Brexit - was it worth it? (Vol. 4)
Discussion
CivicDuties said:
crankedup5 said:
James6112 said:
crankedup5 said:
I was listening for 30 years leading up to brexit, what I heard, read and watched convinced me from very early in the process that the EU was not the way forward. I remain convinced and content.
The issue for the remain camp, and still is, that arrogance (as you amply demonstrate in your answer to me) overrode the sensible heads to be honest and open with the campaign. The idiot Osborne capped it all off by announcing that ‘an emergency budget’ would have to be called if we left the EU.
Sure, that will convince the majority The issue for the remain camp, and still is, that arrogance (as you amply demonstrate in your answer to me) overrode the sensible heads to be honest and open with the campaign. The idiot Osborne capped it all off by announcing that ‘an emergency budget’ would have to be called if we left the EU.
it’s a complete & utter disaster
Thankfully
Edited by James6112 on Thursday 25th April 17:00
Vanden Saab said:
CivicDuties said:
An emeritus professor of clinical biochemistry who thinks curvy female students are a perk of his job pontificates on the economics of Brexit. I can see why you like him 
You really are scraping the very bottom of the barrel now.
I couldn't care less who wrote the article, I'd never heard of him before this.
What I was pointing out, if you care to think about it, is that the website called "Conservative Home" (first established by right wing Tory shill ""journalist" Tim Montgomerie), is publishing material critical of Brexit in the extreme now. Even they know it's a disaster.
CivicDuties said:
Vanden Saab said:
CivicDuties said:
An emeritus professor of clinical biochemistry who thinks curvy female students are a perk of his job pontificates on the economics of Brexit. I can see why you like him You really are scraping the very bottom of the barrel now.
I couldn't care less who wrote the article, I'd never heard of him before this.
What I was pointing out, if you care to think about it, is that the website called "Conservative Home" (first established by right wing Tory shill ""journalist" Tim Montgomerie), is publishing material critical of Brexit in the extreme now. Even they know it's a disaster.
CivicDuties said:
Vanden Saab said:
CivicDuties said:
An emeritus professor of clinical biochemistry who thinks curvy female students are a perk of his job pontificates on the economics of Brexit. I can see why you like him You really are scraping the very bottom of the barrel now.
I couldn't care less who wrote the article, I'd never heard of him before this.
What I was pointing out, if you care to think about it, is that the website called "Conservative Home" (first established by right wing Tory shill ""journalist" Tim Montgomerie), is publishing material critical of Brexit in the extreme now. Even they know it's a disaster.
I often think the Tory party, MP's and member have forgotten about 35% of Tory voters voted remain.
Vanden Saab said:
CivicDuties said:
Vanden Saab said:
CivicDuties said:
An emeritus professor of clinical biochemistry who thinks curvy female students are a perk of his job pontificates on the economics of Brexit. I can see why you like him You really are scraping the very bottom of the barrel now.
I couldn't care less who wrote the article, I'd never heard of him before this.
What I was pointing out, if you care to think about it, is that the website called "Conservative Home" (first established by right wing Tory shill ""journalist" Tim Montgomerie), is publishing material critical of Brexit in the extreme now. Even they know it's a disaster.
You're recommending that I, a Remainer and normally a LibDem voter, who is reading material on the website "Conservative Home", should broaden my reading. I'm the one in a bubble. Have a look at the plank in your own eye. Give me strength.
You just take a position of "auto abuse" against anyone who dares disagree with you, or dares present evidence against your position, you utterly and comprehensively fail to post anything other than ad homs, and then project that behaviour onto others.
I'd also like to ask you what you meant by this: "An emeritus professor of clinical biochemistry who thinks curvy female students are a perk of his job pontificates on the economics of Brexit. I can see why you like him
".What exactly are you insinuating about me? And why? And what evidence do you have to support your insinuations? And would you care to retract your insinuations if you can't substantiate them?
