|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The US government have already stated that their priorities will be the major trade deals they've already committed a lot of time and effort on, with the EU and with Asia.
No, Barack Obama has stated that. Barack Obama won't be president after January 20. Trump supports Brexit. Who knows what Clinton thinks? However, Clinton has already repudiated the TPP which Obama and Kerry negotiated. Hard to believe she follows through on punishing the UK for leaving the EU. I say this for two reasons. One, the US doesn't have much of a trade deficit with the UK. Why would disrupting trade with the UK be in our economic interest? Two, the UK is our closest ally. The optics would be horrible. Here, let me spin the narrative for you. The UK stands alone against a united Europe controlled by a Germany seeking to destroy the sovereignty of individual nations. Sound familiar? First poll comes out in support of a deal with the UK, Clinton and May agree to business as usual over afternoon tea and crumpets. Will the EU then try to punish the US? Good luck with that.
Two problems with this from a British point of view.
Firstly, the Trump scenario relies heavily on the competence and goodwill of Mr Trump. This is not reassuring.
The Clinton scenario is based on the idea that Trade Deals can be sorted out over tea and crumpets. This is rather akin to the idea that the Large Hadron Collider can be replicated with a ten year old's Lego Science Kit. It also implies that a lack of enthusiasm for a US-UK trade deal is related to the need to punish the Brits for leaving the EU, whereas it is more to do with giving larger markets primacy. Do you prioritise a trade deal with the UK or with the much larger EU? Furthermore before doing a deal with the UK, the UK has to leave the EU which takes place two years after Article 50 has been activated. So probably around March 2019. So the idea that we can compensate for leaving the EU and the Single Market by signing a Trade Deal with the US really means losing our membership of the Single Market and then, beginning the lengthy negotiations to set up a trade deal with the US after that.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Hard to believe she follows through on punishing the UK for leaving the EU.
I think this constant use of punitive language to be very misleading (add 'punishing' to the notion of the EU taking 'revenge' on the UK by not allowing them to have the benefits of EU membership if they leave the EU). These things are generally a simple and rather obvious consequences of a set of actions - to ask for anything else is the exceptional case.
The US has a limited amount of trade negotiators. Trade deals - even when both countries are keen on them - take time and effort to strike, partly because the politicians involved in them are subject to being lobbied.
Furthermore both HC and Trump would have a limited amount of legislative time, and a limited amount of goodwill to spend to pass everything they want passed.
The optics may look horrible if thousands of Brits were starving, but that's not really what we are talking about. The UK could decline significantly in economic terms without particularly impinging on the minds of the US public.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
It's not controlled by Germany? Would the Greeks agree with that? Besides, the truth doesn't actually matter when constructing a narrative. One could build a case that Germany controls the EU using just sources sympathetic to Clinton. All it will take is to convince a majority of the US people that Germany is trying to punish the UK and deprive it of its sovereignty. The Clintons conduct foreign policy by opinion poll. Now, with the right social media campaign, the UK could get the US to form a trade alliance and piggyback off of every trade deal the US makes. You should get something for Afghanistan and Iraq.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Furthermore before doing a deal with the UK, the UK has to leave the EU which takes place two years after Article 50 has been activated. So probably around March 2019. So the idea that we can compensate for leaving the EU and the Single Market by signing a Trade Deal with the US really means losing our membership of the Single Market and then, beginning the lengthy negotiations to set up a trade deal with the US after that.
I thought the whole point of the two-year delay was to enable us to negotiate the trade deals that would come into effect once we leave.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Furthermore before doing a deal with the UK, the UK has to leave the EU which takes place two years after Article 50 has been activated. So probably around March 2019. So the idea that we can compensate for leaving the EU and the Single Market by signing a Trade Deal with the US really means losing our membership of the Single Market and then, beginning the lengthy negotiations to set up a trade deal with the US after that.
I thought the whole point of the two-year delay was to enable us to negotiate the trade deals that would come into effect once we leave.
