Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[711]

Forgetting what your foreign minister just said a few days back @712?

It's a strange thing but I quite often forget what Boris has said

There will be endless negotiations, leaks and posturings enough to bore the tits of all of us for months to come, including much as yet undreamed of, and from all sides, but my point remains - May has made the decision to pay tariffs where necessary.

 

[Adebesi]

Don't take me wrong the UK is still a prosperious country with some of the most brilliant people around.

Take it to the Rooney thread.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

It's a strange thing but I quite often forget what Boris has said

There will be endless negotiations, leaks and posturings enough to bore the tits of all of us for months to come, including much as yet undreamed of, and from all sides, but my point remains - May has made the decision to pay tariffs where necessary.

The UK government is quite clearly positioning itself to blame the nasty petty EU when they are no longer in the single market and the inevitable recession kicks in.

"Wasn't us, it was nasty nazi Europe punishing us for not wanting to be part of their undemocratic super state".

Thing is, as the referendum showed us, the majority will swallow it too.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Like I said the consumer loses as a consumer but potentially gains as a worker. I think net he will be a loser, I think free trade has been a positive thing, but it does have a downside in terms of creating losers, swathes of countries that get left behind, like the rust belt states in the US or basically everywhere outside the largest cities in the UK - which has led to the disillusionment that gave us Trump and Brexit. And it is exploitative, even as it raises the living standards of people in emerging markets, in the sense that manufacturing will gravitate to where it can get away with paying people least. So maybe some correction was necessary.

It's interesting actually. Trickle down economics has failed and this might be, in part, because money is trickling out, rather than down. Out-sourcing manufacturing and customer services to countries who undercut local costs has done its bit to boost overseas economies. Be interesting to see how keen Britain is to forge tighter links with the commonwealth if/when the Indian economy starts going south because British and American companies start to shut down their call centres and factories. It would be hugely ironic if steps taken with a view to tightening up on immigration end up giving more and more incentives to immigrants to try and find a way to relocate to wealthier countries.

 

[Cheesy]

What annoys me about the Brexiters is that (many) claim to support free trade. Do they feck. We are pulling out of the largest free trade area in the world.

United States - $18 trillion GDP
European Union - $17 trillion GDP
Canada - $1.5 trillion GDP
Mexico - $1 trillion GDP

By my calculations, that's exactly half the world's economy.

Now obviously we haven't seen CIPA come through yet and the TTIP seems to be dead.

But you either support free trade or you don't. Do we want to be in a free trade area with half the worlds economy or not?

Brits support free trade and free market leaning policies until they no longer benefit them. People will quite happily support low tax systems and will vote for capitalistic measures while they succeed under those measures, but as soon as they feel threatened they complain about the system they benefit from.

That's the problem - if you want to support the free market then you have to do so consistently, otherwise you're just picking and choosing which parts you like. Part of the point of capitalism is that it has winners and losers. If an immigrant finds a lower paid job than what you have, or a business pays an immigration too low a wage and put you out a job, then they've won and you've lost. As simple as that. If someone doesn't agree with such a measure then they don't really support capitalism in its fullest form.

Which is fine - that's why we have things like benefits, the NHS, and other such measures designed to help people being failed by society. But it pisses me off when Americans like Trump, and UKIP/Tory types, complain about globalisation, or China, or other such factors. Such people have benefited from capitalism for years - they're just uncomfortable because they're realising what it's like to be outpriced by someone else, or for someone else to win and perhaps threaten your way of life.

 

[devilish]

Take it to the Rooney thread.

you do have Gary Neville....

 

[Adebesi]

I think the UK can get agreements with the likes of the US and China. I have read a few people who I think I am fairly closely aligned to in these questions say "dont you think if there is a deal to be done with China / the US, the EU would get better terms than little old UK?" And that is true in terms of the actual bargaining power the EU has relative to the UK, no question. The other side of the coin though is that the EU is made up of 27 separate countries, each with their own different agendas. Those agendas are sometimes aligned, sometimes have a different emphasis - slightly different priorities, even if the ultimate goals are aligned - and sometimes they are flat out contradictory. The result is that dealing with the EU is slow and sometimes a lot of compromises have to be made to get to something everyone can live with.