CivicDuties said:
I understand the point being made.. however the argument is undermined at the very start by under representing the requirements prior to Brexit. It was NEVER the case that the haulier simply loaded the chops onto his truck and just used a consignment note to get them into France. There was quite a bit of paperwork to get to that, not least because, amongst several things, the chops always had to come from an EC certified plant and the paperwork had to support that. What we have now is more onerous, yes, but it is actually more akin to what we had in the 1990s with the use of EC60s and such like. At least a big chunk of what is done now is digital! We used to have to fill them in by hand.
Also, and you might not agree with me on this point, the whole presentation of the process using multiple boxes strung out along the page is intended to make things look far more complex than they are in reality - each box represents a tiny step or single piece of information, whereas the "as it was before" boxes omits all the stages that the goods still needed to undergo. Its a very minor point, but it does point to the nature of the bias in the reporting.
(FYI, I was involved in fresh meat and poultry import/export for many years, so I do have some knowledge in this area)
Fair enough response, andymadmak. However. Is it easier/cheaper now than before Brexit? Is the new system delivering any opportunities for UK businesses since Brexit, what are those and what are the quantifiable results? Is it delivering an increase or reduction in net business benefits to the UK? Is the implementation of this regime opening up opportunities for these businesses outside Europe?
These are the exam questions in the context of "was Brexit worth it". Because for us to have made this backwards step, it must have been done to take forward steps which will lead to a net benefit. What are those, and where are they and what do they amount to? How do the balance against the losses incurred?
I'd suggest the answer to all of those points is negative.
These are the exam questions in the context of "was Brexit worth it". Because for us to have made this backwards step, it must have been done to take forward steps which will lead to a net benefit. What are those, and where are they and what do they amount to? How do the balance against the losses incurred?
I'd suggest the answer to all of those points is negative.
Edited by CivicDuties on Friday 26th April 16:52
CivicDuties said:
Fair enough response, andymadmak. However. Is it easier/cheaper now than before Brexit?
It's more difficult. Not as difficult as it used to be, not as simple as it had got to, but equally, its not THAT horrid either (based on conversations I have had with ex colleagues who are still in the trade) In absolutist terms you win on the "more difficult" point. In relative terms though its mostly a nothing burger. CivicDuties said:
Is the new system delivering any opportunities for UK businesses since Brexit, what are those and what are the quantifiable results?
The system is the system, its not intended to deliver opportunities per se so I'm afraid this question is a bit loaded imhoCivicDuties said:
Is it delivering an increase or reduction in net business benefits to the UK?
As above, plus you'd need to define more tightly what you mean by net business benefits. It could indeed bring benefits for trade with countries that are not aligned with the EU for example. CivicDuties said:
Is the implementation of this regime opening up opportunities for these businesses outside Europe?
As above, but its up to business to identify and exploit those opportunitiesCivicDuties said:
These are the exam questions in the context of "was Brexit worth it".
For you, yes these are the exam questions, because that's how you want to see things - everything you frame is intended to bolster your position, so you take simplistic views based on demanding answers to questions that don't actually address the nuances of what is actually the case.You see ANY increase in complexity in our trade with the EU, however minor, as something terrible that wipes out any potential benefit. You also have this somewhat bizarre view that anyone that disagrees with you must answer your (loaded) questions - frankly they don't have to do that, and not doing so doesn't make them wrong or you right.
CivicDuties said:
Because for us to have made this backwards step, it must have been done to take forward steps which will lead to a net benefit. What are those, and where are they and what do they amount to? How do the balance against the losses incurred?
See above! 
I'm not trying to pick a fight on a friday evening, but people aren't really going to engage with the kind of stuff above because, in all sincerity, it's abundantly clear that nothing would cause you to rethink your position, so why should people bother to engage? It's something of a pattern with you: You sneer at and insult people who voted Brexit, but complain and become indignant when you feel you've been slighted yourself. You demand that people concede that they were wrong about Brexit before you will consider their points, but refuse to consider that you yourself might not be right. You frame arguments in terms entirely based to your world view and then complain when others won't engage in a way that satisfies you. You're not alone in these behaviours, so please don't take it entirely personally.
