Theresa May

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
Get a sense of proportion. The EU is just a big name for what is still 99% a customs union. The idea that it is in any way a threat to a member's sovereignty is completely hysterical bilge.
From that I take it you don't see lawmakers deciding what 'our' laws should be, and enforcing them by penalising us if we don't bend the knee, as overriding our sovereignty. Far from hysterical, bilge or otherwise. If you want to quote my post please kindly refrain from calling my opinion 'bilge'. The statement in your last sentence is exactly what I meant by the tactics used to maintain the deceit for the last 41 years by successive governments.

don4l

Original Poster:

10,058 posts

175 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
Given that Free Movement was going to be an insurmountable hurdle, it makes a great deal of sense both for May and our EU counterparts to announce that the UK is leaving the Single Market. Why? Because it gets the brand off the table. Prople won't get stuck on the words "single market". If the UK had managed to negotiate "continued membership of the Single Market with some concessions thrown in" the more knuckle-headed Brexiteers would have seen it as a betrayal, and similarly the more knuckle-headed voters in the rest of the EU would have seen it as unfair special treatment for the UK. May couldn't sell it to the UK, and Merkel, Hollande's successor, et al wouldn't have been able to sell it to their voterd either. Selling the compromise will be easier if it isn't labeled "EU Single Market".

Worth pointing out that May is going to try for a customs union with the EU. That only works if we continue to apply the same tariffs as the EU, the same standards for goods and sevices, etc ... i.e. not only will we not repeal anything right now (which is the purpose of the spectacularly mis-named "great repeal bill"), but we'll have to agree to keep in step with the EU in the future. "Taking back control" ... whatever.

And May's appeal at Davos for people to champion globalisation and consider the danger of people feeling left behind is a demonstration of what she thinks just happened in the UK. I.e. she doesn't see the Brexit vote as a rational, considered act. She sees it primarily as a protest vote driven by fear.
Did you hear, or read, her speech?

We are out of the customs union.

No ifs or buts.



CaptainSlow

13,179 posts

211 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
The Remainiacs listen with their fingers in their ears and then read the Guardian for a synopsis.

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
The customs union thing is something I've been thinking about at work. I don't think a common external tariff, even on a sectoral basis, is possible.

What I feel we might end up with is a special customs regime a bit like a processing relief.

Taking cars as an example, components come into the UK from a third country and are entered into the regime, with no duty paid on them. The components are processed in the UK, and then when the completed vehicle is exported to the EU the duty paid is the EU external tariff on the components only. If the cars were brought into the UK instead the duty on the components would be paid at the UK rate. That's one way of working it, at least.

Norfolkit

2,394 posts

189 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
And May's appeal at Davos for people to champion globalisation and consider the danger of people feeling left behind is a demonstration of what she thinks just happened in the UK.
True

ATG said:
I.e. she doesn't see the Brexit vote as a rational, considered act. She sees it primarily as a protest vote driven by fear.
Extrapolation gone mad.


williamp

19,213 posts

272 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
don4l said:
ATG said:
Given that Free Movement was going to be an insurmountable hurdle, it makes a great deal of sense both for May and our EU counterparts to announce that the UK is leaving the Single Market. Why? Because it gets the brand off the table. Prople won't get stuck on the words "single market". If the UK had managed to negotiate "continued membership of the Single Market with some concessions thrown in" the more knuckle-headed Brexiteers would have seen it as a betrayal, and similarly the more knuckle-headed voters in the rest of the EU would have seen it as unfair special treatment for the UK. May couldn't sell it to the UK, and Merkel, Hollande's successor, et al wouldn't have been able to sell it to their voterd either. Selling the compromise will be easier if it isn't labeled "EU Single Market".

Worth pointing out that May is going to try for a customs union with the EU. That only works if we continue to apply the same tariffs as the EU, the same standards for goods and sevices, etc ... i.e. not only will we not repeal anything right now (which is the purpose of the spectacularly mis-named "great repeal bill"), but we'll have to agree to keep in step with the EU in the future. "Taking back control" ... whatever.

And May's appeal at Davos for people to champion globalisation and consider the danger of people feeling left behind is a demonstration of what she thinks just happened in the UK. I.e. she doesn't see the Brexit vote as a rational, considered act. She sees it primarily as a protest vote driven by fear.
Did you hear, or read, her speech?

