How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 9)

[Piha]

chow pan toon said:

vonuber said:

FiF said:

Well seeing as he's tweeting obvious baiting tweets intended to do nothing other than obvious baiting, which a subset of Remainers , including you btw, have been consistently doing on here for years now then clearly he is your definition of classy. Gf.

I don't even have Twitter, so not sure what you are implying. And I'm not a particularly regular poster on here either - I just find it remarkable how quick some people are to insult others.

I said I think on the previous volume this thread was like a little cosy brexit club, full of posters seeking positive reinforcement from each other and ganging up on those who dare stick their heads in. Almost playground bullying.

Good to see nothing has changed. Also, what is gf supposed to mean?

FiF is one of the gang who can only see the large majority of nasty remainers ganging up on the minority of plucky, hard-done-to Brexiteers on these threads. It is almost beyond parody.

[Vanden Saab]

ELUSIVEJIM said:

Vanden Saab said:

I doff my cap to you sir. Despite being on opposite sides of the debate your thinking is sound IMHO. I am amazed that anybody on the remain side believes that Brexit could be cancelled and the electorate will just go back to life as normal.
ps. I fixed the quotes hope you do not mind...
edited to add ...oh that bit was yours... cap undoffed

Edited by Vanden Saab on Tuesday 26th March 07:47

Are we not on the same side as far as voting in the referendum?

We are I was doffing my cap to your comment that was incorrectly quoted as Claphams hence the edit...

[vonuber]

Tuna said:

Good call.

I applaud your self awareness, sir!

[mattmurdock]

Tuna said:

Good call.

Short version: Yes, I'm finding it hard to deal with Remain given that, having lied to make their case in the Referendum and lied to justify attacks on the negotiations, they're still lying in the most blatantly open way in order to try to over turn the result. Bliar and co. are one of the few groups I genuinely dislike and distrust, and this nonsense is bringing back their 'special' brand of politics where corporate interests and the 'new old boys club' take precedence over the people. Even more offensive is that the people are being led by the nose to cheer it all on.

Tuna, I expected better of you as a champion for critical thinking on this thread. The above just reads as a leaver ideologue ranting. Remain lied in the referendum campaign but Leave did not? Remain lied to justify attacks on the negotiations but Leave did not?

[Tuna]

Elysium said:

I think austerity caused Tory supporters to vote for UKIP and fuelled anti-immigration views. T

Trouble is, austerity itself was a lie perpetuated by both Tory and Labour parties. The Tories at best rearranged the deckchairs (badly) and failed to get a grip on the economy - but were happy to go along with the idea of austerity because it justified a few crude cuts and made them sound 'fiscally responsible'. Labour in turn wanted to call it austerity because they could rile against the Tories 'taking money away from the poor'.

Both parties messed around at the margins, delivering no real economic support to people who needed it and pretending that they were making big changes. It's notable that our biggest economic boost has come when Labour are completely ineffective and the Tories are too distracted by Brexit to implement any meaningful policies. It turns out that our relationship with the EU has more of an effect on the economy than our own Government.

[Elysium]

Earthdweller said:

Elysium said:

I think austerity caused Tory supporters to vote for UKIP and fuelled anti-immigration views. That same austerity also weakened public services, highlighting further immigration related 'problems' (1 month delays for doctors appointments, no NHS dentists etc). Finally this whole situation also coincided with a refugee crysis due to war in Syria and a growing move to federalism in Europe following the issues with the EURO in weaker states.

A perfect storm for a Brexit referendum and backlash against EU and Remain as symbols of the metropolitan elite. When the deeper cause was labours years of 'giveaways' in the Brown era being instantly wiped out by Osbornes austerity.

I disagree

Britain had very stable managed inward migration from the Second World War onwards with Steady and fairly stable figures

In 1997 Blair opened the flood gates and the numbers coming in rose to unprecedented numbers

I think the changes started to be noticed in communities around the year 2000

Also prior to 97 most immigrants had a “connection” to the UK and and a respect of it, be they from the Caribbean, Asia or Africa they were largely from former or current commonwealth countries

Since 97 that has all changed

So I disagree that Tory austerity has caused it

The problems started far earlier and the strains on public services/housing etc would have been present with/without austerity

Thousands
Net migration to the UK 1975 to the yearending September 2018

If you draw an average trend line on the latter part of that, from 2000 onward it will actually be quite flat. Certainly not equivalent to 'opening the flood gates'.

It's also worth remembering that migration as a source of cheap labour was being encouraged by big businesses. I particularly remember that Tesco were lobbying hard for it.

I'm not arguing that labour spending was sustainable or that austerity was not justified. I am only saying how it seemed to unfold from my perspective.

The extent of immigration was certainly 'laid bare' by austerity as public services began to creak.

[Elysium]

SunsetZed said:

Elysium said:

I think austerity caused Tory supporters to vote for UKIP and fuelled anti-immigration views. That same austerity also weakened public services, highlighting further immigration related 'problems' (1 month delays for doctors appointments, no NHS dentists etc). Finally this whole situation also coincided with a refugee crysis due to war in Syria and a growing move to federalism in Europe following the issues with the EURO in weaker states.

A perfect storm for a Brexit referendum and backlash against EU and Remain as symbols of the metropolitan elite. When the deeper cause was labours years of 'giveaways' in the Brown era being instantly wiped out by Osbornes austerity.

Thanks for the clarification. For the first time that I can remember you and I are in agreement on this series of threads!

Crikey

[Tuna]

mattmurdock said:

Tuna, I expected better of you as a champion for critical thinking on this thread. The above just reads as a leaver ideologue ranting. Remain lied in the referendum campaign but Leave did not? Remain lied to justify attacks on the negotiations but Leave did not?

Fair point - yes, you're right Leave deserve equal criticism, especially for the complete collapse of their 'leadership' during the negotiations. The thing is, most of their failures seem to be born out of misplaced optimism or incompetence - I just cannot ascribe the cynical manipulation that I'm seeing from groups like the Peoples Vote to the ERG. It's like comparing House of Cards to Dad's Army. And annoyingly I quite like Dad's Army.

And on top of that, much of what Leave have said turned out to be true. Low skilled immigration was depressing wages, lowering productivity and increasing unemployment. The EU is struggling with 'ever closer union' and unable to deal with complex issues like Catalan and Italy. Things like CAP and CFP and Environment management are crudely applied to a very geographically and economically diverse continent - to our detriment. Even their attempt to remove May (though comically incompetent) turned out to have been quite justified.

Compare that with the cynical manipulation around automotive jobs in the UK ("we need the EU to preserve them - apart from when the EU has already made manufacturing of cars in the union economically unviable") and it's really hard to see Remain as having our best interests at heart.

Edited by Tuna on Tuesday 26th March 10:42

[skwdenyer]

Elysium said:

Two things happened over the last 25 years:

1. Labour bribed the working class to keep voting for them. Loads of money (UK and EU) has been thrown at poorer areas. I recall going 'home' 10-15 years ago and being amazed at the quality of public services and spaces compared to the much wealthier area I now live in.

2. The Tories put a stop to this almost overnight due to austerity. The central govt elements of local authority funding were switched off and all of the 'special' goodies handed out to poor areas began to evaporate.

In effect, Labour got people hooked on freebies and the Tories took it away. When that started to affect large numbers of 'average' earners, the backlash against 'elites' started to gather momentum.

Giving people stuff can be an effective way of getting what you want from them, taking it away has a much more powerful and deeply negative effect. The irony is that, largely because of Corbyns ineptitude and their stance on Brexit, the Tories seem to have almost entirely escaped the blame for their part in this.

I'm all for respecting others' opinions, on this Brexit issue as much as any other, but this comment above simply staggers me. Do you not see how that thinking is a part of the problem?

Poorer areas should not have poorer services, poorer environments, poorer opportunities. We have to invest *more* in poorer areas to stand a chance of creating more positive outcomes. Otherwise the free market will create ghettos. That is a central tenet of actual government. Wealth redistribution is the bedrock of general taxation.

Inequality is terrible in the UK. GDP per head has been falling for a decade. You are right that Osborne cut off spending in many places, but had a disproportionate effect on the poor.

You are wrong IMHO in your assessment about "free stuff" and "taking it away"; what was done was to remove hope. Post GFC, people were looking to the Government to invest for the medium-term prosperity of the country. Instead what they saw was a large number of people who were "part of the problem" deciding to create a "solution" that involved the poorest paying for it. They also saw large numbers of EU (especially) immigrants contributing to oversupply in the labour force and a dampening-down of wages. They saw those who were "part of the problem" moving their companies into low-tax parts of the EU. They saw limited resources being squandered on PFI profits rather than underlying services. Etc.