CivicDuties said:
I'd suggest the answer to all of those points is negative.
We know you would! Anyway, have a good weekend 
Why has none of the following been done?
M.
first page of this thread said:
So what should the UK do?
Well first up, the administrative stuff that is still ongoing due to brexit. This alone is causing damage to the UK - whether some folk want to accept it or not. Its a fact. Such as:
-Get the border & customs changes complete. The fact that this was neither planned for nor resourced is almost criminal. It was known as soon as the vote was tallied that there would be major changes to the customs/border in all possible scenarios - with the exception of BRINO. There's been two elections since the vote, and this fundamental change still hasn't been dealt with. It's causing far more damage to both imports and exports than the costs of fixing the underlying issues
-Actually get on with the EU deal. Every other country can see how it's being drawn out. It's not a good look when you're trying to do deals internationally
-Fix the immigration issues. The UK currently looks hostile to immigrants. The UK is going to need an influx of skills of various types, like it or lump it. It's actively being a turn off at present. The attitude that thousands are coming across the channel in rubber boats means that the UK is the promised land? That's got to change.
-Stop the political point making that's costing the UK in cold hard cash. UKCA & UK Reach are completely superfluous and of absolutely no benefit to the UK.
All of those should be addressed immediately, even if it means borrowing in order to do so. It's never going to get any cheaper, and is costing UK dearly on a daily basis.
Looking forward, there are many areas where the UK can start taking advantage of the ability to do things differently (primarily when compared to the EU - lets face it, that's where the biggest deviations can be implemented)
-Farming. Fundamental changes will be needed from the EU "subsidise in the name of the environment" approach. Small farms may have the opportunity to go the route of craft/finer foods. Large farms will need to go more the "Agri PLC" route. Unfortunately, mid-size farms will likely loose out - but these seemed to be gaining no ground in the EU environment either.
-Pharma. Outside of the EU regulatory regime, the UK is going to face significant headwinds for retail drugs or any volume. There will still be opportunities for specialty drugs etc. However, a huge opportunity exists for API (active pharmaceutical ingredients). Huge amounts of these are simply bulk materials from places like india & china, processed and purified using validated using GMP (good manufacturing process - basically "pharma-lite"). There are also opportunities to manufacture other internationally regulated materials such as diagnostic materials (ISO13485 etc)
-Engineering. The UK has always been known for this. Time to start leveraging that from 2nd level and up.
-R&D of various types. Essentially a borderless industry.
-Tourism/ The UK offers much of what the rest of europe has, but now things like vat free shopping, and other schemes should be leveraged to the max. Plus there's no shortage or UK specific draws too.
?Well first up, the administrative stuff that is still ongoing due to brexit. This alone is causing damage to the UK - whether some folk want to accept it or not. Its a fact. Such as:
-Get the border & customs changes complete. The fact that this was neither planned for nor resourced is almost criminal. It was known as soon as the vote was tallied that there would be major changes to the customs/border in all possible scenarios - with the exception of BRINO. There's been two elections since the vote, and this fundamental change still hasn't been dealt with. It's causing far more damage to both imports and exports than the costs of fixing the underlying issues
-Actually get on with the EU deal. Every other country can see how it's being drawn out. It's not a good look when you're trying to do deals internationally
-Fix the immigration issues. The UK currently looks hostile to immigrants. The UK is going to need an influx of skills of various types, like it or lump it. It's actively being a turn off at present. The attitude that thousands are coming across the channel in rubber boats means that the UK is the promised land? That's got to change.
-Stop the political point making that's costing the UK in cold hard cash. UKCA & UK Reach are completely superfluous and of absolutely no benefit to the UK.
All of those should be addressed immediately, even if it means borrowing in order to do so. It's never going to get any cheaper, and is costing UK dearly on a daily basis.
