Brexit: give me a positive effect... III

[Colin Barron]

The UK has just wasted as much money preparing for and negotiating BrExit as it put into the EEC/EU during it's 47 year membership (£100/person/year?)...
Either the UK has a magic money tree or the "move" wasn't particularly intelligent from an economical perspective.
And I am not counting the economic benefits that the UK reaped during that period.
Since the UK cannot have the cake and eat it there won't be a free trade agreement. That means more costs/less profit than being a member. And to trade the UK will have to comply with the rules and regs and still be subject to the/a court, with the drawback of not being able to participate in either (the UK becomes a de facto vassal state).

Your first positive is a negative.



You are speculating, twice.
First, you don't know if the EU will become a Federal State.
Second, if it does, you don't know if/whether it won't work. The US and Russia are Federal States, you could even say that about China, India or Brasil. And they're mighty, whilst the UK...

Your second positive is not even related to the UK. But it might impact the UK's future, negatively.

True we cannot Know for sure how close to a federal EU with centralised political and financial control will occur, but that is the direction at the moment and some would say it has been since we joined the EEC.
A Federal Europe may work but expecting frugal countries to pay for other countries who cannot balance the books is never going to end well.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

True we cannot Know for sure how close to a federal EU with centralised political and financial control will occur, but that is the direction at the moment and some would say it has been since we joined the EEC.
A Federal Europe may work but expecting frugal countries to pay for other countries who cannot balance the books is never going to end well.

You can argue that the direction of travel for humanity since the invention of the wheel, has been towards larger blocs. First, we had family groups, then tribes, then villages and towns. Then city states and, eventually countries. Now we are getting agglomerations of countries into blocs. I daresay the move from tribes to villages, city states to countries, wasn't without a few bumps along the way. But that doesn't mean it has to be so, and at some point, one of those routes led to a stronger whole, and the human race moved up another gear. Nobody seems to advocate a reversion to hunter-gathering in families and tribes.

 

[i.j.russell]

Steve, When anything supposedly put forward by the UK is automatically rubbished as "cake and eat it" by the same people who are prepared to accept no movement on the part of the EU, it certainly looks how I described. Both sides have to move position, that is negotiation. If one side stubbornly refuses to move on anything, there is no negotiation going on and that's where it appears to be.

I believe the real myth is the one that says significant numbers believed we held all the cards. At the time of the vote, I don't believe significant numbers were thinking more about the UK trading and doing deals with any country prepared to deal with us, including the EU bloc, but in no way limited to the EU bloc.

The EU have been consistent in their response: Being in the EU gives better terms than being outside and that there was a cost for each part of the four freedoms (goods, capital, services and movement) if we wanted them. Our Government has chosen not to accept any of them for ideological reasons. Economists made it clearbefore the referendum that being outside the EU would be disadvantageous to the UK. Our MPs, knowing better than experts in their fields, persuaded enough people that making Trade Deals was easy and that many were 'oven ready'. Being multi-millionaires, these charlatans will never have to suffer the consequences of their actions as they have already moved their money elsewhere and/or got passports from an EU country.

I agree that it was a myth that significant numbers 'believed' we held all the cards but it didn't stop them saying it and making other people believe it. Just like £350million per week for the NHS or 7.8million Turks are going to descend on the UK.

 

[SteveS1]

I believe the real myth is the one that says significant numbers believed we held all the cards. At the time of the vote, I don't believe significant numbers were thinking more about the UK trading and doing deals with any country prepared to deal with us, including the EU bloc, but in no way limited to the EU bloc.

They wouldn't have played this card if they didn't think people would buy it. It was very important to them to take any sensible apprehension that voters might have had about voting Leave out of the equation. Most of the Leave's wilder exaggerations were aimed right at that. Secondly, all through the campaign there was a relentless supply of public talking head vox pops where this belief came through very strongly. So you may not have bought it, but plenty did.

This myth also has a very convenient fall back which you are now using - that it's somehow surprising or unreasonable that the EU is sticking to what they said during the campaign.

