Jump to content

The now-enacted will of (some of) the people


Recommended Posts

EU is bad at negotiating deals is a bit of an odd argument. We are part of the EU. It is not the EU vs UK right now, we are integral. If the EU is crap at deals ir means we as a member don't have the ability to improve them.

Sitting the opposite side of the table to the crap and ponderously slow negotiator to start a new negotiation will not be making that situation better. The EU with us takes years to do a deal. How will the EU vs UK be any quicker? It's just another one of those arguments that both sides are throwing up that are actually utter tosh when you study them.

As is the constant reference to project fear by people that then go on to tell us how all the rest of the EU are bad people that want to stop us trading with India and want to force us to give our houses to ISIS sleeper cells. 

I still don't want to be forced to choose between two colours of ridiculous flag. Stripes or stars? Good grief.. I'm not actually all that convinced that I'd be better off or my kids better off for living under the good old union jack with it's devotion to the wealth and power of bankers and politicians, London, royalty, Lords, house price inflation and an obsession with dabbling in wars it doesn't understand. 

Still not hearing a good fact based argument relevant to me coming from either side, yet. 

Personally, I'm trying to find out a bit more about the likelihood of Turkey joining any time soon. That could throw the whole debate in to a downward spiral. Interestingly, the UK appears to be one of the main sponsors and supporters of Turkish entry. 

We have a Labour party that has disappeared up it's own arse and a tory party ready to split over europe. Our politicians are very very poor quality. We voted them in.

I am concious I'm morphing in to some Travis Bickle / Victor Meldrew hybrid.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@chrisp65 The reason why the EU is unlikely to faff about over an EU/UK trade deal is the need to maintain exports uninterrupted to their largest single export market. Taken together the EU nations export more to the UK than to any other country in the world, scores of billions more than the UK sells to them.

Maybe they'll ignore that and deliberately damage their economies further, having watched the open Europe simulated post Brexit negotiations, making a deal with the UK would be the overriding economic priority of the EU. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Awol said:

@chrisp65 The reason why the EU is unlikely to faff about over an EU/UK trade deal is the need to maintain exports uninterrupted to their largest single export market. Taken together the EU nations export more to the UK than to any other country in the world, scores of billions more than the UK sells to them.

Maybe they'll ignore that and deliberately damage their economies further, having watched the open Europe simulated post Brexit negotiations, making a deal with the UK would be the overriding economic priority of the EU. 

As an example of this dynamic approach to protecting their own essential industries and security I guess we can point to the example of steel?

For our ability to strike a great deal, look after our own industry and ensure our security I guess we can also point at steel plus the great deal we've negotiated with China to build nuclear power stations?

There is a disconnect between the ego of politicians in London and Brussels with the day to day lives of car workers in Oxford and steel jobs in Redcar. Skoda sell less cars in Britain for a few years to help French politicians can make some selfish point? So be it.

Jobs in GE at Nantgarw, Airbus at Broughton or Tata in Port Talbot won't suffer a few years of job losses until the medium term up tick happens. Once it's gone, it's gone.

Don't get me wrong, spite and potential downturn due to political idiots is not a good reason to stay. But the presumption politicians will keep industry running for 5 years whilst they discuss per centages of tariffs is a big mistake.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

EU is bad at negotiating deals is a bit of an odd argument. We are part of the EU. It is not the EU vs UK right now, we are integral. If the EU is crap at deals ir means we as a member don't have the ability to improve them.

Sitting the opposite side of the table to the crap and ponderously slow negotiator to start a new negotiation will not be making that situation better. The EU with us takes years to do a deal. How will the EU vs UK be any quicker? It's just another one of those arguments that both sides are throwing up that are actually utter tosh when you study them.

As is the constant reference to project fear by people that then go on to tell us how all the rest of the EU are bad people that want to stop us trading with India and want to force us to give our houses to ISIS sleeper cells. 

I still don't want to be forced to choose between two colours of ridiculous flag. Stripes or stars? Good grief.. I'm not actually all that convinced that I'd be better off or my kids better off for living under the good old union jack with it's devotion to the wealth and power of bankers and politicians, London, royalty, Lords, house price inflation and an obsession with dabbling in wars it doesn't understand. 

Still not hearing a good fact based argument relevant to me coming from either side, yet. 

Personally, I'm trying to find out a bit more about the likelihood of Turkey joining any time soon. That could throw the whole debate in to a downward spiral. Interestingly, the UK appears to be one of the main sponsors and supporters of Turkish entry. 

We have a Labour party that has disappeared up it's own arse and a tory party ready to split over europe. Our politicians are very very poor quality. We voted them in.