Looking forward, there are many areas where the UK can start taking advantage of the ability to do things differently (primarily when compared to the EU - lets face it, that's where the biggest deviations can be implemented)
-Farming. Fundamental changes will be needed from the EU "subsidise in the name of the environment" approach. Small farms may have the opportunity to go the route of craft/finer foods. Large farms will need to go more the "Agri PLC" route. Unfortunately, mid-size farms will likely loose out - but these seemed to be gaining no ground in the EU environment either.
-Pharma. Outside of the EU regulatory regime, the UK is going to face significant headwinds for retail drugs or any volume. There will still be opportunities for specialty drugs etc. However, a huge opportunity exists for API (active pharmaceutical ingredients). Huge amounts of these are simply bulk materials from places like india & china, processed and purified using validated using GMP (good manufacturing process - basically "pharma-lite"). There are also opportunities to manufacture other internationally regulated materials such as diagnostic materials (ISO13485 etc)
-Engineering. The UK has always been known for this. Time to start leveraging that from 2nd level and up.
-R&D of various types. Essentially a borderless industry.
-Tourism/ The UK offers much of what the rest of europe has, but now things like vat free shopping, and other schemes should be leveraged to the max. Plus there's no shortage or UK specific draws too.
M.
crankedup5 said:
StevieB thanks for taking the time to lay out your perspective of brexit, however you do seem to bypass the negatives of membership of the EU and blame any such things onto U.K. media.
My response was an answer to your question: crankedup5 said:
Why was it that the ‘Remain campaign’ was unable to convince the majority of those who took an active interest in the issue that to leave the EU would be a negative outcome?
But happy to expand on this.Brexit was not about choosing the best option, but the least-worse.
I think there is the assumption amongst many Brexiteers that remain voters are 'fans' of the EU in the same way that one might be a fan of a particular football club. I really do not believe this to be the case at all. It is indeed possible to find much negativity on all aspects of the EU. I've worked in around EU institutions for 20 years or more and can write a book on its glacial speed, tedious bureaucracy, and more.
But, there are always two sides to the story and when you examine many of these negativities, you find good intent, poorly executed and great opportunity as yet unfulfilled. The advantage of membership is (or was) that it was possible for the UK to influence change so that these potentials could be fully realised. And even if that wasn't the case, it was still possible to look at the whole and deduce that despite the negatives, the net outcome of membership was positive.
The press failed to provide counter examination of the negative aspects of membership and the evidence supporting the claim for collective benefit.
There's a wonderful analogy in this short advert from 1986:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3WDDVWaW9w
The press position the EU as the skinhead in the first and second view and leave it as that. It is upon this that opinions are formed. Those with the drive for additional insight hang around to the the third view which presents the actuality of the EU.
I believe that had everyone been given the opportunity to see the entire advert but the outcome was the same, I don't believe we'd even be talking about it any more. But as it is, a very large number of business and individuals have had their lives made unnecessarily more difficult and expensive because of the opinions and beliefs of slightly more people, being based upon misinformation, no information or lies with next to zero tangible or meaningful benefit having yet been realised.
StevieBee said:
crankedup5 said:
StevieB thanks for taking the time to lay out your perspective of brexit, however you do seem to bypass the negatives of membership of the EU and blame any such things onto U.K. media.
My response was an answer to your question: crankedup5 said:
Why was it that the ‘Remain campaign’ was unable to convince the majority of those who took an active interest in the issue that to leave the EU would be a negative outcome?
But happy to expand on this.Brexit was not about choosing the best option, but the least-worse.
I think there is the assumption amongst many Brexiteers that remain voters are 'fans' of the EU in the same way that one might be a fan of a particular football club. I really do not believe this to be the case at all. It is indeed possible to find much negativity on all aspects of the EU. I've worked in around EU institutions for 20 years or more and can write a book on its glacial speed, tedious bureaucracy, and more.
