Brexit: Uniting the Country Since 31/01/2020

[dsr]

Well, quite a lot of people pointed out how difficult it would be to get a decent deal but I believe that was known as #projectfear and talking the country down.

And quite a lot more pointed out that the deal we have now is worse than a WTO arrangement would be. You can choose to disagree, and if money is your god and you are basing this purely on how much money you will have tomorrow, you might be right. But there is more to politics than money - look at the stick Boris gets at present if he even hints that it's better to get the economy going and risk another excess death or two.

[martin_p]

And quite a lot more pointed out that the deal we have now is worse than a WTO arrangement would be. You can choose to disagree, and if money is your god and you are basing this purely on how much money you will have tomorrow, you might be right. But there is more to politics than money - look at the stick Boris gets at present if he even hints that it's better to get the economy going and risk another excess death or two.

If you’re under the impression that a trade deal isn’t mainly to do with money then I think I understand where you may have been going wrong over the last four years.

[Right_winger]

Now is the perfect time for a “no deal”
If ever there was one. Get it done and loose all that EU meddling and expense. If it’s tariffs so be it.. so what does this mean well if it’s more expensive to get goods from the EU we will either source them elsewhere or produce our own.. same with exports they don’t buy we can actively look to sell in other markets. The world doesn’t revolve around the EU..

Anyway wonder how much they will try and scam out us for an extension for something we don’t want to be part off? They want us to because we are a cash cow for them.

[aggi]

And quite a lot more pointed out that the deal we have now is worse than a WTO arrangement would be. You can choose to disagree, and if money is your god and you are basing this purely on how much money you will have tomorrow, you might be right. But there is more to politics than money - look at the stick Boris gets at present if he even hints that it's better to get the economy going and risk another excess death or two.

Now as in post-Brexit or now as in pre-Brexit?

I don't think many would disagree that what we have at the moment is pretty poor but that's something the UK has chosen (obviously whether it is worse than WTO is debatable and difficult to quantify without knowing what deals would be agreed).

[nil_desperandum]

Now is the perfect time for a “no deal”
If ever there was one. Get it done and loose all that EU meddling and expense. If it’s tariffs so be it.. ........................

If only it were just about tariffs and trade, eh?
There's rather a lot more to "no deal" than just trade, as I'm sure you know, (and I'm sure the EU are aware).
Trading on WTO terms would be probably be the easy part if we simply walk away. Our economy isn't going to be in any great shape in 2021 to deal with the myriad of other issues that simply tearing up over 40 years of treaties and agreements will throw up.

[dsr]

If you’re under the impression that a trade deal isn’t mainly to do with money then I think I understand where you may have been going wrong over the last four years.

I'm never quite sure if that sort of comment is because you have a very simple mind that can't see past your first thought, or if you genuinely know what I was talking about but can't resist the temptation to be a clever dick.

But on the assumption that you are simple and honest rather than pseudo-clever and snide, I will confirm that when I said "there is more to politics than money" on a thread entitled "Brexit: uniting the country ..." I was not restricting my comments to a trade deal only.

I apologise for confusing you.

[RingoMcCartney]

I'm never quite sure if that sort of comment is because you have a very simple mind that can't see past your first thought, or if you genuinely know what I was talking about but can't resist the temptation to be a clever dick.

But on the assumption that you are simple and honest rather than pseudo-clever and snide, I will confirm that when I said "there is more to politics than money" on a thread entitled "Brexit: uniting the country ..." I was not restricting my comments to a trade deal only.

I apologise for confusing you.

You needn't apologise, it's extremely easy to do.

[RingoMcCartney]

If you’re under the impression that a trade deal isn’t mainly to do with money then I think I understand where you may have been going wrong over the last four years.

Where you have been going wrong over the last four years is deluding yourself in the belief that the largest single expression of democracy this nation has ever witnessed, would not prevail.

DEMOCRACY- IT MEANS, SOMETIMES, YOU LOSE.

[ksrclaret]

DEMOCRACY- IT MEANS, SOMETIMES, YOU LOSE.

This guff is exactly the reason we have opposing extremists fighting eachother and the police on the streets at the moment.