We are out of the customs union.

No ifs or buts.
so what she was saying in her speach was "Brexit means Brexit". Why didnt she say so before. All this time we thought she hasnt got a clue, hasnt got a plan etc etc.

ATG

20,480 posts

271 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
don4l said:
Did you hear, or read, her speech?

We are out of the customs union.

No ifs or buts.
Don, go read the speech. She said we're leaving the Single Market and she also said she'd like negotiations to lead to us being in a customs union with the EU.

ATG

20,480 posts

271 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
Thorodin said:
ATG said:
Get a sense of proportion. The EU is just a big name for what is still 99% a customs union. The idea that it is in any way a threat to a member's sovereignty is completely hysterical bilge.
From that I take it you don't see lawmakers deciding what 'our' laws should be, and enforcing them by penalising us if we don't bend the knee, as overriding our sovereignty. Far from hysterical, bilge or otherwise. If you want to quote my post please kindly refrain from calling my opinion 'bilge'. The statement in your last sentence is exactly what I meant by the tactics used to maintain the deceit for the last 41 years by successive governments.
If I think you're talking bilge, I'm going to say it. You're free to do the same to me.

By all means give some examples of laws being forced on us.

Jockman

17,912 posts

159 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
..... she doesn't see the Brexit vote as a rational, considered act. She sees it primarily as a protest vote driven by fear.
Neither outcome would have been a rational, considered act.

Both outcomes were driven by fear.

ATG

20,480 posts

271 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
Norfolkit said:
ATG said:
And May's appeal at Davos for people to champion globalisation and consider the danger of people feeling left behind is a demonstration of what she thinks just happened in the UK.
True

ATG said:
I.e. she doesn't see the Brexit vote as a rational, considered act. She sees it primarily as a protest vote driven by fear.
Extrapolation gone mad.
If she thinks that the Brexit vote was a vote of no confidence in globalisation, and she thought that that was a rational position to have taken, why is her policy response a mad dash towards even greater globalisation of the UK economy?

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
If she thinks that the Brexit vote was a vote of no confidence in globalisation, and she thought that that was a rational position to have taken, why is her policy response a mad dash towards even greater globalisation of the UK economy?
Global trade doesn't necessarily equal globalisation; most of the negative impacts on the UK could be attributed to the industrial policies of the EU which do seem to have had the effect of unbalancing national economies with the aim of creating an integrated European one.


anonymous-user

53 months

Thursday 19th January 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
don4l said:
Did you hear, or read, her speech?

We are out of the customs union.

No ifs or buts.
Don, go read the speech. She said we're leaving the Single Market and she also said she'd like negotiations to lead to us being in a customs union with the EU.
No, what she was talking about was a customs system agreement that makes all the issues of traditional customs borders disappear. Her term is a frictionless system.

The trade agreement is where the tariff rates and rights to access markets are covered.

She does not want to be in the customs union, as that stops you forming your own trade agreements. She would like some form of customs association that gives the frictionless borders.



Norfolkit

2,394 posts

189 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
Norfolkit said:
ATG said:
And May's appeal at Davos for people to champion globalisation and consider the danger of people feeling left behind is a demonstration of what she thinks just happened in the UK.
True

ATG said:
I.e. she doesn't see the Brexit vote as a rational, considered act. She sees it primarily as a protest vote driven by fear.
Extrapolation gone mad.
If she thinks that the Brexit vote was a vote of no confidence in globalisation, and she thought that that was a rational position to have taken, why is her policy response a mad dash towards even greater globalisation of the UK economy?
Well you'll have to ask her, but my take on it would be, it's not globalisation per se that's the problem but some of the effects of it. An example, a multinational operating in the UK, importing labour to do whatever it is they do and paying less than would be acceptable to the locals (and if you don't think that's happening try talking to some of the agricultural workers over in the fens, try talking to some of the people doing that work, sleeping 5/6 to a room). It's OK talking about freedom of movement but some of those employers have NO morals and there's always someone desperate enough to do the work if the pool is large enough.

I don't think it's irrational to want to put a stop to that if it's your job/standard of living on the line.

Edit to add. I'm an IT bloke not an agricultural worker, I'm not affected by it but some of these employers are working the system in a way I'm sure it wasn't intended for. You can't blame people voting to protect themselves from a system that's being abused.