 

[Brian]

The EU have been consistent in their response: Being in the EU gives better terms than being outside and that there was a cost for each part of the four freedoms (goods, capital, services and movement) if we wanted them. Our Government has chosen not to accept any of them for ideological reasons. Economists made it clearbefore the referendum that being outside the EU would be disadvantageous to the UK. Our MPs, knowing better than experts in their fields, persuaded enough people that making Trade Deals was easy and that many were 'oven ready'. Being multi-millionaires, these charlatans will never have to suffer the consequences of their actions as they have already moved their money elsewhere and/or got passports from an EU country.

I agree that it was a myth that significant numbers 'believed' we held all the cards but it didn't stop them saying it and making other people believe it. Just like £350million per week for the NHS or 7.8million Turks are going to descend on the UK.

The outcome of the referendum was a majority of the "we" (who could be bothered to vote) do not want these freedoms. Not everyone places economics above all else. I don't really want to go down that Turk path again, nobody ever said 7.8m Turks would descend on the UK, only that Turkey could join the EU.

 

[Brian]

They wouldn't have played this card if they didn't think people would buy it. It was very important to them to take any sensible apprehension that voters might have had about voting Leave out of the equation. Most of the Leave's wilder exaggerations were aimed right at that. Secondly, all through the campaign there was a relentless supply of public talking head vox pops where this belief came through very strongly. So you may not have bought it, but plenty did.

This myth also has a very convenient fall back which you are now using - that it's somehow surprising or unreasonable that the EU is sticking to what they said during the campaign.

We're going around in circles, Steve. The EU has to move its position. If it does not, it is not a negotiation and the reason for that is not all down to the UK if that is the EU approach. If they don't budge, we all lose out to some degree.

The remain campaign could and should have swamped the regions with facts of where there has been EU investment in their area. I believe strongly there are millions out there, fully aware of <insert some regional success story> but have no idea it was funded by the EU. They needed to be told. It might still have failed, we don't know but I think it would have been a damn sight better than negative predictions of leaving. Stone cold facts of achievements rather than negative predictions are much more difficult to dismiss.

 

[roman]

We're going around in circles, Steve. The EU has to move its position. If it does not, it is not a negotiation and the reason for that is not all down to the UK if that is the EU approach. If they don't budge, we all lose out to some degree.

The remain campaign could and should have swamped the regions with facts of where there has been EU investment in their area. I believe strongly there are millions out there, fully aware of <insert some regional success story> but have no idea it was funded by the EU. They needed to be told. It might still have failed, we don't know but I think it would have been a damn sight better than negative predictions of leaving. Stone cold facts of achievements rather than negative predictions are much more difficult to dismiss.

I think that by the time of the ref campaign it would have been difficult to get a prominent message out there regarding the benefits of EU spending in the UK. I recall bits and pieces but it was a drop in the ocean compared to the highly resourced and targeted fraudulent torrent of anti EU propaganda and false promises from leave and their cronies.

Bear in mind the right wing media had been chipping away and stoking fires for decades. It's true that a stronger pro EU case could have been made over the same period but no-one took responsibility, I guess they failed to see the threat coming.

It's worth noting that examples of EU spending are usually mocked, including on here. It's usually used as an example of getting a pittance in return for our vast investment, or else nothing our own government couldn't/wouldn't have done anyway (hoho).

 

[Brian]

I think that by the time of the ref campaign it would have been difficult to get a prominent message out there regarding the benefits of EU spending in the UK. I recall bits and pieces but it was a drop in the ocean compared to the highly resourced and targeted fraudulent torrent of anti EU propaganda and false promises from leave and their cronies.

Bear in mind the right wing media had been chipping away and stoking fires for decades. It's true that a stronger pro EU case could have been made over the same period but no-one took responsibility, I guess they failed to see the threat coming.

It's worth noting that examples of EU spending are usually mocked, including on here. It's usually used as an example of getting a pittance in return for our vast investment, or else nothing our own government couldn't/wouldn't have done anyway (hoho).

The result was very close. I will forever think a positive remain campaign may have swung it.

 

[i.j.russell]

The outcome of the referendum was a majority of the "we" (who could be bothered to vote) do not want these freedoms. Not everyone places economics above all else. I don't really want to go down that Turk path again, nobody ever said 7.8m Turks would descend on the UK, only that Turkey could join the EU.

People obviously voted for Brexit for non-economic reasons. However, access to the four Freedoms is not a purely economic question either; You are either part of the club and get the benefits or you are not and you don't.

It was implied by the very big arrows in all of the Vote Leave adverts that 78 million Turks would travel to the UK, or at least have the right to do so, if they joined the EU. Vote Leave, especially Boris Johnson, stated on numerous occasions that it was Government Policy to support their accession when in fact it was actually their policy to veto it due to Turkey's record on Human Rights.

 

[roman]

The result was very close. I will forever think a positive remain campaign may have swung it.

I was fairly persuaded of that at the time. It was possible to identify several factors, including the one you made, Corbyn lacking sufficient ardour for the EU etc but the subsequent two years opened my eyes to how unbudgeable most people were, if anything digging their heels in all the more ( on both sides, though of course I'm baffled only by the leavers!)

I'm left thinking only a press and social media campaign of the size, inventiveness and reach of leave could have done it and I doubt whether merely communicating facts would have sufficed. Remain would have had to go to the dark side just like leave.

 

[SteveS1]

The result was very close. I will forever think a positive remain campaign may have swung it.

You might be right Brian but I’m not sure after years of UK governments taking credit for popular investment and blaming the EU for anything unpopular from bendy bananas to environmental restrictions that people didn’t really want until more recently, took it’s toll on balanced perceptions.

The other thing you can’t underestimate is that the campaign for an actual referendum had been going on for years. Obviously the publicity around that was all one way - critical. No government even thought of putting together a pro EU campaign until they had to. Winning a campaign for a vote in the first place gave the anti EU campaign momentum. It was close, but the migrant crisis came at a perfect time to allow deliberate conflation with EU freedom of movement. That made status quo a very hard sell because most of what was promised was pure fantasy but optimism sells better than realism even if unfounded.

 

[Sue Pertwee-Tyr]

The result was very close. I will forever think a positive remain campaign may have swung it.

If you recall that appalling ad, shown on here a few pages back (the one with the lynching tropes), then you should know that this was just one of many, but carefully targeted to recipients judged ripe for this sort of propaganda. You and I didn’t see them, because they would have turned us away from their cause, but thousands did see them.

You simply don’t counter that sort of campaign with upbeat positive messaging.

 

[Brian]

You might be right Brian but I’m not sure after years of UK governments taking credit for popular investment and blaming the EU for anything unpopular from bendy bananas to environmental restrictions that people didn’t really want until more recently, took it’s toll on balanced perceptions.

The other thing you can’t underestimate is that the campaign for an actual referendum had been going on for years. Obviously the publicity around that was all one way - critical. No government even thought of putting together a pro EU campaign until they had to. Winning a campaign for a vote in the first place gave the anti EU campaign momentum. It was close, but the migrant crisis came at a perfect time to allow deliberate conflation with EU freedom of movement. That made status quo a very hard sell because most of what was promised was pure fantasy but optimism sells better than realism even if unfounded.

All very fair points.

 

[Colin Barron]

The German car manufacturers will still be able to sell cars in the UK, with a 10% tariff, which will be passed on to the consumer. They might sell a few less but what will people buy instead? Their target market will not really be impacted by the 4% drop in GDP that even the Brexiteers have accepted the UK will have after we leave with No Deal at the end of December. Personally, I feel sorry for the bottom half of society who are already struggling because Brexit is going to be a shitstorm for them. But at least they will have a blue passport, if they can afford one.

Before the world shut down expensive cars had a slowdown due to Trump battles in the US and in China due to their dispute with Trump. Whether EU car manufacturers can pass a 10% increase onto customers remains to be seen. People i know have received a hefty discount buying German cars online, or buying pre-registered (under 20 miles). Then there is the contract market that has grown in recent years where owners can hand back the car after 2 years. The Japanese cars with high Chinese content and reducing tariffs will be competing for a slice of the market, not to mention those built tariff free in the UK.
Your comment that the high end market is immune from the real world is true to a certain extent. We are still one of their main markets. (2018 figures)
https://www.statista.com/statistics...ntries-german-motor-vehicles-by-export-value/

 

[Colin Barron]

We are still waiting for those benefits to be presented.
I don't care about Colin's beliefs - I'm an atheist myself -, and so far absolutely nothing has been presented (except for taking back control, but with our current Goverment that is not a good thing).

I'm not sure I'm in favour of Federalism.
The case for it has yet to be presented, and then it'll be put to a vote, probably in the shape of a Referendum which will take place in each of the EU member countries.

It is very unlikely there would be a referendum, it will be a thin end of the wedge job as described by Guy Verhofstadt. The only way federalism would work is if the social benefits and taxation etc were harmonised; that appears to be what the Dutch are suggesting.

 

[farfromthesun]

Before the world shut down expensive cars had a slowdown due to Trump battles in the US and in China due to their dispute with Trump. Whether EU car manufacturers can pass a 10% increase onto customers remains to be seen. People i know have received a hefty discount buying German cars online, or buying pre-registered (under 20 miles). Then there is the contract market that has grown in recent years where owners can hand back the car after 2 years. The Japanese cars with high Chinese content and reducing tariffs will be competing for a slice of the market, not to mention those built tariff free in the UK.
Your comment that the high end market is immune from the real world is true to a certain extent. We are still one of their main markets. (2018 figures)
https://www.statista.com/statistics...ntries-german-motor-vehicles-by-export-value/

This is all great, especially considering the imminent collapse of the industry in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52900528

 

[TheDecameron]

The Telegraph has found a benefit of takin back control-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ys-3m-people-hong-kong-will-get-path-british/
Boris Johnson says 3m people in Hong Kong will get path to British citizenship
PM offered to make what he says would be one of the "biggest changes" in the history of the British visa system

..still, mustn’t grumble, it could have been 70 million Turks what was comin in.

 

[SteveS1]

Before the world shut down expensive cars had a slowdown due to Trump battles in the US and in China due to their dispute with Trump. Whether EU car manufacturers can pass a 10% increase onto customers remains to be seen. People i know have received a hefty discount buying German cars online, or buying pre-registered (under 20 miles). Then there is the contract market that has grown in recent years where owners can hand back the car after 2 years. The Japanese cars with high Chinese content and reducing tariffs will be competing for a slice of the market, not to mention those built tariff free in the UK.
Your comment that the high end market is immune from the real world is true to a certain extent. We are still one of their main markets. (2018 figures)
https://www.statista.com/statistics...ntries-german-motor-vehicles-by-export-value/

Come on Col, how about you answer a question for a change? Which is it, a deal and therefore threatens BINO, or no deal and to Hell with Nissan?*

"The UK's largest car manufacturing plant is "unsustainable" if the UK leaves the European Union without a trade deal, owner Nissan says."

*Note: It is one or the other and pointing at some perceived problem outside of the UK that is nothing to do with it, is not an acceptable answer.

 

[SteveS1]

The Telegraph has found a benefit of takin back control-

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...ys-3m-people-hong-kong-will-get-path-british/
Boris Johnson says 3m people in Hong Kong will get path to British citizenship
PM offered to make what he says would be one of the "biggest changes" in the history of the British visa system

..still, mustn’t grumble, it could have been 70 million Turks what was comin in.

Not as likely to donate to party coffers.

 

[TheDecameron]

Not as likely to donate to party coffers.

You can squeeze money out of relatively affluent immigrants on the way in- you just put the price of a visa up and stipulate how much gelt they must deposit in the U.K. when they arrive.