The majority of people turn up and vote, and then get on with things. The extremists on both sides concern themselves with the who the winners and losers are and become consumed by so much hatred we end up witnessing the scenes of this week playing out, where the Black Lives Matter message is hijacked by these cretins and used as an excuse for a fight.

Politics has become a sport for some people and it's embarrassing.

[RingoMcCartney]

This guff is exactly the reason we have opposing extremists fighting eachother and the police on the streets at the moment.

The majority of people turn up and vote, and then get on with things. The extremists on both sides concern themselves with the who the winners and losers are and become consumed by so much hatred we end up witnessing the scenes of this week playing out, where the Black Lives Matter message is hijacked by these cretins and used as an excuse for a fight.

Politics has become a sport for some people and it's embarrassing.

"Guff"?

I'm simply stating an unpalatable truth, for some, that democracy means sometimes you lose.

If democracy means you always win, you more than likely live in China.

[martin_p]

I'm never quite sure if that sort of comment is because you have a very simple mind that can't see past your first thought, or if you genuinely know what I was talking about but can't resist the temptation to be a clever dick.

But on the assumption that you are simple and honest rather than pseudo-clever and snide, I will confirm that when I said "there is more to politics than money" on a thread entitled "Brexit: uniting the country ..." I was not restricting my comments to a trade deal only.

I apologise for confusing you.

You can call me simple all you like, but your response to a comment on how people were told how hard a trade deal would be to get is there for all to see.

Here it is again given you removed the context when accusing me of being simple.

‘ And quite a lot more pointed out that the deal we have now is worse than a WTO arrangement would be. You can choose to disagree, and if money is your god and you are basing this purely on how much money you will have tomorrow, you might be right. But there is more to politics than money - look at the stick Boris gets at present if he even hints that it's better to get the economy going and risk another excess death or two.’

You even mention ‘a WTO agreement’. I’ll assume you know what the ‘T’ stands for in WTO.

[ksrclaret]

"Guff"?

I'm simply stating an unpalatable truth, for some, that democracy means sometimes you lose.

If democracy means you always win, you more than likely live in China.

I just don't understand the idea of winning or losing an election or referendum for an ordinary member of the public. Unless you're a real stake holder in the campaign or the party, we win or lose as a country depending on the decisions taken afterwards.

If Brexit turns out to be a disaster, you won't be protected from the damage because you voted leave. Similarly, if Brexit is a triumph, I'm sure I won't be left out of the benefits because I voted remain. This identity politics is crippling us and it's evident on this board every day.

[martin_p]

"Guff"?

I'm simply stating an unpalatable truth, for some, that democracy means sometimes you lose.

If democracy means you always win, you more than likely live in China.

What Wrongo doesn’t get is that we’ve all moved on from the referendum and now, given we have left the EU, hope for the least damaging deal possible going forward. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like the government is equipped to get it or just isn’t interested having wanted no deal all along. Wrongo just can’t move on or engage in a more interesting conversation.

[RingoMcCartney]

I just don't understand the idea of winning or losing an election or referendum for an ordinary member of the public. Unless you're a real stake holder in the campaign or the party, we win or lose as a country depending on the decisions taken afterwards.

If Brexit turns out to be a disaster, you won't be protected from the damage because you voted leave. Similarly, if Brexit is a triumph, I'm sure I won't be left out of the benefits because I voted remain. This identity politics is crippling us and it's evident on this board every day.

The faint whiff of moral high ground wont work.

[RingoMcCartney]

What Wrongo doesn’t get is that we’ve all moved on from the referendum and now, given we have left the EU, hope for the least damaging deal possible going forward. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like the government is equipped to get it or just isn’t interested having wanted no deal all along. Wrongo just can’t move on or engage in a more interesting conversation.

There's no need. When theres nothing left to say, I know I can rely on you to still be saying it!

[ksrclaret]

The faint whiff of moral high ground wont work.

No moral high ground. Just a recognition that this 'must do battle' mantra is exhausting and tedious.

[martin_p]

There's no need. When theres nothing left to say, I know I can rely on you to still be saying it!