And they saw the Government pouring billions into propping up the housing market, maintaining the inequality rather than improving it, whilst at the same time tightening-up on mortgage lending criteria - in effect "pulling up the drawbridge" against those who sought to follow.

The late Douglas Adams had one of his characters say: "Its not the despair; I can cope with the despair. Its the hope that gets me."

Even in the darkest times, our politicians owe a duty to maintain hope; hope that the future will be better than the present; hope that the dead hand of government will at least treat all fairly; hope that our concerns are being listened to at the very least.

This has nothing to do with party politics. Neither side has done well here. But that abrupt "drawbridge-raising" or the sense thereof was profound. And, I'm sorry to say, people who speak as you have here - who talk about "freebies" for those in "poorer areas" as if an area's prosperity should impact on the quality of services and opportunity available there - are contributing architects to the chaos we now see.

[funkyrobot]

If politicians were truly acting on behalf of the UK, shouldn't they just be seizing control and letting us leave on 29th?

All this nonsense about voting for different scenarios is mad.

Just leave and be done with it. We can work on the other bits after.

[skwdenyer]

funkyrobot said:

If politicians were truly acting on behalf of the UK, shouldn't they just be seizing control and letting us leave on 29th?

All this nonsense about voting for different scenarios is mad.

Just leave and be done with it. We can work on the other bits after.

LOL depends upon what you think acting on behalf of (the best interests of) the UK looks like; isn't that rather the problem?

[mattmurdock]

Tuna said:

Fair point - yes, you're right Leave deserve equal criticism, especially for the complete collapse of their 'leadership' during the negotiations. The thing is, most of their failures seem to be born out of misplaced optimism or incompetence - I just cannot ascribe the cynical manipulation that I'm seeing from groups like the Peoples Vote to the ERG. It's like comparing House of Cards to Dad's Army.

And on top of that, much of what Leave have said turned out to be true. Low skilled immigration was depressing wages, lowering productivity and increasing unemployment. The EU is struggling with 'ever closer union' and unable to deal with complex issues like Catalan and Italy. Things like CAP and CFP and Environment management are crudely applied to a very geographically and economically diverse continent - to our detriment. Even their attempt to remove May (though comically incompetent) turned out to have been quite justified.

Compare that with the cynical manipulation around automotive jobs in the UK ("we need the EU to preserve them - apart from when the EU has already made manufacturing of cars in the union economically unviable") and it's really hard to see Remain as having our best interests at heart.

As always though, none of that is black and white. Some job areas were/are dependent on low skilled immigration because there are not enough UK citizens who are willing to work in those areas. Removing them may drive wages up to attract people, but that will in turn impact on small business viability. These are not problems with simple solutions.

I agree entirely on the EU struggles with 'ever closer union', and on the crude application of some financial measures, but again is that a reason to throw the whole thing out? Maybe, but it needs a more nuanced discussion about the issues and the UK's role in them.

Personally I do not think the ardent remainers or the ardent leavers have our best interests at heart, and that May's attempt at middle ground is laudable, if ultimately misguided.

[Tuna]

skwdenyer said:

This has nothing to do with party politics. Neither side has done well here. But that abrupt "drawbridge-raising" or the sense thereof was profound. And, I'm sorry to say, people who speak as you have here - who talk about "freebies" for those in "poorer areas" as if an area's prosperity should impact on the quality of services and opportunity available there - are contributing architects to the chaos we now see.

Unfortunately, you get the same feeling about the EU regional grants system - that while well intentioned appears to have alienated many of the regions to which it was applied. The old 'give a man a fish' adage applies - it seemed that in many places the money was treated as free fish (with a few half-hearted sops to 'regional enterprise') rather than fishing lessons.

People were shocked in the Referendum that some of the areas that most benefited from EU grants voted to leave - but it rather fits the 'metropolitan elite' image of Remain that they didn't realise that people don't want handouts, they want help.

[Nickgnome]

SunsetZed said:

21.3% of the population (2011 not 2016) are 18 or under so they never vote. The turnout for the Brexit referendum was 72.2%, higher than any general election since 1992 what's your point?

Not sure the relevance of 2011.

My point is that whether leave or remain we are only talking about 25% of the total population.

Nothing more nothing less.

[amusingduck]

Nickgnome said:

Not sure the relevance of 2011.

My point is that whether leave or remain we are only talking about 25% of the total population.