Edited by Norfolkit on Friday 20th January 01:17

ATG

20,480 posts

271 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
The posts above are good examples of the mental gymnastics that May's communication bods will have been hoping to encourage.

By saying "leave the Single Market" they've managed to get the Brexiteers excited and on side. The Brexiteers are faced with a problem, though, because when you look beyond the headline "we're leaving" and look at the outline of the proposed new world order, it's actually rather similar to Single Market membership and is pro-globalisation.

There is no room for the protectionism that would be necessary for old-fashioned, labour-intensive heavy industrial jobs to magically return, full-stop, end of story. It is daft to think that EU membership contributed to UK industrial decline when you look at what Germany achieves from within the EU.

If we are going to try to strike new trade deals around the world, and reduce our focus on the EU, then that necessarily means we'll be focussing more strongly on doing deals with emerging economies like India. That is going to INCREASE the competitive pressure on our domestic manufacturers operating at the lower-skilled, lower-wage end of the spectrum. If they found it hard to remain competitive when we were in the EU, things are about to get a lot harder for them.

But will we actually be able to strike those new trade deals? It is still not clear if we'll opt to have a customs union with the EU and curtain some of our freedom to do deals elsewhere. We'll have to see how the negotiations unfold. If you don't think this is May's current position, you have to explain away these two quotes from her speech that the BBC managed to identify within about 3 seconds of hearing them ... i.e. they were pretty bloody obvious if you bothered to listen:

[She would like ] "to have a customs union agreement with the EU" ... "Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the customs union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position."

Spin that one away if you like, but why not take it at face value?

P.S. I found the speech somewhat reassuring on balance, which, I think goes to show just how well the speech writers did their job. It offered reassurance to a wide range of people with deeply opposed views. It did this by being fundamentally self-contradictory if you bother to think about everything that was said, yet delivered in a style that was calm, self-assured and full of individual sound-bites that people could cherry pick to convince themselves that May was on their side. A great balancing act.

Edited by ATG on Friday 20th January 09:31

Mark Benson

7,498 posts

268 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
The posts above are good examples of the mental gymnastics that May's communication bods will have been hoping to encourage.

By saying "leave the Single Market" they've managed to get the Brexiteers excited and on side. The Brexiteers are faced with a problem, though, because when you look beyond the headline "we're leaving" and look at the outline of the proposed new world order, it's actually rather similar to Single Market membership and is pro-globalisation.

There is no room for the protectionism that would be necessary for old-fashioned, labour-intensive heavy industrial jobs to magically return, full-stop, end of story. It is daft to think that EU membership contributed to UK industrial decline when you look at what Germany achieves from within the EU.

If we are going to try to strike new trade deals around the world, and reduce our focus on the EU, then that necessarily means we'll be focussing more strongly on doing deals with emerging economies like India. That is going to INCREASE the competitive pressure on our domestic manufacturers operating at the lower-skilled, lower-wage end of the spectrum. If they found it hard to remain competitive when we were in the EU, things are about to get a lot harder for them.

But will we actually be able to strike those new trade deals? It is still not clear if we'll opt to have a customs union with the EU and curtain some of our freedom to do deals elsewhere. We'll have to see how the negotiations unfold. If you don't think this is May's current position, you have to explain away these two quotes from her speech that the BBC managed to identify within about 3 seconds of hearing them ... i.e. they were pretty bloody obvious if you bothered to listen:

[She would like ] "to have a customs union agreement with the EU" ... "Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the customs union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position."

Spin that one away if you like, but why not take it at face value?

P.S. I found the speech somewhat reassuring on balance, which, I think goes to show just how well the speech writers did their job. It offered reassurance to a wide range of people with deeply opposed views. It did this by being fundamentally self-contradictory if you bother to think about everything that was said, yet delivered in a style that was calm, self-assured and full of individual sound-bites that people could cherry pick to convince themselves that May was on their side. A great balancing act.

Edited by ATG on Friday 20th January 09:31
I agree with a lot of what you say, it was an 'all things to all people' speech; it had to be, she has a country that is still bickering about the result of the referendum (though the majority, if the Sky poll earlier this week is an indication are coming to the conclusion we just ought to get on with it now) so she has to strike a conciliatory tone while remaining firm and assured.