But, there are always two sides to the story and when you examine many of these negativities, you find good intent, poorly executed and great opportunity as yet unfulfilled. The advantage of membership is (or was) that it was possible for the UK to influence change so that these potentials could be fully realised. And even if that wasn't the case, it was still possible to look at the whole and deduce that despite the negatives, the net outcome of membership was positive.
The press failed to provide counter examination of the negative aspects of membership and the evidence supporting the claim for collective benefit.
There's a wonderful analogy in this short advert from 1986:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3WDDVWaW9w
The press position the EU as the skinhead in the first and second view and leave it as that. It is upon this that opinions are formed. Those with the drive for additional insight hang around to the the third view which presents the actuality of the EU.
I believe that had everyone been given the opportunity to see the entire advert but the outcome was the same, I don't believe we'd even be talking about it any more. But as it is, a very large number of business and individuals have had their lives made unnecessarily more difficult and expensive because of the opinions and beliefs of slightly more people, being based upon misinformation, no information or lies with next to zero tangible or meaningful benefit having yet been realised.
Unsurprisingly the number of companies importing and exporting to the EU increased in 2022. I say unsurprisingly as whatever Brexit haters tell you is the truth is normally the complete opposite.
Vanden Saab said:
Not really, only 2% (122,000) of all UK companies only import or export to the EU. Another 2% import and export to both the EU and the RoW so would already have the correct procedures in place. The numbers involved are really not large compared to the total number of companies.
Unsurprisingly the number of companies importing and exporting to the EU increased in 2022. I say unsurprisingly as whatever Brexit haters tell you is the truth is normally the complete opposite.
What percentage of GDP and what percentage of the working population are directly or indirectly employed by those 244,000 companies? I am guessing it is rather more than 4%. Unsurprisingly the number of companies importing and exporting to the EU increased in 2022. I say unsurprisingly as whatever Brexit haters tell you is the truth is normally the complete opposite.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/business-...
The 260,000 businesses with more than 10 employees represent just 4.4% of all businesses but account for 70% of all private sector employees.
cheesejunkie said:
I love statistics and their manipulation.
Vaanden Saabs sounded wrong to me.
There are actually things like OBR reports (famously disliked by Truss) out there where we can check the numbers.
The word “only” is doing a lot of work for you there Saab and not making your case.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.Vaanden Saabs sounded wrong to me.
There are actually things like OBR reports (famously disliked by Truss) out there where we can check the numbers.
The word “only” is doing a lot of work for you there Saab and not making your case.
The problem is that many people on here are generally (mis)using statistics to try to support or prove a view they hold for ideological reasons, so they are not actually interested in the truth of the point being discussed.
Skeptisk said:
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
The problem is that many people on here are generally (mis)using statistics to try to support or prove a view they hold for ideological reasons, so they are not actually interested in the truth of the point being discussed.
Agreed, our company trades internationally. Almost exclusively EU and N America but a few others too if we get a good offer. By that statistical measure we’re not a company that only imports and exports from the EU. “Only” is doing the lifting in Saabs abuse of statistics. We still do trade with the EU and wouldn’t fit into the “only” statistic.The problem is that many people on here are generally (mis)using statistics to try to support or prove a view they hold for ideological reasons, so they are not actually interested in the truth of the point being discussed.
cheesejunkie said:
I love statistics and their manipulation.
Vaanden Saabs sounded wrong to me.
There are actually things like OBR reports (famously disliked by Truss) out there where we can check the numbers.
The word “only” is doing a lot of work for you there Saab and not making your case.
So do I, as I was actually replying to this.Vaanden Saabs sounded wrong to me.
There are actually things like OBR reports (famously disliked by Truss) out there where we can check the numbers.
The word “only” is doing a lot of work for you there Saab and not making your case.
a very large number of business and individuals have had their lives made unnecessarily more difficult and expensive because of the opinions and beliefs of slightly more people,
It makes my case perfectly unless you think 2% is a very large number.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff