possible without freedom of movement (which is ideological, not practical; and fair enough, it's their superstate).

It was always known that you couldn't have market access without free movement. Yet many in UKIP suggested the Norway model as their preference.

While good at campaigning and making promises, Leave campaigners don't have to deliver on their proposals. Farrage visiting Trump instead. How could UKIP suggest a Norway setup when it's so clearly a worse form of eu membership?


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[scaramanga]

Decent article. Quick question: why do people talk about representing 52% of the population? Circa one third of the UK population voted to leave the EU.

MPs and government have a duty to represent everyone including the 2/3s who didn't vote to leave. Especially on something so undefined when the referendum votes were caste, and so critical to the UKs future.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

You don't get to claim those that didn't vote for your side just because the vote went against you!

 

[SpurMeUp]

You don't get to claim those that didn't vote for your side just because the vote went against you!

Those that didn't vote obviously don't get added to Remain, but shouldn't they be represented? Brexit realities are so complex even the government don't fully grasp it, how do you expect people to have an informed vote on it?

Those that didn't vote should be respected. And MPs should represent what is best for Britain, not just the 1/3 who voted Leave.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[scaramanga]

Those that didn't vote obviously don't get added to Remain, but shouldn't they be represented? Brexit realities are so complex even the government don't fully grasp it, how do you expect people to have an informed vote on it?

Those that didn't vote should be respected. And MPs should represent what is best for Britain, not just the 1/3 who voted Leave.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

They didn't vote to remain, shouldn't we be representing their wishes to not remain?

 

[Aldo]

Those that didn't vote obviously don't get added to Remain, but shouldn't they be represented? Brexit realities are so complex even the government don't fully grasp it, how do you expect people to have an informed vote on it?

Those that didn't vote should be respected. And MPs should represent what is best for Britain, not just the 1/3 who voted Leave.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

No.

 

[Gutter Boy]

I think there is, I'm all for it.

Rule by the 5 EU Presidents and their priests, none of whom you can vote for?

Even more disenfranchised, lost among the 745 million?

A system that is designed to oppose democracy and permanently preserve neo-liberalism and big business from sustainability and local economies?

 

[SpurMeUp]

They didn't vote to remain, shouldn't we be representing their wishes to not remain?

No.

MPs should be representing what is best for the UK. Simple. Only one third voted for change. Furthermore, the referendum should be seen as a start, not an end. So much was not defined, or miss sold, it is crazy to try to implement the will of a third of the population who voted for something that was, and still is, to be defined.