Nothing more nothing less.

What's the reason for making that point? What do you think we're supposed to be taking away from it?

[Tuna]

mattmurdock said:

As always though, none of that is black and white. Some job areas were/are dependent on low skilled immigration because there are not enough UK citizens who are willing to work in those areas. Removing them may drive wages up to attract people, but that will in turn impact on small business viability. These are not problems with simple solutions.

Oh, agreed absolutely. The trouble has been (in this whole debate) is that when one side puts up a point like this, the other side has deliberately stereotyped and mischaracterised it in order to attack the messenger.

Leave started with a message about controlled immigration (and yes, it was unevenly communicated, and yes some extremists took it to extremes..), but Remain shut down all discussion about skills, and jobs and wages by pretending the debate was only about xenophobia. And whilst that's great for righteous indignation, the people who's jobs are affected do not want to be lectured about being racist. They want jobs.

[Digga]

skwdenyer said:

Elysium said:

Two things happened over the last 25 years:

1. Labour bribed the working class to keep voting for them. Loads of money (UK and EU) has been thrown at poorer areas. I recall going 'home' 10-15 years ago and being amazed at the quality of public services and spaces compared to the much wealthier area I now live in.

2. The Tories put a stop to this almost overnight due to austerity. The central govt elements of local authority funding were switched off and all of the 'special' goodies handed out to poor areas began to evaporate.

In effect, Labour got people hooked on freebies and the Tories took it away. When that started to affect large numbers of 'average' earners, the backlash against 'elites' started to gather momentum.

Giving people stuff can be an effective way of getting what you want from them, taking it away has a much more powerful and deeply negative effect. The irony is that, largely because of Corbyns ineptitude and their stance on Brexit, the Tories seem to have almost entirely escaped the blame for their part in this.

I'm all for respecting others' opinions, on this Brexit issue as much as any other, but this comment above simply staggers me. Do you not see how that thinking is a part of the problem?

Poorer areas should not have poorer services, poorer environments, poorer opportunities. We have to invest *more* in poorer areas to stand a chance of creating more positive outcomes. Otherwise the free market will create ghettos. That is a central tenet of actual government. Wealth redistribution is the bedrock of general taxation.

Inequality is terrible in the UK. GDP per head has been falling for a decade. You are right that Osborne cut off spending in many places, but had a disproportionate effect on the poor.

You are wrong IMHO in your assessment about "free stuff" and "taking it away"; what was done was to remove hope. Post GFC, people were looking to the Government to invest for the medium-term prosperity of the country. Instead what they saw was a large number of people who were "part of the problem" deciding to create a "solution" that involved the poorest paying for it. They also saw large numbers of EU (especially) immigrants contributing to oversupply in the labour force and a dampening-down of wages. They saw those who were "part of the problem" moving their companies into low-tax parts of the EU. They saw limited resources being squandered on PFI profits rather than underlying services. Etc.

And they saw the Government pouring billions into propping up the housing market, maintaining the inequality rather than improving it, whilst at the same time tightening-up on mortgage lending criteria - in effect "pulling up the drawbridge" against those who sought to follow.

The late Douglas Adams had one of his characters say: "Its not the despair; I can cope with the despair. Its the hope that gets me."

Even in the darkest times, our politicians owe a duty to maintain hope; hope that the future will be better than the present; hope that the dead hand of government will at least treat all fairly; hope that our concerns are being listened to at the very least.

This has nothing to do with party politics. Neither side has done well here. But that abrupt "drawbridge-raising" or the sense thereof was profound. And, I'm sorry to say, people who speak as you have here - who talk about "freebies" for those in "poorer areas" as if an area's prosperity should impact on the quality of services and opportunity available there - are contributing architects to the chaos we now see.

Whilst I agree to some extent with Elysium, I think Skwdenyer sums the situation up very well.

I would add that I also agree with Tuna's point that "austerity" was a bit of a misleading concept and has been twisted by both Labour and Tory parties to mean what they want it to.

IMHO, the best way to help poorer areas is transport; easier for them to commute to areas with work whilst also making the areas more attractive to inward investment. Transport links are crucial to trade; statistically trade drops with travel time and distance, always.

[Nickgnome]

NoNeed said:

Many of whom lied, standing on a leave manifesto

So you are a paid up member and contribute fully to local politics?

In your world there appears not to be any need for MP at all.

Manifestos get written public vote for preferred option. Civil service implement. Job done.