And that’s the problem, you think it’s all done. It shows your lack of understanding of the situation. We’ve got a potentially big economic shock coming at the end of the year to add onto the Covid recession.

[dsr]

You can call me simple all you like, but your response to a comment on how people were told how hard a trade deal would be to get is there for all to see.

Here it is again given you removed the context when accusing me of being simple.

‘ And quite a lot more pointed out that the deal we have now is worse than a WTO arrangement would be. You can choose to disagree, and if money is your god and you are basing this purely on how much money you will have tomorrow, you might be right. But there is more to politics than money - look at the stick Boris gets at present if he even hints that it's better to get the economy going and risk another excess death or two.’

You even mention ‘a WTO agreement’. I’ll assume you know what the ‘T’ stands for in WTO.

"Simple but honest" was only one of the options. Clearly you are being a clever dick, well aware of what I was saying but choosing to quibble over a form of words. Certainly I'll withdraw the word simple in that case. Replace with "devious". And not in an admiring way.

[RingoMcCartney]

No moral high ground. Just a recognition that this 'must do battle' mantra is exhausting and tedious.

When it comes to debate and getting one over me, I'd mark your work as , "must do better"

[RingoMcCartney]

And that’s the problem, you think it’s all done.

According to you it is!

We have left the EU.

[martin_p]

"Simple but honest" was only one of the options. Clearly you are being a clever dick, well aware of what I was saying but choosing to quibble over a form of words. Certainly I'll withdraw the word simple in that case. Replace with "devious". And not in an admiring way.

No need for devious, I’m simply reading the words you wrote. The meaning is clear, some people have pointed out that what we have now is worse than a WTO deal and you may be right to disagree if money is your god. No interpretation, it’s what you wrote. It’s perfectly reasonable to point out that trade deals are pretty much all about money.

Now if what you wrote isn’t what you meant maybe you need to start expressing yourself better, although the name calling was clear enough, so well done.

[martin_p]

According to you it is!

How can you still understand so little about the process after four years?

[AndrewJB]

Now is the perfect time for a “no deal”
If ever there was one. Get it done and loose all that EU meddling and expense. If it’s tariffs so be it.. so what does this mean well if it’s more expensive to get goods from the EU we will either source them elsewhere or produce our own.. same with exports they don’t buy we can actively look to sell in other markets. The world doesn’t revolve around the EU..

Anyway wonder how much they will try and scam out us for an extension for something we don’t want to be part off? They want us to because we are a cash cow for them.

Now, when our GDP has dropped by 30% - the worst fall in our history - is the best time to put up trade barriers with our biggest trading partner, and the rest of the world? WTO doesn’t just mean tariffs with the EU, but also us out of every trade deal we have with every other country through the EU. It’s such a drastic shock nobody has an idea how bad it will be, only that it will be bad. We had a taster of empty shelves back in March, and a WTO exit will be worse, and self inflicted.

[taio]

Now, when our GDP has dropped by 30% - the worst fall in our history - is the best time to put up trade barriers with our biggest trading partner, and the rest of the world? WTO doesn’t just mean tariffs with the EU, but also us out of every trade deal we have with every other country through the EU. It’s such a drastic shock nobody has an idea how bad it will be, only that it will be bad. We had a taster of empty shelves back in March, and a WTO exit will be worse, and self inflicted.

Personally think we have got to seek an extension of at least six months given the circumstances.

Where did you get the 30% figure from?

[tiger76]

Personally think we have got to seek an extension of at least six months given the circumstances.

Where did you get the 30% figure from?

Agree we need to seek an extension of some length, whether 6 months would be sufficient, i have my doubts, i'd say we'd need at least a 12 month window to make it worthwhile, but seemingly the point's moot anyway, as our boneheaded government won't ask for an extension.

Now some have argued that to get a good deal from the EU we have to go to the brink, and they'll cave in at the 11th hour, maybe they will, but it's a high-risk stance we're taking, especially in the present circumstances.

Can't speak for the 30% drop in GDP, but it's evident the economy is going to take a major hit in the next year or so minimum, so it would probably be wise not to exacerbate that damage with a no-deal brexit.