The UK may not have the same clout but being smaller it should be easier for it to make decisions, it should really be possible to negotiate things more quickly, though obviously you need civil servants who can negotiate this stuff, which at the moment we dont have - so there are all sorts of teething problems which may be quite prolonged and ultimately could mean in practice those advantages dont really exist at all. But in theory, at least, we should be more nimble.

My concern is that the things that have plagued the US-EU trade deal have been things I think the EU was absolutely right to have concerns about around consumer protections etc. The US obviously has a far more pro-business, corporatist, screw-safety-regulations-if-they-affect-the-bottom-line approach to things like food and medicine that the EU was not prepared to live with. And that has prevented deals being done.

And as an EU citizen I say thank christ for that. I dont want a race to the bottom in terms of securing free trade with the US, I am happy for certain standards to be set and to apply across Europe, I am not an expert on this by any means but the little I do know about it, a lot of the protections the EU insists on seem sensible and rational.

So my worry is not that the UK wont get deals with those countries, its that it will but those deals will be in the interests of business, but not consumers. And that we will get lower quality food and pharmaceuticals especially - those being things that are absolutely vital and should be subjected to the most rigorous standards.

 

[Adebesi]

It's interesting actually. Trickle down economics has failed and this might be, in part, because money is trickling out, rather than down. Out-sourcing manufacturing and customer services to countries who undercut local costs has done its bit to boost overseas economies. Be interesting to see how keen Britain is to forge tighter links with the commonwealth if/when the Indian economy starts going south because British and American companies start to shut down their call centres and factories. It would be hugely ironic if steps taken with a view to tightening up on immigration end up giving more and more incentives to immigrants to try and find a way to relocate to wealthier countries.

Very good point. As Leavers said so many times during the campaign, we are not against immigration, we want a fairer system to allow more of our friends from India, Australia and Africa to come here, not just Europeans. (YEAH RIGHT!) So naturally UKIP will be absolutely thrilled to see all the Poles replaced by Indians coming over to work in call centres here rather than there.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Very good point. As Leavers said so many times during the campaign, we are not against immigration, we want a fairer system to allow more of our friends from India, Australia and Africa to come here, not just Europeans. (YEAH RIGHT!) So naturally UKIP will be absolutely thrilled to see all the Poles replaced by Indians coming over to work in call centres here rather than there.

The worst kind of immigant. The brown kind.

 

[Adebesi]

The worst kind of immigant. The brown kind.

[Shudders]

 

[JPRouve]

@Adebesi One thing that you need to keep in mind is that the EU unlike other markets does 2/3 of it's transactions intra-markets(when it tends to be 1/3 for other markets), that's why they have little reasons to give something to other markets or rush deals.

 

[Adebesi]

@Adebesi One thing that you need to keep in mind is that the EU unlike other markets does 2/3 of it's transactions intra-markets(when it tends to be 1/3 for other markets), that's why they have little reasons to give something to other markets or rush deals.

True. The UK on the other hand will be in the biggest rush imaginable, so it is easy to see how, even if we did have concerns about some of the terms being offered by the US, we would feel beggers cant be choosers and wave through things that negotiators would otherwise flag up as problematic. That is on top of the fact that, given the Tories are driving this train, a lot of stuff I would find problematic, they probably wouldnt have a problem with anyway. But stuff that might even give Tories pause might get through.

I know I sound alarmist and these are concerns rather than predictions. But I am quite worried about some of the deals we might do with the likes of China and the US in coming years. I think in 10 years time things are going to look dramatically different, and I have to say I dont feel like they will be better.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

My dad was admitted to UCH last year and had all of what you listed there. I wouldn't claim it to be uniform across the NHS as a whole, but nor is such unheard of.