The whole point of the two year delay is to negotiate our terms of exit from the EU. Until that happens we can't unilaterally negotiate trade deals with other countries because our treaty commitments to the EU Countries forbid us to do so. The whole point of Article 50 is that it disadvantages the departing country by putting in a time scale, which means that its negotiators are operating against the clock, with the penalty of having to trade with the EU under WTO rules, if a deal isn't reached in sufficient time. Which is another reason, btw, to remain in the Single Market - it would be a lot quicker to negotiate membership of the EEA than it would be to set up the kind of bespoke deal that Theresa May and company think that they can pull off.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by chris stiles:
The optics may look horrible if thousands of Brits were starving, but that's not really what we are talking about. The UK could decline significantly in economic terms without particularly impinging on the minds of the US public.
No, the optics will look horrible period. Clinton is weak on trade. Bill Clinton got the label of moderate in part by coming out in favor of free trade deals. Those deals were never popular on the Left. Now, they aren't popular with a large segment on the right either. Clinton is perceived as being weak on trade and knows it. Every single, country that she tries to prioritize above the UK will have something that makes it less sympathetic than the UK. Send Boris Johnson over the pond to make the case. Americans will love him.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Beeswax Altar: quote:
Here, let me spin the narrative for you. The UK stands alone against a united Europe controlled by a Germany seeking to destroy the sovereignty of individual nations. Sound familiar?
The Second World War was over 70 years ago, for God's sake. Whatever control Germany may have over the EU stems from it being the largest economy in the group, not from having the biggest army and most ruthless dictator.
But while we're on the subject of examples from 20th century history, may I remind you that the USA did not enter World War II until December 1941, as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor and a direct threat to American territory? Going by past experience, I find it difficult to believe that the USA would leap in to defend Britain against the machinations of the evil EU negotiators; certainly not without expecting something in return. Those Lend-Lease ships were not supplied free of charge.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
You all seem to think this has to be totally rational. I think you underestimate just how popular Boris Johnson will be once the American people discover he exists. One, in the US, World War II remains fresh in our memory. We still don't entirely trust the Germans. For that matter, we still don't take the French all that seriously. Two, we will get a trade deal that won't devastate more Midwestern and Mid-Atlantic cities. That's not nothing. Turn those Northern industrial areas from Democratic to Republican and Clinton serves one term.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
We still don't entirely trust the Germans. For that matter, we still don't take the French all that seriously.
Speak for yourself. I don't know of any research that holds that those stereotypes are common in the UK. There certainly is a lot of noise about Brussels, I don't hear anyone particularly moaning about Berlin. If anything, workers I've heard talking about work are envious of the way things are in Germany (or at least how they were before the recent issues with immigration).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, "a united Europe controlled by a Germany" is a nonsense. If there are further moves towards a political union in Europe the control will be with whatever political structures are built for that purpose - a strengthed European Parliament, for example. Which won't be Germany (or France, Belgium or anyone else). I would love for that to happen, and for the UK to be at the heart of it (except there will need to be a coordinated political movement in the UK to reverse the stupidity of the 23rd June first - and, if such a movement is born I'll sign up).
So will I.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose that hard Brexit is making the running
Hard Brexit is only making the running because there's an impasse which no one has an answer to. The British government, because of the referendum result, can't concede the point that free movement, in its present form, has been rejected by the British electorate. All voices from the EU seem to be saying that there's no membership of the Single Market without free movement. Hence hard Brexit is inevitable. The EEA model, like Norway's position, can't answer the problem either.
Yet as in so many cases, this is politics winning over economics. The federalist bureaucrats of the EU can't accept that an electorate can reject their very one sided vision. They refuse to see that tariffs and trade wars benefit nobody. Jobs could be lost in the UK, but even more so in the EU. If we are forced into WTO rules, the competitive edge given by the lower value of the pound will more than absorb the tariffs the EU can impose if they deal fairly and only impose WTO MFN tariffs. But things like German cars, French wine and cheese etc, which are already more expensive due to sterling's depreciation, would then be subject to tariffs as well. Everybody loses.