However I disagree that global trade correlates to increased globalisation. Global trade is global trade, we agree deals with other countries and we do so with most from a standpoint of being a wealthy country and on our terms, not a fudge to accommodate the requirements of French farmers, dutch cheesemakers and Greek olive oil producers.

However, globalisation is a thing, it is whether we're in the single market or not and I don't see that being in or out protects our low-skill industries any differently except that if we wanted to try a bit of protectionism for certain areas, we could if we were setting our own rules around trade.

And what she said in Davos struck me as a warning, 'look at Brexit and Trump and see what your policies are doing' - people feel alienated and disenfranchised and when enough people feel they no longer have a stake in society they set about changing that, first through the ballot box but then by other means of that doesn't work. The EU took away people's ability to hold someone to account (it also gave politicians a useful fig leaf to hide behind) and by 'taking back control' I think many Leave voters were actually trying to repatriate responsibility.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
ATG said:
The posts above are good examples of the mental gymnastics that May's communication bods will have been hoping to encourage.

By saying "leave the Single Market" they've managed to get the Brexiteers excited and on side. The Brexiteers are faced with a problem, though, because when you look beyond the headline "we're leaving" and look at the outline of the proposed new world order, it's actually rather similar to Single Market membership and is pro-globalisation.

There is no room for the protectionism that would be necessary for old-fashioned, labour-intensive heavy industrial jobs to magically return, full-stop, end of story. It is daft to think that EU membership contributed to UK industrial decline when you look at what Germany achieves from within the EU.

If we are going to try to strike new trade deals around the world, and reduce our focus on the EU, then that necessarily means we'll be focussing more strongly on doing deals with emerging economies like India. That is going to INCREASE the competitive pressure on our domestic manufacturers operating at the lower-skilled, lower-wage end of the spectrum. If they found it hard to remain competitive when we were in the EU, things are about to get a lot harder for them.

But will we actually be able to strike those new trade deals? It is still not clear if we'll opt to have a customs union with the EU and curtain some of our freedom to do deals elsewhere. We'll have to see how the negotiations unfold. If you don't think this is May's current position, you have to explain away these two quotes from her speech that the BBC managed to identify within about 3 seconds of hearing them ... i.e. they were pretty bloody obvious if you bothered to listen:

[She would like ] "to have a customs union agreement with the EU" ... "Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the customs union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position."

Spin that one away if you like, but why not take it at face value?

P.S. I found the speech somewhat reassuring on balance, which, I think goes to show just how well the speech writers did their job. It offered reassurance to a wide range of people with deeply opposed views. It did this by being fundamentally self-contradictory if you bother to think about everything that was said, yet delivered in a style that was calm, self-assured and full of individual sound-bites that people could cherry pick to convince themselves that May was on their side. A great balancing act.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 20th January 09:31
An your last point about "reassurance" I agree. I am deeply skeptical but felt reassured that the government openly recognised the possibility of a crap deal or no deal at all. At least now we know they are aware of the eventuality and (presumably) will be making some sort of effort to prepare for same.

Murph7355

37,649 posts

255 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
desolate said:
An your last point about "reassurance" I agree. I am deeply skeptical but felt reassured that the government openly recognised the possibility of a crap deal or no deal at all. At least now we know they are aware of the eventuality and (presumably) will be making some sort of effort to prepare for same.
Perhaps being a little cruel, but do you also need them to tell you they are breathing in and out to know it's happening? smile

Mark Benson

7,498 posts

268 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
desolate said:
An your last point about "reassurance" I agree. I am deeply skeptical but felt reassured that the government openly recognised the possibility of a crap deal or no deal at all. At least now we know they are aware of the eventuality and (presumably) will be making some sort of effort to prepare for same.
Perhaps being a little cruel, but do you also need them to tell you they are breathing in and out to know it's happening? smile
Given the laissez-faire attitude Cameron and co had to the possibility of losing the referendum, May's clarity is more than necessary I feel.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
Perhaps being a little cruel, but do you also need them to tell you they are breathing in and out to know it's happening? smile
Nope. Not particularly interested if they breathe or not.

Murph7355

37,649 posts

255 months

Friday 20th January 2017
quotequote all
desolate said:
Nope. Not particularly interested if they breathe or not.
smile
TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED