Brexit: give me a positive effect... XII

[Colin Barron]

Perhaps not the best analogy Col - a cursory look at historical reports of the event would suggest that the lifeboats on the Titanic were seriously insufficient in number, and preserved for a carefully selected few

Luckily the UK were off the decks of EU titanic first, the band is still playing Ode To Joy, we wish them well.

 

[Colin Barron]

The second one is just his very sad wishful thinking.

Not at all, as i have said several times, why would anyone wish anything but success for our friends and nabours in the EU. There are hard times ahead and i think democratic leadership with only UK interests a heart is the way to go.

 

[stevec67]

Luckily the UK were off the decks of EU titanic first, the band is still playing Ode To Joy, we wish them well.

Ah yes, the old "the EU is screwed, the Euro is screwed" line that we have been hearing for the last 5 years now. Now then, a Euro was worth about 75p in 2016, it's now about 86p. It was 67p in 2003-2006 when I lived in France. But apparently the Euro and Eurozone is screwed. The pound is riding high.

 

[NeilR]

Ah yes, the old "the EU is screwed, the Euro is screwed" line that we have been hearing for the last 5 years now.

More like the last 15 years!

 

[stevec67]

More like the last 15 years!

Well, yes, it could be 5 or 15 years, but like most faith-based arguments the protagonists just keep repeating it so that it remains true. Like our new leader of the DUP, who's a young earth creationist who believes that the Earth was created by God 6000 years ago. There are pottery fragments older than that, to say nothing of stone tools showing evidence of being worked themselves with other tools. But it's true. It must be. The pottery was put there by God, with the carbon dating evidence around it made to suit. I can't prove it wasn't. So 6000 years it is.

 

[SteveS1]

Not at all, as i have said several times, why would anyone wish anything but success for our friends and nabours in the EU. There are hard times ahead and i think democratic leadership with only UK interests a heart is the way to go.

Spot the flaw in that. We are not, nor is any other country in Europe, able to act alone to any great consequence in a global world. Meanwhile the actions and paths others follow (particularly the larger blocks) affect us directly and substantially. The difference is that we have withdrawn from having any input at all.

 

[-alan-]

Not at all, as i have said several times, why would anyone wish anything but success for our friends and nabours in the EU. There are hard times ahead and i think democratic leadership with only UK interests a heart is the way to go.

As indeed did a small majority of your fellow UK citizens. Impossible to argue anything to the contrary.

I understand your sentiments - but to an outsider (like me) it has to be said, it was one hell of a leap of faith to leap into the unknown to take though.

Can I ask you a genuine question Colin ?

Where and when do you see the payback..or perhaps less quantitatively if you prefer... what would be the signs that would confirm for you personally, that it was the right call ?

 

[stevec67]

As indeed did a small majority of your fellow UK citizens. Impossible to argue anything to the contrary.

I understand your sentiments - but to an outsider (like me) it has to be, it was one hell of a leap of faith to leap into the unknown to take though.

Can I ask you a genuine question Colin ?

Where and when do you see the payback..or perhaps less quantitatively if you prefer... what would be the signs that would confirm for you personally, that it was the right call ?

At the risk of putting words in Colin's mouth, and if I misrepresent you here Colin do say and I will retract it, he isn't looking for a payback as such. I think, from what he has said on here, many times, that it is a philosophy based on the following:
1. The EU is held back by various lame ducks that do not "pay their way" and are net takers.
2. The UK is a net contributor (was) and was having to prop up the lame ducks.
3. The lame ducks will eventually cause the EU to collapse because the net contributors will be sunk by the lame ducks. Titanic references, etc.
4. We are therefore better off because whatever happens we are only having to look after ourselves, and this is a better route than supporting the lame ducks who will only take down the rest of the ship. Titanic, liferaft, etc.
In this I think it is an analogous philosophy to those who oppose socialised healthcare in the USA. They don't want to have to pay for the poor, they want to look after themselves and even if they are bankrupt in the process this is a price worth paying because at least they have looked after themselves. The same philosophy applies to right wing libertarian views on social care, care for the elderly etc. Even if I give up my house, it's my house and I'm only paying for myself.

This is a reasonable enough philosophy and I can understand it even if I don't agree.
Colin goes on to support this view with some shopkeeper economics along the lines of "Annual income £100, annual expenditure £101, result penury and misery. Annual income £50, annual expenditure £49, result happiness." He then attempts to apply this philosophy to the economics of a nation trading across the world, which unsurprisingly doesn't work. At this point his views and mine differ diametrically.

In terms of what Colin would regard as justification for his view, what he would regard as success criteria, and again my apologies Colin if I misunderstand you, we have achieved our success. We have left, we are now masters of our own destiny. Whatever happens, it's our destiny and we only have to worry about ourselves. I'd liken it to a man leaving an unhappy marriage; even if he ends up in a poky flat in a grubby bit of town and getting the bus to work because he can't afford a car any more, he's still better off because he doesn't have to carry her useless fat arse round all day. Of course, she is so useless that her place is going to rack and ruin as soon as he leaves, so he's better off getting out early before the collapse, and he can build his own place without her.

 

[Colin Barron]

At the risk of putting words in Colin's mouth, and if I misrepresent you here Colin do say and I will retract it, he isn't looking for a payback as such. I think, from what he has said on here, many times, that it is a philosophy based on the following:
1. The EU is held back by various lame ducks that do not "pay their way" and are net takers.
2. The UK is a net contributor (was) and was having to prop up the lame ducks.
3. The lame ducks will eventually cause the EU to collapse because the net contributors will be sunk by the lame ducks. Titanic references, etc.
4. We are therefore better off because whatever happens we are only having to look after ourselves, and this is a better route than supporting the lame ducks who will only take down the rest of the ship. Titanic, liferaft, etc.
In this I think it is an analogous philosophy to those who oppose socialised healthcare in the USA. They don't want to have to pay for the poor, they want to look after themselves and even if they are bankrupt in the process this is a price worth paying because at least they have looked after themselves. The same philosophy applies to right wing libertarian views on social care, care for the elderly etc. Even if I give up my house, it's my house and I'm only paying for myself.

This is a reasonable enough philosophy and I can understand it even if I don't agree.
Colin goes on to support this view with some shopkeeper economics along the lines of "Annual income £100, annual expenditure £101, result penury and misery. Annual income £50, annual expenditure £49, result happiness." He then attempts to apply this philosophy to the economics of a nation trading across the world, which unsurprisingly doesn't work. At this point his views and mine differ diametrically.

In terms of what Colin would regard as justification for his view, what he would regard as success criteria, and again my apologies Colin if I misunderstand you, we have achieved our success. We have left, we are now masters of our own destiny. Whatever happens, it's our destiny and we only have to worry about ourselves. I'd liken it to a man leaving an unhappy marriage; even if he ends up in a poky flat in a grubby bit of town and getting the bus to work because he can't afford a car any more, he's still better off because he doesn't have to carry her useless fat arse round all day. Of course, she is so useless that her place is going to rack and ruin as soon as he leaves, so he's better off getting out early before the collapse, and he can build his own place without her.

Who are the lame duck in the 27 if you mean all except the frugal 4 and Germany then i agree.
Not sure about the wife part, there are no winners there.
There are hard times ahead as China continues to take work and sucks cash from the rest of the world; also AI and direct selling from China will reduce jobs.

 

[Colin L]

There are hard times ahead as China continues to take work and sucks cash from the rest of the world; also AI and direct selling from China will reduce jobs.

Zero sum economics writ large.. you really don't have a clue do you?

 

[eternumviti]

Spot the flaw in that. We are not, nor is any other country in Europe, able to act alone to any great consequence in a global world. Meanwhile the actions and paths others follow (particularly the larger blocks) affect us directly and substantially. The difference is that we have withdrawn from having any input at all.

I'm trying to get my head around the concept of a 'global world'. Or, rather, one that isn't global. I guess if it's not global, it's probably going to be flat, which chimes a chord with us thick brexiteers, of course.

I'm also trying to get my head around the EU 27 acting in unison on the er..global stage. I think there would be a better chance of seeing the cow jump over the moon. Well, maybe an equal chance.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

I'm also trying to get my head around the EU 27 acting in unison on the er..global stage. I think there would be a better chance of seeing the cow jump over the moon. Well, maybe an equal chance.

I thought we left the EU because of the lamentable lack of autonomy we mere member states enjoyed. But you seem to be suggesting that the EU27 are incapable of being corralled and acting as one. Wasn’t that rather the point of ‘ever closer union’?

 

[SteveS1]

I'm trying to get my head around the concept of a 'global world'. Or, rather, one that isn't global. I guess if it's not global, it's probably going to be flat, which chimes a chord with us thick brexiteers, of course.

I'm also trying to get my head around the EU 27 acting in unison on the er..global stage. I think there would be a better chance of seeing the cow jump over the moon. Well, maybe an equal chance.

As you have trouble getting your head out of the 1950s I'm not sure it's a real surprise. I can only assume globalisation has passed the wine trade by. The 'acting in unison' is perhaps less important than the common objectives, priorities, scale and shared resources especially when negotiating. Being smaller in a more competitive world has advantages in terms of being nimble, rather like small companies v larger ones.

But that only works as a long term strategy if you are happy to stay small and can somehow maintain enough margin to run your business/country without as much growth.