Should the UK go into negotiations saying, which it will, that we have no wish to change the status quo, and that we want to continue to trade freely, it,s up to them if they choose to wreak havoc on all our job markets with petty minded retaliation. I voted to stay in, but I'm no more impressed now than I ever was with the Brussels juggernaut.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by PaulTH:
quote:
The federalist bureaucrats of the EU can't accept that an electorate can reject their very one sided vision.
I think the real problem is not the unelected federalist bureaucrats but the all too elected-and-vulnerable-to-not-being-re-elected governments of the member states. For a deal to pass it needs the approval of all 27 member states and, spookily enough, the Visegrad Governments (Poland, Hungary, Czechia and Slovakia) don't think that the whole "give GB the same access to the Single Market but with no freedom of movement" thing, beloved of our having-their-cake-and-eating-it politicians is going to play terribly well on the mean streets of Warsaw South or Bratislava West. Particularly not in the context of a referendum where the winning side stoked up hostility towards EU citizens living and working in the UK and where EU citizens have been subsequently attacked and, in one instance, killed. Imaging that Spain voted for Spexit after running a campaign against British retirees and, after which,, UK nationals had been attacked or killed. Would Theresa May be prepared to countenance a special deal in those circumstances? Some of the 27, or the rump EU as the Daily Fail recently described it, will also have to put the resultant deal to their electorates in referenda. The whole business is painfully reminiscent of the Greek referendum on austerity. The Greek government turned up brandishing their popular mandate for the benefits of the other member states only for one of the German politicians to remark: "some of us were elected too".
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The British government, because of the referendum result, can't concede the point that free movement, in its present form, has been rejected by the British electorate.
As far as I know, by a very small majority, the British electorate voted to reject the status quo. Since no one specified what the question was, we have no way of knowing what that small majority voted for.
The whole process was deeply flawed, since the Leave campaign were not required to specify what they were going to attempt to enact should they win. About the closest we got to a Leave manifesto was a slogan on the side of a bus - which (if not exempt as political) would have fallen foul of advertising standards legislation.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Beeswax Altar: quote:
Here, let me spin the narrative for you. The UK stands alone against a united Europe controlled by a Germany seeking to destroy the sovereignty of individual nations. Sound familiar?
The Second World War was over 70 years ago, for God's sake. Whatever control Germany may have over the EU stems from it being the largest economy in the group, not from having the biggest army and most ruthless dictator.
I rather think that that's the point Beeswax Altar is making. The irrationality of much of the Brexit campaign stems from a failure to understand that WWII has finished, and finished with a German loss. The Brexiters would prefer to be the underdogs of late 1940.
I did not quote your second para, but you may remember the very late (but equally as essential to the Allied victory) entry by the US into WWI. I'm not sure of the relevance of either to the present thread, to be honest.
[ 03. October 2016, 21:01: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The war has largely been relegated to history classes. The feeling of animosity towards the Germans was already a minority position that was just something to make fun of when Basil Fawlty said "don't mention the war", the German people were victims of Hitler and national socialism, and certainly the current leadership bears no blame (most weren't even born until after the end of the war).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
I think you underestimate just how popular Boris Johnson will be once the American people discover he exists.
You must have missed it because it was so cringe inducing and so uncomfortable to watch it would have burned into your memory, but Boris already went to the USA and shared the stage with John Kerry. It didn't go well.
I have no time for Boris whatsoever and I have no idea why a frankly racist and xenophobic buffoon has been given a post that involves international relations. It is almost as tragic as appointing Nigel Farage to Europe. But even though I have so little time for him, even I felt uncomfortable as he blundered his way through a barrage of press heckles and the fact that he blubbered and flustered like a schoolboy who'd been scolded made it even worse. The whole thing was pathetic.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
As far as I know, by a very small majority, the British electorate voted to reject the status quo. Since no one specified what the question was, we have no way of knowing what that small majority voted for.
I speak as someone who has never had a problem with inward migration from the EU, but what precisely the majority voted for is irrelevant. It could be put in the category of making the UK parliament sovereign over issues, including immigration, rather than being told, from a body over which we have no democratic control, that there's absolutely nothing we can do however many people turn up at the doorstep. Not liking the referendum result is one thing. Ignoring it or attempting to overturn it is another. It's contempt for democracy. Keep on asking the question until you get the answer you're happy with.
