Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Eloise posted:

OscillateWildly posted:

In the main, I found both sides and the media to be poor. I also find it disappointing the bus is used as the reason the referendum was won / lost,  there are many.

Sorry you're right ... Farage's racist anti-immigration posters and the lies about Turkey being "about to join the EU" played a part too.

But ignore all that ... assuming people's issues are valid, and they extend beyond a xenophobic, racists attitude towards immigrants then what does the future outside the EU hold to improve those issues?  What can be done to correct the inequality in the country that couldn't be done before?

I agree with you both sides were very poor.  The remain side failed to either address people's issues nor promote what the benefits of being in the EU were; only wildly claim what doom would occur if we left (which still may come to pass but persuaded nobody).  Given the eventual debate; David Cameron's goverment basically spent 6 years promoting the case to leave!

Hmack posted:

I notice that Nigel Farage has labelled Donald Tusk and the rest of the EU as "American Haters" because they do not show appropriate respect to Donald Trump.

Just to confirm my Guardian reading credentials... this is funny (to me)...

 

Nige (my drinking mate lol) clearly doesn't please everybody ... but I would (humbly) submit that he has proved to one of the 3 most influential British politicians in the last 100 years. Who are the other two, and can you place them in descending order of influence? To avoid coronary problems, we'll assume Nige is 3rd. I'll forward my Edison Victrola to the winner ...

Also; who is the Jeremy Corbyn lookalike above the no-namer?

On yer marks ...

Kevin-W posted:

Like your thinking MDS. However I'm not sure even ISIS would want Farage. Perhaps we can give him a government grant to go and open a pub and strip club next door to the Great Mosque in Mecca?

I don't think you should be taking ISIS's name in vain ... they have some nasty habits and a lot of contacts in our green and pleasant land. There's bound to be a NAIM owner amongst that lot and he/she/it will be making notes ...

Eloise posted:

OscillateWildly posted:

In the main, I found both sides and the media to be poor. I also find it disappointing the bus is used as the reason the referendum was won / lost,  there are many.

Sorry you're right ... Farage's racist anti-immigration posters and the lies about Turkey being "about to join the EU" played a part too.

But ignore all that ... assuming people's issues are valid, and they extend beyond a xenophobic, racists attitude towards immigrants then what does the future outside the EU hold to improve those issues?  What can be done to correct the inequality in the country that couldn't be done before?

I agree with you both sides were very poor.  The remain side failed to either address people's issues nor promote what the benefits of being in the EU were; only wildly claim what doom would occur if we left (which still may come to pass but persuaded nobody).  Given the eventual debate; David Cameron's goverment basically spent 6 years promoting the case to leave!

...

Yes, let's also ignore the clap-trap and abuse from Remain.

Regarding the EU and immigration, control of a component where there is very little now. Future governments will have no excuse concerning totals and striking a balance; between the benefits of immigration and the pressures - housing, education, low pay areas etc. It would be daft to set a figure in stone given the balance will vary over time. Years not willing to discuss the matter or act for fear of upset helped Leave. There are people whose daily lives have been affected by the pressures and those who have only experienced the positive; dangerous for either to take their experience as covering all. I believe a balance will help more people than zero immigration or open to all. There is the opportunity, it is down to future governments to take it and us to hold them to account.

You know inequality isn't tied to EU membership but if on improving people's lot, maybe start in areas where one size doesn't fit all.

Financial problems are coming to the world, leave or stay.

Back Monday, have a good weekend.

Cheers,

OW

I have a meeting with my MP (a Conservative) in a few weeks time to discuss Brexit.

I will be pressing him to push for continued membership of the Single Market and all the EU Professional and Trade Organisations. I will also push him for freedom of movement  within Europe and of course Controlled Immigration of EU citizens to the UK and a reciprocal deal for UK citizens to the EU.

There are clearly terrific opportunities and benefits to the UK and its citizens in leaving the EU (otherwise we wouldn’t have voted to leave), and we don’t want the Gov to loose sight of these opportunities whilst negotiating our withdrawal. However, for the life of me I can’t see any of these opportunities myself. If anybody on this forum can identify such benefits, please post them below. It will no doubt be in all our interest to ensure that as many MPs as possible are enlightened as to what needs to be done to reap these benefits.

So let me see if I understand this.  Bercow reveals that he voted 'Remain' and the Tory right, e.g.  James Duddridge, are now calling for his resignation as Speaker because of this. Yet we have a Prime Minister who was part of the Government's Remain campaign!  Am I missing something?  

