advertisement


Oh Britain, what have you done (part ∞+13)?

Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveS1 said:
Laughable waffle in the trolling tradition. No points made or answered, not even the simple ones such as naming a single nation state outside the large blocks trading on better terms than the EU or how negotiation strength is helped by reducing your market size. Then comes the utterly crass "EU is neo-liberal and a drain on the UK's resources and wasteful".

Lets look at a few facts ....

There are over 400,000 civil servants in the UK, for a population of, say 65 million. That's about 1:167. Yet, in the EU, there are just under 50,000 civil servants for nearly half a billion people. That's 1:10,000. In other words, proportionately, the British Civil Service is nearly 60 times bigger than the EU civil service. A rather staggering amount - how are the social services, bin collections and pothole repairs doing for all that?

The ability of Liam Fox to strike any, never mind advantageous free-trade deals with other countries......

Fox's department has been touring the world for two years and not a single country has handed the UK a draft agreement and said 'this is what we will agree when you leave the EU' . The exception being Japan who has just agreed a comprehensive trade agreement with the EU but announced that outside the EU the UK's terms of trade would be less favourable.

The market reaction.

All this free trade, buccaneering Brits bollocks is a sham, the clue came when the EU made it clear the UK couldn't carry on taking advantage of EU trade agreements with the rest of the World after it left. Cue for mass panic in the Department for International Trade. That is why Sterling starting to slide and hasn't recovered. Forex economists had no involvement in 'Leave' or 'Remain' they are looking impartially at a WTO Brexit, assessing how much damage it will do to UK balance of trade and political stability, and marking it down accordingly. It's going to get worse, a lot worse. This isn't 'Project Fear' it's the real thing.
Click to expand...

You say that negotiation strength is reduced by market size, I dissagree, the UK can deal more quickly and more precisely as it will only have to look at it's own strengths and weaknesses and not 27 other disparate countries.

Taking you facts at face value, the UK would need an extra 50,000 civil servants to match what the EU has, which on my rough calcualtions (50Kx£50K) is a cost of £2.5Bn to the UK, much lower than membership. Others here have better challenged you on this point anyway.

Your point about Fox's department is dissengenuous, there are countries looking to trade with the UK, you say Japan but even the EU will trade with the UK. 13.4% of UK trade is with the EU and this has been steadily declining and trade with the rest of the world is higher and rising and will hopefully be steadily improved.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

The market reaction; the EU trade agreements with other countries may form the basis of the UK agreements but they also give us an opportunity to tailor them to mutual needs or strike new and better ones. Nobody can predict the markets, they are there to gamble and bet, especially the Forex markets. As the UK adapts to it's new trading conditions and offsets any losses from the 13.4% trade with the EU the markets will most likely respond. A good UK-USA deal may fix this at a single stroke (I concede I'm guessing here, but there are opporunities outside the EU, the EU is not the be all and end all you claim).

You may think your facts trump all other facts and that there is no life outside the magnificinet EU, but many out there agree with me, you may at least try and acknowldege this, as I do that you are more learned than me.
 
droodzilla said:
Spot on Sean. The irony is that the internal debate within the Labour Party is (mostly) conducted in a far more civilised fashion than the debate on this forum. Most people in the party know the score, and don't need Guardian polls to enlighten" them.
Click to expand...
I think it’s ‘ignorance is bliss’ as far as the outside world goes. When Brexit lands, things will become politically less predictable.
 
It's good that The Guardian keeping Labour members, supporters and the public up to date. Comrade Corbyn wants to be our Prime Minister after all. https://www.theguardian.com/politic...believe-corbyn-should-back-second-brexit-vote

The Conference was the breaking point for me. It was disgusting when Corbyn, McDonnell and Len McCluskey, tried to keep a lid on a People's Vote or second referendum. McDonnell became more flexible about the issue during the Conference, but this didn't hold out much hope.

The simple truth is Corbyn and McCluskey want Brexit and will do everything in their power not to have a public vote, despite what the majority of Labour members and supporters want. So much for democracy.

When Corbyn was a leadership candidate, I paid in and voted for him. I also knocked on doors and campaigned in the local constituency for Labour.

I have been looking forward to the first socialist government of my lifetime, however I not longer trust Labour or Corbyn. The two main issues in the last 45 years have been the Iraq War and Brexit. In both cases Labour have completely fkcued up. It makes me sad they are chasing the racist vote, but so be it.

If the Tories win the next general election, it will be the fault of Jezza and the Corbynistas. They have turned Labour into a laughing stock. The Party have some great policies, but they are completely trumped by Brexit and the slimy manner in which Corybn has been trying to make sure there is no second vote.

Jack
 
timola said:
You say that negotiation strength is reduced by market size, I dissagree, the UK can deal more quickly and more precisely as it will only have to look at it's own strengths and weaknesses and not 27 other disparate countries.
Click to expand...

You refuse to even get past first base. When was the last time you negotiated better terms for anything by ordering fewer items? I'm sure you understand the basics of group purchasing power and economy of scale - you deny it because it doesn't suit your narrative. The army of people we would additionally need (I hate to think what the spend is already) to properly go our own way would be insane. That can only mean we will not do that - which means we will have to be a rule taker for those regs and standards already in place. So much for sovereignty.

Let's not have your generalised statements. What does 'tailoring' mean? Do you seriously think trading partners will look to double their own overheads by running two different sets of regulation and terms for the EU and Brexit Island? Why would they do that? If they went to additional costs, what would they want in return? Where are the deals where the terms are better than those we are putting at risk?

Your defence of fraud Fox is risible. How many more tin-pot dictators like Duterte would he have to suck the balls of, to make up for even a marginal reduction in our trade with the EU? You have advanced nothing worthy of consideration to show where all this trade is coming from. Most countries are far more interested in trade with the EU than the UK.

Market reaction, sorry if I prefer the projections of those involved over your 'guessing'. People's incomes and jobs are at stake - 'guessing' doesn't cut it for me. Of course you can find others to share your blind optimism in the face of warnings from people involved, you can find people that believe all sorts of nonsense - how does that advance the debate?

You can yodel on about about notions of sovereignty, the colour of passports and all sorts of other stuff that is essentially ceded in any trade arrangements, what you can't do is claim an economic case for leaving. Not even some of the nutters advance that, they just know how (like the ERG) they can profit and care little for the fall out, or blindly hope that their fuzzy feeling of 'independence' has no cost.
 
Last edited:
ff1d1l said:
Presumably no figures on how many have actually quit. I keep asking the Dear Leaders faithful on here for the numbers, but they ain't forthcoming.
Click to expand...

I imagine that the potential exodus has not become apparent yet. Momentum (sic) will increase for a change of leader when people realise that Corbyn does not have the support of his party, Labour MPs or the electorate.

BTW does he now support a full customs union? It's hard to know which way the wind of Brexit is blowing on a daily basis in Labourland.
 
droodzilla said:
No need for sarcasm. TonyL's point was mainly about how Corbyn is (allegedly) betraying internal party democracy with his (alleged) scepticism about the EU. Sean and I merely pointed out that the internal mood of the party is much more relaxed than the "99% of members want to stay in the EU" headlines might suggest. It's possible to be fulsomely pro-EU and still be pro-Corbyn; indeed, that's where the majority of the party is, in my estimation.
Click to expand...

And it's possible that vegan's will be pro McDonald's!
 
gassor said:
I imagine that the potential exodus has not become apparent yet. Momentum (sic) will increase for a change of leader when people realise that Corbyn does not have the support of his party, Labour MPs or the electorate.

BTW does he now support a full customs union? It's hard to know which way the wind of Brexit is blowing on a daily basis in Labourland.
Click to expand...

You 'imagine' the "potential" exodus has not "become apparent yet"

Comedy gold
 
timola said:
You say that negotiation strength is reduced by market size, I dissagree, the UK can deal more quickly and more precisely as it will only have to look at it's own strengths and weaknesses and not 27 other disparate countries.
Click to expand...
As always, there are pluses and minuses. The UK will gain by not having to take other countries' interests into account, and it will lose in terms of sheer scale. Instead of picking up 15% of the bill (roughly) to cover one area of necessary regulation (say, medicine, to use my previous example again), the UK will now pay 100%: the number of drugs to be screened, tested etc. will not diminish much.
timola said:
Taking you facts at face value, the UK would need an extra 50,000 civil servants to match what the EU has, which on my rough calcualtions (50Kx£50K) is a cost of £2.5Bn to the UK, much lower than membership.
Click to expand...
Your estimate on salaries (probably on the low side, but never mind) is just the tip of the iceberg. These bureaucrats have to be housed in offices, will need to travel, will employ armies of laywyers, consultants and other experts at x K£ per day, will require computer systems, etc. It adds up quickly.
timola said:
the EU trade agreements with other countries may form the basis of the UK agreements but they also give us an opportunity to tailor them to mutual needs or strike new and better ones.
Click to expand...
One think you can count on: EU trade agreements with third countries will not form the basis of new free trade agreements. Other countries will want to get something better for themselves from the UK, in return for gaining access to a much smaller market than the EU.
timola said:
As the UK adapts to it's new trading conditions and offsets any losses from the 13.4% trade with the EU the markets will most likely respond. A good UK-USA deal may fix this at a single stroke (I concede I'm guessing here, but there are opporunities outside the EU, the EU is not the be all and end all you claim).
Click to expand...
That nice Mr Trump has a beautiful trade deal just waiting for the UK. You will love it, it is the best, and it can be done very quickly: just sign here. Mr Xi would also like a deal with the UK, on his terms of course. Do you think the EU negotiators have not signed FTAs with these large markets just because they are just too stupid to understand free trade, or because the interests of the 28 members are so dramatically different (like Roquefort and Parmesan), or could it just be because the deals on offer aren't that good for Europe?
 
SteveS1 said:
You refuse to even get past first base. When was the last time you negotiated better terms for anything by ordering fewer items? I'm sure you understand the basics of group purchasing power and economy of scale - you deny it because it doesn't suit your narrative. The army of people we would additionally need (I hate to think what the spend is already) to properly go our own way would be insane. That can only mean we will not do that - which means we will have to be a rule taker for those regs and standards already in place. So much for sovereignty.

Let's not have your generalised statements. What does 'tailoring' mean? Do you seriously think trading partners will look to double their own overheads by running two different sets of regulation and terms for the EU and Brexit Island? Why would they do that? If they went to additional costs, what would they want in return? Where are the deals where the terms are better than those we are putting at risk?

Your defence of fraud Fox is risible. How many more tin-pot dictators like Duterte would he have to suck the balls of, to make up for even a marginal reduction in our trade with the EU? You have advanced nothing worthy of consideration to show where all this trade is coming from. Most countries are far more interested in trade with the EU than the UK.
Click to expand...

If you think a trade agreement means ordering items, then I may have over credited your knowledge.
 
droodzilla said:
No need for sarcasm. TonyL's point was mainly about how Corbyn is (allegedly) betraying internal party democracy with his (alleged) scepticism about the EU. Sean and I merely pointed out that the internal mood of the party is much more relaxed than the "99% of members want to stay in the EU" headlines might suggest. It's possible to be fulsomely pro-EU and still be pro-Corbyn; indeed, that's where the majority of the party is, in my estimation.
Click to expand...
It's interesting that you react this way, because I wasn't being particularly sarcastic: merely taking your statements at face value. You and Seanm express general satisfaction with the party's direction and profess faith in the party's leadership and its strategy. Meanwhile we non-members get to see poll results on LP members' views on Brexit, no-deal etc. While there is strong support for Corbyn, there is also what I perceive (from the outside) to be a disconnect between members' views on Brexit (89% think it is a mistake and 88% would vote Remain) and the rather fluctuating positions taken on the subject or at least expressed by the leadership. 89% is not a trivial number.

(PS: I reserve a right to deploy moderate amounts of sarcasm every time people deploy patronising rubbish that flies in the face of evidence.)
 
timola said:
Your point about Fox's department is dissengenuous, there are countries looking to trade with the UK, you say Japan but even the EU will trade with the UK. 13.4% of UK trade is with the EU and this has been steadily declining and trade with the rest of the world is higher and rising and will hopefully be steadily improved.

https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

The market reaction; the EU trade agreements with other countries may form the basis of the UK agreements but they also give us an opportunity to tailor them to mutual needs or strike new and better ones. Nobody can predict the markets, they are there to gamble and bet, especially the Forex markets. As the UK adapts to it's new trading conditions and offsets any losses from the 13.4% trade with the EU the markets will most likely respond. A good UK-USA deal may fix this at a single stroke (I concede I'm guessing here, but there are opporunities outside the EU, the EU is not the be all and end all you claim).
Click to expand...

I think you are misinterpreting the 13.4% figure. This is reported in the link you provided as the value of UK exports to the EU as a percentage of the size of the UK economy, but this is actually 44% of UK export trade. Also, the article doesn't say this is declining in value, just in overall share.

Furthermore, our trade with many non-EU countries takes advantage of trade deals negotiated by the EU and we will need to replace these - it is fanciful to think we will be able to negotiate better deals with these countries than the EU has given the weaker negotiating position our smaller economy provides.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.


advertisement


Back
Top