[Swizzlestick]

The 30% figure is from Sunak’s comments regarding what he expects the GDP fall to be in the coming months. Actual fall was 20.4% for April obv.

[taio]

The 30% figure is from Sunak’s comments regarding what he expects the GDP fall to be in the coming months. Actual fall was 20.4% for April obv.

Fell 5.8% in March too.

[Swizzlestick]

The figures really are astonishing even though expected.

It’s going to take years to get over this.

[Right_winger]

Yeah let’s just ask for an extension to tie our hands yet again and delay delay delay. We are not going to get a good deal
From the EU, we have to cut them off and become a competitor. Cut red tape and drown them. They are frightened to death of this happening.

[aggi]

Yeah let’s just ask for an extension to tie our hands yet again and delay delay delay. We are not going to get a good deal
From the EU, we have to cut them off and become a competitor. Cut red tape and drown them. They are frightened to death of this happening.

Which specific red tape would you cut? Maybe half a dozen examples for a flavour of how you think it would work.

[AndrewJB]

Which specific red tape would you cut? Maybe half a dozen examples for a flavour of how you think it would work.

I’d imagine things like maternity pay and leave, working rights, environmental protections, health and safety standards, and so forth. Things the British people didn’t vote for back in 2016.

[Erasmus]

I suspect what will happen may be that they won't ask for an extension as such but will make an interim arrangment by which tariffs and checks don't apply, or only to a very limited extent. That way they can save face but at the same time avoid even greater economic damage. We seem to have seen something of that happening already.

[dsr]

I’d imagine things like maternity pay and leave, working rights, environmental protections, health and safety standards, and so forth. Things the British people didn’t vote for back in 2016.

Do you want us to adopt EU maternity rights, EU minimum pay rules, EU health and safety, and so on? There has been a lot of talk from Remainers who strongly object to withdrawing legal protection of the EU rules, which only leads me to believe that they think the 14 weeks' maternity leave and the rest of it are a good thing. Why?

[martin_p]

Do you want us to adopt EU maternity rights, EU minimum pay rules, EU health and safety, and so on? There has been a lot of talk from Remainers who strongly object to withdrawing legal protection of the EU rules, which only leads me to believe that they think the 14 weeks' maternity leave and the rest of it are a good thing. Why?

The EU rules are minimum standards. Not being in the EU will give the government the ability to totally abolish sick and maternity pay if it so wishes.

[Devils_Advocate]

Do you want us to adopt EU maternity rights, EU minimum pay rules, EU health and safety, and so on? There has been a lot of talk from Remainers who strongly object to withdrawing legal protection of the EU rules, which only leads me to believe that they think the 14 weeks' maternity leave and the rest of it are a good thing. Why?

I'll leave you to answer your own question DSR

I'm never quite sure if that sort of comment is because you have a very simple mind that can't see past your first thought, or if you genuinely know what I was talking about but can't resist the temptation to be a clever dick.

[dsr]

I'll leave you to answer your own question DSR

Meow. I think it was fairly clear that I was using irony; sorry if you missed the point.

[dsr]

The EU rules are minimum standards. Not being in the EU will give the government the ability to totally abolish sick and maternity pay if it so wishes.

That's the principle I don't like. I don't think the EU should be used as a backstop to provide non-democratic solutions to problems caused when democracy produces the "wrong" answer.

If a party stands on a platform of abolishing social security, and wins, then that is the policy. God help the country if it happens, but that is democracy. My objection to the EU all along has been largely based on the idea that it is anti-democratic.

How likely is it that any UK government would do what you're afraid of?

[martin_p]

That's the principle I don't like. I don't think the EU should be used as a backstop to provide non-democratic solutions to problems caused when democracy produces the "wrong" answer.

If a party stands on a platform of abolishing social security, and wins, then that is the policy. God help the country if it happens, but that is democracy. My objection to the EU all along has been largely based on the idea that it is anti-democratic.