I am concious I'm morphing in to some Travis Bickle / Victor Meldrew hybrid.

 

 

Chris bach, according to the Unite union each citizen of Wales gets £70 more from the EU than they pay in.

The question is whether you believe a Tory government would be likely to replace that funding (£120m) should the UK leave the EU?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

As an example of this dynamic approach to protecting their own essential industries and security I guess we can point to the example of steel?

For our ability to strike a great deal, look after our own industry and ensure our security I guess we can also point at steel plus the great deal we've negotiated with China to build nuclear power stations?

There is a disconnect between the ego of politicians in London and Brussels with the day to day lives of car workers in Oxford and steel jobs in Redcar. Skoda sell less cars in Britain for a few years to help French politicians can make some selfish point? So be it.

Jobs in GE at Nantgarw, Airbus at Broughton or Tata in Port Talbot won't suffer a few years of job losses until the medium term up tick happens. Once it's gone, it's gone.

Don't get me wrong, spite and potential downturn due to political idiots is not a good reason to stay. But the presumption politicians will keep industry running for 5 years whilst they discuss per centages of tariffs is a big mistake.

 

 I'm slightly confused by your post.

I highlighted nuclear and steel as areas that should be taken back into some level of public ownership due to their strategic national utility, but can't be, or even be assisted by government to survive, due to EU rules.

Industry wouldn't grind to a halt if we vote to leave, we will continue as full members of the EU with full single market access for two years after giving notice to leave. If by then a deal has not been reached we simply go onto WTO rules and trade with the EU in the same manner as the US or China. 

Concurrently the UK can be preparing trade deals elsewhere for completion on or shortly after our decree nisi with the EU. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wales as a region certainly does currently have a net monetary gain from the EU. There is nothing that could convince me that George Osbourne or Boris Johnson would simply replace that money rather than reduce spending or offer tax cuts for the good people of Hampshire and Sussex.

But beyond regional winners and losers, the company I work for landed a massive contract with a europe wide company back in the summer of 2015. That contract was going to net us over £100,000 of fees per year for 6 or 7 years. OK that's not in the same ball park as BMW or Airbus. But that is a handful of good jobs underwritten for long while.

That contract is now on a very slow track, essentially treading water to see what the outcome of the referendum is. So we are earning far far less income than we budgeted for. If in June we vote 'stay' the contract picks up again. If we vote 'leave' it will continue to tread water until that Client can be sure its spending share holder money in the right way in the right places. Now that isn't project fear. That's common sense.

What we have to rely on, is on a leave vote, our politicians can tie up all the negotiations with these poor ponderous inefficient european negotiators and completely clarify future trading rules BEFORE small companies run out of money.

Who on this board is confident that our politicians could organise that? Or perhaps I'm just falling for project fear?

@Awol whilst you might have seen steel and nuclear as needing some form of state input or control, I'm not absolutely sure that Boris Johnson and Liam Fox quite see it that way. Unfortunately, it's more likely they will be in charge than you.

The unknown future will cause a pause in investment, anything else would be against shareholder best interest. It's the shareholders that have the power here, not unions or 'people' or flags. 'Investment' isn't some nebulous money thing. It's ordering shiny new kit and ideas from smaller companies.

 

----

I'm due up the allotment now! .First sunny day on a weekend since about October...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I'm due up the allotment now! .First sunny day on a weekend since about October...

I am sure it will bring some sunshine into the lives of those widows whose houses overlook your plot.

Double-spit digging in the spring usually requires the shirt to come off. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Awol said:

Greece is bust, Italy is bust, France isn't far behind. Unemployment in Southern Europe averages 20% and is much higher for young people. It is incapable of meaningful reform as shown by Cameron's joke renegotion. 

Only one of those countries could charitably be described as 'bust'. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Only one of those countries could charitably be described as 'bust'. 

The Italian banking sector has about US£550 billion of non performing loans on its books, or about 20% of total loans made. For context when US subprime mortgage defaults hit 8% in 2007 it triggered the credit crunch. IMO that's bust, broke or whatever, it just hasn't fallen over yet. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

And the US never went 'bust' either. We know what 'bust' looks like, in the context of a national economy, and that is a sovereign debt default. Neither Italy nor France have had one, nor are particularly likely to do so. Greece did, of sorts, so that's the one I'm granting you. 

Italian banks do have a lot of NPLs, and it is something to be concerned about, but there are several factors which mean a full-blown crisis is far from certain. 

Firstly, the Italian economy is growing at a slow but steady rate, and industrial production is increasing, helped by low oil prices. Secondly, there is still growth in loan creation in the banking sector, which could help to diversify banks' loan portfolios and reduce risk (although obviously only if the quality of new loans is higher than those currently underperforming). 