 

[Colin Barron]

Spot the flaw in that. We are not, nor is any other country in Europe, able to act alone to any great consequence in a global world. Meanwhile the actions and paths others follow (particularly the larger blocks) affect us directly and substantially. The difference is that we have withdrawn from having any input at all.

As Ursula said the Uk was like a speed boat compared to the EU tanker.

 

[SteveS1]

As Ursula said the Uk was like a speed boat compared to the EU tanker.

That doesn't work in most situations though. I've seen and worked for successful companies where executives lament the loss of the agility they had when they were small, nobody sets out to lose it. But it becomes inevitable if you are going to expand and play in the bigger leagues where you have to compete on price and scale and have the legacy and expense of servicing existing business. Ursula was of course addressing a roll out of vaccine and that's fine, some gambles paid off and the fact that it was a health crisis and the government was making a rickets of the COVID response meant money became no object.

Not many everyday contracts for trade and supply are going to have that luxury. Are you pretending that the UK can throw extra cash at every negotiation? Horses for courses, if it's large amounts of oil at a cheaper price that becomes the next negotiation, good luck with the speed boat.

 

[eternumviti]

I thought we left the EU because of the lamentable lack of autonomy we mere member states enjoyed. But you seem to be suggesting that the EU27 are incapable of being corralled and acting as one. Wasn’t that rather the point of ‘ever closer union’?

Perhaps it isn't working!?

As you have trouble getting your head out of the 1950s I'm not sure it's a real surprise. I can only assume globalisation has passed the wine trade by. The 'acting in unison' is perhaps less important than the common objectives, priorities, scale and shared resources especially when negotiating. Being smaller in a more competitive world has advantages in terms of being nimble, rather like small companies v larger ones.

But that only works as a long term strategy if you are happy to stay small but can somehow maintain enough margin without as much growth.

The 1950s make me shudder. Oddly enough, the beloved EU (or its ancestral incarnation) was born then, and it certainly is having trouble getting its head out of the 1950s.

That doesn't work in most situations though. I've seen and worked for successful companies where executives lament the loss of the agility they had when they were small, nobody sets out to lose it. But it becomes inevitable if you are going to expand and play in the bigger leagues where you have to compete on price and scale. Ursula was of course addressing a roll out of vaccine and that's fine, some gambles paid off and the fact that it was a health crisis and the government was making a rickets of the COVID response meant money became no object.

How many everyday contracts for trade and supply are going to have that luxury? Are you pretending that the UK can throw extra cash at every negotiation?

The great thing about really large companies is that they can afford to lobby the EU, progressively shaping all those rules and regulations to suit themselves, whilst making compliance too difficult and expensive for their otherwise more agile and innovative small competitors.

 

[SteveS1]

The great thing about really large companies is that they can afford to lobby the EU, progressively shaping all those rules and regulations to suit themselves, whilst making compliance too difficult and expensive for their otherwise more agile and innovative small competitors.

LOL. Good job that doesn't happen at national level eh?

Except it does of course and we have just the team to profit from that. A large amount of the little agile and innovative companies you are so concerned with have just been shafted by the UK PM's 'oven ready' deal. Well done you.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

As Ursula said the Uk was like a speed boat compared to the EU tanker.

Imagine you take your speedboat alongside the tanker, and another tanker looms from the other side. Imagine how much damage the tankers would suffer if the speedboat got squeezed between them.

 

[Colin Barron]

That doesn't work in most situations though. I've seen and worked for successful companies where executives lament the loss of the agility they had when they were small, nobody sets out to lose it. But it becomes inevitable if you are going to expand and play in the bigger leagues where you have to compete on price and scale and have the legacy and expense of servicing existing business. Ursula was of course addressing a roll out of vaccine and that's fine, some gambles paid off and the fact that it was a health crisis and the government was making a rickets of the COVID response meant money became no object.

Not many everyday contracts for trade and supply are going to have that luxury. Are you pretending that the UK can throw extra cash at every negotiation? Horses for courses, if it's large amounts of oil at a cheaper price that becomes the next negotiation, good luck with the speed boat.

We cannot be certain that covid will be sorted in Europe. Small is beautiful has enabled team Boris to back investment in several horses, including Novavax (Teesside) and Valneva (Scotland). In contrast the EU are not interested in either company and are souring relationships with AZ by threatening a second time with court action.
This is another EU disaster waiting to happen if there is another wave; of course it could be a wise move if covid disappears, but in the overall scheme of things a few red bus loads of cash is neither here nor there.

 

[Colin Barron]

Imagine you take your speedboat alongside the tanker, and another tanker looms from the other side. Imagine how much damage the tankers would suffer if the speedboat got squeezed between them.

When she made the remarks i don't think she saw the tanker approach as a benefit.