I don't think the government has any authority to bargain over free movement. The Swiss rejected that issue in a referendum, so the Brussels machine has shut down any meaningful talks unless they vote again to overturn it. It's far more an issue of the sovereignty of an elected body over the dictates of glorified civil servants on fat cat salaries and pensions. As the only potential benefit I can see from Brexit long term is the ability to trade freely outside the customs union, it's these factors that are driving a hard Brexit. We'd all like to retain preferential access to the Single Market, but not at the price of betraying our democratic choice. Also any "trouble" in our trading relationship with the EU is coming from them, not from us.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
but what precisely the majority voted for is irrelevant.
How can it be anything other that relevant? Apart from the fact that the referendum was called before a manifesto for Brexit was written (thus, IMO, making the whole process deeply flawed) so we can't know what people voted for. Thus, we only know they (by a marginal number) rejected the status quo.
quote:
Not liking the referendum result is one thing. Ignoring it or attempting to overturn it is another. It's contempt for democracy.
No, preventing people from expressing their opinions on political issues is an abuse of democracy. While we still claim to be a democracy I've as much right as anyone else to make my views known. At least Remainers didn't state that if they lost they'd be out on the streets committing acts of violence - but, then the Brexit side did that even when they had won.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
A perfectly democratic way ahead would be to negotiate with the EU and find out what is and is not possible, and then put three or four options to the electorate under single transferable vote. The problem with the referendum is that it was a very blunt instrument and the Leave vote was a composite of many conflicting desires. What many Leave voters thought they were voting for (more money for the NHS, sending the Eastern Europeans back, arguments over sovereignty, sticking two fingers up to Westminster, etc. etc.) cannot be delivered, certainly not all of it. So negotiate with the EU and then say to the British public "Do you want (1) access to the single market with free movement of people, (2) no access to the single market with restrictions on movement, (3) to remain in the EU". There might be one or two other options.
And if you won't allow that vote, you aren't being democratic. As it stands, however, we are saddled with a wafer thin internally inconsistent vote, any interpretation of which will not be accepted by the majority of the UK public.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
A perfectly democratic way ahead would be to negotiate with the EU and find out what is and is not possible, and then put three or four options to the electorate under single transferable vote.
Yes, that would be lovely for the UK. But why on earth would the EU want to do that? What's in it for the EU?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
A perfectly democratic way ahead would be to negotiate with the EU and find out what is and is not possible, and then put three or four options to the electorate under single transferable vote.
Yes, that would be lovely for the UK. But why on earth would the EU want to do that? What's in it for the EU?
A better ongoing relationship than if the public feel conned into one of three choices by their own government. It's harder to deflect blame when you make the final choice yourself.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The federalist bureaucrats of the EU can't accept that an electorate can reject their very one sided vision. They refuse to see that tariffs and trade wars benefit nobody.
The electorate are refusing to see that tariffs and trade wars benefit nobody. Why do they get to blame the bureaucrats? (Who are appointed by democratically elected governments, including ours.)
There are strong arguments against freedom of trade without freedom of movement. Freedom of trade means that moveable jobs can be taken by the employers to where labour is cheapest, but workers can't move after the jobs to balance it out.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Also any "trouble" in our trading relationship with the EU is coming from them, not from us.
I'm sorry, but this is bollocks, and betrays a very simplistic understanding of what is required in the modern world for trade to be agreed. We are currently on schedule to rip up all the agreements that make trading with the EU possible - in that context we are the authors of our own misfortune, not them.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Chris, much as I agree with you I think PaulTH also makes a valid point (albeit factually incorrect) in that Britain will find it difficult to move forward without having the EU to blame every misfortune and difficult decision on. Moving forward they will have to find someone or something else to blame and I suspect they will tear themselves apart in parliament looking for the new scapegoat. I think you're in for a season of very turbulent politics.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Freedom of trade means that moveable jobs can be taken by the employers to where labour is cheapest, but workers can't move after the jobs to balance it out.