"Am I missing something ?"..........................yes !

The Speaker is meant to be completely impartial about everything. How can a "Remainer" be impartial (in the eyes of a "Leaver"). It's always surprising to me that they ever manage to find anybody in the HoC who is properly qualified for the role.

OTOH, the PM isn't required to have any scrupples whatsoever.......................on this basis the present incumbent seems eminently qualitfied for that role, IMHO.

Don Atkinson posted:

The Speaker is meant to be completely impartial about everything. How can a "Remainer" be impartial (in the eyes of a "Leaver"). It's always surprising to me that they ever manage to find anybody in the HoC who is properly qualified for the role.

I get the impression that Speaker Bercow is considered a bit too impartial towards those who disagree with the right flank of the tory's 

I think it is i possible for someone to be completely neutral on every possible subject - however that is different from being impartial, and even if the Speaker were barred from voting in any general election, referendum etc, that can't and won't stop him/her having personal views. A Speaker of appropriate character could remain impartial in Parliament regardless of personal views, but what is wrong is that in this case the Speaker apparently has revealed how he voted. That I believe to be a cardinal sin, and renders his suitability highly questionable.

Innocent Bystander posted:

I think it is i possible for someone to be completely neutral on every possible subject - however that is different from being impartial, and even if the Speaker were barred from voting in any general election, referendum etc, that can't and won't stop him/her having personal views. A Speaker of appropriate character could remain impartial in Parliament regardless of personal views, but what is wrong is that in this case the Speaker apparently has revealed how he voted. That I believe to be a cardinal sin, and renders his suitability highly questionable.

The 'm' was missing out of 'impossible' in the first line - my meaning would be quite wrong if you just assumed that was a spurious 'i'!

Bercow was *very* right wing in his earlier days, but has become more centrist in recent times (there was an interesting edition of Profile on him last night on R4 if anyone wants to check it out).

But the no confidence vote wasn't triggered by his voting remain or not, or his public admission of how he voted. It was because of a perceived overreach of his office in effectively vetoing Trump's addressing parliament. That's an argument over what the role of the speaker is, and whether the govt should be able to do what it likes without people like the speaker getting in the way.

As I understand it, Bercow acted within his remit, and some Tories just don't like being told no, hence the vote. But whether I'm right about that or not, it's not ostensibly about Europe.

Dave***t posted:

But the no confidence vote wasn't triggered by his voting remain or not, or his public admission of how he voted. It was because of a perceived overreach of his office in effectively vetoing Trump's addressing parliament. That's an argument over what the role of the speaker is, and whether the govt should be able to do what it likes without people like the speaker getting in the way.

As I understand it, Bercow acted within his remit, and some Tories just don't like being told no, hence the vote. But whether I'm right about that or not, it's not ostensibly about Europe.

Yes, I agree with that, Dave.  I know the knives have come out because of what Bercow said about Trump not being invited to adress Parialment, though even in doing that Bercow used "we" rather than I. So MPs felt that Bercow's views didn't properly reflect the views of the House of Commons surely the more appropriate way forward would have been to suggest the issue be put to a vote.  I suspect Duddrige and co know only too well that a vote on that is would probably have favoured Bercow's views. Instead they have chosen to attack on a lack of impartiality on Brexit.  If the whole of the Tory party had been in favour of Brexit that might make sense. But that was far from the case. So the argument seems pretty daft to me.

I think we all know it's not ostensibly about Europe. But a little slip in one area (how I voted regarding the EU) is like mana from heaven when you don't like a technically permitted outburst in another area, (explicit - almost expletive) views about the US President. FWIW, I think PM May was a bit previous inviting the President so quickly to visit so soon. But what's done is done and I don't think Bercow's outburst was wise.

Don Atkinson posted:

I have a meeting with my MP (a Conservative) in a few weeks time to discuss Brexit.....

There are clearly terrific opportunities and benefits to the UK and its citizens in leaving the EU ........and we don’t want the Gov to loose sight of these opportunities whilst negotiating our withdrawal. However, for the life of me I can’t see any of these opportunities myself. ..............

Well , I started asking at work yesterday and today. Quite a few of my work mates voted to leave.

First up - we should become a European Off-shore corporate tax haven.

Second - The EU will break up any way and even sooner if we leave. So the sooner and more aggressively we leave, the quicker the EU will break up.

I can see how positive action could assist with the tax haven option, but I think the EU breakup is far less susceptible to UK manipulation and I'm not sure exactly how this would benefit the UK ?

Don, I'm unclear how either of those is a positive opportunity, as opposed to just opportunities in the 'things that can be done' sense. Any light you can shed? Specifically, I'm a bit dim as regards corporate tax havens - they strike me more than anything as part of the irresponsible libertarian globalism which is of a piece with screwing the have nots and enriching the financial elite which the brexit vote (and Trump's election) were supposed to be a popular backlash against. Is there some way that becoming a tax havens would benefit Britons, as opposed to Britain, in an abstract money, balance sheet volume of trade sense?

Likewise, I share the question why hastening the demise of the rest of the EU represents a good thing for the UK.

Dave,

I voted to Remain and as noted a few posts above, will be pressing for us to minimise the damage that IMHO, WILL be caused to our economy and other aspects of our relationship with the EU.

The two items above are those proffered to me so far, by Leave voters that I work with. THEY seem to think these are positive opportunities. I am really struggling with the "EU will collapse" item, but I can see what they are getting at with the "Tax Haven" option. Your views match mine, more or less ie i'm not entirely convinced ! In addition, one of my students is the Head of Corporate Taxation with one of the "Big Four" finance firms (KPMG/E&Y/PWc etc). her view, like mine, is that Lichtenstein can benefit, primarily because of its very small population, but a similar income to the UK, spread around 60m heads, is peanuts !

There must be some benefits and opportunities in leaving the EU, I just want to identify as many as possible, to help ensure my MP is aware of them and, just as importantly, has some grasp of what needs to be done to ensure they are achieved.

There is one benefit I can certainly see, taking the opportunity to remove the ban on snus. It's a Swedish tobacco product that's currently legally lumped in with banned categories of chewing tobacco, when it absolutely shouldn't be. The 'Skoal Bandit' type products are demonstrably harmful, whereas snus isn't - the Swedes have studied it inside out for years, and were so convinced (ie by peer reviewed medical studies etc, not by alternative facts) that it's not egregiously harmful that they demanded exemption from the EU ban as a condition of their membership.

The tobacco lobby and some non-science has kept the ban in place in the EU despite this, because of a vested interest in continued cigarette sales (big tobacco doesn't own the snus market like it does with cigarettes). But the potential for harm reduction by helping smokers quit is massive - one study I read found it was approx 4 times as effective as other smoking cessation products, and it isn't the unknown quantity, health wise, that vaping is. Thousands of lives saved, millions in health expenditure prevented, comparatively negligible harm caused by the replacement product, it's all up sides for lifting the ban IMO.

I contacted my MEPs about it a couple of years ago. I got just one response, and that just went on about promoting vaping. Not a big headline, admittedly, but it could make a huge difference for a lot of people. Good luck getting an MP to care about it, but you were asking for opportunities afforded by Brexit!

Thanks Dave,

I'll add it to my list. Probably not high on the list, but on it !

I guess (it's only a guess) but I guess some influential people will see the tax on tobacco products as a net contributor to the health care system, and want to overlook the "minor" inconvenience of the "self-inflicted sufferer" - different, but not that much different to your own assessment.

Mrs D reminded me earlier this evening, that one of the biggest benefits/opportunities of leaving the EU, providing we leave the Single Market, is the ability to establish a wider network of bi-lateral trading partners on better terms than through the EU. She mentioned the USA, China, India and Australia had already begun preliminary "scoping" talks. How far can we go before leaving and who else would be attractive partners ?

Don Atkinson posted:

Thanks Dave,

I'll add it to my list. Probably not high on the list, but on it !

I guess (it's only a guess) but I guess some influential people will see the tax on tobacco products as a net contributor to the health care system, and want to overlook the "minor" inconvenience of the "self-inflicted sufferer" - different, but not that much different to your own assessment.

 

Yeah, I'm sure they do. But lifting the ban would create a new revenue stream - the tax on snus - without the huge healthcare costs, or at least without most of them. Win-win again.

Appreciate it's not a sexy issue for the list, but nice to know it's included

As for the trade agreement issue, the problem I see is the 'better terms than the EU' part. Why would we get a better deal with, say, China than the EU does? What would we have to offer them? I imagine that once A50 is triggered, we can go all the way, short of actual signatures. But I seriously worry that in the current febrile climate, and with the apparent priorities of the current govt, deals would be made which would compromise standards, security or some other intensely desirable thing.

Don Atkinson posted:

Mrs D reminded me earlier this evening, that one of the biggest benefits/opportunities of leaving the EU, providing we leave the Single Market, is the ability to establish a wider network of bi-lateral trading partners on better terms than through the EU. She mentioned the USA, China, India and Australia had already begun preliminary "scoping" talks. How far can we go before leaving and who else would be attractive partners ?

My understanding is that there can be no real trade negotiations prior to leaving; though informal discussions are happening already.

You have to consider though: if outside the EU what does the UK have to offer USA, China, India and Australia?

... yes I'm a remoaner ... or as I prefer to put it a realist!

Eloise posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Mrs D reminded me earlier this evening, that one of the biggest benefits/opportunities of leaving the EU, providing we leave the Single Market, is the ability to establish a wider network of bi-lateral trading partners on better terms than through the EU. She mentioned the USA, China, India and Australia had already begun preliminary "scoping" talks. How far can we go before leaving and who else would be attractive partners ?

My understanding is that there can be no real trade negotiations prior to leaving; though informal discussions are happening already.

You have to consider though: if outside the EU what does the UK have to offer USA, China, India and Australia?

... yes I'm a remoaner ... or as I prefer to put it a realist!

Agreed, Eloise. All this talk about freedom to negotiate "better" trade deals with the rest of the world is predicated on the assumption that those countries will gain something from a deal with us, too. At the moment the incentive is access to the the massive EU market. After exit we will no longer be part of that so it's hard too see what we can offer that is better than that.   

Don,

You have made repeated requests for input from "Leavers" here and I'd love to be able to spare the time to condense several decades of input from multiple sources that have led me to the view that the UK economy is being held back by the millstone that the EU has become. Unfortunately Mrs Willy wants the kitchen ceiling painted. 15 years ago she wanted it waxed so that's going to be a whole lot of fun!

Certainly soliciting the views of your co-workers is a laudable start but based on their expressed opinions I'd suggest that they are maybe not a richest vein of sage economic analysis. I would suggest that you maybe try a few google searches and see what you can find? I took the liberty of trying one and this is the first link that came up:

http://www.economistsforbrexit.co.uk/

Would imagine there's a lot more out there that should give you a decent pro-Brexit grounding for afternoon tea with your MP.

Regards,

Willy.

PS. While writing a detailed response for the pro-brexit economic case would be a time consuming activity I'm more than happy to discuss it over a beer. So much easier to accomplish a knowledge exchange face to face, body language and all that, not to mention the multitasking with the beer

Thanks Willy,

I think my MP can search the internet just as well as I can. I was really wanting to discover what bright ideas REAL people had in mind when considering post-Brexit success. Although I would compile a list, I intended to identify two or three key opportunities to focus upon.

Being a Remainer myself, I am aware that I tend to perceive the "Risks" of Brexit rather than the "Opportunites". I had hoped others, with a more optimistic outlook on Brexit, might be able to highlight potential benefits that should be persued.

Unfortunately my working week is Thursday through Monday, so I haven't been able to make the Bristol Show for a few years. People used to meet up for a beer, but I note that you might have an even greater problem - crossing the Pond !

Don,

It's not so much a few bright ideas on how to make a success of Brexit but more that the structure of the EU is totally unsuitable for what lies ahead for the world in the economics of the Information age. Governments, Companies and individuals will need to be able to respond more quickly to changes in how we do business, increasingly on a Business to Person (B2P) Person to Person (P2P) basis. I believe that in what lies ahead the multi-lateral trade deals of old will have to be dismantled and replaced by bi-lateral ones. To be honest in the B2P & P2P world not even sure if that is going to work. Authorities are already struggling to deal with Uber, Airbnb etc. and don't have the luxury of taking 7 years to broker a 28 state compromise deal on things like this. Things are only starting to get interesting in the Information driven economy and I'm talking about where we will be in 10 - 20 years, a timeframe relevant for my kids!

There are undoubtedly better, more specific, books on this but Accelerando by Charles Stross is one I'd recommend that touches on some of the issues (its classed as SciFi and covers a lot of other stuff in a very readable manner).

Been a few years since I've been at the Bristol show myself, last time went over with my brother and another music lover (Interesting to note that we all now have LP12 fronted Naim active systems). Beer was consumed. It's relatively easy for me to get there, 50 min easyjet flight, £60 return last time I looked, borrow my daughter's bed for a night and let her kip on the sofa. Have toyed with the idea this year but some tentative work commitments look like they'll scupper my outline plans.

Must dash, Mrs Willy wants me stripping in the kitchen. 

Regards,

Willy.

Willy posted:

Must dash, Mrs Willy wants me stripping in the kitchen. 

That really wasn't an image I wanted in my head while eating lunch...  :-)