Yes some NHS hospitals can offer this.
I live in the middle of the countryside, not near big cities.
Within 30 minutes drive east there is a town 15000 pop. with 1 big hospital ,old type but new inside , another town south 50000 pop three hospitals, and another town north 150000 3 hospitals. All newish built in last 10-15 years some less.
All rooms are either single or double, no wards like in UK. All modern facilities.

Medical facilities in Holland and Germany are superior to the UK and I'm sure other posters can vouch the same in other European countries.

Hospitals and staffing cost money, but even in France some areas are short-staffed and so on.
People are willing to pay more to have superior facilities.

In the Uk you hear , oh we might consider paying a penny more in tax if it paid for a better NHS and a better infrastructure.

What the UK needs is to tax the people 5 or 10p more and give the facilities that are required.
They won't do this because it's always about votes and increasing taxes will never get you elected in the UK.

So we try to blame the EU by pretending that the money we spend on the EU will be deflected to the NHS.
Apart from there being no money saved it's all one big con by the government to cover up their incompetence.
That is why people say Brexiters are stupid, it's because they have been conned, not just the NHS, on immigration, on European law, on the Single Market and they can't see it, they can't see it now and couldn't see it last June.

 

[Smores]

The political side of this is frustrating me lately you have the Lib Dems going against a democratic referendum because they feel it'll win them votes. There was also a quote from an unnamed Labour MP saying they were considering voting against Article 50 because it'll cost jobs and they don't down the line want to be seen to have voted for it.

This is the defining political moment probably of my lifetime and the politicians are more interested in their leaderships, party, and careers.

 

[Adebesi]

The political side of this is frustrating me lately you have the Lib Dems going against a democratic referendum because they feel it'll win them votes. There was also a quote from an unnamed Labour MP saying they were considering voting against Article 50 because it'll cost jobs and they don't down the line want to be seen to have voted for it.

This is the defining political moment probably of my lifetime and the politicians are more interested in their leaderships, party, and careers.

The LibDems are going against the democratic referendum because it is what they believe in, you may not agree with it and you may not think it is justified but you should at least accept they are coming from a position of principle.

And what does doing something to win them votes mean anyway? It means doing things that a lot of people want them to do. Which is in itself democratic. They arent talking about a coup d'etat after all, they are not talking about seizing the BBC and the Westminster and putting a load of namby-pamby liberal generals in strategic positions to as to force the country to remain in the EU. A lot of people feel passionately that they want to remain in the EU so there will be these convulsions, but more people passionately want to leave, and a lot of people who have opinions one way or the other, but arent that passionate about it, will demand we leave because they feel that is the proper outcome having been through this process. I am convinced we will leave, for better or worse - and if we dont it will be because people change their minds as the terms of what is actually on offer become clear - IF the EU allows us to reverse the decision. And that would be entirely democratic.

 

[sun_tzu]

The LibDems are going against the democratic referendum because it is what they believe in, you may not agree with it and you may not think it is justified but you should at least accept they are coming from a position of principle.
.

did more people vote leave than remain - yes (narrowly)
but when you consider the decision effects both sides of the vote, those that did not vote and those that could not vote then I do think it becomes valid to stick to principals because only around 27% of the population actually voted to leave

 

[Adebesi]

@sun_tzu I hear you. And that is another problem with referendums, which I know people think I am only bringing up out of bitterness. At the end of the day people who didnt vote should have, and I do think the result was decisive enough to be considered completely legitimate. But yeah, the Lib Dems should absolutely oppose what they believe to be wrong, just as UKIP would have continued banging its drum if it had lost. And if they can amass enough support to actually derail this thing it will be testament to the depth of feeling among many of the people to make that happen. If enough people feel as strongly on the other side they will ensure it does happen. So like I said, having a second referendum, or a GE that returned pro-EU parties, leading to this process being abandoned would be just as democratic as leaving because of the referendum. (I dont think current MPs would dare to stand in the way of Brexit because they know they will be lynched by their constituents.)

 

[Kentonio]

The political side of this is frustrating me lately you have the Lib Dems going against a democratic referendum because they feel it'll win them votes.