Yeah but a party wouldn’t stand on a platform of abolishing workers rights (taking the example we’re discussing) that’d be daft. It would slowly but surely erode trust in the organisation that was protecting those rights, demonising them and accusing them of being ‘anti-democratic’. It would promise that life would be better without them, even arguing that the very institution that is protecting those rights is the one holding the country and it’s people back. Then, once it has convinced enough people the organisation protecting them is bad it will seek the people’s permission to withdraw from that organisation, at the same time promising a utopian future to consolidate its own position of power. Then suddenly the protection has gone, the party has a majority to allow it to do what it wants, the promises start to unfold and the people find their protections are gone.

It’d do it something like that I’d imagine.

[dsr]

Yeah but a party wouldn’t stand on a platform of abolishing workers rights (taking the example we’re discussing) that’d be daft. It would slowly but surely erode trust in the organisation that was protecting those rights, demonising them and accusing them of being ‘anti-democratic’. It would promise that life would be better without them, even arguing that the very institution that is protecting those rights is the one holding the country and it’s people back. Then, once it has convinced enough people the organisation protecting them is bad it will seek the people’s permission to withdraw from that organisation, at the same time promising a utopian future to consolidate its own position of power. Then suddenly the protection has gone, the party has a majority to allow it to do what it wants, the promises start to unfold and the people find their protections are gone.

It’d do it something like that I’d imagine.

Is that a suggestion that UK maternity leave and minimum pay and the rest are protected by the EU? It seems an unlikely conclusion, so I apologise if I have misunderstood you, but I can't imagine any other "organisation" that could even be imagined as being able to enforce workers' rights.

In which case, there isn't anything else to say. If you believe that a party would win an election based on the manifesto of abolishing maternity leave and minimum wage and so forth, or if you believe that a party would win an election with a manifesto based on continuing those provisions but then abolishing them later, then that's what you believe and nothing can change it.

[aggi]

That's the principle I don't like. I don't think the EU should be used as a backstop to provide non-democratic solutions to problems caused when democracy produces the "wrong" answer.

If a party stands on a platform of abolishing social security, and wins, then that is the policy. God help the country if it happens, but that is democracy. My objection to the EU all along has been largely based on the idea that it is anti-democratic.

How likely is it that any UK government would do what you're afraid of?

It's more likely that a party would stand on "abolishing red tape" and go with a gradual erosion such as making employment tribunals less accessible rather than a straight out removal of rights.

The EU is only anti-democratic in that it represents all of its constituents so it may not necessarily reflect what someone in the UK wants (I guess in the same way that if you're in Scotland you could claim that the UK was anti-democratic). The issue is more that with such a broad range of members it is more difficult to keep everyone happy.

I'd agree that in a lot of cases the UK exceeds the EU requirements (although maternity is a bad example as the UK was one of the countries that was against the EU increasing maternity leave). Obviously the question there is why are so many people complaining about having to follow EU rules if the UK's already exceed them?

[martin_p]

Is that a suggestion that UK maternity leave and minimum pay and the rest are protected by the EU? It seems an unlikely conclusion, so I apologise if I have misunderstood you, but I can't imagine any other "organisation" that could even be imagined as being able to enforce workers' rights.

No I don’t mean that, which is why I deliberately used the word ‘abolish’. As I said the EU standards are minimum requirements (this is the bit where you’d start the name calling but I’ll avoid that).

We know we’re allowed the exceed the EU minimum domestically, what you seem to be arguing for is the right for us to set our standards below the minimum which is what being in the EU stops us doing.

Edit - just seen that aggi has made exactly the same point.

[Colburn_Claret]

Is that a suggestion that UK maternity leave and minimum pay and the rest are protected by the EU? It seems an unlikely conclusion, so I apologise if I have misunderstood you, but I can't imagine any other "organisation" that could even be imagined as being able to enforce workers' rights.

In which case, there isn't anything else to say. If you believe that a party would win an election based on the manifesto of abolishing maternity leave and minimum wage and so forth, or if you believe that a party would win an election with a manifesto based on continuing those provisions but then abolishing them later, then that's what you believe and nothing can change it.

It's a moot point, what Remainers fail to acknowledge, is that in things like maternity leave, we already have a better deal than the EU standard. Its been in the Tories power to cut them long ago, and still be within that EU standard.
Still if these mock scare tactics makes them feel better, let them get on with it. Nobody gives a toss about the bleating anymore.