The situation is a problem, and will need a resolution, but it will - in the end - be resolved by the EU. Italy is asking for direct state aid - northern EU countries don't want to provide it. German taxpayers, in particular, are unwilling to ride to the rescue. However, the situation is sufficiently serious that a solution will have to be reached. Either the EU will have to break the (new) rule that shareholders, bondholders and large depositors take the hit instead of governments, or the EU will have to provide a 'loan' on extremely generous terms to allow the Italians to massively replenish their deposit protection fund before letting the worst banks partially fail. 

The 'crisis' will appear to get worse before it gets better, because everybody needs to make enough of a show to German taxpayers and the German constitutional court in Karlsruhe that the situation is desperate before whatever allowances are made and rules are fudged to allow the Germans to plough in the cash to solve the situation (which is what's going to happen in the end, obviously). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, "bust" isn't a particularly technical term... but when the banks have a problem with the recovery of issued debt, which if crystalized as losses they can't cover and can't be made good directly by the national government (as was done in the US and UK circa 2008), what is the technical term to describe that country's financial circumstances, insolvent? 

If the idea is to go through some great charade with the Germans as was done with the Bubbles a few years ago, that seems like a dangerous game to play. I also recall reading that Italy was too big to fail - in that it couldn't be rescued by the EU if its banking sector went arse over elbow.  Are you saying Germany has the means to bail out the Italians? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Awol said:

EDIT:

...

So we go full circle, do you want to live in country called the United States of Europe or not? That's the real question facing us.

I missed your addition earlier and I'm sorry that I did as it's a thoughtful and genuine case for why you believe what you do. As you might imagine, I'm not as Panglossian as you are when it comes to what may follow a decision to leave but, at the same time, I don't write off what you put forward as something that is impossible.

Regarding the 'sovereign nation' bit (and the stuff before about democracy), it's not as though leaving the EU will be returning power to the people (or even to parliament) and for that reason I'm with blandy when he commented about specious sovereignty arguments (though I may have got the wrong end of the stick about his point).

The answer to your question: probably not but I'm as fussed about that as living in a country called 'England'.

Edited by snowychap
Wrong 'right'. :oops:
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Awol said:

If you want to nationalise the railways (impossible under EU competition rules) vote leave. 

Could it be said, then, that those who wish to remain in the EU and yet also wish to nationalize the railways want their train in vain? ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I am sure it will bring some sunshine into the lives of those widows whose houses overlook your plot.

Double-spit digging in the spring usually requires the shirt to come off. :)

it was like one of those sexist Coca Cola 'coke break' adverts

sometimes, I think I'm just meat to them

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

In reply to @Awol

I looked at the constitution of the EU to check if what I read in the paper (now in the recycling) was right. It half was. So you're correct we could negotiate, but we'd have no voice in the room, in terms of what the EU decided to do. page 46 of pdf

Quote

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article III-325(3). It shall be concluded by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Constitution 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.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in European decisions concerning it. 

To answer your Questions, When I said "The EU is flawed, as is the alternative"  - I meant our membership of it/leaving it" both have disadvantages for the UK. Clearly there's problems with the EU - the budget, the wastage, the CAP, fisheries, some of the stuff we've opted out of, the overblown bureaucracy, etc.

But IMO, leaving would lose us many of the benefits of being in the EU. You can start at either end of the scale - from the loss of the booze cruise (going back to an allowance of a couple of bottles of duty free wine) up the scale to the way the EU has rescued mobile phone roaming charges, air fares, the way we can just tootle off to any part of the EU on holiday or with work, with a bare minimum of trouble - the freedom of movement to retire to Spain or France with no hassle, towards more regulatory things like worker protection, maternity leave, environmental law, pollution law, the way our Science and agriculture and R&D is funded (net benefit to the UK in those areas). Companies do set up in the UK because of the free access to the single market. Much or all of those things would be lost, or watered down, or detrimentally impacted by us leaving.

In addition, I think our UK model of government is utterly flawed, as badly as the EU one. Ironically, the UKIPs suffer from it badly, as do Greens, whereas Tories and SNP benefit massively. 50+ SNP MPs from somewhere around the same number of votes(ish) as the UKIPs got 1 MP with. Unelected law makers - who voted in the House of Lords? It's full of Bishops, hereditary peers and Gov't cronies. And there are about 800 of the buggers.

Sovereignty is specious because while superficially credible "we decide our own laws", in reality big business and other nations and other bodies dictate, or at least very strongly strongly determine how things work round here. Examples include the U.S with ITAR, with our nukes, with their extradition and trade laws. They include NATO, they include Google and Facebook, HSBC and Drugs companies. And our own Government(s) do not behave democratically or respect the rights of the people. Furthermore, the argument about "we must retain our soveriegnty to make our own laws is kind of bonkers anyway - with stuff like murder and rape and thieving - crime - we do  make our own law. With stuff like regulations, our laws mirror or were incorporated into EU law, anyway. Trade dictates much of it - if we want to sell to the US we need to meet their regulations, we can't just sell them stuff made to our legal standards. Hopefully you get the point I'm making.

8 hours ago, Awol said:

 do you acknowledge that the EU has no choice but to integrate fully (politically and economically) in order to survive? Do you want the UK to be part of that and live in a country called Europe? 

No, I absolutely do not. So the second part is null and void. But even if it I did accept your theory, I still think it's null and void - because the French and the Germans, Spanish, Irish and all the rest are as keen to stay German/French/Spanish/etc. as we are to remain British. There is no desire that I can detect anywhere for there to be a country called Europe. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sovereignty is specious because while superficially credible "we decide our own laws", in reality big business and other nations and other bodies dictate, or at least very strongly strongly determine how things work round here.

This along with the other comments you make and the whole SI/secondary legislation issue is why I, too, take issue with the reclamation of sovereignty claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Awol said:

@chrisp65 The reason why the EU is unlikely to faff about over an EU/UK trade deal is the need to maintain exports uninterrupted to their largest single export market. Taken together the EU nations export more to the UK than to any other country in the world, scores of billions more than the UK sells to them.

Maybe they'll ignore that and deliberately damage their economies further, having watched the open Europe simulated post Brexit negotiations, making a deal with the UK would be the overriding economic priority of the EU. 

Regardless of tariffs or not. We would still have to buy a lot of our imports from the EU, as we simply don't manufacture as many things as we used to.In the 80's Thatcher decimated our manufacturing on the altar of monetarism. Germany helped many of its firms through the worst of the 80's recession, and reaped the benefits after the worlds economy recovered.In my own industry, where I once saw Lucas and GEC, I now see Bosch and Siemens, so much high tech gear is German.So the EU will not have the fear it once had over the imposition of tariffs, as domestically there are often few or no alternatives for us to turn to.

Edited by meregreen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, meregreen said:

Regardless of tariffs or not. We would still have to buy a lot of our imports from the EU, as we simply don't manufacture as many things as we used to.In the 80's Thatcher decimated our manufacturing on the altar of monetarism. Germany helped many of its firms through the worst of the 80's recession, and reaped the benefits after the worlds economy recovered.In my own industry, where I once saw Lucas and GEC, I now see Bosch and Siemens, so much high tech gear is German.So the EU will not have the fear it once had over the imposition of tariffs, as domestically there are often few or no alternatives for us to turn to.

The point AWOL is making is that they export far more to us than we do to them.  Of the 2.1m new cars sold in the UK last year for example, something like 2/3 of them came from EU manufacturers.  Any trade restrictions would be massively cutting off their nose to spite their face.  Not going to happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So who on here believes that when China decides to dump cars on the european market below cost, the EU will act swiftly to save Mini and Renault? No of course not, they'll worry and worry and be too slow.

Now, who on here believes that if the same happens when we are out of the EU the UK government will step in and protect Mini and Nissan plants in Oxford and Sunderland from £5,000 Chinese cars? Of course not.

These politicians aren't cutting off their own noses to spite their own faces. The negotiators don't work 4 days in a warehouse or making gearboxes than negotiate on Fridays. They couldn't give a toss what the consequences of three years of confused negotiation might be. They'll still be politicians at the end of it. It's just that you might not be a car maker for Nissan. Do you really think they care that much that they will wrap up the deal in a week or three?

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Risso said:

The point AWOL is making is that they export far more to us than we do to them.  Of the 2.1m new cars sold in the UK last year for example, something like 2/3 of them came from EU manufacturers.  Any trade restrictions would be massively cutting off their nose to spite their face.  Not going to happen.

My point is, the EU will happily put tariffs on our goods as we have few home grown alternatives to turn to for many high tech goods.So we would still have to buy from them, particularly Germany.They on the other hand would probably have multiple in house suppliers.The fact is we could have left the EU far more easily 30 years ago. Now however, our economy is geared to being part of the single market. It would in my opinion be a logistical and practical nightmare to leave it. And all this is simply being played out because of the interminable civil war within the Tory Party over Europe. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of use Terms of Use, Cookies We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Â