The Tories won the last democratic election on a platform of austerity. Would you find it frustrating if Labour or the Lib Dems ran next time on a non-austerity platform? What's the difference?

 

[Smores]

The LibDems are going against the democratic referendum because it is what they believe in, you may not agree with it and you may not think it is justified but you should at least accept they are coming from a position of principle.

And what does doing something to win them votes mean anyway? It means doing things that a lot of people want them to do. Which is in itself democratic. They arent talking about a coup d'etat after all, they are not talking about seizing the BBC and the Westminster and putting a load of namby-pamby liberal generals in strategic positions to as to force the country to remain in the EU. A lot of people feel passionately that they want to remain in the EU so there will be these convulsions, but more people passionately want to leave, and a lot of people who have opinions one way or the other, but arent that passionate about it, will demand we leave because they feel that is the proper outcome having been through this process. I am convinced we will leave, for better or worse - and if we dont it will be because people change their minds as the terms of what is actually on offer become clear - IF the EU allows us to reverse the decision. And that would be entirely democratic.

Principle is fine but after a point it becomes ignoring the will of those you serve. I've now checked and thier constituents voted remain to be fair so i have less an issue. I do take issue with them decrying Labour not blocking Article 50 when the majority of Labour MPs represent Leave constituencies.

The referendum was always a terrible idea but i find it repellant of MPs to put their own interests or principle before their constituents.

 

[Smores]

The Tories won the last democratic election on a platform of austerity. Would you find it frustrating if Labour or the Lib Dems ran next time on a non-austerity platform? What's the difference?

One is based on an election cycle whilst the other is a single policy decision. Its rather a stretch to even try and compare the two.

The idea of a second referendum presented above is just as bad. We cant have repeated referendums on the EU question based on short term political momentum, its dangerous.

 

[Adebesi]

One is based on an election cycle whilst the other is a single policy decision. Its rather a stretch to even try and compare the two.

The idea of a second referendum presented above is just as bad. We cant have repeated referendums on the EU question based on short term political momentum, its dangerous.

Im in two minds about it. But I think you can make a strong case that the people should get a say on a specific document that is put in front of them, with a question, should we leave on these specific terms? Yes or no. I definitely think there will be people who voted leave who will balk at the terms we actually leave on. But whether there are enough such people to justify the vote or not is something we can only speculate about.

Actually I think even if that happens we will leave anyway, I think leave would win a second referendum. But that is just a feeling, we would need to see what the terms of the deal are. (Its the sense that, if we had a bad deal, people would feel more hostile towards the EU on that basis, and would therefore dig into their position. Whereas if we get a good deal people will feel warmer towards the EU, but we would have a good deal, so we would end up ratifying it.)

 

[Smores]

Im in two minds about it. But I think you can make a strong case that the people should get a say on a specific document that is put in front of them, with a question, should we leave on these specific terms? Yes or no. I definitely think there will be people who voted leave who will balk at the terms we actually leave on. But whether there are enough such people to justify the vote or not is something we can only speculate about.

Actually I think even if that happens we will leave anyway, I think leave would win a second referendum. But that is just a feeling, we would need to see what the terms of the deal are. (Its the sense that, if we had a bad deal, people would feel more hostile towards the EU on that basis, and would therefore dig into their position. Whereas if we get a good deal people will feel warmer towards the EU, but we would have a good deal, so we would end up ratifying it.)

I think people need to feel the pain first, a second referendum on rejoining after a yesr or two is what I'd prefer to happen as i think it would win but its messy ground for this to go back and forth.

 

[Kentonio]

One is based on an election cycle whilst the other is a single policy decision. Its rather a stretch to even try and compare the two.

The idea of a second referendum presented above is just as bad. We cant have repeated referendums on the EU question based on short term political momentum, its dangerous.

So what is the justification for having an out referendum considering we had an in referendum back in the 70's?

 

[Kentonio]

I think people need to feel the pain first, a second referendum on rejoining after a yesr or two is what I'd prefer to happen as i think it would win but its messy ground for this to go back and forth.

I think it would be meaningless, I think the chances of all 27 countries letting us back in is almost zero. We've been a wildly disruptive force for decades.

 

[Smores]

So what is the justification for having an out referendum considering we had an in referendum back in the 70's?

Well i disagree with referendums as they don't dictate a minimum level of knowledge.

To answer your question though and i do think its perhaps a valid line of reasoning, the EU project has changed significantly in that time as has the UK, if there was such a thing as an informed general public then 40 odd years sounds a reasonable timeframe to reaffirm whether its working doesn't it?

That isn't at all the same as a change in party policy or short term referndums.

Perhaps Hammond blaming Blair (and Brown/Campbell) today isn't that far wide of the mark, they did get it wrong.

 

[711]

Im in two minds about it. But I think you can make a strong case that the people should get a say on a specific document that is put in front of them, with a question, should we leave on these specific terms? Yes or no. I definitely think there will be people who voted leave who will balk at the terms we actually leave on. But whether there are enough such people to justify the vote or not is something we can only speculate about.

Actually I think even if that happens we will leave anyway, I think leave would win a second referendum. But that is just a feeling, we would need to see what the terms of the deal are. (Its the sense that, if we had a bad deal, people would feel more hostile towards the EU on that basis, and would therefore dig into their position. Whereas if we get a good deal people will feel warmer towards the EU, but we would have a good deal, so we would end up ratifying it.)

What would happen if people vote No? Article 50 is irrevocable, for the obvious reason that otherwise every country in the EU would call it with nothing to lose, hoping for improvement, and the EU would be in a permanent and paralysing state of negotiation and uncertainty. So, what happens if people vote No?

 

[sun_tzu]

What would happen if people vote No? Article 50 is irrevocable,

nope -well not according to the chap that actually wrote it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
and I suspect he knows a lot more about it than most

But Lord Kerr, who devised the clause, said the country "might want to think again" when Brexit terms become clearer.

He explained: "It is not irrevocable.

"You can change your mind while the process is going on.

"During that period, if a country were to decide actually we don't want to leave after all, everybody would be very cross about it being a waste of time.

"They might try to extract a political price but legally they couldn't insist that you leave."

 

[711]

nope -well not according to the chap that actually wrote it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
and I suspect he knows a lot more about it than most

Fair enough. So the answer could be 'we might pay an unspecified political price, as yet unknown'.

Maybe we could have another vote later then, when it's known?

 

[Adebesi]

Ive often wondered about that, and I think I asked basically that question the other day, in terms of what it means to have Parliament debate the final settlement. Wont it all be too far gone by then?

I think its an open question. OK Lord Kerr says it is not irrevocable but others in the EU seem to take a different view. Like most things in the EU it is intentionally vague and will ultimately come down to political will, not clear written rules and obviously not precedent. I think it could go either way. So yes, whether it was a referendum or a decision taken by MPs, I think it could well end up being completely irrelevant and we could end up being pushed out anyway.

 

[JPRouve]

nope -well not according to the chap that actually wrote it
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-37852628
and I suspect he knows a lot more about it than most

The only problem being that he has no legal arguments and he didn't wrote it that way. Maybe he interprets it that way but he should have added a phase after the notification to make his point valid, as it is today there is nothing after the notification and the notification is therefore the last step.

 

[sun_tzu]

The only problem being that he has no legal arguments and he didn't wrote it that way. Maybe he interprets it that way but he should have added a phase after the notification to make his point valid, as it is today there is nothing after the notification and the notification is therefore the last step.

so you know more than the fellow that actually wrote it - well I guess Gove was right - we seeming have had enough of "experts"

also FYI

http://uk.businessinsider.com/brexit-how-does-article-50-work-2016-7

But the House of Lords did the UK a favour and asked for legal advice on the specific question of whether Britain can change its mind. (The advice came from Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers.)

Here is what their advice said:

Can a Member State’s decision to withdraw be reversed?

We asked our witnesses whether it was possible to reverse a decision to withdraw. Both agreed that a Member State could legally reverse a decision to withdraw from the EU at any point before the date on which the withdrawal agreement took effect. Once the withdrawal agreement had taken effect, however, withdrawal was final. Sir David told us: “It is absolutely clear that you cannot be forced to go through with it if you do not want to: for example, if there is a change of Government.” Professor Wyatt supported this view with the following legal analysis:

“There is nothing in the wording to say that you cannot. It is in accord with the general aims of the Treaties that people stay in rather than rush out of the exit door. There is also the specific provision in Article 50 to the effect that, if a State withdraws, it has to apply to rejoin de novo. That only applies once you have left. If you could not change your mind after a year of thinking about it, but before you had withdrawn, you would then have to wait another year, withdraw and then apply to join again. That just does not make sense. Analysis of the text suggests that you are entitled to change your mind.”

... There is nothing in Article 50 formally to prevent a Member State from reversing its decision to withdraw in the course of the withdrawal negotiations. The political consequences of such a change of mind would, though, be substantial.

So, to sum up, even if the UK triggers Article 50 we can still cancel that decision if, for instance, there was a change of government. But the government would be up against the clock: It would have to make that U-turn before the rest of the EU voted on the Article 50 request, and before the two-year deadline elapsed.

Given how long the exit process is likely to take, and how unpredictable UK politics has suddenly become, don't rule out a change of government or a change of heart.

 

[711]

so you know more than the fellow that actually wrote it - well I guess Gove was right - we seeming have had enough of "experts"

Well his use of the phrase 'they might try to extract a political price' is as long as a piece of string and doesn't inspire me with confidence for a kick off.

 

[JPRouve]

so you know more than the fellow that actually wrote it - well I guess Gove was right - we seeming have had enough of "experts"

I see what you are saying but I'm merely using my formation and interpreting a text of law. He wrote it in a way that doesn't correspond to his interpretation and the absence of precedents forces me to only interpret the letter of the law, I can't use the interpretation that he didn't wrote, that's not how law works.

 

[Adebesi]

Well his use of the phrase 'they might try to extract a political price' is as long as a piece of string and doesn't inspire me with confidence for a kick off.

Take in our fair share of refugees. Join the euro. Introduce mandatory German classes in all primary schools. Every Brit, at least once in his or her lifetime, must make a pilgrimage to Brussels where we will be forced to publicly fellate French farmers.

 

[711]

Take in our fair share of refugees. Join the euro. Introduce mandatory German classes in all primary schools. Every Brit, at least once in his or her lifetime, must make a pilgrimage to Brussels where we will be forced to publicly fellate French farmers.

This reminds me of the Cantona advert, in a disturbing way.

 

[sun_tzu]

I see what you are saying but I'm merely using my formation and interpreting a text of law. He wrote it in a way that doesn't correspond to his interpretation and the absence of precedents forces me to only interpret the letter of the law, I can't use the interpretation that he didn't wrote, that's not how law works.

fair enough...
but the chap who wrote it and Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers are saying one thing and you the opposite

your entitled to your own interpretation and as you say that is how law works - but to balance it out can we weigh your credentials against the other three chaps?

 

[Adebesi]

fair enough...
but the chap who wrote it and Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers are saying one thing and you the opposite

your entitled to your own interpretation and as you say that is how law works - but to balance it out can we weigh your credentials against the other three chaps?

To be fair he isnt the only person saying that, there are plenty of people on the EU side with legal / political credentials saying the same thing. Though Donald Tusk is also on the record that the UK would have the right to accept the terms of its departure, or stay, at the end of the process.



Which is encouraging.

 

[JPRouve]

fair enough...
but the chap who wrote it and Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers are saying one thing and you the opposite

your entitled to your own interpretation and as you say that is how law works - but to balance it out can we weigh your credentials against the other three chaps?

I'm a nobody that's a given.

Now I'm going to be completely honest, Sir Kerr interpretation isn't legal it's political and he is right because the EU has for principal to not force any decisions on a member, so if the UK wanted to backtrack the other members would accept because there is nothing in the text that says that they are unable to forget the notification. But the UK can't force the other member to forget about it, they can consider that no agreement has been found and according to Sir Kerr's article, the absence of agreement doesn't cancel the notification.