The whole point of offering to work for lower salaries than people somewhere else is so that you get the job rather than them. If the company is just going to bus in all their workers from elsewhere then everybody loses - the existing workers have to take a pay cut and move to a new area, and the people who were already in the area still don't have jobs.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
A perfectly democratic way ahead would be to negotiate with the EU and find out what is and is not possible, and then put three or four options to the electorate under single transferable vote. The problem with the referendum is that it was a very blunt instrument and the Leave vote was a composite of many conflicting desires. What many Leave voters thought they were voting for (more money for the NHS, sending the Eastern Europeans back, arguments over sovereignty, sticking two fingers up to Westminster, etc. etc.) cannot be delivered, certainly not all of it. So negotiate with the EU and then say to the British public "Do you want (1) access to the single market with free movement of people, (2) no access to the single market with restrictions on movement, (3) to remain in the EU". There might be one or two other options.
And if you won't allow that vote, you aren't being democratic. As it stands, however, we are saddled with a wafer thin internally inconsistent vote, any interpretation of which will not be accepted by the majority of the UK public.
I think the referendum was deeply flawed and would like a rerun. But what you are suggesting is impossible, because the EU have said you can't negotiate till Article 50 is activated.
You can't get the deal which we would supposedly vote on until we have said we are leaving. So your suggestion, which is much like Tim Farron's and Owen Smith's, is impossible.
Which, frankly, someone should have thought of before we started down this foolish and destructive road in the first place.
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think the referendum was deeply flawed and would like a rerun. But what you are suggesting is impossible, because the EU have said you can't negotiate till Article 50 is activated.
You can't get the deal which we would supposedly vote on until we have said we are leaving. So your suggestion, which is much like Tim Farron's and Owen Smith's, is impossible.
Which, frankly, someone should have thought of before we started down this foolish and destructive road in the first place.
I'm not sure if this is actually true.
As I understand it, when Article 50 is given, that's a notification that one of the parties to the European Union intends to leave, with a 2 year notice period. I don't think there is any compulsion to actually leave once Article 50 has been invoked, and I don't think there is any reason why the period isn't actually longer than 2 years if the negotiations are not complete.
Therefore it seems plausible that it would be possible to invoke Article 50 to begin negotiations, find out what the positions are from the EU for the UK post-Brexit and then put those options to the electorate before actually leaving.
Maybe Real Politic means that this couldn't happen in practice, but as I understand it, the Article 50 notification shows intention not a formal it-is-definitely-going-to-happen unstoppable chain of events.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think the referendum was deeply flawed and would like a rerun. But what you are suggesting is impossible, because the EU have said you can't negotiate till Article 50 is activated.
You can't get the deal which we would supposedly vote on until we have said we are leaving. So your suggestion, which is much like Tim Farron's and Owen Smith's, is impossible.
Which, frankly, someone should have thought of before we started down this foolish and destructive road in the first place.
I'm not sure if this is actually true.
As I understand it, when Article 50 is given, that's a notification that one of the parties to the European Union intends to leave, with a 2 year notice period. I don't think there is any compulsion to actually leave once Article 50 has been invoked, and I don't think there is any reason why the period isn't actually longer than 2 years if the negotiations are not complete.
Therefore it seems plausible that it would be possible to invoke Article 50 to begin negotiations, find out what the positions are from the EU for the UK post-Brexit and then put those options to the electorate before actually leaving.
Maybe Real Politic means that this couldn't happen in practice, but as I understand it, the Article 50 notification shows intention not a formal it-is-definitely-going-to-happen unstoppable chain of events.
Article 50 was often referred to as being poorly defined, because nobody was ever expected to do the deed and invoke it, so it was something of an afterthought.
The definition can be read here
Article 50
The salient point seems to be number 3
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
So I think once we give notice, then after two years, we are out, unless everyone agrees we should still be negotiating.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Freedom of trade means that moveable jobs can be taken by the employers to where labour is cheapest, but workers can't move after the jobs to balance it out.