[aggi]

It's a moot point, what Remainers fail to acknowledge, is that in things like maternity leave, we already have a better deal than the EU standard. Its been in the Tories power to cut them long ago, and still be within that EU standard.
Still if these mock scare tactics makes them feel better, let them get on with it. Nobody gives a toss about the bleating anymore.

Well, I've acknowledged that two posts above yours. And then given an illustration of what was done.

[dsr]

We know we’re allowed the exceed the EU minimum domestically, what you seem to be arguing for is the right for us to set our standards below the minimum which is what being in the EU stops us doing.

Edit - just seen that aggi has made exactly the same point.

No, what I'm arguing is that the EU protection is currently absolutely worthless and I can't envisage a scenario where it would be worth anything. If we were to remain in the EU for the time being but then the public mood became so that we, the public, chose to elect a government that would abolish maternity leave, then that government would surely take us out of the EU anyway.

There are quite a few other protections from being in the EU, some of more worth than others. For example, being in the EU means we can't chop the hands off shoplifters. (Though it doesn't stop us holding them indefinitely without trial - that's one of our own protections.)

[martin_p]

No, what I'm arguing is that the EU protection is currently absolutely worthless and I can't envisage a scenario where it would be worth anything. If we were to remain in the EU for the time being but then the public mood became so that we, the public, chose to elect a government that would abolish maternity leave, then that government would surely take us out of the EU anyway.

There are quite a few other protections from being in the EU, some of more worth than others. For example, being in the EU means we can't chop the hands off shoplifters. (Though it doesn't stop us holding them indefinitely without trial - that's one of our own protections.)

What’s worthless about not being able to abolish maternity leave?

We’ve got four more years of this government. The whole world has changed since they were elected. If you think they’re going to worry about whether all the legislation they bring forward was in their manifesto then you’re mistaken (not that I think any government should be totally shackled to their manifesto by the way).

[quoonbeatz]

Not like dsr to miss the point entirely.

[Bordeauxclaret]

The Hartley-Brewer of uptheclarets.

[Devils_Advocate]

I think one of the nuances that needs to be understood by some is that it is not just a case of a govt abolishing employment rights for everyone and they just disappear as if that happened there would be uproar.

What the reality will be is that they take away protections of rights but the majority of employers will maintain good employee standards as if they want to attract and keep staff they will need to.

Like with anything it will be the large company's like your Whetherspoons and Sports Directs of the world who take advantage of the more desperate and poorer workers who don't have a voice to stand up to these firms .

As with the way they use zero hours contracts to exploit the poor the dsr's and Colburn's of this world will not only not give a sh*t about these workers but will actually defend the govt and the benefit to business and the economy of practices such as these

[Colburn_Claret]

I think one of the nuances that needs to be understood by some is that it is not just a case of a govt abolishing employment rights for everyone and they just disappear as if that happened there would be uproar.

What the reality will be is that they take away protections of rights but the majority of employers will maintain good employee standards as if they want to attract and keep staff they will need to.

Like with anything it will be the large company's like your Whetherspoons and Sports Directs of the world who take advantage of the more desperate and poorer workers who don't have a voice to stand up to these firms .

As with the way they use zero hours contracts to exploit the poor the dsr's and Colburn's of this world will not only not give a sh*t about these workers but will actually defend the govt and the benefit to business and the economy of practices such as these

Not defending taking away workers rights, just pointing out that your assumption that this is the case doesn't bear out. They could have cut maternity leave long ago, but haven't.
I'm sure there will be tweaks, but this idea that the working classes are going to get **** on, is just another shot in the dark. When you have proof, come back and gives us your facts. I'll happily hold my hands up, but all this doom and gloom, doom and gloom, is just boring.

[KateR]

I think one of the nuances that needs to be understood by some is that it is not just a case of a govt abolishing employment rights for everyone and they just disappear as if that happened there would be uproar.

What the reality will be is that they take away protections of rights but the majority of employers will maintain good employee standards as if they want to attract and keep staff they will need to.

is this what you are predicting, and you are convinced the Gov. will do this, or is it a fear that they could if they so wished? Or are you convinced or in form of some knowledge that this is what they will do?