Except we have a representative democracy with the messy situation that some leave voting MPs represent remain voting constituencies and vice versa. If you do not like them making their own decisions over any issue you are back to no requirement for MPs.

[SunsetZed]

Nickgnome said:

SunsetZed said:

21.3% of the population (2011 not 2016) are 18 or under so they never vote. The turnout for the Brexit referendum was 72.2%, higher than any general election since 1992 what's your point?

Not sure the relevance of 2011.

My point is that whether leave or remain we are only talking about 25% of the total population.

Nothing more nothing less.

No relevance to 2011, I would have used 2016 if I could have got those numbers at a glance but I couldn't and I was trying to be transparent, something that is missing hugely in most Brexit discussions.

We all know that only ~25% of the population voted for either option. My point is what is the point of including the non-electorate in those numbers? Are you trying to say 50% of the population didn't vote, some by choice and some because they were ineligible, so the referendum is meaningless?

I'm trying to understand where you are going with this statement.

[Elysium]

skwdenyer said:

Elysium said:

Two things happened over the last 25 years:

1. Labour bribed the working class to keep voting for them. Loads of money (UK and EU) has been thrown at poorer areas. I recall going 'home' 10-15 years ago and being amazed at the quality of public services and spaces compared to the much wealthier area I now live in.

2. The Tories put a stop to this almost overnight due to austerity. The central govt elements of local authority funding were switched off and all of the 'special' goodies handed out to poor areas began to evaporate.

In effect, Labour got people hooked on freebies and the Tories took it away. When that started to affect large numbers of 'average' earners, the backlash against 'elites' started to gather momentum.

Giving people stuff can be an effective way of getting what you want from them, taking it away has a much more powerful and deeply negative effect. The irony is that, largely because of Corbyns ineptitude and their stance on Brexit, the Tories seem to have almost entirely escaped the blame for their part in this.

I'm all for respecting others' opinions, on this Brexit issue as much as any other, but this comment above simply staggers me. Do you not see how that thinking is a part of the problem?

Poorer areas should not have poorer services, poorer environments, poorer opportunities. We have to invest *more* in poorer areas to stand a chance of creating more positive outcomes. Otherwise the free market will create ghettos. That is a central tenet of actual government. Wealth redistribution is the bedrock of general taxation.

Inequality is terrible in the UK. GDP per head has been falling for a decade. You are right that Osborne cut off spending in many places, but had a disproportionate effect on the poor.

You are wrong IMHO in your assessment about "free stuff" and "taking it away"; what was done was to remove hope. Post GFC, people were looking to the Government to invest for the medium-term prosperity of the country. Instead what they saw was a large number of people who were "part of the problem" deciding to create a "solution" that involved the poorest paying for it. They also saw large numbers of EU (especially) immigrants contributing to oversupply in the labour force and a dampening-down of wages. They saw those who were "part of the problem" moving their companies into low-tax parts of the EU. They saw limited resources being squandered on PFI profits rather than underlying services. Etc.

And they saw the Government pouring billions into propping up the housing market, maintaining the inequality rather than improving it, whilst at the same time tightening-up on mortgage lending criteria - in effect "pulling up the drawbridge" against those who sought to follow.

The late Douglas Adams had one of his characters say: "Its not the despair; I can cope with the despair. Its the hope that gets me."

Even in the darkest times, our politicians owe a duty to maintain hope; hope that the future will be better than the present; hope that the dead hand of government will at least treat all fairly; hope that our concerns are being listened to at the very least.

This has nothing to do with party politics. Neither side has done well here. But that abrupt "drawbridge-raising" or the sense thereof was profound. And, I'm sorry to say, people who speak as you have here - who talk about "freebies" for those in "poorer areas" as if an area's prosperity should impact on the quality of services and opportunity available there - are contributing architects to the chaos we now see.

You have misread my post. I fully support investment in poorer areas. I grew up in one after all.

However, my observation is that investment in public services in those areas got to the point under Gordon Brown where public services in poorer areas were actually much much better than in the wealthier ones.

As an example children’s play areas were closed or in disrepair in our local, very wealthy area, whereas ‘back home’ they had play equipment costing many hundred of thousands that my kids thought was ‘out of this world’.

Austerity switched this off overnight. I don’t disagree with your summary that this removed hope. However, it was worse because ‘dependency’ had been fostered for years before that. A toxic mix.