The whole point of offering to work for lower salaries than people somewhere else is so that you get the job rather than them. If the company is just going to bus in all their workers from elsewhere then everybody loses - the existing workers have to take a pay cut and move to a new area, and the people who were already in the area still don't have jobs.
Why would the company pay money to bus in the existing workers? What's the advantage of cutting pay if it has to spend the savings to bus them in?
If there's a difference in pay levels across an economic area with freedom of movement of labour and freedom of movement of capital, both workers and capital can take advantage of that by moving to lower prices, or alternatively to cut the amount they're willing to work for, or raising the amount they're willing to pay. If freedom of movement is restricted then workers can't take advantage but capital can move then the only options available are for workers to cut pay or for capital to move. There's no advantage to capital to raising wages, since they're not going to attract any more people than they're already getting.
[ 04. October 2016, 11:21: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Gee D: quote:
I did not quote your second para, but you may remember the very late (but equally as essential to the Allied victory) entry by the US into WWI. I'm not sure of the relevance of either to the present thread, to be honest.
I am well aware of the importance of the USA's contribution to the Allied victory, thanks. My point (which probably is irrelevant, if Beeswax Altar was saying what you thought he was) is that their entry into the war did not happen until there was a direct threat to them, and the assistance they gave before that came with a price tag.
But I agree with you about the irrationality of the Brexit campaign. Depressing, isn't it.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by PaulTH:
quote:
Also any "trouble" in our trading relationship with the EU is coming from them, not from us.
This is like me cancelling my Amazon Prime Account and then berating them because I don't get free next day delivery anymore. Of course, I don't get free next day delivery anymore. I've just stopped paying for it. In the same way, if we decide we no longer want to abide by the rules of the Single Market we have to trade with the EU on less preferential terms. It's not all about the UK - there are 27 other countries in this discussion and they also have principles, national interests and electorates. What part of this do people find so hard to understand?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Chris, much as I agree with you I think PaulTH also makes a valid point (albeit factually incorrect) in that Britain will find it difficult to move forward without having the EU to blame every misfortune and difficult decision on. Moving forward they will have to find someone or something else to blame and I suspect they will tear themselves apart in parliament looking for the new scapegoat. I think you're in for a season of very turbulent politics.
Indeed. A lot of unpopular but extremely beneficial laws (agency worker regulations, smoking ban, myriad environmental legislation etc.) is EU law that the UK government has to enact. Without the clout of the EU we'll be subject to the lobbyists who will persuade the UK government of their case and the laws will be unwound, or never enacted in the first place. As things stand, the UK is sheltered from this kind of pressure because our EU membership doesn't give us the right to yield to corporate or electoral whims at the expense of what's in the best interests of our most vulnerable citizens.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Freedom of trade means that moveable jobs can be taken by the employers to where labour is cheapest, but workers can't move after the jobs to balance it out.
The whole point of offering to work for lower salaries than people somewhere else is so that you get the job rather than them. If the company is just going to bus in all their workers from elsewhere then everybody loses - the existing workers have to take a pay cut and move to a new area, and the people who were already in the area still don't have jobs.
Why would the company pay money to bus in the existing workers? What's the advantage of cutting pay if it has to spend the savings to bus them in?
You were the one who said workers following the jobs was a good thing. The company wouldn't be literally bussing them in, they'd just be able to rehire them in the knowledge that the workers would "move after the jobs to balance it out".
quote:
There's no advantage to capital to raising wages, since they're not going to attract any more people than they're already getting.
That's a good situation to be in for the workforce. It means the local workers can demand higher salaries in the knowledge that the companies can't just hire in some cheaper folk from some other country. If they have to hire me in order to achieve their goals, then I have the opportunity to use that situation to my advantage.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
TurquoiseTastic
Fish of a different color
# 8978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
Well there is this old Mystery Worshipper report which might offer a few clues.
Posts: 1092 | From: Hants., UK | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
It was the Treaty of Rome which established the European Economic Community - clearly this was centred on the evil Papacy.
Wasn't there something too about numerology and the number of nations in the EU corresponding to something in Revelation n (now there are far more states than that!)
[But then, Anwar Sadat was 'definitely' the Antichrist (this in a book I read shortly after his death!)]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by TurquoiseTastic
Well there is this old Mystery Worshipper report which might offer a few clues.
Thanks so much for that. The image really gave me the giggles!
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
Rev 18:4?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
Probably this
Related to that is my favorite Christian urban legend about a supercomputer in Brussels affectionately called the Beast
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
There's no advantage to capital to raising wages, since they're not going to attract any more people than they're already getting.
That's a good situation to be in for the workforce. It means the local workers can demand higher salaries in the knowledge that the companies can't just hire in some cheaper folk from some other country. If they have to hire me in order to achieve their goals, then I have the opportunity to use that situation to my advantage.
That only applies if the business can't move the job to the other country where the cheaper folk are. If the business can move the more expensive people have no protection.
If they have to work for you in order to earn money, then you have the opportunity to use that situation to your advantage. That applies to the business side just as much to the worker side. The side with the fewer restrictions on what it can do has the opportunity and the advantage.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
I think the referendum was deeply flawed and would like a rerun. But what you are suggesting is impossible, because the EU have said you can't negotiate till Article 50 is activated.
You can't get the deal which we would supposedly vote on until we have said we are leaving. So your suggestion, which is much like Tim Farron's and Owen Smith's, is impossible.
Which, frankly, someone should have thought of before we started down this foolish and destructive road in the first place.
I'm not sure if this is actually true.
As I understand it, when Article 50 is given, that's a notification that one of the parties to the European Union intends to leave, with a 2 year notice period. I don't think there is any compulsion to actually leave once Article 50 has been invoked, and I don't think there is any reason why the period isn't actually longer than 2 years if the negotiations are not complete.
Therefore it seems plausible that it would be possible to invoke Article 50 to begin negotiations, find out what the positions are from the EU for the UK post-Brexit and then put those options to the electorate before actually leaving.
Maybe Real Politic means that this couldn't happen in practice, but as I understand it, the Article 50 notification shows intention not a formal it-is-definitely-going-to-happen unstoppable chain of events.
Article 50 was often referred to as being poorly defined, because nobody was ever expected to do the deed and invoke it, so it was something of an afterthought.
The definition can be read here
Article 50
The salient point seems to be number 3
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
So I think once we give notice, then after two years, we are out, unless everyone agrees we should still be negotiating.
I think they're still arguing the toss over whether Article 50 can be stopped once it's revoked. Some legal experts - and the guy who drafted it - think it can. Which could be interesting ...
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TurquoiseTastic:
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
Well there is this old Mystery Worshipper report which might offer a few clues.
Is it just me or does that church look like Albert Speer was on the design committee?
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shadeson
Shipmate
# 17132
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant
Rev 18:4
I just looked at the 'bible hub' Study Bible quote.
It is wonderfully appropriate. Who says the Daily Rail exaggerates ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 136 | From: uk | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shadeson:
I know its a terrible tangent but can someone enlighten me. A relation of mine voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons'. I have vaguely heard of this long ago but anyone know more?
Here is another example of that sort of thinking. Under what legitimate theology events in countries unimaginably different in place and time and completely unknown to him can be linked to obscure passages in the book of Daniel, I can't imagine.
Broadly, a person who claims that they "voted 'out' for 'biblical reasons' " has either knowingly handed over their moral responsibility to someone else, or found an indefensible excuse to do something they want to do, but know that all the rational arguments are against.
Returning to the subject of the thread, though, remaining or leaving isn't just about economics. It's also about whether we play a part in the world around us, get on with our neighbours and try to co-operate with them, or pull up the drawbridge and hide ourselves away in an obscurantist little foxhole of our own.
The argument that we shouldn't have anything to do with the EU because it is flawed and imperfect could only be excused if our own constitution, politics and politicians were not.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In the same way, if we decide we no longer want to abide by the rules of the Single Market we have to trade with the EU on less preferential terms. It's not all about the UK - there are 27 other countries in this discussion and they also have principles, national interests and electorates. What part of this do people find so hard to understand?
And who benefits from this? Not the UK. Not the remaining 27 member countries who trade with the UK. In every situation, countries which adopt free trade prosper. Look at Singapore and Hong Kong. Protectionism was the big causes of the Great Depression. As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In the same way, if we decide we no longer want to abide by the rules of the Single Market we have to trade with the EU on less preferential terms. It's not all about the UK - there are 27 other countries in this discussion and they also have principles, national interests and electorates. What part of this do people find so hard to understand?
And who benefits from this? Not the UK. Not the remaining 27 member countries who trade with the UK. In every situation, countries which adopt free trade prosper. Look at Singapore and Hong Kong. Protectionism was the big causes of the Great Depression. As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
The common market is far more than free trade. The reasons for the rules are largely to get rid of the non-tariff barriers to free trade. The rules are there to make free trade possible.
To give one of the most simple illustrations, the rules around limiting state aid to industries help the cause of free trade within the common market, otherwise you end up with subsidy fueled trade wars, and dumping.
The EU/EEA regulations are the 'platform' within which free trade within the common market occurs. In general it's easier to join an existing platform than to create your own from scratch - which takes years of negotiation.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
In the same way, if we decide we no longer want to abide by the rules of the Single Market we have to trade with the EU on less preferential terms. It's not all about the UK - there are 27 other countries in this discussion and they also have principles, national interests and electorates. What part of this do people find so hard to understand?
And who benefits from this? Not the UK. Not the remaining 27 member countries who trade with the UK. In every situation, countries which adopt free trade prosper. Look at Singapore and Hong Kong. Protectionism was the big causes of the Great Depression. As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
Hang on a moment, we've basically had a referendum which was won by the side that said we don't like European Immigrants and we don't want to pay anything to the EU budget. Your view appears to be that the other 27 EU states ought just to say: "fair enough" on the grounds that free trade is a good thing. Unfortunately this means that somebody is going to have to pony up the £180m per week to make up the shortfall caused by our leaving and some other people are going to take the view that selling this to their nationals, after said nationals became the targets of the Leavers' Two Minutes Hate, might be beyond the skills of Ronald Reagan, Tony Blair and Nelson Mandela in their respective pomps. Now I agree with you that free trade is a good thing, but if one thinks that free trade is a good thing then voting to leave the bloody great free trade bloc on your Southern coast on one Island and with which you possess a land border on the other is, frankly, a bloody stupid idea. There is a Spanish proverb: "Take what you want. Take what you want, says God. Take what you want and pay for it". Well, we are going to pay for it, and our children and our children's children after them. It's not much use tanking our economy in a fit of nativist spite and then demanding that the rest of the EU behave like high minded Manchester liberals.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
He didn’t mention Eastern Europe in the accounts of the speech I saw. But Hungary was in breach of EU rules last time I looked and a few others are sailing close to the wind. In the interests of maintaining a united front, everyone seems to be ignoring that. Whether that can continue is anyone’s guess!
Tubbs
There is also a potential faultline in that ISTM the former Eastern Bloc countries joined up for reasons that were at least partially nationalist rather than internationalist - namely, because they wanted to get away from the Russians.
(There is a certain dark irony in hearing Viktor Orbán and Miloš Zeman complaining about British attitudes towards immigrants ...)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
As a complete believer in free trade, I see continued free trade with the EU as win win, for everybody. If it's prevented by the rules of the club, then it's those rules which are at fault.
In order for Ricardinia and Paulsland to have a free trade agreement for the tariff-free exchange of knockwurst, several rules must be in place. Neither one of us can subsidise our knockwurst-factories to a greater degree than the other (otherwise Ricardinia can just flood the Paulslandic market with cheap state-subsidised knockwurst). We must define what we mean by knockwurst so that we know what we are suspending tariffs on. We must agree at least some minimal production standards so that Paulsland can't flood the Ricardinian market with cheap knockwurst bulked out with sand and cement to save production costs.
The EU had a comprehensive package of rules to make free trade possible. The UK has just voted to reject them. How then is free trade possible without reinstating those rules?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