Edit: And aren't they all consulting Sturgeon and all remainers?

 

[NinjaFletch]

fair enough...
but the chap who wrote it and Sir David Edward KCMG, QC, PC, FRSE, a former Judge of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor Emeritus at the School of Law, University of Edinburgh; and Professor Derrick Wyatt QC, Emeritus Professor of Law, Oxford University, and also of Brick Court Chambers are saying one thing and you the opposite

your entitled to your own interpretation and as you say that is how law works - but to balance it out can we weigh your credentials against the other three chaps?

Isn't this a bit of a fallacious argument?

So and so says 'X' so and so is 'Y' therefore 'X' must be right.

They may have the right of it, but they may not. Either way, if the situation arose, its inevitably going to court.

 

[berbatrick]

I think this whole debate about cars - which is one example of a broader issue - is missing an important point which I mentioned off hand a couple of days ago but want to reiterate. As we move into a far more protectionist world, where the assumption that free trade benefits both sides, which has existed for many years now, goes out the window, it will not just be about the price of your Merc or BMW going up by 20% or whatever, and will rich people still buy them. There will also be at least an element of economic nationalism, where it is seen as a duty, or at least a virtue, to buy goods manufactured in your own country. That is the whole argument behind shunning free trade.

This is more overt in the US, but I think it will become more overt here as well. All this talk about bringing jobs back to the US will generate pride in the "American made" label and it is likely to become increasingly fashionable to buy US made goods. And people will need to buy US made goods, and be happy about the fact they cost more to produce because Labour costs are higher, even if they are cheaper than, or competitive with, foreign goods that have lower labour costs but high taxes slapped on them when they are imported. In order for people to accept that new paradigm of higher prices, it will have to be sold as a virtuous thing and a price that is worth paying for repatriating jobs. And maybe it is.

The UK is in a slightly different situation but there are similarities. There has been a lot of talk about rebalancing the economy, about the need to boost manufacturing, about the fact that "we dont make anything in this country anymore." By ending our free trade arrangement the cost of imported goods from Europe will go up, that may start to make it economical to make things here again that we used to import from countries that, under the globalisation model, specialised in those industries. When I brought this up before I was talking about cars and Nissan. I can see it becoming quite fashionable to buy Nissan, or any car that is British made, which could come to be seen as patriotic, supporting UK jobs, at a time when the UK is basically in a trade war with the EU. Ditto Vauxhalls, Hondas and Toyotas. At the higher end, people who might have bought a Merc might go with a Jag, or an Aston Martin.

Otherwise what is the justification for all of this? If this is all a backlash against globalisation, what is the rational antidote to that? Bring jobs back and buy local to justify that. There is no point in bringing jobs back to the UK and paying Brits more to build things than an Asian or Eastern European or South American could do it for, unless you encourage people to buy stuff that is made locally, by creating a sense of economic nationalism. As I said this is further along in the US but I think as usual the UK will travel in the same direction and it fits in nicely with what is happening here where we are erecting barriers between ourselves and our neighbours that will make it more expensive to trade. AND, on the surface at least, it creates jobs, which is a vote winner, and serves to justify the rising prices that will come alongside it. More money for workers via more jobs, but higher prices. It remains to be seen, all things taken into account, whether that leaves people better off or not.

Obviously there are a lot of other elements to this, a lot of other forces pulling things in other directions, and it may not pan out like that at all. But I can see this happening to some extent. I just think it is worth bearing that in mind. Its not just, Mercs are 20% more expensive, but Mercs are awesome and I am rich and want people to know Im rich, so Im going to buy it anyway. Its, Mercs are more expensive but they are also German, and the Germans have treated us horribly with the whole Brexit settlement, so screw them, and screw the French and their Renaults, and the Italians and their Fiats, Im going to buy a car that was made here, in the UK, by British workers, who after all are the best in the world at operating largely automated machines. This will be encouraged from the top down in all sorts of ways.

Good post!